Heads-up on Amanda Knox "luncheon" next week at Loyola Law School. Swansea Jack and others are tweeting suggested questions for Knox to organizer Laura Caldwell. There do seem to be vastly more deserving cases in the US and they dont come with the "baggage" of xenophobia, defamation, money-grubbing, the mafias, bent judges, and stalking of the victim's family. In Supreme Court rulings Knox remains a convicted felon, and at minimum an accessory to murder.

Monday, September 07, 2015

Knox Calunnia Trial #2: Testimony In Florence Court Today By Some Accused By Amanda Knox Of Crimes

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

1. Machiavelli On Calunnia Trial

Tweets from the Florence court:

16. Zugarini was present throughout the interrogation and described when #amandaknox started to cry, remembered her peculiar hand-ear gestures.

15. Napoleoni testified #amandaknox was brought a chamomille when she started crying at 01:45, the interrogation was immediately stopped.

14. Napoleoni and Zugarini said they “cuddled” Knox because she was a 20-year old girl.

13. Both Mignini and Zugarini described having had impression that #amandaknox was feeling “relieved of a burden” after accusing Lumumba.

12. Mignini said Knox was not clearly a suspect to him by the 05:45 interrogation.

11. Witnesses had inaccurate memory on some details, but were convergent on some peculiar details.

10. Napoleoni said she did not enter interrogation room, she called Rita Ficarra out to talk to her.

9. Zugarini said, as for her knowledge, Knox was not told that Sollecito withdrew her alibi.

8. Zugarini said called interpreter only to ask #amandaknox more precise questions about people in her phone contact list.

7. Zugarini said #amandaknox was able to explain herself in Italian. They called an interpreter to translate what police had to say.

6. Testimony of Mignini was descriptive and framed thing in law. Mostly talked at length explaining alone, prosecutor listened.

5. In today’s hearing, Mignini talked 2 hours, confirmed arrived at 3am, police interview was over, he asked no questions of AK.

4. Napoleoni was precise and synthetic. Zugarini longer and IMO more interesting on many details.

3. Mignini and Judge Boninsegna appeared irritated by Dalla Vedova’s remarks.

2. Long hearing of Mignini at trial against Amanda Knox for calunnia. Napoleoni & Gubbiotti followed, then Zugarini

1. Testimony of some of the investigators accused by Knox and the lead prosecutor Dr Mignini [image above] is being taken in court.

[Reporting from the Florence court sometimes requires a wait to get to a place where mobile phones can connect to the outside.]

2. Machiavelli On Sentencing Report

4. The Cassazione sentence on the #meredithkercher case about #amandaknox and #raffaelesollecito is an offence to intelligence.

3. Cassazione repeats several times “strong suspicion” remains about #amandaknox and #raffaelesollecito

2. Cassazione says #amandaknox was in the apartment when murder was convicted, and it is “incontrovertible” that she committed calunnia.

1. INCREDIBLE: SC says *proven* fact that #amandaknox was in house when murder was committed. Agrees with court on this

3. Background To Calunnia Trial

This trial focuses on the claims of Amanda Knox at trial in 2009. Charges for malicious claims in her book will fall to another court, probably also in Florence. Oggi is already on trial for republishing some of them.

There seems no parallel in US or UK legal history to this - to a defendant testifying prolifically for two days to crimes by investigators, in spite of even more days of prior testimony which all pointed the other way.

Seemingly under strong pressure from her own family Knox willingly took a huge legal risk which her own lawyers had warned her about again and again, sometimes publicly, over nearly two years.

They never ever lodged even one complaint. Nor did the US Embassy in Rome, which monitored all sessions in court, and often checked her out (as did Italian MP Rocco Girlanda) in prison at Capanne.

The Massei court and the watching audience in Italy (read here and here) bought none of it. Knox still served three years for framing Patrick. Not even Judge Hellmann bought into her claims. Certainly not the Supreme Court.

The current trial in Florence was preceded by an investigation by Florence prosecutors, who bring the charges and argue them because Knox impugned officers of the justice system in their official roles. 

Prior to today the prosecutors’ investigation report had only been released to Knox’s defense. So we don’t yet know if the charges extend beyond Knox’s claims of having been abused into a false “confession” on 5-6 November 2007.

Post #1 of our ongoing Interrogation Hoax series points toward what investigators testified to at trial.

Four months later Knox contradicted them at length as summarised in our two posts here and here: “The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About”

Posted on 09/07/15 at 08:23 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (25)

Friday, September 04, 2015

Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #5

Posted by Chimera

Also Implacably Nasty…Click here to go straight to Comments.

1. Overview Of This Post

My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. And Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207.

2. Dissection Of Pages 207 to 243.

[Chapter 18, Page 207] ‘’ ... “Foxy Knoxy” also helped sell newspapers. The tabloids mined my Myspace profile and drew the most salacious conclusions. I resented that they took my posts and pictures out of context, emphasizing only the negative. A photo of me dressed in black and reclining provocatively on a piano bench, a shot my sister Deanna had taken for a high school photography class, circulated. They published parts of a short story I’d written for a UW creative writing class, about an older brother angrily confronting his younger brother for raping a woman. The media read a lot into that. There were pictures of me at parties and in the company of male friends, and a video showing me drunk. These were snippets of my teenage and college years. Not shown were the pictures of me riding my bike, opening Christmas presents, playing soccer, performing onstage in my high school’s production of The Sound of Music. Looked at together, these latter images would have portrayed a typical American girl, not as tame as some, not as experimental as many, but typical among my age group—a group that had the bad judgment to put our lives online. Now, at twenty, all I could think was, Who’s writing these articles? Is no one being fair? ...’‘

  • You post this stuff online, and HOW EXACTLY is it taken out of context?

  • Yes, posing on a piano bench.  Good impression

  • You are charged with sexual assault, and previously published a rape story?  Go figure.

  • You posted a video of yourself drunk?  Great idea.

[Chapter 18, Page 208] ‘’ ... My supposedly obsessive promiscuity generated countless articles in three countries, much of it based on information the police fed to the press. It seemed that the prosecutor’s office released whatever they could to bolster their theory of a sex game gone wrong. They provided descriptions of Raffaele’s and my public displays of affection at the questura and witness statements that portrayed me as a girl who brought home strange men. Whatever the sources, the details made for a juicy story: attractive college students, sex, violence, mystery…’‘

  • Supposed obsessive promiscuity?  You published accounts of 4 random sexual encounters IN THIS BOOK.

  • Supposed obsessive promiscuity?  You were known for random and casual sex BEFORE leaving for Italy.

  • Prosecutors never claimed it was a sex game gone wrong, that was something your PR people fed the press.

  • Yes, boning your boyfriend is an odd way of showing grief over your dead ‘‘friend’‘.

  • Funny, you don’t seem to detail all the actual evidence that would be listed at trial.

[Chapter 18, Page 209] ‘’ ... Soon after I got to Capanne, I started getting fan mail—some from people who thought I was innocent, and some from strangers who said they were in love with me. I appreciated the encouraging letters and was shocked, and baffled, by the others. It seemed to me that these men—often prisoners themselves—had written me by mistake. Their passionate, sometimes pornographic scribbling had nothing to do with me and everything to do with the media’s creepy, hypersexual creation. I’d never imagined that I would be bombarded with such perverted attention. And if I was drop-dead sexy, it was news to me….’‘

  • People who thought you were innocent?  Good job, Dave Marriott.

  • All these people write to you by mistake?  Care to explain?

  • Their pornographic scribbling?  What about the book I am reading now?

  • You never imagined such perverted attention?  You flirted with people in court. You wore a ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt.

  • Agreed, you are not drop dead sexy, but in your prison writings you compare yourself to Helen of Troy.

[Chapter 18, Page 209] ‘’ ... I felt terrible that my mom and dad had abandoned their regular lives to come to Italy, and that their spouses back home were being hounded by journalists and paparazzi, who staked out their houses, waiting for them to come or go, knocking on the door and phoning them incessantly…’‘

  • Do you feel bad for the Kerchers?  Or for Meredith?

  • Do you feel bad for Patrick and his family?

[Chapter 18, Page 211] ‘’ ... The idea that Meredith and I had been at odds ramped up quickly in the press. A couple of weeks after Robyn’s statement came out, investigators announced they’d found my blood on the faucet in the bathroom that Meredith and I had shared. Prosecutor Mignini hypothesized that the two of us had gotten into a fistfight and I’d wound up with a bloody nose. The truth was far less dramatic—and less interesting. I’d just gotten multiple piercings in both ears, and I took out all eleven earrings so that I could wipe my ears each morning while the shower water heated up. When I noticed the tiny droplets of blood in the sink the day Meredith’s body was discovered, I thought the blood had come from my ears, as it had on another day, until I scratched the porcelain and realized the blood was dry. That must have been what was on the faucet….’‘

  • It wasn’t just an idea. Meredith’s friend’s testified that she was growing to dislike you.

  • Why take out fresh earrings?  That is how the holes close up.

  • Really, that amount of blood from ear piercings isn’t normal?  Why were there no visible signs of infection?

  • You scratch the porcelain and realize they are dry ... why not just remove the blood?

  • Well, the blood could have come from the scratch on your neck, I mean hickey.

  • And the ‘‘orange shaped’’ lump of blood on the bathmat, you thought that was Meredith ‘‘dripping’‘?

  • Makes sense in a way, you see day old poop in the toilet and don’f flush it.

[Chapter 18, Page 212] ‘’ ... Meredith had been dead for just three weeks. I still could barely process the loss of my friend. It infuriated me that the media were rewriting our relationship to fit their storyline. I was a monster. Meredith was a saint. The truth was that we were very much alike. She was more contained than I was, but we were both young girls who studied seriously and wanted to do well, who wanted to make friends, and who’d had a few casual sexual relationships…’‘

  • Give it up. Meredith was not your friend.

  • The media was not ‘‘rewriting’’ anything.

  • You were not alike.  Meredith was a serious student, and a kind, caring person to be around.  You were a loud, unfocused, slob who did drugs, and brought random strangers home for sex.  You took 1 simple language course.

  • Meredith did not have any casual encounters.  This was completely made up.

[Chapter 18, Page 212] ‘’ ... I didn’t know what to think about Raffaele. Hearing that he’d destroyed my alibi was as baffling as it was incensing. Saying I’d put him up to lying was inexcusable and painful. And now this, I thought. Did I misjudge him? I didn’t think so, but I wasn’t at all sure what to make of him. One day we were really close, and the next he announced that he’d dropped me. Had this come from him? His lawyers? Journalists? I rationalized that I wasn’t the Italian girl he needed. I tried to be forgiving. If Raffaele doesn’t want to talk to me again, I’ll understand. This has been traumatic for everyone…’‘

  • You didn’t know what to think about Raffaele?  Because you couldn’t control him

  • Why was it baffling that he destroyed your alibi?  After all, if you were ‘‘beaten’‘, wouldn’t it make sense that he was?  Wait….

  • Yeah, dragging him into a murder tends to be ...(murder) on relationships. Pardon the pun.

  • He needs an Italian girl?  More likely he needs a stable girl, regardless of nationality.

  • Forgiving, you don’t seem to be the type.

[Chapter 18, Page 213] ‘’ ... Argirò was standing a foot behind me when I got the news. “Maybe you should have thought about that before you slept with lots of people,” he chided. I spun around. “I didn’t have sex with anyone who had AIDS,” I snapped, though it was possible that one of the men I’d hooked up with, or even Raffaele, was HIV-positive.

“You should think about who you slept with and who you got it from.”  Maybe he was trying to comfort me or to make a joke, or maybe he saw an opening he thought he could use to his advantage. Whatever the reason, as we were walking back upstairs to my cell, Argirò said, “Don’t worry. I’d still have sex with you right now.

Promise me you’ll have sex with me.” But sometimes I was just angry….’‘

  • Yet another entertaining tale of sexual harassment ... that you did not report.

[Chapter 18, Page 215] ‘’ ... I got out my diary to think this over rationally, imagining who could have infected me, replaying my sexual experiences in my mind to see where I could have slipped up. I wondered if a condom had broken, and if so, whose. If it had, did he know? I’d had sex with seven guys—four in Seattle and three in Italy. I tried to be logical, writing down the name of each person I’d slept with and the protection we’d used. Writing made me feel a little better. I knew I needed to get out of prison and get checked by someone I trusted before I started thinking and acting as if my life were over. I forced myself not to anticipate the worst.

That Saturday, I told my parents what the doctor had said. My mom started crying immediately. “But I haven’t had unprotected sex,” I said, trying to reassure her. “I’m sure it’s going to be fine.”  My dad was skeptical. He asked, “Do you even think they’re telling you the truth?” That possibility hadn’t occurred to me. But when I told them, Luciano and Carlo seconded that idea. “It could be a ploy by the prosecution to scare you into an even more vulnerable emotional state so they can take advantage of you,” Carlo said. “You need to stay alert, Amanda, and don’t let anyone bully you.”

  • Okay, this ‘‘list’‘, while amusing on some level is quite irrelevant to a murder case.

  • 4 guys in Seattle, 3 in Italy?  In THIS BOOK, you list Cristiano/Frederico, Mirko, Bobby and Raffaele.  That is 4 just in Italy.  Can’t you count?

  • Your roommates complained you brought MANY men home.  So it was more than 3 in Italy.

  • You have random sex with drug dealers, but it’s okay because you used protection?

  • Wow, you think this was all a ploy to scare you?  That is paranoid.  Are you sure you’re not doing coke anymore?

  • You tried to be logical?  Then why do this at all?

[Chapter 18, Page 216] ‘’ ... I wondered what they were hoping to find. Did they want to search my clothing for traces of Meredith’s blood? I felt almost smug, because I knew they wouldn’t find anything incriminating, and I hoped it might convince them that I truly had nothing to hide….’‘

  • You knew they wouldn’t find anything incriminating?  Wow.

  • You felt almost smug?  Probably.

  • Were you feeling smug because you knew they found Guede’s handprint, DNA, shoeprint and shit?  The stuff you left behind .....

  • You might convince them?  Well, you initially convinced the police….

[Chapter 18, Page 217] ‘’ ... A few months after that, they released my prison journal to the media, where instead of reporting that I’d had seven lovers altogether, some newspapers wrote that Foxy Knoxy had slept with seven men in her six weeks in Perugia….’‘

  • You are accusing the prison staff of violating medical confidentiality?  Did you report this?

  • Or, was this a ‘‘sympathy’’ leak from your own lawyers?

  • Whether you slept with 7 men in Perugia, or 7 men overall, that is the least of your worries.

[Chapter 19, Page 219] ‘’ ... I was stunned one morning when I looked up at the TV and noticed a breaking news report. There was now a fourth suspect, and an international manhunt for him had been launched. The police didn’t say who the suspect was or how this person fit into the murder scenario they’d imagined, only that they’d found a bloody handprint on Meredith’s pillowcase that wasn’t mine, Patrick’s, or Raffaele’s. The news rattled me, but it also gave me hope. Maybe this meant the police hadn’t completely given up trying to find the truth. For the next twenty-four hours I was consumed by the question Who is this unnamed person? ...’‘

  • Stunned because you expected him to be caught SOONER, or LATER?

  • Fit into the murder scenario THEY imagined?  Your statements include all sorts of things ‘‘your mind made up.’‘

  • Great idea, to leave that handprint.  They got your accomplice.

  • Just because the police see through your B.S., doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to see the truth.

  • Or, more likely consumed with the question of whether he would talk.

[Chapter 19, Page 219] ‘’ ... The name didn’t click until I saw his mug shot. Oh my God, it’s him. I thought back to November 5, when I was sitting in the hall at the questura, assuming I was just waiting for Raffaele, and talking to the silver-haired cop. As I’d been doing for days, I was trying to recall all the men who had ever visited our villa, when I suddenly remembered one of Giacomo and Marco’s friends. It had annoyed me that I couldn’t remember his name. “I think he’s South African,” I told the detective. “All I know is that he played basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced him to Meredith and me in Piazza IV Novembre in mid-October. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.” I’d seen Guede just one time after that. He’d shown up at Le Chic, and I had taken his drink order. Those few words were the only ones we ever exchanged…’‘

  • In your email to Judge Nencini (December 2013), you said you had no contact with Guede

  • In that same email, you said that you crossed paths with Guede exactly once.

  • In this passage, you describe meeting Rudy at your apartment, and at Patrick’s bar. That is TWICE.

  • Even though, you never met Rudy, you remember him joking with the guys (and finding out), he was into you.

  • Even though Guede is into you, the only words you exchange is when he orders a drink?

  • Is Guede some kind of love-sick stalker, that you never had contact with, and never spoke to?

  • So, how many times exactly did you meet Rudy Guede?

Chapter 19, Page 220] ‘’ ... I learned that Guede was twenty and originally from Ivory Coast. He’d been abandoned by his parents and taken in by a rich Perugian family who treated him like a son. He was a talented basketball player who’d made a lot of friends on the court. But over time, he’d been more inclined to loaf than to work, and his surrogate family disowned him. He’d lost his job in the fall of 2007, before Meredith and I met him. Guede had been caught breaking into offices and homes and stealing electronics and cash…’‘

  • His parent abandoned him?  I thought he was an orphan, at least that’s what FOA says.

  • Over time he’d been more inclined to loaf than work?  You seem to know a lot about his work status, despite not knowing him.

  • He lost his job?  You seem to portray him as a drifter and drug dealer.  Most drug dealers are not employed.

  • So, did you find out about these break ins when you met him the ‘‘one-time’’ at your apartment?

  • So, Guede has a history of break ins, you stage break ins as a prank, he has the hots for you, and this never came up?

[Chapter 19, Page 221] ‘’ ... All I could think was that if he’d been put behind bars then, Meredith would still be alive.

  • It didn’t make sense to me that they had let him go but had leapt to arrest me. I’d met but didn’t know Rudy Guede. I didn’t know if he was capable of murder. I couldn’t imagine why he might do something so brutal. But I believed that he was guilty, that the evidence could only be interpreted one way. Finally the police could stop using me as the scapegoat for some phantom killer whom no one could name—a phantom whose place I’d been filling…’‘

    • The same could be said if Seattle police had locked you up for that stone throwing riot. Oh wait, you have no record.

    • They didn’t leap to arrest you.  You wrote multiple statements saying you were at the scene, and witnessed (but did not report,), PL murder Meredith.

    • You believed he was guilty?  How do you know?  You ‘‘met him once’‘, and didn’t know much about him.  It is almost as if you intimately knew what evidence was at the crime scene.

    • The evidence can only be interpreted one way? Evidence like phone records, or lying to police?

    • They weren’t ‘‘scapegoating’’ you for some phantom killer.  You gave statements saying you witnessed PL doing it.

    [Chapter 10, Page 222] ‘’ ... Still, I was surprised it was Guede who had been named, because the two times I’d met him were under such ordinary circumstances. There was nothing distinguishable about him. He’d seemed interchangeable with almost every guy I’d met in Perugia —confident, bordering on arrogant. Not threatening. Not like a down-and-out thief. Not even odd…’‘

    • The two times you met him? Again, you emailed Judge Nencini you never met him, but crossed paths exactly once.

    • Perugia men are confident and arrogant?  How many exactly did you sleep with?  Never mind, not relevant.

    [Chapter 19, Page 222] ‘’ ... “Rudy?” I asked, repeating his name to make sure I’d heard correctly. “You mean the guy who police are calling ‘the fourth person’?”

    “Yes, Rudy. You know him?” “Vaguely,” I answered, shrugging.  “Vaguely, huh? We’ll see what he says about that,” the cop said.

    I didn’t respond but tried to act confident so he wouldn’t think he was getting to me. I was thinking, Guede won’t have anything to say about me. He doesn’t know me. ...’‘

    • You know him vaguely?  Once again, you emailed the judge at YOUR Florence appeal, saying you didn’t know him

    • You know him vaguely, but he doesn’t know you?  So, is knowing someone a one-way affair now?

    • Guede won’t have anything to say about you?  Hmm… almost like you have something on him.

    [Chapter 19, Page 222] ‘’ ... Within hours, I learned that, before his arrest, he told a friend over Skype, as Perugian detectives listened in, that he’d been at the villa the night of the murder. “I was in the bathroom when it happened,” he said. “I tried to intervene, but I wasn’t able. Amanda has nothing to do with this . . . I fought with a male, and she wasn’t there.” Neither was Patrick, he said. “The guy was Italian, because we insulted each other and he didn’t have a foreign accent.”

    • When his friend asked if it was Raffaele, “the one from TV,” Guede said, “I think so, but I’m not sure.”

    • And this is the PROOF you are innocent?

    • So, Guede weakly identifies Raffaele, but is sure you are not there?  Okay.

    [Chapter 19, Page 223] ‘’ ... Guede apparently tried to establish an alibi by changing clothes and heading to a downtown dance club hours after the murder. His lawyers later said he’d been so frightened by the murder that he’d gone there to calm himself down. He went to Domus again the next night—attracting attention when he continued dancing during a moment of silence for Meredith. He left town the following day. Carlo and Luciano told me he probably got spooked by the media’s attention to the case and decided it was best to leave and take his bloody clothes and shoes with him. They guessed that Guede had probably been in the middle of robbing the villa when Meredith came home, and he had attacked her. As soon as they suggested this scenario, it made perfect sense to me. I hadn’t been able to put all those pieces together before. Meredith’s murder had been so horrific, and my arrest too absurd, it had been impossible for me to think logically about it…’‘

    • Carlo and Luciano?  Hmmm…. so when does Rome lawyer Giancarlos Costa join your team?

    • Guede tried to establish an alibi? Seems he is not the only one.

    • Guede was in the middle of robbing the place, when Meredith came home, but he doesn’t take anything, just murders her, takes a dump and leaves?

    • And how did he break in?  The police thought the break in was staged.

    • How do you know what happened to his bloody clothes and shoes?

    [Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ ... I saw it as a momentary problem that Guede was fingering Raffaele, but this was huge! Guede had backed up my alibi: I hadn’t been at the villa. And since I hadn’t been there, since I’d been at Raffaele’s apartment, Raffaele would be cleared, too. We would both be freed….’‘

    • Guede backs your alibi, but fingers you alibi witness?

    • How is this a momentary problem?

    [Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ .... Seeing how the prosecution treated Patrick in the two weeks since his arrest should have given me insight into how they worked. My lawyers told me it had been widely reported the week before that Patrick had cash register receipts and multiple witnesses vouching for his whereabouts on the night of November 1. A Swiss professor had testified that he’d been at Le Chic with Patrick that night from 8 P.M. to 10 P.M. But even though Patrick had an ironclad alibi and there was no evidence to prove that he’d been at the villa, much less in Meredith’s bedroom at the time of the murder, the police couldn’t bear to admit they were wrong….’‘

    • Patrick was arrested due to the accusatory statements that YOU wrote.

    • Give you insight into how they worked?  Yes, they investigated his alibi, and released him once it was corroborated.

    • Yes, no evidence of him at the home would surely speed up his release.

    • The police did admit they were wrong.  They released Patrick.

    [Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ ... Patrick went free the day Guede was arrested. Timing his release to coincide with Guede’s arrest, the prosecution diverted attention from their mistake. They let him go only when they had Guede to take his place…’‘

    • You seriously think they kept Patrick was held until they had someone else?

    [Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... I dreamed about the interrogation almost every night during these early days in prison. I would be back in the crowded, close interrogation room, feeling the tension, hearing the officers yelling, reliving the primal panic. I’d wake up sweating, my heart banging. Nothing in my life up to then had compared to that experience. What had happened to me that night? How I could I ever have named Patrick? ...’‘

    • You dreamed about the “interrogation”?  You seemed to be dreaming during it too.

    • Primal fear?  Is tea and chocolate that chilling to you?

    • How could you name Patrick?  Better question would have been ‘‘why’‘.

    [Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... Then I immediately felt embarrassed, self-conscious that, in one way or another, the few prisoners and guards who happened to see this would misread my actions as selfish. I didn’t know whether the guards were reporting directly to the prosecution, but I knew that everyone thought I was a liar and that anything I said and did would be viewed from that angle—that I was trying to make people think I was innocent by acting happy for Patrick. The police would almost certainly think this was one more instance of Amanda Knox behaving inappropriately—one more example of me as a manipulative, depraved person ....’‘

    • You accuse someone of murder, who is totally innocent.  How are people supposed to view it?

    • Yes, people probably did think you were a liar.

    • Yes, it would seem to strange to be happy for someone you said you were afraid of, and who you falsely accused.

    • Well, it might be less inappropriate, except for the fact you caused this dilemma.

    • Manipulative?  Reasonable conclusion. Depraved?  Not my place to say.

    [Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... Even if my cellmates didn’t see my reaction as putting on an act, I didn’t want anyone to know what I was actually thinking and feeling. I was protective of myself in that environment. I felt vulnerable and scared, and I didn’t want anyone to see that, even if that’s how I really felt….’‘

    • You just said you didn’t want people to see you as manipulative, but you are now saying you put up a front.

    [Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... In truth, I did see Patrick’s release as my vindication. By writing my two postinterrogation statements—my memoriali—I had tried to convince the police that Patrick was not Meredith’s murderer. And now the prosecution knew that when I retracted my declarations from that night, I was telling the truth: Patrick was innocent. Raffaele and I had been together at his apartment the whole time…’‘

    • You tried to convince the police Patrick was not involved?  Then why all the ‘‘stuff my mid made up’’ crap?

    • You went from clear and accusatory to confusing and contradictory.  Hardly truth telling.

    • You were with Raffaele?  Didn’t he recently say that you asked him to lie for you?

    [Chapter 19, Page 226] ‘’ ... The prosecution would understand how, under pressure during my interrogation, I had pictured a scene that wasn’t true. I had faith that my lawyers could prove the knife with Meredith’s and my DNA was a mistake. My confidence was bolstered by Guede’s arrest. I didn’t know him. If he was Meredith’s murderer, I was sure people would see that Raffaele and I had had nothing to do with it.  Soon I’d be cleared as a suspect….’‘

    • So, when faced with the loss of your alibi, you pictured a scene that wasn’t true—to divert suspicion?

    • Your lawyers can prove the double DNA knife is a mistake?  Why didn’t they attend the testing?  Right, to use as an excuse later.

    • Why would Guede’s arrest make people believe in you?  People can commit crimes with accomplices.

    • You seem obsessed to be seen in a positive light.

    [Chapter 19, Page 226] ‘’ ... The prosecution could have redeemed themselves. Instead, they held on to Raffaele and me as their trophies.

    I learned that when he signed the warrant for Patrick’s release, Giuliano Mignini said that I’d named Patrick to cover up for Guede. It was his way of saying that the police had been justified in their arrest of three people and that any confusion over which three people was my fault. I was made out to be a psychotic killer capable of manipulating the police until my lies, and the law, had caught up with me….’‘

    • They did redeem themselves. They now had the right people in custody, in spite of your lies.

    • The prosecution held onto you as suspects, only psycho killers take trophies.

    • Naming Patrick to cover for Guede?  Reasonable suspicion.

    • You ‘‘DID’’ manipulate the police until your lies caught up to you.

    [Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... Patrick gave only one interview condemning the police for his unfounded arrest before his lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, advised him to side with the prosecution, who had taken him away in handcuffs, humiliating him in front of his family, in the intimate hours of the morning. After that, he announced that he would never forgive me for what I had done, that I’d ruined him financially and emotionally. He talked about my behavior in his bar, saying that he’d fired me for flirting with his customers. He called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.”

    • Patrick was taken away at YOUR instigation.  Get this straight.

    • Sided with the prosecutors?  Would he side with the defendant who framed him?

    • He wouldn’t forgive you for this humiliation in front of his family?  Who would?

    • Fired you for not doing your job?  What an evil man.  Wait, that is just what you told police.

    [Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... The truth is that he had hired me not just to serve cocktails but to bring in customers. He had cut back on my days because I was a mediocre waitress and not enough of a flirt to add to his bottom line. Then, after Meredith’s murder, I quit because I was afraid to be out alone at night…’‘

    • You have casual sex with random men, and are not enough of a flirt?

    • You quit because of fear of being alone?  So, why would Patrick still be expecting you to work?

    [Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... I absolutely understood why he was angry with me. I’d put his reputation, his livelihood, and possibly even his life at risk. I felt sick with guilt. I thought he deserved an explanation and an apology from me. When I asked my lawyers if it would be okay for me to write him, they shook their heads no. “I’m afraid it’s not as simple as that anymore,” Carlo explained. “Patrick’s lawyer will hand over anything you send Patrick to the press.”

    • You understand why he was angry with you?  Well, you seemed to be justifying it by saying he wanted you to flirt more.

    • Yes, he does deserve an explanation and apology.

    • Well, if you want to clear something up, why not put it in writing?  Not that it has ever backfired on you before.  Wait….

    • You flirt with people in court, and are anxious about a letter ending up in the press?

    [Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... Any communication with Patrick would be publicized and scrutinized and played to my disadvantage, especially if I explained why I’d said his name during my interrogation. I’d have to go into how the police had pressured me, which would only complicate my already poor standing with the prosecution. If I said I’d imagined things during the interrogation, I’d be called crazy. If I said I’d been abused, it would be seen as further proof that I was a liar….’‘

    • Yes, written statements by defendants tend to be scutinized.

    • An explanation would be nice.  Something without any references to drugs, or stress, or visions.

    • Yes, those pesky police-abuse accusations (if false) tend to leave a bad impression.

    • You wouldn’t be seen as crazy, just a B.S. artist.

    [Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... When I first told Carlo and Luciano I wanted to talk to Prosecutor Mignini, I didn’t think of it as a rematch between opposing sides. I saw it as a chance to set the record straight. Finally….’‘

    • Was it not Luciano Ghirga and Giancarlo Costa who were with you in this questioning?  We haven’t even started and you are already lying.

    • Set the record straight?  You are going to confess?

    [Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... “I’m sure if I talk to him in person, I can show him I’m sincere,” I told my lawyers. “I can convince him he’s been wrong about me. It bothers me that everyone—the prosecutor, the police, the press, the public—thinks I’m a murderer. If I just had the chance to present my real self to Mignini I’m sure I could change that perception. People could no longer say I’m a killer.”

    Carlo and Luciano looked at me doubtfully. “I’m not sure it’s the best idea,” Carlo said. “Mignini is cagey. He’ll do everything he can to trick you.”

    • You can show Mignini you are sincere?  Didn’t you say in chapter 10 how he bullied a false statement from you?  Right, he wasn’t there.

    • Present your ‘‘real-self’‘?  This is a murder investigation, not a job interview.

    • Trick you?  Or expose your lies and inconsistencies?

    [Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... “I feel like it’s my only hope,” I said. “My memoriali didn’t change anyone’s mind —they just made the prosecution and the media portray me as a liar. I didn’t get to tell the judge what happened before she confirmed my arrest. I think I have to explain face-to-face why I named Patrick. I’ve got to make Mignini understand why I said I’d met Patrick at the basketball court, why I said I’d heard Meredith scream.”

    • Did you actually read the memoriali you wrote?  Who wouldn’t conclude you were lying?

    • You have to explain yourself?  Do you want to make things worse?

    • Yes, how did you know that Meredith screamed?  Guede, and neighbour Nina Capellazi both confirmed this ‘‘wee’’ detail.

    [Chapter 20, Page 230] ‘’ ... “It’s risky,” Carlo said. “Mignini will try to pin things on you.” “He already has,” I told them. The first time I met Mignini at the questura, I hadn’t understood who he was, what was going on, what was wrong, why people were yelling at me, why I couldn’t remember anything. I thought he was someone who could help me (the mayor), not the person who would sign my arrest warrant and put me behind bars…’‘

    • You want to meet with the man who tried to pin things on you?

    • Yet, you think that this will clear everything up?

    • You think Mignini is the mayor?  Do city officials typically get involved in murder investigations?

    • Wow, the ‘‘Mayor’’ is a douche, spending all this time at court, police stations and crime scenes.  No wonder those potholes aren’t getting filled.

    [Chapter 20, Page 230] ‘’ ... This time I was ready. This time my lawyers would be there. I’d be rested. My mind was clear. I was going in knowing what I was getting into. I’d take my time and answer all his questions in English. I didn’t think I’d be released immediately, but I hoped that giving the prosecutor a clear understanding of what had happened would help me. Then, as new evidence came forward proving my innocence, Mignini would have to let me go….’‘

    • You were ready?  So you had time to rehearse?

    • Your mind was clear?  So, no more ‘‘best truths’‘, let’s hope.

    • You did answer in English, but in the transcript, you were able to understand Mignini’s questions quite well in Italian.

    • How would giving a clear understanding help you?  Unless it is a straightforward alibi?

    • What ‘‘evidence’’ would be coming forward, proving your innocence?  Did you stage something?

    [Chapter 20, Page 231] ‘’ ... But I wasn’t good at censoring myself. I had only two hours a week with my mom and dad, and they were the only people I could open up to. It made me feel better to vent, and my parents needed to know what I was thinking. I couldn’t see the danger in discussing with them my day-to-day prison life, my interactions with my cellmates and guards, or my case. Since I hadn’t been involved in the murder, I figured that anything I said would only help prove my innocence…’‘

    • Right, you aren’t good at censoring yourself: Meredith’s friends all complained about just that problem

    • How would sharing the day-to-day help prove you are innocent?  You were arrested AFTER the murder, correct?

    [Chapter 20, Page 231] ‘’ ... I hadn’t considered that the prosecution would twist my words. I didn’t think they would be capable of taking anything I said and turning it into something incriminating, because everything I said was about my innocence and how I wanted to go home. I was saying the same thing again and again…’‘

    • Mignini didn’t try to twist anything.  He wanted to clear up many unanswered questions

    • Yes, you talk about your innocence, and the details (from the transcript), are even MORE confusing.

    • If you were saying the same thing over and over, we wouldn’t be here.

    • And this book (even with publishing help), changes considerably.  Everything you say has new versions.

    • Even your lawyers come in new versions.  This book omits Giancarlo Costa.

    [Chapter 20, Page 232] ‘’ ... On their first visit after the knife story came out, Dad and Mom were telling me my lawyers’ theory—that the police could be using the knife as a scare tactic to get me to incriminate myself. “The police have nothing at all on you,” Mom said. “So they are trying . . . to see if you[’ll] say something more.”

    • The police don’t need to intimidate you.  And this might get you a new calunnia charge.

    • They have plenty on you.  False alibi, false accusation, DNA, incriminating statements….

    • So, has Dad shared his new ‘‘secret weapon’‘?  A PR firm, with David Marriott… ?  No?

    [Chapter 20, Page 232] ‘’ ... “It’s stupid,” I said. “I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there. I mean, I can’t lie about this, there is no reason to do it.”

    What I meant by “I was there” was that I was at Raffaele’s apartment the night of Meredith’s murder, that I couldn’t possibly implicate myself. I hadn’t been at the villa. I wasn’t going to slip up, because I wasn’t hiding anything….’‘

    • Well, your explanation seems reasonable, but would be far more believable except that your alibi witness withdrew his alibi, and signed a statement saying you asked him to lie for you.

    • You can’t say anything but the truth?  I bet Patrick would beg to differ.

    • You didn’t implicate yourself.  You claimed to be a witness to someone else doing it, (and placed yourself there).

    [Chapter 20, Page 233] ‘’ ... Being more careful in the future wouldn’t immediately resolve this serious misunderstanding. A few days later the judge considered those words when deciding if I could be moved to house arrest. In another crushing blow that characterized my early months in prison, my request was denied. I was stuck alone behind bars….’‘

    • Meredith was murdered, and it was a ‘‘misunderstanding’‘?

    • Or rather, lies, false accusations, DNA evidence, and incriminating statements are ‘‘misunderstandings’‘?

    • You were denied house arrest? Go figure.

    • You were also psychologically tested, and the results were alarming.  Yet you omit that as a major reason to keep you.

    [Chapter 20, Page 233] ‘’ ... Calling the intercepted conversation a “clue,” the judge wrote, “it can certainly be read as a confirmation of the girl’s presence in her home at the moment of the crime.” He went on to describe me as “crafty and cunning,” saying that I was “a multifaced personality, unattached to reality with an elevated . . . fatal, capacity to kill again.”

    • It wasn’t until my pretrial, the following September, that a different judge agreed with my defense that it was obvious I was talking about Raffaele’s apartment, not the villa, and removed this “evidence” from the record….’‘

    • Well, your false accusation of Lumumba was crafty and cunning.  Wait, that was ‘‘under pressure’‘.

    • Unattached to reality?  Have you seen the stuff you write?

    • Actually, the ‘‘evidence’’ was never removed.  In fact, Judge Paolo Micheli found enough cause to send you to trial.

    [Chapter 20, Page 234] ‘’ ... Not even my lawyers understood my journal musings on Raffaele and the knife that made their way into the newspapers. I’d written a hyperbolic explanation about him taking the knife from his apartment behind my back. I had to explain to Carlo and Luciano that I’d concocted it because the possibility of a knife with Meredith’s DNA coming out of Raffaele’s apartment had struck me as so preposterous:  ‘’ Unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned it off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that…’‘

    • I’m sure your lawyers don’t understand your journal writings.

    • What is the purpose of these writings?  Were they deliberate, did you assume they would be read?

    • It sounds like a silly passage from ‘‘Honor Bound’’—Amanda’s DNA on Meredith’s bra, because Amanda wore it too.

    • Or this excuse from Raffaele—Meredith’s DNA was on his knife because Meredith pricked her hand while cooking.  (Despite Meredith was never there).

    [Chapter 20, Page 234] ‘’ ... But I didn’t have the luxury of explaining what I’d written to everyone who read it. After my passage was translated into Italian and then retranslated back into English, it bore little resemblance to the original—and a great resemblance to the prosecution’s theories about what had happened the night of November 1:

    ‘‘That night I smoked a lot of marijuana and I fell asleep at my   boyfriend’s house. I don’t remember anything. But I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed her. And then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he put my fingerprints on the knife. But I don’t understand why Raffaele would do that…’‘

    • How would you know exactly what it said?  The writing was confiscated, and according to your 2013 interview with Amazon editor Neal Thompson, (available online), you didn’t get anything back that was confiscated.

    • Actually, (marijuana aside) there are the same elements, Raffaele killing Meredith, then putting your fingerprints on the knife.

    • You could always have taken the stand (without restricted questioning), to explain it.

    [Chapter 20, Page 235] ‘’ ... As the date for the interrogation approached, Luciano and Carlo offered me a few pointers. “Don’t let him get to you. Don’t say anything if you don’t remember it perfectly. It’s okay to say, ‘I don’t remember.’ You don’t have to be God and know everything. It’s better to say, ‘I don’t know,’ and move on.”

    • Luciano and Carlo?  Again, no Giancarlo Costa? See this.

    • Don’t say anything if you don’t remember perfectly Is this advice to withhold?

    • She isn’t God, but according to her writings, Amanda is Helen of Troy.

    [Chapter 20, Page 237] ‘’ ... It bothered me that as I answered him as fully as I could through an interpreter, Mignini would usually repeat the question. I was afraid I wasn’t making myself clear. At first, Carlo, acting as a second interpreter, spoke in measured tones. He would interrupt and say, “What she is really saying is . . .” or “She’s already answered that question!”

    • Actually, the ‘‘interrogation’’ was nothing like what Amanda describes.  Here are the transcripts: one, two, three, and four.

    • And it is Giancarlo Costa, not Dalla Carlo Vedova, who is with Luciano Ghirga.

    [Chapter 20, Page 239] ‘’ ... I was more frustrated than I’d ever been. “Because I thought it could have been him!”

    I shouted, starting to cry. I meant that I’d imagined Patrick’s face and so I had really, momentarily, thought it was him. Mignini jumped up, bellowing, “Aha!” I was sobbing out of frustration, anger.

    My lawyers were on their feet. “This interrogation is over!” Luciano shouted, swiping his arm at the air….’‘

    • Read the transcripts above.  Knox stopped the questioning, not Luciano.

    [Chapter 21, Page 241] ‘’ ... Now I was moving in with Cera. Young, with the tall, lean looks of a model, she worked as a portavito, delivering meals from a rolling cart. She was also in my weekly guitar class, another prison “rehabilitation” activity like movie time. But I was still secluded from the main prison population—a special status to protect young, first-time suspects. The downside was that it prevented me from participating in group activities or talking to anyone but my cellmates. Thankfully, Don Saulo convinced prison officials to let me attend the guitar lessons, just as he had weekly Mass….’‘

    • You had a weekly guitar class?  Wow, can you name one American prison that does that?  Probably not.

    • There is movie time?  Wow, such a hard place to be in.

    • You were secluded because you were a young first timer?  Really, or secluded until they determined if the accused sex killer was a danger?

    • So, how long exactly were you in ‘‘seclusion’‘?  You are very vague on this.

    [Chapter 21, Page 242] ‘’ ... Cera had managed to make her cell homey, clean, and organized. There were bright colored sheets on the beds, postcards taped to the walls, and a colorful curtain tied to the bars at the window. We had a heart-to-heart talk while I unpacked. She was sitting cross-legged on the bed closest to the window. “I should probably tell you right off, I’m bisexual,” she said.

    “That’s cool,” I replied. “I’m not, but I’m definitely live-and-let-live.”

    “You’re not my type, anyway,” she said. “I thought you might be gay when you asked to live with me, but I decided you weren’t.” She hesitated. “You know, your former cellmates said you’re spoiled.”

    Wow. Why hadn’t I realized they would trash me behind my back? They gossiped about everyone else. Cera read my disappointment. “They’re fake. Almost everyone in prison is fake. You’ll see.’‘

    • Prison is not the most socially progressive place, and you wish to publish that your cellie is bisexual?  Some friend.

    • Yes, almost everyone in prison is fake.  Amanda, care to comment on this link?

    [Chapter 21, Page 243] ‘’ ... Cera scoffed. “You don’t know what they say about you when you’re outside—‘Who does Kuh-nox think she is? She’s saving worms from the rain but killing people.’ Even Lupa says you’re guilty.”  I knew the prosecution didn’t believe me, but I’d assumed the people I interacted with every day would see me for who I was and not imagine the worst. As soon as Cera said this, it seemed obvious—of course the guards would assume I was a murderer. Everyone did….’‘

    • So, is this conversation in English, or is your Italian fluent by now?

    • Why would the guards make this assumption?  They watch over all kinds of people.

    • You have been formally charged with murder, and a judge has said there is cause to hold you.  People might think you are a killer.
    Posted on 09/04/15 at 04:02 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in The former defendantsAmanda KnoxOther legal processesKnox calunniaFamily/defense hoaxersLies in Knox book
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (8)

    Monday, August 31, 2015

    The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About #2

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    Above: Florence Prosecutor Dr Angela Pietroiusti. Quick route to Comments here.

    1. Most Bungling Team In Legal History?

    There is NO WAY Knox and Sollecito would be out on the streets if the playing field had been level.

    Knox’s lawyers and family and PR effort and publishers all bungled enormously and suffered an overwhelming loss at both Knox’s trials (murder and calunnia) when pre-trial concessions could have served them well.

    To make up for this, they tilted the playing field.

    Manipulation of the media and thus American (but not Italian) opinion and manipulation of the evidence and manipulation of judges and manipulation of court-appointed DNA experts and manipulation to prevent Italy from finding out what was in Knox’s and Sollecito’s horrific books.

    You want to see manipulation in spades?

    See here and here and the whole huge area of the DNA and of course the RS and AK books.

    You want to see bungling in spades?

    No better example than this one which could possibly cost Sollecito lawyer Luca Maori his career and has stopped the Fifth Chambers of Cassation dead in their tracks.

    Also Knox’s and Sollecito’s foolish books involving dozens of others are coming back to haunt them in court. Also look here at how Chris Mellas dropped Knox in it.

    Helping Sollecito cost his sister Vanessa her Carbinieri job. Sollecito’s father admitted to Panorama he tried political manipulation and was charged. Knox’s parents parroted Amanda Knox and were charged. “Helpful” investigator Paul Ciolino framed an innocent man in another case and was charged. Doug Preston ally Mario Spezi smeared investigators after the two tried framing an innocent man and blocking an investigation getting too near the truth and Spezi was charged.

    Judge Heavey lied to national presidents everywhere and was reprimanded and soon retired. The defense arranged for Judge Hellmann to preside over the 2011 appeal; he was overturned and pushed out. Pepperdine University pushed out the besotted security guard Steve Moore. Frank Sforza, facing felony charges, took off like a rabbit out of America. Defense witness Aviello was charged. 

    The defenses’ attempt to climb in Filomena’s window came up short. This bungled frame-up went nowhere. The pathetic Bruce Fischer team has gone nowhere.

    2. Bungling In Knox’s Calunnia Case

    Keeping Knox quiet for her own good was always a mighty struggle and the defense lawyers openly complained. It was an open secret in Perugia from 2007 to 2009 that Knox’s defense lawyers were struggling with Knox herself and with her family and her PR.

    At least one defense lawyer was fired or walked off the job (as with the Sollecito team). This struggle broke out into the open at various times, for example see here.

    Still. Knox’s defense team also did at least five things to help make matters worse for her in her calunnia trial now.

      1) They allowed Knox to interrupt prosecution witness Anna Donnino, the interpreter, during her testimony in March 2009 to claim she was hit, having repeatedly said previously that that was untrue. That set the legal reaction in motion.

      2) They put Knox on the stand seemingly unbriefed and allowed her to contradict both days and days of prosecution testimony and also prior declarations by herself.

      3) They put a presumably privileged letter from Knox to themselves in evidence (see previous post) knowing that it contained false claims.

      4) They applied to a Perugia judge for the transfer of the calunnia case from Perugia to Florence, thinking the Florence court was gunning for Dr Mignini when the truth is opposite.

      5) They applied to the same Perugia judge for the attachment of Dr Mignini’s name to the complaint though they knew he was not at the “interrogation” as even Knox said on the stand.

    Due to failed defense efforts Knox has already served three years and is a felon for life, and she now could face another six plus more penalties for her book. She is still not off the hook for murder as Fifth Chambers judges broke two laws and had fishy friends in their pasts.

    So, good luck, Amanda Knox. GREAT TEAM!

    3. Day Two Of Knox’s Testimony

    These are excerpts related to the “interrogation” of 5-6 Nov. Important: we dont yet know what else the prosecutors will include in their charges as much of Knox’s testimony was on other things about which she also lied.

    Excerpts in both posts are from the full transcript on the Case Wiki, and all transcription and translation into English (a massive task) was by the PMF Team.

    Cross Examination By Prosecutor Mignini

    GM:  In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there’s Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn’t you ever mentioned him before?
    AK:  Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick’s name to me.
    GM:  All right, now is the time for you to make this precise and specific. At this point I will take…no, I’ll come back to it later. You need to explain this. You have stated: “The name of Patrick was suggested to me. I was hit, pressured.”
    AK:  Yes.
    GM:  Now you have to tell me in a completely detailed way, you have to remember for real, you have to explain step by step, who, how, when, was the name of Patrick suggested to you, and what had been done before that point. The name of Patrick didn’t just come up like a mushroom; there was a preceding situation. Who put pressure on you, what do you mean by the word “pressure”, who hit you? You said: “They hit me”, and at the request of the lawyer Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.
    AK:  Yes.
    GM:  So that would be what you meant by being hit?
    AK:  Yes.
    GM:  Or something else? Tell me if there was something else. You can tell us.
    AK:  Okay.
    GCM:  So, you are—[Interruptions] The question is—[Interruptions] Escuse me. Excuse me. The question is quite clear. He is repeating this in order to give the accused a chance to add something to these events that were explained by the accused yesterday. The pubblico ministero is asking to return to these events mentioned yesterday in order to obtain more detail about exactly what happened and who did it. Please be as precise as possible.
    GM:  So you were in front of—
    GCM:  The question is clear.
    GM:  All right, so tell us.
    GCM:  Yes, it’s clear.
    AK:  All right. Okay.
    GCM:  If you could give more detail, be more precise, exactly what was suggested to you, about the cuffs, all that.
    AK:  Okay.
    GCM:  And who did all this, if you can.
    AK:  Okay. Fine. So, when I got to the Questura, they placed me to the side, near the elevator, where I was waiting for Raffaele. I had taken my homework, and was starting to do my homework, but a policeman came in, in fact there were I don’t know, three of them or something, and they wanted to go on talking to me. They asked me again—
    GM:  Excuse me, excuse me—
    AK:  [coldly] Can I tell the story?
    GM:  Excuse me for interrupting you otherwise we’ll forget—
    CDV:  Presidente, I object to this way of doing things. The question was asked—[Yelling, interruptions]—we should wait for the answer.
    GM:  It’s impossible to go on like this, no, no.
    CDV:  If a question is asked, she has to be able to answer.
    GCM:  Please, please. That’s correct. There is a rule that was introduced, which says that we should absolutely avoid interruptions from anyone.
    CDV:  I want to ask that she be allowed to finish her answer. She has the right, no?
    GCM:  Please, please, pubblico ministero. It’s impossible to go on this way.
    GM:  I would like to, I can—
    GCM:  No no no, no one can. We have to make sure that while someone is speaking, there are never any superimposed voices. And since the accused is undergoing examination, she has the right to be allowed to answer in the calmest possible way. Interruptions and talking at the same time don’t help her, and they can’t be written down in the minutes, which obliges the courts to suspend the audience and start it again at a calmer and more tranquil moment.
    GM:  Presidente—
    GCM:  No, no, no! Interruptions are absolutely not allowed! Not between the parties, nor when the Court, the President is speaking. So, interruptions are not allowed. Now, the accused is speaking, and when she is finished, we can return to her answers—
    GM:  Presidente.
    GCM:  Excuse me, please! But at the moment she is speaking, we have to avoid interrupting her. But—I don’t know if this is what was wanted—but while you are speaking, if you could tell us when. For instance, you say you were doing homework, but you didn’t tell us when. We need to know when, on what day, the 2nd of November, the 3rd, what time it was. While you are talking, you need to be more detailed, as detailed as you can with respect to the date and the time.
    AK:  Okay.
    GCM:  And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
    AK:  Thank you. So, here is…how I understood the question, I’m answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I’m sorry, I don’t know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation. The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I didn’t do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.” So I said okay and went with them, and they started asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening. At least, they kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything about what I did. Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times and schedules, and time segments: “What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember. And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.” And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn’t there? I was there! Maybe I can’t say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because I didn’t look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And she would say “No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the house.” And I said, no, that’s not how it was. I was always in Raffaele’s apartment.
    GCM:  [taking advantage of a tiny pause to slip in without exactly interrupting] Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the cuffs, who gave them to you.
    AK:  All right. What it was, was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started to little by little and then more and more these remarks about “We’re not convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not remember another thing. We don’t understand how you could take a shower without seeing…” And then, they kept on asking me “Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.” Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that I had gone out of the house. I said look, it’s impossible. I don’t know if he’s really saying that or not, but look, I didn’t go out of the house. And they said “No, you’re telling a lie. You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.” Sure, take it. “All right.” So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling “We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?” But I kept saying no, no, I didn’t go out, I’m not pro-pro-pro—-
    GCM:  [taking advantage of her stammer] Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous crescendo.
    AK:  Yes.
    GCM:  As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as continuously as possible…
    AK:  Okay, I’m sorry.
    GCM:  So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who… these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me…
    AK:  Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said “Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick”, and I said I don’t think I did, and they yelled “Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here’s your message saying you wanted to meet him!” And I didn’t even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was telling me “Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you’re not able to remember anything you’ve done.” So I said, how could that be? And she said, “Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can’t remember it. Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg…”
    GCM:  The interpreter said this to you?
    AK:  The interpreter, yes.
    GCM:  I also wanted to ask you because it isn’t clear to me: only the interpreter spoke to you, or the others also?
    AK:  All the others also.
    GCM:  Everyone was talking to you, all the others, but were they speaking in English?
    AK:  No, in Italian.
    GCM:  In Italian. And you answered in Italian?
    AK:  In Italian, in English…
    GCM:  And what was said to you in Italian, did it get translated to you in English?
    AK:  A bit yes, a bit no, there was so much confusion, there were so many people all talking at the same time, one saying “Maybe it was like this, maybe you don’t remember,” another saying “No, she’s a stupid liar,” like that…
    GCM:  But everything was eventually translated, or you understood some of it and answered right away?
    AK:  It wasn’t like an interrogation, like what we’re doing now, where one person asks me a question and I answer. No. There were so many people talking, asking, waiting, and I answered a bit here and there.
    GCM:  All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about something that had happened to her. [Interruption by Mignini.] But you need to get back to the questions asked by the pubblico ministero. This isn’t a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we still haven’t really heard the answer to it.
    AK:  Yes, sorry.
    GCM:  Right, so you were saying that there was this continuous crescendo.
    AK:  It’s difficult for me to say that one specific person said one specific thing. It was the fact that there were all these little suggestions, and someone was saying that there was the telephone, then there was the fact that… then more than anything what made me try to imagine something was someone saying to me “Maybe you’re confused, maybe you’re confused and you should try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking, what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting “Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember,” and boom! on my head. [Amanda slaps herself on the back of the head: End of video segment] “Remember!” And I was like—Mamma Mia! and then boom! [slaps head again] “Remember!”
    GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me, please, excuse me…
    AK:  Those were the cuffs.
    GCM:  So, the pubblico ministero asked you, and is still asking you, who is the person that gave you these two blows that you just showed us on yourself?
    AK:  It was a policewoman, but I didn’t know their names.
    GM:  Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
    GM:  So, now, I asked you a question, and I did not get an answer. You ... [interruptions]!
    LG or CDV:  I object to that remark! That is a personal evaluation! Presidente! That is very suggestive. He is making an unacceptable conclusion. He can ask a question, but this is a personal opinion. It seems to me that she did answer. She answered for a good five minutes.
    GCM:  Sorry, but I said that we were supposed to avoid interruptions, that we weren’t supposed to interrupt when someone was speaking—
    LG or CDV:  But—
    GCM:  Wait—avvocato, excuse me, please, let’s try to avoid these moments which don’t help anybody and probably harm the person undergoing the examination because they create tension in the court—
    GM:  When I am doing the cross-examination I would like—
    GCM:  Please, pubblico ministero. This is another recommendation: let’s avoid analyses. Let’s take the answers as they come, later the right moment will come to say that from this examination, you did not obtain the answer that you expected, that the accused did not answer the questions. That is a later phase. At this moment, let’s stay with the answers that we have, even if they are not exhaustive, and return to the question, but avoiding personal evaluations of their value. Go ahead, publicco ministero, go ahead.
    GM:  I would like to—
    GCM:  Yes, yes, go ahead, return to your question. And then you can come back to it with more details.
    GM:  The central point of that interrogation was the moment when the name of Patrick emerged. You spoke of suggestions, you spoke of pressure, you spoke of being hit, I asked you to give me a precise description of who gave you the blows, you need to describe this person. Was it a woman or a man? Who asked you the questions? Who was asking you the questions? There was the interpreter, who was the person who was translating. But the exam, the interrogation, who was doing it? Apart from the people who were going in and out. You must have understood that there was a murder, and this was a police station, and the investigation was hot, and what I am asking you is, who was actually conducting the interrogation?
    GCM:  The pubblico ministero is asking you, you said that the two blows were given to me by someone whose name I don’t know. The pubblico ministero is asking you firstly if you can give a description of the person who hit you, if you saw her, and if you can give us a description. The second question—
    AK:  So, when I—the person who was conducting the interrogation—
    GCM:  That was the second question! You’re starting with the second question, that’s fine, go ahead, go ahead.
    AK:  Oh, sorry…
    GCM:  Go on, go on. The person who was conducting the interrogation…
    AK:  Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don’t know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?” Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn’t see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.
    GCM:  This was the same woman with the long hair?
    AK:  Yes, the same one.
    GCM:  All right. Are you finished? Tell me if you have something to add.
    AK:  Well, I already answered.
    GCM:  Fine, fine, all right. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
    GM:  I’ll go on with the questions. In the minutes it mentions three people, plus the interpreter. Now, you first said that they suggested things to you. What exactly do you mean by the word “suggestion”, because from your description, I don’t see any suggestion. I mean, what is meant by the Italian word “suggerimento”, I don’t find it.
    GCM:  [quelling them] Excuse me, excuse me, please, please, excuse me, excuse me! Listen, the pubblico ministero is asking you: “suggestions”, you also mentioned words that were “put in your mouth”, versions, things to say, circumstances to describe.
    The pubblico ministero is asking two things: who made the suggestions, and what exactly were you told to say? }}
    AK:  All right. It seems to me that the thoughts of the people standing around me, there were so many people, and they suggested things to me in the sense that they would ask questions like: “Okay, you met someone!” No, I didn’t. They would say “Yes you did, because we have this telephone here, that says that you wanted to meet someone. You wanted to meet him.” No, I don’t remember that. “Well, you’d better remember, because if not we’ll put you in prison for 30 years.” But I don’t remember! “Maybe it was him that you met? Or him? You can’t remember?” It was this kind of suggestion.
    GCM:  When you say they said “Maybe you met him?”, did they specify names?
    AK:  Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him—
    GCM:  Please, please!
    [Interruptions, multiple voices]
    CDV:  It’s not possible to go on this way! [Mignini yells something at dalla Vedova]
    GCM:  Please, please, excuse me, excuse me!
    ??:  I’m going to ask to suspend the audience! I demand a suspension of five minutes!
    GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me! Please!
    CDV:  Viva Dio, Presidente!
    GM:  Presidente, I’m trying to do a cross-examination, and I must have the conditions that allow me to do it! The defense keeps interrupting.
    ??:  That’s true!
    GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me, please—
    GM:  We’re asking for a suspension!
    GCM:  Just a moment, excuse me. I’ve heard all the demands and suggestions, now the Court will decide. So.
    [Several moments of silence, during which Amanda murmurs in a very tiny voice: “Scusa.”]
    GCM:  I want to point out that the accused offers answers to every question. She could always refuse to respond. She is answering, and that doesn’t mean she has to be asked about the same circumstances again and again. She is not a witness. The accused goes under different rules. We have to accept the answers—
    ??:  But—
    GCM:  Please, please! We have to accept the answers given by the accused. She can stop answering at any time. At some point we simply have to move on to different questions. One circumstance is being asked again, the accused answered. The regularly, the tranquillity, the rituality of the court, of the process, has to be respected. The pubblico ministero was asking about suggestions. [To Amanda] If you want a suspension we can do it right away.
    AK:  No, I’m fine.
    GCM:  So the pubblico ministero was asking about the suggestions. All right?
    AK:  Sure.
    GCM:  So, you were the one who gave the first indication, introducing this generic pronoun “him”? This “him”, did they say who it could be?
    AK:  It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying “Are you sure you don’t remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote this message.”
    GCM:  In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?
    AK:  No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata.”
    GCM:  But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?
    AK:  Actually, I don’t know if that information is in the telephone. But I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn’t find it, but they found the one I sent to him.
    GCM:  I also wanted to ask you for the pubblico ministero, you wrote this message in Italian. I wanted to ask you, since you are an English speaker, what do you do when you wrote in Italian? Do you first think in English, and then translate into Italian, or do you manage to think directly in Italian?
    AK:  No, at that time, I first thought in English, then I would translate, and then write.
    GCM:  So that clarifies that phrase. Go ahead, pubblico ministero, but I think we’ve exhausted the question.
    GM:  Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language, “suggerire” means “indicate”, someone who “suggests” a name actually says the name and the other person adopts it. That is what “suggerimento” is, and I…so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?
    ??:  Objection! Objection!
    GM:  On page 95, I read—
    CDV:  Before the objection, what was the question?
    GM:  The question was: the question that was objected was about the term “suggerimento”. Because I interpret that word this way: the police say “Was it Patrick?” and she confirms that it was Patrick. This is suggestion in the Italian language.
    GCM:  Excuse me, please, excuse me. Let’s return to the accused. What was the suggestion, because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had been identified, they talked about “him, him, him”. In what terms exactly did they talk about this “him”? What did they say to you?
    AK:  So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message—
    GCM:  You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?
    AK:  To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew, and that I didn’t want to tell. And that I didn’t want to tell because I didn’t remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying “Look what a stupid liar you are, you don’t even remember this!” At first, I didn’t even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying “Maybe you don’t remember, maybe you don’t remember, but try,” and other people were saying “Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing “Remember, remember, remember,” and then there was this person behind me who—it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me…
    GCM:  “Remember!” is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather…
    AK:  But it was always “Remember” following this same idea, that…
    GCM:  But they didn’t literally say that it was him!
    AK:  No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him.”
    GCM:  So, these were the suggestions.
    AK:  Yes.
    GCM:  Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
    GM:  I object here on the dynamics, because here there’s a contrast…well… per carita—[Brief interruption from GCM]—From Amanda’s answer, it emerges that there was this cell phone and this message and this “Answer, answer,” whereas in the minutes of the Dec 17 interrogation, page 95, we find: The police could not have suggested—[Arguing, everyone speaking, Maresca, Pacelli etc., some saying that they need to know the exact page, it’s different in their version. ]
    GCM:  While the pubblico ministero is talking, let’s avoid interrupting him. It’s true that the pages are different, but still, if you can’t find the page, ask for a moment’s pause, don’t interrupt the reading.
    GM:  So, on line number one, two, three, four…
    GCM:  Pubblico ministero, don’t worry about the lines, please read.
    GM:  [reading] She said: “I accused Patrick and no one else because they were continually talking about Patrick.” Suggesting, to use Amanda’s words. I asked: “The police, the police could not suggest? And the interpreter, was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police saying?” Knox: “The police were saying, ‘We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.’ And one moment before I said Patrick’s name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him.” This is the objection. There is a precise moment. The police were showing her the message, they didn’t know who it was—
    GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me pubblico ministero [talking at the same time] excuse me, excuse me, the objection consists in the following: [to Amanda], when there are contrasts or a lack of coincidence with previous statements, be careful to explain them.
    AK:  Okay.
    GCM:  Do you confirm the declarations that the pubblico ministero read out?
    AK:  I explained it better now.
    GCM:  You explained it better now. All right pubblico ministero. Go ahead.
    GM:  So, let’s move forward.
    AK:  Okay.
    GM:  Now, what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?
    AK:  Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn’t tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of “Patrick”, I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn’t agree, that maybe could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick’s face, then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted to know everything I had done. But I didn’t know how to say. So they started talking to me, saying, “Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?” I don’t know, maybe in Piazza Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. “Okay, fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the door?” Well, with my key. “So you opened the house”. Okay, yes. “And what did you do then?” I don’t know. “But was she already there?” I don’t know. “Did she arrive or was she already there?” Okay. “Who was there with you?” I don’t know. “Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?” I don’t know. It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me: “Excuse me, I don’t understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?” No. “But how could you not have heard the scream?”. I don’t know, maybe my ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don’t know, maybe, imagining…
    GCM:  [Stopping her gently] Okay, okay. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
    CDV?:  I’d like to ask a question, I’d like to make an objection about—
    GCM?:  All right, so—
    GM:  Is it a question or an objection? [crossing, arguing voices]
    GCM:  Please, no interruptions.
    CDV?:  [stronger] I said, I am asking a question and making an objection—
    GCM:  But, excuse me, let’s stay with essentials. Let’s hear what the pubblico ministero has to say, and then we’ll see. That’s a premise.
    GM:  I appeal to the court that this is making the examination impossible.
    GCM:  Please, please, sorry. Go ahead.
    GM:  I am trying to understand. In the interro—[he breaks off in mid-word, I think dalla Vedova must have stood up again.]
    GCM:  But it’s not possible to hinder things this way, avvocato. Excuse me. Why?
    CDV?:  [hard to hear because he’s speaking at the same time as GCM] The defense would like to formally ask for a break [?]
    GCM:  We haven’t even heard what he is trying to say yet. You can’t make preventive objections! I’m sorry, avvocato.
    CDV?:  I’m not making an objection—
    GCM:  [really trying to stop him but not succeeding, CDV goes on talking at the same time] Please, please avvocato, no no no no, the pubblico ministero is speaking. [GM also says some words] Excuse me, excuse me.
    CDV?:  The suggestions of the PM before asking the question are inopportune, because he is suggesting and making suggestive…
    GCM:  Please, please, excuse me, excuse me! [He really, really needs a gavel to bang!]
    GM:  [some words]
    GCM:  Please, pubblico ministero! We are creating useless moments—
    GM:  [some words]
    GCM:  [much louder] Please, pubblico ministero! Please! Now, excuse me.
    GM or CDV:  Please explain this concept to me.
    GCM:  Please, please! [He finally obtains silence] I understand that when these interruption happens, the tone gets a bit louder, but that is not helpful. [Interruption] Please, please—but we are getting the impression that the objections are preventive. So while the pubblico ministero is speaking, which he has every right to do in this phase, and the defense already had their chance to do it, and they weren’t interrupted yesterday, so we ask for equal treatment today, at the present moment of the examination of the accused. And the tone should always remain cordial without giving the impression of a—
    CDV:  Yes, yes, no, no. But it’s just that, I am asking that—
    GCM:  Please, avvocato. There’s no reason. We are trying to reconcile the interests of all parties, we are gathering circumstances on which the different parties are called to make analyses and the Court to decide. This will be helpful for everyone. Go ahead.
    GM:  The question is this: You say, you just told me a little while ago, that… the police—I’m trying to—well, I have to give a little introduction so she understands my question. You said “they found this message and they asked me whom it was to, if it was true or not true.” And you answered. Then the police obviously goes forward with their questions. “So, tell us”. And you…you just told me, I can’t read it, obviously I don’t have the transcription right here, but, I might be making a mistake, I don’t know, but you were saying that you remembered Piazza Grimana. Did you really say that?
    AK:  Yes.
    GCM:  Please, please, excuse me, there, now what the accused is saying is: “On the basis of these elements, I tried to reconstruct a scene that could be verified.” In these terms, not because she… She mentally elaborated, with her imagination: this is what I understood, how the scene could be realized, containing those elements that had come up.
    AK:  Certainly.
    GCM:  But she wasn’t speaking of an effective memory of circumstances that had effectively occurred in her perception. That is the meaning of the response of the accused.
    AK:  Certo.
    GM:  But you said that you remembered Piazza Grimana.
    AK:  I had an image of Piazza Grimana.
    GM:  An image of Piazza Grimana, that’s right. Now listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary…

    [Start of 6:54 minute video segment] ...I asked this question: Why did you throw out an accusation of this type? In the confrontations with Mr. Lumumba (I was continuing and you answered right away): “I was trying, I had the possibility of explaining the message in my phone. He had told me not to come to work.” Perfectly normal things. So, faced with a perfectly normal circumstance, “My boss texted me to tell me not to come to work and I answered him,” you could have just stated that. End of response. Instead, faced with the message, and the questions of the police, you threw out this accusation. So I am asking you, why start accusing him when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why did you think those things could be true? }}
    AK:  I was confused.
    GM:  You have repeated that many times. But what does it mean? Either something is true, or it isn’t true. Right now, for instance, you’re here at the audience, you couldn’t be somewhere else. You couldn’t say “I am at the station.” You are right here, right now.
    AK:  Certainly. [Some noise]
    GCM:  The question is clear.
    AK:  Can I answer?
    GCM:  [quelling noise] Excuse me, excuse me! Please, go ahead.
    AK:  My confusion was because firstly, I couldn’t understand why the police was treating me this way, and then because when I explained that I had spent the whole time with Raffaele, they said “No, you’re a liar”. It was always this thing that either I didn’t remember or I was lying. The fact that I kept on and on repeating my story and they kept saying “No, you’re going to prison right now if you don’t tell the truth,” and I said “But I’ve told the truth,” “No, you’re a liar, now you’re going to prison for 30 years because either you’re a stupid liar or you forgot. And if it’s because you forgot, then you’d better remember what happened for real, right now.” This is why I was confused. Because I didn’t understand. I didn’t understand why. I didn’t understand anything any more. I was so scared and impressed by all this that at some point I thought What the heck, maybe they’re right, maybe I forgot.
    GM:  So, and then, you accused Lumumba of murder. This is the conclusion.

    GM:  I wanted to spend a moment on one last question, maybe the last but I don’t know, about the morning of the 6th.
    AK:  Okay.
    GM:  There’s another thing I didn’t understand. You said pressure was put on you, and there were suggestions, you explained today exactly what those consisted in, to say the name of Patrick and to accuse Patrick. Then you wrote a memorandum in which you confirm everything. And you weren’t under pressure right then. Why didn’t you just say: “I falsely accused someone.” Someone who was in prison, who was put in prison, maybe for a long time. Can you explain this to me?
    AK:  Certo.
    CDV?:  Can I make an objection? Very, very calmly and without animosity?
    GCM:  Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you [for the calm, no doubt]. Thank you.
    CDV?:  It seems to me that the pubblico ministero, in presenting his questions, always makes references which go as far as actually suggesting the answers, and also—
    GM:  Well it is a cross-examination.
    GCM:  Please, please let’s avoid interruptions and let each person express what he has to say. Go ahead, avvocato.
    CDV?:  In the question he just asked, he mentions the memorandum and says it confirms. Now, this might be a specific question, but it should not be an assertion on the part of the pubblico ministero, followed by another question. If we look in the minutes, we find a series of unilateral declarations which all go to show what interests the pubblico ministero. To my mind, this mentality goes against our way of examining the accused. I just want to make this clear.
    GCM:  All right, taking into account these remarks, the pubblico ministero’s question remains. It could be rephrased like this: during the 5th and the 6th, you said there were pressures, and the name of Patrick Lumumba emerged as also being involved in these events. But as the pubblico ministero notes, you then you wrote the memorandum spontaneously. We heard that you yourself asked for paper to be able to write it.
    AK:  Certainly.
    GCM:  And writing with this liberty, you even referred to it as a gift, these elements which had already emerged, you reasserted them, and this involvement of Patrick Lumumba. What the pubblico ministero is asking is: how did you—this question was already asked yesterday—in these different circumstances, you weren’t in the room any more, there wasn’t any pressure, why didn’t the truth somehow get stabilized?
    AK:  Yes, yes. In fact, what happened is that I had literally been led to believe that somehow, I had forgotten something real, and so with this idea that I must have forgotten, I was practically convinced myself that I really had forgotten. And these images, that I was actually forcing myself to imagine, were really lost memories. So, I wasn’t sure if those images were reality or not, but explaining this to the police, they didn’t want to listen to the fact that I wasn’t sure. They treated me as though I had now remembered everything and everything was fine and I could now make a declaration in the tribunal against someone, to accuse someone. I didn’t feel sure about that. I didn’t feel—
    GCM:  Excuse me, but in the memorandum, do you remember what you wrote about Patrick? Because maybe it wasn’t precise…
    GM:  [Interrupting] I want—I want—I want to contest this point. Two points in the memorandum. If I’m not mistaken, you weren’t a witness right then. You had been the object of an arrest warrant. You had been arrested. You know the difference between a suspect and a witness. You weren’t a witness. Not any longer. So in the memorandum—
    CDV?:  One moment—[hard to hear] Does she know the difference?
    GM:  Can I continue? Sorry, avvocato, but I’m asking questions! Can I continue? He’s continually—
    GCM:  Sorry, sorry, go ahead.
    GM:  This is impossible!
    GCM:  Please, pubblico ministero, go ahead, go ahead.
    GM:  I am interrogating. I am interrogating. Now I’m distracted. Now, the difference between a suspect and a witness—a person informed of the facts. You said: “I made these declarations so that I could leave, so I could be—” but instead, you were arrested. And you wrote the memorandum after you had been arrested. And you wrote two sentences: I’ll read them. “I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick.” [In Italian: “I confirm…”] Do you know what the word “confirm” means in Italian? “In the flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer.” There wasn’t any policeman with you when you wrote that. No one. You wrote that in complete liberty. Do you know how to explain to me why? And this is even more decisive than what you said some hours earlier. Can you explain this?
    AK:  I couldn’t even explain to myself why I had these images in my head, because I didn’t know if they were memories or not. And I want to say that if I made these declarations, that they asked me to sign and everything, I did it, but I wanted in the memorandum to explain my doubt, this fact that I wasn’t sure about it, because no one ever wanted to listen when I said listen, I don’t know.
    GCM?:  Effectively the memorandum was correcting what had been said, and these doubts arose.
    GM:  Do you have lapses of memory? At that time did you ever have lapses of memory?
    AK:  Did I have what?
    GM:  Lapses of memory.
    AK:  Oh, lapses of memory.
    GM:  Lapses of memory. Moments where you couldn’t remember things that you had done. “What did I do yesterday? I don’t know.”
    AK:  [Laughing] I’ve had that problem all my life.
    GM:  What?
    AK:  I’ve had that problem all my life. I can’t remember where I put my keys.
    GM:  So it happened to you at other times? Explain it to me. You previously mixed up things, didn’t know whether you had dreamed things or they were real?
    AK:  No, not that part about the imagination! I would forget for example what I ate yesterday for dinner, yes, that happened to me, but not to actually imagine things.
    GM:  To imagine something that hadn’t really happened, that never happened to you.
    AK:  No. I never had that problem, but then, I had never been interrogated like that before.
    GM:  Okay, so when you had this flashback, you saw Patrick as the murderer. What was this flashback?
    AK:  The flashback consisted in this image of Patrick’s actual face, not that I imagined an actual act, I imagined his face. Then I had this image of Piazza Grimana, then an image of Patrick’s face, then I always had this idea that they wanted to say: these images explain the fact that you met him, and you brought him home, and maybe you heard something and covered your ears, and it was always like this, not that I actually imagined having seen Meredith’s death. It was these images that came by themselves, to explain…
    GM:  I see. All right. I take note of what you’re saying. Now, let’s talk about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: “I didn’t lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick.” Then you add “But now I know that I can’t know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn’t go home.” Can you explain these concept to me?
    AK:  Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in that moment, I—
    GM:  So what you had said might have actually been true?
    AK:  Yes.
    AK:  Yes, it could have been true, but at that moment. But then, when I was able to rethink the facts, it became clearer and clearer that it didn’t make sense, that it was absolutely ridiculous that I could have thought that or imagined it.
    GM:  But didn’t you feel the need to intervene to get an innocent person out of prison? You didn’t feel the need?
    AK:  But the police had already called me a liar, and I didn’t feel they were listening to me. Also because in the Questura—
    GM:  But you were in prison!
    AK:  But in the Questura, I had already told them: Look, I’m not sure about this, and they didn’t want to hear that. They didn’t want to listen, because they said to me “No, you’ll remember it later. You just need a little time to really remember these facts.” I told them no, I don’t think it’s like that, but they didn’t want to listen.
    GM:  They didn’t believe you. But you, once you said that you remembered, [snaps fingers?] you could have just made a declaration or sent me another memorandum saying “No, I didn’t say the truth. Patrick is innocent.”
    GCM:  Excuse me, we already had explanations about this.

    Posted on 08/31/15 at 11:57 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (26)

    The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About #1

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    Above: Florence Prosecutor Dr Leopoldo Di Girolamo. Quick route to Comments here.

    1. Arrangements For Knox Trial In Florence

    Knox’s second trial for aggravated calunnia will take place later this week and early next week in Florence.

    For the record the sentence for a repeat calunnia offense can be six years and the statute of limitations cuts in at 11 year and three months which in this case will be late in AD 2020.

    The real drama if any will be next week, when witnesses are to be called starting on Monday. We should have some court reporting from Main Poster Machiavelli. There is the possibility of a closed court and a verdict on Tuesday.

    We believe the judge will be Dr Giampaolo Boninsegna. We presume that Knox will not attend (perhaps a weak move, perhaps not).

    Two prosecutors have developed the case which was sparked by complaints from investigators in the Perugia central police station. They are Dr Leopoldo Di Girolamo (image above) and Dr Angela Pietroiusti. We could see either or both of them in action.

    It appears now that knox’s lawyers will again be Ghirga and Dalla Vedova, who some lawyers criticise for dropping her in it at trial with an ill-judged stint on the stand after 20 months of trying to stop Knox dropping herself in it.

    2. Why Knox Was On The Stand in 2009

    Knox’s team primarily primarily intended that Knox’s two days on the stand should serve to explain why she framed Patrick and then allowed him to languish in prison.

    Both publicly to the media and at the Micheli hearings in late 2008 Knox’s lawyers had denied she was ill-treated or forced into a “confession”. So why was Knox put on the stand?

    Probably in part because Knox absolutely insisted on it, given her considerable track record of written and spoken explanations and her interrogation in December 2007 by Dr Mignini. Each time a fail, but perhaps she had in mind the movie Groundhog Day.

    And probably in part because the prosecution portion of the trial had been pretty damning. There had been stacks of evidence and numerous witnesses whose testimony fitted together pretty seamlessly.

    Contrast this with the defense portion of the trial, from late summer onward, which was often awkward and hesitant, often did not fill complete court days, and really gained no ground back.

    3. The Knox Defense Team’s Uphill Task Here

    Bizarrely, Knox AND her lawyers AND her family had already sat through days and days of testimony earlier in the trial from various investigators who were present on 5-6 November when Knox explosively fingered Patrick.

    Knox’s testimony was like night and day compared to that, as if none of that previous testimony had even happened. This was probably unique in Italian legal history and quite possibly in US legal history also.

    Our ongoing Interrogation Hoax series, still far from complete, which has included a lot of new translation, showed what a very consistent picture of events on 5-6 Nov all these witnesses testified to.

    Testimony led by Knox’s team (see below) was quite extensive but it tellingly wandered far from the main point and was very pussyfooting about 5-6 Nov even though Knox was not under oath and prosecutor cross-examination was circumscribed. It really won no points for Knox at all and didnt avoid her serving three years.

    To consider the target testimony below against the picture the court had already developed, please read at least Part One of the series.

    Look below as you read for all the numerous claims by Knox of illegal pressure and illegal abuse and illegal insistence of scenarios and names given to her by the cops.

    According to the prior testimony of all those officers Knox is impugning, none of these claims of illegality seemingly designed to hurt careers had any truth at all to them.

    4. Day One of Knox’s Testimony

    Day two’s testimony will follow in our next post. Excerpts in both posts are from the full transcript on the Case Wiki, and all transcription and translation into English (a massive task) was by the PMF Team.

    Relevant Questions By Lumumba Lawyer Pacelli

    Here AK is Knox, CP is Pacelli, and GCM is Judge Massei.

    CP:  Listen, let’s get to the evening of November 1. On the evening of November 1, 2007, did you have an appointment with Patrick near the basketball court?
    GCM:  [Interrupting the interpreter who is putting this question into English for Amanda] Excuse me, excuse me. Also for the interpreter, also the English translation, everything is for everyone, this is not a dialogue between two people.
    CP:  I’ll ask a simpler question, Presidente.
    GCM:  No no, we heard it. Please, go ahead. [The interpreter translates the question]
    AK:  No, I didn’t.
    CP:  So, on the evening of November 1, you didn’t meet Patrick?
    AK:  No.
    CP:  You didn’t meet him at the basketball court?
    AK:  No.
    CP:  Then why did you say you met him at the basketball court during your interrogation of November 6, 2007, at 1:45 in the morning in front of the judicial police?
    AK:  It was a complicated situation. I can explain it if you want me to go into it.
    CP:  Yes, yes, later.
    AK:  Okay.
    CP:  You had the keys of the apartment in via della Pergola?
    GCM:  Excuse me, avvocato, she was saying something.
    CP:  Sorry. Please, go ahead.
    GCM:  She was adding something. Please go ahead. You can answer…
    AK:  Okay.
    GCM:  ...with all the time and the precision that you need.
    AK:  Okay.
    GCM:  [addressing the interpreter] Tell her that if she wants to add something, as it seemed she did, she can do it, and we will listen. [Interpreter puts this into English]
    AK:  Yes. Um, the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving in the police office, I didn’t expect to be interrogated at all. When I got there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that they had been asking me days…all these days ever since it happened. For instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and I said I still didn’t know, and so what they did is, they brought me into another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn’t remember doing. That’s when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone. [Sigh] So I was there, and they told me that I was trying to protect someone, but I wasn’t trying to protect anyone, and so I didn’t know how to respond to them. They said that I had left Raffaele’s house, which wasn’t true, which I denied, but they continued to call me a stupid liar. They were putting this telephone in front of my face going “Look, look, your message, you were going to meet someone”. And when I denied that, they continued to call me a stupid liar. And then, from that point on, I was very very scared, because they were treating me so badly and I didn’t understand why. [Sigh] While I was there, there was an interpreter who explained to me an experience of hers, where she had gone through a traumatic experience that she could not remember at all, and she suggested that I was traumatized, and that I couldn’t remember the truth. This at first seemed ridiculous to me, because I remembered being at Raffaele’s house. For sure. I remembered doing things at Raffaele’s house. I checked my e-mails before, then we watched a movie. We had eaten dinner together, we had talked together, and during that time I hadn’t left his apartment. But they were insisting upon putting everything into hourly segments, and since I never look at the clock, I wasn’t able to tell them what time exactly I did everything. They insisted that I had left the apartment for a certain period of time to meet somebody, which for me I didn’t remember, but the interpreter said I probably had forgotten. [Sigh]...
    AK:  So what ended up happening was, that they told me to try to remember what I apparently, according to them, had forgotten. Under the amount of pressure of everyone yelling at me, and having them tell me that they were going to put me in prison for protecting somebody, that I wasn’t protecting, that I couldn’t remember, I tried to imagine that in some way they must have had…it was very difficult, because when I was there, at a certain point, I just…I couldn’t understand [Start of 15:19 minute video segment] why they were so sure that I was the one who knew everything. And so, in my confusion, I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said. They continued to say that I had met somebody, and they continued to put so much emphasis on this message that I had received from Patrick, and so I almost was convinced that I had met him. But I was confused.
    CP:  But—did you really meet him at the basketball court?
    AK:  No.
    CP:  Then how could you be convinced that you had met him?
    AK:  I was confused.
    CP:  When you said this, how many police inspectors were present?
    AK:  I don’t know how many were police officers or inspectors, but there were lots.
    CP:  Listen, but you were accompanied to the bar, they offered you a cappuccino over the night? They assisted you through the night?
    AK:  I was offered tea after I had made declarations.
    CP:  So they treated you well.
    AK:  No!

    On November 6, 2007, at 1:45, you said that you went to the house in via della Pergola with Patrick. Did you go?
    AK:  The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were suggested by the public minister.
    CP:  Excuse me, but at 1:45, the pubblico ministero was not there, there was only the judicial police.
    AK:  Ha. They also were pressuring me.
    CP:  I understand, but were they telling you to say that, too, or did you say it of your own free will.
    AK:  They were suggesting paths of thought. They were suggesting the path of thought. They suggested the journey. So the first thing I said, “Okay, Patrick”. And then they said “Okay, where did you meet him? Did you meet him at your house? Did you meet him near your house?” “Euh, near my house, I don’t know.” Then my memories got mixed up. From other days, I remembered having met Patrick, at Piazza Grimana, so I said “Okay, Piazza Grimana.” It wasn’t as if I said “Oh, this is how it went.”

    GCM:  Please go ahead, avvocato.
    CP: —which is the object of both declarations, the one at 1:45 and the one at 5:45. [Crossing voices.]
    GCM:  It was about facts, though?
    CP:  All right, I’ll reformulate the question. Meredith, before she was killed, did she have sex?
    AK:  I don’t know.
    CP:  Then why, in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45, did you say that Meredith had sex before she died?
    AK:  Under pressure, I imagined lots of different things, also because during the days that I was being questioned by the police, they suggested to me that she had been raped.
    CP:  And the police suggested to you to say this?
    AK:  Yes.
    CP:  And to make you say this, did they hit you?
    AK:  Yes.

    CP:  When you wrote the memorandum, were you hit by police?
    AK:  When?
    CP:  When you wrote the memorandum. Were you hit by police?
    AK:  No.
    CP:  Mistreated?
    AK:  No.
    CP:  Did the police suggest the contents?
    AK:  No.
    CP:  You gave it to them freely?
    AK:  Yes.
    CP:  Voluntarily?
    AK:  Yes.
    CP:  Listen, in this memorandum, you say that you confirm the declarations you made the night before about what might have happened at your house with Patrick. Why did you freely and spontaneously confirm these declarations?
    AK:  Because I was no longer sure what was my imagination and what was real. So I wanted to say that I was confused, and that I couldn’t know. But at the same time, I knew I had signed those declarations. So I wanted to say that I knew I had made those declarations, but I was confused and not sure.
    CP:  But in fact, you were sure that Patrick was innocent?
    AK:  No, I wasn’t sure.
    CP:  Why?
    AK:  Because I was confused! I imagined that it might have happened. I was confused.

    CP:  Did you see Patrick on November 1, yes or no?
    AK:  No.
    CP:  Did you meet him?
    AK:  No.
    CP:  Then why did you say that you saw him, met him, and walked home with him?
    AK:  Because the police and the interpreter told me that maybe I just wasn’t remembering these things, but I had to try to remember. It didn’t matter if I thought I was imagining it. I would remember it with time. So, the fact that I actually remembered something else was confusing to me. Because I remembered one thing, but under the pressure of the police, I forced myself to imagine another. I was confused. I was trying to explain this confusion, because they were making me accuse someone I didn’t want to accuse.

    Relevant Questions By Knox Lawyer Ghirga

    CP:  I’ll repeat my question. On the 10th, you said to your mother: “It’s my fault that he’s here. I feel terrible.” Why didn’t you say this to the pubblico ministero?
    LG?:  I object! He’s already asked this question. And it was answered.
    GCM:  Yes. It was already asked.
    CP:  Yes, but she hasn’t answered!
    LG?:  Yes, she HAS answered!
    CP:  Can she answer? I didn’t understand.
    GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me. Please.
    CP:  I didn’t understand her answer, President. Can you explain?
    GCM:  So, the question was asked and has been asked again because—
    CP:  [speaking over him] Because I didn’t understand the answer!
    GCM: —the defense lawyer has not understood why—in what regards the police, the accused has said that when they came to bring her paper, they said “Oh, another truth,” so her relations with them were such that she did not feel that she could tell them this circumstance. It remains to ask why she did not tell the pubblico ministero. This is what the lawyer is asking. For what concerns the police, we have heard her position and her answer. We’re talking about the period after the 10th of November, when this conversation with the mother was recorded. In what concerns the pubblico ministero, the lawyer is asking you why you didn’t feel the necessity, like with your mother, of telling him that Patrick Lumumba, as far as you were concerned, had nothing to do with all this.
    AK:  We are talking about when I was in front of the judge?
    GCM:  After the 10th of November.
    AK:  Frankly, I didn’t have good relations with the police after that period, nor with the pubblico ministero, because he also had suggested declarations that got written down in the declarations. I didn’t know where to turn. I felt better talking to my defense than to the police.

    LG:  All right, I’ve exhausted this topic. Now, I said we were just coming to the evening when you were called in, or rather when Raffaele was called in to the Questura on Nov 5. Where did you come from? Were you having dinner somewhere? Do you remember?
    AK:  We were at the apartment of a friend of his, who lived near his house, and we were having dinner with them, trying, I don’t know, to feel a bit of normality, when Raffaele was called by the police.
    LG:  Okay. So you went with him in the car, and you came in and they settled you somewhere, and later you were heard.
    AK:  Yes. What happened is that they weren’t expecting me to come. I went somewhere a bit outside near the elevator, and I had taken my homework with me, so I started to do my homework, and then I needed to do some “stretching”, so I did some “stretching”, and that’s when one policeman said something about my flexibility. A comment.
    LG:  Okay. Then you were interrogated, let’s say interrogated, it was just for information. So you were interrogated.
    AK:  Mm.
    LG:  During the interrogation, there were several people in the room, did someone come who was involved in Raffaele Sollecito’s interrogation? He was being interrogated in one place, you in another.
    AK:  So, there were lots and lots of people who came in and went out, and after one had come in and gone out, another policewoman told me that Raffaele said that I went out of the apartment—at least, Raffaele apparently said that I [stammering] had gone out of his house.
    LG:  Okay. And the episode of the text message came later? After this person came in and said that? You don’t remember?
    AK:  Yes, yes. I think it happened after they told me that.
    LG:  Now what interests me is that you should be precise about the term “hit”, because being hit is something…was it a cuff on the head, two cuffs on the head? How precise can you be about this “hitting”?
    AK:  So, during the interrogation, people were standing all around me, in front of me, behind me, one person was screaming at me from here, another person was shouting “No no no, maybe you just don’t remember” from over there, other people were yelling other things, and a policewoman behind me did this to me [you hear the sound of her giving two very little whacks].
    LG:  Once, twice?
    AK:  Twice. The first time I did this, I turned around to her, and she did it again.
    LG:  I wanted to know this precise detail.
    AK:  Yes.
    LG:  After all that, that whole conversation, that you told us about, and you had a crying crisis, did they bring you some tea, coffee, some cakes, something? When was that exactly?
    AK:  They brought me things only after I had made some declarations. So, I was there, they were all screaming at me, I only wanted to leave because I was thinking that my mother was arriving, and I said look, can I have my telephone, because I want to call my mom. They said no, and there was this big mess with them shouting at me, threatening me, and it was only after I made declarations that they started saying “No, no, don’t worry, we’ll protect you,” and that’s how it happened.
    LG:  Then you stayed in the Questura?
    AK:  Yes.
    LG:  Then, at midday, or one o’clock, we don’t know exactly, they brought you a paper called an arrest warrant. When they served you this warrant, it must have been around twelve, one o’clock. Do you remember?
    AK:  So, all papers they brought me to sign, at that point, they were all the same to me, so I can’t even say what I had to sign, arrest warrant, declarations, whatever, because at a certain point, I just wanted to sign and go home.
    LG:  Right. But instead?
    AK:  Instead, no. After a while they told me I had to stay in the Questura, so I had to stay, and I rolled up in a fetal position to try to sleep, on a chair, and I fell asleep, then I woke up, and I was there thinking and some people were going in and out, and during this period of time, I was telling them: “Look, I am really confused, these things don’t seem like what I remember, I remember something else.” And they said “No no no no no, you just stay quiet, you will remember it all later. So just stay quiet and wait, wait, wait, because we have to check some things.” And at that point I just didn’t understand anything. I even lost my sense of time.
    LG:  And I wanted to ask you after how long they took you to prison. At some point there was a car, a police wagon that took you to prison. After how much time was that? You don’t know?
    AK:  Well, I can’t say, but what I can say is that I stayed a while in the Questura, and during that time I kept trying to explain to the police that what I had said was not certain, and they took my shoes during that time and they took some pictures, they undressed me to take the pictures, and so it seemed like a long time.
    LG:  So it was between this time and the time you went to prison that you wrote the memorial?
    AK:  Yes. I wrote it there because, I asked to do it because I was telling them “Listen, you’re not hearing me, give me a piece of paper, and I’ll write this down in English to be sure you understand what I’m saying.” But I couldn’t really say that. I just said “Look, I’ll give you a present.” [Laughs.] It was because I wasn’t really able to speak or understand then. So I wrote that, but after I wrote the first pages, I was in the middle of writing this memorandum, they suddenly said “Hurry up, hurry up, finish because we have to take you to prison.” I stayed there like…I didn’t expect to go to prison, I thought maybe I hadn’t understood. I asked the policemen, the people who were around me, there, “But Why? I haven’t done anything.” And they said “No, it’s just bureaucracy. At least that’s what I understood.
    LG:  All right Amanda, okay. Thank you. So you went to prison and spent the night. When did you write the second memorial?
    AK:  So in prison I again asked for paper, because that’s how I’m used to expressing myself, the way I succeed best, also to organize my thoughts, I needed to write them down. I needed to reorganize all my thoughts, because at that point I was still confused, I still had these images in my memory that finally I understood were a mixture of real images in my memory from other days mixed with imagination. So I needed those pieces of paper, so I could take everything and put it in order.
    LG:  All right, I’ve finished the subject of the night in the Questura. When you made your first declaration, it was without the pubblico ministero. Then he came. Can you tell us if there was some discussion about a lawyer? If you remember, and whatever you remember.
    AK:  So, before they asked me to make further declarations—I really can’t tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing—but at one point I asked if I shouldn’t have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn’t know, but I’ve seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn’t want to collaborate with the police. So they told me no.

    Amanda Knox’s first letter of Nov 9, 2007

    This letter was entered in testimony by Knox’s lawyers on the first day. It was written by Knox to her lawyers around noon on Friday, Nov., 9, three days after her arrest and one day after the Matteini Hearing. Words that are missing from the scan are shown in square brackets.

    Presumably intended to help Knox, it has now become part of her problem.

    Per I Miei Avvocati

    - Amanda Knox (Friday, Nov. 9, 2007)

    Buon giorno Signore Ghirga e Signore Vedova. I’m sorry, but I must write in english to make sure I express myself [cl]early. Please excuse my handicap. I trust you are well, though probably very busy with my case and for this I thank you. What [I] want to provide for you now is help, because I know my position [is] a little confusing. I want to write for you everything I know as best I can and I especially want to tell you about this so-called “confession” that the police received from me. I want to begin with this “confession” because I know it is the most confusing, and so I will begin with that night.

    The night of Monday, November 5th, 2007, and the following early morning of Tuesday, November 6th, 2007, was one of the worst experiences of my life, perhaps the worst. Around 10:30pm or 11pm Raffaele and I arrived at the police station after eating dinner at the apartment of one of Raffaele’s friends. It was Raffaele who the police called, not me, but I came with him to the Questura anyway while he was to be questioned for support, as he had done for me many times. When we arrived he was taken inside and I waited by the elevator and looked through my books while I waited. Not long aftwerward one of the police came and sat by me, wanting to talk with me, supposedly to pass the time. He didn’t tell me he was a police officer. In fact, he said I could tell him whatever I wanted because it wouldn’t matter. At the time I was frustrated and told him so. I thought it was ridiculaous that the police called us in at ridiculous hours of the night and kept us at the police station for hours on end with only vending maschine [sic] food to sustain us, especially since we [wer]e all doing our best to help the police. I had been asked twice to reenter the home of my neighbors and mine, first to witness the blood in the neighbors’ apartment and then to look through [k]nives in mine. I really feared the place. Inside my own home I broke down crying because I couldn’t stand to be inside. These were the reasons for my frustration and I told him so.

    He then wanted to discuss who I thought the murderer could be, but as I had already told them before, since I wasn’t there at my home, I couldn’t have any idea, but [deleted words] he wasn’t satisfied with my answer. Who did I think it was? How would I know? I didn’t know anyone dangerous. Soon I was joined by other police people who only wanted to “talk” but who interrogated me again with the same questions. What males had ever been in my house? Who knew Meredith? Did I have any phone numbers? I gave them all the information I could. Names, phone numbers, descriptions. But it was all giving me a headache. I had already answered these questions before and I was confused as to why the police wanted so much to talk to me. Why me? Why did they keep asking me who I thought the murderer was when I already told them I had no idea?

    And then they brought me inside, because it was “warmer”. I [asked] where Raffaele was and they told me he would be done soon [but] in the meantime they wanted to talk to me. The interrogation process started rather quickley [sic]. One minute I was just [tal?]king and the next they were asking me where I was between [?]:30pm and 1:30am between November [1st] and 2nd. I told them I was with my boyfriend, like I had already said. They asked me what I had done during this time period and I found that I couldn’t remember a lot. I told them [we] watched the movie Amelie together, that we ate dinner [tog]ether, that after dinner Raffaele washed the dishes and spilled water on the floor when the pipes came loose. I told them that [we] smoked hash somewhere in that time but I couldn’t remember [mo]re. They told me I was lying. They told me they knew I had [not] been with Raffaele. They told me they knew I met someone that night. They told me they had proof I was at my house that night. This really confused me. I told them I wasn’t lying and [the]y began to get angry. Stop telling lies, they told me. We know [you] were there! But this didn’t make sense. I was frightened, because I couldn’t for the life of me remember what I did during the time [the]y were asking me. What were you doing?! Where did you go?! We [kno]w you were at your house!! Who did you meet?! But this all [did]n’t make any sense. How could they have proof that I was at my [hou]se when I wasn’t? Why did they think these things? Why me? They told me Raffaele had finally told the truth and that he had no [rea]son to lie. They told me that they knew I had told Raffaele to [lie?] and I told them this wasn’t true. I had never told him any [suc]h thing. We talked about the message I received from Patrik [and] I told them yes, I received a message from Patrik, he told me [not] to go into work that night because there was no one there. I [did]n’t remember if I had sent a message back, so I said no, but they [had] taken my phone and showed me the message I forgot I sent: [ending?] with the words, “Ci vediamo. Buona serata.” They called me a [stu]pid lier. They said I was protecting someone, who was it?! [The]y stuck pieces of paper in front of me, to write down the name [of] the murder, but I didn’t know. And I still couldn’t remember [wha]t me and Raffaele had been doing at his house. I had nothing to [say?] to answer their questions and it was terrifying me. Why couldn’t [I r]emember. The interpretor told me that one time she experienced [a ho]rrible car accident and couldn’t remember what had happened [unt]il a year later. She told me perhaps I had seen something [horr]ible and I couldn’t remember. Since I couldn’t remember [wha]t I had been doing at Raffaele’s house I started to think what [...?] was true? What if I had seen something and I didn’t [rem]ember? But it didn’t make sense. I remembered being [at] Raffaele’s the whole night. But in the meantime the police were [...?] or they were going to put me in jail for [...?] [p]rotecting the killer. They told me they had already caught the killer [a]nd they just wanted me to say his name, but I knew nothing. My [m]ind was a blank slate. Now, now, now!!! They were yelling at me. One [p]olice officer hit me on the back of my head twice. My head was [s]earching for any answer. I was really confused. I thought I was at my boyfriend’s house, but what if it wasn’t true? What if I couldn’t remember? I tried and tried and tried, but I couldn’t remember anything until all of the police officers left the room except one. He [to]ld me he was the only one who could save me from spending the [n]ext 30 years in jail and I told him I couldn’t remember. I asked to see the message on my phone to see if I remembered sending that [an]d when I saw the message my mind thought of Patrik. It was all I could think of, Patrik. I imagined meeting him by the basketball [cou]rts, I imagined him in front of my house, I imagined covering my ears to stop the sound of Meredith’s screaming, and so I said [Pa]trik. I said Patrik and I regret every second of it because now I [k]now that what I have said has done someone harm that I have no idea whether he was involved or not.

    After I said his name I was hysterical. I was weeping, [s]cared of what could have happened to me. I honestly thought [t]his could have been the answer. I was so confused. They told me that they had to write all of this down but I told them I wasn’t [s]ure. So they told me just to say what I had said, that I had seen [Pat]rik. That I had heard Meredith screaming. I told them I was [c]onfused, unsure, but they weren’t interested. While they were writing my so-called “confession”, which the didn’t call it [t]o me, they asked me to say if it was okay to write certain things. I [d]dn’t explain, but just said yes or no according to what these [im]ages of Patrik were showing me, but I always told them I wasn’t [su]re, these things didn’t seem real. They asked me why he had done [thi]s and I didn’t know why. Why would anyone kill another person? [I] told them he must be crazy. They asked me if I feared him and I [sa]id yes. I was so confused and the idea that he would kill someone [fr]ightened me. But I had never been frightened of him before, he has [al]ways been kind to me. After all of this I was allowed to sleep, [fi]nally. The whole thing was going through my head and I felt [aw]ful, to even think I could have been involved. But the more [confu]sed I became, the more sure I was that these ideas about Patrik [w]eren’t true, but I still couldn’t remember what I had been [do]ing at my boyfriend’s house after dinner.

    I seriously started to doubt when the police told me what my boyfriend had said. (1) First, that when I received the message from [Pat]rik, that I had told him I had to leave to go to work. This I [k]new, even then, wasn’t true. I remembered and still do specifically [th]at I had told him I _didn’t_ have to work and I kissed him and [...]

    [...] said, “Yay!” (2) I also never told him to lie for me. Why would he lie? Could he have lied about me not being there too? I was especially troubled by this because even though I had thought of Patrik, I still remembered being at Raffaele’s house. I told the police of my doubts but they said not to worry, little by little, I would remember. So I waited.

    I tried writing what I could remember for the police, because I’ve always been better at thinking when I was writing. They gave me time to do this. In this message I wrote about my doubts, my questions, and what I knew to be true.

    [Deleted words] During this time I was checked out by medics [and?] had my picture taken as well as more copies of my fingerprints. They took my shoes and my phone. I wanted to go home but they told me to wait and then eventually that I was to be arrested. Then I was taken here, to the prison, in the last car of three who carried Patrik, then Raffaele, and then me to prison.

    I hope this clears up some confusion for you and I’m sorry again that it is in English. I hope you are in contact with my mother and if you are, could you please tell her I love her, that I miss her, that I’m okay, and that I hope to see her soon.

    I also just received the order of arrest and it says I must remain here in prison for one year. I’m assuming this means only if they can prove I did it or not. So I’m not sad, I just have to wait until they prove I’m not guilty, and that I wasn’t there.

    I want to write another message for you which describes my version of events that at this time I remember very well. This I will do on a different piece of paper and a little later because I’m very tired.

    Good luck and thanks,
    Amanda Knox
    quasi mezzogiorno
    Venerdi, Novembre 9, 2007

    Part 2 (Day Two) in our next post.

    Posted on 08/31/15 at 09:07 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (15)

    Friday, August 28, 2015

    Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #4

    Posted by Chimera

    Also Implacably Nasty… Click here to go straight to Comments.

    1. Overview Of This Post

    My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

    Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

    I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. And Post #3 disected pages 108 to 172.

    2. Dissection Of Pages 173 to 207.

    [Chapter 15, Page 173] ‘’ ... Her empathy and advice always made me feel on safe ground. I didn’t really get into trouble in high school, but I knew that if I did, she would support me through the situation. When I was at odds with myself, she’d reassure me that I was worthy of a happy life….’‘

    • Hate to break it to you, but this isn’t like getting detention in high school.

    [Chapter 15, Page 173] ‘’ ... Now my no-questions-asked, I’ll-come-help-you-wherever-you-are mother sat across from me in an empty room in Capanne Prison. This time she couldn’t just make it all go away. She couldn’t do anything but comfort me….’‘

    • So, were you talking face to face, or was it over a telephone?

    • Funny, in the book you don’t mention how you told your Mom ‘‘I was there’’ and that Patrick was innocent.  Oops.

    • She couldn’t make it all go away? Are you a child?  No doubt you wanted her to.

    [Chapter 15, Page 174] ‘’ ... “I’m so sorry, Mom. I’m so sorry,” I moaned. “I didn’t mean for any of this to happen.”

    I had so much to explain. After four days of being ordered around and ignored, I was finally in front of the one person who had always listened. But I worried that the overwhelming need I’d felt to tell the police what they wanted to hear wouldn’t make sense to anyone who had never been pushed so far. How could I explain it to her when I didn’t even understand it myself? More than anything, I needed my mother to believe me….’‘

    • Four days of being ordered around and ignored?  Didn’t you say you wanted to stay in Perugia to help the police?  Didn’t you go to class Monday morning, and spent the evening with Raffaele and a friend?

    • Didn’t the police ask only for Raffaele that night—and that you had to beg them to let you in.  Didn’t you say that in that first time at the Questura, they kept EVERYONE from the house: You, Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, the other men downstairs?

    • Tell the police everything?  Like how Meredith had her f***ing throat cut? She f***ing bled to death? That she screamed? That she was moved?  Is that what you mean by telling the police everything?

    • Yeah, you probably DID need Mom to believe you.  She likely wouldn’t mortgage your house if you said you did it?

    [Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... I went through my interrogation with her step by step—the repeated questions, the yelling, the threats, the slaps. I explained to her how terrified I’d felt…’‘

    • Really, did you include the account (like in Chapter 10, about (Mayor) Mignini ‘‘interrogating’’ you, even when he was not there?

    • Out of curiosity, you claim that you barely spoke Italian (though you evidently learn VERY quickly).  You also said there was no interpreter, (even though Anna Donnino testified that she did act as an interpreter for you).  So, how do you know they were threatening you?

    • These ‘‘slaps’’ ... were you ‘‘beaten’’ by the police, or did it ‘‘only frighten’’ you?  It can’t really be both.

    • And as for being hit, your own lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, said publicly you were not hit.  Was he lying?

    • Why did Dalla Vedova ‘‘omit’’ your ‘‘beatings’’ by police in your ECHR complaint?

    [Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... “I didn’t come up with those things on my own,” I said. “I told them I’d been with Raffaele all night at his apartment. But they demanded to know whom I’d left to meet, who Patrick was, if I had let him into the villa. They insisted I knew who the murderer was, that I’d be put in jail for thirty years if I didn’t cooperate.”

    • Actually, you said (over the telephone, this was recorded) ‘‘I cannot lie. I was there.’’  What did you mean by that?

    • Actually, they wanted to know Raffaele removed his alibi for you, as any police officer would wonder.

    • They didn’t wonder who Patrick was.  You gave them his name.

    • A touching mother/daughter moment.  But you still leave you the part where you tell your mom Patick is innocent, and she does nothing.

    [Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... I told her that I had signed the witness statements out of confusion and exhaustion, that as soon as I had a few minutes by myself, I realized that what I’d said under pressure might be wrong. “I thought I could fix my mistake by explaining it in writing,” I said. “Instead, they arrested me.”

    • Seriously?  Did you actually read those witness statements?

    • The first time you are quite clear you left Raffaele to meet Patrick, and he killed her. (but you omit it from your book)

    • The second one you say you you were there when Patrick killed Meredith, Raffaele might be there (but you omit it from your book)

    • The third one you say that your mind is making things up, but that you might have been there with Patrick

    • You also didn’t include your November 4th ‘‘mass email’‘, which contradicts most of what the other statements say.

    • And of course, these ‘‘written statements’’ contradict everything you said in all your other police statements.

    • So, how does you writing statements do anything but muddy the waters?  Unless that is your goal…

    [Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... The immense burden I’d been carrying by myself lifted. I felt light-headed with relief. It was the first time since before my arrest that I’d talked to someone who knew I was innocent, who believed in me. I had longed to hear that for days—from anyone! Of course it came from the most important person in my life….’‘

    • Umm… did you forget this passage from chapter 13, page 122?

    ‘’ I tried to answer, to say, “I’m okay,” but I couldn’t stop the surge of tears. Lupa asked her colleague to unlock the door and came inside. She squatted in front of me and took my cold hands in her large ones and rubbed them. “You have to stay strong,” she said. “Everything will be figured out soon.”

    • So is Agente Lupa the first person who ‘‘knew’’ you were innocent, or was it your Mom?

    • And for someone ‘‘keeping notes’’ in prison, how did you miss something like this?

    [Chapter 15, Page 176] ‘’ ... Since the hearing, I’d realized that she couldn’t mamma-bear me out of prison. “Now I’ll have to stay here until the prosecutor figures out there isn’t any evidence against me—that I wasn’t at the scene of Meredith’s murder.”

    Mom squeezed my hands reassuringly. “I promise everything’s going to be okay, Amanda. It’s not your fault that the police scared you—you tried to fix things.”

    • No, the jails would likely be empty if ‘‘Mamma-Bearing’’ could get people out.

    • Stay until the prosecutor figures out there isn’t any evidence?  You gave false alibis, had your alibi pulled, make a Susan Smith style false accusation, let slip several personal details of the crime, and wrote statements saying you were there.  There is evidence against you.

    • And ‘‘wait until the prosecutor figures out’‘, as in what, identifies Guede from the traces you left?

    • Yes, Amanda did try to ‘‘fix things’‘.  Patrick was hauled out in handcuffs because of it.

    [Chapter 15, Page 177] ‘’ ... “I’ll be back in a few days—as soon as they let me,” Mom said. “Carlo and Luciano will come talk to you again, and your dad is flying over. This is all a big misunderstanding, and it will get fixed. We’ll be here with you for as long as it takes. We’ll get through this together. I love you so much.”

    • Carlo (Vedova) and Luciano (Ghirga)?  Wasn’t there someone named Giancarlo Costa who represented you for a while?  Is he still left out?  You remember the topics you and Raffaele discussed the night Meredith was murdered, but not who your lawyers were at the time?

    • ’‘It will get fixed’‘?  Uh… are you looking through the ‘‘business Judge’’ directory?

    [Chapter 15, Page 177] ‘’ ... My imprisonment didn’t change the dynamic between Mom and Dad. They didn’t suddenly seem like close friends. They didn’t show affection for each other. They both focused on me. But it made me swell with love for my parents to see that even though they were marked by their failed marriage, they were able to create a united front.

    They’d arranged this visit together. They were talking to Luciano and Carlo together…’‘

    • Still no Giancarlo Costa?

    • Well, you have screwed up your family’s life, but at least you gave them some purpose.  Kudos.

    • No affection?  What, you’d think they are divorced or something.

    • So, when are we going to hear about dad hiring Marriott Gogerty?

    [Chapter 15, Page 178] ‘’ ... Capanne made eight hours available for visitors each month—on Tuesdays and Saturdays—but the prison allowed each prisoner only six visits. This infuriated my parents, who wanted to be there each time the prison was open to outsiders. It made me crazy, too. Eventually Carlo and Luciano were able to arrange eight colloqui a month, and sometimes nine, by pleading with the prison authorities that my family had to come so far to see me. Even with the bumped-up hours, the amount of time I was able to spend with the people I loved was such a tiny fraction of the thousands of hours I was locked up, trapped among strangers…’‘

    • So, the claims that you got special privileges .... you are already getting extra visiting time.

    • Yes, visiting generally is a lot less time than the rest of the day.  That is why it is called visiting time.

    [Chapter 15, Page 179] ‘’ ... Without them, I think I would have had a complete breakdown. I would not have been able to survive my imprisonment.

    Before my parents left together that first time, Mom grasped my hands again, leaned toward me, and, tears brimming, said urgently, “Amanda, I’d do anything to take your place. Your job now is to take care of yourself. I’m worried for you being here.”

    Her words underscored what we all knew: that while my parents had my back, they couldn’t take care of me from day to day. I had to navigate prison alone. For other prisoners, the key to survival was to find someone to bond with, and that person would protect you and guide you through. But there was no one like me, no one I could confide in, no one whom I could trust to take me under her wing…’‘

    • According to claims from ex-prisoners, and guards, you survived quite well, never cried, never needed medication, were never depressed

    • Also, according to the same sources, you avoided making friends, preferring to enjoy your reading.  Comments?

    • Did you make any complaints when the U.S. State Department visited you?

    [Chapter 16, Page 181] ‘’ ... In spite of all that had happened, I believed that the police, the prosecutor, a judge —some official—would look at the facts and realize how wrong they’d been. They’d be jolted by the obvious: that I was incapable of murder. Surely someone would see that there was no evidence. My belief that my imprisonment was temporary was all that kept me from being overwhelmed. I guess my faith in eventual justice is what psychologists call a coping mechanism…’‘

    • Wrong?  You summarized the Matteini Report fairly well, and there is a lot to keep you there.

    • So, if someone is ‘‘incapable of murder’‘, do we let her go, all evidence to the contrary?

    • Now you say ‘‘surely they would see there is no evidence’‘?

    • This is very ‘‘Ted Simon-like’’  Your Honour, there is no evidence, but if there was, she is incapable of murder.

    • Faith?  More like delusion, or things you mind makes up.

    [Chapter 16, Page 182] ‘’ ... In the days after Meredith’s death I’d insisted on staying in Perugia. Back then, going home meant defeat. But my wants flipped with my arrest. Now the only thing that mattered was to reclaim my life in Seattle. I considered what I would do once my ordeal was over—how I’d rebuild myself, whether I’d live with Mom or find a place of my own, whether I’d go back to school or get a job, how much I wanted to reunite with the people I loved…’‘

    • Going home meant defeat? How, as in fleeing rather than fooling the police?

    • Okay, so since fooling them didn’t work,. now you want to go back to your old life?

    • How to rebuild yourself?  Well, you’ll probably qualify for social security by the time you get out.

    • How to reunite?  Here’s a tip: Don’t stab them.

    [Chapter 16, Page 182] ‘’ ... A guard gave me an order form for groceries and other basics—ranging from salt to sewing needles—and a libretto, an eight-and-a-half-by-eleven-inch piece of paper folded in half with a handwritten spreadsheet inside to track what I spent. I had two hundred euros—about three hundred dollars—in my prison account from the purse/book bag they’d impounded upon my arrival. The order form was divided into three columns for the name of the item, the code number, and the quantity. Gufa badgered me to buy her a camp stove and a coffeemaker, but I refused to order so much as a carton of milk. I’d be gone before it reached its expiration date…’‘

    • Yes, you did have a lot of money on you. Coincidently, Meredith was missing a lot of money.

    • Gufa badgered you?  Hmm… does she speak English, or are you fluent in Italian yet?

    [Chapter 16, Page 183] ‘’ ... Getting me out of jail was the first priority whenever I talked to Carlo and Luciano. Their take was that when the media frenzy died down in a couple of weeks, a judge would probably put me under house arrest, either with my family or in a religious community. Then, when the prosecution saw they had no evidence against me, they would let me go…’‘

    • Still no Giancarlo? Hmmmm.

    • So, the media attention influences how courts rule?  Seems you tried that in the U.S.

    • You are charged with sexual assault and murder, and the judge will ‘‘probably put you under house arrest’‘?

    • So, you still think that the prosecution is based on nothing?  Surely you would scream out to be heard, even in Capanne.  Funny, inmates said that you refused to ever talk about Meredith and your case.

    [Chapter 16, Page 186] ‘’ ... Early on, I started keeping a journal, which I titled “Il mio diario del prigione”—“My Prison Diary”—on the cover:

    My friend was murdered. My roommate, my friend. She was beautiful, smart, fun, and caring and she was murdered. Everyone I know is devastated for her, but we are also all at odds. We are angry. We want justice. But against who? We all want to know, but we all don’t . . .

    Now there’s the sound of women wailing through bars and the sounds of wheels of the medicine carts rolling down the hard floors of the echoing halls.’‘

    • Your ‘‘friend’’ was murdered?  Do you ever mention Meredith by name?

    • ’‘She was beautiful, smart, fun, caring’‘?  Are you rehashing your November 4th, 2007 mass email?

    • “everyone is devastated for her, but we are also at odds?  We want justice. But against who?”  Probably whoever murdered her.

    • “We all want to know, but we all don’t…’’  Well, the murderer(s) probably don’t want that, but everyone else sure does

    • Yes, people wailing can be so annoying.  Can’t they just get on with their lives?

    [Chapter 16, Page 186] ‘’ ... But I spent most of my time sitting on my bed wondering what was happening beyond the sixty-foot-high walls topped with coiled razor wire. What were my parents and family and friends doing and thinking? What was happening with the investigation? How long would it take to examine the forensic evidence that would clear me? ...’‘

    • You know, there are many kinds of non-forensic evidence, and they don’t clear you.

    • The evidence would clear you?  You mean Rudy’s handprint?

    [Chapter 16, Page 186] ‘’ ... Underneath every thought there was a bigger, louder one looping through my head. How could I have been so weak when I was interrogated? How did I lose my grip on the truth? Why didn’t I stand up to the police? I’d failed myself, Meredith, Patrick, Raffaele…’‘

    • You failed Meredith by betraying her trust as a roommate, then killing her and robbing her.

    • You failed Patrick by falsely accusing someone decent enough to give you a job, even without a work visa.

    • You failed Raffaele by dragging him into your mess with Meredith, and having him help you out

    • You failed yourself by going on a self destructive path of alcohol, drugs and sex, finally murder.

    • The police didn’t fail you.  All they did was pick up the pieces.

    [Chapter 16, Page 192] ‘’ ... But sometimes what I thought was a kind overture would take an ugly turn. I was required to meet with Vice-Comandante Argirò every night at 8 P.M. in his office—the last order before lights out at 9 P.M. I thought he wanted to help me and to understand what had happened at the questura, but almost immediately I saw that he didn’t care.

    When I ran into him in the hallway he’d hover over me, his face inches from mine, staring, sneering. “It’s a shame you’re here,” he’d say, “because you are such a pretty girl,” and “Be careful what you eat—you have a nice, hourglass figure, and you don’t want to ruin it like the other people here.”

    • This makes for an entertaining read, but did you report it formally?  Even after you left prison?

    [Chapter 16, Page 193] ‘’ ... At first when he brought up sex I pretended I didn’t understand. “I’m sorry—Mi dispiace,” I’d say, shaking my head. But every night after dinner, I felt a knot in the pit of my stomach. I had no choice but to meet with him. After about a week of this behavior, I told my parents what Argirò was saying. My dad said, “Amanda, he shouldn’t be doing that! You’ve got to tell someone!”

    • You know, I might be inclined to believe that this happened, making you uncomfortable ....

    • If you didn’t write in graphic detail about your ‘‘campaign for casual sex’‘

    • If you didn’t write about Meredith’s sex life, and questions about whether she liked anal.

    • If you didn’t write in graphic detail about strip searches.

    • If you didn’t write about how you thought everyone was coming onto you.

    • If you didn’t post your rape story ‘‘Baby Brother’‘.

    • It seems you really enjoy writing and taking about sex.  Makes me doubt this whole section.

    [Chapter 16, Page 194] ‘’ ... Silently, I rehearsed what I would say to him: “These conversations repulse me.” But when we were face-to-face, I balked, settling on something more diplomatic—“Your questions make me uncomfortable,” I said.
    “Why?” he asked.

    I thought, Because you’re an old perv. Instead I said, “I’m not ashamed of my sexuality, but it’s my own business, and I don’t like to talk about it.”

    • Really? Amanda, let me introduce you to a book called ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘.  This woman publishes a memoir about her supposed wrongful imprisonment and conviction in Italy.  Rather than provide a clear account of what happened to her roomate, she describes in great detail random encounters with Cristiano (or was it a drug dealer named Frederico)? Mirko, Bobby, and later Raffaele.  She also writes (publishes), speculation about the sex lives of the women she lives with.  She also goes on about a bunny vibrator she keeps.  She also writes in detail about being strip searched.

    • And this guy is the creepy perv?

    [Chapter 16, Page 194] ‘’ ... Luciano looked revolted, and Carlo urged me, “Anytime Argirò calls you alone into an office, tell him you don’t want to speak with him. He could be talking about sex because Meredith was supposedly the victim of a sexual crime and he wants to see what you’ll say. It could be a trap.”

    • Seriously?  This type of treatment of a prisoner is illegal (male or female), and regardless of the country.

    • Your lawyers, if they knew this was going on, would be legally obligated to report it.  Why didn’t they?

    • Ghirga and Vedova ‘‘know’’ that you are being preyed on, but don’t make a formal complaint?  Or is this like the ‘‘beating’’ from Rita Ficarra, which Ghirga denies ever happened?

    [Chapter 16, Page 195] ‘’ ... One night, Argirò asked me if I dreamed about sex, if I fantasized about it.

    Finally I got up my courage. I took a deep breath. “For the last time,” I said, my voice pitched, “No! Why are you constantly asking me about sex?”

    • Are we sure the roles are not reversed here?

    [Chapter 17, Page 197] ‘’ ... Vice-Comandante Argirò broke the news. Instead of his usual greeting—a lecherous smile and a kiss on both cheeks—he stayed seated behind his desk. His cigarette was trailing smoke. His face was somber. Something was wrong….’

    • If this were actually true, it would be (yet another) sexual assault, and abuse of power.  Did you report it? No? Even tell your lawyers? No?

    [Chapter 17, Page 197] ‘’ ... He pushed a printout of an Italian news article toward me. It took me a minute to translate the headline: “Murder Weapon Found—With DNA of Victim and Arrested Suspect Knox.” Beneath was a fuzzy photograph of a kitchen knife and the words “A knife has been found in Sollecito’s apartment with Knox’s DNA on the handle and the victim’s DNA on the blade. Investigators believe it to be the murder weapon.” That doesn’t make sense. I must have read it wrong.

    I made myself start over, slowly rereading the story, checking each word as I went. By the end I knew language wasn’t the barrier.

    Argirò glared at me cruelly.  “Do you have anything to say?” he asked.  “It’s impossible!” I blurted. “I didn’t kill Meredith! I’m innocent! I don’t care what the article says! It’s wrong!”

    “It’s proof,” Argirò said, smirking. “Your fingerprints. Her DNA.”  “I don’t know anything about a knife,” I said. “You can’t prove that I’m guilty when I’m innocent.”

    The short conversation ended in a stalemate. I glowered at him.  “Why don’t you go back to your cell and think about what you want to say,” Argirò said….’‘

    • Wow, you ‘‘barely speak the language’‘, yet you are reading newspaper articles, and answering questions in Italian?

    • Um… language was NEVER the barrier, only your lack of humanity.

    [Chapter 17, Page 198] ‘’ ... Investigators were claiming that I’d been responsible for holding Meredith down while either Patrick or Raffaele cut her throat, that I’d pressed so hard on Meredith’s face during the attack I’d left an imprint of my fingers on her chin. The police said that because the bruises were small, they’d come from a woman’s fingers, even though that’s not how it works. “It isn’t like a fingerprint,” Carlo explained. “You can’t tell the size of the hand by the size of the bruise. It depends on the circumstances and the pressure.”

    • Still waiting for Giancarlo Costa (who was at Knox’s December 17th questioning) to make his entrance.

    • Okay, last time I will ask, what language were you and Luciano, and ‘‘Carlo’’ speaking in?

    [Chapter 17, Page 198] ‘’ ... This was another example of the prosecution misinterpreting evidence so it would put me at the murder scene and discounting the things that didn’t fit into their explanation. They had done the same thing a few days before, when they circulated the idea that only a woman would have covered Meredith’s ravaged body with a blanket. A few years later I learned that this is something first-time killers also often do. The detectives didn’t mention how improbable it is for a woman to commit a violent crime, especially against another woman. Nor did they acknowledge that I didn’t fit the profile of a violent woman. I’d never been in a gang; I had no history of violence…’‘

    • Misinterpreting evidence?  You have always said there was no evidence.  Which is it?

    • So, the prosecutors have this silly notion that a woman might show compassion by covering Meredith?  Guess you’ll show them.

    • Improbable or not, the police have to go on the evidence, not what bias and ‘‘statistics’’ say.  Women do harm other women.

    • You don’t have to fit the ‘‘profile’’ to be found guilty if there is evidence.

    • You don’t have to be a gangbanger to kill.

    • Rock throwing riot aside, you don’t have to have a violent past to kill once.

    • Why are you so obsessed with how you appear, and what kind of ‘‘profile’’ you have?

    [Chapter 17, Page 199] ‘’ ... In mid-November the press announced that the striped sweater I’d worn the night of the murder was missing, implying I’d gotten rid of it to hide bloodstains. In truth I’d left it on top of my bed when I came home to change on the morning of November 2. The investigators found it in January 2008—in the same spot where I’d taken it off. It was captured in photos taken of my room, which my lawyers saw among the official court documents deposited as the investigation progressed. The prosecution quietly dropped the “missing sweater” as an element in the investigation without correcting the information publicly. Convinced that arguing the case in the media would dilute our credibility in the courtroom, Carlo and Luciano let the original story stand…’‘

    • Well, most killers WOULD get rid of blood stained clothing.

    • Hmm…. you don’t remember details of that night, but you are certain of the shirt you were wearing?

    • Actually, it wasn’t found. The prosecution contends that to this day, the top was never found.

    • Carlo and Luciano let it stand in the media?  Seems they let it stand in court too.

    [Chapter 17, Page 199] ‘’ ... The police leaked this to the local press, and it rippled out from there. If true, it would have contradicted my alibi: I hadn’t left Raffaele’s apartment that night. The local headlines in those days often read “Amanda Smentita”—“Amanda Found in a Lie.” It bolstered the prosecution’s characterization of me as a depraved, deceitful person capable of murder…’‘

    • You are deliberately misconstruing what was said.

    • Being found in a lie doesn’t mean you are a depraved, deceitful person capable of murder, but it does throw into question other things you have said and lead the police to at least question why you are lying.

    • Why do you insist that everyone is trying to portray you as a monster or as depraved? No one did that but you.

    [Chapter 17, Page 200] ‘’ ... The press reported police claims that Raffaele and I had destroyed the hard drives on four computers—his, mine, Filomena’s, and Meredith’s. False…’‘

    • Okay, humour me, what reason did the police say you did this for?  Unless you were emailing murder plans to each other, it could not possibly be related.

    [Chapter 17, Page 200] ‘’ ... Later, when a computer expert examined the computers, he discovered that the police had fried the hard drives. Whether it was on purpose or out of extraordinary incompetence, I never learned. But it’s hard to see how they could inadvertently have wiped out four computers, one after the other. My computer wouldn’t have given me an alibi. All investigators would have found was evidence of Meredith’s and my friendship—pictures from the Eurochocolate festival and of our hanging out at home.

    Journalists reported that the police had confiscated “incriminating” receipts for bleach, supposedly from the morning of November 2. False…’‘

    • So, you suspect the police destroyed exculpatory evidence?  Okay.

    • Your computer wouldn’t give you an alibi, but Raffaele’s would have.  Remember?  He told police that you asked him to lie, and he spent time on the computer while you went out.

    • And while it wouldn’t give YOU an alibi, would it have given Raffaele?

    • Pictures of you and Meredith?  Yet, in the photo section you include a press photo of her.  You aren’t in any photo with Meredith.

    • Seriously?  You claim that ‘‘bleach receipts’‘, without any listing of bleach were used as evidence?

    [Chapter 17, Page 201] ‘’ ... A knife from Raffaele’s kitchen with DNA from both Meredith and me wasn’t possible. In the week I’d known him, I’d used Raffaele’s chef’s knives to cook with, but we had never taken them out of his kitchen…’‘

    • Yet, Raffaele told a story about Meredith coming to his house and cutting her hand while cooking.  He later admitted it was made up.

    • Raffaele also said (in Honor Bound), that he still had visions of Meredith cutting her hand while cooking at his flat.

    • Impossible, why?  Bleach does a better job than that?

    • They weren’t taken from his kitchen?  Was Meredith murdered at Raffaele’s apartment?

    [Chapter 17, Page 202] ‘’ ... I couldn’t believe what they were asking me. “No! It’s impossible!” I shrieked, my body starting to shake. “The police have made a mistake. I never left Raffaele’s that night, I never took a knife from his apartment, and Meredith never visited me there. I didn’t have any reason to be angry with Meredith. And even if we’d had a fight I would have talked to her, not killed her!”

    • Raffaele originally said you two were at a friend’s party.

    • Raffaele said you left his apartment in his November 5, 2007 statement

    • Raffaele claimed he was on his computer (alone), while you were out.

    • Raffaele refused to confirm you alibi at your 2009 trial.

    • Raffaele said you left his apartment in his July 2014 press conference

    • Raffaele said on Porta a Porta, February 2015, that you were not with him that night.

    • You said that you left Raffaele’s went to meet Patrick, and he killed Meredith.

    • You later said that you were at your apartment, Patrick killed Meredith, and Raffaele might be there.

    • You later said your mind was making things up, but you think Patrick might have killed Meredith.

    • You might have talked in a fight, but what if she caught you stealing her rent money?

    • Can’t understand why no one seems to believe you.

    [Chapter 17, Page 202] ‘’ ... Investigators apparently had confiscated the knife—a chef’s knife with a black plastic handle and a six-and-a-half-inch blade—when they searched Raffaele’s apartment after our arrest. It was the only knife they considered out of every location they’d impounded, the top knife in a stack of other knives in a drawer that housed the carrot peeler and the salad tongs. I’d probably used it to slice tomatoes when Raffaele and I made dinner the night Meredith was killed.

    The officer who confiscated the knife claimed that he’d been drawn to it by “investigative intuition.” It had struck him as suspiciously clean, as though we’d scrubbed it. When he chose it, he didn’t even know the dimensions of Meredith’s stab wounds….’‘

    • You are again being disingenuous.  The knife from the crime (while soaked in blood), made a very distinctive impression on the bed.  Police were looking for a knife that could have left that stain.  They knew what they were looking for.

    [Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... The knife was a game changer for my lawyers, who now feared that the prosecution was mishandling evidence and building an unsubstantiated case against me. Carlo and Luciano went from saying that the lack of evidence would prove my innocence to warning me that the prosecution was out to get me, and steeling me for a fight. “There’s no counting on them anymore,” Carlo said. “We’re up against a witch hunt. But it’s going to be okay.”

    • You think the police are framing you?  Pot, meet kettle.

    [Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... I was choked with fear. The knife was my first inkling that the investigation was not going as I’d expected. I didn’t accept the possibility that the police were biased against me. I believed that the prosecution would eventually figure out that it wasn’t the murder weapon and that I wasn’t the murderer. In retrospect I understand that the police were determined to make the evidence fit their theory of the crime, rather than the other way around, and that theory hinged on my involvement. But something in me refused to see this then…’

    • The knife was the first inkling the investigation was not going as you expected?  You mean, they should have arrested Rudy by now?

    • And the first inkling?  Wasn’t being taken to Capanne in handcuffs an earlier inkling?

    • The police were not biased against you.  You and Raffaele told many lies.  You falsely accused an innocent person to divert attention.  Forensic evidence is piling up.  There is no bias here.

    • Police would figure out it wasn’t the murder weapon?  Funny, in your May 2014 with Chris Cuomo, you disputed that knife as being the murder weapon.  How do you know so much more than the police and the courts?  Right, you know which knife you used.

    [Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... My journal must have been what they were looking for, because Meredith’s British girlfriends testified after my arrest that I’d been writing in it in the waiting room at the questura. I had done so to calm myself, but soon the contents were leaked to the press. In it, they found, among other things, my comments about wanting to compose a song in tribute to Meredith. (Ironically, I would later get a bill for the translation of the journal into Italian.) ...’‘

    • Yes, after my ‘‘friend’’ is murdered, I feel like writing how I would kill for a pizza too.

    • You received a fine after you were convicted, not the same thing.

    [Chapter 17, Page 204] ‘’ ... The officer shook his head and laughed derisively. “Another story? Another lie?” he scoffed. He looked at me as if I were the most vile, worthless thing he’d ever laid eyes on. No one had ever stared at me with so much hatred. To him, I was a lying, remorseless murderer. I heaved back great waves of anger but waited to get back to my cell before I broke down at the ugliness of it all—my friend being dead, my being in prison, the police following a cold and irrational trail because they had nothing better…’‘

    • You seem to think that everyone has a nasty impression of you.  Why exactly?

    • Why do you think he made the assumption about you being remorseless?

    • The police had nothing better?  So they framed you to make their lives easier?

    • False alibis, false accusation, inside knowledge of the crime, statements placing you at the scene, DNA evidence ... in a weird way you are right, Amanda, they don’t have anything better on anyone else.

    [Chapter 18, Page 205] ‘’ ... My Italian was still elementary enough that if I wasn’t paying close attention, I couldn’t grasp much of what was being said. I embraced my new routine—do as many sit-ups as I could manage, write, read, repeat—as if ignoring the reports would make me immune to them, that they couldn’t hurt me. I convinced myself that whatever awful things the media were saying about me were irrelevant to the case. It doesn’t matter, I told myself. But in my heart I knew it did…’‘

    • Your Italian was still elementary enough?  Wow, you seem to unlearn it faster than you learn it

    [Chapter 18, Page 206] ‘’ ... I felt violated, indignant that journalists could say or imply anything they wanted, that they could use my photo as a symbol of evil. I now understood the belief in some tribal cultures that having your picture taken robs you of your soul….’‘

    • You felt violated? I wonder what Meredith felt, or was she already dead?

    • You are charged with calunnia, for making false accusations, and you claim the media can say anything?  Pot, meet kettle.

    • No, they used your actions as a symbol of evil.

    • You write a lurid account of your random sex, and you feel violated by the media?  Bull$h1t.

    [Chapter 18, Page 207] ‘’ ... Overnight my old nickname became my new persona. I was now known to the world as Foxy Knoxy or, in Italian, Volpe Cattiva—literally, “Wicked Fox.” “Foxy Knoxy” was necessary to the prosecution’s case. A regular, friendly, quirky schoolgirl couldn’t have committed these crimes. A wicked fox would be easier to convict.

    They were convinced that Meredith had been raped—they’d found her lying on the floor half undressed, a pillow beneath her hips—and that the sexual violence had escalated to homicidal violence.

    They theorized that the break-in was faked.  To make me someone whom a jury would see as capable of orchestrating the rape and murder of my friend, they had to portray me as a sexually deviant, volatile, hate-filled, amoral, psychopathic killer. So they called me Foxy Knoxy. That innocent nickname summed up all their ideas about me…’‘

    • Your nickname is not what convicted you.  Mountains of evidence (which you deny exist), are what convicted you.

    • Woman, half naked, stabbed to death?  Rape and murder is a reasonable suspicion.

    • Did you elaborate on WHY the police thought the break in was staged?  Nothing taken, no glass outside, no evidence of a climb, glass ON TOP of the ransacked items…

    • They don’t have to portray you as anything.  They simply presented evidence.

    • The prosecution did not try to demonstrate you were amoral and psychopathic, just that you were involved in certain crimes

    • They called you ‘‘Foxy Knoxy’‘? That was your MySpace name.

    Posted on 08/28/15 at 11:00 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in The former defendantsAmanda KnoxOther legal processesKnox calunniaFamily/defense hoaxersKnox-Mellas teamLies in Knox book
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (19)

    Tuesday, August 25, 2015

    Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #3

    Posted by Chimera

    Also Implacably Nasty… Click here to go straight to Comments.

    1. Overview Of This Post

    My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

    Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does it muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

    I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107.

    2. Dissection Of Pages 107 to 168

    [Chapter 10 Page 107] ‘’ ... That afternoon at Raffaele’s, I got a text from one of Meredith’s friends—a student from Poland—telling me about a candlelight memorial service for Meredith that night. Everyone was supposed to meet downtown, on Corso Vannucci, at 8 P.M. and walk in a procession to the Duomo. I kept wondering about what I should do. I wanted to be there but couldn’t decide if it was a good idea for me to go to such a public event. I was sure the people I ran into would ask me what I knew about the murder. In the end my decision was made for me—Raffaele had somewhere else to be, and I wouldn’t have considered going alone. It didn’t occur to me that people would later read my absence as another indication of guilt.

    At around 9 P.M. Raffaele and I went to a neighbor’s apartment for a late dinner.  Miserable and unable to sit still, I plucked absentmindedly at his friend’s ukulele, propped on a shelf in the living room. At about ten o’clock, while we were eating,Raffaele’s phone rang. “Pronto,” Raffaele said, picking up…’‘

    • You get a text telling you there is a vigil for your murdered ‘‘friend’‘, and you aren’t sure what you should do?

    • Yes, people might ask about the case, but you had no problem refusing to talk to your classmates about it, correct?

    • Did Raffaele really have somewhere to be?  Why couldn’t you go alone?  You could go with the Polish student who texted you.

    • Or did you simply not want to be confronted by anyone with what really happened, or not respect the victim?

    [Chapter 10, Page17] ‘’... Raffaele said, “We’re just eating dinner. Would you mind if I finished first?”  That was a bad idea, too.

    While we cleared the table, Raffaele and I chatted quickly about what I should do while he was at the police station. I was terrified to be alone, even at his place, and uneasy about hanging out with someone I didn’t know. I could quickly organize myself to stay overnight with Laura or Filomena, but that seemed so complicated—and unnecessary. Tomorrow, when my mom arrived, this wouldn’t be a question we’d have to discuss.

    “I’m sure it’s going to be quick,” Raffaele said.  I said, “I’ll just come with you.”  Did the police know I’d show up, or were they purposefully separating Raffaele and me? When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside, that I’d have to wait for Raffaele in the car. I begged them to change their minds. I said, “I’m afraid to be by myself in the dark.”

    They gave me a chair outside the waiting room, by the elevator. I’d been doing drills in my grammar workbook for a few minutes when a silver-haired police officer—I never learned his name—came and sat next to me. He said, “As long as you’re here, do you mind if I ask you some questions?”

    I was still clueless, still thinking I was helping the police, still unable or unwilling to recognize that I was a suspect. But as the next hours unfolded, I slowly came to understand that the police were trying to get something out of me, that they wouldn’t stop until they had it.

    I’d done this so many times in the questura I felt as if I could dial it in. And finally someone there seemed nice. “Okay,” I said, starting in. “There are the guys who live downstairs.”As I was running through the list of male callers at No. 7, Via della Pergola, I suddenly remembered Rudy Guede for the first time. I’d met him only briefly. I said “Oh, and there’s this guy—I don’t know his name or his number—all I know is that heplays basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced Meredith and me to him in Piazza IV Novembre. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.

    • ”The logic here is a bit convoluted.  Raffaele is called to clear up discrepancies in his alibi, and you assume it is an elaborate plot to lure YOU in?

    • You claim the police thought you were a suspect, yet you had to beg them to let you in, and to stay when you were told to go home to bed?

    • Who was the “silver haired officer”? Did he even exist? There was trial testimony proving this untrue, that Rita Ficarra kept an eye on you and eventually suggest you list possible perps.

    • If you had just been eating very late, and you were brought refreshments, then why complain later about not having been given anything to eat?

    • You admit, once again, that you knew who Rudy Guede was.  Again, why did you say in your December 2013 email to Judge Nencini, that you had never met him?

    • You can see why lying to a judge about not ever meeting your co-accused might be suspicious?

    • You later claim that Guede is a drug dealer.  With what proof? If Guede was a drug dealer, why would he not break into the bottom floor (where the drugs were)?

    • Why did you bring your college homework to the police station?  Did you know Raffaele could be a long time in there?

    • You definitely worked on a list of men who came by the apartment.  In fact you produced a list of 7 names that included: Rudy Guede, Patrick, Shaky, Spyros and Jude.  You drew maps to where they lived.

    • Why did that never appear in your book? How long did this list take to make?  Didn’t you only stop because Raffaele withdrew his alibi for you?

    • Did you ever name Rudy, Patrick, Shaky, Spyros or Jude before? Or as the next hours unfolded?

    • How long was it exactly before Raffaele ‘‘took away your alibi’‘? Just shortly before you finished your first statement at 1:45, right?

    [Chapter 11, Page 125] ‘’ ... I signed my second “spontaneous declaration” at 5:45 A.M., just as the darkness was beginning to soften outside the small window on the far side of the interrogation room…’‘

    • “spontaneous declaration” ? There is no obvious reason for the quotation marks.  It WAS spontaneous made at your own request.  Granted Cassation gave you the benefit of the doubt in excluding it form the main trial, it was completely your own decision to write it.

    [Chapter 11, Page 125] ‘’ ... The room emptied in a rush. Except for Rita Ficarra, who sat at the wooden desk where she’d been all night, I was alone in the predawn hush. Just a few more hours and I’ll see Mom, I thought. We’ll spend the night in a hotel.

    I asked permission to push two metal folding chairs together, balled myself into the fetal position, and passed out, spent. I probably didn’t sleep longer than an hour before doubt pricked me awake. Oh my God, what if I sent the police in the wrong direction? They’ll be looking for the wrong person while the real killer escapes. I sat up crying, straining to remember what had happened on the night of Meredith’s murder. Had I really met Patrick? Had I even been at the villa? Did I make all that up? I was too exhausted, too rattled, to think clearly. I was gripped by uncertainty about what I’d said to the police and the pubblico ministero. I tried to get Ficarra’s attention. “Um, scusi,” I murmured tentatively. “I’m not sure what I told you is right.” “The memories will come back with time,” Ficarra answered mechanically, barely raising her eyes to look at me. “You have to think hard.”

    • Putting the chairs together for you to rest was actually Rita Ficarra’s idea. She and other investigators were trying to calm you down. She never brushed you off as you claim.

    • Prior to this Dr Mignini chaired a hearing specifically to inform you that you were being held and charged and you should say no more without a lawyer - though you did talk and did write statements at 5:45 and noon.

    • The evidence he listed against you was very substantial and was summarised at length in the reports of the Matteini and Ricciarelli hearings and the sharp refusal of the Supreme Court to allow house arrest.

    • What language were you speaking in?  You say that you are alone except for Rita Ficarra and she speaks no English, and you ‘‘virtually have no’’ Italian, and she testified she called for a translator as no progress was made.

    • You are trying to ‘‘frame’’ it as doubt, but you did send the police on a wild goose chase naming numerous new suspects, and you did help your accomplice, Rudy Guede, escape.

    • Just so we are clear: Did you speak with Dr Mignini prior to your second spontaneous declaration only, or prior to the first as well, though he is conclusively proven to have not been there?

    • Your ‘‘account’’ of the fictional questioning by Dr Mignini is so detailed.  How is it you have such ‘‘vague’’ recollections about everything else?

    • You fell asleep?  Was it exhaustion, or knowing the anticipation was over?  Ask any American or Canadian police officer.  Guilty perps who are arrested have no trouble falling asleep.  But the innocent ones can’t.

    [Chapter 11, Page 126] ‘’ ... I tried to weave the images that had flashed in my mind the night before into a coherent sequence. But my memories—of Patrick, the villa, Meredith’s screams—were disjointed, like pieces of different jigsaw puzzles that had ended up in the same box by mistake. They weren’t ever meant to fit together. I’d walked by the basketball court near the villa every day. I’d said, “It was Patrick,” because I saw his face. I imagined him in his brown jacket because that’s what he usually wore. The more I realized how fragmented these images were, the closer I came to understanding that they weren’t actual memories….’‘

    • You are right in one sense.  They were not memories.  Various courts all concluded that they were lies.

    • ’‘I imagined him’‘?  Really, when you are faced with the loss of your alibi you start imagining people?

    • Memories ... of Meredith screaming… You were the first to claim this and it was then was corroborated by several others, strong proof that you were there.

    • So you have memories of Meredith screaming, you walked by the basketball court [where Rudy plays] everyday, and you imagine Patrick’s face?

    [Chapter 11, Page 126] ‘’ ... Suddenly my cell phone, which had been lying on the desk since it was waved in my face, lit up and started ringing. Ficarra ignored this. “Can I please answer it?” I begged.

    “I’m sure it’s my mom; I’m supposed to meet her at the train station. She’ll freak out if I don’t answer.”  “No,” Ficarra said. “You cannot have your phone back. Your phone is evidence.”

    • This is all made up. There is no proof this exchange took place. No call came through. Nobody took your phone, you yourself passed it across several times. You waved ii before the cops.

    • Again, what language are you and Rita Ficarra talking in? Was the translator now there?

    [Chapter 11, Page 127] ‘’ ... Around 2 P.M. on Tuesday—it was still the same day, although it felt as if it should be two weeks later—Ficarra took me to the cafeteria. I was starving. After the interrogation was over they brought me a cup of tea, but this was the first food or drink I’d been offered since Raffaele and I had arrived at the questura around 10:30 P.M. Monday. With my sneakers confiscated, I trailed her down the stairs wearing only my socks. She turned and said, “Sorry I hit you. I was just trying to help you remember the truth.”

    • There is no proof this exchange took place. You were not hit ever by the police. Even your own lawyers confirmed this. The police had no need, and no time after you did the list and maps.

    • Minute to minute it is known what happened, this came out at trial.  In fact, you currently face more calunnia charges for this false accusation among others.

    • This was the first food you had had since last night?  In the 2009 trial, the police testified you were fed and brought drinks several times. You admitted this at trial.

    [Chapter 11, Page 127] ‘’ ... I was still too confused to know what the truth was….’‘

    • That reads very evasive and deceptive. If you were so confused then, and at trial, how is it you have such perfect recall now?

    [Chapter 11, Page 128] ‘’ ... I didn’t want them to think I was a bad person. I wanted them to see me as I was —as Amanda Knox, who loved her parents, who did well in school, who respected authority, and whose only brush with the law had been a ticket for violating a noise ordinance during a college party I’d thrown with my housemates in Seattle. I wanted to help the police track down the person who’d murdered my friend…’‘

    • This is not how anyone in Perugia saw you. It reads like you are a lawyer trying to pitch for leniency at a trial.  “Your Honor, really Ms. Knox is a good person.  She does well in school, loves her family, and her only prior is for making noise.  Please ignore the evidence about the sexual assault and stabbing.”

    • Whether you love your parents is irrelevant. Whether you got good grades or not is irrelevant. Whether you respected authority is irrelevant. The ticket may have been your only police involvement, but you left out the rock throwing which was part of the offense.

    [Chapter 11, Page 128] ‘’ ... What I did not know was that the police and I had very different ideas about where I stood. I saw myself as being helpful, someone who, having lived with Meredith, could answer the detectives’ questions. I would do that as long as they wanted. But the police saw me as a killer without a conscience. It would be a long time before I figured out that our presumptions were exactly the opposite of each other’s….’‘

    • As they testified, the police thought no such thing. At most several of them thought you might be withholding vital information, based on what they overheard, but they were still pursuing numerous other leads.

    • You three statements smacked of desperation given you were really treated well. It doesn’t help that you said you went out alone, or deliberately vague about Raffaele possibly also being there.

    • In previous days the police merely asked you for some routine background about yourself and Meredith.  They also asked where you were at the time, which is standard procedure.  You would only have to do that ‘‘as long as they wanted’’ if you were either lying or being uncooperative.  Remember, you complained (and in this book) that the questioning was excessive, though others were questioned too.

    [Chapter 11, Page 129] ‘’ ... “We need to take you into custody,” she said. “Just for a couple of days—for bureaucratic reasons.”

    • This is a complete fabrication. There is no proof this exchange took place. You knew full well you were being arrested, and signed a statement saying you understood why.

    • By your own admission, they were still just looking for possible suspects.  And if Sollecito had withdrawn your alibi, they wouldn’t need a name—they would suspect him and you.  This makes no sense.

    • Dr Mignini had just spelled out your status with great care. Why would Ficarra diifer from that? Custody? What does that mean?

    • You claim the mysterious silver-haired cop who no-one else saw had told you during his “interrogation” that they would protect me if I cooperated, if I told them who the murderer was. Really?

    [Chapter 11, Page 129] ‘’ ... I needed to say that I had doubts about what I’d signed, to let the police know they couldn’t rely on my declarations as the truth. I knew that undoing the cops’ work would almost surely mean they’d scream at me all over again. As paralyzing as that thought was, I had to risk it. In naming Patrick, I’d unintentionally misled them. What if they thought I did it on purpose? They’d wasted time on me when they could have been out pursuing the real killer….’‘

    • According to Cassation, you did deliberately mislead the police, and you did it to divert suspicion from yourself. Many present testified that no-one screamed at you.  The only screaming was yours, when you had several head-thumping fits.

    • When you talked to your mother, why didn’t you then tell the police Patrick was innocent? Why didn’t Edda (your mother), tell anyone Patrick was innocent?  You told her he was.

    [Chapter 11, Page 130] ‘’ ... “Can I have a piece of paper?” I asked Ficarra. “I need to write down in English what I’m trying to tell you, because you apparently don’t understand me right now. You can bring the paper to someone who can tell you what it says in Italian. We can communicate better that way. You’re telling me that I’m going to remember when I’m telling you that I am remembering, and that I doubt what I said is true.”

    She handed me a few sheets of paper and a pen. “You’d better write fast,” she said. “We have to get going.”

    • Wow, either Rita Ficarra is learning English really fast .... or you speak Italian quite well.  Really, Officer Ficarra is taking you to be confined and she isnt remotely interested in having you write another incriminating statement having had less sleep than you.

    • You quote the noon statement in full. Answer the numerous points proving you piled lie upon lie made by Peter Hyatt here.

    [Chapter 11, Page 135] ‘’ ... I finished writing and handed the pages to Ficarra. I didn’t remember the word for “explanation.” “This is a present for you”—“un regalo,” I said.

    She said, “What is it—my birthday?” I felt so much lighter. I knew that I was blameless, and I was sure that was obvious to everyone. We’d just had a misunderstanding. I’d cleared the record. ....’‘

    • There is no proof the exchange took place as described. Rita Ficarra is not known for even being sarcastic, she is regarded as firm but kind and had kindly looked after you all night.

    • For days you deny knowing anything about Meredith’s murder. After Raffaele removes your alibi, you write that you left him to meet Patrick, and he murdered Meredith.

    • You then write you met Patrick, he murdered Meredith, and Raffaele may or not be there. You then write this completely vague, contradictory, and convoluted letter to police.

    • You tell Officer Ficarra you are giving her a ‘‘gift’‘, or was it an un-explanation? You now think it was just a misunderstanding, and you cleared the record???? Wow ....

    [Chapter 11, Page 136] ‘’ ... I was on the police’s side, so I was sure they were on mine. I didn’t have a glimmer of understanding that I had just made my situation worse. I didn’t get that the police saw me as a brutal murderer who had admitted guilt and was now trying to squirm out of a hard-won confession….’‘

    • Three statements proves you did know you had dropped yourself in it and every copy would regard three statemenst as overkill. Lying and obstructing justice would hardly put you ‘‘on the police’s side’‘?

    • Why would they see you as a brutal murderer?  How do you know how brutal the murder was? You inisisted to write all of these ‘‘confessions’’ and were not being interrogated, so how can any be ‘‘hard won’‘?

    [Chapter 11, Page 136] ‘’ ... My memoriale changed nothing. As soon as I gave it to Ficarra, I was taken into the hall right outside the interrogation room, where a big crowd of cops gathered around me. I recognized Pubblico Ministero Giuliano Mignini, who I still believed was the mayor….”

    • What big crowd of cops? There is no proof this event took place. You knew Dr Mignini’s full name and title, but not what his job is? He himself had told you three times - on the morning of the crime at the house, when the knives were shown to you at the house, and when you were arraigned and read your rights.

    • There is no slightest hint that Dr Mignini was the mayor.  Do politicians typically investigate homicides in America? The claim reeks of self-importance so typical of you.

    • You seriously thought after writing that letter, you were going to be released? By the way, again, what language were your ‘‘declarations’’ in?  If Italian, did you have a translator?

    [Chapter 11, Page 136] ‘’ ... I thought that they were keeping me to protect me. But why would they have to arrest me? And why did they have to take me to prison? I’d imagined that maybe “custody” meant I’d be given a room in the questura. That Mom could be there with me….’

    • Yes, police stations and prisons typically double as hotels in Italy…. More blatant lies. Dr Mignini fully explained your status with an interpreter there and you signed a statement that you fully understood.

    • So Mom could be there in prison with you?  Well, maybe, for not reporting her knowledge of your false accusation.

    [Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... Still, what came next shocked me. After my arrest, I was taken downstairs to a room where, in front of a male doctor, female nurse, and a few female police officers, I was told to strip naked and spread my legs. I was embarrassed because of my nudity, my period—I felt frustrated and helpless. The doctor inspected the outer lips of my vagina and then separated them with his fingers to examine the inner. He measured and photographed my intimate parts. I couldn’t understand why they were doing this. I thought, Why is this happening? What’s the purpose of this? ....’‘

    • Did you tell this to any Judge?  Matteini, Micheli, Massei, Hellmann, Nencini?  No. If any of this were actually true, it would be sexual assault.  Did your lawyers file a complaint? No, of course not, they knew it was made up.

    • This was simply a routine frisk and testified to at trial, and in earlier descriptions you left all of this out.  This farfetched claim is completely undermined by you elsewhere writing about your ‘‘medical check’’ as fairly routine.

    [Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... Next they checked my entire body for cuts and bruises, clawing through my hair to get to my scalp and inspecting the bottoms of my feet. A female police officer pointed out different places to examine and document. I thought, Why are they measuring the length of my arms and the breadth of my hands? What does it matter how big my feet are? Later, I realized they were trying to fit the crime to my dimensions. What would Meredith’s wounds be like if I’d been the one who stabbed her? Could I have stabbed her from my height? They took pictures of anything they thought would be significant….’‘

    • Well you did have a scratch on your neck, I mean hickey. There were bare bloody footprints at the crime scene.

    • While checking for other injuries is quite routine you are trying to make it sound like an alien probe.

    [Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... I asked to use the bathroom. A female police officer stood in front of the stall with the door open. Why is she standing here? I can’t relax enough to pee, even if she’s looking away. I guessed this unwanted guardian was somehow supposed to keep me safe.

    Eventually I put aside my inhibitions long enough to be able to pee. After that they closed the handcuffs back around my wrists. I think they’d left them intentionally loose, but I was so submissive I reported their breach. “Excuse me,” I said. “But I can slip my hand out.”

    • Do you really need to include the story about going to the bathroom? Being watched is untrue, in fact prior to 5:45 Knox was at any time free to go. And your Italian is progressing nicely since your ‘‘interrogation’‘.

    [Chapter 11, Page 139] ‘’ ... I just wanted this ordeal to end.’‘

    • This is probably about the only true statement in the book. After causing chaos in so many other lives, Knox just wants to get on with her own life.

    [Chapter 11, Page 139] ‘’ ... I was consumed by worry for Patrick. I felt that time was running out for him if I didn’t remember for sure what had happened the night of Meredith’s murder. When I’d said, “It was Patrick,” in my interrogation, the police pushed me to tell them where he lived.  As soon as I’d mentioned his neighborhood, several officers surrounding me raced out. I figured that they’d gone to question him. I didn’t know that it was too late, that they’d staged a middle-of-the-night raid on Patrick’s house and arrested him….’‘

    • You claim you are consumed with worry, but still let him languish desperate and depressed in jail while his business tanked. You name someone as a sex-killer, and several officers rush out, and they only want to question him?

    • They pushed you to tell them where he lived?  But did you not eagerly draw a map previously?

    [Chapter 11, Page 140] ‘’ ... Finally our car pulled through the main gate of the Casa Circondariale Capanne di Perugia—not that I knew where we were—and came to a stop inside a dim, cavernous garage. As the doors rumbled closed, I was allowed to sit up. A uniformed prison guard came over, and I tried to catch his eye. I wanted someone, anyone, to look at me and see me for who I was—Amanda Knox, a terrified twenty-year-old girl. He looked through me….’‘

    • You want them to see you as a terrified 20 year old girl?  Why, so they won’t think of you as a murderer?  Do you know what most people call 20 year old girls?  Women.

    • You tried to catch his eye?  Was he cute? He saw right through you?  So have most people in Italy.

    [Chapter 11, Page 141] ‘’ ... Ficarra ahead of me, the other officer behind, each gripping one of my arms.  Once inside, they let go. “This is where we leave you,” they said. One of them leaned in to give me a quick, awkward hug. “Everything’s going to be okay. The police will take care of you.”

    “Thank you,” I said. I gave her a last, beseeching look, hoping this meant that finally they knew we were on the same side….’‘

    • This is absurd.  Who gave such a hug? Mothers dropping their kids off at school give hugs.  Police generally don’t hug accused killers as they leave them at the jail or say to them that all will be okay.

    [Chapter 12, Page 144] ‘’ ... The cold traveled up from the concrete floor and through my bare feet. I hugged myself for warmth, waiting—for what? What’s coming next? Surely they wouldn’t give me a uniform, since I was a special case. It wouldn’t make sense, since I’d be in prison so briefly.

    “Your panties and bra, please,” Lupa said. She was polite, even gentle, but it was still an order.

    I stood naked in front of strangers for the second time that day. Completely disgraced, I hunched over, shielding my breasts with one arm. I had no dignity left. My eyes filled with tears. Cinema ran her fingers around the elastic of the period-stained red underwear I’d bought with Raffaele at Bubble, when I thought it’d be only a couple of days before I’d buy more with my mom….’‘

    • This is gross.  Why the heck is Knox adding these easy-to-disprove inventions in?

    • Oddly, she is more precise, and certain about these details, than what she was doing before, during and after Meredith’s death, with fewer contradictions.

    [Chapter 12, Page 147] ‘’ ... When I’d first been brought inside from the squad car, I’d seen Raffaele through a barred glass window, locked in a hallway near the prison entrance. He was wearing his gray faux fur–lined jacket and was pacing back and forth, his head down. It was the first time since we’d been separated that I’d seen more than his feet. He didn’t look at me. I’d wondered if he hated me.

    Raffaele and I hadn’t been together long, but I’d believed I knew him well. Now I felt I didn’t know him at all….’‘

    • You wonder if he hated you? As in, he doesn’t love you enough to cover for you? His own statement to Judge Matteini did say he never wanted to see you again, it was all your fault.

    [Chapter 12, Page 149] ‘’ ... “I feel terrible about what happened at the police office. No one was listening to me,”  I said. Tears sprang to my eyes again.

    “Hold up there, now,” Argirò said. “Wouldn’t listen to you?” the doctor asked. “I was hit on the head, twice,” I said. The doctor gestured to the nurse, who parted my hair and looked at my scalp.

    “Not hard,” I said. “It just startled me. And scared me.” “I’ve heard similar things about the police from other prisoners,” the guard standing in the background said. Their sympathy gave me the wrongheaded idea that the prison officials were distinct and distant from the police.

    “Do you need anything to sleep?” the doctor asked. I didn’t know what he meant, because the idea of taking a sleeping pill was as foreign to me as being handcuffed. “No,” I said. “I’m really tired already.”

    • When exactly were you hit and why? What anonymous guard would say that? Italian police are well known in fact for being too nice. You claim that the prison officials were now aware you were ‘‘assaulted’’ by police, yet do not report it?

    • Do these anonymous prison officials speak English?  You did make such a huge deal about not understanding the language.  And remember, you were interrogated in a ‘‘language you barely knew’’ just 24 hours ago.

    [Chapter 13, Page 154] ‘’ ... Argirò had said this seclusion was to protect me from other prisoners—that it was standard procedure for people like me, people without a criminal record—but they were doing more than just keeping me separate. In forbidding me from watching TV or reading, in prohibiting me from contacting the people I loved and needed most, in not offering me a lawyer, and in leaving me alone with nothing but my own jumbled thoughts, they were maintaining my ignorance and must have been trying to control me, to push me to reveal why or how Meredith had died….’‘

    • You were repeatedly advised to get a lawyer and meanwhile say no more and confirmed thgis in writing in fact. The interrogators themselves confirmed they did not want you watching news or hearing what Sollecito had claimed.

    • In no US prison would you have been allowed to watch TV.  And to keep asking this: Did Argiro say this in English or Italian? Remember, you barely speak any Italian….

    • Why would they be pushing you further to reveal why or how Meredith died? Didn’t you just sign multiple statements saying how and why it happened, which Judge Matteini found more than enough?

    [Chapter 13, Page 154] ‘’ ... But I had nothing more to tell them. I was desolate. My scratchy wool blanket didn’t stop the November chill from seeping bone deep. I lay on my bed crying, trying to soothe myself by softly singing the Beatles song “Let It Be,” over and over….’‘

    • Actually, your third signed statement (the one you included in this book), gave many confusing and contradictory details and facts.  In fact, you claimed that you are confused and ‘‘unsure about what the truth is.’’ Perhaps you can be the one to tell them what was fact, and what was total fiction.

    • Didn’t stop the November chill?  You said in your January 2014 interview with Simon Hattenstone that you and Meredith went sunbathing on your terrace—regularly.  Wow, in Italy temperature drops are abrupt.

    • According to accounts from the prison staff and other prisoners, you never ever cried.

    [Chapter 10, Page 154] ‘’ ... I tried to answer, to say, “I’m okay,” but I couldn’t stop the surge of tears. Lupa asked her colleague to unlock the door and came inside. She squatted in front of me and took my cold hands in her large ones and rubbed them. “You have to stay strong,” she said. “Everything will be figured out soon.”

    • Really?  You are accused of sexual assault and murder, and her response is to hug you, and say ‘‘everything will be figured out’‘? There is no proof this exchange took place.

    [Chapter 10, Page 155] ‘’ ... Six days ago I believed that I could, and should, cope with Meredith’s murder by myself. But everything had broken down so quickly. I was sure that if I’d asked for Mom’s help sooner, I wouldn’t have felt so trapped and alone during my interrogation. I could have stopped it. If my mom, my lifeline, had been ready to jump to my defense on the other side of the door, I’d be staying with her now, not in prison by myself….’‘

    • Either you are REALLY bad at math, or this is disturbing.  The ‘‘date’’ November 7th, and 6 days earlier would be November 1st while Meredith was still alive.  So, you can cope with Meredith’s murder by yourself?  Does this mean you will kill her by yourself, or you won’t need any comforting afterwards?

    • Why would you not have felt trapped if your Mom was there?  Would she not have let you write those incriminating and accusatory statements?  Were you not thinking clearly?

    • Why would you be home by now?  Would you have fled Italy before the forensic testings were done?

    [Chapter 13, Page 155] ‘’ ... And then, right after the nun had left, detail after detail suddenly came back to me.

    I read a chapter in Harry Potter. We watched a movie. We cooked dinner. We smoked a joint. Raffaele and I had sex. And then I went to sleep.

    • Well that clears it up.  I assume you would agree to be questioned immediately.

    • And if it ever goes to trial, I assume you will testify fully, without any restricted questionings.

    [Chapter 13, Page 156] ‘’ ... I quickly wrote at the top of the page: “To the person who must know this.” Unlike my first memoriale, this one expressed less doubt and more certainty about where I’d been the night Meredith was killed. I rushed to get it down, so excited to finally be able to make sense of my memories for myself, and to be able to explain myself to the police. It read:

    • If your memories are now clear, there shouldn’t be any doubt.

    • You have dug yourself a deep hole already by ‘‘expressing yourself’‘

    • But, okay, let’s clear things up

    [Chapter 13, Page 156, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... Oh my God! I’m freaking out a bit now because I talked to a nun and I finally remember. It can’t be a coincidence. I remember what I was doing with Raffaele at the time of the murder of my friend! We are both innocent! This is why: After dinner Raffaele began washing the dishes in the kitchen and I was giving him a back massage while he was doing it….’‘

    • I’m freaking out a bit now because I talked to a nun, and I finally remember?  Talking in English or Italian?

    • You remember what you were doing with Raffaele at the time of the murder of my friend?  Your friend?  Meredith I am assuming?  How do you know exactly when she was murdered?

    • We are both innocent! This is why: After dinner Raffaele began washing the dishes in the kitchen and I was giving him a back massage.  Okay .... you are innocent, not because you say you didn’t do it, but because you were giving Raffaele a back massage?

    [Chapter 13, Page 156, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... [backrubs are ] something we do for one another when someone is cleaning dishes, because it makes cleaning better. I remember now that it was AFTER dinner that we smoked marijuana and while we smoked I began by saying that he shouldn’t worry about the sink. He was upset because the sink was broken but it was new and I told him to not worry about it because it was only a little bad thing that had happened, and that little bad things are nothing to worry about…’‘

    • I remember now it was after dinner we smoke marijuana?  Umm, who cares?

    • The sink was new? I thought the plumber had been there for prior problems.  In fact, you claimed it, so that your ‘‘leaky pipe’’ story wouldn’t seem so convenient.  But still not sure why you didn’t have towels or a mop handy….

    • Stabbing Meredith…. where does that fit on the ‘‘spectrum’’ of bad thing?

    [Chapter 13, Page 156, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... We began to talk more about what kind of people we were. We talked about how I’m more easy-going and less organized than he is, and how he is very organized because of the time he spent in Germany. It was during this conversation that Raffaele told me about his past. How he had a horrible experience with drugs and alcohol. He told me that he drove his friends to a concert and that they were using cocaine, marijuana, he was drinking rum, and how, after the concert, when he was driving his passed-out friends home, how he had realized what a bad thing he had done and had decided to change.

    He told me about how in the past he dyed his hair yellow and another time when he was young had cut designs in his hair. He used to wear earrings. He did this because when he was young he played video games and watched Sailor Moon, a Japanese girl cartoon, and so he wasn’t a popular kid at school. People made fun of him. I told him about how in high school I had been unpopular as well, because the people in my school thought I was a lesbian. We talked about his friends, how they hadn’t changed from drug-using video game players, and how he was sad for them.

    We talked about his mother, how she had died and how he felt guilty because he had left her alone before she died. He told me that before she died she told him she wanted to die because she was alone and had nothing to live for. I told Raffaele that wasn’t his fault that his mother was depressed and wanted to die. I told him he did the right thing by going to school….’‘

    • So, you remember all of these topics being discussed, but at the police station, you are so vague about what you were doing?  Interesting

    • You remember all of this, but not when you woke up, or why you turned your phone off?

    [Chapter 13, Page 157, Knox letter to police]  ‘’ ... I told him that life is full of choices, and those choices aren’t necessarily between good and bad. There are options between what is best and what is not, and all we have to do is do what we think is best….’‘

    • So, stabbing Meredith, was that a good/bad choice, or a best/not best choice?

    [Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... Around five in the evening Raffaele and I returned to his place to get comfortable. I checked my email on his computer for a while and then afterward I read a little Harry Potter to him in German….’‘

    • 5:00pm is not the evening.  It is the afternoon.  Anyway, didn’t you both claim at other times you were out, but that you didn’t remember what you did?

    • So, you read a little Harry Potter to Raffaele (in German), and this was BEFORE watching Amelie, cooking dinner and doing dishes, having the pipe FLOOD the floor…  However, remember this quote (Page 44/45), you claim to be reading Harry Potter to him AFTER the flood.  REMEMBER???

    ‘’ ... 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….’‘

    [Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... We watched Amelie and afterward we kissed for a little while. I told him about how I really liked this movie and how my friends thought I was similar to Amelie because I’m a bit of a weirdo, in that I like random little things, like birds singing, and these little things make me happy. I don’t remember if we had sex….’‘

    • You are weird like Amelie?  Does she publish lurid sexual details and rape stories?

    • You remember a lengthy list of topics you talked about BUT NOT whether you had sex?  You seemed to remember all the others….

    [Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... Raffaele made dinner and I watched him and we stayed together in the kitchen while dinner was cooking. After dinner Raffaele cleaned the dishes and this is when the pipes below came loose and flooded the kitchen floor with water. He was upset, but I told him we could clean it up tomorrow when I brought back a mop from my house. He put a few small towels over the water to soak up a little and then he threw them into the sink. I asked him what would make him feel better and he said he would like to smoke some hash…. ‘’

    • Kitchen floor flooded with water?  To heck with it, let’s smoke a joint.

    • So, how much water was it, approximately?  You are (not surprisingly), vague about this.

    • You claimed the pipe had leaked before, (page 44 of WTBH…. did you not have an extra towel handy?

    • Raffaele cleaned the dishes?  Did you notice the ‘‘fish blood’’ on his hand you claimed earlier to have seen?

    [Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... I received a message from my boss about how I didn’t have to come into work and I sent him a message back with the words: “Ci vediamo. Buona serata.”

    While Raffaele rolled the joint I laid in bed quietly watching him. He asked me what I was thinking about and I told him I thought we were very different kinds of people. And so our conversation began, which I have already written about. After our conversation I know we stayed in bed together for a long time. We had sex and then afterward we played our game of looking at each other and making faces. After this period of time we fell asleep and I didn’t wake up until Friday morning…’‘

    • You had sex?  You said just 2 paragraphs ago you didn’t remember if you had sex. You woke up Friday morning?  Okay, care to specify WHEN exactly?

    • So you get a message from Patrick (not to come to work), and in your letter to the police, it comes AFTER your dinner, washing the dishes, and the pipe bursting.  However see your account on page 62 of the book.

    • By the way in court that text was proven to have reached you away from the house.

    [Chapter 13, Page 159, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... I know the police will not be happy about this, but it’s the truth and I don’t know why my boyfriend told lies about me, but I think he is scared and doesn’t remember well either. But this is what it is, this is what I remember….’‘

    • You are talking about what ‘‘could’’ have happened, and you can’t understand police frustration?

    • But it’s the truth?  You just said you COULD swear by it, not that you actually ARE swearing to it

    • What doesn’t Raffaele remember?  The truth?  Or the ‘‘truth’’ you came up with?

    [Chapter 13, Page 159] ‘’ ... I was a little girl again. I was doing what I’d done since I was seven years old, whenever I got into trouble with Mom. I’d sit with a Lion King notebook propped up against my knees, write out my explanation and apology, rip it out, fold it up, and then either hand it to Mom or, if I wasn’t brave enough, put it somewhere I knew she’d immediately find it. When I was older I had a small, old-fashioned, beat-up wooden desk with a matching chair and a drawerful of pens. I felt so much more articulate writing than speaking. When I talk, my thoughts rush together, and I say things that don’t always seem appropriate or make sense…’‘

    • So you write you ‘‘apologies’’ to Mom, and give them to her?  Out of curiosity, are those also completely full of B.S.?

    • Yes, childhood discipline with Mom…. just like police questioning for a murder….

    • You feel more articulate writing than speaking?  That is scary, you are a university junior, and your writing is awful.

    • You say things that don’t always seem to make sense?  Either they make sense, or they don’t.

    [Chapter 13, Page 160] ‘’ ... That’s what I wanted to have happen now. Somehow the kindness from the nun and that embrace from Agente Lupa had encouraged me that it would.

    I believed it was only a matter of time before the police understood that I was trying to help them and I would be released. The guard would unlock the cell. Without leading me by the arm, she’d escort me to an office where I could reclaim my hiking boots, my cell phone, my life. I’d walk out and into my mom’s arms…’‘

    • Either you are completely delusional, or just pretending to be. The police have charged you with sexual assault and murder, and you are just ‘‘trying to help them’‘?

    • You think you will just walk out of here, into your mother’s arms?  Wow ... and you thought you were mature?

    [Chapter 13, Page 160] ‘’ ... I thought I’d made it clear that I couldn’t stand by what I’d said during my interrogation, that those words and my signature didn’t count.

    We would have to talk again. This time they would have to listen and not shout.

    I thought about what to do while I waited for my memoriale to get passed to the right readers and the paperwork to get filled in. Since I’d never been in a prison before —and I’d never be here again—I decided to record what I saw so I wouldn’t forget.

    I felt I had a duty to observe and collect information, just like a tourist who writes a travelogue or a war correspondent who witnesses devastation…’‘

    • You couldn’t stand by your interrogation?  So, I assumed you made all efforts to get Lumumba released immediately?  No….

    • So, you being here is just a ‘‘paperwork’’ issue?

    • You have a duty to observe and collect information—just like a tourist ...? Guess you need something for material, should you ever get out and need to cash in on it.

    [Chapter 13, Page 161] ‘’ ... As I gathered this insider’s information, I felt more like an observer than a participant.  I found that being watched by a guard every time I peed or showered or just lay on my bed seemed less offensive when I looked at it with an impersonal eye. I saw the absurdity in it and documented it in my head…’‘

    • So, you just ‘‘get used to’’ having people watching you ‘‘pee and shower’‘.  Odd, you aren’t immediately okay with it.  You…

    • Published a rape story

    • Have sex with random strangers

    • Published lurid details about random sexual encounters

    • Published about Grandma helping you get medicine for your STD.

    • Published details about your strip search

    • Flirt with people in court

    • Just a thought: Even if you WERE watched in the shower, or on the toilet, you would probably enjoy it.

    [Chapter 13, Page 161] ‘’ ... But no matter how much I tried to distance myself from my physical surroundings, I was stuck with the anger and self-doubt that were festering inside me. I was furious for putting myself in this situation, panicked that I’d steered the investigation off course by delaying the police’s search for the killer….’‘

    • Of course there was self doubt. Rudy hadn’t been identified yet, had he?

    • You were furious for putting yourself in that situation, but not for putting Patrick there?  Classic narcissist.

    • You didn’t ‘‘panic’’ for steering the investigation off course.  It probably released the tension.

    [Chapter 14, Page 163] ‘’ ... In the middle of my second full day as a prisoner, two agenti led me out of my cell, downstairs, outside, across the prison compound, and into the center building where I’d had my mug shot taken and my passport confiscated. There, in an empty office converted into a mini courtroom, seven people were waiting silently for me when I walked into the room, including two men, who stood as I entered.

    Speaking in English, the taller, younger man, with spiky gray hair, said, “I’m Carlo Dalla Vedova. I’m from Rome.” He gestured toward a heavier-set man with smooth white hair. “This is Luciano Ghirga, from Perugia.” Each man was dressed in a crisp suit. “We’re your lawyers. Your family hired us. The American embassy gave him our names. Please, sit in this chair. And don’t say anything.”

    • Hmm… so only 2 full days as a prisoner, and you already have 2 lawyers ready for you?  Guess this isn’t Guantanamo Bay after all.

    • Ghirga and Vedova?  Funny, wasn’t there someone named Giancarlo Costa representing you for a while?

    [Chapter 14, Page 164] ‘’ ... Also in the room were three women. The one in black robes was Judge Claudia Matteini. Her secretary, seated next to her, announced, “Please stand.”

    In an emotionless monotone, the judge read, “You, Amanda Marie Knox, born 9 July 1987 in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., are formally under investigation for the murder of Meredith Kercher. How do you respond? You have the right to remain silent.”

    I was stunned. My lower jaw plummeted. My legs trembled. I swung my face to the left to look at the only people I recognized in the room—Monica Napoleoni, the black-haired, taloned homicide chief; a male officer from my interrogation; and Pubblico Ministero Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, who I still thought was the mayor. Napoleoni was resting her chin on her hand glowering at me, studying my reaction. She seemed to be enjoying this….’‘

    • Judge Matteini?  Wasn’t she the one who would determine if you could be released, or had to be detained?  Sounds a bit like a ‘‘bail hearing’‘.  Wait, bail does not exist in Italy.

    • You ‘‘still thought Mignini was the Mayor’‘?  Are you that dense? He told you who he was both at the house on the morning after the murder and when presiding over the 5:45 am warning of charges.

    • Why exactly do you think Napoleoni was enjoying this? There is no sign in her extensive testimony that she did.

    • Just for reference, was this hearing done in all English, all Italian, or did you have an interpreter?

    [Chapter 14, Page 165] ‘’ ... There hadn’t been enough time between their hiring and this preliminary hearing for Carlo and Luciano to meet with me. But more time might not have made a difference. It turned out that, mysteriously, Mignini had barred Raffaele’s lawyers from seeing him before his hearing. Would the prosecutor have treated me the same? I think so. I can’t be certain who ordered that I be put in isolation and not allowed to watch TV or to read, to cut me off from news from the outside world. But I believe that the police and prosecution purposely kept me uninformed so I would arrive at my first hearing totally unprepared to defend myself.

    I do know this: if I’d met with my lawyers, I could have explained that I was innocent, that I knew nothing about the murder, that I imagined things during my interrogation that weren’t true. The only thing my lawyers knew about me was that when I talked I got myself in trouble. I understand their impulse to keep me silent then, but in the end, my silence harmed me as much as anything I’d previously said….’‘

    • You had at least six opportunities before trial to argue the same thing - and failed at them all. The evidence list was long and you failed a psychological test to establish whether you could do more harm.

    • And besides lawyers ALWAYS can get delays by saying they need to consult with their clients.

    • Mignini barred Raffaele from seeing his lawyers?  Really, in Honor Bound, Sollecito says no such thing. He told his father he saw his lawyers the very next day.

    • You are in prison, you ARE cut off from the outside world.  Why do you assume you have the right to a TV?

    • Your silence harmed you?  No, your mouth, and your ‘‘creative writing’’ harmed you.

    [Chapter 14, Page 166] ‘’ ... It would be a long time before my Italian would be good enough to read Judge Matteini’s nineteen-page report, which came out, and was leaked to the press, the next day. But my lawyers told me the gist of it. The judge said, “There were no doubts” that Patrick, Raffaele, and I were involved. Our motive, according to her, was that Raffaele and I wanted “to try a new sensation,” while Patrick wanted to have sex with Meredith. When she refused, the three of us tried “to force her will,” using Raffaele’s pocketknife.

    I couldn’t believe anyone could think that of me…’

    • Well, considering November 5th you barely spoke the language, and November 7th you can converse with the guards, you may be the world’s fastest learner of the Italian language.  Keep up the good work.

    • Patrick wanted to have sex with Meredith?  Who gave the police and judge THAT idea?

    • The Judge thought you, Raffaele, and Patrick were involved?  Did someone sign a statement or something?

    • You can’t believe anyone would think that of you?  This is a murder case, no one cares who YOU are.

    [Chapter 14, Page 166, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... She went on to say that we hadn’t called 112, the emergency number for the Carabinieri military police; that the Postal Police arrived at 12:35 P.M., and that our calls to 112 came afterward, at 12:51 P.M. and 12:54 P.M., suggesting that the police’s appearance at the house took us by surprise and our calls were an attempt at orchestrating the appearance of our innocence. It wasn’t until our trial that this accusation was proven to be erroneous….’‘

    • Interesting summary, except is WASN’T proven to be false.  Your call to the police DID come after the Postal Police arrived

    [Chapter 14, Page 166, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... The report said that in Raffaele’s second statement, made on November 5, he changed his story. Instead of saying that we’d stayed at his apartment all night, as he’d done originally, he told police we’d left my apartment to go downtown at around 8:30 or 9 P.M., that I went to Le Chic and he returned to his apartment. He said that I’d convinced him to lie….’‘

    • Actually, Raffaele said that you left his apartment.  He didn’t say you both left home, and that he went back later.  You misconstrue Sollecito’s ‘‘amended’’ statement.

    [Chapter 14, Page 167, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... A bloody footprint allegedly compatible with Raffaele’s Nikes was found at our villa, and the pocketknife he carried on his beltloop was presumed to be compatible with the murder weapon…’‘

    • Yes, the sneaker did look similiar to Raffaele’s shoe

    • In ‘‘Honor Bound’‘, Raffaele claims he told the Judge that someone stole his shoes.  Any comment on this?

    • In ‘‘Honor Bound’‘, Raffaele first claimed to never meet Patrick, then says he’s been to the bar.  Any comment?

    • Yes, the knife Raffaele had was confirmed at trial (and confirmed on appeal), to be used in the attack. Comments?

    [Chapter 14, Page 167, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... The judge’s report concluded that we “lost the appearance that [we] were persons informed about the facts and became suspects” when I confessed that Patrick had killed Meredith; that I wasn’t sure whether or not Raffaele was there but that I woke up the next morning in his bed…’‘

    • First and foremost: You do not CONFESS that someone else did something.  You ACCUSE them of something.

    • Well, you did say that you were with Raffaele at his apartment when Meredith was killed.

    • You later wrote that you left Raffaele to go meet Patrick, and that he killed her (you were a witness).

    • You later wrote that you witnessed Patrick killing Meredith, and you weren’t sure if Raffaele was there.

    • You later wrote that you can’t remember for sure what happened.

    • Sollecito first claimed he was at a party.

    • Sollecito later said you two were at his apartment

    • Sollecito later said you left, and that you asked him to lie for you

    • Sollecito claimed his ‘‘matching shoes’’ were stolen, and he ‘‘wasn’t sure’’ if he ever met Patrick.

    • Yes, you left Raffaele, met up with Patrick, heard him kill Meredith, and woke up the next morning with Raffaele.  Makes sense.

    • Gee, any wonder Judge Matteini has reasons to doubt you all?  Well, Patrick, maybe not.

    [Chapter 14, Page 167] ‘’ ... It was just the start of the many invented stories and giant leaps the prosecution would make to “prove” I was involved in the murder—and that my lawyers would have to try to knock down to prove my innocence…’‘

    • Let’s see here:

    • False accusation of innocent person (Susan Smith, Casey Anthony…), to divert attention.

    • Multiple false alibis

    • Statements saying you were at crime scene (contradicting earlier statements)

    • Your alibi witness (Sollecito), removes his alibi for you, says you asked him to lie.

    • Sollecito brings knife—and possible murder weapon—to police station, and says his ‘‘matching shoes’’ were stolen, then presumably returned.

    • The prosecution did not make any of this up.  You did.

    [Chapter 14, Page 168] ‘’ ... “It’s the judge’s paperwork,” the male guard explained, his voice without inflection.

    “The confirmation of your arrest. It says the judge ‘applies the cautionary measure of custody in prison for the duration of one year.’ ”

    “One year!” I cried out.

    I was floored. I had to sit down and put my head between my knees. That’s when I learned how different Italian and U.S. laws can be. The law in Italy allows for suspects to be held without charge during an investigation for up to a year if a judge thinks they might flee, tamper with evidence, or commit a crime. In the United States, suspects have to be indicted to be kept in custody.

    I felt I had only myself to blame. If I’d had the will to stick to the truth during my interrogation, I would never have been put in jail. My imprisonment was my fault, because I’d given in to the police’s suggestions. I’d been weak, and I hated myself for it….’‘

    • This is being disingenuous.  In America, you would have been indicted on this evidence.

    • You were given the opportunity to speak up.  Why didn’t you?  You are not a timid person.  Hell, people can’t shut you up.

    • You do all of the ‘‘suspicious behaviour’’ listed above, it is your fault ... because you’d given in to their suggestions?

    • Vedova and Ghirga didn’t do too well for you?  What about the disbelieving Giancarlo Costa?  Why do you never mention him?

    Posted on 08/25/15 at 08:42 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in The former defendantsAmanda KnoxOther legal processesKnox calunniaFamily/defense hoaxersKnox-Mellas teamLies in Knox book
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

    Saturday, August 22, 2015

    Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #2

    Posted by Chimera

    Also Implacably Nasty… Click here to go straight to Comments.

    1. Overview Of This Post

    My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

    Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

    I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.

    Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition. Here I dissect pages 67 to 107 of the new paperback edition.

    Points from this and many other posts will end up on a new TJMK page devoted exclusively to Knox’s lies.

    2. Dissection Of Pages 67 to 107

    [Chapter 6, Page 70] ‘’ ... Raffaele dialed 112—Italy’s 911—for the Carabinieri, which was separate from—and more professional than—the Perugian town police.

    As soon as he hung up, I said, “Let’s wait for them outside.” Even without Chris’s insistence, I was too spooked to be in the house. On the way out I glanced from the kitchen into the larger bathroom. The toilet had been flushed. “Oh my God!” I said to Raffaele. “Someone must have been hiding inside when I was here the first time—or they came back while I was gone!”

    We ran out and waited on a grassy bank beside the driveway. I was shivering from nerves and cold, and Raffaele was hugging me to calm me down and keep me warm, when a man in jeans and a brown jacket walked up. As he approached us he said he was from the police. I thought, That was fast.

    Another officer joined him. I tried to explain in Italian that there had been a break-in and that we hadn’t been able to find one of our roommates, Meredith. With Raffaele translating both sides, I gradually understood that these officers were just Postal Police, the squad that deals with tech crimes.

    “Two cell phones were turned in to us this morning,” one said. “One is registered to Filomena Romanelli. Do you know her?”

    “Yes, she’s my housemate,” I said. “It can’t be Filomena’s, because I just talked to her. But I’ve been trying to reach my other roommate, Meredith, all morning. She

    doesn’t answer. Who turned these in? Where did they find them?”

    Later I found out that a neighbor had heard the phones ringing in her garden when I’d tried to call Meredith. They’d been tossed over the high wall that protected the neighbor’s house from the street—and from intruders. But the Postal Police wouldn’t explain or answer my questions.

    We went inside, and I wrote out Meredith’s phone numbers on a Post-it Note for them. While we were talking, we heard a car drive up. It was Filomena’s boyfriend, Marco Z., and his friend Luca. Two minutes later, another car screeched into the driveway—it was Filomena and her friend Paola, Luca’s girlfriend. They jumped out, and Filomena stormed into the house to scavenge through her room. When she came out, she said, “My room is a disaster. There’s glass everywhere and a rock underneath the desk, but it seems like everything is there.”

    The Postal Police showed her the cell phones. “This one is Meredith’s British phone,” Filomena said. “She uses it to call her mother. And I lent her the SIM card to the other one to make local calls.”

    The men seemed satisfied; their work was done. They said, “We can make a report that there’s been a break-in. Are you sure nothing was stolen?”

    “Not as far as we can tell,” I said. “But Meredith’s door is locked. I’m really worried.”

    “Well, is that unusual?” they asked.

    I tried to explain that she locked it sometimes, when she was changing clothes or was leaving town for the weekend, but Filomena wheeled around and shouted, “She never locks her door!” I stepped back and let her take over the conversation, Italian to Italian. The rapid-fire exchange stretched way past my skills. Filomena shouted at the Postal Police officers, “Break down the door!”

    “We can’t do that; it’s not in our authority,” one said.

    Six people were now crammed into the tiny hallway outside Meredith’s bedroom, all talking at once in loud Italian. Then I heard Luca’s foot deliver a thundering blow. He kicked the door once, twice, a third time. Finally the impact dislodged the lock, and the door flew open. Filomena screamed, “Un piede! Un piede!”—“A foot! A foot!”

    A foot? I thought. I craned my neck, but because there were so many people crowding around the door, I couldn’t see into Meredith’s room at all. “Raffaele,” I said.

    He was standing beside me. “What’s going on? What’s going on?” ....’‘

    • So you called the police to report the break-in BEFORE the postal police arrived?  Didn’t phone records show that the call was made afterwards?

    • You mention one call to your mother, in which you tell her there has been a break in, and Mom tells you to call the police.  Yet in Court, Edda Mellas testifies to many things being talked about (in 88 seconds).  Can you please share your conversation more definitively with us?

    • Police reported that you looked completely exhausted, and smelled repulsive.  Are these facts correct, and if so, why were you in this condition?  Did you not spend a nice night at Raffaele’s place, and then just shower?

    • You showered at your place just recently.  Okay, where are the clothes you changed out of, or did you just put your old clothes back on?

    • Filomena, when asked, mentioned a top you were wearing the night before, that has never been found.  What happened to that shirt, or did she make that claim up?

    • Both you and Raffaele (in Honor Bound) mention that you turned off your cell phones—Perhaps because the courts wondered about this.  Yet, you don’t mention when exactly you turned your phone back on.  Care to share?

    • If this is the case, why?  Did Raffaele slip away to make the call?  Did you suspect the Postal Police would search the house anyway, and this being an attempt to cover yourselves?

    • You were very worried about Meredith, but your calls only lasted a few seconds.  Did you let it ring? Did you call Laura, or any of Meredith’s English friends?  Anyone who would possibly know more than you?

    • There were people crowded around the door?  At trial, the police said everyone was kept away?  Which version is correct?

    • The police allege that you originally said Meredith always locks her door.  Filomena says no, that wasn’t the case.  Are they lying?

    • Did you mention the frantic efforts you made a few pages earlier trying to see into her room?

    • You claim that Meredith locks when she changes or goes away.  Was this an attempt to deflect what you originally said about Meredith always locking her door?  A way to minimize the incongruency?

    • You claim that you made the call about the break in, and then waited outside, at which time the postal police showed up.  Then Marco Z. and Luca arrive, followed shortly by Filomena and Paola.  After a brief time the police kick down the door.  Could you be a bit more precise as to how and at what times this all unfolded?  It seems like it all happened in the span of about 10 minutes.  Given how the prosecutors used this against you at trial, your exact version would help.

    • This whole business about the postal police: they came because Meredith’s phones had been found.  Why do you think those phones were ditched?  Was it the burglar/killer/rapist dumping stolen property, or were those phones dumped to create a diversion and confusion?

    • You found a rock in Filomena’s room and concluded it had been used to break the window.  Yet you walked right by the window when you first came home.  A rock that size really left no glass outside?  Someone climbing that wall left no dirt or scrape marks?

    • Nothing was stolen?  How diligent had you been prior to making thoseclaims?  How diligent was Raffaele when he called the police?  How thoroughly had you looked before making this claim?

    • The Carabinieri is more professional than the Perugian Police?  Is that why you wanted them involved?  Or did Raffaele’s sister, Vanessa, have something to do with it?

    [Chapter 6, Page 72] ‘’ ... One of the guys shouted, “Sangue! Dio mio!”—“Blood! My God!” Filomena was crying, hysterical. Her screams sounded wild, animal-like.

    The police boomed, “Everyone out of the house. Now!” They called for reinforcements from the Perugian town police.  Raffaele grabbed my hands and pulled me toward the front door.

    Sitting outside on the front stoop, I heard someone exclaim, “Armadio”—“armoire.”  They found a foot in the closet, I thought. Then, “Corpo!”—“A body!” A body inside the wardrobe with a foot sticking out? I couldn’t make the words make sense. Filomena was wailing, “Meredith!

    Meredith! Oh, God!” Over and over, “Meredith! Oh, God!”  My mind worked in slow motion. I could not scream or speak. I just kept saying in my head, What’s happening? What’s happening?

    It was only over the course of the next several days that I was able to piece together what Filomena and the others in the doorway had seen: a naked, blue-tinged foot poking out from beneath Meredith’s comforter, blood splattered over the walls and streaked across the floor.

    But at that moment, sitting outside my villa, the image I had was of a faceless body stuffed in the armoire, a foot sticking out.

    Maybe that’s why Filomena cried, and I didn’t. In that instant, she’d seen enough to grasp the terrible scope of what had happened. All I got was confusion and words and, later, question after question about Meredith and her life in Perugia. There was nothing I could say about what her body was like in its devastation.

    But even with all these blanks, I was still shaken—in shock, I’d guess. Waiting in the driveway, while two policemen guarded the front door, I clung to Raffaele. My legs wobbled. The weather was sunny, but it was still a cold November day, and suddenly I was freezing. Since I’d left the house without my jacket, Raffaele took off his gray one with faux-fur lining and put it on me.

    Paramedics, investigators, and white-suited forensic scientists arrived in waves. The police wouldn’t tell us anything, but Luca and Paola stayed close, trying to read lips and overhear. At one point, Luca told Raffaele what the police had said: “The victim’s throat has been slashed.”

    I didn’t find out until the months leading up to my trial—and during the trial itself —how sadistic her killer had been. When the police lifted up the corner of Meredith’s beige duvet they found her lying on the floor, stripped naked from the waist down. Her arms and neck were bruised. She had struggled to remain alive. Her bra had been sliced off and left next to her body. Her cotton T-shirt, yanked up to expose her breasts, was saturated with blood. The worst report was that Meredith, stabbed multiple times in the neck, had choked to death on her own blood and was found lying in a pool of it, her head turned toward the window, eyes open….’‘

    • You are in shock?  But aren’t you and Raffaele buying lingerie and joking shortly after about the ‘‘hot sex’’ you two are going to have?  Guess you get over shock quickly.

    • You had no idea what was happening, yet you want into Meredith’s room precisely because you are worried about her?  Did you not have any clue what was happening?

    • You said you wanted Meredith’s family to read your book.  Why, then, would you include very graphic details about how their sister/daughter was murdered?  Are you trying to ‘‘shock’’ them?

    • Moreover, the details read ALMOST LIKE A CONFESSION.  How do you know, or better yet, how do you remember the precise details of Meredith’s death, when so many other details are foggy and contradictory to you?

    • ’‘Nothing you could say about what her body was like in it’s devastation’‘? What does that mean exactly?

    • Previously, you had added unnecessary and irrelevant details about Meredith’s sex life.  Again, this is what you want her family to read?

    • You seem to vividly remember Filomena’s ‘‘wild, animal-like’’ screams?  Did it bother you that she was so upset over Meredith’s death?

    • Luca told Raffaele that Meredith’s throat had been cut?  But at trial, you had no idea who said it.  At what point did you learn?

    • Even if the story about Luca were true, why would you use it later on Meredith’s English friends?  Trying to shock them?

    [Chapter 6, Page 73] ‘’ ... In the first hours after the police came, standing outside the villa that had been the happy center of my life in Perugia—my refuge thousands of miles from home—I mercifully didn’t know any of this. I was slowly absorbing and rejecting the fractured news that Meredith was dead.

    I felt as if I were underwater. Each movement—my own and everyone else’s —seemed thick, slow, surreal. I willed the police to be wrong. I wanted Meredith to walk down the driveway, to be alive. What if she’d spent the night with one of her British girlfriends? Or gotten up early to meet friends? I held the near-impossible idea that somehow the person in Meredith’s room was a stranger.

    Nothing felt real except Raffaele’s arms, holding me, keeping me from collapsing. I clung to him. Unable to understand most of what was being said, I felt cast adrift. My grasp of Italian lessened under the extraordinary stress. Catching words and translating in my head felt like clawing through insulation.

    I was flattened. I was in despair. I cried weakly on and off into Raffaele’s sweater. I never sobbed openly. I’d never cried publicly. Perhaps like my mom and my Oma, who had taught me to cry when I was alone, I bottled up my feelings. It was an unfortunate trait in a country where emotion is not just commonplace but expected.

    Raffaele’s voice was calm and reassuring. “Andrà tutto bene”—“It’s going to be okay,” he said. He pulled me closer, stroked my hair, patted my arm. He looked at me and kissed me, and I kissed him back. These kisses were consoling. Raffaele let me know that I wasn’t alone. It reminded me of when I was young and had nightmares. My mom would hold me and smooth my hair and let me know that I was safe. Somehow Raffaele managed to do the same thing.

    Later, people would say that our kisses were flirtatious—evidence of our guilt. They described the times I pressed my face to Raffaele’s chest as snuggling. Innocent people, the prosecutor and media said, would have been so devastated they’d have been unable to stop weeping.Watching a clip of it now, my stomach seizes. I’m gripped by the same awful feelings I had that afternoon. I can only see myself as I was: young and scared, in need of comfort. I see Raffaele trying to cope with his own feelings while trying to help me…’‘

    • Well, this by itself seems plausible enough.  It is how your behaviour changed in the days following that raised a lot of red flags.  Yes, you and Raffaele kissed. Why do we need the details in the above section?

    • Were you and Raffaele seen doing more graphic displays of public affection even in the police station?Giaccomo testified in court that you were totally relaxed at the police station.  Was he wrong?

    • Were you (as police allege), still trading sex for drugs with Cristiano, or Federico?You state that you were in shock.  Was any of that morning ‘‘drug related’‘?

    • Were you not making cold blooded remarks, like ‘‘she had her fucking throat cut’‘?

    • You said you willed Meredith to be with her English girlfriends?  Funny, how you never tried to contact them when Meredith was missing….

    [Chapter 6, Page 53] ‘’ ... We waited in the driveway for what seemed like forever. The police officers would come out, ask us questions, go in, come out, and ask more questions. I always told them the same thing: “I came home. I found the door open. Filomena’s room was ransacked, but nothing seems to have been stolen. Meredith’s door was locked.”

    It seemed like the words came from somewhere else, not from my throat.

    In the middle of my muddy thoughts I had one that was simple and clear: “We have to tell the police that the poop was in Filomena and Laura’s bathroom when I put the hair dryer away and was gone when we came back,” I told Raffaele. The poop must have belonged to the killer. Was he there when I took my shower? Would he have killed me, too?

    We walked up to a female officer with long black hair and long nails—Monica Napoleoni, head of homicide, I later found out. Raffaele described in Italian what I’d seen. She glared at me. “You know we’re going to check this out, right?” she said.

    I said, “That’s why I’m telling you.”She disappeared into the villa, only to return moments later. “The feces is still there.  What are you talking about?” she spat.

    This confused me, but I continued to tell her what happened anyway. I told her I’d taken the mop with me in the morning but had brought it back when Raffaele and I came to see if the house had been robbed.

    “You know we’re going to check that for blood, too?” she asked.“Okay,” I said. I was surprised by how abrupt she was.

    The police explained that they couldn’t let us back into the house, that it would compromise the crime scene. Before we were told to go outside, Filomena had carefully gone through her room to see if anything had been stolen. Now, having calmed down momentarily, she came over and whispered that she couldn’t leave without her laptop, that she had to have it for work. She snuck back into her room—I have no idea how she got past the police standing sentry—and grabbed it, disturbing the scene for a second time. Marco stood in the driveway, looking lost. Paola and Luca had slipped off to the car, where it was warm….’

    • ‘You seem surprised that the police would spend a significant amount of time questioning the occupants of the home?  Why is that?

    • The poop must have belonged to the killer? While true, how did you know that?  Wouldn’t most people assume it was either someone from the home, or a visitor?

    • So, you drew attention to the mop, or were you asked about it?  Did you add that detail to cover yourselves? Officer Napoleoni said she will check it for blood?  Did she really say that?

    • Did Officer Napoleoni ever ask the obvious question: Why didn’t you just flush?

    • You accuse your roommate Filomena of sneaking in to get her laptop.  Did you ever say that in Court, or to the police?

    [Chapter 7, Page 77] ‘’ ... For the first hour, I was questioned in Italian, but it was so hard for me to follow and explain that they brought in an English-speaking detective for hours two through six. Alone in the room, we sat on opposite sides of a plain wooden desk. I described everything I could think of. Some questions he asked were obvious. Others seemed irrelevant. “Anything might be a clue for the investigators,” he said. “Don’t hold back—even if it seems trivial. The smallest detail is important. You never know what the key will be to finding the person who did this.”

    How did you meet Meredith?  How long have you been in Perugia?  Who was Meredith dating? What do you know about the guys who live downstairs? Where did Meredith like to party? When was the last time you saw her? Where was she going? What time did Meredith leave home?”  ....’’

    • Really, you were questioned for 6 hours straight?  Let me guess, no videotape of this either?

    • You spoke virtually no Italian?  Odd, Rita Ficarra testified at trial that you spoke Italian quite well.

    • Asking for background information on your ‘‘roommate’’ and ‘‘friend’’ seems pretty normal.  Why did you think it wasn’t?

    • These are the questions you listed in your book.  Which one(s) were they asking which were excessive?

    [Chapter 7, Page 78] ‘’ ... “It was yesterday afternoon. I don’t know where she was heading,” I said. “She didn’t tell us.”  “What did you and Raffaele do yesterday afternoon and last night?” he asked.  “We hung out at my house and then at Raffaele’s apartment.”

    He didn’t press me. He just listened. It seemed like a straightforward debriefing. I was too naïve to imagine that the detectives suspected that the murder had been an inside job and that the burglary had been faked. I had no way of knowing that the Postal Police had thought Raffaele’s and my behavior suspicious. The detective didn’t say any of this. Nor did he allow that the homicide police had begun to watch us closely before we’d even driven out of the driveway. ...’‘

    • Didn’t you say in your Nov 4th email to Judge Nencini that police asked you all kinds of personal questions (like Meredith liking anal)? The questions you list seem pretty normal and routine.

    • You didn’t know the police thought it might be an inside job?  Did you not reiterate that you thought nothing was stolen?

    • Did the Postal Police not come by with Meredith’s ‘‘abandoned’’ cell phones?

    • Did you not walk past Filomena’s window without noticing it was broken?

    • There was no glass outside Filomena’s window?  The whole time you were there, you didn’t notice?

    • A burglary ... through the front window on the second floor?

    • Did you not shower in a bloody bathroom?  Or at least claim you did?

    [Chapter 7, Page 77] ‘’ ... Now I see that I was a mouse in a cat’s game. While I was trying to dredge up any small thing that could help them find Meredith’s killer and trying to get my head around the shock of her death, the police were deciding to bug Raffaele’s and my cell phones.

    • The police bugged several people’s phones.  Why do you omit this detail?

    • How is giving background information about the victim a cat-and-mouse game?

    [Chapter 7, Page 77] ‘’ ... As I sat waiting to hear what else the police needed from me, I asked the detective if it was true that it was Meredith who had been murdered. I still couldn’t let go of the tiniest hope that the body in her room hadn’t been Meredith’s, that she was still alive. The detective nodded and ran his finger in a cutting motion across his neck.

    • This is extremely unlikely, few police officers would be callous enough to do something like that. I suppose he also said that Meredith ‘‘fucking bleed to death’’ or that ‘’ shit happens.’‘

    • Finger across the neck can be interpreted as death—in any form.  Why did you take it to mean literal throat cutting?

    [Chapter 7, Page 78] ‘’ ... Trying to be helpful, I shared the information I had, much of which turned out to be wrong. I still thought Meredith’s body had been found stuffed into the armoire.

    When I first saw Laura, she was dry-eyed. She came up and hugged me and said, “I can’t believe it. I’m so sorry. I know Meredith was your friend.” Then she sat me down and said, “Amanda, this is really serious. You need to remember: do not say anything to the police about us smoking marijuana in our house.”

    I was thinking, You can’t lie to the police, but I considered this anxiously a moment and then said, “Okay, I haven’t yet. I won’t.” I asked, “Do you think they’ll let us get our stuff out of the house?”

    Laura said, “I hope so. Filomena and I are talking to our lawyers about that.”  It didn’t occur to me—or to my parents, who were now calling me nonstop—that perhaps I should call a lawyer, too. ...’‘

    • Trying to be helpful, I shared the information I had?  Funny, the police never claimed you said Meredith was in the armoire.  Laura says that Meredith was Amanda’s friend?  Odd that the British girls say the exact opposite.

    • So, you promise not to tell the police about marijuana ... and you put it in your book?

    • Really, Laura and Filomena are so cold they are calling lawyers to get their stuff out of the house?  It didn’t occur to you to call a lawyer?  Why, to get your stuff, or to get you released later?

    [Chapter 7, Page 80] ‘’ ... Around 3 AM a police officer led the British girls and me downstairs to get fingerprinted. “We need to know which fingerprints to exclude when we go through the house,” he said.

    One by one they took us into a room and painted our fingertips with a black, tarlike syrup. When I came out, Sophie was sitting on a chair outside the door, sobbing. I tried to make up for my earlier lack of warmth, saying, “I’m so sorry about Meredith. If you need anything, here’s my number.”

    And suddenly, I woke up from deep shock. I was struck with righteous fury against Meredith’s murderer. I started pacing the hallway. I was so outraged I was shaking and hitting my forehead with the heel of my palm, saying, “No, no, no,” over and over. It’s something I’ve always done when I can’t contain my anger.

    The English-speaking detective who’d been overseeing the fingerprinting approached me and said, “Amanda, you need to calm down.”  ...’‘

    • This is a bit unclear, but were you all at the police station since that afternoon?

    • No one fingerprinted you then? Really, they kept you up until the wee hours of the next morning?

    • Given how vague you are about times, how do you know this was 3am, or is it a detail made up for sympathy?

    • That is the reason for the fingerprinting.  If the police know who is there, they can focus on unknown prints?

    • As someone who (you admitted at trial), watches CSI, why don’t you believe this explanation?

    • Suddenly you are angry?  You weren’t before?

    [Chapter 7, Page 81] ‘’ ... As I continued walking back and forth in the hallway, my mind kept looping back around itself, making quick, tight turns: What happened? Who would leave poop in the toilet? Why hadn’t Laura’s and my rooms been touched? Why was Filomena’s computer still there? Did Meredith know her attacker? How could this have happened? How? How? How?

    • Again, why are you still going on about the poop?  Wouldn’t most normal people (ie. everyone), flush it?

    • Why happened your room or Laura’s room been touched?  That is a good question. Better question: Did you notice your lamp missing yet?

    • Why was Filomena’s computer still there?  Also a good question

    • Did Meredith know her attacker?  Great question as well.

    • And you cannot see why the police may be wondering if this was an inside job?

    [Chapter 7, Page 82] ‘’ ... When I wasn’t on the phone, I paced. I walked by one of Meredith’s British friends, Natalie Hayworth, who was saying, “I hope Meredith didn’t suffer.”

    Still worked up, I turned around and gaped. “How could she not have suffered?” I said. “She got her fucking throat slit. Fucking bastards.”

    I was angry and blunt. I couldn’t understand how the others remained so calm. No one else was pacing. No one else was muttering or swearing. Everyone else was so self-contained. First I showed not enough emotion; then I showed too much. It’s as if any goodwill others had toward me was seeping out like a slow leak from a tire, without my even realizing it.

    • This is exact opposite of what was reported.  Giacomo, in particular, mentioned later how calm and unemotional you were, while everyone else was in shock and traumatized.  Was he lying, or is this passage fiction?

    • She got her fucking throat cut?  Again how did you know that?  When questioned at different times, you were unable to say how exactly you knew this.

    • Meredith’s body had not yet been autopsied, so the police wouldn’t know either at this point.

    • And saying this to Meredith’s friend doesn’t come off as cold to you?

    • Muttering and swearing, is this grief, or impatience and frustration?

    [Chapter 7, Page 81] ‘’ ... I suspect that Raffaele thought I was having a breakdown. He sat me in his lap and bounced me gently. He kissed me, made faces at me, and told me jokes—all in an effort to soothe my agitation, babying me so I would stop storming around. I cringe to say that treating me like an infant helped. Normally it would have repelled me. But at that time it worked….’‘

    • Really, you have to do this now? And what was reported about odd behaviour… aren’t you just confirming it?

    [Chapter 7, Page 81] ‘’ ... Finally I took my journal from my purse and scribbled down a few stream-of-consciousness lines about how unreal all of this was and how I wished I could write a song about the heinous, tragic event—a personal tribute to Meredith. I thought that, like the act of writing itself, music might somehow help me feel better.  Later, when the police confiscated my notebook and its contents were leaked to the press, people saw this as proof that I was trivializing Meredith’s death.

    They found more evidence in my gallows humor. I wrote, “I’m starving. And I’d really like to say that I could kill for a pizza but it just doesn’t seem right.”  ...’‘

      So, just on this one page:

    • You tell Natalie that Meredith ‘‘had her fucking throat cut’‘, which even the police didn’t know

    • You are acting impatient with having to be at the police station

    • You are kissing, joking, making faces with Raffaele

    • Writing jokes about killing for a pizza

    [Chapter 7, Page 83] ‘’ ... It was early morning by the time I put my notebook away. The police weren’t stopping to sleep and didn’t seem to be allowing us to, either. Raffaele and I were part of the last group to leave the questura, along with Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, and the other guys from downstairs, at 5:30 A.M.

    The police gave Raffaele and me explicit instructions to be back at the questura a few hours later, at 11 A.M. “Sharp,” they said.

    I can’t recall who dropped us off at Raffaele’s apartment. But I do remember being acutely aware that I didn’t have anywhere else to go.

    • Interesting ... you claim you were singled out, yet Giacomo, Laura, Filomena, and ‘‘the other guys from downstairs’‘, were all kept until 5:30am

    • And you aren’t clear how long you are actually questioned for.  You said 6 hours earlier, although you seem to be notoriously bad with numbers.  Were you questioned again later?

    • So much for the cat-and-mouse game.

    [Chapter 8, Page 85] ‘’ ... I had the same opportunity. Mom had asked in one of our phone conversations the night before if I wanted her to buy me a plane ticket to Seattle. “No,” I said. I had been adamant. “I’m helping the police.” ...’‘

    • In your November 4th email, you said you wanted to leave, but couldn’t because you ‘‘were an important part of the investigation’‘.  Which is it?

    • In fact, you complained in that email about needing underwear since you wouldn’t be able to get into your house for a while.

    [Chapter 8, Page 69] ‘’ ... I never considered going home. I didn’t think it was right to run away, and that’s exactly how I looked at it—as running away from being an adult. I knew that murders can and do happen anywhere, and I was determined not to let this tragedy undo all I’d worked so hard for over the past year. I liked my classes at the University for Foreigners, and I knew my family’s finances didn’t allow for re-dos. The way I saw it, if I went home, I’d be admitting defeat. And my leaving wouldn’t bring Meredith back….’‘

    • You did consider going back home. Again, reread your November 4th email.

    • Running away would be looked at as a failure as an adult?  Umm ...  people MIGHT view it as running from a murder charge.

    • Your close friend is murdered, and you are thinking about redo’s?

    [Chapter 8, Page 86] ‘’ ... I was already so paranoid I refused to let Raffaele out of sight in his one-room apartment. Walking down the street with his arm around me, I kept looking nervously over my shoulder to make sure no one was following us. Passing cars made me jump. Had the murderer watched our house, waiting until one of us was alone to make his move? I couldn’t help but wonder, Would I have died if I’d been home Thursday night? All that separated Meredith’s and my room was one thin wallboard. Why am I alive and she’s now lying in the morgue? And: Could I be the next victim?

    • Were you paranoid about Raffaele leaving because you didn’t want to be alone, or because he might talk?

    • His arm around you: Is this protection, or affection?

    • Why are you alive and she dead?  Good question.

    [Chapter 7, Page 86] ‘’ ... I hated that I felt so traumatized. As my family, friends, and the UW foreign exchange office checked in one after another, they each said some version of “Oh my God, you must be so scared and alone.”  ...’‘

    • Why would the UW foreign exchange office be checking in?  You weren’t on any formal exchange program.

    [Chapter 8, Page 86] ‘’ ... I believed I had to demonstrate to Mom, Dad, and myself—as if my whole personhood depended on it—that I was in control, that I could take care of things in a mature, responsible way. And just as I’d had some wrong-headed notion about the link between casual sex and adulthood, I was also sure that an adult would know how to deal with whatever was thrown at her—including how to behave if her roommate were brutally murdered. It wasn’t logical, but I believed that I’d made the decision to come to Perugia and that, while no one could possibly have anticipated Meredith’s death, I just had to suck it up. I treated the whole incident as if it were an unanticipated situation I had found myself in and now I had to handle it….’‘

    • You had to demonstrate that you were in control?  So why did Dad end up hiring a PR firm?

    • Why keep calling your Mother, if you were in control?

    • So, what exactly was the ‘‘mature, responsible way’‘, you dealt with things?

    • You are comparing casual sex with the aftermath of your roommate’s murder? Disingenuous to say the least.

    • You just had to suck it up?  Wow.  Well, shit happens, but let’s move on with life.

    [Chapter 8, Page 87] ‘’ ... So, anytime I was on the phone with my parents I put my energy into reassuring them that I was okay. Just as I hadn’t wanted to alarm my mom when I’d first run out of the villa after seeing the poop in the toilet, I still didn’t want to alarm her.

    Therefore, each phone conversation was more or less the same. “Yeah, I’m really tired, but it’s going to be okay. I’m with Raffaele. He’s taking good care of me. My roommates are looking for a new place. Don’t worry, don’t worry, don’t worry.”  ....’‘

    • You and your roommates were looking for a new place?  Both Laura and Filomena stated they had no interest in continuing to live with you.

    • Raffaele is taking care of you?  You mean with the ooh-la-la, or washing the blood out of your ears?

    • Again with the poop?  Again, you supposedly don’t even know it has anything to do with the crime scene.  Or do you?

    [Chapter 8, Page 90] ‘’ ... Sometime that afternoon the police drove me to the villa. Sitting in the backseat with an interpreter on the way there, I admitted, “I’m completely exhausted.”

    One of the officers in the front seat swung around and looked at me. Her reaction was harsh: “Do you think we’re not tired? We’re working twenty-four/seven to solve this crime, and you need to stop complaining. Do you just not care that someone murdered your friend?”

    • However, from accounts told later, Amanda frequently complained about being tired, and hungry, and cold

    • Seriously, you were treated this way? What proof?

    [Chapter 8, Page 91] ‘’ ... When the police finally came to get me, I saw that the entrance to our apartment was blocked off with yellow police tape. Instead of going in, the police had me show them from the outside what I’d noticed about Filomena’s window, asking whether the shutters were opened or closed when Raffaele and I had come home. They wanted details about how we lived. Did we usually lock the gate to our driveway? What about the faulty lock on the front door? Did anyone else have a key? Were there outside lights on at night? Did Meredith often stay there alone? Did we have frequent visitors?

    They handed me protective booties and gloves. After I slipped them on, I sang out, “Ta-dah,” and thrust out my arms like the lead in a musical. It was an odd setting for anything lighthearted, but having just been reprimanded for complaining, I wanted to be friendly and show that I was cooperating. I hoped to ease the tension for myself, because this was so surreal and terrifying. Instead of smiling, they looked at me with scorn. I kept trying to recalibrate my actions, my attitude, my answers, to get along, but I couldn’t seem to make things better no matter what I did.  I wasn’t sure why…..’‘

    • Police tend to ask details such as locking doors, open windows, access to keys, visitors.  Why include this?

    • Your ‘‘ta-dah’’ is just weird. Why pretend this was normal?  Are you five?

    • So, they bring you back to your home.  What precisely, besides marijuana, were they ‘‘looking for’‘?

    • Recalibrate your answers?  What exactly do you mean by that?

    [Chapter 8, Page 92] ‘’ ... Next we went to the room that Marco and Giacomo shared. There was no blood—or contraband plants. While we stood there, the detectives started asking me pointed questions about Giacomo and Meredith. How long had they been together? Did she like anal sex? Did she use Vaseline?

    “For her lips,” I said. When I’d first gotten to town, Meredith and I had hunted around at different grocery stores until we found a tiny tub of Vaseline.

    Giacomo and Meredith had definitely had sex, but I certainly didn’t know which positions they’d tried. Meredith didn’t talk about her sex life in detail. The most she’d done was ask me once if she could have a couple of the condoms I kept stashed with

    Brett’s still-unused gift, the bunny vibrator, in my see-through beauty case in the bathroom Meredith and I shared.

    I couldn’t understand why the police were asking me about anal sex. It disturbed me.  Were they hinting that Meredith had been raped? What other unthinkably hideous things had happened to her?  ...’‘

    • What I can’t understand is why you would add this in your book.  You said you wanted Meredith’s family to read it.

    • Seriously, you want Meredith’s parents to know she was hitting you up for condoms?

    • Seriously, a homicide investigation, police would be asking about what sex positions Meredith liked?

    • While they likely did ask how long Meredith and Giacomo were together, anal and vaseline probably never came up.

    • Even if these questions did happen, couldn’t you have just left it as ‘‘personal questions’’ in your book?  This is very distasteful.

    [Chapter 8, Page 93] ‘’ ... Back at the questura, I had to repeat for the record everything I’d been asked about at the villa. It was a tedious process at the end of a difficult day.

    Finally, at around 7 P.M., I was allowed to call Raffaele to pick me up. While I was waiting for him, Aunt Dolly phoned. “Did you ask the police if you can leave Perugia? If you can come to Germany?” she asked. “Yeah, and they said no, that I’d have to wait until they heard from the magistrate in three days. Whatever that means.”  ...’‘

    • You had to repeat everything for the record, yet you don’t say how long.  I ask, simply because I am trying to figure out how you were ‘‘questioned for over 50 hours’’ as you claimed in your December 2013 email to Judge Nencini.

    [Chapter 8, Page 94] ‘’ ... As I walked outside the questura, I saw the guys from downstairs coming in. After we said hello, I wavered for a moment over the police’s order that I never talk about what I saw. “I was at your apartment today and you should know that your comforter was splotched with blood, Stefano. It made me wonder if Meredith was down there before she died. It was awful.”

    “Yeah,” Stefano, said. “I hope that was from our cat and not Meredith.” Stefano, Giacomo, and Marco exchanged anxious looks…’‘

    • Not at all sure what the point of this is.  Is Knox trying to drive suspicion between the men?

    • I thought Knox wasn’t supposed to talk about the case. Isn’t that what she told her classmates?

    [Chapter 8, Page 94] ‘’ ... Just then, Raffaele drove up and I said good-bye to the guys. Raffaele took me to a small boutique downtown called Bubble, next door to a luxury lingerie shop. Pulsating with music, Bubble catered to students, offering trendy, cheaply made clothing, the kind that’s not meant to outlast a season. I tried on a few things but decided to wait until my mom got to town to replace my staples, which were locked in the crime scene. I settled on one necessity, grabbing a pair of cotton bikini briefs in my size from a display rack near the cash register. In the long run it probably would have been better if I’d chosen a more sedate color than red. I didn’t give it another thought, but it turned out that what was insignificant to me was a big deal to other people. Standing at the cash register as he paid, Raffaele hugged me and gave me a few kisses—our lingua franca in a scary, sad time. A few weeks later, the press would report that I bought “a saucy G-string” and that Raffaele brazenly announced: “I’m going to take you home so we can have wild sex together.”

    • According to bank records, they cost $60, or was it 60 Euros?  And this was just for necessity?

    • According to the surveillance video, it was more than just a few hugs and kisses.

    • Why bring this up?  How does it help clarify where you were, or what happened to Meredith?

    • You remember the underwear store well, but not what you were doing when Meredith was killed?

    [Chapter 8, Page 94] ‘’ ... “The police are grilling me endlessly,” I said.  Filomena said, “I know it’s hard, Amanda. You’ve just got to be patient. They’re fixated on you because you knew Meredith better than we did.”

    Laura and Filomena were each consulting a lawyer about how to get out of the lease. No doubt their lawyers were also counseling them on other things, such as how to deal with the police and on our pot-smoking habit, but they didn’t mention any of that.

    “Are you okay living with Raffaele? How’s it going?” Laura asked. “Filomena and I are thinking about sharing another place.” “Would you guys mind if I live with you again?” Laura said, “Of course you can live with us.”

    They both hugged me. “Don’t worry. Everything will be okay,” Filomena said. ...’‘

    • According to you, they kept you, Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, and the other men downstairs into the wee hours of the morning.  How were they focusing on you?

    • And you think they ‘‘grilled’’ you because you knew Meredith so much better?

    • You seriously think Laura and Filomena were asking their lawyers about the ‘‘alleged drugs’’ the police didn’t seem to care about?

    • They wanted to keep living with you?  Both testified that you were loud, messy, lazy, and brought home strange men. 

    [Chapter 8, Page 96] ‘’ ... It was after midnight when Raffaele and I finally went back to his apartment. I stayed up surfing the Internet on his computer, looking for articles about the case. As many answers as the police had demanded of me, they weren’t giving up much information. Then I wrote a long e-mail, which I sent to everyone at home, explaining what had happened since I’d gone back to the villa on Friday morning. I wrote it quickly, without a lot of thought, and sent it at 3:45 A.M….’‘

    • This was your November 4th ‘‘alibi email’‘, right?  Why did you really send it?

    • Why did you send it to people, some of whom, were hearing for the first time Meredith was dead?

    • Why did you include the personal details about Meredith?  Was it to cause embarrassment?

    • These people back home are not interrogating you.  Why add every single detail?

    • If you wanted to show a complete record, why did you not include the email (a full copy), in your book?  After all, the police tried to use it against you.  Certainly you could disclose it and set the record straight.

    [Chapter 9, Page 97] ‘’ ... Had I seen a news item that morning in The Mail on Sunday, a London tabloid, it might have shifted everything for me. The article said the Italian police were investigating the possibility that the murderer was a woman—someone whom Meredith had known well. “‘We are questioning her female housemates as well as her friends,’ a senior police detective said.”

    • Interesting claim.  The police are asking you for background info on Meredith, and you take ‘‘questioning’’ to be suspicions.

    • I have not seen this ‘‘news item’‘.  By any chance do you have a copy?

    • Really, the police were looking for a woman?  Any thoughts as to why that may be?

    [Chapter 9, Page 98]  ‘’ ... In quiet moments like this, as in the squad car the day before, my thoughts went straight to Meredith and the torture she’d been put through. I tried to imagine over and over how she might have died, what might have happened, and why. I replayed memories of our hours spent on the terrace talking, our walks around town, the people we’d met, the last time I’d seen her.

    Either Meredith’s murder was completely arbitrary or, worse, irrationally committed by a psychopath who had targeted our villa as Chris had suggested. The hardest question I put to myself was: What if I’d been home that night? Could I have saved Meredith? Would she somehow still be alive? ...’‘

    • ’‘Your thoughts went straight to Meredith and the torture she’d been put through’‘???? Ummm… Is this a confession?

    • Why are you trying imagine over and over how she died?  Do you like that sort of thing?

    • ’‘... or worse, irrationally committed by a psychopath who had targeted our villa’‘?  Could be.

    • Could you have saved Meredith?  You mean instead of stabbing her?  Sure.

    [Chapter 9, Page 97] ‘’ ... We stood together, talking quietly about nothing. I leaned against him, glad for his company. He kissed me.

    Just then, Rita Ficarra, the police officer who’d said I couldn’t leave Perugia, walked by. She turned around and gave us a piercing stare. “What you’re doing is completely inappropriate,” she hissed. “You need to stop this instant.”

    I was taken aback. It’s not like we were making out. What could she possibly think was improper about a few tender hugs and kisses? Raffaele was being compassionate, not passionate—giving me the reassurance I needed. But we were offending her.

    Raffaele was the main reason I was able to keep myself somewhat together in those days. I’d known him for such a short time, and he had met Meredith just twice. Who would have blamed him if he hadn’t stuck around? Besides giving me a place to stay, he had been patient and kind. He’d dedicated himself to my safety and comfort —driving me to and from the police station, making sure I ate, curling around me at night so I’d feel protected. I had put him on the phone with Mom, Dad, Chris, and Dolly to reassure them. He made sure I was never alone….’‘

    • Well, this is the second time you’ve brought up kissing and cuddling in the police station.  You also mentioned what went on in the shop Bubble.  So, while you claim that the police made up stories about your behaviour, you seem to be confirming their version of events.

    • Out of curiosity, and for the record, when Rita Ficarra scolded you, what language was it in?  She testified at trial that she spoke no English and only talked to you in Italian.  You, on the other hand, claim to know only minimal Italian.  And this passage doesn’t say there was any translator.  So, English or Italian?  Or some third language perhaps?

    [Chapter 9, Page 100] ‘’ ... I reached in, pushed a few knives around, and then stood up helplessly. I knew the assortment in the drawer might include the murder weapon—that they were asking me to pick out what might have been used to slash Meredith’s throat. Panic engulfed me.

    I don’t know how long I stood there, arms limp at my sides. I started crying. Someone led me to the couch. “Do you need a doctor?” the interpreter asked.

    “No,” I whimpered, my chest heaving. I couldn’t speak coherently enough between the sobs to explain. I could only think, I need to get away from here. I felt the way Filomena must have felt when she looked into Meredith’s room two days before. I didn’t have to see the blood, the body, the naked foot, to fully imagine the horror.

    • Seriously?  You were nowhere near the crime scene, never looked in Meredith’s room, and the police ask you to pick out a possible murder weapon?

    • Why did panic engulf you?  You don’t really elaborate on that point.

    • You didn’t have to see the blood, the body, and the naked foot to fully imagine the horror? Why, did you have a front row seat?

    [Chapter 9, Page 102] ‘’ ... I was naïve, in over my head, and with an innate stubborn tendency to see only what I wanted. Above all, I was innocent. There were so many what-ifs that I never even began to contemplate. What if I hadn’t thrown the bunny vibrator in my clear makeup case for anyone to see? What if I hadn’t gone on a campaign to have casual sex? What if Raffaele and I hadn’t been so immature? What if I’d flown home to Seattle right after the murder, or to Hamburg? What if I’d asked my mom to come immediately to help me? What if I had taken Dolly’s advice? What if I’d gotten a lawyer?...’‘

    • Unless her mind is completely disjointed, am not sure how she makes these connections.

    • You have an innate stubborn tendency to see only what you wanted?  Is this narcissism or just not being observant?

    • Why would throwing the bunny vibrator in the clear case cause problems ... unless it grossed Meredith out?  And why do you keep talking and writing about it?

    • How would the ‘‘casual sex campaign’’ have led to Meredith’s death?  Did it annoy her, or did one of your ‘‘male friends’’ kill her?

    • You and Raffaele are immature how? For acting this way after a murder? Before the murder?  Thinking murder would solve your problems?

    • If you had flown home to Seattle, would you not be in much the same position as Rudy Guede afterwards?  As in a lower sentence?

    • Why do you need a lawyer for what seems to be routine questioning?  Do you have something to hide?  It sure isn’t shame…

    [Editorial note: it is in chapters 10 to 12 that Knox lays the Interrogation Hoax on thick and most inventions in those chapters will be exposed in that alternate series soon.]

    [Chapter 10, Page 103] ‘’ ... Police officer Rita Ficarra slapped her palm against the back of my head, but the shock of the blow, even more than the force, left me dazed. I hadn’t expected to be slapped. I was turning around to yell, “Stop!”—my mouth halfway open—but before I even realized what had happened, I felt another whack, this one above my ear. She was right next to me, leaning over me, her voice as hard as her hand had been. “Stop lying, stop lying,” she insisted.

    Stunned, I cried out, “Why are you hitting me?”  “To get your attention,” she said. I have no idea how many cops were stuffed into the cramped, narrow room.  Sometimes there were two, sometimes eight—police coming in and going out, always closing the door behind them. They loomed over me, each yelling the same thing: “You need to remember. You’re lying. Stop lying!” “I’m telling the truth,” I insisted. “I’m not lying.” I felt like I was suffocating. There was no way out. And still they kept yelling, insinuating.  The authorities I trusted thought I was a liar. But I wasn’t lying. I was using the little energy I still had to show them I was telling the truth. Yet I couldn’t get them to believe me.

    We weren’t even close to being on equal planes. I was twenty, and I barely spoke their language. Not only did they know the law, but it was their job to manipulate people, to get “criminals” to admit they’d done something wrong by bullying, by intimidation, by humiliation. They try to scare people, to coerce them, to make them frantic. That’s what they do. I was in their interrogation room. I was surrounded by police officers. I was alone.

      This makes for an entertaining story to start the chapter, but several problems here:

    • You were in discussion with Rita Ficarra, primarily correct?  You seem to understand her, but she testified she spoke no English, and you claim you barely understand any Italian.  So what language were you ‘‘interrogated’’ in?

    • An interpreter, Anna Donnino, was called from home when you were at the police station.  She was present during the bulk of your ‘‘interview’‘.  Is this true or false?

    • You allege Rita Ficarra hit you.  Why did you not name her until after you were released? You said only a ‘‘chestnut haired woman’‘.

    • Why did your lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, deny publicly that you were ever hit?  Why did you not mention this ‘‘assault’’ in your ECHR complaint?

    • Police claim that you were not supposed to be at the police station, only Raffaele.  When you complained of being tired they told you to go home.

    • Police allege since you came anyway, they asked if you would be willing to help put together some names.  Is that true?

    • You claim it was teams and teams, yet there was considerable testimony that there were only 3 officers including two women and the interpreter Anna Donnino.  Is that true?

    [Chapter 10, Page 104] ‘’ ...That Monday morning, Meredith’s autopsy report was splashed across the British tabloids depicting a merciless, hellish end to her life. The fatal stabbing, the coroner said, had been done with a pocketknife, and skin and hair found beneath Meredith’s fingernails showed she was locked in a vicious to-the-death struggle with her killer.  Mysteriously, news accounts reported that something in the same report had made the police bring Filomena, Laura, and me back to the villa. To this day I don’t know what it was.

    There was evidence that Meredith had been penetrated, but none that proved there had been an actual rape. But other clues that would lead the police to the murderer had been left behind. There was a bloody handprint smeared on the wall and a bloody shoeprint on the floor. A blood-soaked handkerchief was lying in the street nearby. As the stories mounted, I was the only one of Meredith’s three housemates being mentioned consistently by name: “Amanda Knox, an American,” “Amanda Knox, fellow exchange student,” “Amanda Knox, Meredith’s American flatmate.” It was all going horribly wrong….’‘

    • It seems very farfetched that police would go out of their way to leak embarrassing details about the victim.  You, on the other hand, have shown again and again, that you have no qualms about posting embarrassing, and often false information.

    • Meredith’s autopsy was splashed across the British tabloids?  Really, can you name ONE precise newspaper?

    • Really?  The police compromised their own investigations by releasing half-finished findings?

    • You weren’t paying attention to the news?  Were any of your classmates?  Did you hear from them?

    [Chapter 10, Page 105] ‘’ ... I was desperate to get back to my regular routine, an almost impossible quest given that any minute I expected the police to call again. I didn’t have a place of my own to live or clean clothes to wear. But trying to be adult in an unmanageable situation, I borrowed Raffaele’s sweatpants and walked nervously to my 9 A.M. grammar class. It was the first time since Meredith’s body was found that I’d been out alone….’

    • So, it was your first time being alone?  How much of it was the police, and how much with Raffaele?  You are not at all clear on the numbers.  And remember, you did email Judge Nencini, telling him you were interrogated for 50 hours over 4 days.

    [Chapter 10, Page 106] ‘’ ... When class ended I headed back toward Raffaele’s apartment. As I walked through Piazza Grimana, I saw Patrick standing in a crowd of students and journalists in front of the University for Foreigners administration building. He kissed me hello on both cheeks. “Do you want to talk to some BBC reporters?” he asked. “They’re looking for English-speaking students to interview.”

    I said, “I can’t. The police have told me not to talk to anyone about the case.”  “Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to put you in a difficult position,” he said. “That’s okay. But Patrick . . .” I hesitated. “I’ve needed to call you. I don’t think I can work at Le Chic anymore. I’m too afraid to go out by myself at night now. I keep looking behind me to see if I’m being followed. And I feel like someone is lurking behind every building, watching me.”

    • If this is true, then why were you expecting to work later?  Remember that message Patrick sent, saying it is slow?  Remember your reply, See you later?  Why wouldn’t Patrick have taken you off the staff list, at least for the time being?

    • The version Patrick tells, is that you didn’t keep silent out of respect, that you turned around and walked out at the attention Meredith was going to receive.  How accurate is his version?

    • You told him you don’t think you can come anymore?  Patrick told the police he was going to replace you—with Meredith—for being lazy?  Is that true?
    Posted on 08/22/15 at 05:59 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in The former defendantsAmanda KnoxOther legal processesKnox calunniaFamily/defense hoaxersKnox-Mellas teamLies in Knox book
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (25)

    Monday, August 17, 2015

    Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #1

    Posted by Chimera

    Also Implacably Nasty… Click here to go straight to Comments.

    1. Why “Revenge of the Knox”?

    In 2005, Star Wars III, Revenge of the Sith, came out.  In it, the hero Anakin Skywalker started out as a Jedi Knight, and Hero of the Republic.

    Without much reason or plausibility, he morphed to Sith Lord Darth Vader, and went on an implacably nasty, destructive, power driven rampage.  He causes absolute destruction to everyone who ever cared about him.  ‘‘A powerful Sith you will become.  Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth ... Vader.’‘

    Makes sense to me….(!)

    In ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘, by Amanda Knox, 2013, with addition in 2015, she starts off portraying this quirky, free-spirited, but serious and ambitious young woman, who wants to be her own person, study languages, and work as a translator.

    Without much reason, or plausibility, she morphs into an immature kid, naive and oblivious, and engages in a campaign for casual sex.  She doesn’t seem to take the death of her ‘‘friend’’ seriously (other than it could have been her), and her actions cause absolute destruction to anyone who ever cared about her.

    ‘‘A freespirited skank you will become.  Henceforth, you shall be known as Foxy .... Knoxy.”

    Makes sense to me… (!)

    2. The Knox Book In Context

    I previewed this series here previously. The series consists of my own dissections of Knox’s claims. ‘‘Tell-All’’ Memoir ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘! Or… is it her ‘‘Blood-Money’’ novel, ‘‘Waiting to Cash in’‘?

    Knox’s book was written in the first few months after Judge Hellmann, probably illegally, let her walk, though her legal process was (and still is) far from done.

    My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

    Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others in the book.

    None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda as well. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit to her.

    Since the hardcover came out we have pointed in many long posts to specific “mega-lies” of Knox in the past, such as her “interrogation” claims.

    Amazingly on 9 June 2015 HarperCollin released a paperback edition, totally unchanged except for a nasty afterword added on. With that new edition fully translated into Italian for legal purposes, skeptical readers in Italy and elsewhere can now start to really zoom in.

    These will be combined with any others for one master set of Knox’s lies. This post covers pages 1-67 of the 2015 paperback’s 482 pages. Much more here soon.

    3. Dissection Of Pages 1 To 66

    [Chapter 1, Page 6] ‘’ ... It wasn’t until my freshman year in college that I realized I had a knack for languages and started playing around with the idea of becoming a translator. Or, if only, a writer.

    When it came time to decide where to spend my junior year, I thought hard about Germany. But ultimately I decided to find a language and a country of my own—one my family hadn’t already claimed. I was sure that would help me become my grownup self—whoever that was.

    Germany would have been the safer choice, but safety didn’t worry me. I was preoccupied by independence. I trusted my sense of responsibility, even if I sometimes made emotional choices instead of logical ones—and sometimes they were wrong.’

    • Well, if this had actually happened, it would have been a very grown up way to alter her life.  However, as she states very shortly, her real only interests are booze, boys and drugs.  So take this passage with a few ounces of salt.

    [Chapter 1, Page 8] ‘’ ...As I began researching programs in Italy, I realized that having my dad’s support was fundamentally important to me. I’d never rehearsed any part in a play as hard as I had this conversation in my head. I wanted my dad to be impressed. I wasn’t at all sure what I would do if he said no. Once we were seated, I couldn’t wait a second longer. I started making my case even before the waiter brought us menus.

    “Dad,” I said, trying to sound businesslike, “I’d like to spend next year learning Italian in a city called Perugia. It’s about halfway between Florence and Rome, but better than either because I won’t be part of a herd of American students. It’s a quiet town, and I’ll be with serious scholars. I’ll be submerged in the culture. And all my credits will transfer to UW.”

    To my relief, his face read receptive.

    Encouraged, I exhaled and said, “The University for Foreigners is a small school that focuses only on language. The program is intense, and I’ll have to work hard. The hours I’m not in class I’m sure I’ll be in the library. Just having to speak Italian every day will make a huge difference.” ...’‘

    Like the last quoted passage, this sounds great—if it were actually true.  A few things stand out:

    • She began researching programs in Italy?  Well, she took a single course, so clearly didn’t research much.

    • She didn’t know the University for Foreigners was attached to the school at large?  Great research skills.

    • ’‘All my credits, would transfer’‘? Perhaps, if she actually took more than one.

    • ’‘I’d never any part in a play as hard as I had this conversation in my head?’’  Are you talking about your June 2009 testimony?

    • ’‘The hours I’m not in class I’m sure I’ll be in the library’‘...?  Are libraries still for reading and studying, or is Perugia different?

    [Page 9] ‘’ ...I kept going. “I’ve been living away from home for almost two years, I’ve been working, and I’ve gotten good grades. I promise I can take care of myself.”

    “I worry that you’re too trusting for your own good, Amanda,” he said. “What if something happens? I can’t just make a phone call or come over. You’ll be on your own. It’s a long way from home.”

    Dad has a playful side to him, but when he’s in parent mode he can sound as proper as a 1950s sitcom dad. “That’s the whole point, Dad. I’ll be twenty soon, and I’m an adult. I know how to handle myself.”

    “But it’s still our job to take care of you,” he said. “What if you get sick?”

    “There’s a hospital there, and Aunt Dolly’s in Hamburg. It’s pretty close.”

    “How much is tuition? Have you thought about the extra costs involved?”

    “I’ve done all the math. I can pay for my own food and the extra expenses,” I said.

    “Remember I worked three jobs this past winter? I put almost all of it in the bank. I’ve got seventy-eight hundred dollars saved up.”

    • Dad can sound like a 1950’s sitcom dad?  RS mocks his father in Honor Bound as well

    • You can pay for food and extra expenses?  Great, just as long as they aren’t booze and drugs.  Wait ....

    • You have $7800?  How did you burn through half of it in just a month?  Even with ‘‘a job?’‘

    [Chapter 1, Page 11] ‘’ ... During senior year at my Jesuit high school, Seattle Prep, almost all my friends sent applications to schools hundreds of miles from home. Some even wanted to switch coasts.But I knew that I wasn’t mature enough yet to go far away, even though I didn’t want to miss out on an adventure. I made a deal with myself. I’d go to the University of Washington in Seattle, a bike ride from my parents’ houses, and give myself a chance to season up. By the time high school graduation came around, I’d already started looking into junior-year-abroad programs.

    • Well, give Knox credit for one thing.  She acknowledges in high school she is immature

    • She started researching programs in high school?  Wait a minute, on the last page, she says she began researching in 2nd year university.  Now she says she has been doing it for at least 2 years.  Which is it?

    • I guess with all the ‘‘seasoning up’’ (that might be a metaphor), we can now observe the serious student in action.

    [Chapter 1, Page 11] ‘’ ... I was the quirky kid who hung out with the sulky manga-readers, the ostracized gay kids, and the theater geeks. I took Japanese and sang, loudly, in the halls while walking from one class to another.  Since I didn’t really fit in, I acted like myself, which pretty much made sure I never did.

    In truth I wouldn’t have upgraded my lifestyle even if I could have. I’ve always been a saver, not a spender. I’m drawn to thrift stores instead of designer boutiques. I’d rather get around on my bike than in a BMW. But to my lasting embarrassment, in my junior year, I traded my friends for a less eccentric crowd.

    I’d always been able to get along well with almost anyone. High school was the first time that people made fun of me or, worse, ignored me.  I made friends with a more mainstream group of girls and guys, attracted to them by their cohesiveness. They travelled in packs in the halls, ate lunch together, hung out after school, and seemed to have known each other forever. But in pulling away from my original friends, who liked me despite my being different, or maybe because I was, I hurt them. And while my new friends were fun-loving, I was motivated to be with them by insecurity. I’m ashamed for not having had the guts to be myself no matter what anyone thought.

    Several contradictions are apparent here

    • Knox says since she never fit in, she just acted like herself

    • A few paragraphs later, she says she is ashamed for not having the guts to be herself.  Which is it?

    • She is drawn to thrift stores, and is a saver, yet blows through half her ‘‘savings’’ in one month.  How, if not gambling or drugs?

    • You make friends with a ‘‘mainstream, cohesive group’‘, yet are motivated by insecurity to be with them?

    • Knox is not clear how, not being herself hurts her ‘‘outsider’’ friends.  Were they jealous, or did she change?

    [Chapter 1, Page 13] ‘’ ... Most of my other friends were male. We played football, jammed on the guitar, talked about life. After we smoked pot we would choose a food category—burgers, pizza, gyros, whatever—and wander around the neighborhood until we found what we considered the best in its class.

    As I got ready to leave for Perugia, I knew I hadn’t become my own person yet, and I didn’t quite know how to get myself there. I was well-meaning and thoughtful, but I put a ton of pressure on myself to do what I thought was right, and I felt that I always fell short. That’s why the challenge of being on my own meant so much to me. I wanted to come back from Italy to my senior year at UW stronger and surer of myself—a better sister, daughter, friend.

    • You jammed on the guitar.  Did you ever learn more than 1 chord?

    • Most of your friends are male?  Guess we can all agree with that.

    • You felt pressure to do what is right, but always fell short? Huge understatement.

    • Perugia is the challenge of being on your own? You told your parents were grown up and had spent 2 years on your own.

    • You want to come back a better sister, daughter, friend? I thought the motivation was to learn languages and be a translator.  Though, to be fair, she could have multiple motivations.

    [Chapter 1, Page 13] ‘’.... I received a blank journal and a fanny pack and tins of tea. Funny, irreverent Brett brought me a small, pink, bunny-shaped vibrator. I was incredulous; I had never used one.

    “Until you meet your Italian stallion,” Brett said, handing it to me. She winked.

    Her newest cause was to convince me to give casual sex a chance. I’d heard the same thing from other friends. It seemed to make some sense. I yearned to break down all the barriers that stood between me and adulthood. Sex was a big one—and the one that scared me the most. I’d bloomed late and didn’t kiss a guy until I was seventeen. I lost my virginity after I started college. Before Italy, I’d had sex with four guys, each in a relationship I considered meaningful, even though they had turned out to be short-lived.

    I left for Italy having decided I needed to change that. For me, sex was emotional, and I didn’t want it to be anymore—I hated feeling dependent on anyone else. I wanted sex to be about empowerment and pleasure, not about Does this person like me? Will he still like me tomorrow? I was young enough to think that insecurity disappeared with maturity. And I thought Italy would provide me the chance to see that happen.

    On the day I was leaving—in a rush to get to the airport and without a single thought —I tossed Brett’s pink bunny vibrator into my clear plastic toiletry bag. This turned out to be a very bad idea.

    • This is somewhat confusing.  A few pages back I read about this serious young woman who planned a study year abroad, and who had ambitions to be a translator.

    • Now .... what we get are Amanda’s rationales for wanting to sleep around.

    • (Whether the details are true or not), no one cares about your sex life.  We want to know what happened to Meredith.

    • You don’t want sex to be emotional, you want it to be empowering and about pleasure?  Okay, Ms. Arias.

    • And while tossing the vibrator in a clear bad may have been due to a rush in time, you know, you could have stored it in something else once you got to Perugia.

    • Yes, we know you turned out.  You don’t need to publish it.

    [Chapter 2, Page 16] ‘’ ... We shared a joint, and then, high and giggly, we went to his hotel room. I’d just turned twenty. This was my first bona fide one-night stand. I’d told my friends back home that I couldn’t see myself sleeping with some random guy who didn’t matter to me. Cristiano was a game changer. We didn’t have a condom, so we didn’t actually have intercourse. But we were making out, fooling around like crazy, when, an hour later, I realized, I don’t even know this guy ...’‘

    • Wow, so you leave your sister Deanna alone to do a guy you met on the train?

    • And lacking condoms was the only thing preventing you from going all the way?

    • Wasn’t his real name Federico Martini?  Wasn’t he supplying you with free drugs in return for sex?

    • Out of curiousity, how do you think Deanna would feel, not only knowing this, but knowing you published it?  And you named her?

    [Chapter 2, Page 19] Referring to a man who gave Amanda and Deanna a ride ‘’... I rode shotgun and did all the talking. On the off chance that he did anything crazy, I’d be the buffer between him and Deanna. As the oldest, I automatically reacted this way to any possibly dicey situation that included a sibling. I also felt safer when I had the illusion of being in control. Now, looking back, I see that I had a ridiculous amount of unwarranted self-confidence. Why did I assume I knew the way to a hotel in a country I’d been in once, years before, and a city I’d never been in at all? I hadn’t been in a physical fight in my life. What could I have done to protect Deanna if the ride had gone wrong?

    • Amanda says that she is too trusting, yet has fear about the man she and Deanna accepted a ride with.  Odd

    • You react this way to any situation that involved a sibling.  Yet, you just ditched your sister to go hook up with a stranger.  Please explain.

    [Chapter 2, Page 22] ‘’ ... They said I wasn’t the first roommate they’d interviewed. A guy they called “totally uptight” was interested in renting, until he found out they smoked—cigarettes and marijuana. “Are you okay with that?” Filomena asked…’‘

    • You state earlier in the page that Filomena and Laura worked at law firms.  Yet, you publish that they are into marijuana, a great idea, given the socially conservative nature of law firms

    • Did you not also post a few photos of the 3 of you together as ‘‘friends’‘?

    [Chapter 2, Page 23] ‘’ ... I couldn’t wait to return. But I’d also been chastened by my first trip to Perugia. A few days after Deanna and I got to Germany, I broke out with a gigantic cold sore on my top lip that Dolly and I figured must be oral herpes—from Cristiano. To my great embarrassment, Dolly had to take me to the pharmacy to find out how to treat it. I couldn’t believe this was the first wild thing I’d done in my entire life and—bam! I’d made an impulsive decision, and now I’d have to pay a lifelong consequence.

    I was bummed knowing I’d have to take medication forever. Even more humiliating was that from here on out I’d have to explain to potential partners that I might be a risk….’‘

    • So, not only do you publish the fact that you ditched your sister to go screw a stranger, you now publish that you shared it with your Grandmother, and that you needed to get medication?

    • Yup, definitely the stuff Grandma wants to read about ....

    • Curiously enough, you leave out the part about getting arrested for throwing rocks in Seattle, and devote a huge amount of time to covering this casual encounter with Cristiano, or Frederico, or whatever his name is.  I would be interested to know your version of the Seattle ‘‘riot’‘.

    • Of course, if you wanted to talk about this guy supplying you with drugs, it would be interesting to know that as well.

    [Chapter 3, Page 26] ‘’ ... But what drew laughs in Seattle got embarrassed looks in Perugia. It hadn’t dawned on me that the same quirks my friends at home found endearing could actually offend people who were less accepting of differences. A person more attuned to social norms would probably have realized that immature antics didn’t play well here.

    So I was glad I could hang out with Laura, Filomena, and Meredith at home. Even though Meredith was definitely more mainstream and demure than I’d ever be, and Laura and Filomena were older and more sophisticated, I felt comfortable in their company. They seemed to accept me for me right from the start.

    During my first month in Perugia I spent more time with Meredith than anyone else. I liked her a lot, and she seemed to enjoy being with me. I could already see us keeping in touch by e-mail when our year abroad was over. Maybe we’d even end up visiting each other in our hometowns. ...’‘

    • ’‘Quirks’’ such as publishing sexual topics involving family members?

    • If you realized these things, why did you not tone your behaviour down?

    • Antics such as bringing strange men home and disturbing the women you lived with?

    • You and Meredith became close?  Then why did she complain about you to her friends and family?

    [Chapter 3, Page 30] ‘’ .... I didn’t let my mistakes keep me from getting to know my neighborhood or my neighbors a little better. Each time I went to the Internet café to Skype with DJ or chat online with Mom, I’d talk to the guy who ran it, Spyros, a Greek in his late twenties.  We talked about the same things that filled my conversations with my UW friends—mainly our ideas and insecurities…’‘

    • This is the ‘‘Spyros’’ that Knox put in her ‘‘list of suspects’’ November 5/6th, 2007.  Not entirely sure what he does to make Amanda think he is a potential murderer, he seems friendly enough.  Perhaps she will elaborate later.

    [Chapter 3, Page 32] During dinner at his kitchen table my thoughts battled. Was I ready to speed ahead with sex like this? I still regretted Cristiano. But I’d also been thinking about what Brett and my friends at UW had said. I could picture them rolling their eyes and saying,  “Hellooo, Amanda. Sex is normal.”

    Casual sex was, for my generation, simply what you did.

    I didn’t feel that my attitude toward sex made me different from anyone else in my villa. I knew Meredith hadn’t been with anyone since her serious boyfriend in England.  Filomena had a steady boyfriend, Marco Z., in Perugia. And while Laura was dating and sleeping with a guy she thought was sweet but clingy, she encouraged sex outside relationships.

    From the start, all four of us were open to talking about sex and relationships. Laura insisted that Meredith and I should just have fun. Filomena was a little more buttoned-up. She couldn’t understand how, with our history together, DJ and I could just be friends and inform each other about our romantic exploits over Skype.

    • What is the point of all this?  Amanda supposedly writes this book so she can get her story out, but so far, she just seems content to embarrass everyone she has come in contact with.  On the next page, Knox goes on to detail her next casual encounter, some guy named Mirko.

    [Chapter 3, Page 34] ‘’... I walked back to the villa alone, feeling both exhilarated and defeated.

    The next morning, I told my roommates I’d had sex with Mirko. “I feel conflicted,” I said. “It was fun, but it was weird to feel so disconnected from each other. Is that just me?”

    Laura absolved me. “You’re young and free-spirited. Don’t worry about it.”

    That made me feel a little better.

    [on their next encounter…]

    [Chapter 3, Page 34] I was too ashamed and embarrassed to go back to the café after that. Was there something wrong with me? Or was it with him? Either way, I couldn’t bear to run into him again.

    I was alone with Meredith when I told her about fleeing from Mirko.

    “I feel like an idiot.”

    “Amanda,” she said, consolingly, “maybe uninvolved sex just isn’t for you.”

    • I have serious doubts that Laura, who was by Knox’s admission a serious woman, would say that.  At a minimum, Laura would likely have been annoyed to be hearing about this, at worst, somewhat alarmed by AK’s behaviour.

    • In any event, it partially confirms the story Laura and Filomena told about Amanda being an attention seeking exhibitionist.

    • Knox tells Meredith about another (almost) encounter with Mirko, and supposedly Meredith is very understanding…

    • More likely is that a professional woman, and a serious student, would be turned off by these antics.

    [Chapter 3, Page 35] ‘’ ... We shared a house, meals, a bathroom. I treated Meredith as my confidante. Meredith treated me with respect and a sense of humor.

    The only awkward interaction we had was when Meredith gently explained the limitations of Italian plumbing.

    Her face a little strained with embarrassment, she approached me in my room and said, “Amanda, I’m sorry to bring this up with you. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but with our toilets, you really need to use the brush every time.”

    • In Knox’s May 2014 interview with Chris Cuomo, Knox admitted that some of Meredith’s English friends had issues over cleanliness.  Seems odd, if this was the only awkward interaction

    • ...
    • Like before, why does she need to bring this up?  Unless Meredith was killed over a flushed toilet, it really is rather pointless and irrelevant.

    [Chapter 3, Page 37] ‘’ ...Around our house, marijuana was as common as pasta. I never purchased it myself, but we all chipped in. For me, it was purely social, not something I’d ever do alone. I didn’t even know how to roll a joint and once spent an entire evening trying. I’d seen it done plenty of times in both Seattle and Perugia, but it was trickier than I thought it would be. Laura babysat my efforts, giving me pointers as I measured out the tobacco and pot and tried rolling the mixture into a smokable package. I never got it right that night, but I won a round of applause for trying. Either Filomena or Laura took a picture of me posing with it between my index and middle finger, as if it were a cigarette, and I a pouty 1950s pinup.

    I was being goofy, but this caricature of me as a sexpot would soon take hold around the world.

    • Again, you know that Laura and Filomena work for lawyers, yet you publish accounts that claim they are involved in regular drug use?

    • With ‘‘friends’’ like these ...

    • Curious whether these photos actually exist, or are something her mind made up.

    [Chapter 4, Page 39] ‘’ ... I went to school for two hours, five days a week. Besides grammar and pronunciation, I had a third class, in Italian culture. We all went home for lunch at noon, and I spent the rest of the day and night doing whatever I wanted. My teachers didn’t give homework, so I’d sit on the terrace or, when the days cooled, at my desk with a grammar book and a dictionary, making my way, one word at a time, through the Italian translation of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

    • Knox says she has 3 classes: Grammar, Pronunciation, and Italian Culture.  Wait, was she not only doing 1?  Did she drop 2?  Which ones?

    • 10 hours a week (by her admission), is not really a full course-load in ANY university in Canada.  Is it in Italy?

    [Chapter 4, Page 41] Like Juve, Patrick wasn’t interested in my work experience. Looking back now, I’m sure they hired me because they thought I’d attract men to the bar. But I was too naïve back then to get that. I still thought of myself as a quirky girl struggling to figure out who I’d be when I grew up. I now realize that the point of the job “interview” was to see if my looks were a draw or a liability.

    • Wow. a bit narcissistic, aren’t we.  Lumumba is nice enough to give you a job (without a work permit), and you think he just wanted to use you as a piece of meat to attract customers?

    • Well, coming from the woman who has casual flings and then writes about them, maybe it’s where your mind always goes.

    • And no, your looks are not a ‘‘liability’‘.  Your ‘‘creative writing’‘, on the other hand ....

    [Chapter 4, Page 44] My job made me feel like a bull’s-eye in the middle of the chaos. Guys continually came up to me to flirt, saying they’d stop by Le Chic only if I promised to be there.

    Brushing them off, as I would have liked, would have been bad for business. So I hoped my chirpy “You should come by” came off as inviting for Patrick’s sake and not too suggestive for mine.

    • Um… you are supposed to be promoting a bar.

    • And aren’t you the one (in your Diane Sawyer interview), you said she went on a campaign for casual sex?

    [Chapter 4, Page 44] ‘’ ... But I could see why they didn’t come back. Le Chic didn’t get a lot of foot traffic, so the dance floor was usually empty. The bar felt forlorn—not exactly a recipe for a good time. Patrick was jovial and did his best to make it welcoming, but it was still noisy and dark inside and attracted a crowd of older men—often friends of Patrick’s—and not students.

    There was nothing truly dangerous about Le Chic, but its seediness did hint at Perugia’s dark side. What I didn’t know when I arrived was that the city had the highest concentration of heroin addicts in Italy. I never heard about the high level of trafficking and drug use until I was in prison, bunking with drug dealers. During my trial, the prosecution and the media seemed to take for granted that our neighborhood was bad and our little villa a deathtrap.

    Even without knowing this, my mom worried about my safety—a lot. One day, while I was e-mailing back and forth with her at the Internet café, she asked, “Who should I call if I can’t reach you?”

    “We don’t have a home phone, but I can give you Laura’s number,” I wrote. “But honestly, Mom, I think I’m safer here than in Seattle. My friend Juve walks me home from work most nights, and Perugia is much smaller than Seattle. I’ve really made a lot of friends.”

    “Okay,” Mom wrote back. “I feel better.”

    I believed what I said—not because I had reason to but because I was in love with the city’s many charms. And I didn’t pick up on some obvious clues.

    One night, when Le Chic was closing and Juve couldn’t walk me home, I saw an acquaintance of Meredith’s. I didn’t know his real name, only that Meredith and her girlfriends had nicknamed him Shaky because of the way he danced. He offered me a ride home on his scooter. I figured a friend of a friend was close enough to trust. I figured wrong.

    • Patrick’s bar isn’t doing well, but he is hiring staff—you—to help promote it?

    • Let me guess, you framing Patrick only helped attract business with the free publicity?

    • You didn’t know about Perugia’s drug problems?  Didn’t you choose that city BECAUSE there were drugs available?

    • While you pass yourself off as a hard worker, Lumumba said he wanted to fire you for laziness. Which is it?

    • The prosecution claimed your villa was a deathtrap?  Didn’t your lawyer, Dalla Vedova, claim that the police don’t know how to handle a murder case since Perugia hadn’t seen a murder in 20 years.  Your town (and home), can’t be a deathtrap if there hadn’t been any murders in decades.

    • You made a lot of friends? Why were you already considering leaving Perugia?

    • You’re in love with the city’s charms? You just said it was seedy, had heroin problems, and a dark side.

    • Juve and ‘‘Shaky’’ also appeared on your list of suspects that you gave to Rita Ficarra.  Why exactly did you include them?

    [Chapter 4, Page 46] ‘’ ... Giacomo handed me a beer, and I pushed my way through the crowd to find Meredith. When we had rejoined the guys, they introduced us to a friend who, I’d later learn, had moved to Italy as a kid, from Ivory Coast. His name was Rudy. They sometimes played pickup basketball with him.  The five of us stood around for a few minutes before walking home together. The guys invited us to their apartment, but Meredith and I first stopped at ours to drop off our purses.

    “Ready to go downstairs?” I asked her.

    “You go. I’ll be down in a second,” she said.

    When I opened the door to the downstairs apartment, Giacomo, Marco, Stefano, and Rudy were sitting around the table laughing. “What’s funny?” I asked.  “Nothing,” they said sheepishly.  I didn’t think another thing about it until months and months later, when it came out in court that just before I’d opened the door, Rudy had asked the guys if I was available.

    A short time later, Meredith came in and sat down next to me at the table. The guys passed us the joint they were smoking. We each inhaled, handed it back, and sat there for a few minutes while they joked around in Italian. Tired and a little stoned, I couldn’t keep up with their conversation. After a little while I told Meredith, “I’m going up to bed.”

    • In her December 2013 email to Judge Nencini, she claims to have never met Rudy.

    • In that same email, to claims to have crossed paths with Rudy once

    • In WTBH, Amanda, Meredith, Rudy, and the men downstairs get high together.  That is more than just ‘‘crossing paths’‘.

    • In the 2009 trial, there was testimony that Rudy Guede frequently visited the downstairs floor

    • Why would it be funny asking if Amanda is available?  It’s not like she is a loose woman or anything.

    • Meredith is your ‘‘friend’‘? Why leak these details?  Her family doesn’t want to hear them.

    • So, Rudy was interested in you?  Thank you for confirming a possible connection as to why he might have been upstairs in your [the women’s] floor.

    • Silly question: was Rudy the ‘‘South African’’ from the basketball court that you put in your list of suspects?

    [Chapter 4, Page 49] ‘’ ...When we got home, Bobby followed me to the front door.

    “Do you want to come in?” I asked.

    “Are you sure?”

    I nodded. This was the first time I’d invited a guy into my bed since I’d arrived in Perugia. We went to my room and had sex. Then we both passed out.

    The next morning I got up before he did, got dressed, and went to make myself breakfast. Bobby came into the kitchen a few minutes later.

    We were eating cookies when Laura came out of her bedroom. I’d never entertained a lover at the villa for breakfast, and it was awkward, despite Laura’s proclaimed sense of easy sexuality. All three of us tried to ignore the feeling away.

    After breakfast Bobby left to return to Rome. I walked him to the door. He smiled, waved, and walked away….’‘

    I didn’t feel the same regret I’d had after sex with Mirko, but I still felt the same emptiness. I had no way of knowing what a big price I would end up paying for these liaisons.

    • Again, I am not sure what Knox is trying to prove here.  Meredith, according to her English friends, found Amanda to be somewhat deranged and disturbed.  And here, Knox is confirming that Laura found this awkward, and it was only the first one…

    • Laura and Filomena reported that Knox brought MANY strange men home.  Seems AK is a little vague on the exact extent of this, maybe we need to ask her best truth… wait a minute! This is a murder case.  No one cares who Amanda slept with.

    • Perhaps Amanda’s roommates can see right through her.

    [Chapter 4, Page 49] A few minutes later, Meredith came upstairs. She and Giacomo had slept together for the first time, and she was giddy. It had been a wild night at No. 7, Via della Pergola, but it turned out to be a one-time thing.

    • So, Meredith is your ‘‘friend’‘, and yet in your book you publish details of HER sex life?  Wow…

    [Chapter 5, Page 51] ‘’ ... Later I would wonder what would have been different if this hadn’t happened. What if Meredith had stayed at the concert? What if Raffaele had gotten there in time to get a seat? Would we have noticed each other? Would he, naturally shy, have introduced himself without the excuse of a needed chair? Would never knowing him have changed how I was perceived? Would that have made the next four years unfold differently? For me, maybe. For Raffaele, absolutely.

    But we did meet. And I did like him. Raffaele was a humble, thoughtful, respectful person, and he came along at the moment that I needed a tether. Timing was the second ingredient that made our relationship take off. Had it been later in the year, after I’d found my bearings and made friends, would I have needed the comfort he offered?

    Waiting for the return of the quintet, we talked. His English was better than my Italian.

    • So which happened first? Did you meet Raffaele because Meredith left, or did Meredith leave because you were interested in Raffaele? You are unclear here

    • Relationship?  You spent the last few chapters talking about casual sex?  Why do you need a relationship?

    • So, what exactly about Raffaele was a ‘‘tether’‘?

    • Do you typically sleep together in relationships, or just casual encounters?

    • Would the next four years unfolded differently?  For me, maybe, for him, definitely…?  So, you would have found other goons to help you murder Meredith?

    [Chapter 5, Page 52] ‘’ ...When we stood up to leave, he asked for my number. In Perugia, where I’d gotten this question a lot, my stock answer was no. But I thought Raffaele was nerdy and adorable—definitely my type. He was wearing jeans and sneakers that evening. Like DJ, he had a pocketknife hooked to his belt loop. I liked his thick eyebrows, soft eyes, high cheekbones. He seemed less sure of himself than the other Italian men I’d met. I said, “I’ll be working later at Le Chic on Via Alessi. You should come by.”...’‘

    • Seriously?  You go on a campaign for casual sex, and you typically DON’T give out your number?

    • Raffy likes to carry knives?  Great, thank you for confirming it

    [Chapter 5, Page 54] ‘’ ... Raffaele looked surprised, then pleased. “Do you want to come to my apartment and smoke a joint?”

    I hesitated. He was basically a stranger, but I trusted him. I saw him as a gentle, modest person. I felt safe. “I’d love to,” I said.

    Raffaele lived alone in an immaculate one-room apartment. I sat on his neatly made bed while he sat at his desk rolling a joint. A minute later he swiveled around in his chair and held it out to me.

    The marijuana was starting to kick in. “You know what makes me laugh?” I asked.

    “Making faces. See.” I crossed my eyes and puffed out my cheeks. “You try it.”

    “Okay.” He stuck out his tongue and scrunched up his eyebrows.

    I laughed.

    By then, Raffaele had moved next to me on the bed. We made faces until we collided into a kiss. Then we had sex. It felt totally natural. I woke up the next morning with his arm wrapped snugly around me. ....’‘

    • Okay, we get it.  You hooked up with Raffaele, and on the first meet What is this, the fourth different guy you’ve written about sleeping with?

    • This whole thing about hooking up with strangers… you are still reluctant?  Or is this a relationship?  I can’t tell.

    • Sex with a knife carrying, pot-smoking Harry Potter is natural?  Okay, to each their own….

    [Chapter 5, Page 57] ‘’ ... Raffaele looked at me seriously, appreciatively. “Will you be my girlfriend?”

    We’d known each other for three days.

    “Yes,” I said, feeling a tiny twinge that I took as a warning sign. This is moving too fast. Is Raffaele making too much of our relationship too soon? He’d already said he wanted to introduce me to his family at graduation, and he was planning our winterweekends together in Milan. We barely knew each other.

    I couldn’t see how we would last, because we were a couple of months away from living in two different cities, and I was definitely going back to Seattle at the end of the next summer. Since a big part of why I’d come to Italy was to figure myself out, it occurred to me that maybe I should be alone, that I should slow things down now, before they rocketed ahead. But just because I thought it doesn’t mean I did it.

    It was easy to shove my doubts aside, because I really liked Raffaele. He was sensitive, and I felt calm around him. And without any solid ties, I’d been lonelier in Perugia than I’d realized…’‘

    • You slept together on the first night, but aren’t sure if this is another quickie, or a relationship.  And now you are worried about moving too fast?

    • Three days later, Raffaele asks you if you want to be a couple

    • You are lonelier than you realized? Didn’t you tell everyone that you were having a blast, making all kinds of friends?

    • Figure yourself out?  You previously said you wanted (a) to learn languages, (b) work as a translator, and (c) that you wanted to do your third year abroad If you actually were doing (a), (b), and (c), you wouldn’t be so lonely, trying to figure yourself out.  You would be too busy.

    • Besides, weren’t you going on about how Meredith and Laura were such great people to be with?  Why do you feel ‘‘lonely’‘?

    • Definitely going back to Seattle? I thought you had all these ambitions abroad?

    [Chapter 5, Page 57] ‘’ ... Being with Raffaele also taught me a big lesson about my personality that I’d tried so hard—and harmfully, in Cristiano’s case—to squelch. I was beginning to own up to the fact that casual hookups like I’d had with Mirko and Bobby weren’t for me. I like being able to express myself not just as a lover but in a loving relationship. Even from the minuscule perspective of a few days with Raffaele, I understood that, for me, detaching emotion from sex left me feeling more alone than not having sex at all —bereft, really. I didn’t know that this lesson had come too late to do me any good…’‘

    • You learned too late that casual sex with strangers can result in STD’s?  Did you not know, or just not care?

    • Did Cristiano (or I mean Federico Martini), have something else besides his looks? Drugs prehaps?

    • You realized after the fact that unattached sex leads to feelings of emptiness?

    • Why are you going through these ‘‘self-discoveries’’ anyway’?  Didn’t you have a full slate of ambitions, and amazing people living with you?

    [Chapter 5, Page 59] ‘’ ... Around 12:30 A.M., when I met Spyros and his friends for drinks, I couldn’t get into the good time they were having. Even on a blowout party night, Perugia’s social scene didn’t do much for me, and the whole evening felt like a dud. It made me nostalgic for the sit-around-and-talk gatherings of friends at UW. I was glad when Raffaele came to Piazza IV Novembre to walk me home. By that time it was 1:45 A.M., and most of my eyeliner whiskers had rubbed off. Thankfully, Halloween 2007 was over.

    • Well, still waiting to hear what Spyros did that made you add him to you ‘‘suspect list’‘

    • Why does the evening feel like a dud?  You told your mother you have lots of friends.

    • You’re in the great town of Perugia, and you just want to sit around and talk?  Didn’t you have your fill in Seattle?

    • What is the real reason you are not enjoying yourself?

    [Chapter 5, Page 61] ‘’ ... 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 part he didn’t understand, as best I could, into Italian or English while we smoked and giggled.

    [Chapter 5, Page 45] 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.

    • You remember playing Beatle’s songs for an hour.  Okay, do you remember which ones?

    • Silly question, I don’t remember Raffaele having a guitar.  Whose was it?

    • Raffaele had already called a plumber before?  Would be interesting to see a service record.

    • So… was this a minor spill, or was your house virtually flooded? How serious was it?

    • You live in this apartment? Do you not have a single towel?

    • If it had leaked before, why did you not have a mop, or at least a few extra towels?

    • You turned off your phone.  In Honor Bound, Raffy says he turned off his.  Is this normal?

    • You have a German Harry Potter book, and you are translating parts of it into Italian and English.  So much for barely knowing Italian.

    • Mentioning Jovanna may seem like an alibi… but the murder happened much later.

    • You are excited about not having to go to work?  What happened about being a serious person?

    • You are a language student, and you really didn’t know that a common Italian expression means something totally different in English?

    • So, AK and RS are about to head to Gubbio.  Sounds like a fun trip.  All Amanda has to do is go back to her place, shower, and grab some clothes, right?

    • How long were you planning to be in Gubbio?  How many changes of clothes would you need?

    • And of course, she adds details about sex, and how she got a scratch (I mean, hickey, on her neck).

    • Had you and Raffaele done any road trips before, or was this a first time thing?

    • Alibi, check. Excuse for scratch, check. Not being able to wait, check.

    • You said in your November 6th statement you didn’t remember if you read or made love.  Why don’t you remember?

    • If you and Raffaele were doing things that could cause a hickey, why don’t you remember making love?

    • You seem to have a very detailed memory of that night.  Why did you tell the police many different stories later?

    [Chapter 5, Page 62, Knox letter to police]’‘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….’‘

    ‘’ ... This is what happened and I could swear by it. I’m sorry I didn’t remember before and I’m sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared. I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house….’‘

    • This has you receiving the message, replying, and turning off your phone BEFORE your dinner.  Which is it?

    [Chapter 6, Page 65] On that cold, sunny Friday morning, I left Raffaele asleep in his apartment and walked home to take a shower and get my things together, thinking about our romantic weekend in the Umbrian hills. In hindsight, it seems that arriving home to find the front door open should have rattled me more. I thought, That’s strange. But it was easily explained. The old latch didn’t catch unless we used a key. Wind must have blown it open, I thought, and walked inside the house calling out, “Filomena? Laura? Meredith? Hello? Hello? Anybody?”

    Nobody. The bedroom doors were closed.

    I wasn’t alarmed by two pea-size flecks of blood in the bathroom sink that Meredith and I shared. There was another smear on the faucet. Weird. I’d gotten my ears pierced. Were they bleeding? I scratched the droplets with my fingernail. They were dry. Meredith must have nicked herself. It wasn’t until I got out of the shower that I noticed a reddish-brown splotch about the size of an orange on the bathmat. More blood. Could Meredith have started her period and dripped? But then, how would it have gotten on the sink? My confusion increased. We were usually so neat. I went to my room and, while putting on a white skirt and a blue sweater, thought about what to bring along on my trip to Gubbio with Raffaele.

    I went to the big bathroom to use Filomena’s blow dryer and was stashing it back against the wall when I noticed poop in the toilet. No one in the house would have left the toilet unflushed. Could there have been a stranger here? Was someone in the house when I was in the shower? I felt a lurch of panic and the prickly feeling you get when you think someone might be watching you. I quickly grabbed my purse and coat and somehow remembered the mop I said I’d bring back to Raffaele’s. I scrambled to push the key into the lock, making myself turn it before I ran up the driveway, my heart banging painfully.

    By the time I was a block from home I was second-guessing myself. Maybe I was overreacting. Maybe there was a simple reason for the toilet being unflushed. I needed someone to say, “Amanda, you’re right to be scared. This isn’t normal.” And if it wasn’t okay, I wanted someone to tell me what to do. My skittering brain pulled up my mom’s mantra: when in doubt, call. Forgetting the nine-hour time difference between Perugia and Seattle, I pressed the number sequence for home. My mom did not say hello, just “Amanda, are you okay? What’s wrong?” It was in the middle of the night in Seattle, and she was worried.

    “I’m on my way back to Raffaele’s,” I said, “but I just wanted to check in. I found some strange things in my house.” I explained my reasons for worrying. Then I asked, “What do you think I should do?”  “Call your roommates,” she said. “Go tell Raffaele, and call me right back.”

    • So, you leaves Raffaele’s apartment, to grab some things to take back for your Gubbio trip?  Okay.

    • White skirt and blue sweater?  Well, you can’t really deny that, since you were photographed in it.

    • Didn’t you walk by Filomena’s room to get to the front door?  You didn’t notice the broken glass?

    • The front door is open, but you think nothing of it?  If someone was taking out the garbage, wouldn’t you have passed them?

    • You find blood in the bathroom sink (even 2 spots), and you don’t clean it)?

    • You see an orange shaped lump of blood, and you think it is Meredith ‘‘dripping’‘?  You leave the mat where it is?

    • You find ‘‘poop’’ in the toilet, which at this point probably smells rank, and don’t think to flush it?

    • And this ‘‘happens’’ to be the poop left behind by Meredith’s ‘‘sole killer’‘?

    • You notice both poop, and ‘‘menstrual blood’‘, and you don’t think to clean up either?

    • You are in a panic to leave, but you grab your coat, purse .... and a mop?

    • You think you may be overreacting, and you don’t go back to flush and clean the blood.  Did you not just say you were usually so neat?

    • And Mom doesn’t advise you to just flush the poop either?  Odd family.

    • When Edda Mellas testified at the 2009 trial, did she not say that Amanda thought someone had been in the house?  And that Meredith was missing?  Did Edda not tell her to hang up and call the police?  This account is VERY different.

    [Chapter 6, Page 67] I called Filomena first and was relieved when she picked up. “Ciao, Amanda,” she said.

    “Ciao,” I said. “I’m calling because when I came home from Raffaele’s this morning,  our front door was open. I found a few drops of blood in one bathroom and shit in the other toilet. Do you know anything about it?”

    “What do you mean?” she asked, her voice instantaneously on high alert. “I didn’t stay there last night—I was at Marco’s—and Laura’s in Rome on business. Have you talked to Meredith?”

    “No, I tried you first,” I said.

    “I’m at the fair outside town,” she said. “I just got here. Try Meredith, and then go back to the house. We need to see if anything was stolen.” She sounded worried.

    I called Meredith on her British phone. A recording said it was out of service. That struck me as odd. Then I pulled up Meredith’s Italian number. It went straight to voice mail.

    By that time, I was back at Raffaele’s. He was in total vacation mode: he’d slept in and had just gotten out of the shower. I’d forgotten about our trip. “Hey,” I said, trying to sound casual, “does this sound weird to you?” I told him what I’d seen.

    “Yeah,” he said. “We should definitely go over and look around.”

    Over a quick breakfast, Raffaele and I talked some more about what I’d seen. “Maybe the toilet is just broken,” he said.

    Even before we’d downed the last sips of our coffee, Filomena called back. “What do you see?” she demanded. Her panic was retriggering my own.

    “Filomena,” I said, as evenly as I could, “we’re just leaving Raffaele’s.”

    Ten minutes later, when we reached the villa, my stomach was knotted with dread.

    “What if someone was in here?” I said, feeling increasingly creeped out. Raffaele held my free hand while I unlocked the door. I yelled, “Is anyone here?”

    At first nothing seemed amiss. The house was quiet, and the kitchen/living area was immaculate. I poked my head in Laura’s room. It looked fine, too. Then I opened
    Filomena’s door. I gasped. The window had been shattered and glass was everywhere.

    Clothes were heaped all over the bed and floor. The drawers and cabinets were open. All I could see was chaos. “Oh my God, someone broke in!” I shouted to Raffaele, who was right behind me. In the next instant, I spotted Filomena’s laptop and digital camera sitting on the desk. I couldn’t get my head around it. “That’s so weird,” I said.

    “Her things are here. I don’t understand. What could have happened?”  Just then, my phone rang. It was Filomena. “Someone’s been in your room,” I said.

    “They smashed your window. But it’s bizarre—it doesn’t look like they took anything.”

    “I’m coming home this second,” she said, her voice constricted.

    Meredith’s door was still closed, just as it had been when I was home earlier. I called out, “Meredith.” She didn’t answer. Could she have spent the night with Giacomo? Or with one of her British girlfriends? Still, at that moment I was more worried about the smashed window in Filomena’s room than about Meredith’s closed door.

    I ran outside and around the house to see if the guys downstairs were home and to see if they’d heard anything during the night. Outside, away from Raffaele, my anxiety soared. My heart started racing again. I pounded on their door and tried to peer through the glass. It looked like no one was home.

    I ran back upstairs and knocked gently on Meredith’s door, calling, “Meredith. Are you in there?” No sound. I called again, louder. I knocked harder. Then I banged. I jiggled the handle. It was locked. Meredith only locks her door when she’s changing clothes, I thought. She can’t be in there or she’d answer. “Why isn’t she answering me?” I asked Raffaele frantically.

    I couldn’t figure out, especially in that moment, why her door would be locked. What if she were inside? Why wouldn’t she respond if she were? Was she sleeping with her earphones in? Was she hurt? At that moment what mattered more than anything was reaching her just to know where she was, to know that she was okay.  I kneeled on the floor and squinted, trying to peer through the keyhole. I couldn’t see anything. And we had no way of knowing if the door had been locked from the inside or the outside.

    “I’m going outside to see if I can look through her window from the terrace.”  I climbed over the wrought-iron railing. With my feet on the narrow ledge, I held on to the rail with one hand and leaned out as far as I could, my body at a forty-five-degree angle over the gravel walkway below. Raffaele came out and shouted, “Amanda! Get down. You could fall!”  That possibility hadn’t occurred to me.

    “Please come in before you get hurt!” As soon as we got inside, we went back to Meredith’s closed door. “I can try to kick it down,” Raffaele offered. “Try it!” He rammed the door with his shoulder, hard. Nothing. He kicked next to the handle. It didn’t budge.

    I called my mom again. “Mom,” I said. “Someone broke into our house, and we can’t find Meredith. What should we do?”

    “Amanda, call the police,” she said.

    My stepfather, Chris, yelled into the speakerphone, “Amanda, get the hell out of the house, this instant!”

    While I was talking to them, Raffaele called his sister to see what she thought. She was a police officer in Rome.

    • You called Filomena first?  Wasn’t the first call a very brief one to Meredith?

    • So, you tell Filomena about the poop and the blood, and she doesn’t just say to flush/clean it?

    • You just ‘‘forgot’’ about your Gubbio trip?  I thought there was nothing to be alarmed about.

    • Raffaele’s first reaction isn’t to just flush either?  Okay….

    • You ‘‘opened’’ Filomena’s door?  RS, in Honor Bound, said it already was…

    • Filomena’s room looked like it had been broken into.  Why was there no glass outside, assuming the climb was possible?

    • So, you are incredibly alarmed by Meredith’s locked door, but tell the police it is no big deal?

    • You thought Meredith might be with Giaccomo, or her British girlfriends. Did you call any of them?

    • Did you tell the police about your efforts to look in through the terrace?

    • Raffaele is a kickboxer, yet he could not break it down?

    [This post covers 1-67 of the 2015 paperback’s 482 pages. Much more very soon]

    Posted on 08/17/15 at 07:00 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in The former defendantsAmanda KnoxOther legal processesKnox calunniaFamily/defense hoaxersKnox-Mellas teamLies in Knox book
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (25)

    Thursday, August 13, 2015

    Justice System Comparisons #4: How Canada And Italy Shape Up Against The US

    Posted by Chimera

    A joint press conference of Italian and American crimefighters in Rome

    Framing This Post

    A major argument of conspiracy theorists like the one dissected in James Raper’s post below is that the Italian justice system is not very good, and often cruel.

    In English only (of course) Sollecito and Gumbel tried that in Sollecito’s book and maliciously and self-servingly misled Americans a lot. Doug Preston has done the same. Here we nailed some of Sollecito’s and Gumbel’s malicious claims. 

    We have propagated an accurate take on Italian justice in numerous posts here. Between them they show that Italian justice IS very good, apart from occasional meddling which almost always goes nowhere. By comparison the US (which co-operates closely with both Italy and Canada) has more headaches with law enforcement and justice system (or systems) than quite a few other countries now.

    My own contribution has been to show how in many ways Canadian justice resembles Italian justice and it is hard to say which is better or worse. See my past posts on this here and here and here.

    This post and the next post in my series focuses on the US and Canada and some basic differences in those laws relevant to our case here.

    Plus the highlighting of some notorious killers in both Canada and the United States of a kind which in fact in Italy are quite rare.

    Who Makes the Laws?

    One important distinction to make here:  In Canada, criminal law is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.  That means Ottawa makes the criminal laws, and is responsible to setting the sentences for each offence.  In a similar vein, Ottawa also can remove laws that are outdated, and amend the sentencing ranges for offences.  In the United States, murder and sexual assault are considered ‘‘state crimes’‘, and the respective states determine the laws.  This is why some states have the death penalty, and others do not.

    While the American model, being state made, does in theory make the laws more closely reflect the will of the people, it makes for a very uneven set of penalties for crimes.  The Canadian model, by comparison, is uniform across all provinces and territories.

    When is it First Degree Murder?

    It is first degree murder when a killing is planned out.  However, many circumstances arise which are so aggravated that the government will consider them 1st degree, regardless of being intentional.  Also, depending on who the victim is, just the murder alone may result in s 1st degree charge.  This is a commonality between both Canada and the U.S.

    In Canada

    According to the Criminal Code of Canada Section 231(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:

    (a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);
    (b) section 271 (sexual assault);
    (c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);
    (d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);
    (e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or
    (f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).[12]

    In The US

    The individual states have differences in their laws, but they are common in that planned or premeditated killings are particularly heinous and call for severe punishment.  Most states also have what is called ‘‘felony murder’‘, which is when someone is killed during the commission of a crime, such as rape, robbery, arson or kidnapping.

    Generally speaking, killing of police officers, jail guards, and court officials is also first degree murder, regardless of whether those were planned.  I am not posting the statutes for 50 states, but you get the idea.

    Take the Jodi Arias case for example.  Arias, in trying to fight off premeditation allegations, claimed that she did not bring the gun (a .25 automatic) to Travis Alexander’s house to kill him.  Prosecutors allege that Arias staged a burglary in her Grandparents’ home a week before to to provide cover.

    Arias claimed that the gun was actually Travis’.  However, no gun was ever recovered from the home.  So, then if it was Travis’ gun, Arias must have stolen it from his house, making it a robbery.

    Prosecutor Juan Martinez argued either Arias: (a) Brought the gun to Arizona, meaning it was premeditated, and hence 1st degree, or; (b) She robbed Mr. Alexander of his gun after killing him, which makes it felony murder, hence 1st degree. 

    Note: in the 2013 trial verdict, all 12 jurors thought it was premeditated, while 7 of them thought it qualified as ‘‘felony murder’’ as well.

    Federal v.s. State/Provincial Prison

    Under Canadian law, whether a person goes to a Provincial or Federal prison is determined by the length of the sentence.  2 years is the cutoff mark.  2 years and above, the person goes to federal prison, whereas 2 years less a day and below results in going to a provincial jail.

    For federal prisoners, in Canada, they are transported to Kingston, Ontario for ‘‘classification’‘. This can take months.  Then they are usually shipped off to other prisons around the country.  For provincial prisoners serving very short sentences (3 months or less), they may just stay in the local jails, while those serving longer terms are usually sent to other provincial jails.

    Under American law, the difference between state and federal prison depends on the offence.  Sexual assault, assault, and murder are state charges, while the federal system is more drug trafficking and white collar crime.  This is likely why federal prison is seen as ‘‘easier time’‘.

    Death Penalty Laws

    Canada currently does not have the death penalty.

    Several U.S. states still do, such as California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Virginia.  This is determined at the state level.

    However, do not think that all Americans are bloodthirsty, and all Canadians too forgiving or soft.  Depending on the research poll, about 35-45% of Canadians do support capital punishment in some circumstances.  This is a significant minority.  And many Americans find the death penalty distasteful, as there is the chance to kill innocent people.

    Sex Offender Registry

    Both Canada and the U.S. have sex offender registries.  Concerning what happened to Meredith: Knox, Sollecito and Guede would all have to register if they were ever set free.  They would be registered for life, regardless if the crime happened locally or internationally.  The reasons are the same for both countries—namely to monitor sexual predators.

    One key difference: in Canada, the S.O.R is limited to police use, while in some U.S. states, the public in general can look it up.  Without getting into a debate, I imagine the difference is which concern is more pressing: (a) Letting the public have the right to know and act; (b) Concerns about becoming a pariah, and potential acts of vigilantism.

    Deportation of Foreigners

    If someone came to Canada or the U.S. and committed these acts, they would be deported after serving their sentence.

    There have been attempts to fight deportation, claiming the home country engages in human rights abuses, but hopefully, these will become harder to pull off.

    ’‘Cashing in’’ on the Notoriety, or Son-of-Sam Laws

    Canadian provinces have their own laws, as do U.S. states and the federal government, but in content they are almost identical.  Notorious criminals (usually killers, but not always), cannot cash in on their ‘‘fame’’ in the form of paid interview, articles, book deals or movie deals.

    Any such deal would very likely be forfeited either by a government challenge, or by a lawsuit from the victims or their families.  The proceeds from ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’’ or from ‘‘Honor Bound’’ would be seized.

    Classifications of Crimes

    In Canada:

    Minor crimes are tried ‘‘summarily’‘
    Major crimes are tried ‘‘by indictment’‘
    Crimes which the prosecutor has discretion are called ‘‘hybrid offences’‘

    In the U.S.

    Minor crimes are called ‘‘misdemeanors’‘
    Major crimes are called ‘‘felonies’’

    Judge Alone v.s. Jury Trial

    In Canada, a defendant has the option of choosing between a judge only trial (called a bench trial), or a jury trial if facing any offence that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years or more.  If the maximum penalty is 5 years or less, then it will be the judge only.  This cuts down on the amount of times jury notice is sent out.

    In the U.S. (I don’t know all the cases), but there is usually more options to have the case heard by a jury.

    Jury Deliberations

    In Canada, jurors are sworn not to talk about their deliberations with their families, or with the press.  This ‘‘legal omerta’’ survives even after a decision and a sentence has been handed down.  In fact, it never expires.  Jurors who deliberated over cases 50 years ago cannot talk about it.  This works the same as with Italy.

    This differs from the U.S., where (unless a specific publication ban is in place), jurors are free to talk and give interviews after the fact.  In fact, many jurors do give interviews after high profile cases are resolved.  If Genny Ballerini (who talked about the Florence appeal in 2013/2014), had been an American juror, it would have been okay to do.

    Threshold to Getting an Appeal Heard

    In all 3 countries: Canada, the U.S., and Italy, all defendants who are convicted have the right to pursue an appeal.  However, an important difference is made.

    Canadian and American appeals are screened before the full appeal is heard.  They are checked for merit, and to review if their is any real likelihood of success.  This applies to both defendants seeking to have convictions overturned, and those merely seeking sentence reductions.  If the appeal appears to be baseless, it will be rejected, and the full panel of judges will not hear it.  If the appeal filed before Judge Chairi (later moved to Judge Hellmann), had been in a Canadian or U.S. court, the grounds would be so weak it would have been thrown out on review.

    Italy, by comparison, automatically grants not 1, but 2 appeals to all defendants.  All they have to do is file for one.  Yes, a much lower burden, but it means that the appeals courts (and Cassation), are clogged by appeals, slowing everything down.

    Makeup of Appellate Courts

    Appeal courts in both Canada and the U.S. are comprised of a panel of judges.  This will usually be between 3 and 9 judges.  In Italy, the typical first level appeal is decided by 2 judges and 6 jurors (or lay judges).

    Canadian, American and Italian Supreme Courts are decided by judges alone.

    Agenda of Appellate Courts

    Canadian and American courts are similar in that they are ‘‘paper courts’‘, not ‘‘evidence courts’‘.  They work from transcripts, not evidence or witnesses.  However, in Italy, at the lower appellate level, witnesses are heard, defendants can talk, and evidence can be presented.  It is more like another trial than a Common Law ‘‘appeal’‘.  But to be fair, an appeal to the Italian Supreme Court (a.k.a. Corti di Cassazione), is a brief hearing on the procedures, logic, and findings of the lower court, and is quite similar to a Common Law appeal.

    Canadian and American appeals courts are not there to ‘‘retry a case’‘.  Rather, the burden falls on the appellant (the party appealing), regardless of whether it is a prosecution or a defence appeal.

    For a defendant appealing a conviction, the burden is on him/her to show that there was significant error that led to the conviction, such as:
    -Evidence admitted at trial that should not have been
    -New evidence emerges that shows innocence, or impeaches a prosecution witness
    -Wrong legal procedures were applied at trial
    -There was bias or prejudice from the court

    For a defendant appealing a sentence, the burden is to show that:
    -The sentence was unduly harsh
    -It is inconsistent with similar crimes and circumstances

    Size of the Nation’s Highest Court

    The Supreme Court of Canada has 9 judges.

    The Supreme Court of the United States has 9 judges.

    The Supreme Court of Italy has about 300 judges.

    Consecutive v.s. Concurrent Sentences

    Until very recently, the law in Canada was that all convictions a person received for acts, (or a series of acts), ran together, or concurrently.  This changed to exclude multiple murderers, and the so called ‘‘bulk discount’’ they were getting.  In the past, even serial killers would be eligible for parole after 25 years.  No guarantees of parole of course, but the possibility angers victims rights groups.

    The U.S. judges have much more lattitude in handing out consecutive sentences.

    Mandatory Sentencing

    Canada has mandatory sentences for many offences, including: 1st and 2nd degree murder, crimes committed using firearms, child sex offences, trafficking in drugs, and fraud (if the value is over $1 million).  The trend in the last several years has been to push for harsher penalties.

      -For murder, multiple murder sentences now run consecutively.
      -The minimum for crimes using guns was 4 years, it is now 5, 7 or 10 depending on number of previous offences
      -Child sex offences was 90 days (if by indictment), now it is 1 year
      -Discretion has been removed in sentencing drug dealers to prison for the most part
      -Major fraud has a 2 year minimum.  It never used to.

    America also has mandatory jail sentences, including for minor drug offences,  Too numerous to list here, but there has been pressure to reduce these sentences to curb the swelling prison population.  Except for the Walter Whites (Breaking Bad) out there, dealing shouldn’t carry a longer minimum sentence than manslaughter.

    Knox’s drug dealer, Federico Martini, should be especially grateful to have been in Italy.  Rather than the 28 months he got for dealing, had he been in the U.S., it would likely be closer to 28 years.

    Plea Bargaining

    In both Canada and the U.S., plea bargaining is available, (something not available in Italy).  Not only does a defendant usually have the option of pleading for lesser time, but but a lesser charge.  This can cause a quick settlement, especially if one is accused of an offence which carries a high minimum sentence.

    While prosecutors and defence counsel can make a deal, the judge ultimately accepts or refuses it.

    Plea bargaining in a single defendant case is one thing, but it is much more controversial to make a deal to testify against someone else.  The reasoning is that the person’s story can’t help but be shaped in an effort to please the prosecutors, and that it is in essence ‘‘buying testimony’‘.  Though state standards differ, corroboration is required, as a person cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of an accomplice.  There is also the risk of a conviction being thrown out if lies are discovered.

    Guede offered to testify against Knox and Sollecito, but Mignini/Comodi refused to let him.  They didn’t need him, and even if they let him, there was the chance it would blow up in their faces.

    Incarceration Rate

    Canada: 118 per 100,000
    United States: 707 per 100,000

    ****Incidentally, Italy’s rate is 100 per 100,000

    Note: Those topics: (a) consecutive sentences; (b) mandatory minimums; (c) plea bargaining; and (d) incarceration rate; are closely related.

    Recording of Police Interrogations

    It is not required in Canada to record suspect interrogations, nor (although I don’t know each state) in the U.S.  There is no law in either Canada or the U.S. that witness interviews must be videotaped, often they end merely in statements being written up.

    However, most police agencies have a policy of recording suspect questionings.  There are several reasons for doing it: (a) To protect against any claim of being ‘‘roughed up’’ by authorities; (b) To protect against potential claims of being misinterpreted; (c) To provide a full record of what happened; (d) To review later, as a video may be mined for further information.

    Knox claimed she was ‘‘interrogated’’ by Perugian Police, and that she was targeted.  Odd, how Rita Ficarra had no idea she would even be coming to the police station.  (Sollecito had been called—alone—to clear up his alibi).  Knox started to work on a list of ‘‘potential suspects’‘.  When Sollecito backed off on being her alibi, Knox was asked to explain.  She then falsely accused Lumumba, and placed herself at the scene.  At this point her legal status changed from potential witness to suspect, and the questioning stopped.  Knox waived her warnings, and signed those statements anyway.

    In the media it is misrepresented as being a ‘‘long, brutal interrogation’’ or a ‘‘series of interrogations’‘, and Knox complains of it lasting over 50 hours in her December 2013 email.  She also accuses Rita Ficarra of assault (part of her current calunnia trial), and Prosecutor Mignini of illegally questioning her without counsel. 

    Again, how could the Perugia Police be setting an elaborate trap for Knox?  She showed up that night completely unexpectedly.  See the 18 part ‘‘Knox Interrogation Hoax’’ series.

    Double Jeopardy Law

    Under the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms, section 11(h) says that a person who has served a sentence for an offence shall not be tried again, or a person finally acquitted shall not be tried again.  The key is ‘‘finally’‘, as in the parties don’t intend to appeal further

    The 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that a person shall not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence.

    The only real difference is that acquittals at trial in Canada may be appealed under very limited circumstances, such as wrong instructions at trial.  It CANNOT be a redo, but there must be a very serious legal error to redress.  Canadian prosecutors have a very high burden to meet.  Under U.S. law, a trial acquittal is the end, barring killing a witness or bribing a judge.

    This does not apply to appeal courts.  In both Canada and the U.S. appellate court rulings may be appealed further.  Had Hellmann been a U.S./Canadian appeal judge, it would not be double jeopardy to challenge his ruling.

    Canadian Charter v. U.S. Constitution

    Italy goes out of its way to give defendants, but here is a quick comparison with the Western Hemisphere.  Sadly, as victim’s rights groups point out, criminals seem to have more rights than their victims.

    The Canadian Charter, sections 7 to 14, and the U.S. Constitution, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments guarantee many of the same rights to criminal defendants

    Canada: illegal searches would violate section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
    America: illegal searches would violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution

    Canada: one has the right to instruct counsel without delay, and be informed of the right under Section 10(b)
    America: one has the right to a lawyer under the 6 Amendment.

    Canada: cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited under Section 12
    America: cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited under the 14th Amendment.

    Canada: one can’t be forced to be a witness against themselves under Section 11(c)
    America: one can’t be forced to be a witness against themselves under the 5th Amendment (taking the 5th)

    Canada: retrying for the same offence violates Section 11(h)
    America: retrying for the same offence violates the 5th Amendment.

    Canada: demanding unreasonable bail violates Section 11(e)
    America: demanding unreasonable bail violates the 8th Amendment.

    -The police obtained warrants before getting internet records, phone records, etc ...
    -AK’s first 2 statements were inadmissible because she had no lawyer (even though she refused one).
    -AK/RS complain about ‘‘hellish’’ conditions now, but not when the U.S. State Department checked in.
    -AK only testified regarding the ‘‘calunnia’‘, but AK/RS used their ‘‘right to not respond’‘.
    -AK/RS claim their ‘‘acquittals’’ should be the end, but 11(h)/5th doesn’t apply to appeals court that get further appealed
    -AK/RS got multiple attempts to apply for bail

    Notorious Killers In Canada

    1. Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka

    Scarborough, Ontario—This case still leaves a bad taste for Canadians.  The couple murdered 3 teens, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, as well as Karla’s younger sister, Tammy.  Bernardo was already a prolific rapist before meeting Homolka, but no one died until they got together.

    Bernardo is serving life in prison and has been classified as a ‘‘dangerous offender’‘.  Homolka served only 12 years after testifying against him, in what was called the ‘‘deal with the devil.’’  Homolka claimed that she was forced to go along to help with Bernardo’s crimes, using the ‘‘battered woman’s syndrome’‘, although it has since been shown that she was a willing and enthusiastic participant.  Police speculate that there were other victims but no more additional charges were filed.

    Though claiming her innocence, Knox has tried using the ‘‘I was browbeaten’’ line against Italian authorities.

    2. David Bagshaw and Melissa Todorovic

    Toronto,Ontario—A 15 year old girl convinces her 17 year old (almost 18) boyfriend to murder a rival, a 14 year old girl Todorovic had never met, Stefanie Rengel.  Todorovic threatened to withhold sex from Bagshaw unless he complied, and these threats went on for months.  When Bagshaw finally did kill Stefanie, he got his reward, sex.  While Todorovic never met Stefanie, Stefanie and Bagshaw had briefly dated.

    Bagshaw, 4 days short of 18 at the time, lost his bid for a youth sentence, and received a life sentence.  In custody, he helped an inmate try to kill another.  Todorovic tried to claim she never meant for this to happen.  She received an adult sentence, life with a 7 year minimum in custody.  Both lost their appeals.

    Todorovic was reportedly jealous Bagshaw had once dated Stefanie.  Knox was reportedly jealous Meredith started dating Giacomo.

    3. Jeremy Steinke and ‘‘Jane Doe’‘

    Medicine Hat, Alberta—Steinke was the 23 year old boyfriend of ‘‘Jane Doe’‘, the 12 year old who arranged to have her brother and parents murdered.  The girl cannot be named, as an adult sentence could not be imposed (she was under 14 at the time).  Given that 23 and 12 is considered pedophilia in Canada, there were concerns that the parents would have called the police.

    The parents wanting to end the relationship was the apparent motive for the murders, although it is not clear why the brother, then 8, was killed as well.  The woman is currently serving the rest of her 10 year sentence in the community, while Steinke is serving 3 concurrent terms of 25 years to life.

    The parents obviously disapproved of the huge age gap.  But to be fair—Raffaele Sollecito was a ‘‘kid’’ when he was 23.

    4. Russell Williams

    Tweed, Ontario—Williams was a colonel in the Canadian Air-Force and Commander of the Trenton Air Base.  He has since been given a service misconduct and kicked out.  In his early 40’s, he began breaking into neighbours’ homes and stealing underwear.  He later committed 2 sexual assault, but let those victims go, but committed 2 more but killed those victims: Marie-Frances Comeau (a military officer under his command); and Jessica Lloyd.

    Williams plead guilty to 2 murders, 4 sexual assaults, and 88 break-ins, but will still be eligible for parole after 25 years.

    A few gruesome facts: Williams suffocated Ms. Comeau by wrapping her head with duct tape, and made a video of it. 

    Also, he told Jessica’s boyfriend (at the time worked under William’s command), that he didn’t have to talk to police without a lawyer.  He also dumped Jessica’s body where he knew her boyfriend hunted.  It seems likely that Williams was trying to frame him.  Perhaps Williams wanted Jessica’s boyfriend to be the one to find her, a bit like Knox wanted Filomena or Laura to find Meredith.

    5. Cody Legebokoff

    Prince George, British Columbia—Termed ‘‘Canada’s Youngest Serial Killer’‘, he killed 3 women: Jill Stuchenko, Natasha Montgomery, Cynthia Maas, and a 15 year old girl Loren Leslie, all by age 20.

    When originally stopped, Legebokoff claimed the blood was from a deer he was poaching and had clubbed to death.  At trial, he tried to claim that a drug dealer X, and his two associates: Y, and Z did it, and that he was an unwilling participant.  That excuse failed, and he was convicted on 4 counts of first degree murder.

    An appeal is pending based on the claim that the trial should have been moved elsewhere due to the publicity.  He complains it is impossible to be judged fairly.  But to be fair, he hasn’t sought out the limelight, given TV interviews, or signed any book deals.

    Author’s note: I was in Prince George while the trial went on.  Yes, the town knew about it, but people still went about their lives.

    Notorious Killers In The US

    1. Gerald and Charlene Gallego

    This couple committed a series of murders in California and Nevada.  They kidnapped women to become sex slaves.  Their victims included: Rhonda Schleffer, Kippi Vaught, Brenda Judd, Sandra Colley, Stacey Redican, Karen Twiggs, and at least 4 others.  When caught, Charlene turned against Gerald, claiming he was abuse, controlling, and had initiated everything.

    In return for testifying against Gerald, Charlene was not charged in California, and only received 16 years, 8 months in Nevada.  She has since been released.  Gerald received death sentences in both states, but died before either could be carried out.  While Charlene received much more lenient treatment, there has been speculation that the sex slavery was her idea.

    Since plea bargaining is illegal in Italy, neither Knox nor Sollecito could turn on each other for a deal.  They probably would have, if it was possible.

    2. Douglas Thomas and Jessica Wiseman

    Virginia—14 year old Jessica Wiseman arranged to have her 17 year old boyfriend Douglas Thomas murder Wiseman’s parents.  They were shot dead in their sleep.  Thomas apparently was so desparite for love that he was willing to go along with a girl who wanted away from her controlling parents.  While pledging to be with him at first, Wiseman abandoned him once he ‘‘served his purpose’‘.

    Wiseman was tried as a juvenile, and released after 7 years, since she could not be held past her 21st birthday.  Thomas was executed 2 years later, after spending 9 years on death row.  This happened even as information emerged that Jessica shot her Mom, though it was never verified.  Though she was younger, it was widely viewed as unjust.

    Knox, though not living with her parents, had problems in her home with the women upstairs.  Other options were available, such as moving in with Sollecito, or ‘‘re-negotiating’’ with Federico Martini, but Knox tried to solve her problem by getting rid of it.

    3. Alvin and Judith Neelley

    Georgia—this couple abducted a 13 year old girl, repeatedly sexually assaulted her, and injected her with Drano, hoping to poison her.  When that didn’t work, Judith shot her in the head.  Afterwards, they abducted a couple, Janice Chatman and John Hancock, brought them to a hotel to be tortured and murdered.  John was shot and left for dead, but survived, and was able to identify the Neelleys afterwards.

    Judith was sentenced to death, but it was commuted to life without parole.  Alvin is serving a similar sentence.

    A sick game they played, as if they were living out a fantasy.  Who else fantasizes violence?

    4. Jodi Arias

    Arizona—A California resident had a long distance relationship with an Arizona resident, until he rejected her.  Arias staged a break in at her grandparents’ place to get a gun,  went out of town to rent a car, got 3 5-gallon gas cans (so she wouldn’t have to stop), and turned off her cell phone (so it couldn’t be traced).  She went to Travis Alexander’s home, had ‘‘good-bye sex’’ with him, then stabbed him 29 times, slit his throat, and shot him in the head.  She then cleaned up, and went to her new boyfriend, in Utah, as if nothing happened.

    Initially Arias said she wasn’t there.  Then she said 2 masked burglars did it, but she was afraid to identify them.  Next she said she didn’t know who they were.  At trial she claimed self defence, while invoking ‘‘battered woman’s syndrome.’’  The judge and jury didn’t believe her, and while she was spared the death penalty, Arias received life without parole.

    Arias didn’t take rejection by Travis well at all, and neither did Knox take being stood up on Hallowe’en by Meredith.

    5. Casey Anthony

    Florida—Her daughter Caylee goes missing, so Casey goes partying (a bit like Guede did after Meredith’s death).  Prosecutors claim Anthony just wanted out of the responsibilities that came with being a parent.  Casey countered that Caylee accidently drowned.  Unfortunately, coroners were never able to positively determine the cause of death.

    Although eventually acquitted of Caylee’s death, Casey was convicted on 4 counts of providing false information to law enforcement.  Among other things, Anthony made up a story about ‘‘Zanny the Nanny’’ possibly being involved to divert attention.  On appeal, 2 of those counts were overturned.  She is free, but keeping out of the public eye.  Anthony still has a record for lying, as does Knox.

    6 Thomasdinh Bowman

    Washington State—He shot another driver, Yancy Noll, in the head several times.  Bowman tried to clean up the crimescene—his car, and had his cellphone turned off.  When arrested, he denied involvement, but later changed his story to ‘‘self-defence’‘, claiming Noll attacked him in a fit of road rage.  Prosecutors claimed that this was planned, and that he had studied on how to get away with murder.

    At trial, he was observed smirking and seeming to enjoy himself.  Knox likewise enjoyed the attention of her 2009 trial.  This attitude would come back to haunt him.  He was convicted of murder, and sentenced to nearly 30 years in prison.  He never expressed remorse to the family, just that he was ‘‘sorry they [the jury] didn’t believe me.’‘

    Some Further Observations

    Canadian and American laws are very similar in dealing with serious crime, with the focus being on punishment and deterrence.  Both countries have a bill of rights to ensure basic defendant’s rights are met, quite similar to what Italy has, but something many nations don’t offer.  Some main differences: (1) Canadian criminal law is made federally, while the U.S. states make their own laws for murder; (2) Canada has a much lower incarceration rate; (3) Canada’s sentencing laws are getting tougher, while U.S. laws are going the other way; (4) some states have the death penalty while Canada does not.

    Both countries have their fair share of wackos, (pardon the non-technical term).  This is not an American problem, or a cultural problem, but a problem of having people who should not be walking freely among us.  While both countries do have ‘‘rehabilitation’’ as part of their sentencing guidelines, murder is a crime that must be punished, both to condemn the act, and to protect the public.

    When faced with the prospect of a long mandatory sentence, or multiple, consecutive sentences, there is the reaction to plead out for lesser offences.  However, pleading guilty can have major implications, especially if giving someone else up for a lighter sentence.

    Falsely accusing innocent people, or at least fictional people, seems fairly common by killers.  They do not ‘‘falsely confess’’ that other people did the crime, rather they ‘‘falsely accuse’‘.

    Male-female killer couples occur in both countries, but almost universally, the female killer gets a much lighter sentence.  This is likely in part due to society willing to believe that the man is primarily responsible.  Also, these women have no qualms about blaming it all on the man.  The case of Knox getting a higher sentence than Sollecito or Guede seems to be an anomaly.


    Acknowledgements: A thank you to Yummi, Peter Q., and Cardiol.  Your feedback has altered the direction of this series.

    Posted on 08/13/15 at 09:16 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (23)

    Monday, August 10, 2015

    Problems With Fred Davies #2: His Claims On Knives, Wounds And Stains Also Highly Mislead

    Posted by James Raper

    Several of the numerous scientific witnesses; some evidence was behind closed doors

    Overview Of This Post

    Remember that Amanda Knox, a felon for life, served three years for framing Patrick for murder.

    In my previous post I dismissed the claim which the British barrister FG (Fred) Davies pervasively made in Parts 1 to 20 of his mammoth series in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly that it was actually Guede and his team who had somehow framed Knox and Sollecito for a crime he alone committed and left all of Italian law enforcement bamboozled.

    I now have Parts 21 to 26 as well, all of the series, and I wish to examine one more large area of cherrypicked facts and misinterpretations, along with Davies’s final conclusion.

    First, Fred Davies’s Final Scenario

    As anticipated,  Davies concludes that Knox and Sollecito should only have been convicted of the charge of simulating a burglary. He presents his own synopsis of what happened on the night of the murder which has both Knox and Guede present at the cottage for the murder, but not Sollecito.

    Davies says it is Guede who sexually assaults and stabs Meredith. Knox, unaware of what was going to happen is horrified and scared out of her wits, retreating to her bedroom and locking herself in.

    Davies says Guede flees, ignoring or unable to do anything about the fact there is/was a witness to his horrific crime. When it’s safe to do so Knox emerges and meets up with Sollecito.

    Davies says that Knox, fearing that if she went to the police she would only end up being accused of involvement in the murder, persuades Sollecito to be her alibi, and to stage the scene to point to a burglar, and Sollecito, being the Honour Bound sort of chap he is, agrees to go along with this. Once they both embark on this course of action there us no turning back.

    I trust that you are all duly intrigued with Davies’s scenario and panting to learn how and why he arrives at it. Unfortunately this will have to wait until another day if it is to be from me.

    He has, after all, taken 26 Chapters in half a year to get to this point and I am not yet ready to deal with them comprehensively. Others here may contribute posts and discuss implications with the Criminal Law editor.

    Fred Davies On Knife Or Knives

    Whilst I guess most comments are going to be about the above synopsis, I am going to deal with his thoughts regarding the knives, these being quite central to his synopsis.

    My argument below is supported by numerous previous posters none of whom differed markedly from Massei or Nencini. 

    Davies in contrast is sharply critical of Massei. He simply excludes the Double DNA knife (Exhibit 36) as the murder weapon.

    He is also critical….nay, I would have to say that he is outraged…. at Massei holding that Sollecito was responsible for the lesser of the two wounds, that on the right side of Meredith’s neck. He is critical of Micheli for not finding, as a matter of fact, that Guede was the one responsible for the wounds, using his own knife which has yet to be recovered.

    Without more ado I will proceed to Mr Davies’ evaluation:

    “The finding against Sollecito that it was he who inflicted two of the three wounds to Meredith Kercher using a pocket knife which was in his possession at the material time is deeply flawed, offensive and wrong in law”

    Well, I was unaware that Massei had found that Sollecito inflicted two of the three wounds. In fact I am not aware of three wounds (unless he includes what is effectively a nick) , but if there were then Massei only attempted to attribute two, the one to the right of the neck, 4 cms deep and with a width of 1.5 cms, being attributed to Sollecito’s “pocket knife“.

    It did not cause any significant structural damage, unlike the wound to the left, 8 cms deep and 8 cms wide which had penetrated both Meredith’s larynx and the cartilage of the epiglottis, and had broken the hyoid bone. 

    Is the rest “deeply flawed, offensive and wrong in law”?

    “It could not have been part of the prosecution case that Sollecito used a pocket knife to subdue and stab Meredith Kercher. If it had why was Sollecito and/or Knox not charged with carrying the said pocket knife without justified reason? To recapitulate,, the charge alleged that the killing was achieved by means of………….and deep lesions to the left anterior-lateral and right lateral regions of the neck, caused by a bladed weapon (Exhibit 36).

    The Massei Court’s finding strikes against basic principles of fairness which applies to all criminal proceedings. Put another way, a criminal court is not generally entitled to bring in a verdict which differs markedly from the basis on which the prosecution puts it’s case. This is because the defence would not be able to adequately prepare and meet such an unexpected contingency. In plain English the defence would be ambushed or taken by surprise. In this case the defence was ambushed and the defendants’ rights (Knox and Sollecito) were fundamentally infringed.”

    Oh come on! Ambushed? Really?

    OK, so the charge did indeed indicate that that both the right and left sided wounds were caused by “a bladed weapon to which Chapter B applies” (Exhibit 36) but the reality is that the defence always knew that Exhibit 36 (because of it’s dimensions and in particular it’s width 4cms from the tip) could not have been the cause of the wound to the left anterior lateral. That’s a matter of simple logic and in any event every expert and all the lawyers in the case agreed on that.

    So the way the charge was erroneously framed in fact misled no-one.

    Indeed had the defence thought so then they could have raised the matter. Mr Davies does not claim that Massei did not have the power to amend the indictment. If the court was unable to, or the defence chose not to raise it, either way thinking it was a clever appeal point, then it did not become one.

    Indeed, Mr Davies will know anyway that in English law, by virtue of The Indictments Act 1915, courts can (and frequently do) order an amendment to an indictment at any stage (which includes during a trial) provided the amendment does not result in an injustice to the accused.  This is a practical necessity as it would be an affront to the concept of justice if defendants were to be acquitted on the basis of a mere technicality.

    One might consider what amendment might have been made.

    A possibility is that reference to the right-sided wound might have been excluded. It was the left-sided wound that was fatal, after all, and caused, as the prosecution would endeavour to prove, by a weapon which, as it happened, belonged to Sollecito.

    The prosecution did, of course, maintain that it was Knox who wielded the weapon, but might, as an alternative, have also asserted that it was Sollecito. Indeed the framing of the charge leaves it an open question as to which of them did. They were charged jointly with having caused Meredith’s death.

    The evidence that it may have been either (AK or RS) is a common feature of cases to which the English legal doctrine of joint criminal enterprise applies.

    The doctrine applies particularly to a case such as this in that no matter who actually wields the weapon the other participant in the common enterprise is deemed to possess the same level of criminal liability even if he did not know that there was a knife or that it would be so used. Being reckless as to that possibility is sufficient.

    It is surprising how often how little is required to establish joint enterprise. Frequently the mere fact that the participants know each other and were there, and that the situation was a combustible one of the group’s making, is enough. The doctrine has come in for a great deal of justified criticism but despite this remains firm law.

    My preference would have been to amend the indictment to refer to the right sided wound being caused by a bladed weapon, the blade being of indeterminate length but with a width of approximately 1.5 cms. It is the width of the wound that is salient because it is indicative of the width of the blade on the knife being used which, whilst also being indicative of the likely length of the blade, but without being sure, could be either a pocket knife (4 cms or more) or a flick knife (which could also be a pocket knife). 1.5 cms is about the width of the tip of one’s index finger, by the way.

    Massei, and others, always refer to this knife as a pocket knife. However henceforth I am going to write “pocket knife“ to refer to the options of a pocket knife with a blade of 4cms or more, or a flick knife.

    As to Mr Davies other point as to why Sollecito was not specifically charged with carrying a “pocket knife” without justified reason, I do not know, but since the framing of charges is a matter for the prosecution, one might as well leave the matter there.

    In any event the lack of a specific charge does not in any way preclude a court from inferring the nature of a weapon from the pathology of the wound nor from identifying the probable assailant (as distinct from having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the culpability of a single perpetrator named in a specific charge of “carrying“).

    Guede did not ever face a specific charge of carrying a weapon but that does not prevent Mr Davis from concluding that Guede had a knife and had stabbed Meredith. It seems that Mr Davies would have been quite happy for Guede to have been so charged and convicted on Professor Vinci’s (see later) dubious testimony.

    In this last respect, however, Mr Davies could have more telling argument. Lets see.

    “To infer that Sollecito had a pocket knife at Via della Pergola 7 on the fateful evening of November 1-2, based on the character evidence of four witnesses called for the defence, was to say the least highly unusual..”

    I think the operative words here are “witnesses called for the defence”, amongst whom was Sollecito’s own father. Yes, highly unusual but then that is what happens when you do not vet your own character witnesses before cross-examination.

    Sollecito’s proclivity for carrying a knife (usually a pocket knife) at all times (and indeed he had one on him at the time of his arrest in the Police Station) is highly relevant. These witnesses referred to a knife with a blade of about 4 cms, or perhaps 6 cms.

    In addition Sollecito was something of a knife aficionado. The police found two specialist knives, a Spiderco and a 2004 model Brian Tighe. Neither of these can be connected to Meredith’s wounds but they are indicative of his affinity to weapons specifically designed to be used in a fight to maim or kill. Clearly a flick knife falls into the same category.

    As to proclivity evidence against Guede one can refer to his brief possession of a kitchen knife acquired at and belonging to the Milan nursery (which he did not break into, he had been given a key).

    There is, of course, Tramontano’s dubious claim (angrily dismissed by Micheli even though Guede was never given the chance to challenge this in court) that a black man broke into his property and, confronted by Tramontano, had pulled out a flick knife as he exited. Tramontano tried to claim the burglar was probably Guede based on a photo of him he had seen in a newspaper. If it really was Guede he was not carrying that knife with him at the Milan nursery 8 weeks later.

    “Even if Sollecito was present at the scene of the crime (as distinct from being complicit), the court could not have been sure that any “pocket knife” in his possession, which incidentally was never recovered, had inflicted all or some of the injuries, the most cogent rationale being:

    1. The prosecution could not prove the dimensions and the character of the knife were consistent with the injuries inflicted upon Meredith Kercher.

    2. The Court paid scant regard to the totality of expert opinion as to the type of bladed weapon (or weapons) which had been used to stab the victim

    3. The Court paid scant regard to the dimensions of a bloody outline of a knife found on Meredith’s pillow

    4. Consequently the Court could not have been sure that any pocket knife and, a fortiori, exhibit 36 had been used to stab Meredith that fateful night.”

    As to 1 above, we know that no suitable weapon was ever recovered but if the indictment had been amended in accordance with my preference then the prosecution would easily have proved that part of the indictment, relating as it does to the wound on the right side of the neck.

    It is a reasonable inference on the balance of probabilities that the wound was caused by a “pocket knife” and if one accepts the presence of multiple attackers (which I understand is a judicial truth in the case even following the latest acquittal of Knox and Sollecito) then, again on the balance of probabilities, and taking into account all the other circumstantial evidence in the case, I submit that it is a reasonable inference that it was Sollecito’s “pocket knife“.

    The bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt” applies to culpability re the specified charge and is not to be confused with the elements.

    As to 2, this simply is not true. I shall look at the totality of the expert opinion in a moment but suffice it to say that Massei spent a considerable amount of time in his Motivation detailing with and discussing the defence experts’ opinions.

    As to 3, (and it was not on the pillow but the bedsheet) it was Professor Vinci’s contention that the bloody outline (there was a dual outline, he said) was left by a knife with a blade 11.3 cms long or a knife with a blade 9.6 cms long with a congruent section of handle 1.7 cms long (9.6 + 1.7 = 11.3). Davies does not mention a blade width but in fact Professor Vinci actually says 1.3 to 1.4 cms wide.

    Taking these measurements as read, Davies points out that they are incompatible with either a pocket knife (such as Sollecito had a proclivity to carry) and Exhibit 36. I have no argument with that observation. It follows, he then argues, that one has to infer the presence of a third knife in any hypothesis and if a pocket knife and Exhibit 36 are already accounted for by Knox and Sollecito then a reasonable inference is that the third knife would have to be Guede’s. Indeed (Davies does not say this, but I will) Professor Vinci’s blade is not incompatible a priori with either of the two wounds.

    This is worth looking at seriously as so far it is the only worthwhile point Davies has made.

    First of all I have to say that I have searched for but have not found any rebuttal evidence or comment from the prosecution amongst the documents on the Wiki.  I do not even see a question on the matter in the cross-examination of Professor Vinci.

    Massei only briefly commented about the bloody outline on the bed sheet.  He opined that the blood stains were certainly “suggestive” but insufficient to establish any clear outlines from which reliable measurements could be established. Clearly then he did not accord any reliability to Professor Vinci’s measurements. But is Massei right? One does not have to be an expert to consider this.

    First of all, here are images of the blood stains.

    In the picture below the stained section of sheet is cut out for analysis the day after the discovery of the murder.

    Did the prosecution overlook their own analysis of the stains? Did they deliberately do so after Exhibit 36 was found, 9 days later on the 12th November, to have Meredith’s DNA on it? Or did they always know that the stains established nothing?

    The next question to be asked is whether we can see the outline of a knife, or rather a blade. I think the honest answer to that is, on balance, yes. We think we see the tip of a blade, do we not? Maybe two, maybe even three.

    It is fairly clear that Professor Vinci takes the largest of the stains to be the hilt of the handle to the knife. Lining that up with what is perhaps the likely clearest possible perceived blade tip (being the middle out of a possible three I believe I see) then the distance to the perceived hilt is indeed something like the 9.6 cms which Professor Vinci has measured.

    But there are problems. Here are two of Ergon’s photos from his posts here and here with Exhibit 36 superimposed on the stains in two different positions to reflect the supposed dual outlines.

    The blob of blood in the bottom left of the pictures and it’s lesser moon at 1, or 2, o’clock are regarded as having come from the same position on the blade and so with that reference point the blade is positioned accordingly in each photo.

    We can surely take it that Professor Vinci also sees the same duality. But if the bloody hilt is aligned to fit with “the moon” stain in order to get the 9.6 cms measurement, then what has happened to that large hilt stain when the knife is moved further to the left, and then dropped a bit, to align to the moon’s planet (the blob)?

    It has either disappeared or become an edge. That doesn’t make sense if “the moon” is the lesser version of the blob. The blob has to come from the first positioning of the knife. Despite this, in the knife’s later position the volume of blood at the hilt has actually increased comparative to the knife’s first position. That doesn’t make sense either.

    So maybe the largest stain pre-exists, even for perhaps a moment, the stains suggesting the blade outlines, but in that case we can throw Professor Vinci’s measurements out of the window.

    Can we do without the blob and it’s moon? It’s all a lot less convincing without them. But in truth we cannot even be sure that they are related. Nor that the largest stain has anything to do with the hilt of a knife.

    A further connected observation concerns Professor Vinci’s claim that the blade of the knife is 1.3/1.4 cms wide. Like the rest of his evidence I do not find this very convincing. I suspect that he has deduced this from the largest stain which has a length, he says, of 1.7 cms. It’s width could then be something like 1.3/1.4 cms.

    If the width of the knife is represented by approximately 1.4 cms then, given the position of the bloody hilt relative to the tip of it’s blade, what are we to make of the two spots of blood in a horizontal line above? They look like the upper (or lower) edge of a knife but they can’t be without making the blade wider.

    Why does it have to be the same knife anyway? The stains could be the result of two different knives collected and laid to rest in the same spot.

    The blood stains are certainly bewitching - rather like seeing patterns in tea leaves at the bottom of one’s cup - but on the balance of probabilities I would not totally rely on anyone’s perception of them even, with all due respect, Ergon’s but his analysis is as good as anyone’s, and that for me is the point of it.

    In short I think that Massei was probably right. These stains are suggestive but basically useless and the police/prosecution ignored them for that reason.

    “Consistent with English law the Massei Court’s findings should be struck down as Wednesbury unreasonable. Where there is no evidence to support a finding of a court or the court has reached a conclusion which is irrational or perverse, in the light of the evidence adduced at trial, a conviction based on that part of the evidence cannot be sustained……….The Massei Court also appears to have violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair trial),”

    Yeah, right.  The case to which he refers, Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1KB 223, is an odd and unnecessary one to pray in aid.  It was a civil case where the appellant sought judicial review in respect of a licencing decision. As a formulation of a first principle of natural justice it is, of course, unquestionable. However the claim that Massei reached a conclusion that was irrational or perverse is laughable.

    It is at this point that one does begin to wonder whether Davies is indeed connected in some way with the daffy Nigel Scott (Sollecito‘s ex Lib Dem Haringey Councillor groupie) who similarly emerges with bizarre arguments.

    Next, in his evaluation, we come to a numbers game as to who was for and against the incompatibility of Exhibit 36 with the fatal wound on the left side, but before I enter into that game I want to make a point about incompatibility.

    A knife blade is only incompatible with a wound if the depth of the wound is longer than the length of the blade or if the width of the wound is shorter than the width of the blade at the relevant depth.

    We can therefore establish that Exhibit 36 was not incompatible, a priori, with the depth of the wound.  The blade on Exhibit 36 was 17. 5 cms long and the depth of the wound was 8 cms.

    Yes, I know that other arguments as to incompatibility were advanced based, in the main, on these measurements. These Massei logically deconstructed. In fairness to Mr Davies he did not advance them in his evaluation and so neither shall I.

    I would also have to concede that Sollecito’s “pocket knife” is not incompatible a priori with the wound on the left side nor, even if it‘s length of blade was over 4 cms, with the wound on the right. Nor Professor Vinci’s knife either.

    The same is true of the width of these knives.

    It should however be recalled that the width of the right-sided wound was also 8 cms. That is over 5 times the width of the “pocket knife”. The width of the blade on Exhibit 36 - 8 cms from it’s tip - was twice the width of the blade on the “pocket knife”.

    This fact, and the robustness of the larger weapon, particularly with regard to the observed butchering at the base of the right-sided cut, makes Exhibit 36 a far more likely candidate, in my submission, than a “pocket knife“, and that’s without taking into account Meredith’s DNA on the blade.

    Returning to our numbers game, Mr Davies puts it slightly differently from Massei. He says -

    “And if that were not enough, of the 8 experts who gave evidence on the point, two (Dr Liviero and Professor Bacci) opined that Exhibit 36 could have caused the fatal wound to Meredith’s left side. Professor Norelli could not rule out Exhibit 36. Professor Ronchi’s opinion is not clear due to the use of the “double negative” (non-incompatibility)  - it will be assumed that he supported the prosecution contention, but in any event al the remaining four experts, Professors Introna, Torre, Cingolani and Dr Patumi) opined that Exhibit 36 could be ruled out.”

    In other words a draw but one of the prosecution experts is a bit “iffy”.

    Massei tells us that Dr Liviero concluded “definite compatibility“, Dr Lalli and Professors Bacci and Norelli “compatibility” whilst “non- incompatibility” came from the 3 GIP experts nominated at a preliminary hearing. The latter were Professors Aprile, Cingolani and Ronchi.

    “Non-incompatibility” is not hard to understand. It simply means not incompatible or rather, compatible.

    Note that Mr Davies has Professor Cingolani lining up to exclude Exhibit 36. Massei disagrees and I agree with Massei. So, for what it is worth (and this is a bit childish I know) Mr Davies loses the game 7 - 3.

    “And one final thought. If the defendants (Knox and Sollecito) were sufficiently compos mentis to dispose of the pocket knife …. Why did they not dispose of Exhibit 36?  By a process of deduction and logical synthesis the answer is plain for all to see: Exhibit 36 never left Corso Garibaldi and was not the murder weapon ”

    Because it was on his landlord’s inventory of kitchen items? Indeed we don’t know for sure that the “pocket knife “was actually disposed of. All we know is that it was not identified and recovered by the police.

    And In Conclusion

    This is the second of my posts involving Mr Davies. I may not be disposed to do any more. I have to say that although he certainly provided some food for thought on this one, I have not been impressed with his analysis in the topics I have covered so far.

    Others here have been tabulating other factual errors and forced arguments and as I mentioned at the start we may see them carry this a bit further.

    Posted on 08/10/15 at 07:52 PM by James Raper. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (12)

    Friday, August 07, 2015

    Our Book Experience: Knox PR Reaction Way Too Fanatical, Only Grows Suspicion She DID Do It

    Posted by Nick van der Leek

    Reporters, crime-book writers, and photojournalists, Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson

    Overkill. A Sure sign of bad PR. As someone once said “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”

    What’s interesting for Lisa Wilson and myself as True Crime authors and wrieters of Dark Matter and Deceit is that there are not only always two sides to every story, but two factions as well. 

    When the one faction believes us not to belong to theirs, well, then there is war.  Mudslinging, slander, insults – everything except a genuine discussion of the case.

    From where Lisa Wilson and I stand, which is hopefully in the middle and on the side of Lady Justice [who is blind, or blindfolded] both factions are mirror-images of each other.  Both sides are throwing stones, like the protagonists in the Middle East conflict, both have their grievances, and plenty of stones to throw. 

    And like the Middle East, the two factions in the Amanda Knox case have been in a war of mostly words for years.  Who has won?  Amanda Knox seems to have eeked out some sort of victory, but though recently engaged, shows no signs of getting married, and it’s possible the wedding is off.

    All is not always what it seems.

    Before highlighting a few of our haters, I want to touch on a quick incident that happened on twitter literally in the last day.  We had one of our followers enthusiastically report on one of the books she’d read [on Jodi Arias] and promise to give a review the same day.  We get bad reviews and we get good reviews, and especially when a book is new, reviews matter.  When I followed up with a tweet and then a second tweet, our enthusiastic reader said she felt pressured and obligated and then blocked me on twitter.

    What I’m trying to illustrate here is that even those you agree with our work aren’t necessarily above board themselves.  What we’re trying to achieve with our books isn’t merely justice in the court of public opinion, but we also want to encourage people to go out and live their lives in an honest, genuine and hopefully happily-ever-after way.  One of the ways we interrogate these cases is we try to fathom the underlying psychology of the criminals, and we try to understand these crimes as cautionary tales that we can learn from, and hopefully avoid spiralling into ourselves.

    Which is why Lisa and I find the constant lobbing of stones and jibes a little unfortunate.  When I confronted one of our supporters with their constant ping pong [block, reporting, badmouthing etc especially on twitter], the response was:  but didn’t that debate suit you when we were reviewing your books.

    We’ve love our reviewers to be honest, even when they disagree, especially when they disagree.  We’d hate our books to be part of a sort of football that is kicked about to score personal points for either side.  Our narrative isn’t intended to score points for either team, it’s intended to solve ‘the mystery’ of Meredith’s death.  Lisa and I see very little debate on that.  Maybe that’s fair given the time since Meredith’s death, but for me this is a crying shame.

    I came into this investigation unsure of whom to believe.  When you see – as you see in the Middle East conflict – two sides engaged in a tit for tat battle, it’s hard to come away with a sense that either side is right.  It’s even harder to trust that either side is going to even be able to be unbiased and fair in their assessment of things.  Does that make sense?

    Of the 30-odd books I’ve written and co-written with Lisa Wilson, DOUBT [on Amanda Knox] was the first to face accusations of plagiarism.  It became a lightning rod for haters and Pro Justice folk, and to date is my most reviewed book on Amazon by far.  To be honest, Amanda Knox’s fans are by far the most vindictive and malicious of the folk we’ve encountered through the course of nearly 20 True Crime books.  To be honest these people and their underhanded behaviour, even their language, don’t reflect well on their patron at all.

    They descend on any criticism of Amanda in organised groups that tag team each other.  Do these people not have day jobs?  Because it’s hard to believe such tactical and practised viciousness isn’t bought and paid for.  Such frenzied attacks inspire responses, and there’s been a lot in the comments section under various reviews – good and bad – of DECEIT. Does that mean people actually read the narrative or are debating it?  In a few cases they are, and in a few cases people have contacted us and let us know where they have learnt something or where they disagree, and this is tremendously useful and helpful. 

    But what about the plagiarism accusation?  It was at one time the most popular ‘agreed on’ review when DOUBT was published, so does that mean the plagiarism accusation was actually valid? Or was the accusation a cynical attempt by one side to throw a stone at another side because they didn’t agree with something.  Shoot the messenger in other words, forget the message. 

    Why would someone ignore a message, ignore a narrative unless there’s an implied threat that it could be true? 

    If it wasn’t true, would anyone really care?  But in the context of justice denied, the stakes are rather higher when truth and facts are obscured from the public view.  And then it seems, in order to defend the indefensible, one resorts to dirty tricks, like suppression of freedom of speech, and slander.  The biggest ironies are the accusations that we are profiting from the tragedy.

    Or that we’re slandering someone in our books [that’s the real crime]. It’s ironic when a murder suspect and her boyfriend together earned $5 million for their books, and have numerous and very real slander charges they have faced. In Knox’s case she’s already been found guilty of her false incrimination of Lumumba.  Lumumba never got off because Knox said, “Oh, hang on, that’s not right, sorry I made a mistake, it wasn’t him.”  Lumumba got off because he had an alibi and someone from the bar came forward to vouch for him.  In Sollecito’s case he must still defend allegations of police conduct made in his book [and so must Knox’s parents.

    Since Knox was found guilty of slander she served a few years for that.  She hasn’t paid restitution to Lumumba [who lost his job and moved to Poland] to date.  If Knox is innocent, why isn’t she suing the Italian authorities for wrongful imprisonment?  Lumumba did and got a hefty pay-out, so why doesn’t Amanda? Why aren’t we talking about that? But no, we – those of us writing books about the trial – we are the real criminals, we’re the slanderers, we’re profiting out of the loss of the poor victim [no not Kercher, Knox].  This is a crazy inversion of the facts, and only the intellectually weak actually fall for it.

    Coming back to Pruett’s plagiarism accusation:  was it an exaggeration, was it a lie?  Was it based on real plagiarism?  Within a few days – subsequent to a phone call to Karen Pruett, and a lawyer’s letter delivered by overnight courier to her work address [she’s a hairdresser in Seattle]– DOUBT was once again available online.  We elected to remove any references we made to Pruett’s work ourselves [credited in every instance] and repackage the narrative without including references to Pruett’s timeline in a new book, DECEIT.  Of course then the accusation is that our views, since we haven’t referred to Pro Knoxers, is biased and unbalanced.  Interesting isn’t it: you quote them and they accuse you of plagiarism, you don’t quote them and they accuse you of being biased.

    I only subsequently saw Pruett is endorsed on Amanda Knox’s own website, and was probably paid to research the timeline she produced for Ground Report, which is itself a site facing shutdown due to financial difficulties.  The first 80% of her research seemed fairly solid and reasonably unbiased, much of it did reference court testimony, but the last 20% [relating to the crucial timeline of the crime itself] became increasingly dodgy, and part of the original DOUBT narrative highlighted this. 

    If Pruett had received a hefty payment for her timeline and someone had come along and analysed all of it only to find sections of it to be….well…wanting, well, no wonder she wanted herself excised out of her book.  No wonder she wanted the book blocked.  So was it really about plagiarism then [because I referenced all quotes to Pruett, and all her quotes were italicised] or was it about Pruett protecting Pruett?

    In the end the blocking of the book [for a few hours, perhaps a day or two] by haters created curiosity amongst the Pro Justice folk, and this was invaluable PR for us. Upwards of 40 people asked for a PDF of the original DOUBT manuscript to be sent to them, and at least half sent through carefully considered reviews and feedback.  As a result of these reviews and the endorsement of Meredith’s supporters, when DOUBT returned as DECEIT it immediately sold like hot cakes.

    Right now it’s currently in the top 20 in Amazon’s ‘Criminal Procedure’ category, and the interest in that book has encouraged us to write a second [DARK MATTER, #15 on Amazon] , and in two weeks we begin with a third [UNDER SUSPICION].  We plan on writing around a dozen more books on this case, and we hope by around midway we will have galvanised a real conversation, not around ‘libellous wankers’ or ‘plagiarism’ or ‘removing Jesus from the Last Supper’ but the most legitimate questions of all:

    1. Did Amanda Knox get away with murder?
    2. Can the courts in Italy [or the USA or SA] be trusted, even when the world is watching?
    3. Is justice up for sale, is it a PR game? 
    4. If it is, what can we do as the Court of Public Opinion?
    As someone sympathetic to Meredith Kercher wisely pointed out in a recent review, the biggest mystery in this case is that it is a mystery at all. My suggestion is we do something more constructive than throw stones at each other.

    Posted on 08/07/15 at 08:50 AM by Nick van der Leek. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (35)

    Monday, August 03, 2015

    Melissa Todorovic Perpetrates A Grisly Jealousy-Driven Murder With Many Other Similarities

    Posted by Chimera

    The victim Stefanie Rengel, ambushed and killed with a knife; here her mother speaks out

    1. The Jealousy Crime

    Jealousy sparks a lot of crimes. This is from Toronto Life

    It started as a joke. Melissa Todorovic and David Bagshaw fantasized about how they wanted to hurt and humiliate David’s ex-girlfriend. They talked about it for months and months, until the fantasy became a plan, and Melissa gave David an ultimatum: no more sex until Stefanie was dead. How two high school students became killers

    On New Year’s in 2008, 14 year old Stefanie Rengel was ambushed, stabbed 6 times, and left to die in a snowbank.  She was still alive when a passer-by found her, but did not survive the night.

    Her killer was David Bagshaw, 17, and in fact just 4 days shy of this 18th birthday.  It turns out that he had been pressured by his girlfriend, Melissa Todorovic, 15 at the time, to do this, or to be deprived of sex from her.  After letting Todorovic know that the ‘‘deed had been done’‘, she called Stefanie’s number 3 times to confirm.  When no one answered, she took it as proof this had been done.

    Between Bagshaw and Todorovic, there were hundreds of emails and text messages on this topic, so once police suspicion fell on them and these records were pulled, it left no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what had happened.  Other evidence was gathered of course, but these messages were smoking guns by themselves.

    Police believe that the topic had initially come up as a prank, and that on some level they fantasized violence against Stefanie.

    2. A Very Disturbing Case

    (1) Bagshaw and Stefanie had supposedly dated before (a non-sexual relationship), and it was chilling to see how viciously he could slaughter a young woman he once had feelings for.

    (2) Todorovic considered Stefanie to be a rival (she had once ‘‘dated’’ her current boyfriend), but the two had never actually met.

    (3) The brief, but completely savage nature of the ambush and killing.

    (4) Bagshaw claimed his ‘‘prize’’ after Stefanie was dead—namely a romp with Todorovic.  Whatever ‘‘remorse’’ he may have felt with this act, he was still in the mood for sex.

    (5) Bagshaw, in one of the messages, complained that he was approaching 18 years of age, and that he would be tried as an adult.  This shows that he understood in advance what the likely consequences were.

    (6) Even though the messages went back and forth for months, apparently neither Bagshaw nor Todorovic ever stepped back to reflect on what they were setting in motion.

    3.The Trial Outcome

    At Bagshaw’s trial, his lawyer understood that he really had no defence to the murder charge.  He plead guilty to first degree murder, hoping to get a youth sentence from the judge.  Remember, he was a few days shy of 18.

    It didn’t work, and the judge gave him an adult sentence of life, with a minimum of 10 years in custody.  Prosecutors argued that he ‘‘bought himself 15 years right there’‘, as he would have received a 25 year minimum had he actually been 18.  Bagshaw has confessed, and apologised to the family for doing this.

    At Todorovic’s trial, her lawyer tried to claim that she never intended for Bagshaw to actually go ahead with it.  That argument failed as well, and as a 15 year old, Todorovic received a life sentence with a minimum of 7 years to be spent in custody.

    4. More Background On The Case

    Note: Initially, both Bagshaw and Todorvic had their identities withheld from publication, as both were considered ‘‘young offenders’‘.  The media had merely referred to them as D.B. and M.T.  However, since adult sentences have been imposed, that restriction has been lifted.

    5. Comparisons Of Those Involved

    • Bagshaw was 17, Todorovic 15, Stefanie 14
    • Sollecito was 23, Knox 20, Guede 20, Meredith 21

    • Bagshaw’s lawyers (in pleading for a youth sentence), argued that he was Todorovic’s ‘‘slave’‘
    • Sollecito has been widely portrayed as Knox’s ‘‘slave’’ in the media.

    • Todorovic was jealous of a girl who had once dated her boyfriend
    • Knox was jealous that Meredith got a boy (Giacomo), whom she found attractive

    • Todorovic killed someone she had never met before
    • Knox killed a roommate that she ‘‘only knew for a month’‘.

    • Bagshaw plead guilty to 1st degree murder hoping to get a youth sentence.
    • Guede took the ‘‘fast-track’’ trial, to get 1/3 off, or at least avoid a possible life sentence.

    • Todorovic’s lawyer claimed Bagshaw did it all on his own.
    • Knox and Sollecito’s lawyers claim Guede was the ‘‘lone wolf’‘.

    • Cellphone texts and emails were used to nail Bagshaw and Todorovic
    • Lack of cellphone activity or computer activity (for Sollecito), raised red flags about the alibis of AK and RS.

    • Bagshaw claimed that Todorvic set it all in motion.
    • Guede and Sollecito have both claimed that the problems were largely caused by Knox.

    • Bagshaw, while pleading guilty, expressed remorse for the murder
    • Guede, while denying the murder, has expressed remorse.

    • Bagshaw and Todorovic had a sexual encounter as a ‘‘reward’‘, after Stefanie’s murder
    • Knox and Sollecito were still having sex after Meredith’s murder, and Knox was still trading sex-for-drugs with Federico Martini.

    • Todorvic has never expressed any real remorse for setting Stefanie’s murder in action
    • Knox, while claiming Meredith was ‘‘her friend’‘, made comments such as ‘‘shit happens’‘, and ‘‘I want to get on with my life.’‘

    • Todorovic and Bagshaw were found guilty (Bagshaw plead), and both lost their appeals at the Appeals Court in Toronto
    • Knox and Sollecito were found guilty at trial, but by judge shopping have had success in their appeals.
    • Guede was found guilty in the fast tract trial, and despite a sentence reduction, (getting 1/3 less than AK and RS), the conviction was upheld.

    6. What Happened Next

    Todorovic appealed her conviction to the Ontario Court of Appeals, and it was rejected.

    Todorovic lost a bid to remain in youth custody for a year longer than she was to be transferred.

    Bagshaw appealed his sentence (he had plead guilty) to the O.C.A., claiming it was wrong to impose an adult sentence on such an emotionally immature person.  It was rejected.

    Bagshaw, while in custody, was charged with attempted murder, for helping to try to kill an inmate.  His excuse: he was pressured to do so, the same line he used in his murder trial

    Posted on 08/03/15 at 12:00 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

    Thursday, July 30, 2015

    Did Guede’s Separate Trial REALLY Impact Negatively On The Other Two, As Fred Davies Etc Claim?

    Posted by James Raper

    1. Summary Of The Complaints

    I want to write about the separate trials of Guede on the one hand and Knox and Sollecito on the other.

    This feature has often been criticized by the apologists for Knox and Sollecito, and I was surprised to learn just recently that their gripe seems to have some support in learned establishments in the UK! Ahem.

    The gripe concerns the Fast Track trial of Rudy Guede, and the consequent Supreme Court confirmation of his conviction, with the apologists arguing that these had an adverse and unfair effect upon the proceedings in which Knox and Sollecito were involved. It is based on the simple fact that Guede chose to be tried separately, this being seen as an unfair complication for the administration of justice in the Italian justice system.

    There are a number of complaints that the usual apologists have regarding the separate trial of Guede. Most of these are in fact fantasies as I will address.

    These complaints, or constant refrains, which some apologists fondly thought could form the basis of a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in due course, can be summarised as follows -

      1.  That the proceedings concerning Guede established various tenets the most important one of which was the multiple attacker scenario, and that this unfairly affected Knox and Sollecito bearing in mind that their defence was based on the Lone-Wolf scenario.

      2.  That the evidence in the Guede proceedings could never be effectively challenged by the Knox and Sollecito camps.

      3.  That, in consequence of which, Knox and Sollecito had virtually already been convicted by the judiciary by the time of their own trial.

      4.  That Guede was allowed to give evidence against Knox and Sollecito at both his own trial and at the Hellmann appeal hearing without effective cross-examination. Had this been the case the defence would likely have exposed and demonstrated his sole responsibility for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed had he been tried together with Knox and Sollecito this could well have happened at the Massei trial.

      5.  That Hellmann was right to give no probity value to the content of Guede’s sentencing and the subsequent annulment unfairly allowed material that was prejudicial for the aforesaid reasons into the Nencini Appeal.

      6.  That Guede was induced into electing for a separate trial with the promise of a reduced sentence should he be convicted - this being to prosecution’s advantage re the case against Knox and Sollecito.

    2. How Overall The Complaints Are Wrong

    I think that we know what fast-track is by now, so I will not dwell on that. Guede’s trial was over relatively quickly. It lasted a month and likely consisted of about 3-4 hearings. There were just a few witnesses called.

    The judge, Micheli, in addition, dwelt on all the evidence in the investigative file including witness statements and forensics. This was because Guede was charged with murder “in complicity with others” and because Micheli also had to make the decision whether or not to commit Knox and Sollecito to stand trial as the other accomplices.

    Before I address whether or not there could be any justification at all for the apologists’ above complaints I would like to mention that learned quarter to which I referred at the outset.

    I recently stumbled (with the help of the apologists’ website) across the Criminal Law and Justice Weekly website.

    I was surprised to learn that various articles had been appearing on it under the heading of “The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher - A critical examination of the trials and subsequent appeal hearings of Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.”

    Lexis Nexis ( publishers and distributors of legal material to the legal profession in the UK)  describe Criminal Law and Justice as….”the leading weekly resource for criminal law practitioners and all those working within the courts and criminal justice areas.”

    The articles are by an F. G Davies, described as a Barrister and listed in Anthony and Berryman’s Magistrates Court Guide as a Deputy Justices Clerk, North Cambridgeshire, in England. He is also a contributor and specialist editor to Justices of the Peace Law Reports.

    Online image associated with an annual legal-fees guide which FG Davies edits

    Here are two quotes I picked out relevant to this post about separate trials.

    “This supports the writer’s contention made earlier that the holding of separate trials for co-accused was wrong in principle and law because the prosecution were alleging that at all three defendants committed the crime acting in concert”


    “It provided Guede with a golden opportunity to minimize his part in the attack upon and murder of Meredith Kercher, loading the blame on to Knox and Sollecito who, by this time were suspected to be chief architects of the attack.”

    It is of course perfectly true that in the anglo-saxon world Guede would not have had the choice to elect for trial separately from his co-accused. It might have made for a very interesting trial for everyone concerned if he had stood trial together with Knox and Sollecito, but for reasons I will explain later I doubt it, or that Knox and Sollecito would have gained any advantage from it.

    Indeed separate trials had rendered a very specific advantage to the Knox and Sollecito camps in that Guede had already been convicted when Knox and Sollecito stood trial, a fact that their PR campaign and followers have drilled home at every conceivable opportunity.

    But what on earth does it mean to say that “the holding of a separate trial [for Guede] was wrong in principle and law”?  .

    Whose law? Whose principles? Just how deeply does the Deputy Justices Clerk delve into the respective systems of justice (and particularly the Italian one) for a comparative evaluation?

    Certainly on the basis of a quick read of his articles I would say that he hasn’t delved very far at all. In fact I will go further and say that despite that he is capable of a detailed review of various aspects of the case he pretty much shares the same hostility and concerns based upon parochialism and ignorance to be found on the usual apologists’ websites.

    So I will try to put him and the apologists right on how the Italians cope, as a matter of law, with any evidential difficulties that separate trials can throw up.

    However, let’s start first with the assertion that the fast-track trial “provided Guede with a golden opportunity to minimize his part in the attack upon and murder of Meredith Kercher, loading the blame on to Knox and Sollecito”? Is that true?

    Guede admitted that he was present at the scene of the murder and he has always minimized his part in the attack, in fact denying that he had any part. This is all to be found in his statements pre trial. He would have minimized his part even if he had been tried with his co-accused and had given evidence. Given that he was not believed anyway, it is difficult to detect wherein lies the golden opportunity of a fast track trial.

    It is also difficult to envisage what cross examination formula (and the point of it) would have been available to the Knox and Sollecito defence teams as to Guede’s minimal role or otherwise given that Knox and Sollecito maintain that they were not there and thus are hardly in a position to dispute Guede‘s version.

    Did Guede load the blame onto Knox and Sollecito?  The answer to that is that he did directly implicate Knox but not Sollecito. Again this is all to be found in his pre-trial statements and interviews with the police and investigating magistrates. Whilst on the toilet he had heard the doorbell ring, Meredith call out “Who is it?“ and later say “We need to talk” followed by another woman’s voice, which he thought was Amanda, replying “What’s happening?“ He had also claimed to have seen, through Filomena’s bedroom window, a female figure with flowing hair and had recognised the shape as being that of Amanda Knox.

    It might be useful at this point just to pause and remember when Guede could have been cross-examined on this by the Knox and Sollecito defence teams.

    Guede was called to give evidence during the Massei trial but declined to give evidence. Not surprising given that he was appealing his own conviction at the time. This was heard two weeks after the conclusion of the Massei trial.

    He then appeared at the Hellmann trial by which time he already had a definitive conviction. On this occasion he did respond to questioning and I shall look at this a little later.

    3. The Specific Mistakes In Each Complaint

    Let us return now to the apologists standard refrains as I listed them at the beginning.

    1.  That the proceedings concerning Guede established various tenets the most important one of which was the multiple attacker scenario, and that this unfairly affected Knox and Sollecito bearing in mind that their defence was based on the Lone-Wolf scenario.

    One might also add the staged break in and some others as well which were all considered by Micheli and endorsed by Massei.

    However as at the conclusion of the Massei trial Guede’s first appeal was still extant and the Supreme Court’s definitive reflections on the multiple attacker scenario were still a year off. Nothing had been written in stone at that point. If the multiple attacker scenario became a tenet of the case then it would be more accurate to say that it became so because of Massei joining up with Micheli.

    But let’s also take in the second refrain to consider alongside the first at this point.

    2.  That the evidence in the Guede proceedings could never be effectively challenged by the Knox and Sollecito camps.

    This really is pretty rich. So what? Knox and Sollecito were not on trial there. And what to make of the Massei trial which of course is when Knox and Sollecito then wheeled out their big guns; the expensive lawyers and experts in telecommunications, forensic pathology, forensic DNA, ballistics and footprint analysis?

    The Massei trial may have taken its time but it was nevertheless (unlike Guede’s trial) a full blooded adversarial trial of first instance, lasting a year, with the prosecution producing each and every one of it’s witnesses for rigorous cross-examination by the defence.

    It was Massei that confirmed the multiple attacker scenario on the basis solely of that evidence and with scarce a mention of Guede’s sentencing report. It is lame to argue that Massei was in any way constrained by Micheli’s reasoning on the matter though his judgement was indeed available.

    However Massei did make the following observation -

    “……the reconstruction of the facts leads to the unavoidable conclusion that he (Guede) was one of the main protagonists (writer’s note: no concession to Guede’s chances on appeal, then?); thus it is not possible to avoid speaking of Guede in relation to the hypothesised criminal facts. The defence of the accused in particular have requested the examination of texts concerning only Rudy, and have demanded the results, specifically concerning Guede of the investigative activities carried out by the police in particular. In fact they have expressly indicated Guede as being the author, and the sole author, of the criminal acts perpetrated on the person of Meredith Kercher.”

    So here we see the defence making the running on Guede (without Guede being present as a co-accused to dispute anything) to include any and all evidence as to his alleged criminal background with the precise purpose of bolstering the Lone Wolf scenario, all of which was duly evaluated by Massei.

    [One might think, in addition to the above, that Guede would have had cause to complain about the indictments for Knox and Sollecito, in that both were indicted, and subsequently convicted, with the crime of murder “in complicity with Rudy Hermann Guede”, although he still had two appeals left and theoretically (though not realistically) it was still possible for him to be acquitted of the crime. However the drawing up of indictments in separate trials, and how the judiciary would deal with an outcome such as above (which I don’t think would be difficult) would be a topic for another discussion.]

    3.  That, in consequence of which, Knox and Sollecito had virtually already been convicted by the judiciary by the time of their own trial.

    This is so lame by any objective standard, but it is amazing just how often this particular drum is beaten. However our Deputy Justices Clerk would probably subscribe to this. He develops an argument akin to this which he terms the Forbidden Reasoning (echoes of Preston’s “The Forbidden Killer”?) which is basically that Micheli made a number of errors which were then compounded in subsequent hearings.

    4.  That Guede was allowed to give evidence against Knox and Sollecito at both his own trial and at the Hellmann appeal hearing without effective cross-examination. Had this been the case the defence would likely have exposed and demonstrated his sole responsibility for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed had he been tried together with Knox and Sollecito this could well have happened at the Massei trial.

    The evidence that implicated Knox I have already mentioned. It is not entirely decisive in that it is not a solid ID of Knox at the crime scene. At the Hellmann appeal Guede added this in an exchange with Knox‘s lawyer -

    DEFENSE ATTORNEY DALLA VEDOVA—And therefore, Mr. Guede, when you wrote verbatim that it was a “horrible murder of Meredith a lovely wonderful young woman, by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox” what do you mean exactly? Have you ever said this?
    WITNESS—Well, I… this, I’ve never said it explicitly, in this way, but I’ve always thought it.
    DEFENSE ATTORNEY DALLA VEDOVA—And so, it’s not true.
    WITNESS—No, it’s very true………………………………..............  So if I wrote those words it’s because I’ve always had them inside of me. It’s not up to me to decide who it was who killed Meredith, in the statement that I made in my trial, I always said who was there in that home that damned night, so, I think I’m not saying anything new……

    In another exchange, this time with Bongiorno, Guede makes it clear that he is not planning to answer any further questions about what happened that night but this is because he has already stated (statements and recorded interviews etc), and stands by, all that he has to say about it.  Thus all that is taken into evidence perfectly properly. The matter is then left to rest by the defence.

    Indeed it is difficult to conceive what further effective cross-examination could have occurred in this situation because clearly Guede would have responded with exactly the same answer each time.

    The above exchanges also show just why it is unlikely that there would have been any fireworks had Guede been tried with his co-accused.

    Guede would not have been obliged to give oral testimony any more than were Knox and Sollecito and in the event that he had done so (and I think it would have been in his interests to do so) his evidence would not only have been the same but it would have been subject to the same limitations, which would have been zealously protected by his lawyers, that had protected Knox when she gave oral evidence.

    On due consideration it might have been a somewhat tetchy affair for the lawyers but it would not have been in the interests of any of the respective teams of lawyers for there to have been any surprises such as Guede moving from beyond what he had already said in pre-trial statements to a solid ID of Knox from the witness box. That wouldn’t have particularly helped Guede as it would have affected his credibility even further. They all had prepared positions to protect and Guede’s presence would be neither that much of an added threat nor an advantage for Knox and Sollecito.

    5.  That Hellmann was right to give no probity value to the content of Guede’s sentencing and the subsequent annulment unfairly allowed material that was prejudicial for the aforesaid reasons into the Nencini Appeal.

    Now we are into the law, Italian law that is, and how it coped with separate trials of co-accused.

    By this time Guede’s conviction, remember, had been ruled as definitive by the Supreme Court.

    This is what Hellmann said about that -

    “……. in truth, this judgement, acquired pursuant to article 238 and so utilisable under the probative framework only as one of it’s evaluative elements pursuant to article 192.…………….. already appears in itself a particularly weak element, from the moment that this judgement related to Rudy Guede had been carried out under the fast track procedure.”

    It will be useful to consider some of Prosecutor-General Galati’s observations in the prosecution’s appeal submission and we can do this because the Supreme Court agreed with him.

    This is what the Supreme Court said -

    “The submission on the violation of article 238 …….is correct. Even though (Hellmann) obtained the final judgement pronounced by this court against Rudy Guede, after properly considering that the judgement was not binding, it has completely “snubbed” the content of the same, also neutralizing it’s undeniable value as circumstantial evidence on the presupposition that it’s profile was particularly weak, since the judgement was based at the state of proceedings without the enrichment acquired as a result of the renewal of the investigations hearing arranged on appeal, In reality, the court was not authorised at all, for this reason alone, to ignore the content of the definitive judgement.”

    The enrichment referred to would of course have been the Independent Expert’s evidence (subsequently debunked by Nencini) and the Supreme Court also added that in any event article 238 was not impaired at all by the fact that the first instance trial was fast track.

    At the end of the day this was just poor argument by Hellmann but it was symptomatic of the many flaws that underlay much if not all of his reasoning for acquittal.

    More importantly for me and in addition to the foregoing the Supreme Court delivered a withering criticism of Hellmann’s understanding of circumstantial evidence and how to evaluate and treat it in its broad spectrum.

    However, how can and what elements contained in the separate trial of one co-accused have any probative weight in the trial of the others?

    Prosecutor-General Galati puts it like this. The Supreme Court’s rulings -

    “have now settled definitively regarding the interpretation according to which finalised judgements can be acquired by the proceedings, as provided for by the indicated law, but they do not constitute full proof of the facts ascertained by them, but necessitate corroborations not differing from the declarations of the co-accused in the same proceedings or in a connected proceeding………………………………......
    Naturally this confirmation is not directly used for the purpose of proof but as corroboration of other circumstantial pieces of evidence or of evidence already acquired, not very different from what happens when declarations of collaborators with justice corroborate each other.”

    In the event the only material from Guede that really seems to me to have hitherto been extraneous to the first instance trial of Knox and Sollecito was the inclusion at the Nencini appeal of Guede’s partial ID of Knox at the scene and his evidence as to Meredith’s missing money, which were corroborative of elements of evidence that had appeared at the Massei trial; in the case of the missing money for instance, the missing credit cards and Filomena’s testimony that at a meeting shortly before both the murder and the day the rent was due Meredith had told her that she had the cash to hand and was prepared to hand it over there and then.

    No such money was found at the crime scene. One suspects that these two elements would have been more prominent at the Massei trial, and have been motivated more attentively, had the three been tried together. In the event Guede’s partial ID of Knox was not even mentioned by Massei and Knox and Sollecito, in the absence of any evaluation of Guede’s evidence, were acquitted (not even motivated at all in fact) of the charge of theft in relation to the money and the credit cards.

    Given the foregoing I would argue that Knox and Sollecito derived an advantage rather than a disadvantage from the separate trials.

    Furthermore I would argue that the material from Guede’s separate proceedings was not particularly damaging given the overall context of the evidence already directly available from the trial of Knox and Sollecito (which received some but in truth did not require much corroborative confirmation from Guede’s separate trial) and which in itself was sufficient to found a verdict of “beyond reasonable doubt”, but it did supply some useful insight into a motive when of course Hellmann had found none and Massei had supplied a rather improbable one.

    6.  That Guede was induced into electing for a separate trial with the promise of a reduced sentence should he be convicted - this being to prosecution’s advantage re the case against Knox and Sollecito.

    Needless to say this is what you get from desperate and deluded minds. Guede’s lawyer has explained why his client took his advice and the decision was perfectly rational and in Guede’s interests. Guede was entitled to a third off his sentence from choosing fast track though I am no fan of that. Furthermore I have explained why no particular advantage accrued to the prosecution from this choice other than that it probably foreshortened the time that a full trial of the three would have taken.

    Posted on 07/30/15 at 04:00 PM by James Raper. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (25)

    Saturday, July 25, 2015

    Why The Count Of Discredited Prosecution Witnesses Even Now Remains Down Around Zero

    Posted by James Raper

    As with all images on TJMK this image above will expand if clicked on

    Just sifting through the latest drivel on Injustice in Perugia today and I came across this statement from one of their main posters.

    “It was physically impossible for Capezalli to have heard any sounds from Meredith’s residence”.

    Note : not that she was mistaken or that her evidence was unreliable but the bald statement that it was physically impossible for her to have heard anything.

    Was she profoundly deaf then? If not, then why this assertion? Without some basis for this assertion then it is simply a dismissive slur on the credibility of the witness.

    This happens to be the same poster who wowed that board with his claim that the Prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence that would have cleared Knox and Sollecito.

    Not that he supplied any proof. How could he?  It is axiomatic, of course, that if there was suppressed evidence then what it was would not be known. Nevertheless it was a ready springboard for calls from mindless idiots to have the Prosecution fully investigated and charged with perverting the course of justice!

    Anyway, to move on, the purpose of this post is just to revisit (with pictorial assistance) Capezalli’s testimony (I shall call her Nara from now on) and see if there is even a scintilla of justification for the claim.

    Now to be fair, Nara did say in her evidence that she had double glazing and maybe that is what he is referring to although for the life of me I don’t see why that would make it impossible for her to hear a scream outside.

    But it’s worth investigating because it’s the sort of thing that does get repeated without further analysis and I have read others taking that remark at face value and doubting whether she did hear a scream and, perhaps more credibly, whether she would have heard the sound of someone running on the gravel of the cottage forecourt and up the metal steps from the car park.

    Here is what she said -

    “What happens is that getting up I’m going past the window of the dining room, because the bathroom is on that side, and as I am there I heard a scream, but a scream that wasn’t a normal scream. [A terrifying and agonising long scream as she describes it elsewhere] I got goose bumps to be truthful. At that moment I no longer knew what was happening, and then I went on to the bathroom. There is a little window with no shutters, none at all.”

    Mignini then asks -

    Q—Well, you go by the window and you hear this cry?
    Ans – Yes.
    Q – Then you continue to go towards the bathroom, you told me?
    Ans – Yes.
    Q – Do you open the bathroom window?
    Ans – No.
    Q – Explain what happened for us.
    Ans – I haven’t any shutters on that window, I only have double-glazing so I can look straight out
    Q – So you looked out of the bathroom window?
    Ans– I didn’t open up because I had all the little succulent plants there for the light.

    A little late in her testimony Mignini seeks to clarify her evidence -

    Q– So you hear the scream, go to the bathroom, look out the window and you don’t see anything?
    Ans – No.
    Q – Then you go back to the bedroom?
    Ans – Yes.
    Q – When is it that you hear the noises you described, and then we will see what they are?
    Ans – I hear the noises I described when I was closing the bathroom door, then I heard running, because that steel there [the metal stairs] makes a tremendous noise at night, then when you don’t hear cars going by or such like, I looked out but there was nobody there.
    Q – From which way?
    Ans – To the left and the right, and there was nobody there.
    Q – Then you heard the scuffling?
    Ans – The same, in the meantime I heard running on the stairs, from the other direction they were running in the driveway.

    Much later Nara is helpfully (perhaps) cross examined by Dalla Vedova on her remark that she has double glazing, as follows -

    CDV - How are your windows made?
    Ans -  My windows are made of wood. They have double glazing and they have a shutter.
    CDV - When you say “they have double glazing” do you mean that every single window has two panes, or are there two windows, one in front of the other?
    Ans -  No, two panes in each side and opening in the middle.

    Confused? What is she really describing?

    Many moons ago Kermit put together a very helpful Powerpoint lambasting the behaviour and claims of Paul Ciolino, the American PI who appeared on CBS rubbishing the suggestion that Nara would have been able to hear anything. It is obviously Ciolino’s disreputable work that is the basis for the claim.

    I am going to lift some stills from Kermit’s excellent Powerpoint and add to them some more from a (somewhat infamous) Channel 5 documentary, from which it will be clear that

    (a) Nara doesn’t have double glazing, nor shutters, at least not at the back of her property overlooking the cottage. However there are shutters at the front and, for all I know, double glazing there but that is not of concern to us.

    (b)  There is little reason to doubt that she would have been able to hear sounds outside quite well.

    Let’s start.

    Here’s a picture of the back of Nara’s property immediately above the car park.

    Here it is again in relation to the cottage

    In the first picture Nara’s first floor flat is shown circled. In the second, it is obvious that only the roof of the cottage would be visible from the first floor, as indeed she said in her testimony.

    There are two further floors above. The top floor is the one to which Ciolino (and Pater Van Sant) gained access, having tried but failed to interest Nara. Nara in her evidence said that there was an apartment above which she rented out and I suspect that this was the top floor. The top floor undoubtedly had double glazing or double casements.

    Below is one of the top floor windows. (We can see Ciolino’s reflection in the glass)

    And here he is, standing in front of the same window whilst conducting his experiment with a couple of kids running along the road outside -

    As we shall see it really was quite pointless conducting off-the-cuff sound experiments from there with the double casement shut tight

    Nara said that her daughter also lived in the building so either the second floor was a separate conversion for her daughter or first and second were shared and the second was where their bedrooms were. That’s actually immaterial as it is the first floor that really interests us.

    Here is a close up of the first floor. We can be sure because we can see Nara and the co-presenters of the Channel 5 documentary standing on the balcony.

    We can see how large the windows are on either side of the balcony. As to the window on the right it is also apparent that this has been blocked up save as to four panes in the middle so that now there is only that smaller window there.

    Let us now look at that window from the inside.

    “One went up, one went over there” is Nara explaining to the Italian TV reporter the sounds she heard.

    Clearly then she is standing inside her bathroom and the bathroom window looks over the car park. Indeed we can see her succulent plants on the inside window ledge as she stated in her evidence. Also, if we look closely, we can see that her wall is tiled or wall-papered with a tile design befitting a bathroom. Probably that wall is also made of little more than plasterboard.

    One thing is quite certain though and that is that the window, which opens in the middle, is not double glazed.

    Nara’s understanding however seems to be rather different. To her “double glazing” is (as she said to Dalla Vedova) “two panes in each side and opening in the middle”.

    We can also infer that the large window to the left of the balcony belongs to her dining room. What she said, in effect, was that she was traversing the first floor (from left to right) from her dining room to her bathroom (being both on the same side, as she says). She heard the scream in her dining room.

    The window there does not appear to be blocked off as it is to the right. Indeed I think we can see full length drapes or net curtains but certainly one would expect a larger window there and again, clearly, it is not double glazed.

    So again, why would it be physically impossible for her to have heard a sound, particularly a scream, coming from the cottage?

    It couldn’t be because it was too far away. We can see that from the pictures but also here is a handy GoogleMap calculation of the distance from her place to the far side of the cottage.

    So that’s, say, 45 metres. Or 49 yards. Not far at all. Thanks to Yummi for bringing that up on pmf.org.

    We should also remember that it was the 1st November which is a religious holiday in Italy in remembrance of the dead and therefore background noise was quieter than usual. It was also probably sometime around 11pm and the back of Nara’s property looks out on what is a natural amphitheatre in which noise will echo.

    Nara Capezalli in fact came across as a compelling witness to what she heard that night and there is no way at all that it was physically impossible for her not to have heard that scream. Nor the metal stairs (“..makes a tremendous noise at night”….) just off to the right of her property and immediately below it.

    On a personal note I was recently driven nuts by a manhole cover that had come loose in the road outside my bedroom window. Cars constantly drove over it and the noise kept me awake. The top floor of the car park would probably also act like a sounding board and the noise made by the stairs may also have come up through the stairwell we see immediately in front of her property. I am not so sure about the sound of gravel on the cottage forecourt being crunched underneath but already I am more than prepared to believe Nara on that score as well. Why not?

    Finally, as we await the Cassation Motivation (whenever!) I seem to remember that at least one appeal point was the failure of the lower courts to accede to a defence request for audio tests to be conducted from Nara’s property.

    Bearing in mind that Judge Marasca reportedly has stated that the ground for overturning the Nencini convictions was insufficient and contradictory evidence one wonders whether Cassation will say that a test was required, in the absence of which Nara’s testimony can be thrown into a pot along with other evidence somehow deemed “insufficient”?

    If they do then watch out for them getting the double glazing issue quite wrong as well.

    Posted on 07/25/15 at 10:11 PM by James Raper. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (24)

    Thursday, July 16, 2015

    Amazon Reviews: Are Knox PR’s 1000 Dishonest Paid Reviews Losing Traction?

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    Amazon reader reviews may or may not dictate how the sales of a book make out.

    Sales of the Sollecito and Knox books have been way below expectations despite dozens of glowing reviews - and by the way numerous repeats of the hoaxes and defamations.

    At the same time sales of objective books on the facts of the case and the psychologies have been meeting expectations despite the absence of advertising or a paid-for PR campaign.

    Here are some of the spontaneous review for the two books Deceit and Dark Maatter by Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson.

    By atlantic 1 “atlantic1” on June 3, 2015

    This is an exceptionally-well-written, complex (but lucid and fast-paced) account of the murder of Meredith Kercher (a British exchange student) in Perugia, Italy, and the unconvincing behavior and at times multiple stories of the main suspects: Amanda Knox (the American roommate), Raffaele Sollecito (Knox’s Italian boyfriend at the time of the murder), and Rudy Guede (Ivory Coast native adopted by an Italian family, currently the only one serving time in Italy for the murder).

    Other characters are prominently featured, along with a lot of background information from reputable sources.

    What I really liked about the book is that many links throughout the text (in the Kindle edition that I purchased) send the reader to outside documents (e.g., photographs) that would otherwise take a while to research (warning: some visuals are pretty disturbing, but one always has the option of not clicking on the link).

    The book has a fluid style and is absolutely engrossing, I highly recommend it.

    By Leigh on June 8, 2015

    Nick has done a superb job in ‘Deceit’ of reviewing, combining, comparing, and contrasting vast amounts of information from many different sources on Meredith Kercher’s case. As someone who has followed anything and everything of substance I could find on the case since 2007—I appreciate his massive effort, and certainly agree, some amount of speculation is required. What is especially effective about Nick’s speculations is that they are based on confirmed ‘knowns’ about the case from genuine sources such as investigations, witness testimony, interviews with Meredith’s friends, housemates, and others who knew AK (rarely spell out AK’s name since I hold extreme animus for that wrongly acquitted psychopath!).

    While I don’t agree with every speculation of Nick’s—I have many of my own—I do appreciate that he examines what’s real. For everyone trying to follow the case, it’s been difficult to sift through the exhaustive amount of subterfuge, deceit, and duplicity from rabid AK fan club members, a professional ‘damage-control’ PR / media manipulation machine, lazy mainstream US media lapdogs, and AK’s lying family—people and organizations who clearly would stop at nothing to defend their favorite two murderers. The worst of them always show up to deliberately hurl their vile insults and spew hatred at anyone who doesn’t howl about the great Italian conspiracy perpetrated against the murderer AK, or who don’t constantly drool like a fool over AK’s beauty and brilliance. The AK jerks are certainly out in force at trying to bring down this book—they try and destroy anyone who seeks to get the truth out about Meredith’s murder and AK’s direct involvement in her death.

    By S. Gleason on June 7, 2015

    Thank you for reminding people of the truth Nick. Wonderful book. A breath of fresh air. Please don’t listen to propaganda being posted here in the reviews. Listen to the abundant case evidence against all three. Justice for Meredith and her family.

    By M Thomson “Elizabeth” on June 2, 2015

    This book is a interesting and fast paced read. Suspicion builds naturally as the author follows the two defendants in the hours before and the murder. Their actions and changing alibis are well documented here. Amanda Knox falsely accused Patrick Lumumba in a very short time just after learning Sollecito said she went out that night. I wonder if the one star reviewers would rather you not know this.

    By Margaret Ganong on May 25, 2015

    The author has a good grasp of the facts and makes a case that is far more convincing than the two recently and bafflingly acquitted Knox and Sollecito have ever been able to do. Indeed, one of the most compelling reasons to read this book is for its effort to set the written accounts of Knox and Sollecito side by side, revealing the many ways they don’t add up and are at odds with one another.

    By Amazon Customer on May 25, 2015

    Thoroughly enjoyed this book. I cannot wait for the next one in the series. There HAD to be more to this murder ... and I am now sure that there was more than one person involved. Poor Meredith ’ s family having to live with this. I just love the narrative that makes Nick’s books SO enjoyable.

    By kris arnason on May 26, 2015

    Nick van der Leek has written an extremely cohesive narrative about the tragic Meredith Kercher case. The author takes you through what likely happened that horrific night, and why Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito’s stories don’t add up, all the while providing the reader with hundreds and hundreds of hyperlinked images, news reports, and audio clips, etc. that have been consolidated, collected and embedded in this one narrative. Everything sourced, right at your fingertips. A must read for people like me who have followed this case from the beginning and folks just getting interested and want to learn all they can. Thanks Nick! Looking forward to more from you about this case!

    By Caroline on July 5, 2015

    I bought this book because of the reviews! I’ve never done that before but I’m so intrigued by the almost angry tone to all of these one star reviews. It just makes me wonder if a nerve was hit. Somebody’s hiding something maybe? Anyway, I just have to read it now. Will come back with full review when I’m done.

    By Amazon Customer on June 1, 2015

    Finally! An honest book of what really happened to Meredith Kercher! Can Nick interview AK & RS on TV in the USA? I am sure he would ask REAL questions!

    By Jeff “jeffski” on May 26, 2015

    It is a disgrace that Amazon allows these Amanda Knox trolls a platform to spread hate and abuse people simply because they write a review for a book that these people disagree with. Amazon must act on these known frauds/cyber bullies who suppress and insult/abuse people on forums/Comments section and social media.

    This book is a excellent read and obviously hits a nerve with Knox’s followers as the negative comments and abuse/insults aimed at author prove. Please look beyond the rent a hate mob and read the book and come to your own conclusion.

    By Columbo on May 25, 2015

    This is an excellent true crime story with highly accurate and precise detail of how Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede all killed Meredith Kercher. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to know the truth of this case in a very revealing and fast page turning account of what really happened in this case.

    By Michela on May 30, 2015

    Excellent read.

    By Maria Chinnapan on May 26, 2015

    A great read!, very down to earth appraisal of what may have happened. No nonsense and to the point

    By MCD on May 31, 2015

    Again this formidable true crime writer has come up trumps with an incredibly well researched interrogation of a crime that continues to baffle the world. The detailed sequence of events is painstakingly pieced together. I had only superficially followed this case when the news initially broke so have been fascinated by this book which has filled in many gaps and highlighted the inconsistencies in the behaviour of Amanda Knox and her boyfriend, who said what, who lied about what, etc.

    In addition to the bare bones of the case, the author’s classic approach is the use true crime as a melting pot of evil and the extremes of human nature. He asks unsettling questions about human behaviour, herd mentality, apathy and our place in society - a society where a crime like this one can and does take place and despite all the investigation, the waters are still muddied in the deeper pools.

    For those who appreciate that truth is stranger than fiction and like to delve deeper into these cases, the author brings it all together for you, with a dollop of enriching ‘food for thought’.

    By Truth Seeker on May 26, 2015

    It is the behavioural evidence which has always bothered me about this case, and it has always seemed that everything said/done by the ex defendants had to be explained away or justified. The author has cross referenced the two versions written by them in their memorials, and needless to say, there are major discrepancies.

    Unless we expose the inconsistencies, then the two will have literally got away with murder. Legally this may be the case, but analysis provided by this book goes some way to keeping the memory of Meredith honoured, and ensuring that there are some still fighting for justice for her. Do buy the book- it has none of the obfuscation and image management that we have been subject to in the past years.

    By Ipsos Maati on May 30, 2015

    Why is Amanda Knox panicked about this book, and why did she try to have it banned?

    Deceit shines light on the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher, and the dishonest effort to free her.

    Exonerated does not mean “innocent”.

    By elizabeth on May 26, 2015

    Deceit is a fascinating read no matter where you stand on the recent verdict. Fast paced but manages to bring a cohesive dialogue to days before and after the murder

    By A. Futo “911 coincidence analyst” on May 26, 2015

    Well written book by author Nick van der Leek, with all new research and links to original reporting and publicly available information about the murder Of Meredith Kercher.

    Is Amanda Knox, the main suspect in the case, guilty of murdering her room mate as many believe, or was she railroaded by the prosecution, as claimed by her friends and family?

    The author skilfully navigates the questions of motive, means, and evidence, starting with the premise that this is a case that begins with and is marked by many layers of deceit, as Knox first accuses an innocent man, Patrick Lumumba, then must lie and keep on lying to distance herself from the crime she implicates herself with by admitting to her presence at the scene.

    Her co-accused, Raffaele Sollecito withdraws then confirm her alibi, and the other person evidence shows was involved in the sexual assault that preceded the murder, Rudy Guede, also tries to distance himself by running away then denying her involvement, then accusing the two of them in a letter to the media.

    The author’s hypothesis of what happened is based on a finely rendered psychological evaluation of Amanda Knox. No matter what the final decision will be, this is a case that will be discussed for many years to come. I look forward to his next book of the series.

    By Leigh on June 25, 2015

    After more than 7 years of following Meredith Kercher’s murder case closely as the saga has wound through the arcane Italian justice system, I am completely convinced that AK & RS are her two other murderers who have ultimately escaped justice. Their final acquittal has not changed anything for me. Yet I’ve been asked by others who have more than a slight interest as to why is it I’m so certain, what’s your 3-minute elevator speech? Well, an elevator speech doesn’t exist, but in ‘Dark Matter’ and its prequel, ‘Deceit’ and I hope, in more follow-up e-books on this case, a reader can get as close as possible to a comprehensive full-view, what-happened, tell-me-everything explanation without having to slog through over 1,000 pages of trial documents translated from original Italian and endless arguments from two deeply entrenched opposing sides. Trying to read through it all could easily take most of an interested person’s discretionary time for a lengthy period of their lives. And who needs that, right?

    What’s special about ‘Dark Matter’ is how easy it is to read, how well the authors guide readers through crucial evidence while using a technique borrowed from Socrates—keep asking yourself common sense questions as you’re reading. ‘Dark Matter’ examines the early case from a big picture view—the most prominent evidence, the investigation, what happened in days before, and after Meredith’s murder, and what was the behavior like of those near Meredith? Then go further, examine what AK & RS wrote in their own books about the murder. Do they agree with each other or give themselves away by not agreeing in crucial areas? ‘Dark Matter’ creates these scenes while assisting readers in finding their own answers.

    ‘Dark Matter’ examines what is important to know, then asks readers to consider: ‘does it make sense?’ or ‘were these actions meant to deceive and lead investigators astray?’ ‘is there an innocent explanation?’ ‘does unusual behavior indicate guilt, youthful carelessness, or something else?’ ‘Dark Matter’ lays out salient evidence found during investigations, and continues to encourage readers to question its importance: ‘where does this evidence naturally lead?’ ‘can we tie the evidence and the behavior together to draw conclusions, and how do we do that?’

    ‘Dark Matter’ is exactly how I’d want someone to guide me through an enormous case if didn’t know much about it. Don’t tell me what to think, don’t try to persuade me towards your view—show me what is important to know—and I’ll decide for myself; in this, both authors excel.

    One area where I completely disagree with the authors is their, what appears to be, complete acceptance of nonsense created by AK’s professional Seattle-based propaganda machine and American author Douglas Preston—these two parties had their own reasons to intentionally malign and destroy Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Their agendas were obvious to truth seekers—one sought to do ‘damage control and create a villain to take attention away from AK,’ the other, to leverage the murder to create interest in his own book.

    Unfortunately this propaganda proved to be extremely effective, and was picked up by most US media outlets that then ran with the deception. Those who know the case from the pro-justice side are keenly aware of how this vicious, deceitful campaign against the prosecutor convinced tens of millions of Americans AK was an innocent who was framed. I hope the authors make an effort to learn how completely they have been deceived and correct these mistakes in future books in this series.

    By JJ on July 3, 2005

    Great book!! Highly recommended

    By Sarah Breen on June 30, 2015

    Research and writing are top notch! True investigative journalism into this controversial subject.

    By Nicole church on June 27, 2015

    I loved your book-you guys definitely did your research and systematically take the reader though some of the most damning evidence in this case. I was impressed at how you tied it all in with the theme of dark matter- very well done and thought provoking.

    No need to apologize for your narrative;yes there are some f bombs but it made me respect you more for being authentic and your sarcasm is justified when it comes to this case. Like you both said it would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. You do a great job calling bulls*** on both murderers using example after example from their own words(in court,interviews,diaries,etc)

    I am sure this book has the murderers supporters all in a tizzy- it is easy to spot their attempts to sabotage your deservedly 5 star reviews with their 1 stars. Just look for lots of exclamation points and words in all caps then move right along to the honest reviews that will really help you decide if this book is worth reading- and it certainly is.

    Looking forward to your next book and thank you for being the stars that shine light on the truth smile

    By Columbo on June 26, 2015

    Another really great book by Lisa Wilson and Nick van der Leek. In this easy to read and compelling book the key events, character aspects of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede and the most significant evidence against them are all objectively weighed and analyzed. Additionally, in a very balanced view, the case for Amanda Knox as promoted by her supporters is also reviewed so readers can make up their own minds. But there is only one conclusion: all three killers murdered Meredith Kercher (RIP). I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to know even more about this case.

    By kris arnason on July 5, 2015

    Dark Matter is a must read for everyone wanting to know more about the murder of Meredith Kercher. Those who believed in the lies & cover up of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s multi million dollar PR campaigns will have their eyes opened after reading this excellent book.

    By JJ “jj0388” on July 3, 2015

    great book!! highly recommended

    By A. Futo “911 coincidence analyst”
    I read many crime books, and this is one of the really good ones on the case. Amanda Knox’s strange behavior and lies, accusing Patrick Lumumba, her relationship with Meredith, all reflected in the “Dark Matter” of her psychology.

    She simply is not very believable in her book, and her media appearances have been disasters which is why she’s withdrawn in hiding. Her father hired a PR firm to manage her image, and in the process influenced many sad, gullible people who still try to negate any criticism. Even though Amanda Knox has ‘won’ her case, why are they still posting nonsensical, abusive reviews of a book they never read?

    One example, but this is important to me. Her father said that Meredith gained advanced three levels in karate and would not have gone without a struggle. A testimony to her character, but a reviewer writes “that’s an orange belt, beginner’s level”. Sorry, but the people who loved her say she would have fought to the end. So why the lack of defensive wounds, if she was being restrained by only one person?

    In the struggle, she managed to injure Amanda Knox, who left her blood behind in the crime scene. (A bloody nose, ear stud pulled out? Left her lamp behind in the room to assist cleaning?) She was photographed with a scrape on her neck, and the police photograph taken on arrest shows the long scratch which she only partially covered with makeup on November 02. Her adoring fans call that a “hickey”, lol. Perhaps Lisa Wilson can collect these reviews as insight into their “Dark Matter” as well?

    By GH2006 on June 22, 2015

    This book is a perceptive analysis of the evidence in the murder case of Meredith Kercher. Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson take you through the court documents, statements made by the suspects as well as the DNA evidence among other things, which reveal the many lies and obfuscations by the public relations firm hired by the defendants as well as the ob-knox-ious murder-supporters who attack anyone who writes about the truth of this crime. (Shown by the flock of 1 star comments with long venomous attacks by haters who haven’t even read the book.)

    Written with the same interesting, insightful, and at times entertaining way van der Leek and Wilson hook the reader in from beginning to end. I couldn’t pull myself away from this book that Nick generously gifted to me because this is not about making a profit for them but in getting the truth out there! (In stark contrast to the defendants who made millions selling their version of the crime.) Oh! And this book also shines a light on the way Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito obscure the truth in their own books. That was very interesting as well! I also enjoyed the first book DECEIT and looking forward to the next book! TY

    By Bibliophile on June 21, 2015

    Awesome humdinger of a book. This book will tell you the truth!

    Posted on 07/16/15 at 07:36 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (16)

    Friday, July 10, 2015

    The Milestone Book By Dr Andrew Hodges On Knox’s Driving Psychology “As Done Unto You” #1

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    1. Who Put Knox’s Psychology Front And Center?

    In fact Amanda Knox herself did.

    Her turbulent history goes way back. She is on officlal record as having had a difficult and possibly damaging early childhood.  She herself describes her oddball faux-lesbian status at her high school, not of her own doing.  She has been referred to as brash, sharp-elbowed, a drug-using man-eater and risk-taker at the University of Washington.

    Suggestive incidents she herself describes (when she is not disavowing them) on her way to Perugia only added to this.

    At most, one in 100 American students arrive in Perugia with (1) no formal program via their university back home, and thus no supervision, (2) no enrollment in the University of Perugia - merely enrollment in a glorified language school, which demands less than 10 hours a week of study, (3) no European work permit, no financial grant, and few financial savings; and (4) an assured drug supply. But Amanda Knox was indeed one in 100.

    Given her burn rate, her savings would have run out early in 2008. Her drug-supply arrangement began on the train, even before she arrived in Perugia. Around Perugia Knox was soon isolating herself quite relentlessly. With the drug taking and her choices of men to entice and all the people she ticked off, she showed early signs of a pending trainwreck. One of the very few who tried to give her comfort was in fact poor well-meaning Meredith.

    Note Knox’s trajectory from the day after Meredith’s murder, where she was reported to stink of cat urine (an indicator of recent cocaine or crystal meth use) after claiming she had showered just 2 hours earlier, through her erratic highs and lows prior to her arrest, to her screaming fits and head-hitting at the central police station, to her endemic feuding with Sollecito, right through 2008 to her trial.

    At the Massei trial in 2009 Knox herself put on a front as endlessly daffy - as epitomized in the Beatles T-shirt she wore, and her first interjection to the court, which was about her Bunny vibrator.

    That might have worked as an “I am not all there” defense (possibly arrived at between the defense team and the PR scheme) but two things at trial totally destroyed prospects of that.

    • Her strident, sarcastic, callous two-day stint on the witness stand, which was seen on live Italian TV and reported as a disaster for her in Italian eyes here and here.

    • The closed court reconstruction of the exceptionally barbaric pack attack by three assailants, which took Italy’s best crimescene analysts a whole day to present and which made some in the court cry or feel ill; reflected later in a 15-minute video and in the prosecution’s summations. Throughout all of that, Knox herself and her hapless defenses had zero comeback and to this day have still offered no alternative.

    From 2007 through late 2011 a number of further hard-to-explain-as-normal episodes took place in Capanne prison. Knox’s paranoid book Waiting To Be Heard says that black is white, down is up, she alone is normal, and everyone around her intends bad.

    We have reported frequently and very fairly on all of this, with half a dozen psychologists posting, most especially SeekingUnderstanding, who has long argued Knox is in decline and years overdue for treatment (see especially the post here and post here and post here) surfacing essentially similar insights. That Knox has a lot bottled up and that she cannot stop signalling guilt is a recurring theme of our past Psychology posts here.

    Those Americans and Brits who hopped on the PR-driven bandwagon for Knox on the psychology dimension almost all arrived several years after the PR campaign started its Orwellian mission.

    Without a single exception ALL of them crash on the details. They leave enormous amounts out, and what they dont leave out is more often wrong than on-target.  One criminal psychologist Dr Saul Kassin was shown to be so seriously off-base that he has disappeared himself. 

    The most factually inaccurate and psychologically badly-grounded takes on Knox and her defensive moves have come from John Douglas and others in the fading first generation of “ex FBI profilers”. John Douglas seemingly learned nothing from Kassin’s crash and burn - he repeats the extremely inaccurate and defamatory Kassin depictions largely verbatim. More about the bamboozled “ex FBI profilers” will follow later in this series. 

    2. Introducing The Analysis Of Dr Andrew Hodges

    Dr Hodges is at the forefront of his vital field now. He is impressively qualified, and widely networked in the crime-fighting community. He has a successful publishing track-record.

    He describes his methods in full in his book subtitled The Secret Confession Of Amanda Knox and elsewhere. He arrives at a fair and and extremely detailed and not unkind analyses of both the presumed perp and those hangers-on who surround them.

    Dr Hodges himself has suggested to TJMK that, as if he were at one of his presentations (he has presented, among other venues, at FBI Quantico), he should first let others with knowledge of the field speak about the book and about himself.

    Accordingly, the rest of this first post consists of some reviews. Future posts in the series will include some book excerpts and some explanations of why various professionals who should have known better have simply misread Knox, John Douglas included.

    Review In New York Crime Examiner

    By Liz Houle
    NY Crime Examiner

    Dr. Andrew G. Hodges proves that Amanda Knox is guilty in his new book

    July 8, 20157:06 PM MST

    The police are investigating the murder of a young woman. They bring three people in for questioning, two males and one female. All claim to be innocent. After hours of questioning the suspects are released. The female goes home and types into the wee hours of the morning. She creates a spontaneous five page email alibi. She writes that she has to “get this off my chest.” She sends it off to approximately 25 people. Her email is addressed to “everyone” and describes her “account” of the last time she saw the murder victim. She writes that as she was “fumbling around the kitchen” when the victim appeared with “blood dripping down her chin.” Afterwards she and her boyfriend did a lot of mopping and cleaning up because they “spilled a lot of water on the floor. “

    Later an autopsy would reveal that the murder victim sustained multiple cuts and bruises to her face and neck area by a kitchen knife. As the victim lay dying, a pool of blood spread out on the floor. The blood had been cleaned up afterwards, mopped up, by the homicidal maniacs who had killed her.

    A practicing psychotherapist and nationally recognized forensic profiler named Andrew Hodges M.D, has written a new book, As Done Unto You, which decodes the hidden messages in the verbal and written statements of the murder suspects in the Meredith Kercher murder case. Dr. Hodges uses a “cutting-edge forensic profiling technique of thoughtprint decoding by accessing the deeper intelligence (unconscious mind) of suspects in criminal investigations.”

    He writes on his website, ”I have learned that the human mind works simultaneously on two levels—consciously and unconsciously. The discovery of an unconscious super intelligence [super-intel] reveals that it reads situations in the blink of an eye and invariably tells the complete truth.”

    In As Done Unto You he starts with a brief introduction to his methodologies followed by a hypothetical version of events based on the evidence and his findings. He reveals what unfolded the night Meredith Kercher was gang raped and slaughtered in her bedroom. His narration is graphic and has the ring of truth. Hodge’s comprehensive knowledge of this case including some lesser known facts renders his retelling as one of the most profound to date.

    We know the who, what, where, when, how of Meredith’s murder so all that is left is the why, and this is what Dr. Hodges brilliantly addresses in his book. Investigators scrambled to find a motive or an immediate trigger(s) provoking Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede to rape and stab Meredith Kercher to death. Prosecutors debated over whether it was it a fight over Amanda Knox’s slovenly habits, indiscriminate sex life, or was it a robbery gone wrong? Hodges answers this riddle unequivocally in his book based on the murder suspects own statements.

    Hodges explains, “Unquestionably there would have been two types of motives. Immediate trigger motives and far deeper time-bomb motives which caused such distorted thinking consciously.” (Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 740-741). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.) There is most likely a list of provocations resulting from the quickly deteriorating relationship between Amanda and Meredith which was witnessed by many. Ultimately it appears that it was Meredith’s rejection of Knox on October 31st that set things off.

    On Halloween night in 2007, Knox in her cat costume walked aimlessly around Perugia for hours - alone. She kept texting Meredith over and over to try and meet up with her. Meredith was having fun, partying with her friends and ignored Knox’s persistent texts. This rejection and abandonment on top of a series of earlier clashes with her roommate, unleashed the beast in Amanda - the repressed rage stemming from her early life traumas.

    As Hodges explains, “Criminals are typically controlled by deeply buried unconscious emotional trauma which they re-enact on their victims. It’s well-documented that abuse victims often themselves become abusers.”

    After the crime is relived in the first two chapters, the author then delves deeply into the inner world of the murderers unconscious. Analyzing their words, Hodges takes the reader through all of the reasons Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy found each other, their shared emotional baggage. All three had upheavals in their early life which brought them together and the toxic combination exploded into a group assault that went too far.

    Hodges includes an intriguing and insightful description of the deeper meanings within photographs taken in the months leading up to the crime. This is followed by a methodical and intense study of the murder suspects writing in the rest of the book. In particular he focuses on Amanda Knox’s writing.

    Dr. Hodges’s book is dense and full of observations which reveal much more than any other book about this case. Some of the insights that he discovers through thoughtprints include:

    • “ . . . [Knox] suggests they initially entered Meredith’s bedroom “together,” like storm troopers, to carry out maximum humiliation. This never started out as a one-on-one catfight.”(Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 243). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.)

    • “Amanda also implies . . .that she and Raffael both penetrated Meredith— as did Rudy Guede, whose DNA was found inside her. It was a gang assault. “Came out” suggests lesbian activity on Amanda’s part. In a later writing, Amanda will recall how people thought she was a lesbian in high school.” (Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 3630-3633). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.)

    • “[Knox’s] super-intel continues to highlight motives – first the immediate trigger motives. Evidence clearly indicates Amanda had significant conflicts with Meredith, and she outright lied about those disagreements. Meredith’s parents, friends and roommates, however, knew about them.” (Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Location 3132). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.)

    • Amanda certainly knew her parents were married on February 21, 1987, with her mother five months pregnant before Amanda’s birth on July 9. 1987. That meant she was conceived around October 9, 1986. Her utterly brilliant super-intel would have figured out in a heartbeat that it was sometime in November 1986 when they considered the abortion. That month would have had special significance to her and evoked an enormous unconscious anniversary reaction marking her near-death.” (Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Location 4747). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.)

    Over and over again, Dr. Hodges uncovers the distressing realities surrounding that night. Hodges work is truly groundbreaking. As if all of this weren’t enough, in the final chapters he includes the super-intel study of one of Knox’s most prominent supporters, Nina Burleigh, uncovering what she says in between the lines of her own writing.

    As Done Unto You is a fascinating, intense and thought provoking look at the truth as only a psychiatrist and FBI profiler with a firm understanding of the Super Intelligence technique could reveal.

    Thoughtprint decoding has proven to be an invaluable tool in criminal investigations. Similar to when DNA was first introduced, some people may be circumspect about it however in time it will prove to become critical in solving cases like the murder of Meredith Kercher.

    Unfortunately, the Meredith Kercher murder case has been closed and due to the inability of the Italian legal system to confidently identify the multiple attackers, two of the three suspects have been acquitted. Hopefully Dr. Hodges thoughtprints become a part of future murder investigations like this one so that victims families get the closure and justice they deserve.

    2. Amazon Reviews By Actual Readers

    There are some PR-inspired reviews on Amazon which are so angry and so badly grounded that there is no way those reviewers had read the book. These are some appreciative reviews by those who did actually read it.

    From a noted forensic psychiatrist and author (NOT funded by Knox & co.)

    By malcontent on July 8, 2015

    The “Knoxies” don’t want you to read this…but shouldn’t you make up your own mind? Written by noted forensic psychiatrist and author, this book provides unique insight into the minds of Meredith Kercher’s killers (note: plural). A fine analysis. Fascinating and well done!

    Journalist Amanda Knox buries the lead in her own story: “I Confess - I Murdered Meredith!”

    By Leigh on July 8, 2015

    For those following Meredith Kercher’s murder saga for over seven years, the revelations from Dr. Hodges are not startling. Many of us have been able to read through the lines to find lies and see confessions—early on picking up on the importance of the Nov. 4th, 2007 middle-of-the-night email home to family and friends. I’m grateful to whichever person saw the truth buried there and decided to turn the email over to Perugian Police. Dr. Hodges shows in a very detailed manner exactly how AK’s confesses to her crime. AK selected the victim, manipulated co-conspirators in a pack attack, and struck the fatal knife stab herself. Readers keep in mind, AK is not reporting what actually happened in her many communications efforts, she’s creating a narrative—a story she’s telling in order to extricate herself from blame while confessing through ‘thoughtprints’ which once decoded, show how her unconscious mind is working below the surface.

    Following Meredith’s murder, AK couldn’t stop talking, nor stop herself from making insensitive remarks, writing and writing, giving statements, writing ‘memorials’ to police, writing a prison diary, also letters, many letters. And following her 2011 release, doing interviews, writing a book, creating a web site, and positioning herself as wrongfully convicted. There was an abundance of materials for Dr. Hodges to examine. AK didn’t leave breadcrumbs, she left an entire bakery of evidence all over the place within her own communications, while maintaining consciously she was an innocent being persecuted by corrupt Italians.

    Dr. Hodges offers several theories as to how AK may have suffered deep psychological wounds in her earliest life and childhood which could have contributed to AK’s instigation of violence against Meredith. According to Hodges, AK followed a ‘reverse golden rule’ so typical of wounded people—“Do unto others as was done unto you.” Throughout ‘As Done…,’ Hodges draws upon words used by AK in her communications after the murder to explain how AK’s deep pain contributed to AK’s decision to commit murder. Location 5827: “Amanda clearly describes the deep entitlement that often drives victims of abuse.”

    Dr. Hodges is an optimist, and clearly in the ‘forgiveness business,’ much as Italian prison priest Father Saulo, Hodges believes AK is capable of confession, and desires via her super-intelligence, to confess. Location 6149: “The inescapable conclusion: she (AK) must confess. Her deeper moral compass will prevail.”

    However, after watching the AK show for over seven years, I disagree that AK will ever be capable of confessing without a huge financial payoff to her after all legal proceedings are concluded. Self-atonement is meaningless to a narcissistic psychopath like AK—she doesn’t feel guilt—she feels fear of being caught, being found out, what other people think of her. Hodges wants AK to have a soul, but I think she’s empty—a vampire / zombie hybrid—desires to do harm and feels nothing afterwards. In fact, I think AK has not shown a desire to confess in her communications because of guilt, she wants to gloat, she’s proud of her murder, she wants to brag to everyone how she won in her battle with Meredith.

    Appreciate how courageously Hodges takes on the gang of retired FBI agents who have voluntarily served among AK’s ‘White Knights.’ Hodges does an effective job at pointing out their errors, especially “the superficial attempts” of John E. Douglas, the retired expert profiler. Location 6244: “He ignores far greater forensic evidence—verbal communications in the forensic documents produced by all 3 ...—which he is not trained to decode.” Also found it interesting Hodges calls attention to an article by Malcolm Gladwell from The New Yorker magazine, Nov. 12, 2007, entitled ‘Dangerous Minds’ that comprehensively highlights the flaws in profiling methodology, still available online as of 7/8/‘15. Very interesting!!!

    Dr. Hodges also takes on the lazy American media for spreading deception about AK for years and examines one reporter / book author’s lies and her inability to see, or decision to NOT see below the surface—that one is Nina Burleigh. Burleigh wrote a point-of-view fiction that sold well as non-fiction, that’s why we true justice seekers find her particularly disgusting. Based on our research during Burleigh’s early career as a reporter, Burleigh was eager to gain valuable cooperation and became a rather opportunistic and promiscuous leg-spreader—clearly she saw a kindred spirit in AK. Today, Burleigh routinely yells and rails against female sexual violence, real or imagined—maybe Burleigh’s super-intelligence at work in her own personal narrative? My take, not Dr. Hodges who sees a different set of wounds displayed by Burleigh.

    ‘As Done Unto You’ is a fascinating insight into the dangerous, criminal mind of a murderer—the more they deny, they more details they give away!

    Don’t listen to those “one star” reviews, they’re all ...

    By Aki on July 3, 2015

    Don’t listen to those “one star” reviews, they’r all written by PR of the Knox entourage. The book is very interesting. Independently from some details that some may find subjective and enphatic on the part of the author, it’s basically a valuable and consistent analysis; deserves to be read, much more than any other recent book on the case.

    Great Book!

    By Columboon July 1, 2015

    This a great book that I highly recommend for anyone following this ongoing case. And Amanda Knox did, in fact, confess to being at the crime scene when it happened when she said “I was there. I heard Meredith screaming.” Right there that is enough guilt for at least a conviction of accessory to murder. Amanda Knox should be doing life without parole right now and may still be sent to prison after the ludicrous acquittal is overturned in Italy. Following that her extradition will be expedited with two of her accomplices already in prison.

    Among these readers are many who are driven by a great humanitarian interest

    By Student Forever on June 29, 2015

    The recent Amanda Knox case has taken on a life of its own. The task at hand facing the Italian court: who IS responsible for the brutal murder of British coed, Meredith Kercher studying abroad in Perugia, Italy? Kercher’s roommate and fellow student, Amanda Knox was clearly the centerpiece of this macabre drama; and still is! It appears that the final ‘not guilty’ verdict of the Italian Supreme Court has done little to quell the verdict rendered by much of the global public that has by compulsion joined the fray.

    Many websites devoted to either her guilt or innocence have launched and staunchly attempted to prove their point of view. Book stores and magazine stands have provided a never-ending flow of information and commentary to inform both their casual as well as their more fervent true crime readers.

    Among these readers are many who are driven by a great humanitarian interest. That is, those whose heart aches for the pain Meredith’s family have suffered through all the tragic ordeal, and still are left with the crushing question, “Who took the life of our precious Meredith, and WHY?!?” The sentence for this family is “life.”

    Missing from the judicial pursuit of culpability has been the testimony of one very important witness: the unseen subconscious mind; the super intelligence of each person involved, especially that of Amanda Knox! This is the infamous 90% of the mind that we do not use, the all-seeing witness that processes and catalogs all stimuli, and which, by no surprise, becomes the most reliable witness for every aspect of this mystery.

    The reason this testimony has not been queried to date is because the judicial system, both here and abroad, has not yet discovered the integrity and veracity of the source, and consequently does not look to it as star testimony. They don’t know this “deep throat” witness exists! Who can we approach to get the witness to the stand, and who can evoke the testimony? That is what psychiatrist Andrew G. Hodges brings to the table as a forensic profiler. He demonstrates how to listen to the testimony of the subconscious, revealing “an x ray of the deeper mind of Knox.” In this book, he shows us how this “expert witness” testifies on behalf of Meredith Kercher. She subconsciously drops bread crumbs as it were, in plain sight and sound of the trained de-coder. As her super intelligence gushes the truth, not yielding to the predictable efforts of one trying in vain to maintain a false narrative, the veil of the story is finally lifted.

    As Hodges looks directly at the writings of Knox, her own testimony contained therein, it becomes clear to his uniquely trained forensic “eye” that Knox, in her own words, is the one responsible for Kercher’s gruesome death, and she is subconsciously wanting the truth to be told.

    Hodges’ book is certainly about Meredith Kercher’s murder, but for me it was also a textbook of what one should know about the super intelligence we all have, and how profoundly it knows who we are.

    Amanda: a good girl being framed?

    By An Amazon Customer on June 29, 2015

    Beginning in 2007 when we first heard news reports of murder charges lodged against American college student Amanda Knox in Italy, many thought she was a good girl being framed by anti-American Italian authorities and the equally anti-American European media.

    However, once you learn the gory and often grisly details of the case, which are fairly presented in Dr. Hodges’ excellent book of analysis, you begin to question the party line of Amanda’s supporters, who still maintain her innocence despite the fact that the Italian courts have twice found her guilty of murder in separate trials. Yes, she has been cleared most recently by the Italian Supreme Court in the ping-pong game of Italian justice, which is still not completely over (the Jurists are reserving a slander-against-the-Court charge). But one still wonders what exactly happened when British college student Meredith Kercher had her throat fatally slashed in what looked to be a sex game gone bad—very bad.

    Perhaps more than *what* happened, we wonder *why* someone like Amanda would be motivated to participate in so vicious a murder of her roommate, even if that act was fueled by alcohol, sexual tension, and/or drugs in the heat of the moment? Here is where Dr. Hodges, with his extensive experience in creating forensic profiles of serial killers, comes to our aid, using his proven method of linguistic “thoughtprint decoding” to ferret out Amanda’s deeper motivations, hidden in her unconscious mind. Dr. Hodges has worked on several high-profile murder cases, using his same well-established method, including the cases of O.J. Simpson, JonBenet Ramsey, Natalee Hollaway. Casey Anthony, and the BTK serial killer.

    Hodges explains how the killer inevitably leaves clues about his guilt in his/her actual words, and how to recognize and interpret these clues; Hodges’ method, though at times complex, is fascinating and understandable if you recognize that we do have an unconscious mind. This part of our mind Dr. Hodges calls “the super-intelligence,” which tries to get the truth out any way it can, while the conscious mind of the guilty person tries to spin the clues to exonerate itself (this is why the clues are partially hidden by the words, stories, images and outright denials the conscious mind uses in its attempt to obscure the ugly truth of guilt).

    This book will fascinate you if you are willing to look beyond the surface facts and begin to understand the deeper motives of a killer.

    Cutting Edge Science, Metaphysically Profound

    By Pieder Beelion June 30, 2015

    “There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law. It is as hard as nails” C. S. Lewis

    Yes. The conscience is hard on all of mankind, including Amanda. And so we must, even if subconsciously, come clean.

    As Done Unto You is a shining example modeling how Christians should “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

    The tone of the entire book is a blend of sobriety, truth and compassion.

    I had previously written a review of Hodges’ book on Obama at Tea Party Nation: http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/book-review-the-obama-confession-by-dr-andrew-hodges-m-d

    I salute the courage, vision, boldness and creativity of Dr. Hodges to produce work and research of this nature.

    Dr. Hodges’ work holds out the possibility of uniting a fractured culture into a unified people upheld by a great consensus understanding of our unalienable rights.

    Dr. Hodges is full of compassion toward Amanda in all her stages of life. This is a book about compassion and deliverance, not only for Amanda, for the individuals who read this book to understand the moral drama around which their own psyche aligns.

    Whereas Physics routinely can perform near instantaneous calculations on dumb unconscious systems that are self-consistent to better than one part in 10^13 or more, Dr. Hodges’ psycholinguistics does not have the same analytical foundation and so ones requires much more time to perform his thoughtprint analysis.

    Nonetheless I view Dr. Hodges’ work as breakthrough advancement in science and as one of the most exciting areas in research being performed in science. Science has been spending hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars on space programs and high energy physics which, after the hardware and software tested, points to a philosophical or even a theological quest,

    Dr. Hodges’ work subtly invites the thought, “Maybe we didn’t need to spend all that taxpayer money.” Maybe the answers to who we are and the nature of our world are more profoundly found—not in a vacuum chamber decorated with sensitive detectors or in a space station telescope—but in the mind of each one of us.

    The postscript is genius: It shows that Hodges is well-read and running circles around the opposition to the Knox-is-guilty thesis. It uses the opposition’s words against them and demonstrates the practicality of Dr. Hodges’ technology.

    Finally the postscript is redemptive toward an opposing author, Nina Burleigh. It is a gift of tremendous value to her and something powerful for the reader to behold.  This is the book AmandaKnox does not want you to ...

    A positive review

    By Ipsos Maation June 30, 2015

    This is the book AmandaKnox does not want you to read. I found it fascinating because it explores the possible subconscious tells connecting Amanda Knox to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Provocative and insightful.. Thank you, Dr. Hodges


    Posted on 07/10/15 at 10:19 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (46)

    Sunday, July 05, 2015

    Our Conclusions In “Deceit” & “Dark Matter” And How Our Journey Took Us To Them

    Posted by Nick van der Leek

    Albert Einstein once said, “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”

    One of the tremendously rewarding experiences we [my co-author Lisa Wilson and I] have as authors is our research forces us to set up camp around questions.  We spend time: mornings, afternoons, days, weeks, even months asking questions and pursuing answers.  The amazing thing when it comes to True Crime, especially popular crime, is those answers are out there. One merely needs to go out and make the effort to look for them. And keeping looking.  Seek and we do find!

    What makes our narratives distinctive, I think, is that Lisa Wilson and I more often than not work as a team. How many other narratives have two authors, working from opposite sides of the Atlantic?  While Lisa provides a US perspective as a juror and a True Crime buff, I am more interested in the intuitive subtleties that underlie these cases.  The psychology, the economics, the motives. Human behaviour is fascinating, especially when it drives people to the extreme. I’m also intrigued by what these intuitions reveals about us, and society.

    I wasn’t always into True Crime, in fact like Ann Rule I sort of fell into it by accident.  While Rule worked with Ted Bundy, I was facebook friends with the model Oscar Pistorius shot dead in his bathroom.  I didn’t intend to write a novel, I simply started asking questions, and then penned a 12 000 word magazine article [intended as a 4 part series].  That narrative eventually became my first bestseller.

    Although I studied law and economics, I left the corporate environment to freelance fulltime as a photographer and writer. My great grandfather was a famous South African artist, and my brother and aunt are also both well regarded artists [and yes, freelancers] in their own rights too.  I guess there is something restless in my blood that makes we want to dig beneath the surface, to see expanded perspectives than what the media serves us.

    I need to not only explore the world beyond my door, but represent it to myself and others in a constructive and meaningful way. I feel passionate about meaning above all, and it’s gratifying to find so much in so grim a setting where someone has lost their life.  When we honour them, when we remember them honestly, something unexpected happens: we also set ourselves straight, we also get ourselves [and society to some extent] back on track.

    In terms of the Amanda Knox case, I stepped into the bullring for the first time in April this year.  I knew virtually nothing about the case other than it had been newsworthy around the world.  I knew ‘something’ had happened in Italy, and that Amanda Knox was somehow involved [or not] because she was a housemate of a murdered British girl [also a student].  Before I started studying the case I had no bias either way – I didn’t know whether she was guilty or not.  Based on the little media that came my way, there seemed to me to be equal parts bias that she was innocent and…suspicion.

    As soon as I started examining the case, literally within a few minutes, my interest was aroused.  It was along the lines of: she’s hiding something.  It was also along the lines that I thought Amanda might be involved in some way, complicit in some way, but probably not involved in the actual murder.  How could she? Why would she?

    Again, it is easy to ask these questions and then walk away from them without investing time in their answers. And when they do come they’re…well…stupefying.

    While Lisa travelled to Italy to investigate this case first-hand, I started working behind-the-scenes on a narrative Lisa and I designed a framework for called DOUBT.  The plan was that Lisa would return and then we would work on the narrative together.  I got so caught up in my own research I started on the narrative and by the time Lisa returned from Italy DOUBT was done.  Interestingly, Lisa still wasn’t convinced of Amanda’s guilt when she got back, and we had one or two heated Skype calls while Lisa was still in Italy, where Lisa’s position was set to the default setting of most outsiders to the Amanda Knox case: “but there was no DNA.”

    A lie repeated often enough eventually becomes if not the truth, then a kind of truism, doesn’t it? A truism isn’t the truth, it’s a platitude. It’s something you say to get rid of enquiring minds.

    No DNA? Well, of course there is – at least five instances of it, mixed with Meredith’s blood.  What’s perhaps more bizarre, for example, is the lack of Amanda’s fingerprints in her own home.  A single print? How many of us could say the same about fingerprints in our own homes?  Our computers, door handles, kitchen areas ought to be splattered with prints.  Coming back to DNA, not only is Amanda’s DNA present, but so is Raffaele’s in Meredith’s bloody bedroom.

    What is the chance that Raffaele was at the villa, in Meredith’s room, but not Amanda?  What was he doing there if Amanda wasn’t with him? And is it any surprise that Meredith’s bra, cut with a knife after the murder also had Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp? This is a guy who had a knife fetish, and who was carrying a knife at the time of his arrest?

    In DOUBT [which was banned at first by strident Pro Knoxers and then resurrected as DECEIT] I identified 28 Red Flags.  These were singular signals that seem to show patterns of inconsistency.  Things just didn’t add up.  Indeed Amanda did seem to be [and still is?] hiding something.  In DARK MATTER Lisa and I joined forces. We brought a binocular lazer-like narrative focus to the four days of intense police investigation following the discovery of Kercher’s body at midday November 2nd, 2007.

    In DARK MATTER we identified an additional 100 plus Red Flags [we distinguished these from the first 28 by calling them ‘Black Asterisks’].  In addition to these we listed several other Highly Suspicious Events amongst other increasingly odd behaviours – not only from Amanda, but Raffaele as well. It is when we pool all of these clues together that a picture begins to emerge.  Patterns emerge.  And suddenly the mystery becomes…less mysterious.

    If my initial ‘gut feel’ was that Amanda was simply ‘hiding something’, by the end of DECEIT there was little doubt that there was a lot more going on than that.  In fact, I’ve suggested to Lisa that based on forensic evidence alone [if one threw away all the circumstantial evidence], Amanda would still a have a major case to answer to.  Conversely, if one took the entirety of circumstantial evidence, including the on-again-off-again alibi, and simultaneously threw out [ie ignored] the totality of forensic evidence, Amanda would still have a major case to answer to.  That’s my opinion.  Lisa’s too, now that she’s gone beneath the surface of this case herself.

    The irony is this case is so large, so convoluted, so filled with spin and counterspin, that it is easy to get lost in the details. As we see so often in court cases, it is not a lack of evidence that is a problem, it is the volume of it that gets disconcerting, and frequently confusing.  Confusion and doubt [and ‘reasonable doubt’] go hand in hand.  Of course being confused by a lot of information is not the same as uncertainty based on a lack of evidence, or based on ambiguous evidence. The evidence isn’t ambiguous.

    As such it is Lisa’s and my mission to demystify the eight years culminating in Amanda’s and Raffaele’s ultimate acquittal.  Our narratives, especially the first two or three in the series are probably better suited to newbies [people like us].  In THE IVORIAN, and the many narratives to come after that, Lisa and I expect to be as well versed as some folks on forums and resources like the incredibly valuable True Justice.org.

    Before wrapping up, I’d like to share a final insight based on our experience writing another true crime series.  It may seem like Amanda Knox, Jodi Arias and Oscar Pistorius are three distinct individuals, with nothing in common.  But when we look closer we don’t simply see matches in certain defense schemes, we see entire patterns of conduct [including motive] overlapping, and doing so perfectly.

    In South Africa we have a similar situation where the media profit out of stories on Oscar Pistorius.  They are reluctant to declare him guilty as that would be slaying a potential ‘cash cow’, and with book deals hanging in the balance [an acquittal is literally worth millions], the media are hedging their bets.

    As a person involved in the media I am appalled at this, hence our eight narratives on Oscar, two detailing his motive and the method of what we speculate was premeditated murder.  In terms of Amanda Knox, we suspect a similar game play between the media and Knox.  Both seem to be involved in a kind of PR waltz which both stand to benefit from, if they can dance consistently to their own music.

    It was once said of Lance Armstrong that one shouldn’t make Lance Armstrong angry.  Anger is what motivates Lance to win.  And then the punch line: ‘Beating Lance makes him angry.’  Lisa and I have been astonished at the level of organisation and aggressive militancy [and dirty tricks] employed by Amanda’s supporters.  If this was intended to dissuade us from writing, these folks couldn’t be more wrong.

    We are not out to make money, Lisa and I, although we care that our narratives resonate and are successful.  What we really care about is justice.  The bottom line, whether one is a criminal, or the supporter of a criminal is you never look good trying to make someone else look bad. The venom and personal insults Lisa and I have endured in our reviews is impressive.  The strategy is clear – attack the credibility of the messenger [since the message itself is problematic].

    Our credibility is simple to establish. For my part, I am a professional writer. I did not gain a twitter following of almost 14 000 based on bad writing.  I write in partnership with Lisa because her research is often deeper and even more thorough than mine.  For me our credibility is based on just two tests:  our personal standards and our level of honesty towards ourselves and others.  What distinguishes our narratives from all the others out there is the level of honesty – including self disclosure – both of us bring to our work.

    This is because we care about something beyond justice. Besides wanting our readers to have a meaningful and genuine experience reading about these tragic crimes, we – as authors – also want to be enriched.  When we make it a personal journey, the insights and intuitions are truly rewarding. We find how these folks – not only the victim but also the perpetrators – are not so very different from us.  In this sense, if when we genuinely learn something from these true stories, Meredith Kercher’s death need not be in vain.

    Follow Nick van der Leek on twitter @HiRezLife and Lisa Wilson at @lisawJ13

    Please “like’ Nick van der Leek’s Facebook page.

    Posted on 07/05/15 at 11:10 AM by Nick van der Leek. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (39)

    Friday, July 03, 2015

    Rome Shocked - Seems Drafting Of Fifth Chambers Report With Poss Illegalities Not Even At First Base

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    The Illegalities

    These are described in the Maori charges document and explained further in our post below.

    In summary, Judge Marasca in his 27 March court ruling and 29 March Corriere interview illegally threw out the March 2013 First Chambers rulings. Plus he illegally accepted the appeal arguments on the evidence which he should not have.

    He cannot do that in the sentencing report itself without reprisals being guaranteed.

    The Tweet

    Our first alert today was this tweet by the most reliable Italy-based reporter on the case.

    Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt: Italian legal code (Art. 617) requires Cassation court to issue reasoning after 30 days. #AmandaKnox case due April 27. Why the delay?

    The Rumor

    On checking, word appears to be spreading in Rome that the Fifth Chambers may not even have got to first base.

    On April 27 a draft of the report should have been filed with the Cassation Registry. But it apparently isnt even there yet.

    The Code

    Here are the relevant rules for the Supreme Court.

    1. The Original

    Art. 628 CPP

    1. Conclusa la deliberazione, il presidente o il consigliere da lui designato redige la motivazione. Si osservano le disposizioni concernenti la sentenza nel giudizio di primo grado, in quanto applicabili.

    2. La sentenza, sottoscritta dal presidente e dall’estensore, è depositata in cancelleria non oltre il trentesimo giorno dalla deliberazione.

    3. Qualora il presidente lo disponga, la corte si riunisce in camera di consiglio per la lettura e l’approvazione del testo della motivazione. Sulle proposte di rettifica, integrazione o cancellazione la corte delibera senza formalità.

    2. The Translation

    1. Subsequent to the deliberation, the president or the director appointed by him draws up the motivation report. They observe the provisions concerning the judgment in the first instance, as applicable.

    2. The judgment, signed by the President and by the writer, is lodged at the Registry no later than the thirtieth day after the deliberation.

    3. If the president has done this, the court will meet in closed session for the reading and approval of the text of the motivation. On the proposed rectification, integration or cancellation the court shall act without formalities.

    What To Expect?

    The only legal and face-saving way out? Admit error, and if there are real grounds, refer the appeal back down to the Florence court.

    Posted on 07/03/15 at 10:13 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (37)

    Tuesday, June 30, 2015

    Big Shot Across Bows Of Fifth Chambers Could Be Cause Of Verdict Delay

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    President Sergio Mattarella, right, might have the power to overturn Judge Marasca’s verdict

    1. The Unexplained Delay Of The Sentencing Report

    Judge Marasca and President Mattarella, a former judge, have similar reputations: they have both fought mightily to prevent bent outcomes. 

    It has been put about in Italian legal circles that Judge Marasca is not exactly in love with his panel’s verdict. We reported talk in Rome that he held out for several hours on 25 March against a majority faction led by Judge Bruno.

    Perhaps he remains a captive of the majority in what might be a tainted court - if it is, it would not be the first tainted court in this case. The Hellmann court is considered as such, as quotes below indicate.

    Almost with no exceptions, Cassation routinely reports its appeal verdicts both fast and briefly. Often the reports are presented within several weeks. and most of them come in at under 50 pages. 

    In Meredith’s case all of the previous Cassation reports came in well before their deadlines. The one that took the longest was the 74-page report of the First Chambers in 2013, annulling most of the Hellmann verdict.

    That took 85 days. We are already 10 days beyond that. It will not be very long before the delay in the report really raises red flags. 

    2. Judge Marasca’s Post-Verdict Interview

    Judge Marasca is well known for not giving interviews and for letting his court statements speak for themselves.

    Seemingly aware that his court statement on 27 March was already being questioned, and by some ridiculed, he did give this interview to the reporter Fiorenza Sarzanini for Corriere. Key quotes from it.

    A further process could not ascertain the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher. The “proof used was so contradictory “it is impossible to overcome the doubts and inconsistencies…

    The judges of the fifth section of the Court of Cassation were all agreed on canceling the sentence to 28 years and six months for Amanda Knox and Raffaele 25 years “without referral” [back down to the Florence court].

    The panel chaired by Dr Marasca also considered “non-binding” the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court that in March two years ago ordered a new appeal trial [in Florence and annulled the Hellmann verdict]

    These claims are contended in this new criminal complaint (see the Italian original here) and are rebutted most forcefully in the quotes from it below.

    3. The Complaint In The Florence Chief Prosecutor’s Hands

    On 28 May the criminal complaint was filed by the Perugia prosecutor Dr Mignini and two lead investigators against one of Sollecito’s lawyers, Luca Maori, together with a reporter and an editor of the Perugia weekly Settegiorni Umbria.

    The interview and editorial comments sliming the prosecution and the investigators were published back in January, two months before the Fifth Chambers ruled. They might be seen as one of many attempts to poison public opinion and to lean on the courts - in this case, the Fifth Chambers, which had the appeal.

    The narrative describes some nasty lies of commission and omission by Maori and the magazine staff. We wont repeat them here. Impactful on a much wider plane is how the complaint characterizes the investigation and the prosecution of the case, and the various attempts to bend courts and so bend outcomes of the case.

    It is highly significant that this complaint was filed by a Florence lawyer and with the Florence court. The chief prosecutor for Florence and its region Tuscany has been quoted as scathing of the Fifth Chambers verdict, presumably seeing it as a slap in the face to his own team which contended the Knox-Sollecito appeal, and perhaps an attempt to take the powerful Florence court down a peg.

    The Florence court had made a large number of documents available to the Fifth Chambers. As this narrative is highly relevant, the law would have required the Florence Chief prosecutor to forward it. We can presume then that all the Fifth Chambers judges have the document available and, as it sets up a polarity, quite possibly the First Chambers judges as well.

    4. The Significance Of The Complaint’s Various Phrasings

    If we notionally divide the document into five parts, part (1) explains the people named in the rest of the document and their respective roles, parts (2) and (3) describe the main elements of the very complex legal process and mistakes that were made by the Hellmann court and the Fifth Chambers; and parts (4) and (5) go into detail about the case against Maori and his interviewer and editor.

    The excerpts below are from parts (2) and (3). Anyone involved in the legal process would see rather rapidly that parts (2) and (3) could constitute a blueprint for legal action against the Fifth Chambers (such legal action is now allowed) and could also constitute a petition to President Sergio Mattarella, the head of the Italian justice system, who has the power to overrule a Cassation outcome.

    [1] it appears necessary to highlight the circumstances, in fact and in law, left in the shadows by the interview and which render even more serious, frankly incomprehensible and above all without any justification on the basis of the complex course of proceedings, the defamatory statements contained in the article and the very grave and intolerable accusations launched with so much superficiality against the investigators and the 34 magistrates who had upheld the prosecution’s case against the 11 who had doubted it.

    Noted above are the many lies of omission (some are listed below; we have a long list pending) that tend to be typical when the defenses and those who were in the dock and their supporters describe the case. Also noted are the 34 magistrates who handled elements of the case and did not abort the process. See the examples here and here.

    [2] The two accused Knox and Sollecito had been arrested on the morning of 6 November 2007, under an arrest warrant issued by Dr Mignini, as the Public Prosecutor in charge, a decree promptly validated by the GIP Dr Claudia Matteini who had issued a precautionary custody order for imprisonment. The appeals of the suspects against this latter, as issued by the GIP on the request of the same Dr Mignini, had then been timely rejected by the Re-examination Court for Perugia and by the First Chamber of the Court of Cassation.

    Noted above is one area subjected to numerous lies of omission. In fact many magistrates were guiding the process and the prosecution had no opportunity for independent initiative prior to trial. Dr Mignini did not have to do that interview with Knox, he did it at Knox’s own request, to give her another fair shot at clearing herself - which she failed miserably.

    [3] As a consequence, the two remained in a state of preventative imprisonment until the decision of the Court of Assizes Appeal Court presided over by Dr Pratillo Hellmann, that is for almost four years and there had never been, by their defence, any application of revocation or substitution of the orders against the accused, Knox and Sollecito…

    A legal omission by the defenses which might be considered an incompetent blunder, which contrasts strongly with Maori’s claim that the two were in effect being railroaded. The lawyers did not go the extra mile. 

    [4] the Court of Assizes at first instance, presided over by Dr Giancarlo Massei, with Dr Beatrice Cristiani as Recorder, at the end of a very long and thorough trial phase, had sentenced Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox for murder and the connected offences and Ms Knox, in addition, for calunnia against Patrick Diya Lumumba.

    The trial was indeed long and thorough. Some of the most compelling evidence was behind closed doors - another area for lies of omission. Knox did herself great harm on the stand, sounding flippant and callous and not at all consistent or convincing, which ultimately cost her three years for calunnia. During the defense phase the lawyers had little to present and sessions were shortened or cancelled. There was much railing against Rudy Guede, who was not in court to answer back to it.

    [5] At appeal level, the Court of Assizes Appeal Court - inexplicably composed of the President of the Social Security [Welfare] Chamber [Hellmann] and of an advisor specialised in the Civil Chamber [Zanetti]—despite it being that the President of the Criminal Chamber, Dr Sergio Matteini Chiari, was presiding over a bench; in any case there not being present a magistrate from the competent criminal chamber —had acquitted the two but had upheld the conviction of Ms Knox for calunnia, setting the penalty as a good three years of imprisonment.

    This is still being investigated - did the defenses request of Chief Judge De Nunzio that the president of the criminal chamber Judge Chiari be replaced by the wrongly qualified Judge Hellmann? Judge Chiari (who resigned over this) has himself claimed so. And why was the wrongly qualified Judge Zanetti there?

    [6] In the course of the proceedings there had been two experts nominated [by the Court] who, amongst other things, had submitted their report ignoring the documents attesting to the negative result of controls on the presumed contamination of the knife and of the bra-clasp, documents adduced instead by the Public Prosecutor. This should have entailed the sweeping away of [=the complete rejection of] the same expert report but the Court, presided by Pratillo Hellmann, with Advisor-Recorder Dr Massimo Zanetti, had ignored the grave error committed by the experts, an error which had been severely censured by the [Chieffi] Court of Cassation, First Criminal Chamber, in the decision handed down on 26 March 2013…

    Investigation of Conti and Vecchiotti is also proceeding. They seem to have been bent and to have lied to the court - either that or remarkably incompetent. There is another quote strongly suggesting they were bent below.

    [7] [Judge Chieffi] accepted almost all the grounds of appeals put forward by the Prosecutor-General and had annulled completely and definitively the acquittal decision, with remission (evidently upholding the grounds of appeal) to the Court of Assizes Court of Appeal of Florence which, in its turn, had fully confirmed the convictions of the Court of Assizes of Perugia.

    There are many lies of omission about the annulment - one can find numerous quotes from the Hellmann court embedded in comments, articles and books - the Knox book goes on about how wonderful that appeal was without saying that none of it is of legal relevance now. 

    [8] the judgment of the [Florence] court remitted to would have been impugnable only for reasons not regarding the points already decided by the Court of Cassation, according to the very clear disposition of Article 628, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code. From this it follows that the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, called on to decide the merits of the appeals brought by the accused against the decision of the court remitted to, would have had to consider as inadmissible the appeals presented in violation of the second paragraph of Article 628 Criminal Procedure Code and, in any case, would have had to rigorously conform with the points already decided by the First Chamber and with all the questions of law decided by the same,—the latter constraint, as constituted by the jurisdiction of sole legitimacy, being understood—, for defect pursuant to Article 606 Criminal Procedure Code and limited to the grounds proposed by the appellants (Article 609 Criminal Procedure Code).

    Here is a translation of Article 628 of the Penal Code:

    Impugnability of a ruling issued by a judge after remand

    1. A verdict that had been issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand, may be impugned through a recourse at Supreme Court of Cassation if the ruling was issued on an appeal instance, and through the mean provided by law if was issued on a first instance level.

    2. In any case a verdict issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand may be appealed only on the reasons that do not concern those that had already been decided by Cassation on the order of remand, or for not abiding to disposition of art. 627 paragraph 2.

    The second paragraph of Article 628 clearly indicates the Fifth Chambers of Cassazione should absolutely not have accepted requests of appeal from AK and RS against the Florence verdict on those points that had been already decided by the First Chambers (the Chieffi court).  Those points decided by the Chieffi court, as per Article 628, cannot be appealed. Questions about them should be inadmissible.

    [9] the judgment of the [Florence] court remitted to would have been impugnable only for reasons not regarding the points already decided by the Court of Cassation, according to the very clear disposition of Article 628, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code. From this it follows that the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, called on to decide the merits of the appeals brought by the accused against the decision of the court remitted to, would have had to consider as inadmissible the appeals presented in violation of the second paragraph of Article 628 Criminal Procedure Code and, in any case, would have had to rigorously conform with the points already decided by the First Chamber and with all the questions of law decided by the same…

    the Court of Cassation cannot, therefore, ever adopt decisions on the merits and issue orders of acquittal under Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

    ...two chambers of the same Court of Cassation, the First (the one competent for proceedings in homicide matters, whose decision of annulment is definitive and who had identified and decided questions of law in a definitive and un-retractable manner) and the Fifth (who would have had to decide the appeals presented only on grounds of legitimacy of the defendants’, constrained by what had already been definitively decided by the First) have handed down two absolutely divergent decisions and the second had annulled the Florentine decision, positively excluding any remitting to another court and acquitting the defendants pursuant to Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

    The Fifth Chambers seems to have clearly broken the law governing its allowed scope. It had no business getting into the evidence. If there was a perceived problem that should have been referred back down to Florence.

    [10] from these starting points in fact and in law which are absolutely undeniable, it emerges that the course of proceedings in this case have been absolutely linear and respectful of the substance of the procedural rules up to and including the Florentine decision.

    Well proven by the narrative. As we have frequently noted Knox was given six opportunities to liberate herself even before the 2009 trial began (try finding an equivalent of that in any other system) and failed all of them.

    [11] the Court of Cassation, on the appeal of the Prosecutor-General of [the Perugia] district Court, had in a radical and definitive manner annulled the acquitting pronouncement and had remitted it to the Florentine district court because the same would adopt the consequent decisions of merit in the line of reasoning of the principles of law laid down by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court and of the points decided by it.

    What the First Chambers said must stand. Surely all of the judges of the panel knew this very basic principle of Cassation. Be assured the First Chambers judges will be rubbing it in that this more junior panel has no right to reverse them.

    [12] These principles of law are by now unmodifiable and unarguable: the [Fifth Chambers] , called on to decide the matter, as a “second opinion”, concerning the appeal of the defendants from the [Florence] judgment below, would have had to hand down a judgment fully within the “railway tracks” of the law, as fixed by the First Chamber, like the Florentine district court did, principles from among which we may cite:

    Once again the emphasis is on how the First Chambers knew both the law and the case thoroughly, and the Fifth Chambers was seemingly adrift at sea.

    [13] [Umodifiable principle]  the principle, in fact the unfailing legal prerequisite of a Supreme Court decision, namely the fact that the Court is precluded from “trespassing into a re-evaluation of the compendium of evidence” (see the judgment of the First Chamber at page 40);

    [14] [Unmodifiable principle] the principle of law of the total and holistic evaluation of the probative material, as opposed to the “parcelled-up and atomistic evaluation of the pieces of circumstantial evidence, taking them into consideration one at a time and discarded in terms of their demonstrative potentiality”, which characterised instead, in the negative, the decision of the Court presided by Pratillo Hellmann (see the decision of the same First Chamber at pp. 40 and 41… ). The ancient brocard “Quae singula non probant, simul unita probant” [‘Those which alone do not prove, together do prove’], quoted on p 41 of the First Chamber’s judgment, consecrates in a definitive and unmodifiable manner this requirement of a global and holistic approach in which each individual piece of the jigsaw puzzle of reconstruction of the facts is considered together with all the others in their demonstrative synergy;

    [15] [Unmodifiable principle] the principle by which the [Hellmann] court had run afoul of grave shortcomings and contradictory lines of reasoning and in glaring misrepresentations of the outcome, even in the attempted decoupling of the calunnia, by now definitively attributed to Ms Knox, with the result of masking from view the responsibility of the same in the homicide;

    [16] [Unmodifiable principle] the principle according to which the testimony of the homeless person Mr Curatolo ought to have been evaluated on the basis of corroboration between his statements and the objective and unarguable circumstances emerging from the trial (such as the fact that the witness had with absolute decisiveness anchored the fact of having seen the two accused in the precincts of the basketball courts of Piazza Grimana, nowadays Piazza Fortebraccio, the evening before the arrival, the following day, at the Via della Pergola house of the men from Forensics in their white coveralls), rather than on the basis of Mr Curatolo’s social conditions and lifestyle (see the cited judgment of the First Chamber at page 50);

    [17] [Unmodifiable principle] the principle according to which the definitive conviction of accomplice Rudy Hermann Guede ought to have been taken into account (no. 7195/11, published on 16.12.2010, it also from the First Criminal Chamber of Cassation), Guede having been held to have been extraneous to the simulation of burglary of a house. [A] habitation that, on the night of the murder, was solely at the availability of the victim and of Amanda Knox and from the statements made by the same Rudy before the Perugian district court, according to which Meredith was killed by the two co-accused (see the judgment at pages 55 and 56).

    [18] [Unmodifiable principle] The principle by which contamination of the evidence is to be proved by the party invoking it and which, on the facts of the case, no evidence in support had been offered and which the [Hellmann} Court had seriously confused the abstract possibility of the fact with the averment of the fact (see the judgment at page 69).Umodifiable principle] The principle according to which it was a matter of a homicide committed by multiple persons, in concourse amongst themselves (see page 73 of the cited judgment).

    Some brilliant legal arguing. This seems to really make it impossible for the Fifth Chambers to override these firm ruling of the First Chambers .

    [19] [Only by ignoring all of the above, in reading the misleading Maori interview, one could be] induced into thinking that errors upon errors had been committed by the officers and agents of the police taskforce and by magistrates convinced of the prosecution case against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, then in fact of a “conversion” of the error into a knowing arbitrary act… One would have been led to think of investigators who, incurable in terms of these continual “denials”, falling prey to a kind of accusatory delirium which was by now running unchecked, would have continued to “persecute by prosecuting” two poor youngsters, contrary to any probative evidence, for the sole purpose of not seeing their initial reconstruction denied.

    But see how Lumumba was checked out and released by the same team. Plus the same team worked on other cases which drew no accusations at all. It is significant to note that the Bongiorno & Maori team and Sollecito himself again and again dropped Knox in it, even in remarks made after the Fifth Chambers ruling on 27 March.

    [20] for the readers it would have been difficult to be able to learn the details of the Kercher proceedings, [Maori and Lagana] launched themselves into making unbelievable, irresponsible statements, defamatory beyond any limit, statements which express an inexplicable rancour and bitterness towards the investigators in the Kercher case, from which, for the rest, especially Advocate Maori had given proof of from the start itself of his defence of Raffaele Sollecito

    Maori falsely ascribed the “satanism as motive claim” to Mignini and seems to have been a party to other dirty tricks and loaded statements. At this point of the complaint the Curatolo testimony and knife evidence is re-emphasized as valid for their purposes and never undermined by the innuendo of the defenses. 

    [21] Maori adds, repeating a singular idea repeated many times in the course of the proceedings and put to the Prosecution as the most significant expression of the error committed by the investigators: the guilty party, Rudy Hermann Guede, had already been secured by justice. Why continue to investigate the other contenders, when it had been found that it was Rudy who, no one knows why, would have been the sole killer and whose presence would have been incompatible with any accomplices?

    As mentioned above, Guede was not at the trial in 2009 and so the defenses could freely rant on about him. Although some witnesses were devoted to trying to prove him a bad guy who must have acted alone, it went nowhere. The jury visit to the cottage showed them how ludicrous it was to argue that anyone would choose THAT window to break in. 

    [22] Laganà knows nothing about the proceedings and plainly ignores: the calunnia by Ms Knox against Lumumba, the mise-en-scene of the burglary (which could have been realised only by someone who would have been afraid of becoming involved in the investigations), the genetic material of Ms Knox found a little bit below the handle of the knife and that of the victim in proximity to the point of the blade, the genetic profile of Mr Sollecito found on the clasp of Meredith’s bra, the systematic lies of the two, the traces of mixed blood of Knox – Meredith and the print of Sollecito’s foot stained with blood on the small mat in the bathroom next to the room where the murder happened, the traces revealed with Luminol, of the bare feet of Amanda and Sollecito, the witness who sees the two between 21.30 and 23.30 in Piazza Grimana, a couple of dozen metres from the murder scene, and Rudy’s accusations, just to mention a few examples.

    Once again we see the theme common throughout the narrative of noting copious lies of omission - vital things simply left out which dont suit Lagana’s apparent purpose.

    [23] [Maori] launches accusations against the press [although] the accused were able to benefit from a systematic information process in their favour and without any contradiction. One can see the case of, for example, the programme “Porta a Porta” which, in the months immediately preceding the Fifth Chamber judgment, had interviewed only Sollecito or his family and consultants, blatantly ignoring any requirement of an even balance, which instead had occurred previously, and all this in a programme on the public network..

    This describes how even some arms of the Italian media became tainted and partisan and how the court officers were forbidden by the code of conduct from offering the kind of contradiction and rebuttal very common on American TV.

    [24] Unfortunately, this procedural matter has been marked by pressures (often accompanied by menaces) and defamations which the investigators, themselves as well, have suffered in the media, by a very serious activity of disinformation and from serious attacks on the personal and professional reputation of the investigators by numerous organs of information especially in the United States (like in fact CNN), [and] by the extremely challengeable behaviour of experts who, beyond having “forgottten” the existence of negative controls, had been seen by Dr Mignini (and, according to what has been said to him, also by the biologist at Scientific Police headquarters Dr Patrizia Stefanoni), to be having a long conversation and in a “private” manner, with the defence lawyers of the accused, in particular with Advocate Maori, before the hearing in which the experts were to be examined and cross-examined had started. This had happened in particular on two occasions, both in Piazza Matteotti, in front of the law courts building, one time in front of the main entrance and a second time, further back, in the direction of Via Oberdan, while [on a third occasion] Dr Stefanoni and Dr Comodi had seen them together, amongst the various defence lawyers for the accused, in a bar.. 

    This illegal mingling of supposedly impartial court-appointed consultants with the defense teams, described in public writing here for the first time, should have been enough to see Conti and Vechiotti dismissed as consultants from the case, and further down the road facing charges.

    [25] there are letters addressed to Dr Mignini, the first on paper with letterhead from the Supreme Court [sic] of the State of Washington (in which place is found Ms Knox’s city of residence, that is Seattle), on the part of judge Michael Heavey (now in retirement after having undergone a disciplinary proceeding for having used Washington State Supreme Court letterhead in a “private” letter addressed to his Italian counterparts) which turns out to have been written also to other magistrates involved, under various roles, in the proceedings and which claimed, with absolutely inconsistent reasoning, the innocence of Ms Knox, asking his Italian colleagues in a pressuring way to “acquit her”; or the highly contentious and clumsily inexpert comments of satisfaction concerning the judgment of the Court presided by Dr Pratillo Hellmann, by authority of the Government of the United States, as, to cite a couple of examples, the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and, above all, with repeated interventions in the proceedings under way, Senator Maria Cantwell, of the State of Washington

    Failures in fact checking shows up the very one-sided nature of American politics and media coverage. Judge Heavey even wrote to the Presidents of the US and Italy and copied those letters to Congress. Italian court officials are highly restrained from response to protect themselves. Even now many Italians officials dont even know what was being said in English about them and what they were being accused of.

    [26] All this evidences the very particular climate in which the proceedings unfolded, especially that of the first appeal, introduced by a summary by the Recorder Dr Massimo Zanetti in which the latter was not at all worried about affirming that in the proceeding that was then being opened the only certain thing was the death of Meredith Kercher, a phrase matching the one that the Recorder of the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, Dr Paolo Antonio Bruno, pronounced according to what was referred to Dr Mignini by an advocate for the civil party.

    What a remarkable coincidence. In the case of both statements this is not in accordance with the Italian appeals code. Frequent examples were quoted above of how the Fifth Chambers must accept the First Chambers rulings as givens, and the First Chambers in 2013 in effect ruled in annulling Hellmann that no appeal should be a whole new trial lacking the rather key prosecution part. Note that in March 2015 the Fifth Chambers heard at length from defense lawyers who had been seven years on the case - but no prosecutor from Perugia or Florence was even invited to be there.

    5. And In Conclusion

    This was a VERY solid case. As is said there, all the lists of evidence in the quotes above could have been longer. Here is a much longer list. Cardiol’s great four-part series on Certainties contains a long list. We have posted various other such lists of evidence, a list of hoaxes, and numerous lists of false claims, and many Powerpoints, and many questions for Sollecito and Knox. Plus even more lists via our right column here.

    So it looks like the verdict could become unglued. Italian courts work to some extent on precedent and a tainted verdict could be a very bad precedent. Other prosecutors and judges will be getting similar messages to the judges, not least the judges of the First Chambers which normally handles the murder appeals.

    Please read the posts on the fight for legitimacy here and here for more context to all of this.

    Posted on 06/30/15 at 03:57 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (27)

    Friday, June 26, 2015

    What No-Show Amanda Knox SHOULD Have Emailed Judge Nencini As Truthful Testimony in December 2013

    Posted by Chimera

    As the real thing really didnt work any better for Knox…

    As is well known, Amanda Knox refused to attend her own appeal in Florence in 2013/2014.

    This was a defence appeal by Knox herself and Sollecito against the 2009 conviction by Judge Giancarlo Massei’s trial court.  It was not a new trial, or a retrial, or even a prosecution appeal. It was an appeal DEMANDED by Knox and Sollecito.

    While Knox refused to attend, she did send a long, rambling email to Lead Judge Nencini.  Judge Nencini tartly read out the email in court, and remarked that she could have delivered this in person and answered questions if she wanted it credibly on the record - after all, Sollecito was sitting right there and not scared out of his wits.

    Kudos to fellow main posters Finn MacCool and SeekingUnderstanding for their original and well done posts on this ‘‘submission’‘

    With a bit of fact checking, Knox’s email could have looked to the court and the media more like this.  Enjoy.

    Court of Appeals of Florence section II Assise Proc. Pen, 11113

    Letter sent to attorneys Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga via email Seattle, 15 December 2013

    Attn: Honorable Court of Appeals of Florence

    1. I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified accusations of the prosecution and civil parties. I seek not to supplant their work; rather, even though I am not present to take part in this current phase of the judicial process, I feel compelled to share my own perspective as a six—year-long defendant and causation of Meredith’s injustice.

    2. The Court has access to my previous declarations, and please disregard that whole ‘‘aggravated calunnia’’ in which Cassation says i framed Patrick to divert attention, or that pending calunnia charge claiming I falsely accused the police to sabotage the court proceedings.  I trust you will not be blinded by these things to come to this verdict.  I must repeat: I am innocent.  Because repeating it will help dissuade you from studying my lies too carefully.

    3. According to my lawyers: I am not a murderer, I am not a rapist, I am not a thief or a plotter or an instigator, at least not until Cassation signs off on it. I did not kill Meredith or take part in her murder or have any prior or special knowledge of what occurred that night, (other than screaming, slit throat, and that the body was moved). I was not there for part of the time, and had nothing to do with it.

    4. I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid. Federico Martini is probably still pissed that I gave him up; the court and jail officials don’t like my book; and I think there is still an open warrant on me for calunnia.  Also, without any employment or housing references, staying here may be tricky.  I have faith in your judgement, but am worried you are so poor a judge you will be blinded my the Prosecution’s vehemence.  I remember Judge Micheli: he was the wise Judge who found Guede guilty; he was the idiot Judge who ordered Raffaele and I to stand trial as accomplices.

    5. My life being on the line, at least until I get parole, and having with others already suffered too much, I’ve rehearsed this story and attentively followed this process and gleaned the following facts that have emerged from the development of this case that I beg you not to dismiss when making your judgement:

    6. No physical evidence places me in Meredith ‘s bedroom, the scene of the crime, because I define only that as the crime scene.  My DNA mixed with Meredith’s was in the bathroom and Filomena’s room, not Meredith’s.  Those bloody footprints cleaned away were in the hallway, not Meredith’s room.  Raffaele had one knife, and this other was at his flat, neither of which is Meredith’s room.  My lamp on Meredith’s floor had no fingerprints on it, and does not implicate me.  That DNA on Merdith’s bra, and bloody footprint on the bathmat only implicates my alibi witness (who refuses to be questioned), not me.  Those false alibis, false accusations, details I know about the crime, and phone records are not physical evidence, and did not happen in Meredith’s bedroom. Those ‘‘eyewitnesses’’ the Prosecution produced are not forensic evidence, and do not place me in Meredith’s room.

    7. Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of his presence in the brutal scenario, we made sure of that.  Heck, the police couldn’t even find my fingerprints in my own bedroom.

    8. No evidence places me in the same brutal scenario, again, which I restrict to Meredith’s bedroom, and only actual physical evidence.  The prosecution has failed to explain how—with these restrictions—I could have participated in the aggression and murder—to have been the one to fatally wound Meredith—without leaving any genetic trace of myself. Just because i spend a lot of time talking about it, and am a C.S.I. fan, doesn’t mean I know how to remove evidence.  That is because it is impossible. It is impossible to identify and destroy all genetic traces of myself in a crime scene and retain all genetic traces of another individual, or so C.S.I. has taught me. Either I was there, or I wasn’t. My analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn’t there.

    9. My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “confession” that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime- The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “confession.” Yes, I wrote out a false ‘‘confession’’ that accuses someone else.  Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge. Dammit, give me some privacy.

    10. My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence, if you think creatively enough. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance, because (in my November 4th email), the police wouldn’t let me leave.  I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call trying to think of answers for over 50 hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer, or at least someone who was ‘‘close enough’‘.  I never thought or imagined that repeatedly changing my story would fuel their suspicions. I did not hide myself or my feelings: when I needed sex, Rafael ‘‘embraced’’ me; when I was scared of being exposed, I cried; when I was angry that it wasn’t working, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence, at least until I could find a new ‘‘best truth’‘; when I was trying to help, I evaded questions, consoled Meredith’s friends, especially her male friends, and tried to keep a positive attitude that this would blow over.

    11. Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position, accompanying Raffaele to a witness summary session which I was not invited to. 20—years old and alone in a foreign country, I was, legally speaking, innocent and never expected to be suspected and subjugated to torture, and I wasn’t. I was told I was a witness, then after I placed myself at the crime scene I was told I was a suspect. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew, and that questioning includes the time I was sleeping or getting tea.  I denied legal counsel- still The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it was inadmissible. In my memoir, WTBH; I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I told myself I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I told myself that if I didn’t succeed in ‘‘remembering’’ what happened to Meredith that night, I would never see my family again. I browbeat myself into confusion and despair, to sell to the media at a later date. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth, but again, that is not what happened here.

    12. The police used tea and kindness to coerce me into signing a false “confession” that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which I let the police wrongfully interpret (‘Civediamo piu tardi. Buona serata’). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward—it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba’s defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable.  After over 50 hours of rehearsing the questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.

    13. This coerced and illegitimate statement, which I dreamed up, was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship, (at least until I destroyed his life). This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander.  Judge Hellmann saw that this statement was coerced, and threw out my calunnia conviction .... I mean he increased the sentence .... never mind.The prosecution and civil parties are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.

    14. Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false"confession” because of torture.  I’m not sure why this applies to my case, but damn, it sure sounds impressive.

    15. This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false “confessions.” Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone: Susan Smith and Casey Anthony ‘‘falsely confessed’’ that other people did it too.  And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party—just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guide.

    16. In the brief time Meredith and I were roommates and friends we never fought.  Roommates, not friends.

    17. Meredith was my friend, not that I was her friend. She was kind to me, helpful, generous, fun, and in retrospect, I should have been more of the same.  She never criticized me. She never gave me so much as a dirty look, even as I left the place a mess, and even when I flirted with her boyfriend, or she took my job at the bar.

    18. But the prosecution claims that a rift was created between Meredith and I because of cleanliness. This is a distortion of the facts. Please refer to the testimonies of my housemaster and Meredith’s British friends. None of them ever witnessed or heard about Meredith and I fighting, arguing, disliking each other. None of them ever claimed Meredith was a confrontational clean-freak, or I a confrontational slob. Laura Masotho testified that both Meredith and I only occasionally cleaned, whereas she and Filament Romanal were more concerned with cleanliness. Meredith’s British friends testified that Meredith had once told them that she felt a little uncomfortable about finding the right words to kindly talk tome, her new roommate, about cleanliness in the bathroom we shared. The prosecution would have you believe this is motivation for murder. But this is a terrifying distortion of the facts, as proving motive it not necessary—anywhere.

    19. I did not carry around Rafael’s kitchen knife.  That’s what men are for, to do the lifting for me.

    20. This claim by the prosecution, crucial to their theory, is uncorroborated by any physical evidence or witness testimony. I didn’t fear the streets of Perugia and didn’t need to carry around with me a large, cumbersome weapon which would have ripped my cloth book bag to shreds. My book bag showed no signs of having carried a bloody weapon. The claim that he would have insisted I carry a large chef’s knife is not just senseless, but a disturbing indication of how willing the prosecution is to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven theory.  Yes, i can positively disprove a theory I know nothing about.

    21. It is yet another piece of invented “evidence”, another circumstance of theory fabricated to order, because having discovered nothing else, the prosecution could only invent: phone records, false alibis, false statements, false accusations.

    22. I had no Contact with Rudy Guide, even though I mention in my book having seen him twice, and a third time in the next paragraph.

    23. Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guide. He played basketball with the young men who lived in the apartment below us. Meredith and I had been introduced to him together. Perhaps I had seen him amongst the swarms of students who crowded the Perugian streets and pubs in the evenings, but that was it. We didn’t have each other’s phone number, we didn’t meet in private, we weren’t acquaintances. I never bought drugs from Rudy Guide or anyone else. I was having sex with Federico for drugs, which isn’t the same thing.  The phone records show no connection. There are no witnesses who place us together, except my statement here. The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guide to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn’t even speak the same language. He has lived in Perguia for 15 years, and I am a student of Italian. Once again, the prosecution is relying upon a disturbing and unacceptable pattern of distortion of the objective evidence.

    24. I am not a psychopath.  That evaluation in 2008 was unfair, as I didn’t get a chance to prepare my spontaneous answers.

    25. There is no short list to the malicious and unfounded slanders I have enjoyed over the course of this legal process. In trial, in the media I have been called no less than:

    “Conniving; manipulating; man—eater; narcissist; enchantress; duplicitous; adulterer; drug addict; an explosive mix of drugs, sex, and alcohol; dirty; witch; murderer; slanderer; demon; depraved; imposter; promiscuous; succubus; evil; dead inside; pervert; dissolute; a wolf in sheep’s clothing; rapist; thief; reeking of sex; Judas; she-devil;

    26. I have never demonstrated anti-social, aggressive, violent, or behavior. Throwing rocks at cars, writing rape stories, and staging break ins are not violent or anti-social.  I am not addicted to sex or drugs.  In fact, Federico Martini hasn’t given me any since I was arrested.  Upon my arrest I was tested for drugs and the results were negative. I am not a split-personality One does not adopt behavior spontaneously.

    27. This is a fantasy. This is uncorroborated by any objective evidence or testimony. The prosecution and civil parties created and pursued this character assassination because they have nothing else to show you. They have neither proof, nor logic, nor the facts on their side. They only have their ‘‘evidence’’ against me, and my personal opinions about them. They want you to think I’m a monster because I am telling you they think I am a monster.  it is easy to condemn a monster. It is easy to dismiss a monster’s defense as deception. But the prosecution and civil parties think I’m both severely mistaken and wrong. I have condemned them without proof of wrongdoing, and I seek to convince you to condemn them without proof of wrongdoing.

    28. If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics. Never mind that this is my own appeal, and I ‘‘should’’ be demonstrating why the 2009 trial verdict is unjust.  If I had a case, there would be no need for smoke and mirrors to distract you from the mountains of physical evidence against me. But because this evidence exists that proves my guilt, I would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements. Because I am not a murderer (yet), I would seek to mislead you into convicting me by charging your emotions, by painting me as an innocent until proven guilty, but not as a monster.

    29. The prosecution and civil parties are committing injustices against the Kerchers because they cannot bring themselves to admit, even to themselves, that they’ve made a terrible mistake, namely, that the murder was premeditated. Again, it is my own appeal, but they are persecuting me.

    30. The Court has seen that the prosecution and civil parties will not hear criticism of their mistakes, by people who won’t attend their appeal.

    31. The Court has seen that the prosecution jumped to conclusions at the very start of their investigation: they interrogated and arrested innocent people and claimed “Case Closed"before any evidence could be analyzed, before bothering to check alibis.  As proof of this, they called Raffaele to the police station (at his leisure), to clear up discrepencies in his alibi.  Then when he claimed I lied, Rita Ficarra then asked me for an explanation.  Those brutes!  Then they hauled in Patrick just because in ‘‘confessed’’ several times that he did it.

    32. The prosecutor and investigators were under tremendous pressure to solve the mystery of what happened to Meredith as soon as possible. The local and International media was breathing down the necks of these detectives. Their reputations and careers were to be made or broken. In spite of that, they still saw my mistakes. Under pressure, they admitted to as few mistakes as possible and committed themselves to a theory founded upon disproving my mistakes.

    33. Had they not jumped to conclusions based on nothing but Raffaele’s changing alibi and my false accusations, they would have discovered definitive and undeniable evidence of not Patrick Lumumba, but of Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox. We would not be here over six years later debating clues my lawyers claim are inconclusive and unreliable.  Had we plead guilty we would have been spared the cost, anguish and suffering, not only of Raffaele’s and my family, but especially of Meredith’s family as well.

    34. My accusations are unworthy of judicial or public confidence. In over six years I have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated theory of the crime, but would nevertheless argue that you should not take my life away. I beg you to see through the ‘‘facts’’ and ‘‘reason’’ of what I say. I am innocent. Raffaele is innocent. Meredith and her family deserve the ‘‘truth’‘. Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice for them.

    in faith,

    Amanda Marie Knox


    Posted on 06/26/15 at 12:43 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (21)

    Monday, June 22, 2015

    The Real Victim: Will The Cassation Report Promised Thursday Belatedly Suitably Acknowledge Her?

    Posted by Slow Jane

    It was a gloriously sunny early summer’s day.

    I stepped out of the tube onto Tooting Broadway, with throngs of shoppers overflowing the pavements and schoolchildren milling around the bus stops in groups.

    Now here at last, in Croydon Cemetery, fifteen bus stops later, I found Meredith’s grave, startling in its unexpectedness, after walking for quite a while, hopeless at following directions, having originally gone to the wrong graveyard altogether, the day before.

    My heart pounded as her name suddenly leapt out at me.

    The burial site is beautifully maintained, with miniature pink and red rose bushes and set in the peaceful landscaped grounds, with evergreens and lawns.

    I stood for a while overcome with emotion, quite alone, with nobody in sight all around.  I said a few prayers, including one pleading that Meredith’s murderers be brought to justice.  I quietly sang Psalm 23 and pondered how this beautiful, funny, bright young student had lived a life that was all too short.

    A feeling of pain - for her mother Arline and father John, and Stephanie, Lyle and John and for all her family and friends - contracted like a taut elastic band across my chest.

    I recalled how at her funeral service at St John the Baptist Church many of the mourners, including sister Stephanie and friends from Leeds Uni had carried a single white rose each.

    Stephanie read out a poem she wrote, “ Don’t Say Goodbye”.  Her old school friends sang as a choir the requiem,  In Paradisum.  Two hymns sung at the service, on 14th December 2007, were ‘Abide with me” and “For the Beauty of the Earth”.

    Meredith’s favourite record “With or without you” by U2 (below) was played.

    As I sat on a creaky bench nearby under the shade of a gnarled old tree, I scribbled down the following lines:

      I came to pay my respects

      To Meredith Kercher so dear

      To all who knew her.

      Go gently into that night

      Enforced on you by the evil,

      Those who walk in the darkness,

      And you were in their path.

      Your light shines

      And the dark has not overcome it.


    I write this article to reflect that this is about Meredith Kercher and her family and friends, and to reclaim the memory of her purity from the soiled agenda of the ex-defendants and the cruel IIP and FOA stalkers.

    Stephanie Kercher had said, in response to Knox’s demand, on the launch of her “memoir”, that she be taken to visit Meredith’s grave, that Stephanie and her family just want a safe place for Meredith to rest in peace.

    I cast my mind back to the news reports that broke in November 2013 that Raffaele Sollecito had nevertheless paid a “secret visit” to the spot.  He had been in London in March 2013.  He had the grace not to include pictures of the grave on his “London” Facebook page that he may have taken.

    Newspaper reports reveal he was taken there by an “English friend” and left no flowers.  The “friend” who was quick to betray Sollecito’s “secret” is speculated to be one Nigel Scott, ex-Lib Dem Councillor in Haringey, and a purported member of the Injustice in Perugia advisory board, the rather grand name of a lobby of aggressive pro-Knox advocates.

    Scott put up a picture of the grave in a tweet – hastily taken down – as the news broke.  He disparagingly refers to the grave as being in “poor condition”, with a temporary headstone marker. 

    His co-campaigner, Karen Pruett, maintains a Find A Grave webpage for Meredith and was forced by demand from enraged supporters of Meredith Kercher’s family to take down the picture of Meredith’s grave, most probably taken from the Daily Mail.

    Notorious FOA poster Lyn Duncan - who tweets under the name of @Annella - and others, left “tributes” after the acquittal, despite one of their party, Doug Bremner Jr, having referred to the Kerchers as “Nazis” and another mocking Meredith’s grave lacking a headstone as late as 2011, when Knox was first acquitted by Hellmann, as shown in the Daily Mail.

    Time has shown how Scott’s, Pruett’s and other Knox chums’ characters speak for themselves.

    Meredith’s final resting place is beautiful, in a quietly understated way.  The grave adjacent is of a Liverpool supporter aged 22,  who died around about the same time as Mez, who was 21.  It is very poignant to see.

    Meredith’s headstone is fashioned out of marble and reads, “ We will always love you MEREDITH SUSANNA CARA KERCHER 28th Dec. 1985 – 1st Nov. 2007 Forever in our thoughts, always in our hearts.”

    The temporary marker, so much derided by Knox’ supporters, remains at the foot.  I left some Sweet Williams in a flower container and slowly walked away, moved and changed by the visit.

    Posted on 06/22/15 at 03:48 PM by Slow Jane. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (48)

    Sunday, June 21, 2015

    Due To Content Wars And Objective Editors Forced Out, Original Wikipedia Might Not Survive

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    1 The New York Times Report

    The New York Times reports today that the original Wikipedia may not survive. Better resources may take its place.

    Today’s Times report (reprint sites here and here) says that one big reason of several why the Wikipedia is struggling now is that good objective editors have become very hard to attract.

    2. The Hijacking We Observed

    From 2010 onward, several of the relevant English-language Wikipedia entries were hijacked by the Marriott-paid thugs. No English-language entry we have read lately is reliable on the case.

    Deliberate bias now appears again and again. What is simply left out - lies of omission - is now immense. In 2011 the founder of Wikipedia , Jimmy Wales, joined in - on the wrong side.

    One of the effects of the deliberate bias he encouraged was to make many who read here no longer willing to contribute towards Wikipedia’s costs.

    Another effect was that good objective editors downed tools and simply walked off.

    In March 2011 one of the frustrated good objective editors, Gwaendar, arrived here and posted (first link below) a report about what he and his colleagues had faced.

    A few days later (second link below) a translation by TomM and Skeptical Bystander of the main Italian Wikipedia page, still in very good shape, went up:

    3. So The Meredith Wiki Stands

    In May 2013, as Azoza describes in the post below,  Edward McCall and a team of editors and translators began the Meredith Wiki as an effort that stands proudly on its own.

    If anything, the Meredith-case Wiki has been gaining speed. What Azoza described represents a fast doubling in size.  The volunteer team has grown too, with strong legal and Italian-language skills.

    No bias in this freestanding Wiki has ever been proved. It simply carries dozens and dozens of the official trial and appeal documents, most of them now in English, for anyone to take away with them any meaning that they wish.

    Our ongoing Interrogation Hoax series, on that huge and nasty hoax, which now has nervous publishers and Knox killer-groupies realizing they may have legal targets on their own backs, could not have happened if the hearing, trial and appeal transcripts had not been made available there first.

    And there are many other truths lurking like landmines on the Wiki site.

    Posted on 06/21/15 at 07:21 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

    Wednesday, June 17, 2015

    Major Additions To Meredith Kercher Case Wiki To Provide Complete Impartial Overview in English

    Posted by azoza

    Image is of the very beautiful Perugia at night

    Origin and mission

    The impartial Murder of Meredith Kercher Wiki began in 2013.

    The seed was people discussing how to overcome the flawed Wikipedia article of the case. That article relied on sources like Candace Dempsey, Nina Burleigh and American media. In other words, biased or incomplete sources.

    In May 2013, Edward McCall set up the website, with the help of volunteer editors from the Perugia Murder File community. Its mission statement was:

    Were Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede responsible for the death of Meredith Kercher? This wiki style site was created by a group of volunteer editors to inform the public about the case, by providing translations of original documents and evidence presented at trial.

    This continues to be the aim of the Wiki: to make available documents and translate them properly. Our interest is not selectively posting documents, like the Knox campaign has done. We want to make all the facts available, without bias or selecting. We believe all the facts support the notion that all three defendants are responsible for Meredith Kercher’s murder.

    Purpose of this post

    The purpose of the article here is to let people know of recent changes to the website.

    The Wiki is revised when new documents and translations continue to be received. Existing webpages are tweaked when time allows. Webpages are sometimes changed so information can be better presented. Or the website structure is changed when a significant page is introduced.

    For example, a new page listing a lot of evidence was added in November 2014. This page can be directly accessed from the main page. That evidence list page has links to other sections of the website, like ‘wikified’ testimony, for easier reference. More links will be added and more evidence noted as more documents become available.

    Major redesigns

    The website had two major redesigns earlier this year. The main page was redesigned to provide clearer ‘at a glance’ updates. We did this primarily to keep everyone up-to-date with the March 2015 Cassazione decision. The boxes on the main page also note updates to other parts of the website. Also, we added buttons so any webpage on the site can be shared on various social media.

    The other major redesign has been the addition of the ‘file library’.

    Completing the picture

    For those long familiar with the case, source material had been seriously lacking. There have been large gaps. The Knox campaign has posted some documents, but their ‘collection’ has always been incomplete. As examples:

    1) The crime scene photos start at ‘dsc016’. What about photos 1 through 15?
    2) No photos of Sollecito’s place, Guede’s place, via Sperandio or elsewhere
    3) They posted many Massei transcripts, but not all. They never posted the 2nd day of Knox’s testimony, or the days when the Kercher family and consultants testified.
    4) Some Massei transcripts they posted had pages missing.
    5) They have posted many defense consultant reports, but few prosecution consultant reports.
    6) They only posted a few Hellmann transcripts, but not all.
    7) They only posted one Micheli transcript, but not the others.
    8) Hardly any depositions.
    9) A lot of police reports are still missing.

    In the past six months, we have been trying to correct this. We have set up a file library, which will be the repository of as many case-related files as can be gotten. Files will ultimately include documents, photos, videos and audio- whatever is part of the public record of this tragic case. The files are made available as links for downloading. Eventually many will also be ‘wikified’ so anyone can do a word search through the documents. And when time allows, key documents will be translated.

    There are thousands of files related to this case - too many to put on one page. A single file page would take forever to scroll and would be terribly confusing. So the library is structured into subsections. The basic idea is ‘nested boxes’. Once you select a section, you ‘drill down’ through pages to get to document links. Then you click ‘back up’ to the higher levels so you can move to other sections.

    Some pages have a mixture of links to documents and links to subpages. These will eventually be simplified for clarity.

    Not all file library pages have been created. More pages will be required as more files come in. Once the document files (PDFs) portion is nearly complete, pages will be reviewed and the library layout will be tweaked. At that point, when we’re comfortable with all the pages and their names, links will be added to allow browsing across sections or in sequential order. This hasn’t been done yet to avoid redoing a lot of work later.

    A directory tree is a strong possibility too.

    The seven sections

    The library has over 900 PDFs and photos scattered across 7 major sections.

    The 1st section

    This section Context and people is empty for now. It will have photos of Perugia, the cottage, nearby locales and pictures of the people involved in the case. We are sifting through photos and erasing duplicates. Once that’s done, this section will quickly fill out.

    The 2nd section

    This section 2007 Investigations has files related to police investigations in 2007, the arrest and crime scene photos and videos. As mentioned, not all crime scene photos and videos have been made public. We hope to gather as complete a collection as possible. Of course, anything showing Meredith Kercher’s body will be censored, in line with the wishes of the Kercher family, and to maintain dignity. In the past 1.5 months, we’ve gotten over 80 depositions of witnesses and other documents related to early investigations. Things like preliminary police reports and police correspondence. Here you can also find phone and prison taps.

    The 3rd section

    This section Arrest trials has filed related to the cautionary arrest trials. This includes the Matteini court, the Ricciarelli court and the 2008 Cassazione court, presided by judges Gemelli & Gironi. Files include court hearing transcripts, motivation reports and other files pertinent to these hearings. This is missing quite a bit still, but we hope to correct that.

    The 4th section

    This section 2008 Investigations has files related to police investigations in 2008. While the murder was discovered on Nov 2, 2007, and arrests were made that month, the actual police investigation continued until the following year, finishing in June 2008. Files here include additional phone and prison taps, police reports from Rome and Perugia, additional depositions and other related documents.

    The 5th section

    This section Statements and writings contains writings and depositions of the three defendants. GKS = “Guede Knox Sollecito”.

    The 6th section

    This section Trials and Appeals and Reports is the largest section. We may revise or split this section further. Currently it contains all documents related to the main trials. All three defendants took part in the first main trial, the 2008 Micheli court. Micheli indicted Guede and found enough evidence against Knox and Sollecito. After the Micheli court, Guede’s trial path separated from the other two because he chose a fast-track option. So there are 3 subsections: Micheli, Guede trials and Knox + Sollecito trials. The Knox + Sollecito trials page has further subpages for the Massei court, the Hellmann appeals court, the Nencini appeals court. In this section, one can find court transcripts and reports, correspondence or depositions introduced during court proceedings. So a lot of files.

    The 7th section

    This section is extra material.This will contain documents, photos and videos indirectly related to the case. Things like interviews, documents on forensics, lab manuals, crime scene analyses, documentaries, related trials like the police calumnia trials, etc.

    A few quick notes:

    1. There are many versions of the Massei motivations report on the Internet. Most are missing two pages. Another version comes in four parts. We edited ours so this is a complete version with the ‘famous’ missing pages.

    2. Similarly with the Borsini-Belardi motivation report. Many versions out there, most of them improperly OCR’ed, with sections missing. Our version is a scan version, not the OCRed one.

    3. As noted before, recent additions include a lot of depositions of witnesses taken in the first week of police investigation. You can find these in the “2007 police work” page.

    4. Police summaries of the crime scene surveys, and fingerprint reports, are at the bottom of that same page.

    5. There’s a PDF containing a ‘5 volume’ police photo report. This PDF has photos of Via Sperandio currently not in the crime scene photos. But certainly those photos are part of the same Nov. 2007 crime scene photo survey. Anyway, you can find it in the Crime Scene page at the bottom. It’s called Photo-photographic-file-censored. We edited out pictures of the body, to preserve dignity of the victim.

    6. Towards the bottom of the “2008 investigations” page, we recently added two police charts, and the first “shoeprint report” by Rinaldi & Boemia, which has more data on shoeprints. Their second report concentrated on the footprints.

    7. We have the Cassazione March 2015 dispositivo. We will be posting that along with other documents shortly.

    In conclusion

    The file library is an ongoing thing. We hope to make real progress here, so everyone can look at all the facts of the case, not just a few picks. A bright light is needed on as much material as is possible to offer, in honor of Meredith Kercher, the victim.

    When we post a new file batch, we add an update note on the Wiki home page.

    The Meredith Kercher Wiki is committed to being the essential record of all publicly available documents and testimonies about the case, to benefit the general public and the media. Please circulate this widely, and check in regularly. There are more changes to come.


    On 2007 Investigations: Police work page

    On 2007 Investigations: Arrests page

    On Arrest trials page

    On Arrest trials: KSL: Matteini trial page

    On Arrest trials: KS: Ricciarelli trial page
    2007-11-30-Motivazioni-Ricciarelli-Arresto-Appello-Knox-Sollecito.pdf (forever missing Ricciarelli report)

    On 2008 Investigations page

    On Trials: Micheli court page
    2008-09-16-Testimony-Summary-and-Rulings-Micheli.pdf (first Micheli hearing)

    On Trials: KS: Massei and Cristiani trial page
    2009-11-20-Closing-arguments-Mignini.pdf (forever missing)
    2009-11-21-Closing-arguments-Comodi-Knox.pdf (forever missing- Comodi describes 3D reconstruction)

    On Trials: KS: Hellmann and Zanetti trial page
    2010-12-11-Testimony-Lawyers-Knox-Parisi-Maori-Ghirga-Vedova.pdf (missing Hellmann hearings)

    On Trials: KS: Nencini and Cicerchia trial page
    2014-01-20-Testimony-Maori-Crini-Pacelli-Fabiani-Perna-Maresca-Donati-Colotti.pdf (missing Nencini hearing)

    On Trials: Knox and Sollecito trials page
    2015-03-30-Sentenza-Cassazione-Dispositivo-Knox-Sollecito.pdf (sentence, not motivations report)

    Posted on 06/17/15 at 08:59 AM by azoza. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (25)

    Monday, June 15, 2015

    Those Pesky Certainties Cassation’s Fifth Chamber May Or May Not Convincingly Contend With #4

    Posted by Cardiol MD


    This post continues a response to the March 27th, 2015 announcement of Cassation’s Fifth Chamber that it had decided that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were Not Guilty of the November 2007 Murder in Perugia of Meredith Kercher.

    The Fifth Chamber’s Reporting Judge Antonio Paolo Bruno, was reported to have said that the trials had “not many certainties beyond the girl’s death and one definitely convicted”.

    In fact Judge Bruno was wrong.

    Post #1 and Post #2 and Post #3 reported dozens of Certainties contained in “the trials”.

    As previously noted, the Existence, Timings, Durations, and General-Locations of all the telephone calls are a very fertile source of Certains, or Certainly-Nots. This is because civil telephone time-keeping all over the Earth’s surface, including in Italy, the U.S. and the U.K, use, and specifically did use in November 2007’s Perugia, the Coordinated Universal Time Protocol (CUT).

    Coordinated time-keeping assures that the time assigned to a telephone event is accurate and very precise, independent of where it occurs.  It’s almost as if these November, 2007’s Perugia ‘phone users were wearing criminal-offender’s ankle bracelets. CUT records enable decisive challenge to the credibility of a false witness (impeachment).

    (Uncoordinated Time-keeping could have resulted in wrong times being assigned to a telephone event)




    Therefore, contrary to the Defense “reasoning”, cited below, there is Certain proof that Sollecito’s phone was switched on or had been moved at 6:02:59 am on 2 November 2007, and that Sollecito &/or Knox were awake at that time, contrary to their assertions, which are Certainly false:

    Nencini Page 158:

    “If in fact one can agree with the Defense reasoning by which there is no certain proof that at 6:02:59 am on 2 November 2007 Raffaele Sollecito’s phone was switched on (by himself or by Amanda Marie Knox, the only two present in the apartment) allowing [142] reception of the SMS sent to him by his father a good six hours earlier, the only logical alternative is that someone obviously moved the phone inside the apartment from the location in which it was positioned, and where it was not receiving the “signal”, to a different location in the apartment, where the “signal” was received.What matters, and what the Court finds proved, is that at 6:02:59 am on 2 November 2007 in the apartment at 130 Via Garibaldi, they were not in fact asleep, as the defendants claim, but rather the occupants were well awake, so much as to switch on or move the phones.”

    More in this case:


    Antonio Curatolo had testified at the Massei Trial that he had seen Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, from 9:30pm to around midnight of 1 November 2007 in Piazza Grimana”

    However, the Hellmann Court of Appeal’s motivazione had rejected the reliability of Curatolo’s Testimony.

    The SCC Panel, Annulling the Hellmann Court of Appeal’s motivazione had, in turn rejected and annulled Hellman’s Analysis of Curatolo’s Testimony, stating on pp 67-69:

    “The Hellmann Court of Appeal rejected the reliability of the testimony of Antonio Curatolo which, in the reconstruction of the First Instance Court, had been taken as a basis of proof that the negative alibi offered by the two accused was false,  and which constituted one of the tesserae of the mosaic which led to their being held to have been present at the scene of the crime.  Incidentally,  it is worth recalling that the First Instance Court held, via reasoning that was correct from both a legal and logical point of view, that the false alibi must be considered as evidence against [the accused],  to be placed in relation to the other elements of proof in the context of the entire body of evidence.

    This method of analysing the testimony, as observed by the Prosecutor General submitting the appeal,  is absolutely subject to censure in that it displays a lack of the prerequisite thorough examination of the facts and circumstances,  so that the conclusion that was reached [by the Hellman Court of Appeal] – that in indicating the two accused students as having been present in Piazza Grimana, he confused the evening of 31 October and the evening of 1 November – clashes with ascertained facts that seriously contradict such an absolutely certain assumption,  so as to shed full light on the well‐foundedness of the charge that the justifying discourse is contradictory and thus manifestly lacking in logic (it was in fact proven by other facts that on the evening of 31 October that neither Knox nor Sollecito,  who were both occupied,  the former at Lumumba’s pub where she was preparing for the normal activity associated with the Halloween festival,  the latter at a graduation party,  could have been present in Piazza Grimana at around 11 PM).

    The assertion that the sighting of the two young people by the witness should be shifted to 31 October (page 50 of the sentencing report)  because the context described was more suitable to that day than the next day,  since [the latter]  did precede the arrival of the Scientific Police but [50] [was] taken out of context,  is a manifestly illogical assertion, not only because it contradicts facts which unequivocally demonstrate that the two were not in the piazza on the evening of 31 October (a fact of fundamental importance in the context of the evaluations) and thus the impossibility of squaring the circle in the sense proposed, but also because it follows an utterly weak inferential rule.

    Starting from the need to undo the knot of contradiction presented by the testimony (he saw the two young people the evening before the investigation of the Scientific Police and he saw them in the context of the Halloween festival),  the Hellmann Court of Appeal,  after having heard the witness testify a second time and after having verified that he erroneously placed Halloween on the night of 1‐2 November, they heard the witness reiterate that his temporal placement of the fact was anchored to the described presence of people who were all dressed in white and that, after midday on the day after he saw the two young people, he caught sight of the men in white in via della Pergola (a fact with a very high level of certainty, more than any other) together with the police: this notwithstanding, the Court reached the conclusion that his testimony could not be accepted due to the man’s deteriorating intellectual faculties and due to his lifestyle, since he was a detainee for drug dealing when he testified the second time and was a habitual heroin user.

    Once again,  the progression of the argument emerges as obviously illogical,  in that the evaluation of the testimony should have been correlated (regardless of the conclusions, this being a discussion of evaluation methods)  to the unique objective fact of absolute reliability (the presence of individuals wearing the white suits, the day after the sighting of the two in the piazza, at a time earlier than 11 PM‐midnight) because that is a fact whose existence is certain, which was a unique identifying circumstance, which could not but remain imprinted on the mind more than any other; while instead, once again, character issues were considered and asserted, furthermore, without any scientific examination that could ascertain whether the man’s intellectual faculties had deteriorated.  Moreover, Curatolo showed up when called upon to testify,  in both the first and second instance trials and, even well after the fact, he never had any difficulty recognizing the two accused as those whom he had seen in Piazza Grimana the evening before he noticed the men dressed in white (whom he called “extra‐terrestrials”) and the police in via della Pergola.

    The fact that he had been a homeless man who spent all day in the piazza was not a reason for dismissing him as an unreliable witness out of hand, at the cost of colliding with the accepted principles on the matter of the reliability of testimony.  In conclusion,  [51]  a contribution [that was]  expressed with certainty and noted in the trial transcripts of the witness, and again during his second testimony (“as certain as I’m sitting here” he said of having seen the two accused the evening before the day in which he saw the men in white suits and the police), cannot be circumvented by merely referring to the character of the author of the contribution; this would have required a process of evaluation through facts with equally strong probative evidence.

    Moreover,  the opinion must be annulled and remanded, since the explanations of the reliability of the witness Curatolo are incomplete (as they did not take into consideration the facts that contradicted the conclusion reached by the Court), vitiated by an incorrect application of the laws governing the matter. The ‘precise and serious’ nature of the evidence provided by the testimony was dismissed in the [Appeal] opinion without testing its concordance with other evidence, on the basis of a conjecture (that the witness superimposed the evening of 31 October onto that of 1 November) that was not even confronted with the facts contradicting its conclusions”

    In summary, this SCC Panel ruled that Hellmann’s Motivazione “must be annulled and remanded” because it ignored facts contradicting Hellmann’s conclusion, and incorrectly applied “the laws governing the matter”, “without testing its concordance with other evidence”, not even confronting Curatolo “with the facts contradicting (Hellmann’s) conclusions”.





    The SCC Chamber’s reasons, given above, for Annulling And Remanding Hellmann’s conclusions re Curatelo’s misremembering the Date, in spite of his specifically remembering that it was the evening before he saw the Official Commotions relating to Meredith’s murder, justify the Conclusion that:



    Nencini p 156:

    “Amanda Marie Knox went to Marco Quintavalle’s Conad shop around 7:45am on 2 November 2007, obviously in search of something to buy that she could not find. She was noticed by Mr. Quintavalle who, at the trial, identified her with certainty in the courtroom. So we are able to affirm that Amanda Marie Knox was lying when she claimed to have slept at Mr. Sollecito’s house in his company until 10am in the morning on 2 November 2007.

    Having already been proven false by witness testimony, the alibi given by the accused is also proven false by comparing it with objective data, which tallies with the witness testimony referred to above.”

    SCC. Annulling H/Z p 50

    “In this case,  [the Defence argues that]  a re‐evaluation of the witness is not allowed,  given that his testimony was correctly examined by the Hellmann Court of Appeal,  knowing the lapse of time after which he offered his contribution to investigators. The witness’s statements were,  for the rest,  compared with those of his co‐workers, who referred to the doubts expressed by Quintavalle on the exactitude of his identification. There is therefore no lack of logic in the reasoning,  since the lack of logic must be manifestly perceived,  whereas minimal inconsistencies must have no influence”

    SCC ANNULLING H/Z p 70-71

    “In reality,  the notice taken of the witness’s statements, as pointed out by the Prosecutor General, is absolutely biased, since the sighting out of the corner of the eye referred to the girl’s exit from the shop, whereas the witness specified having seen her at a close distance (between 70‐80 centimetres), adding that she remained imprinted on his mind “because of her very light blue eyes”,  her “extremely pale face”,  and “a very tired expression”.

    Moreover,  the witness clarified in his testimony that he became convinced that the girl who appeared in the newspapers was the one he saw in the early morning of 2 November 2007, given that the colour of her eyes could not be ascertained from the photo, but that he became certain once that he saw the girl in the courtroom. The selection made from the pool of information was absolutely one‐sided, which distorted the evidence to the point of making it appear uncertain, whereas the witness explained the reasons for his perplexity and the development of his conviction in terms of certainty.

    As noted by the Prosecutor General in the appeal documents filed,  this portion of the report assumed relevance within the framework of the reconstruction and required an explanation based on an examination of the entire testimony; instead, through a process of unacceptable selection, only some of the testimony was considered to be of value, indeed, only that portion considered to be consistent with a [specific] conclusion, one that in fact required rigorous demonstration.

    The result,  once again,  is blatantly and manifestly illogical. What is at issue is not a re‐evaluation of the evidence –  which is obviously prohibited by this Court, as the Defence for the accused has justly pointed out – but rather the need to point out a glaringly evident flaw that consists of an intolerable chasm between what is stated by the witness and what is acknowledged in the justifying arguments, on a point of significant importance, since it concerns the foundation of the alibi.

    On this point also, the new judgment will have to be conducted in light of the preceding observations.”

    Given the above:


    Amanda Marie Knox was lying when she claimed to have slept at Mr. Sollecito’s house in his company until 10am in the morning on 2 November 2007.

    To be continued, though we may need to wait until the end of June 2015 when SCC’s Motivazione is due.
    Posted on 06/15/15 at 09:02 PM by Cardiol MD. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (10)

    Saturday, June 13, 2015

    Wide Concern In US At A Killer Groupie Who Helped Dangerous Killers To Escape

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    We have occasionally dwelled upon what drives killer groupies. The phenomenon is widespread and it has been around a long time.

    A desperation for money and new jobs and status. Perversions, chips on shoulders, previous brushes with the law - that last driver actually accounts for about half.

    Sheer besottedness is one quite common cause. Some people really do love dangerous jerks. 

    Now a killer groupie is responsible for a huge and expensive manhunt, and for hundreds of thousands 250 miles north of New York City and up into Canada locking their doors and buying guns.

    They fear an attack, even death, from two dangerous killers on the loose.

    The sole cause of their breaking out of a secure prison which had seen no prior breakouts in 150 years is a killer groupie, a woman married with children employed on the prison staff, who supplied them with power tools to cut their way out. and who was to drive the getway car.

    Joyce Mitchell has been arrested and charged with a felony and may face eight years inside.

    As she failed to turn up on the night - maybe cold feet, maybe a medical emergency as she seems to claim - the two killers are believed still to be close. Bloodhounds picked up a scent in marshes near the prison only a couple of days ago.

    Nice going, Joyce, do call Amanda Knox. Oh, but wait…

    Posted on 06/13/15 at 08:43 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (23)

    Thursday, June 11, 2015

    Why This Offer Of Legal Funding To Amanda Knox May Not Be Such A Good Idea

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    Report on how hard it is in the US to get compensation - that could inspire a search for new markets

    Wrongful convictions in Italy are extremely rare because of the multi-step process to final verdict mandated by law. 

    In the United States and other countries they are more common. It is not a given though for those innocents who do get released to be given a payment by the state. See the case in the video above.

    Cavalli Legal Finance is a large and respected group which helps people pay their legal bills.

    Somebody on the staff - maybe Andrew Braithwaite - has issued this press release presumably aimed at a share of any proceeds. It does raises question in our minds about whether any due diligence was done, though it may be early days for that yet.

    Press Release

    Cavalli Legal Finance Reports a Possible Wrongful Imprisonment Lawsuit

    This press release was orginally distributed by ReleaseWire

    Hamilton, NJ—(ReleaseWire)—05/28/2015—Settlement loans are now made available and applicable to wrongful imprisonment cases through Cavalli Legal Finance.

    The Italian lawyer of Amanda Knox said a lawsuit is possible to be filed, although not certain, against Italy due to the wrongful detention of Knox, following her 7-year-old legal battle in Meredith Kercher’s murder.

    In an email, Knox’s attorney Carlo Dalla Vedova said a lawsuit is possible, but they are not interested to make such move at the moment, and that he and his client have no discussion about it. Their option for a settlement loan was not also disclosed.

    Italy’s highest court exonerated Amanda Knox, along with her Italian, former boyfriend Rafaelle Sollecito in the November 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, Amanda’s British roommate.

    Initially, both suspects were convicted in 2009. Sollecito was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, while Knox received 26 years. In 2011, the convictions were overturned and Amanda returned to Seattle immediately. Under the personal injury cases, Amanda can file for a compensation claim, if the lawsuit has a good merit to win such legal battle, considering the incurred damages such as pain and suffering.

    In 2013, their acquittals were both overturned, and just last year, their convictions were reinstated by a Florence court. Knox’s sentence was increased to 28 and half years. The recent ruling to exonerate both suspects was the criminal case’s final decision. Thus, a settlement funding could be availed by the convicts if they wish to.

    According to the lawyer, the Italian Supreme Court should issue a written motivation by June 27, and if Knox pursues a lawsuit, the Italian law could provide a maximum of 517,000 euros as compensation, which is equivalent to $556,317. Knox can avail a lawsuit funding to pursue with the case.

    Fortunately, Cavalli Legal Finance provides these services so as to help plaintiffs reach settled cases and compensation claims such as Knox’s case. The firm supports not only simple case, but also complex litigation like construction accidents and large complex litigation cases.

    As they seem to have been blown some smoke, here are a few comments on the summary above of Knox’s legal history which Cavalli Legal Finance may find of help.

    (1) Knox was released possibly illegally as her process was not done yet late in 2011 after an appeal trial which the Supreme Court in 2013 pretty well said straight-out was bent. The lead appeal judge was edged out and an investigation process still goes on. 

    (2) Knox was in prison for approximately four years. For three of those years she was imprisoned for the felony crime of calunnia for the false accusation of murder against Patrick Lumumba whose career she has pretty well destroyed. She still owes him approximately $100,000 in damages awarded him which she has still not paid.

    (3) That sentence was signed-off on by ALL the courts - see the trial court ruling, the 2011 appeal court confirmation (which adjusted the sentence to three years), and the 2013 Supreme Court confirmation. End of the road. A felon for life. The 2015 Supreme Court ruling did not include this in its scope. No further route to appeal.

    (4) That leaves one year in prison which in theory could be considered a candidate for a wrongful imprisonment suit. However the Italian Republic has a lot going for its side. For example, very careful process steps were followed and pre-trial Knox was given six opportunities to get the charges dropped. She failed at them all. The US Embassy in Rome had an observer in all courts and cables to Washington DC released reflect no complaints.

    (5) The Italian Republic also has going for it that the terse Fifth Chambers verdict (which it still has to explain) actually can still be overturned if a fix was in or if it did not follow the law on what its role at final appeal should be. Questions about sufficient evidence are invariably referred back down to the appeal court; but that did not happen here. See explanations here and here.

    (6) Knox is back on trial right now on a second calunnia charge which in theory, as a repeat offender, could carry a six-year term. This relates to her false accusations of crimes by interrogators which she made on the stand at trial in mid 2009 when trying to argue her way out of the first calunnia charge. Three court dates are in September of this year.

    (7) Knox has a very dishonest book out in the US, and now Italy and the UK, for which she was said to have been paid millions, which is currently getting a very careful legal read in Italy. The book Waiting To Be Heard (an absurd title given how much she was heard - she has a long history of people trying to shut her up) actually repeats the same false accusations of crimes, with bells and whistles, which are the subject of the current calunnia trial #2. Excerpts from it in the Italian weekly Oggi already have that weekly publication on trial.

    We could go on. After the Supreme Court ruling in March there was buzz, perhaps from the hard-pressed families, that lawsuits for false imprisonment would follow soon.

    The Italian lawyers tamped that talk down fast, and Sollecito’s lawyers (one of whom is himself to go on trial)  pretty well ruled it out entirely. They are said to see it as a slippery slope, an aggressive action, which could bring the castle of cards down fast. 

    Posted on 06/11/15 at 11:45 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (20)

    Monday, June 08, 2015

    Why Desperation Sets In At The Pesky Similarities Between Amanda Knox And Jodi Arias

    Posted by Chimera

    1. The Incessant Comparisons

    Google “Amanda Knox” along with “Jodi Arias” who was recently convicted of killing her ex-boyfriend and you will see what I mean.

    Of comparisons between the two, there are many dozens. Some pieces damningly list the similarities, and then in numerous defensive comments the facts about the real Knox get mangled. Some pieces try to argue that there are differences, and in comments the writer’s numerous false claims get nailed.

    To bring out quite forcefully the stark similarities, this post looks at the interrogations. At the time of this posting, Arias has been convicted of first degree murder, but sentenced to life without parole, since the jury would not hand down the death penalty.

    Meanwhile, Knox has been provisionally found not guilty in a highly suspect Fifth Chambers action which might be overturned by an order of the President, or by a challenge by the Florence court, or by a challenge by another arm of the Supreme Court.

    2. Similarities Under Interrogation

    Below is all of Arias’s 2008 interrogation after her arrest (posted in 4 parts) with notes on some of the similarities. Knox was only ever interrogated once, on 17 December 2007 (at her own request), in a couple of hours, so I also draw on some of her other statements.

    Most of what Jodi Arias says is just babbling and rambling, a trait common to Knox.  But unlike Knox, Arias doesn’t have a media campaign going on to release her, and Arias hasn’t been able to bend or corrupt any courts.

    Part 1 (2 hours 40 minutes)


    Part 2 (2 hours)


    Part 3 (2 hours)


    Part 4 (2 hours)



    My view from watching this: Arias is truly emotionally vulnerable here, but even so, her mind is constantly trying to get her out of this.

    The problem is that she doesn’t seem to register just how much the contradictions ensnare her.  Arias, like Knox, thinks she can talks her way out of anything.  She seems stunned that her ‘‘little-girl routine’’ doesn’t win over the police.

    Arias seems to think during the police questionings, she can simply make it all go away if she keeps denying.  Problem is, her interview is riddled with partial admissions.  Knox seems to think that she can win over the media if she keeps denying ‘‘she killed her friend’‘.

    However, when Arias finally does testify, she is cold, sarcastic, and testy.  (Sound familiar?)

    I imagine if Amanda Knox ‘‘had’’ been formally questioned without lawyers, it would have looked something like this.  Yes, it is segmented, but it would be mindnumbing to do a complete transcript.  However, there were many gems from this questioning.  It is chilling to watch, but if you can, do it, and ask yourself if that isn’t another ‘‘Knox’’ performing there.

    Note these telling exchanges, all from Part 1

    (5:46) Det. Flores: I travelled all the way up here to talk to you.  Because, I’ve been working on Travis’ case ever since it happened.  And I know exactly what happened, how he was killed.  I know a lot of details.  And just recently we found quite a bit of evidence, and I’ll discuss that with you.  The main thing that I’m looking for though is answers, on why certain things happened, and also to get your statement.

    (6:25) Arias: Okay.

    (6:35) Det Flores: A lot of details in this case haven’t been released to the public or even to Travis’ family yet.  And those details are known only to us, and to the person who did it.  And that’s why we’re here. I believe you know some of those details, and you can help us.

    (6:51) Arias: I would love to help you in any way that I can

    One of the most laughable statements ever made in the case.  8 hours later, she still won’t give them a straight answer.

    (8:45) Arias: Should we record this?  (reaching for the remote).

    Seriously?  Arias has been arrested for murder, and her first act is pretend to be ‘‘helping the police’‘.  A bit like Knox, who insisted she was helping the police, even after being charged with Meredith’s murder

    (10:35) Arias: I know that people have been posting a lot of really nice things on Facebook, you know, memories, and I thought maybe I should do that.  And I realized looking back in it is sounded immature, more like a ‘‘Dear Travis’’ kind of letter, so I took it down…

    (10:53) Det Flores: Personal?

    (10:55) Arias: Yeah, some of it was personal, not too personal, nothing inappropriate.

    At least least Arias isn’t emailing people questions about whether Travis likes anal, or what he uses vasoline for.  Give her some credit.

    (12:00) Arias: I didn’t realize until I was speaking with Ryan Burns, the guy that’s in Utah.  We’ve been talking, we try not to talk about that, because it’s kinda like ... ugh (makes disgusted face).  And plus Travis is my ex-boyfriend, so, when you’re mourning your friend, how do you talk to to your new potential mating person?  .... So, it’s kind of a grey area.

    Yes, Jodi thinks dead bodies are ‘‘yucky’‘, and that mourning an ex, while talking to a new potential partner is a ‘‘grey area’‘.  Did she go run off to buy any lingerie?

    (12:15) Arias: I try not to talk about it too much, but he [Travis] comes up a lot

    Your ex-boyfriend was stabbed 29 times and shot in the head.  Annoying, how often ‘‘he’’ comes up.

    (12:20) Arias: And it was though him [Ryan] that he thought things were really weird, and some think that you had a hand in it.

    Maybe because you find the topic of your ex so annoying when you try to spend time with new boyfriend….

    (12:28) Det. Flores: I’ve talked to a lot of people.  And everyone is pointing the finger at you.

    (12:35) Arias: I know.

    (12:36) Det Flores: Everyone is saying - I don’t understand what happened to Travis.  I don’t know who killed him, but you need to look at Jodi.  And sometimes the simplest answers are the correct ones.

    Something Knox found out (and soon Arias soon will), is that when you have suspicions about someone, you bring them up immediately.  You don’t wait until you become a supect yourself.

    (13:30) Det. Flores: I know that you still had a relationship of convenience, even though you were not boyfriend/girlfriend anymore, that you two were still having sexual relations with ...

    (13:45) Arias: Does his family know?  Just curious.

    (13:50) Det. Flores: No, his family doesn’t know anything.

    (13:54) Arias: I’m interested in protecting how he is remembered as well.

    Another laughable claim.  Jodi would later accuse him of everything from being abusive and controlling to pedophilia.  Knox uses Meredith’s memory to cash in on a blood money book ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘, does dozens of interviews claiming to be a victim, and uses her website to raise money for her legal fees to get off on Meredith’s murder.

    (16:10) Arias: Too much of my nightlife was about him [Travis].  He would text ‘‘hey I’m getting sleepy….. zzzz’‘.  That was his code for ‘‘coast is clear, come on over’‘.  (long, unrelated rambling).

    Less than 3 minutes after saying she wants to protect how Travis is remembered, Jodi is already implying Travis is horny, and leaking unnecessary details.  An attempt to smear him?  Who else does that?

    (19:20) Arias: I used to always joke, ‘‘that, regardless of what the Bible says, and yes I’m Christian, I just live my life by the 10 commandments, and that those are my rules,

    ‘’ .... so I always used to joke about that.

    Your ‘‘friend’’ has been savagely stabbed to death, and after being arrested you are making jokes about fornication.  Who else would make such jokes after the loss of a close one?

    For the next 15 minutes Arias babbles on about unrelated things.  Det. Flores has incredible patience, as most would have slit their wrists listening to her.  But finally he tries to pull Jodi back to the topic at hand. 

    He makes several attempts, but Arias keeps trying to divert the topic away from Travis and his death.  After about 1/2 hour of Jodi talking nonsense, Detective Flores tries to get Jodi to give a timeline and direction of her travels.

    (52:20) Det. Flores: So, you took this trip and you left on Monday the 2nd until Thursday?

    (52:44) Arias: I think so.

    (52:50) Det. Flores: So, we have here about 48 hours…. this trip would take you a little over 48 hours….  I have a problem with this trip.

    (53:06) Arias:  Well I first went to ....

    (53:30) Det. Flores: I’ve gone over this trip over and over in my mind.  There’s still 20-some odd hours, even if you pull over to sleep, a couple of times ....

    (53:42) Arias:  Did I tell you I got stranded?

    (53:46) Det. Flores: Yeah, you mentioned that.  If you slept for 10 hours, here and here (pointing on map), it would still leave 18 some odd hours, for something else.  This is the trip that people are focusing on.  People are saying that she left .... Travis was killed on Wednesday.

    (54:22) Arias: I did not go near his house.

    (54:27) Det Flores: I pulled your cell records.  Your cell phone was turned off, between here and here (indicates on map).  What does that show me?

    (54:45) Arias: No, no, no.

    (54:50) Det. Flores: Is there plenty of time for you to do this?  Yes.  And do I believe that you had come to visit Travis?  Yes.  Did you have the opportunity?  Yes, there were no other witnesses.

    (55:10) Arias: Well, I didn’t turn it off physically, but it died.

    (55:16) Det. Flores: And you magically found your charger here?  (pointing on map)

    (55:20) Arias: It was under the passenger side of the front seat.

    (55:23) Det. Flores: When you were lost, you couldn’t have pulled over and found it?

    (55:41) Det. Flores: I’ve been focusing on why your phone turns off here, outside of Los Angeles ... because the [Highway] 15 goes through Las Vegas.  It never goes through Arizona.

    Detective Flores zeroed in on a huge gap Arias’ timeline.  Why did a 48 hour trip take more than 3 days?  He also noted that her cell phone was not active for most of that trip.

    In Peugia, the police had noted a discrepancy in Sollecito’s timeline.  He claimed to have reported the burglarly then waited outside for the police.  In fact phone records showed the Postal Police showed up about 15-20 minutes before he made the call.  It was later discovered that Knox and Sollecito had turned off their cell phones (something they never did), during the time of the murder.

    (58:25) Det. Flores: Were you at Travis’ house on Wednesday?

    (58:28) Arias: Absolutely not.  I was nowhere near Mesa.

    She is very sure then, but with some more questioning, she will not only be there, but a witness to the actual murder.

    (58:40) Det. Flores: What if I could show you proof you were?  Would that change your mind?

    (58:45) Arias: I was not there.  (trying to look convincing)

    (58:59) Det. Flores: You were at Travis’ house.  You had a sexual encounter.  Which, there’s pictures.  And I know you know there’s pictures, because I have them.  I will show them to you.  So, I am asking you to be honest with me.  I know you were there.

    (59:30) Arias: Are you sure that those pictures aren’t from another time?

    (59:35) Det. Flores: Absolutely positive.

    (59:40) Arias: The last time I had any sexual contact with Travis was in May.

    (59:55) Det Flores: You know how I told you about the camera? The camera was damaged.  Someone put it in the washing machine, ran it through a wash cycle, with some clothes of Travis’, but the card is intact.  You know how I told you the card was destroyed?  I didn’t want to tell you the truth, because I wanted to make sure the photos were accurate.  We can pull deleted photos, even from 6 months ago.  And I have pictures of you and Travis.

    (1:01:00) Arias: Are you sure it was me?  Because I was not there.

    (1:01:00) Det. Flores: Jodi, it’s you.

    Arias is trying to look and sound convincing, but her denials come out weaker and weaker.  But the stunned look shows through.

    (1:01:55) Arias: I didn’t hurt Travis.  He’s done so much for me.

    But like your Seattle ‘‘colleague’’ you will soon trash the memory of the person you called a friend.

    (1:02:00) Arias: I lived there.  I lived there for months and months.

    Pretty much the excuse Knox used to explain her DNA being everywhere.

    (1:02:15) Det. Flores: I know you took pictures in the shower just before he died.

    (1:02:29) Arias: I don’t think he would allow that

    Either you did, or you didn’t.

    (1:05:30) Det. Flores: our record indicate you reported a gun stolen, a .25 auto, which just happens to be the same caliber used to kill Travis.

    (1:06:10) Arias: A .25 auto was used to kill Travis?

    Using a ‘‘drop piece’‘, reported stolen, brought to the murder scene.  Knox brought one of Raffaele’s knives.

    (1:06:18) Det. Flores: Do you want to see pictures of him?

    (1:06:25) Arias: Part of me does, part of me doesn’t.

    (1:06:30) Det. Flores: Why, because you don’t want to remember?

    (1:06:35) Arias: No, there’s a morbid curiosity.

    Arias is curious to see photos of Travis.  In fact, she asks several times to see photos of him (after the fact).  The detectives wonder if it is to help her come up with a story, but it is possible she just wanted to see her handiwork

    Knox had also made several public demands to visit Meredith’s grave.  Creepy as hell.

    (1:06:50) Det. Flores: I can’t deny this evidence.  The trip you took doesn’t make any sense, the opportunity was there, the pictures on that date with him, your blood is in the house - mixed with his, not alongside, but mixed, your hair is there is blood, and your palm print is there, in blood.  Your image is not important, saving the rest of your life is.

    (1:07:30) Arias: Listen, if I’m found guilty, I won’t have a life.  I’m not guilty.

    To compare Det. Flores’ listings: Knox’s account of the night/morning made no sense; she had access and opportunity; she had 5 spots of mixed DNA with Meredith, and oddly, NO fingerprints were found in Knox’s own home.

    Jodi’s denial is extremely weak, just like many of the ‘‘no evidence’’ denials that Knox makes.

    (1:08:20) Arias: I’m not a murderer, but if I were to do something like that I’d wear gloves, or something.

    Wow…. way to be convincing.

    (1:09:35) Arias: Let’s say for a second that I did.  Suppose I say I did.  Why

    (1:09:50) Det. Flores: The motive is there.  Anger, jealousy ....

    Knox frequently argued along the lines of ‘‘there is no motive for me to do this’‘.

    (1:29:30) Arias: If I was ever going to try to kill someone, I would use gloves.  I’ve got plenty of them.

    This is the second time Jodi mentions this.  Like Amanda, she knows a little something about C.S.I.

    (1:29:55) Det. Flores: Would they see your car, or did you park it down the street?

    (1:30:05) Arias: No, they would see it, I drove an Infinite.

    (1:31:42) Det. Flores: You know that all rental cars have GPS on them?  For us to use….

    Oh, s**t.

    (1:42:15) Arias: Is it possible that my memory card was in his camera, and they are interchangeable?

    (1:43:30) Det Flores: You’re saying that someone took your pictures and your memory card and was framing you?

    Knox has written before that she thinks Raffaele planted her fingerprints on the knife used to kill Meredith.  Everything is a conspiracy.

    (2:01:00) Arias: I’m trying to put his death behind me.

    So…. you just want to get on with your life?

    3. Numerous Other Similarities

    • Arias had cuts on her fingers which she said was from ‘‘dropping glass’‘.  She claimed that happens regularly.  Police believed it was from the knife slipping in her hand.
    • Knox had a cut on her neck which she said was from a ‘‘hickey’‘.

    • Arias claimed her phone died while on the road and that she found her charger later
    • Knox claimed she turned her phone off so she would not receive a text in case Patrick wanted her to come in afterall.  She previously claimed that it was to preserve the charge for her Gubbio trip

    • Arias was asked if anyone else was present at the scene.  She invented a story about 2 masked intruders.
    • Knox was told Sollecito removed her alibi.  She invented a story about Lumumba doing the crime.

    • Arias has given prison interviews and basked in the limelight
    • Knox has given interviews since being released from prison and basked in the limelight.

    • Arias refused her own suggestion for a lie detector test since if it wouldn’t help her in court,
    • Knox says she will take a lie detector test, but never has.

    • Arias attempted to destroy evidence, including attempting to destroy a camera in the washing machine.
    • Knox attempted to selectively clean the crime scene, and pin it all on Rudy Guede

    • Arias had the foresight to clean her feet before, going to the washing machine to throw the camera in.
    • Knox (or Sollecito), had the foresight to clean his/her feet before going into Amanda’s room to grab the lamp.

    • Arias had the foresight to clean her hands before grabbing Clorex to put in the washing machine
    • Knox had the foresight to leave Meredith’s lamp, but use her own and wipe it for prints

    • Arias put her licence back on upside down (it was removed while at Travis’ house).
    • Knox put the bathmat (with Sollecito’s footprint), back upside down

    • Arias staged a prior break-in so she could report a gun stolen, which she would later use.
    • Knox staged a prior break in and later used some techniques on Meredith.

    • Arias planned it by using a ‘‘trip to Utah’’ as a way of explaining her time away.
    • Knox planned it by waiting for a time when no one else was home.

    • Arias tried to wash Travis’ body to destroy evidence.attempted to destroy evidence.
    • Knox (and Sollecito), stripped Meredith down to make it look like a rape.

    • Arias called Travis’ phone and left voicemails to make it look like she didn’t know he was dead.
    • Knox called Meredith’s phone to make it look like she was trying to reach her.

    • Arias had sex with Travis prior to killing him
    • Knox had sex with a drug dealer (Federico Martini), before and after killing Meredith.

    • Arias caused Travis to think she was dangerous and a stalker, leading to police suspicion after.
    • Knox caused Meredith and others to think she was pushy and weird, leading to police suspicion after
    • .
    • Arias rented a car, bought cans of gas (to avoid stopping at gas stations), reported her gun stolen (so suspicion wouldn’t be aroused), and turned off her phone.
    • Knox brought a knife from Raffaele’s flat, brought 2 ‘‘frame-able’’ accomplices, chose a night no one was home, and turned off her phone.

    • Arias attempted to rain hostility down on prosecutor Juan Martinez.
    • Knox attempted to rain hostility down on prosecutor Guiliano Mignini.

    • Arias flirted with the police who arrested her.
    • Knox flirted with court officers.

    • Arias went to her current boyfriend as if nothing happened.
    • Knox went back to her life, including missing Meredith’s memorial.

    • Arias murdered her ex-boyfriend.
    • Knox murdered her roommate.

    • Arias called Travis repeatedly just to hear his voicemail.  Stalker?
    • Knox texted Meredith repeatedly the day before.  Stalker?

    • Arias was born July 9, 1980.
    • Knox was born July 9, 1987.
    Posted on 06/08/15 at 10:10 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (27)

    Wednesday, June 03, 2015

    Relevance Of The Ship Which Has Sunk In The Yangtze To National Justice System Upgrades?

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    Regarding the ship which just sank in the Yangtze River with a probable 400-plus deaths, and its relevance to justice systems everywhere?

    Well, small inland ships (which are those most prone to a high death-rate) and their rules and regulations are outside the scope of the international body which sets rules and upgrades systems for seagoing vessels.

    That is the United Nations agency in London called the International Maritime Organization or IMO. Small inland ships are unregulated unless the relevant government has unilaterally acted.

    The IMO sets safety rules including design elements and it advances better rules and systems through conferences and training. It runs a big school in Sweden.

    The IMO is NOT part of a world government, or a top down organization; like all of the UN development agencies it is a horizontal network, in its case of all the national maritime agencies in the world.

    Their administrators and experts are incessantly heading to London to advance maritime matters in working groups. (The US is a big and enthusiastic player in all of the UN agencies via the relevant Federal departments - agriculture, health, transport, and so on.)

    So in China, watch out for a bunch of systems changes with regard to those small vessels.  But watch out also for a bunch of systems changes via the IMO at the global level, to try to head off more such catastrophes and to get the best possible rescue efforts going much faster.

    The relevancy here?

    In justice systems also, many lives are in the balance. But as mentioned in previous posts, the UN doesnt have an agency for justice systems upgrades, or even for a static thumbnail view of each one. It only has a small public administration development unit within the “United Nations proper” in New York.

    There is no way that that unit is appropriate to resolving the huge and complex problems in the videos in the post below.

    A lesson learned maybe above all others in the UN is that major system change should NOT be attempted in national or local isolation. It is too costly, and way too inefficient, and participants soon tire themselves out or loose interest.

    Ideally a few or many countries all set about systems upgrades in parallel processes and they watch and share with one another.

    The justice-systems problems in the videos below have many things in common. They seem very ripe for a global effort on the lines of maritime systems. Maybe Italy and the US could each contribute greatly to getting that alive.

    Its not beyond us to explain this and to try to push for it.  This would kinda trump calling top justice officials of this or that national system corrupt or bungling or criminal.

    That is the Amanda Knox thugs’ supposed contribution to a better world - apparently their only one.

    Below: the International Maritime Organization headquarters in London

    Posted on 06/03/15 at 09:38 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (28)

    Thursday, May 28, 2015

    Justice System Reform Is Suddenly Everywhere On The Front Burner

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    1. The Justice System In The US




    2. The Justice System In Mexico


    3. The Justice System In China


    4. The Justice System In Turkey


    5. The Justice System In Britain


    Posted on 05/28/15 at 09:31 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

    Saturday, May 23, 2015

    When Not Itself Nefariously Influenced, Italy’s Supreme Court Usually Sustains A Hard Line

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    The President of Italy at the first of a planned series of anti-mafia rallies

    If there are any jurists in Italy who think the Fifth Chambers respected the law and the huge evidence, they are sure not speaking up yet.

    A bent outcome? Certainly there have been attempts by organized crime and other unsavory elements to bend all the Italian courts at all levels (think Hellmann) and even at the Supreme Court level there seem to have been instances of successful bending.

    But whereas in the US the administration of most justice is highly localized and most jurists have to run to keep up with evolving cases and trends in their own states, justice in Italy is highly centralised and all judges and lawyers follow all main cases.

    Routes are many to keep an outcome that stinks from being left that way.

    We are told to expect a scathing outpouring from numerous jurists when the Fifth Chambers pushes its report out. Also almost certain legal action and possible retaliation against Judges Marasca and especially Bruno via the powerful Counsel of Magistrates.

    As their nervous defense lawyers will know all too well, two things in particular are not auspicious for Knox’s and Sollecito’s final outcome.

    First, a huge push is now starting to finally rid Italy of the mafias. Like it or not Sollecito is related to mafioso of the same name and the seaside town in the Dominican Republic which he visited several times in recent months is said to be a thriving mafia hangout.

    Now President Mattarella (himself a judge and mafia fighter) has kicked off a series of rallies throughout Italy to give all of the population courage and positive expectations. If he is appealed-to to reverse the Fifth Chambers verdict in Meredith’s case and he suspects organized crime had a vested interest in humiliating the Florence courts he may side with that appeal.

    Second, if Cassation finds a way to revert to form on Meredith’s case it can be expected to reflect the hard line it demonstrated against the Hellmann-appeal outcome in 2013 and the hard line in for example this case among many similar.

    Partners who manifest extreme jealous behaviour towards their other half are guilty of mistreatment, Italy’s highest court of appeal has said.

    Italy’s Court of Cassation on Thursday overturned the acquittal of a Sicilian man for mistreating his wife.

    The husband, who is from Sicily, allegedly suffered from “morbid jealousy”, also known as “delusional jealousy”, a psychological disorder in which a person wrongly believes their spouse or sexual partner is being unfaithful without having any real proof to back up their claim.

    His jealous behaviour included constantly accusing his wife of being unfaithful, reading her text messages and even demanding that their daughter get a DNA test.

    According to the Italian daily Il Fatto Quotidiano, his behaviour was so extreme that his wife even quit her job as a flight attendant because he said the job was “not suited to a respectable woman”.

    In May 2014 an appeal’s court in Palermo, Sicily, acquitted the man of mistreating his wife.

    But on Thursday Italy’s highest court overturned the acquittal, stating that such behaviour amounted to “psychological harassment”, a crime punishable by law.

    “Constantly hassling the spouse with continuous manic and obsessive behaviour inspired by morbid jealousy constitutes mistreatment,” the court said, according to Il Fatto Quotidiano.

    His behaviour caused “significant imitations and constraints in her daily life and choices, as well as an intolerable state of anxiety,” according to the court.

    The case has now been reopened and the woman’s claims will be evaluated in another hearing, the paper said.

    Jealousy a crime? Isn’t jealousy widely seen as a Knox trademark?

    Posted on 05/23/15 at 11:52 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015

    Those Pesky Certainties Cassation’s Fifth Chamber May Or May Not Convincingly Contend With #3

    Posted by Cardiol MD

    Media staff waiting in front of the Supreme Court

    1. This Series’ Foreboding Context

    On March 27th, 2015 Cassation’s Fifth Chamber announced that it had decided that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not guilty of the November 2007 Murder in Perugia of Meredith Kercher.

    The Fifth Chamber is but one of Cassation’s more than 75 Panels. It’s reporting Judge is Antonio Paolo Bruno. He mas dismissive of the massive evidence. He was quoted as having said that the trials had “not many certainties beyond the girl’s death and one definitely convicted.”

    Posts #1-#2 addressed the fact that, contrary to Judge Bruno’s pronouncement,  the trials had Many Certainties, listing them under 30 enumerated Headings, but in total, there were many more Certainties and Certainly-Nots, listed in sub-headings.

    The existence, timings, durations, and general locations of All the telephone calls are Certains, or Certainly-Nots. They bring the Total up to Many; Many more than 30; Certainly Not “not many”, as Judge Bruno asserted, Inappropriately, Deceptively, and Prejudicially.

    Note the distinctions between when, and where Message-Received, and -Sent, versus When, Where and Whether Message-Read, e.g. Knox was near the Women’s Villa when her Telephone received Lumumba’s crucial message, but allegedly at Sollecito’s Flat when she First-Read his message. In Knox’s officially reported Q&A Testimony there was Confusion and Ambiguity over this issue, exploited to Knox’s advantage

    2. Certainties 31 to 42


    Details of the Fatal Sequence have been masked, over the years, apparently for humanitarian considerations, but such details should be available to readers who wish to more-objectively assess culpability. Here is what we have deduced:

    Massei disagreed with the Reconstruction proposed by the Prosecution, which depicted Meredith on her knees, facing the floor:

    a.  Massei concluded that Meredith was in a standing position, facing her attackers:

    MASSEI PAGE372-373: “…considering the neck wounds sustained, it must be believed that Meredith remained in the same position, in a standing position, while continuously exposing her neck to the action of the person striking her now on the right and now on the left. Such a situation seems inexplicable if one does not accept the presence of more than one attacker who, holding the girl, strongly restrained her movements and struck her on the right and on the left because of the position of each of the attackers with respect to her, by which it was easier to strike her from that [ End of p372; Start of p373: ] side. …”

    b.  Meredith’s autopsy was performed by Dr. Luca Lalli, but his detailed findings are not included in Massei’s report, they await their Translation into English.The Massei report includes only a limited paraphrase of Lalli’s findings.


    In “Darkness Descending - the Murder of Meredith Kercher” Paul Russell (Author), Graham Johnson (Author), and Luciano Garofano (Author) give clearer, more detailed descriptions of Dr. Lalli’s findings than Massei does.

    On pages 72-74 of DD it emerges that the cut (Stab A) made by A large knife in Meredith’s neck was on the left-side, ran obliquely from left-to-right, almost parallel to her jaw, and slightly Upwards.


    DD does state that the knife entered 8cm vertically below her left ear, 1.5cm horizontally towards the front of her neck, but does not specify the cut’s length.


    A large knife created a gaping wound, visible only through the opened-skin of the Left-Side, continuing its travel under the skin, traveling across the mid-line plane, towards the right-side, exposing the oral cavity, fatty tissues and throat glands. Important jaw muscles were also severed.


    As DD states, there was another stab wound (Stab B) on the right-hand side of Meredith’s neck, 1.5 cm long, penetrating 4 cm subcutaneously.


    Stab B was made by a Knife smaller than the above large knife.


    The wound was shallow, did not create a gaping wound, did not cut important subcutaneous structures, but did create a route to the exterior through which blood from Stab A, then created by the large knife on Meredith’s left side could also exit to Meredith’s right side.


    g.  The large knife had damaged no significant vessels of the Left-Side.


    i.  Blood also flooded the subcutaneous tissues around the breech in the right-hand side of Meredith’s airway caused by the knife-stab on the left-side of her neck.


    j.  This resulted in Meredith’s inhalation of her own blood.


    k.  Meredith stops screaming, but now her blood seems to be everywhere, including over her attackers, and they quickly abandon her, already evading the accountability they are fully aware is theirs.


    l.  As DD comments, during Meredith’s Autopsy surprise was expressed that the Jugular Veins and Carotid Arteries (of both right and left sides) were intact.

    Others who read about this murder, had concluded-then that the killers must have known about the major blood vessels (MBVs), but not about branches-of-Carotid-branches such as little RSTA.

    3. Plus Beyond Reasonable Doubts


    c.  Accepting Massei’s conclusion, Knox and Sollecito were standing-up and facing Meredith in Meredith’s room. Knox, Sollecito and/or Guede, were participating in the restraining of Meredith.


    d.  Sollecito (or Guede) was holding the smaller Knife, probably in his right hand. This smaller knife made Stab B.


    Stab B preceded Stab A, and caused Meredith’s scream.

    f.  When Meredith screams Knox plunges Knife36 into Meredith’s neck in the above long-axis direction, from left to right, transecting Meredith’s Hyoid bone, first opening Meredith’s airway to the atmosphere, then transecting Meredith’s Right Superior Thyroid Artery.


    e.  Knox was holding Knife36, probably in Knox’s right hand, holding Knife36 against the left side of Meredith’s neck with Knife36’s point directed slightly upwards the right side of Meredith’s neck, the blade-label facing towards Knox, the palm of Knox’s right hand also facing towards Knox and the long-axis of Knife36 angled a few degrees above horizontal.


    f.  When Meredith screams Knox plunges Knife36 into Meredith’s neck in the above long-axis direction, from left to right, transecting Meredith’s Hyoid bone, first opening Meredith’s airway to the atmosphere, then transecting Meredith’s Right Superior Thyroid Artery.


    h.  A thin stream of bright-red blood spurted from this artery to its exterior environment, probably through the cuts made in her skin to the outside by both knives.

    (Consistent with bleeding from both cuts, Follain, in his book “A Death In Italy” states that Guede saw that blood was coming out of the left side of Meredith’s neck. Follain also states that Francesco Camana of the Rome forensic police, in Camana’s written report, that spurts of blood in the middle of Meredith’s chest made her sweatshirt more bloody on the right side than on the left side)


    i. The large knife was Knife-36, which had been brought to the murder room from Sollecito’s kitchen.

    This series continues here.

    Posted on 05/20/15 at 11:10 PM by Cardiol MD. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (32)

    Monday, May 18, 2015

    “What It Feels Like To Be Wrongly Accused” Could This Be Amanda Knox’s More Truthful First Draft?

    Posted by Chimera

    Above: someone who unequivocally WAS wrongly accused - and still has seen no justice

    What finally was published. You may decide if this was a scrapped first draft, with due caution!

    I wanted to get it all out now, so I don’t have to keep explaining it a a hundred times, like I have been on CNN, ABC, NBC, Daybreak, or my memoir, or anyone else who would listen.

    I have this dream in my head that when you accuse someone of a horrific act they didn’t do, they inevitably experience shock, disorientation, confusion.  They will likely get their name and photo in the paper, and forever be associated with a vile deed.  The emotional scars will remain, and their families and friends will abandon them or at least lose trust.  However, they did not suffer nearly as bad as you have, as some trauma, such as being slapped in the head, broke you down emotionally.

    In all honesty, I know this is as strange to me as it is to everyone else.  Since most people don’t angrily deny false accusations, they just let the pressure squeeze their temples, and they let it become hard to concentrate.  But they are clearly acting suspiciously, if they don’t remember a fact correctly.  But even when they are locked up for that vicious crime, it has to be considered that they are still trying to help the police.

    Truthfully, when you falsely accuse someone of murder, police strangely wonder why you did not bring this knowledge up before.  You try to keep a straight face, but there is tension in your right eyebrow, and below your right nostril and sometimes triggers you to twitch uncontrollably, making you self conscious about looking people in the face.  There’s a pinpoint knot that spasms between your heart making it hard to sit still, as your lies are crumbling around you.

    But the truth is, this is still much easier than being outside a murder room with your hands over your ears, while your ‘‘friend’’ is being murdered.  After all, it could have been you.  The stress is causing you to vaguely remember things, about obscure texts, and to forget if your boyfriend is with you.  The stress causes you to smell, even after taking a shower, and to wake up first thing in the morning to buy bleach, as a sudden urge for housecleaning is therapeutic.

    Honestly, it can be incredibly stressful to have to release this sudden burst of energy.  You yell, are anxious, and hit yourself in the head.  The police try to calm you down with food and drinks, but the visions and dreams are tormenting you, as you imagine that you have witnessed something horrific.  Yes, your friend let out a huge scream as she died, but you are not really lying when you tell the police who did it.  After all, your 2 hour police interview, or was is 14, 35 or 50? Or 150?... was tantamount to torture, and you should not have to be subjected to the stress of having to explain yourself a hundred times while the police investigate the murder of your friend.  You suffered too.

    My best truth is that when people don’t trust you after making these false accusations, the anxiety arrives even at the most safe and casual of circumstances.  You’re hypersensitive to what people say, and how they say it.  They seem skeptical when you refer to things constantly as your best truth, or the truth you remember, or the truth you think is closest to the truth. There is an accumulation of primal anger and grief that can give no satisfactory expression when you start talking about visions you had, or how you vaguely remembered something happening. There is always this thought: how can you reconcile with significant parts of society whose trust you have abused?

    I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.  But people take things out of context.  Saying someone had their f***ing throat slit is a way of explaining how a person died (even if I didn’t ‘‘officially’’ know it).  That person was my friend.  People can’t admit they were wrong when I make gurgling sounds and call blood ‘‘yucky’‘.  The can’t admit their mistakes when I say I only knew someone for a month, and want to get on with my life.  That person was my friend.  They find fault with everything when I say ‘‘shit happens’‘, and miss the memorial, because someone else made the decision for me.  That person was my friend.  They come up with speculation, and twist things around, and they are haters, when they complain about me wearing Beatles T-shirts in court.

    In my head, the trauma felt by the victim of a wrongful accusation is foreign and unimaginable to the majority of people, that’s why I am here to help.  By that I mean write this story, not just make up (more) false accusations.

    But, in the closest version of the truth, these are the questions that need answered: Why is the person I falsely accused angry with me?  Why is he not angry with the police for arresting him?  And why are the police now suspicious of me after making a false accusation?  Can they not see that I am a good person?  Why are people angry when I give interviews of get a million dollar book deal?  Can they not see I’ve suffered?  I mean, my friend (whose name I forget), was murdered, but it could just as easily have been me.  Why are people persecuting me? (loud sigh)

    Honestly,  I am a victim here.  Why can you not see that?

    Anyway, that’s all for now.  Just need to get on with my life.

    Posted on 05/18/15 at 12:10 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (10)

    Wednesday, May 13, 2015

    Updates: Sollecito’s Trial For Vilipendio And Diffamazione, Knox’s Trial For Calunnia #2

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    Knox and Sollecito have each been indicted in Florence BY PROSECUTORS on charges that bear no resemblance to UK or US slander or libel cases.

    They are each essentially charged for lying to poison public opinion against officials, and Sollecito against the system, to try to win themselves illegal breaks at their murder trial and appeals. Knox in court in 2009, and Sollecito in his book in 2012.

    The weekly magazine Oggi is also on trial for jubilantly publishing some of Knox’s numerous lies. 

    Yesterday in a Florence court a new court translation of the passages from Sollecito’s book fully quoted here were accepted by the presiding judge. They differed little if at all from what the prosecutor filed last year and brought the defenses no joy. Right now both the defenses seem stuck.

    And on June 9th the calunnia trial against Knox will start in a Florence court. It would be smart for her to be there, as Sollecito usually is. As mentioned above, Knox is already indicted.

    It is not clear who her lawyers will be. Sollecito had to field a new team. Ghirga and Dalla Vedova both helped Knox with her defamatory book and with her defamatory email to Judge Nencini in December 2013 in which Knox ludicrously claimed she had been tortured (for the mundane truth read here) and like Bongiorno and Maori they could feel they have conflicts here.

    On June 16 Dr Mignini will testify in the Oggi trial in Bergamo north-east of Milan where Oggi is based against the editor Umberto Brindani and the reporter Giangavino Sulas for publishing illegal claims made in Knox’s 2013 book.

    At that hearing Knox’s book may finally become the subject of charges on the same lines as Sollecito’s book. Italian legal opinion is not supportive of the pair or the sleazy moves that led to Cassation giving them a break

    That break looks increasingly temporary now. Sollecito could face big fines and Knox could face up to six years. Brighter bulbs would have realized it is best not to confront Italian courts.

    Friday, May 08, 2015

    Why Italy Doesnt Look For Guidance On Its Justice System From What It Sees As Foreign Smartasses

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    Italy is following closely the sad disarray currently obvious in the American system

    Read our numerous posts setting right for example the false claims of Michael Heavey and Steve Moore.  And then read this post and this post and this post and these new stories on US justice. And then answer the question below.

    Michael Schwanke: Koch behind push to overhaul criminal justice system

    Each year it’s estimated the United States spends almost a $100 billion on prisons. According to Mark Holden, Senior VP at Koch Industries, that’s three to four times what the country spends on education.

    Holden and Charles Koch authored a letter titled “The Overcriminalization of America” and now are behind a nationwide push to overhaul the criminal justice system.

    The letter points to the many federal laws created over the years. “Congress creates, on average, more than 50 new criminal laws each year. Over time, this has translated into more than 4,500 federal criminal laws spread across 27,000 pages of the United States federal code.”

    “We all agree that our system isn’t working. Whether you’re a conservative, evangelical, social liberal, progressive, or libertarian there’s something for you. I don’t think there will be a lot of negative reaction to it,” says Holden speaking to Eyewitness News after addressing the downtown Rotary.

    Holden says the U.S. accounts for about five percent of the world’s population, but holds 20 percent of the prison population. Most are non-violent offenders. Holden says one in three people in the U.S. has a criminal record which leads to poverty and joblessness.

    Cara Tabachnick: Poll: Young Americans have “little confidence” in justice system

    Nearly half of American young adults lack confidence in the nation’s justice system or don’t trust their local police to do the right thing, though that perception is deeply divided by race, according to a national poll of 18- to 29-year-olds released by Harvard’s Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

    African-American youth had the deepest distrust of the nation’s criminal justice institutions, with 79 percent of those polled expressing little to no trust in their local police department to do the “right” thing.

    Hispanic youth weren’t far behind, with 62 percent of those polled expressing little or no trust in their local police force. In stark contrast, just 31 percent of the white youth polled expressed little or no trust.

    More than 3,000 people were polled by the Harvard Institute of Politics between March 18-April 1, on questions of criminal justice and other issues, including politics, climate change and terrorism.

    Over all, there was an even split on the U.S. judicial system’s ability to “fairly judge people without bias for race and ethnicity.” About 49 percent of those polled said they have little to no confidence that the justice system can operate without bias.

    Jason Fyk: Baltimore’s Criminal Justice System Is Corrupt, I Know Because I Was Imprisoned there

    n 2011, I was arrested by Baltimore City Police on charges of conspiracy to commit first degree attempted murder.

    You might be asking yourself, “Why? What did he do?” I took a cell phone video of a small drunken scuffle in a downtown Baltimore parking garage. I was not a participant in the fight, nor was I an instigator. Despite what the facts of the situation presented, a personal family relationship with one of the so-called “victims” took precedence over the law. What started as a typical two-sided misdemeanor became a one-sided fight for freedom. I spent 50 days in the Baltimore City Detention Center facing two life sentences, and a host of other charges mounting to well over 200 years in prison, all for simply taking a video.

    I’ve seen the corruption firsthand. I’ve seen how a law enforcement agent’s personal agenda can destroy a life. I’ve seen how charges are ramped up in order to make a lesser charge stick. I’ve seen detainees entering jail with worse injuries than the participants in the fight I captured on video, all at the hands of police. I’ve also seen the corruption that resides in BCDC on my 50-day tour of the jail.

    The conditions at this facility were sub-human, in some cases. Ignoring the mice, cockroaches and decaying conditions, basic necessities of life were severely lacking. The food was nearly inedible and, in some cases, hazardous. For example, the drink flavoring had a poisonous emblem on it, eggs were often brown and rotten when served, and during my stay we even lost water for four days, which meant toilets and sinks did not work. All we had was a cooler jug that was brought in to drink from. Showers were so hot (not adjustable) you could not stand in the water. I saw a detainee drop on the floor, having a seizure from withdrawal, because drugs are not administered for close to a week after arrival. My experience in jail was that of an educated observant, and what I saw was appalling. The list goes on and on.

    So Italy or the USA - which country would you pick to do a crime in? Do Heavey or Moore tell you this? How many times have Heavey and Moore found justice lacking in the US? Apparently no times at all. One-note bashing of Italian justice is all that they do.

    Posted on 05/08/15 at 09:57 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (5)

    Tuesday, May 05, 2015

    A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy #2

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    RS and AK in New York a while back, the last time that they actually met

    Gloom and doom have been dissipating for over a month now in Italy among those most invested in a just outcome, for the reasons given in this immediate-post-verdict post.

    Note that the defense camps really want and need that legitimacy. They know the perverse judgment is not the end of the road. They have clamped down hard on what RS and AK can say.

    In the Italian legal community the Fifth Chambers are getting some scathing commentary for their strange law and dismissiveness of the facts of the case which Cardiol in the post below this one once again underlined.

    The Fifth Chambers’ sentencing report should be red meat, very tough for the hapless judges to write and a target from Day One and, under a new law in Italy which already overturned several Cassation verdicts, a very likely candidate for a legal suit.

    The two book trials should slowly strip the emperors bare (remember those books are still very unread, even by many who read this site, and neither are in Italian yet), and could cost Knox more time inside and both of them fines and civil suits.

    The psychologist SeekingUnderstanding has posted several times on how untreated troubled psychology rarely simply gets better with time. RS’s startling new crack at AK shows he has no inner calm, Knox’s delay in wedding plans and her incessant anger and vagueness maybe too.

    Neither seem to have the big bucks they will need for their legal teams going forward, or the promise of successful careers. Sollecito still hasnt worked a day in his life and his preferred software area never sees successful entrants at his age. Knox’s only known area of interest - paid writing - is a fast-shrinking field.

    Several tough books are already in the works. And the media loves conspiracy theories and hoaxes, and as all the real conspiracies and hoaxes have been on the defenses’ side, trends will also be against RS and AK there.

    The only safe bets are that there will be various surprise happenings in the next six months - and that we’d rather be in our camp than in theirs.

    Posted on 05/05/15 at 07:26 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (11)

    Thursday, April 30, 2015

    Those Pesky Certainties Cassation’s Fifth Chamber May Or May Not Convincingly Contend With #2

    Posted by Cardiol MD

    The Italian Supreme Court is in the background

    1. This Series’ Ominous Context

    On Friday, 27th March, 2015 a Panel of five Court of Cassation judges of the Fifth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court in Rome, found Amanda Knox, and Raffaelle Sollecito, Not Guilty of the Murder of Meredith Kercher.

    The President Judge of the Fifth Criminal Chamber of this Supreme Court Panel is Gennaro Marasca, The Prosecutor General is Mario Pinelli, and the Reporting Judge for the Meredith Panel is Antonio Paolo Bruno.

    Near the start of the above SCC hearings Judge Bruno was quoted as having said that the trials had “not many certainties beyond the girl’s death and one definitely convicted.”

    We consider that to be flat-out wrong. Absurd in fact, as the hapless Hellmann & Zanetti could testify. So do numerous professionals well-briefed on the case in Italy. We expect soon articles in Italian similar to this one.

    In fact if the forthcoming Marasca Sentencing Report attempts to brush the numerous real factual certainties under the table there is a near-certainty that the perverse verdict can be overturned by way of a lawsuit or a petition to the President of the Italian Republic. 

    Post #1 of 10 April described some 26 of the factual headaches facing the SCC under the strict Italian Legal Requirements for classification of Evidence as Circumstantial-Evidence.

    The fact that the trials actually had very many certainties was demonstrated in Post #1, and continues in this Post.

    2. Note On Circumstantial Evidence

    Defendants typically trivialize Circumstantial-Evidence as “Only Circumstantial-Evidence”.

    Actually, Circumstantial-Evidence is often the most potent evidence leading Finders-of-Fact to their Verdict. This is even more true in Italian Law because its Circumstantial-Evidence classification-requirement provides that an evidentiary circumstance or fact must be true to the level of being a Certainty. Therefore, for example, the unverifiable RS/AK broken water-pipe story can not be classified as Circumstantial Evidence and cannot legally be admitted as Evidence at all.

    Continuing the review of the Massei Motivazione, the Nencini Motivazione, and the several past SCC rulings, demonstrating the large number of Certainties:

    3. Certainties 27 To 30



    This Subject has already been commented-upon in Pesky #1, under the Heading “13. Crimescene Meddling?”:
    “Having accomplished the Phone-Dump, Meredith’s killers next re-model the crime-scene, minimising the evidences of their identities, cleaning-up the evidences that it was ‘an inside job’, and simulating the appearances that it was ‘an outside job’.”

    According to the Massei Summary, Part 3:

    “8. The staged break-in

    The Massei Report examined the evidence surrounding the broken window and disarray in Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom in order to determine whether a real break-in had occurred or the appearance of one had been staged….....

    The court concluded that the disorder in Romanelli’s room and the breaking of the window pane constituted an artificial representation created in order to misdirect the investigations towards a person who, not having the key to the front door, was supposed to have entered through the previously broken window and then effected the violent acts on Meredith which caused her death.”

    So Massei, having carefully analysed all the Evidence, and the Arguments on both sides Concluded that there was No Burglary at all, and that Meredith’s killers had deliberately created the appearance of a Burglary, in order to misdirect the Investigators of Meredith’s death.

    According to the Hellmann-Annulling SCC Panel wrt the Simulated Burglary:

    Page 56:

    “The compartmentalisation of the single pieces of evidence thus weakened their value and their depth, since a piecemeal evaluation of their relationship and of the required synthesis inevitably followed, ignoring the increase in value that the pieces of the mosaic of circumstantial evidence assume when synergistically evaluated.”

    The Panel begins its justification for Annulling Hellmann/Zanetti.

    The Hellmann-Annulling SCC Panel Page 66:

    “.....the simulation of the burglary should have been evaluated in light of the investigative data collected immediately after the event,  such as Rudy’s shoeprints (along the path of his flight)  and the traces of the victim’s blood detected in many spots in the bathroom used by Ms Knox and [49] Ms Kercher, surely carried there by third parties present in the house after the murder.”

    The Panel takes-for-granted that the “Burglary” was Simulated by the Perps, and focuses on its improper evaluation by H/Z.

    The Hellmann-Annulling SCC Panel Page 82-83:

    “The Hellmann Court of Appeal preferred – in full agreement with the defence pleadings –  to favour the information the unreliable Rudy Guede had conveyed in his chat with his friend Benedetti, i.e., that he was in via della Pergola around 9.00/9.30 PM on the first of November 2007;  this information was correlated with the victim’s telephone records which registered:

    a)  an unanswered call at 8.56 PM
    b)  the dialling of the number 901, corresponding to an answering service at 9.58 PM, immediately after which the call was blocked
    c)  at 10.00 PM the dialling of the first number in the list of phone numbers for the Abbey bank, without however the dialling of the required dialling code
    d) at 10.13 PM a GRPS connection of the length of nine seconds, most probably linkedto a multimedia message, without the necessity of human interaction.

    On the basis of these facts, the Hellmann Court reached the conclusion that Miss Kercher had not called her family again in the period of time between 8.56 and 11.00 PM,  since shortly after the first attempt an unexpected event may have occurred, such as for example the attack,  and the dialling of the number at 10.00 PM could have been done [61]  by another person, who was not familiar with that mobile phone, while attempting to silence it, a fact which would place the time of death at before 10.13 PM.

    The reconstructive path is permeated with factual deductions deriving from a series of conjectures and baseless suppositions, without any reliable, demonstrative basis,  in spite of [other]  findings of significant value which conflict with those [deductions] and have a greater probative value,  which were reduced in their importance on the basis of an unsatisfactory reasoning,  which stands out because multiple passages contradict other passages of the statement of reasons, and because of manifest illogicality which must be rightfully censured in this venue. “

    The Panel implicitly includes H/Z’s failure to recognize the “Burglary"as simulated, as part of its “unsatisfactory” and improperly “baseless” reasoning.

    NENCINI Page 175:

    “In the cottage at 7 Via Della Pergola, on the day of 2 November 2007, in the early hours of the day and up until approximately 12.00 pm, nobody had a shower, just as no burglar had gottenin through the window of Filomena Romanelli’s room; more simply the totality of the circumstantial evidence examined to this point gives us a plain picture of how the defendants put into action a clean-up of the traces of the murder committed and activity to “derail” the investigations that involved a series of actions, a number of which are still to be described.”

    So, having stated at length “the totality of the circumstantial evidence examined” Nencini concludes, that the defendants (Knox and Sollecito) had faked the “Burglary” and,

    Nencini Page 335:

    “...we exclude, for the reasons already expressed, that the murder was committed by a burglar caught in the act of entering the flat after breaking Filomena Romanelli’s window…”

    The Nencini Appellate Court Judges, presumably recognise that their conclusion Knox and Sollecito had faked a burglary didnot implicitly exclude the co-existence of a real burglar.

    So now they explicitly “exclude” the conclusion that the murder was committed by any burglar.

    What will the Marasca Panel make of that?

    28: THE SCREAM

    Amanda Knox is herself the very first person to refer to the Scream, in her voluntarily insistent Written-Note of November 6th, 2007.

    This allegation is generally accepted to be so factually Certain that its factual existence has never been plausibly disputed.

    Massei Pages 98-99:

    “.....it can thus be held that, in fact, towards 23:30 pm on November 1, 2007 there was a loud, long scream from a woman which came from [91] the house at 7 Via della Pergola.
    After this scream, Nara Capezzali heard running on the metal stairs located below her residence in the S. Antonio car park towards the section used as the exit for the cars, and straight afterwards she heard running on the path situated in front of the house in Via della Pergola.

    The harrowing scream heard a little before must have caused a strong agitation in Mrs. Capezzali, who was rendered particularly sensitive and attentive to what might happen and who knows the area; therefore, it is to be held that she referred to noises on the metal steps and on the path because there actually were such noises and she was able to hear them.

    Furthermore, the deposition of the witness Dramis, who referred to ‚running steps‛ heard about 23:30 pm on that same November 1st in Via del Melo, which is very close, almost a continuation of the path of the houseIp in Via della Pergola, could constitute some confirmation of this.

    The running on the path in front of the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly after the heart-rending scream leads this Court to hold that the heart-rending scream came from the house at 7 Via della Pergola; likewise, whoever’s running steps were heard on the metal steps and whoever’s running steps were heard a little later on the gravel path and leaves in front of the house at 7 Via della Pergola lead the Court to hold that more than one person came out of that house.”

    So Massei “held” as a specific “fact” that the scream, came from the 7 Via Della Pergola cottage, rented by Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox, among others, at about 23:30 pm on November 1st, 2007.

    However, Hellmann/Zanettii, and the miscellaneous FOA systematically trivialized the Scream, e.g.: the Police made AK invent it; the Police suggested it to AK; the Police tricked AK into writing it down; there are so many Screams-in-the-Perugia-Night that the scream the Witnesses testified to having heard was not Meredith’s Scream; the scream the Witnesses testified to having heard was at some other time; and Meredith’s Scream was at yet another time. So-many imagined doubts were marshaled that Hellmann/Zanettii argued that there was too much Reasonable Doubt.

    The Hellmann-Annulling SCC Panel Page 86:

    “Before concordant pieces of data convergent towards a time necessarily later than the one established by the court, back to which the heart‐rending scream of the unfortunate Meredith needs to be tracked, the appeals court preferred to draw the threads from Guede’s presentation of facts, [which he] delivered in a context outside the court, and anyway absolutely false (given that the accused declared himself to be uninvolved in the murder).

    The conclusions drawn appear even more jarring if one only considers that the heart‐rending scream was mentioned even by Amanda herself in her handwritten letter when the fact was not yet in the public domain. Not only this, but the reconstruction made by the Hellmann Court of Appeal is not even in line with the relevant post-mortem findings, which indicated a time of death range from 6.50 PM to 4.50 AM on 2 November, thus at a time around 11.00 to 11.30 PM according to the calculated average, so as the First Instance Court had argued, with greater adherence to the available evidence.

    Thus, the statement of reasons suffers from a grave lack of logic and from inconsistency with other available evidence also on this point, openly showing an obvious explanatory inadequacy to which the judge of remand will have to bring remedy.”

    So this SCC Panel Excoriates Hellmann/Zanetti’s biased and illogical reasoning wrt the scream,  constructively ordering the judge of remand “to bring remedy”.

    NENCINI stated on pages 117-118:

    “.....from her very first statements, Amanda Marie Knox provides the picture that, at some point during the attack, Meredith was screaming. Indeed, it was only because of the poor girl’s scream [102] that the defendant imagined “what might have happened”. This scream, so excruciating that it caused her to move her hands to her ears to block it out, is introduced in the written statement on the same morning at the offices of the Perugia police. Significantly, this is the scream that was clearly heard by the witnesses Nara Capezzali and Antonella Monacchia. It was so “excruciating” that Nara Capezzali was beside herself, something that she told the First Instance Court hearing on 27 March 2009, having previously only spoken about it to the police, about a year after that night of November 2007.”

    Thus does “the judge of remand” bring remedy, expressing no doubt that the scream Knox claims to have imagined “might have happened”, Certainly Did-Happen.

    It will be interesting to see Bruno’s take if his SCC Panel submits its Motivazione.


    This Knife was mentioned in Post #1, in which the use of at least 2 knives in Meredith’s murder was established.

    Massei Page 194:

    “Seven samples were taken from the exhibit [reperto] acquired by the Flying Squad of Perugia (i.e, Exhibit [reperto] 36) and consisting of a large knife, 31 centimetres long; on the handle, from the trace indicated as ‚trace A‛, the genetic profile of Amanda Knox was found and in a point on the blade, the genetic profile of the victim was found. All of the other samples gave negative results. “

    Here, calling this knife Exhibit 36, Massei reports that Meredith’s DNA was found on this knife (In spite of the fact, corroborated by Knox herself, that Meredith had never been in Sollecito’s flat), as well as Knox’s DNA.

    Massei Page 264:


    [282] On November 6, 2007, during the search carried out in the apartment in Perugia where Raffaele Sollecito lived, the 31cm-long knife was found.”

    Here, Massei refers-back to when and where this knife was found.

    Massei Pages 373-375:

    “Of Raffaele Sollecito’s habit of carrying a pocket knife, Corrado De Candia also made reference, recalling that the blade of Raffaele Sollecito’s pocket knife had a length around 6-7cm and a width of 1cm or less.

    In relation to the preceding (Raffaele Sollecito actively present at the scene of the murder, finding himself behind Meredith, pulling on the bra with violence, finally deciding to cut it), it must be affirmed that Raffaele Sollecito not only found himself at the scene of the murder and pursuing, with violence, the same objective as RudyGuede, but he is there with a well-sharpened knife (dangerous and thus capable of cutting a resistant material, such as that of a bra, [401] especially in the part that was cut, which may be seen in photos 117 and 119 in the second volume of photographic evidence) and having a blade probably around 4cm long, as De Martino and Binetti have referred to (the length of this, 4cm, appears more consonant with the type of pocket knife described, and Raffaele Sollecito’s habit of always carrying a pocket knife attached with a clip to his trousers, and therefore to be considered rather short and manageable, with respect to a blade of 6 or 7 cm, as indicated by Candia).

    Elements which lead one to consider that the 4cm in depth wound was inflicted by Raffaele Sollecito with the pocket knife that he was always carrying around with him, and was inflicted immediately after having cut the bra, while Rudy penetrated the unfortunate victim – who had been almost completely stripped naked – probably with his fingers because the biological trace on the vaginal swab did not present anything of a spermatic nature.

    That the knife used by Raffaele Sollecito on that occasion, according to what has been said, has not been found, is an irrelevant circumstance when it is a case of blade weapons [arma bianca] of easy availability and easy enough to conceal (cf. on this specific point, Cassation 30 June 2004, no 48349).

    This progression of violence, from advances to gripping, from which derive the numerous bruises, to ultimately injuring the girl with a knife, finds a possible explanation in the fact that Meredith, it must be held, continued to put up the resistance that she could (there are in fact no signs of yielding, of any acquiescence occurring and, as a matter of fact, the scream that Nara Capezzali and Maria Ilaria

    Dramis have declared to having heard confirm this behaviour of the young lady), and, to the end of completely subduing her, even to her will as well, probably, as an angry and almost punitive reaction against a girl continuing in this behaviour, there was the blow inflicted upon the neck producing the 4cm deep wound (corresponding to about the length of the blade described by Binetti and De Martino), a blow that, as observed above, is to be held to have been inflicted with the same pocket knife used to cut off the bra and therefore by the [402] same person who had sliced the bra itself and who had the use of this pocket knife, and this is Raffaele Sollecito.

    The very loud scream (as described by Maria Ilaria Dramis) of pain and, at this point, also of terror, made by Meredith and of which it was said, not causing any repentance among the attackers, but the final definitive progression of violence, and while her already-cut bra was being removed (the bra that, coming into contact with the part of the body that had begun to be covered in blood from the wound in the neck, itself became partially stained with blood), the hand of one of the attackers sealed Meredith’s mouth, so that she could not scream again, and another of her attackers struck her again on the neck, but on the left side because, probably, they were on the other side with respect to the person who had inflicted the 4cm deep wound, causing [in their turn] a lesion 8cm deep. Meredith tried to withdraw the part of her body that was once again and more deeply attainted but, held by the hand of whoever was holding her mouth shut and countered by the presence of the one who had caused the 4cm-deep wound, she ended up being driven back towards the knife that still remained in the wound itself, and occasioned a second incision on the epiglottis, as has been seen, almost as if it were [a case of] a second blow being inflicted upon her.

    This dynamic requires the presence of a second attacker, of a second knife. This Court holds that the second attacker is Amanda Knox and the second knife is Exhibit 36. The outcome of the genetic investigation with a quantity of DNA indicated as ‚too low‛ was placed under censure and doubts about reliability. Equally, the incompatibility of this knife with the wounds suffered by Meredith was affirmed.

    On these matters, the considerations already made must be recalled, which led this Court to evaluate the outcome of the genetic investigation as reliable, and this knife as absolutely compatible with the most serious wound. The inquiry elements allow, still, further observations.

    This knife, which attracted the attention of Inspector Finzi during the search in Raffaele Sollecito’s house such that it was taken, unlike the other knives that were in the same drawer, must have presented itself as different from the others, with [403] its own individuality with respect to the other knives present in the Corso Garibaldi house. The owner of this house, were this knife not to be found in the Corso Garibaldi house, would have been able to remember its presence and note the absence of this utensil, and this circumstance would have been able to constitute a trace, an investigative hypothesis upon which Raffaele Sollecito may have been called in to supply an explanation for. In relation to this, it is to be held that Amanda and Raffaele would have evaluated as opportune to carry the knife back to the house from which it had been removed, considering also that its cleaning (it was in fact found extremely clean, as has been noted) would have ensured the non-traceability of the wounds suffered by Meredith to it itself.”

    Massei here explains the sequence of events at the murder-scene, the knives used, who used them, the wounds inflicted, the scream, why there must have been at least one more attacker additional to Guede, and why it is Certain that 2 knives were used, one of which was Exhibit 36, and why the Court concludes the second attacker to be Amanda Knox and the killing-knife to be Exhibit 36.

    Massei also discusses the transport, cleaning and return of Exhibit 36 to Sollecito’s rented flat.

    The Hellmann-Annulling SCC Panel Pages 88-90:8

    “In the course of their investigation,  the appointed experts found a third trace on the blade of the knife taken from Sollecito’s flat (Exhibit 36), apart from the one attributed without objection to Knox and the one attributed with strong objections to the victim, right near the trace from which the DNA attributed to the victim was extracted. This [third]  trace was not submitted for genetic analysis due to a decision made unilaterally by one of the experts, Prof. Vecchiotti, without written authorisation from the Court, which had in fact precisely charged her with the task of attributing the DNA found on the knife and bra clasp,  because the previous traces] were deemed to be of insufficient quantity to yield a reliable result, being low copy number. Her decision was later approved by the [Hellmann Court of Appeal] on the assumption that the [new]  quantity was [also]  too small to permit the two amplifications needed to ensure reliability of the result (page 84 of the [appeal] judgment).

    Therefore,  [65]  when the Prosecutor General and the Counsel for the Civil Partiessubmitted a request to complete the analysis on the basis of the scientific explanation provided by Prof. Novelli,  a geneticist of undisputed repute recognized by the [appeal] court itself (page 79 statement of reasons),  regarding the availability of instrumentscapable of reliably analysing quantities even smaller than ten picograms in diagnostic fields (such as embryology) in which the need for certainty is no less important than in thecourts,  the Hellmann Court of Appeal refused on the assumption that the methods mentioned by Prof.  Novelli were “in an experimental phase”  (page 84),  thereby freely interpreting and misrepresenting the testimony of the professor,  who on the contrary mentioned the use of such techniques in diagnostic domains in which the certainty of the Presult is essential.

    All in all,  the modus operandi of the Hellmann Court of Appeal which,  unacceptably delegating its own function,  entrusted to the unquestioned evaluation of the expert the decision of whether or not to submit the new trace for analysis, is open to understandable and justified censure, considering that the test requested by the Court should have been done, lying as it did within the scope of the expert’s mission, subject to a discussion of the results if they were not deemed reliable.  In any case,  a member of the panel of experts could not assume responsibility for unilaterally narrowing the scope of the mission, which was to be carried out without hesitation or reservation, in full intellectual honesty, giving a complete account of the possible insufficiency of the material or unreliability of the result.

    All the more so as the repeat of the genetic tests was requested in 2011, four years after the initial tests; a lapse of time during which significant progress had been made in the instruments and techniques of analysis, as Prof. Novelli, a consultant to the Prosecutor General, stressed. Precisely on receiving the information from this consultant, who spoke of cutting‐edge techniques while under oath –  the Court fell into another gross misinterpretation, in a significant argument concerning the reliability of the results of the analyses made, by assuming the impossibility of repeating the tests even on traces found at a later time, thereby affecting the logic of the statement of reasons (Section I, 25.6.2007, n. 24667).

    The Hellmann Court of Appeal also completely ignored the authoritative points offered by Professor Torricelli,  who shed serious doubt on the fact that a very small quantity was found; she quantified the useful material in the new trace as 120 picograms (hearing of 6 September 2011, page 91 of transcript), which is sufficient to execute a double amplification,  and she opposed the methodology by which Prof. Vecchiotti reached the decision not to proceed, in a report obviously not endorsed by the Prosecutor General and the Civil Parties. The authoritative nature of the observations of the two consultants of the parties [66] would have required that the Court deal with their points, which irremediably conflicted with the assumptions of Prof. Vecchiotti,  whose points could indeed be accepted by the Court,  but only after evaluation of the opposing points, which were of equal scientific value.

    It must be concluded that when it rejected the request of the Prosecutor General and of the Counsel to the Civil Parties to complete the expert investigations by analysing the new traces found on the blade of the knife collected in Sollecito’s flat, as initially mandated to the experts ‐‐ a request that was supported by more than adequate scientific knowledge ‐‐ the Court made a flawed decision, by reason of its failure to comply with the relevant laws which mandate the safeguarding of all parties in their access to evidence (article 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code), especially in an area in which the expert report (as a means of seeking evidence)  was requested by the Defence,  and was arranged,  but was not completed regarding the new trace, even though it demanded a response more than any other.”

    The Panel Excoriates both Hellmann, and it’s appointed expert, Prof. Vecchiotti. The latter for not examining Exhibit 36 as ordered-to by Hellmann, and Hellmann for letting Vechiotti get away with her dis-obedience.

    Finally the Panel Criticised Hellman for “failure to comply with the relevant laws”.(Referring specifically to “laws which mandate the safeguarding of all parties in their access to evidence”)

    Nencini Pages 337-338 :

    “The Court believes that the other blade, the one that caused the wound on the left side of the neck from which most of the blood came out and that caused the death of Meredith Kercher was held by Amanda Marie Knox. It is the knife that was seized from the flat of Raffaele Sollecito by the State Police and labeled as Exhibit 36, on which it is now appropriate to make some considerations.The knife with the blade of 31cm was seized by the State Police from Raffaele Sollecito’s flatduring the first search performed there. [321]The State Police officer who physically took it from the cutlery drawer declared in testimonygiven during the First Instance trial that his attention was caught by this knife, and not others in the drawer, as it was much cleaner than the rest of the cutlery, so as to imagine that it had beencarefully and recently washed. This circumstance, which might appear to be an irrelevantpersonal perception, brought important conclusions to the trial. The Scientific Police analyzedBthe knife and found, on the blade, inside a series of streaks almost invisible to the naked eye, themixed DNA of two contributors: Meredith Kercher and Raffaele Sollecito [sic].[see Footnote 28 below]

    This evidence, strongly contested by the Defense, was analyzed by this Court in the section related to the genetic analyses and there is no reason to repeat those arguments. Surely it is an attribution that cannot be considered definite evidence, for the reasons reported above related to the failed repetition of the analysis of the trace, but it remains a strong piece of circumstantial evidence of the fact that this weapon is the second one used in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

    On the knife there was a second different trace with sufficient DNA for an analysis, carried out by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, who attributed this trace to the DNA of Amanda Marie Knox. This attribution was not challenged by the Defense and can be taken as conclusive evidence.

    Furthermore, after having ordered in this remand trial an analysis of the trace (I) extracted during the course of the expert analysis performed at the behest of the Judges of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia, the Carabinieri of R.I.S. [Reparto Investigazioni Scientifiche, Scientific Investigative Unit] of Rome highlighted DNA that could be analyzed and alsoattributed it to Amanda Marie Knox, without any particular challenge.

    [Footnote 28:This is certainly an oversight of the Court, as everywhere else in the report they mention the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the streaks, as is widely known. The DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on the knife is never mentioned anywhere else and is not part of the case documentationScientific Investigative Unit of Rome highlighted DNA that could be analyzed and also attributed it to Amanda Marie Knox, without any particular challenge.]

    Both traces attributed to Amanda Marie Knox were extracted from the handle of the knife, from the part closer to the blade.

    The evaluation of all the elements extracted from the seized knife leads this Court to believe that it is one of the two weapons used in the murder and that it was held by Amanda Marie Knox, who therefore struck Meredith Kercher on the left side of the neck, thus causing the only mortal wound. “

    Nencini rebuts the Defence arguments and concludes that Knox stabbed Meredith on the Left side of Meredith’s neck, using Knife Exhibit 36, causing Meredith’s death.

    Nencini Page 339:

    “...Whoever struck Meredith Kercher on the left side of the neck with a stab that penetrated 8cm (the entire length of the cut) caused violent and abundant bleeding, as shown by the quantity of blood that came out and the splashes of blood on the furniture, so as to hide completely the surface of entry of the blade, thus making [323] impossible the reintroduction of the weapon in the same cut where it was introduced with the first blow.

    It must be stated therefore that whoever struck Meredith Kercher on the left side of her neck did so only once, causing a devastating wound from which, pushed by arterial pressure, a great gush of blood came out, as shown by the splashes of blood on the furniture near the spot where the young woman was struck.

    Thus, it must be concluded that the weapon seized is not incompatible with the wound on the left side of Meredith Kercher’s neck, certainly a mortal wound, and that the finding of Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade of the knife is evidence fully compatible both with the nature of the weapon and with its use.”

    Nencini summarizes-finally its conclusions, rejecting Defence arguments that the Knife, Exhibit 36, is “incompatible” with the wound on the left side of Meredith Kercher’s neck, but is certainly “fully compatible both with the nature of the weapon and with its use.”

    Here is the Wiki Site opinion:


    Given there is no doubt that the profile discovered on the knife is Meredith Kercher’s profile and that both contamination and secondary transfer have been excluded the only possible conclusion is that the DNA got on the knife because it was used in the murder of Meredith. That Sollecito would so quickly fabricate a lie to explain why Meredith’s DNA would have been expected on the knife rather than protest that it is impossible just adds support to a position that needs no support. Sollecito’s knife was used to kill Meredith.”


    [Note the difference between Footprints/Soleprints and Shoeprints; this difference is crucial]

    Micheli post-trial interview 2008, according to the Guardian:

    “while footprints there might not definitely belong to Knox and Sollecito, they did indicate more than one attacker.”

    Excellent example of how Facts may not indicate “Who?”, but Do indicate, with Certainty, “How Many” (“more than one”)°

    Massei Pages 352-353 :

    “Professor Vinci stressed the value of some particularly individualising details of the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito, revealed by the said examination, consisting of: the fact that his second toe does not touch the ground (the so-called “hammer” position of the distal phalange) connected to a slight case of valgus on the right big toe, and the fact that the distal phalange of the big toe also does not touch the ground, (meaning that there is a distinct separation between the print of the ball of the foot and the print of the big toe in the footprint of the accused). Given these two features which make Sollecito’s foot morphologically distinctive, Professor Vinci’s study basically arrives at the assertion that, while the second toe of Raffaele Sollecito’s right foot is entirely absent from the footprints known to be made by him, on the contrary the footprint on the bathmat does contain the imprint of the second toe. [378] Professor Vinci reached these conclusions based on a close examination of the weave of the bathmat, and also by varying the colours of the footprint, as shown in the photograph album of the Scientific Police, so that via the use of different filtres it could be viewed in black and white or in a more intense red colour which emphasised the traces of blood.

    A morphological examination of the footprint alone led the professor to consider it as irreconcilable, due to its general shape and size, with the footprint taken directly from Sollecito’s right foot. Indeed, the consultant hypothesised that the measurement calculated by the Scientific Police of the width of the big toe of the bathmat footprint was to be reconsidered: he rejected the measurement of about 30mm in favour of a much smaller measurement of 24.8mm, which he obtained by detaching a mark of haematic substance which he did not consider to be a mark from the surface of the big toe, but from a separate body, namely the imprint of the second toe, which is totally absent from the print taken from Sollecito’s right foot.”

    In standard English-Language medical terminology, Sollecito’s Right Foot has a distinctive “Hammer Toe”.

    It is certain that None of the other suspects have this abnormality.

    This Fact is key to the Certainty that Sollecito was barefoot-at-the-crime-scene!

    Note missing 2nd toe-print on Sollecito’s Right Footprint:
    The Hellmann-Annulling SCC Panel Page 96-98:

    “13 – Analysis of footprints and other traces

    The criticisms expressed on the subject of the obvious lack of logic of the reasoning Oconcerning the evaluation of the genetic evidence are well‐founded.

    The [appeal]  court evaluated two technical consultancies on the footprint in the victim’s blood left by a bare foot on the bathmat of the small bathroom of the flat where the crime was committed, with [identification] capacity limited to negative comparisons. As a matter of evaluation,  this in itself is not subject to censure, however the court of second degree has again fallen into [the error of making] a statement in open contradiction with the available evidence, ending by attributing the contested footprint to Guede, by making an assumption contrary to all the evidence that “after having left a print on the pillow”, he slipped out of his right shoe “in the course of the violent aggressive manoeuvres to which he subjected Ms Kercher” and stained his foot with blood, which he supposedly then washed in the small bathroom, since if it had not happened this way, his right shoe would have also left some bloody traces in the corridor (compare page 100 of the statement of reasons).

    Not only is this assumption deeply implausible, considering that the print left by Guede on the pillow was made by his hand, which is easily explained by the dynamics of the event, but it is much harder to explain how he might have lost his Adidas sneaker, given a situation in which Guede, jointly with others, as stated in the verdict that convicted him, overpowered the young Englishwoman so as to immobilise her. Not only that, but the above assumption also clashes with the available evidence regarding the bloody shoe prints which indicate that he left the room where the crime was committed to proceed directly to the exit door of the flat.The fact that only the left shoe was stained does not that his right foot was unshod, since at most it proves that only his right (sic) shoe signify stepped in the pool of blood which formed due to the numerous wounds inflicted on the unfortunate victim, very probably with two knives.

    Just as deficient is the logic adopted in a further step of the statement of reasons, relating to the discovery of the presence of traces revealed by luminol (not visible to the naked eye), which yielded Knox’s profile and the mixed profiles of Knox and Kercher, found in Romanelliʹs room, in Knoxʹs room and in the corridor. These traces could not be attributedto footprints left on other occasions, as the appeal court implausibly accepted [them to be], since luminol reveals traces of blood and it is not really conceivable that Knoxʹs feet might have been stained with Kercherʹs blood on some other occasion.

    As pointed out by the party submitting the appeal,  no justification is given for the coincidence of the presence of Knoxʹs DNA in every trace mixed with the blood of the victim, whereas [71] the hypothesis formulated by the judgment of first degree is much more plausible: it emphasized the mixed nature of the traces (including those found in the small bathroom) which, via adequate inductive logic, led to the conclusion that with feet washed of the victimʹs blood but still bearing some residue, Knox went into her own room and Romanelliʹs room passing through the corridor during the staging operation as assumed in the initial reconstruction, which is based on the objective fact that only after midnight did the victim’s telephones stop connecting to the cell tower of via della Pergola and connect instead with the one on via Sperandio, where they were eventually found; this meant that only after midnight were they removed by unknown hands from the flat in via della Pergola.

    While according to the prosecution’s hypothesis, the mixed traces found in the small bathroom suggested a cleaning activity by Knox, who transferred the victim’s blood from the crime room to various points in the small bathroom (on the sink faucet, on the cotton swabs box, the toilet seat, the bidet, the light switch, the bathroom door) where the traces were collected, the Hellmann Court of Appeal entrenched itself behind a position of absolute certainty, without acknowledging what the First Instance Court had observed in disagreement with the defence arguments espoused by the Hellmann Court of Appeal, which decided, in essence, that if the two defendants had remained in the flat of via della Pergola to clean themselves up from the victim’s blood traces, thus functioning as vehicles carrying blood to the small bathroom,  then some trace of Sollecito would have been found, whereas in response to this objection the First Instance Court plausibly noted that Sollecito could have washed himself in the shower stall with an abundance of water, so as to eliminate traces, perhaps without even any rubbing, leaving to Knox the task of cleaning the sink and bidet with the traces of the victim’s blood.

    The alternative explanation offered in the first instance judgment to the Defence’s objections was not taken into consideration, and thus the Hellmann Court of Appeal fell into another error of reasoning, having neglected various circumstances which,  in the course of their analysis, they should have examined and if necessary refuted with more weighty arguments. As pointed out by the party submitting the appeal, no justification is given for the coincidence of the presence of Knoxʹs DNA in every trace mixed with the blood of the victim, whereas [71] the hypothesis formulated by the judgment of first degree is much more plausible:

    It emphasized the mixed nature of the traces (including those found in the small bathroom) which, via adequate inductive logic, led to the conclusion that with feet washed of the victimʹs blood but still bearing some residue, Knox went into her own room and Romanelliʹs room passing through the corridor during the staging operation as assumed in the initial reconstruction, which is based on the objective fact that only after midnight did the victim’s telephones stop connecting to the cell tower of via della Pergola and connect instead with the one on via Sperandio, where they were eventually found; this meant that only after midnight were they removed by unknown hands from the flat in via della Pergola.

    While according to the prosecution’s hypothesis, the mixed traces found in the small bathroom suggested a cleaning activity by Knox, who transferred the victim’s blood from the crime room to various points in the small bathroom (on the sink faucet, on the cotton swabs box, the toilet seat, the bidet, the light switch, the bathroom door) where the traces were collected, the Hellmann Court of Appeal entrenched itself behind a position of absolute certainty, without acknowledging what the First Instance Court had observed in disagreement with the defence arguments espoused by the Hellmann Court of Appeal, which decided, in essence, that if the two defendants had remained in the flat of via della Pergola to clean themselves up from the victim’s blood traces, thus functioning as vehicles carrying blood to the small bathroom, then some trace of Sollecito would have been found,

    Whereas in response to this objection the First Instance Court plausibly noted that Sollecito could have washed himself in the shower stall with an abundance of water, so as to eliminate traces, perhaps without even any rubbing, leaving to Knox the task of cleaning the sink and bidet with the in the moments immediately after the murdertraces of the victim’s blood.The alternative explanation offered in the first instance judgment to the Defence’s objections was not taken into consideration, and thus the Hellmann Court of Appeal fell into another error of reasoning, having neglected various circumstances which, in the course of their analysis, they should have examined and if necessary refuted with more weighty arguments.”

    Hellmann’s Annulment is here not only fully justified, but is essential to avoid a gross miscarriage of justice.

    Nencini Pages 328-329 :

    “We know with certainty that, on the evening of 1 November 2007, Rudy Hermann Guede was present inside the Via della Pergola cottage, not only because he said so and it is reported in thefinal verdict that convicted him, but also on the basis of investigations and analyses carried out by the State Police inside the cottage contained in the case file. We also know with certainty that Rudy Hermann Guede could remain inside [312] the flat with absolute ease… [for] considerable time, as he left his “traces” in the large bathroom [of the flat].

    We know with certainty, as this is shown by the evidence, that immediately after the homicide inside the Via della Pergola cottage three people were present, surely two men and a woman. This can be observed from the genetic investigations and the results of the traces highlighted using luminol. We can also say that one of the men who walked over Meredith’s blood left a very visible trace of his foot on a blue bathmat found inside the small bathroom of the flat. This footprint was attributed by investigators to the right bare foot of Raffaele Sollecito, with an analysis this Court finds correct on the basis of the considerations already made. One of the footprints detected using luminol was then attributed to a woman’s foot compatible, in size, to that of Amanda Marie Knox; in addition, mixed DNA traces found in the small bathroom of the flat (washbasin, bidet and cotton-swab box) were attributed to Amanda Marie Knox.

    We have, in substance, pieces of circumstantial evidence of certain reliability, multiple and concordant, that place Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox, and Raffaele Sollecito inside the Via della Pergola flat on the evening of the murder of Meredith Kercher, in the moments immediately after the murder, when the three left traces of their passage by depositing [marks in] the victim’s blood, abundantly released from wounds.”

    Emphasizing the Certainty of its knowledge regarding “traces”, blood, luminol, genetic investigations, DNA, and footprints, Nencini rules Guede, Knox, and Sollecito to have been at the crime-scene “in the moments immediately after the murder” of Meredith Kercher.

    4. Other Worries For Judge Marasca

    However far-fetched the Motivazione of this SCC Panel turns-out to be, it can hardly have-been unaware of the facts that Sollecito is scheduled to be back in a Lower-Court in Florence on 30th April, 2015, facing his first-set of charges in the Sollecito & Gumbel trial for diffamazione and vilipendio (slander of officials and of the system), nor that Knox is scheduled to be back in a Lower-Court in Florence on 9th June, 2015, facing her new, expanded-set of Calunnia charges.

    This series continues here.

    Posted on 04/30/15 at 02:38 PM by Cardiol MD. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (32)

    Monday, April 27, 2015

    Justice System Comparisons #3: Bail, Extradition, and More Crimes In Canadian Law

    Posted by Chimera

    First trial with camers in the court was back in 2000

    1. Overview Of My Multi-Part Series

    Italian justice has become very slanted toward the defendant, often at the considerable cost of the victim.

    Canadian justice does not do that as much. It tries harder than most systems, including the Italian, to be equally fair to both, to balance their interests to the maximum that is possible. So it makes for a good comparison.  Although, to be fair, it is still frequently criticised as ‘‘soft on crime’‘. 

    Part #1 can be read here and Part #2 can be read here. In a nutshell, what they said:

    -First degree murder falls under a number of categories.  In many cases, the police and prosecutors do not even have to prove intent.  Section 231 defines first and second degree murder, and under cc 231(5)(b) (sexual assault), cc 231(5)(c) (sexual assault with a weapon), 231(5)(d) (aggravated sexual assault), and cc 231(5)(e) (kidnapping and forcible confinement), the trio would face 1st degree for either one of those circumstances.  The penalty is an automatic life sentence, with no chance of parole for 25 years.  No spontaneous declarations for defendants, lying on the witness stand is not allowed, no automatic appeals.

    -There are a number of laws, including those enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure fair criminal proceedings.

    -Public Mischief (cc 140), is usually an indictable (felony) offence, and it is when someone falsely accuses another of committing a crime, does does something to divert attention from their own crime, or falsely reports someone has died.  Punishment can be up to 5 years.  In Italy, it is called ‘‘calunnia’‘.  It is something Knox has been convicted of, and others, including Sollecito, remain accused of.

    -Perjury (cc 131), is lying under oath, or in judicial proceedings, or falsely making sworn statements.  It is an indictable (felony) offence.  Punishment can be up 14 years in prison.  Unlike in Italy, defendants CANNOT do it at their own trials.  Knox, Edda Mellas, Sollecito, and Guede, could all have been charged.

    2. Some Background On The Case

    Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and (at the time Lumumba), were arrest November 6th, 2007, for the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher.  They went before Judge Claudia Matteini, who saw enough probable cause to detain the 3 of them.  Lumumba was cleared and released a few weeks later, and Rudy Guede implicated instead.  See this post.  Judge Matteini, even without complete information was able to see enough cause for concern to keep them detained.

    Knox and Sollecito tried to have the Italian Supreme Court (Cassation), overturn those decisions, but Italy’s High Court found that the decisions to keep AK and RS in prison, and away from house arrest.  Psychologically tested earlier, the results were disturbing enough to keep the paired detained until trial.  See here.  Also see here.

    In 2008, Judge Paolo Micheli presided over Rudy Guede’s ‘‘short form’’ trial.  Guede was found guilty, and given 30 years, the maximum allowed under the ‘‘short-form trial’’ rules Judge Micheli also ruled there was enough evidence to send Knox and Sollecito to trial, as Guede’s accomplices.  Guede was denied house arrest prior to trial, and has been in custody ever since his arrest in late November 2007, and was denied day release recently.

    The 2009 trial of Knox and Sollecito took almost the entire year of 2009, and was presided over by Judge Giancarlo Massei.  In December, the Massei Court found AK and RS guilty.  The pair received 24 years for murder with sexual violence, an additional year for staging a crime scene and transporting a knife, and Knox one more year for her false accusation of Patrick. The sentence was originally 30 years for murder, transport and staging, but 5 years were cut off for ‘‘mitigating factors’‘.  While AK and RS lawyers planned to appeal, the Court found no reason to let them out prior to the appeal.

    The unintended consequence of the 24 years for the murder (with sexual violence), is that Guede, who took the short form trial, ended up receiving 1/3 less than AK and RS, effectively cutting his sentence in half, from 30 years to 16.

    The appeal of AK and RS in 2011, before Judge Claudio Hellmann stunned Italy.  Hellmann acquitted the pair on appeal, despite the following:

    -He said in his ruling, the truth may very well be otherwise
    -His report only added confusion, it did not help clarify anything
    -Knox still had outstanding charges for falsely accusing police officers of assault
    -The appeal effectively was a new trial, but only with the defence presenting
    -He said Knox’s false accusation was due to duress, not malicious intent—and then INCREASED her calunnia sentence
    -The defence had cherry-picked a few pieces of evidence, but left huge amounts unchallenged
    -Rudy Guede was apparently a total liar, EXCEPT for the time of death

    Knox and Sollecito were released, and AK immediately returned to the U.S.  Sollecito stayed in Italy.  However, the Supreme Court annulled Hellmann’s ruling in March 2013. See here.

    A new appeal was to be held in Florence, the fall of 2013. 

    Knox refused to attend. 

    AK did, however, send an email to Appeal Court Judge Nencini, which repeats many of the false accusations. See here.

    She claimed, among other things, financial hardship, despite receiveing a $3.8 million book deal with HarperCollins. See here.

    Although refusing to return to Italy, AK has repeated tried to contact the Kercher family, and creepily demanded to visit Meredith’s grave.  RS has also admitted to trying to contact the Kerchers, and claimed he has visited the grave. 

    And Knox lets this bombshell out See here.

    Sollecito also received a book deal, from Simon and Schuster, and it also stunk of blood money, just like Knox’s. See here.

    Sollecito attended sporadically, visiting the Dominican Republic in between court dates, and apparently shopping for an American bride to help him get around extradition. See here.

    January 30th, 2014, the date Nencini confirmed the Massei conviction, RS was caught near the Austrian border.  He denies he was trying to flee, but still had his passport confiscated, and was barred from leaving Italy.  Judge Nencini was also not the least bit amused by the goings on of the FOA See here.

    And of course, the defence, in the spirit of fairness and sportsmanship, pulls this stunt:  See here.

    AK, on the other hand, hit the talk shows, fake-crying about how scared she is, and how she’ll remain a fugitive if necessary.

    3. Canadian Law on Bail

    Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms deals with criminal matters and procedures

    11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

      (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

      (b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

      (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

      (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

      (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

      (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

      (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

      (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and

      (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

    Marginal note:Treatment or punishment

    12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

    Marginal note:Self-crimination

    13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

    Marginal note:Interpreter

    14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

    Section 11(e) refers to the topic of bail, and states that reasonable bail should not be denied without just cause

    Actually getting to trial can take a long time. Depending on the nature of the offence(s) charged, it may or may not be in the public interest.  Canada actually has pretty strict requirements about how soon an accused must be brought for a bail review.

    In fact, the police don’t have to take the person into custody.  There is discretion to charge the person, and then release him/her on a promise to appear.  Here is a direct quote from cc 503(2), dealing with conditional release.

    Conditional release

    (2) If a peace officer or an officer in charge is satisfied that a person described in subsection (1) should be released from custody conditionally, the officer may, unless the person is detained in custody for an offence mentioned in section 522, release that person on the person’s giving a promise to appear or entering into a recognizance in accordance with paragraphs 498(1)(b) to (d) and subsection (2.1).

    Here is a quote from a practicing Toronto lawyer on why you would be denied bail.  See here.

    Why would I be denied bail?

    Detention is justified only if deemed necessary on one or more of the following grounds:

      to ensure that you attend court; e.g., if you have a history of failing to attend court or abide by other court orders

      to protect the public; e.g., you could be detained if you have a criminal record for similar offences; in the case of an assault or threatening charge, a history of violence against the same complainant works in favor of detention

      to maintain confidence in the administration of justice; the court will consider the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case, the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the potential for a lengthy jail term

    Normally, police or prosecutors have to justify why a person should remain locked up.  There are however, circumstances in which the accused has the ‘’‘reverse onus’‘.  In other words, circumstances which the person has to justify why he or she should be released.  These include circumstances like being released (while accused) of a similar offence, and certain gun, drug and gang offences.

    4. Contacting Victims or Their Families

    This is a quote directly from section cc 515(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code:


      (2.1) In addition to the conditions referred to in subsection (2), the peace officer or officer in charge may, in order to release the person, require the person to enter into an undertaking in Form 11.1 in which the person undertakes to do one or more of the following things:

          (a) to remain within a territorial jurisdiction specified in the undertaking;

          (b) to notify the peace officer or another person mentioned in the undertaking of any change in his or her address, employment or occupation;

          (c) to abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any victim, witness or other person identified in the undertaking, or from going to a place specified in the undertaking, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the undertaking;

          (d) to deposit the person’s passport with the peace officer or other person mentioned in the undertaking;

          (e) to abstain from possessing a firearm and to surrender any firearm in the possession of the person and any authorization, licence or registration certificate or other document enabling that person to acquire or possess a firearm;

          (f) to report at the times specified in the undertaking to a peace officer or other person designated in the undertaking;

          (g) to abstain from

          (i) the consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, or

          (ii) the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription; or

          (h) to comply with any other condition specified in the undertaking that the peace officer or officer in charge considers necessary to ensure the safety and security of any victim of or witness to the offence.

    Clause (c) specifically states to avoid communicating directly or indirectly with any victim or witness in the case.  This would obviously extend to avoid any contact with the Kercher family.  Also, it would include having friends and family attempt to contact a witness or victim.  This prohibition extends to telephone calls or emails, everything from asking for a private meeting, to asking to visit your alleged victim’s grave.  This would also seem to violate clause (h), which is to ensure the safety and security of any victim or witness.  There are reasons for this.

    1) To avoid any possible threats or intimidation, which would cause the integrity of the system to be questioned

    2) To avoid any type of underhanded tactic, such as appealing for mercy, underneath the court

    3) To promote fairness in the trial process.

    5. Harassing and Stalking of Victims

    This is a quote directly from section cc 264 of the Canadian Criminal Code:

    Criminal harassment

      264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

      Marginal note:Prohibited conduct

      (2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

          (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

          (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

          (c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

          (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

      Marginal note:Punishment

      (3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

          (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

          (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

      Marginal note:Factors to be considered

      (4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened

          (a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or

    Not only would it be a cc 215(2)2.1(c) of the criminal code, which refers to conduct while released on an undertaking, harassment and stalking themselves are serious crimes.  Note that cc 264(4) considers it to be an aggravating factor if this harassing occurred while the subject was under a court order not to contact the person anyway.  In any Canadian proceedings, defendants would be barred from contacting family members of the victim, as well as the actual victim.

    It is reasonable to assume that the Kerchers want nothing to do with Knox.  After all, this woman allegedly sexually assaulted and stabbed to death their daughter/sister, and then made a mockery of the court process, all while pretending to be the victim.  Yet Knox has repeatedly tried to make contact with them.

    A court sketch, common in media back in pre-camera days

    6. Contempt of Court

    This is a quote directly from section cc 708 of the Canadian Criminal Code:


      708. (1) A person who, being required by law to attend or remain in attendance for the purpose of giving evidence, fails, without lawful excuse, to attend or remain in attendance accordingly is guilty of contempt of court.

    Marginal note:Punishment

      (2) A court, judge, justice or provincial court judge may deal summarily with a person who is guilty of contempt of court under this section and that person is liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ninety days or to both, and may be ordered to pay the costs that are incident to the service of any process under this Part and to his detention, if any.

    Marginal note:Form

      (3) A conviction under this section may be in Form 38 and a warrant of committal in respect of a conviction under this section may be in Form 25.

    Knox refused to attend her 2013/2014 appeal in Florence, the one she keeps referring to as a ‘‘new trial’‘.  This would not be tolerated under Canadian law.  Her bail would have been forfeited, and she would have been arrested. 

    She would have remained in custody for the duration of the appeal.  And should the appeal have confirmed her guilt, she would most likely have remained in custody while it was being appealed further.

    Skipping out on your criminal proceedings without valid grounds is contempt.  Sollecito did it as well when he took a vacation in the Dominican Republic.  Not only is it disrespectful, but it shows a lack of maturity.

    Also note, from c.c. 515(2)2.1 of the Criminal Code—see section on harassing—these actions certainly would have violated clause (a), which is to remain in the jurisdiction while the proceedings are ongoing.

    7. Cashing in on the Notoriety of a Crime (Son of Sam laws)

    In September 2012, Simon & Schuster released Sollecito’s book, ‘‘Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back With Amanda Knox’‘.  In May 2013, HarperCollins released Knox’s book ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘. 

    What was particularly disturbing was that both Knox and Sollecito were still accused of murder when these books came out.  Knox was in the worse situation, as it came after the March 2013 Cassation ruling, which confirmed her calunnia against Patrick Lumumba, and annulled Judge Hellmann’s appeal acquittal.  However, since Cassation left the Massei trial verdict intact, their legal status was ‘‘guilty, pending further appeals’‘.

    Setting aside the sheer idiocy of releasing a book while still accused, it is still illegal to do.  Right now, Canadian provinces seem to be writing their own laws.  Here are 4 of them.

    This is from the website, Victimsofviolence.on.ca See here.

    The Province of Alberta: See here.

    The Province of Saskatchewan: See here.

    The Province of Ontario: See here.

    The Province of Nova Scotia:  See here.

    The provinces do have some small differences in the laws, but the point to be taken here is that you can’t cash in on the notoriety of your crime.  In America, this is referred to the ‘‘Son of Sam Laws’’ after serial killer David Berkowitz, who called himself the Son-of-Sam.

    8. Laundering the Proceeds of Crime

    This is a quote directly from section cc 462.31 of the Canadian Criminal Code:

    Laundering proceeds of crime

      462.31 (1) Every one commits an offence who uses, transfers the possession of, sends or delivers to any person or place, transports, transmits, alters, disposes of or otherwise deals with, in any manner and by any means, any property or any proceeds of any property with intent to conceal or convert that property or those proceeds, knowing or believing that all or a part of that property or of those proceeds was obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of

          (a) the commission in Canada of a designated offence; or

          (b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted a designated offence.

    Marginal note:Punishment

      (2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)

          (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

          (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Marginal note:Exception

      (3) A peace officer or a person acting under the direction of a peace officer is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the peace officer or person does any of the things mentioned in that subsection for the purposes of an investigation or otherwise in the execution of the peace officer’s duties.

    Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel wrote ‘‘Honor Bound’’ (although they now blame each other).  Amanda Knox wrote ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘, which was ghostwritten by Linda Kuhlman.  Knox claims that she used her $3.8 million advance (less the taxes), to pay her lawyers, and her family.

    The problem is that the books themselves are bloodmoney, cashing in on a crime they committed.  That is illegal to do.  The million dollar advances were (if Knox is truthful here), essentially converted into legal payments for her lawyers, and to her family.

    Unless Knox’s family really did spend a million or more to visit her, the money Amanda claims went to them could be seen as ‘‘gifts’’ or ways to hold onto such funds.  Even if the Knoxes/Mellas did spend that much money, Amanda is paying those debts off with illegally obtained money.

    Sollecito has not been nearly as open about where his book advance went (rumoured to be $950,000).  However, he would have the same legal issues facing him as Knox.

    9. Prostitution and Soliciting of Prostitution

    This is a quote directly from section cc 213 of the Canadian Criminal Code:

    Offences in Relation to Offering, Providing or Obtaining Sexual Services for Consideration

    Marginal note:Stopping or impeding traffic

    213. (1) Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, in a public place or in any place open to public view, for the purpose of offering, providing or obtaining sexual services for consideration,
    (a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle; or
    (b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place.
    (c) [Repealed, 2014, c. 25, s. 15]
    Marginal note:Communicating to provide sexual services for consideration

    (1.1) Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who communicates with any person — for the purpose of offering or providing sexual services for consideration  —  in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre.
    Definition of “public place”

    (2) In this section, “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.
    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 213; R.S., 1985, c. 51 (1st Supp.), s. 1; 2014, c. 25, s. 15.

    In Canada, the prostitution laws are constantly being challenged.  Due to lobbying efforts, the punishments are actually becoming much harsher for soliciting than for providing.

    Knox met Federico Martini (the man she calls ‘‘Cristiano’’ in her book), on a train in Italy.  She had been providing sex, and getting drugs, and it kept happening up to the night she was arrested.  It had been known for years in Italy, but only released to the American media in the summer of 2014.

    The thing is: this would actually be considered prostitution.  It doesn’t matter if he offered cash, or a bag of coke.  Martini, the client (a.k.a the John), was providing material goods in return for sex.  In Canada, legally speaking , Amanda Knox was prostituting herself (a.k.a. hooking).

    10. Fraud Over $5,000

    This is a quote directly from section cc 380 of the Canadian Criminal Code:


    380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
    (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
    (b) is guilty
    (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
    (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
    where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.

    Marginal note:Minimum punishment

    (1.1) When a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more offences referred to in subsection (1), the court that imposes the sentence shall impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceeds one million dollars.

    Knox wrote her book ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’’ for a reported $3.8 million.  Sollecito (or was it Gumbel?) wrote ‘‘Honor Bound’’ for a reported nearly $1 million.  Problem here, is that both of these book deals were obtained under false pretences.

    Due to the spike in publicity of white-collar crime, the Canadian government imposed a 2 year minimum jail term for fraud that exceeds one million dollars.  Considering that the books are fake, the payoff (at least for Knox), exceeds that amount, she would be facing at least 2 years for that.

    Also, I have no idea how much money Knox or Sollecito have raised via their websites, or Twitter accounts, or via PayPal.  But they could face additional charges of either fraud over $5,000, or fraud UNDER $5,000, which carries lower maximum.

    11. Carrying a Concealed Weapon

    This is a quote directly from section cc 88 of the Canadian Criminal Code:

    Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose

    88. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.
    Marginal note:Punishment

    (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
    (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
    (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    It was one of the charges Knox and Sollecito faced.  Guess what?  Can’t do it here either

    12. Fabricating Evidence

    This is a quote directly from section cc 137 of the Canadian Criminal Code:

    Fabricating evidence

    137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

      R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.

    Knox and Sollecito were alleged to have staged the crime scene at the house to make to look like someone had broken in through Filomena’s window, ransacked the place, killed Meredith during a bungled robbery, then fled.  The Courts (Micheli, Massei, Nencini, 2 Cassation panels), also believed that Knox and Sollecito had attempted—albeit unsuccessfully—to selectively clean the house, making it look like Rudy Guede was the sole killer. 

    Knox was a resident in the upstairs part of the house, and therefore had a reason to make it look like an outsider did it.  If there were no obvious signs of a burglar, the police would immediately zero in on the other 3 women who lived in the house.

    13. Jurors Speaking out During (or After) Criminal Proceedings

    Quoted directly from the Canadian Criminal Code:

    Disclosure of jury proceedings

    649. Every member of a jury, and every person providing technical, personal, interpretative or other support services to a juror with a physical disability, who, except for the purposes of

    (a) an investigation of an alleged offence under subsection 139(2) in relation to a juror, or
    (b) giving evidence in criminal proceedings in relation to such an offence,
    discloses any information relating to the proceedings of the jury when it was absent from the courtroom that was not subsequently disclosed in open court is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    The secrecy that jurors are sworn to survives even after the trial.  In the case of Ms. Ballerini talking to the media about the 2013/2014 Florence appeal just before the March 2015 Cassation ruling, it would not be allowed here either.  Financial need would not be considered an acceptable defence.

    While summary offences carry a maximum of 2 years in prison, in reality, jurors would not see the inside of a cell.  A fine and/or probation would be much more likely.

    14. Canadian Law on Extradition

    Amanda Knox has made it known publicly (and idiotically) that she will never return to Italy, even if it means remaining a fugitive.  She claimed that she skipped her last appeal out of fear of a wrongful conviction, even though she claimed she had faith in the Italian Courts.  Yes, she’s a hypocrite.  Well, Italy does request extradition of convicted criminals, which is what Knox is (pending confirmation by Cassation). 

    Amusingly, she claims again to have faith in the Supreme Court, while remaining in the U.S. out of fear.

    However, many countries extradite both suspected and convicted criminals.  Knox’s situation is even weaker, as she will not only be ‘‘convicted’‘, but will be ‘‘convicted, with all appeals exhausted.’’  Considering she has not attended court once since Hellmann released her (she missed Cassation 1, Nencini, Cassation 2), she is not likely to garner much sympathy.

    Canada both requests and complies with requests for extradition.

    There are a few exceptions however:

    (a) Canada generally refuses to extradite if they death penalty is sought

    (b) Canada generally refuses to extradite if the person faces inhumane treatment at home.

    Note: This article was originally submitted just prior to the Cassation hearing.  We will see what happens now.

    Note: Almost all options to block extradition are not available if the person has received a sentence of at least 6 months.  (This was 2 years, but recently lowered).  Knox’s 28.5 years is definitely above that threshold.  See section 3 of the Extradition Act, and note 3(3) in particular.

    Extraditable Conduct

    Marginal note:General principle

      3. (1) A person may be extradited from Canada in accordance with this Act and a relevant extradition agreement on the request of an extradition partner for the purpose of prosecuting the person or imposing a sentence on — or enforcing a sentence imposed on — the person if

          (a) subject to a relevant extradition agreement, the offence in respect of which the extradition is requested is punishable by the extradition partner, by imprisoning or otherwise depriving the person of their liberty for a maximum term of two years or more, or by a more severe punishment; and

          (b) the conduct of the person, had it occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence that is punishable in Canada,

            (i) in the case of a request based on a specific agreement, by imprisonment for a maximum term of five years or more, or by a more severe punishment, and

            (ii) in any other case, by imprisonment for a maximum term of two years or more, or by a more severe punishment, subject to a relevant extradition agreement.

    Marginal note:Conduct determinative

      (2) For greater certainty, it is not relevant whether the conduct referred to in subsection (1) is named, defined or characterized by the extradition partner in the same way as it is in Canada.

    Marginal note:Extradition of a person who has been sentenced

      (3) Subject to a relevant extradition agreement, the extradition of a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment or another deprivation of liberty may only be granted if the portion of the term remaining is at least six months long or a more severe punishment remains to be carried out.

    15. What Was Allowed In Italy But Would Not Be In Canada?

    Here is a section copied directly from the Law Society of Upper Canada’s website.  This is the regulatory body with licences and is able to remove lawyers in the province of Ontario.  It covers the relationship between lawyers and the administration of justice.

    [Amended – October 2014]

    5.1-2 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall not

    (a) abuse the process of the tribunal by instituting or prosecuting proceedings which, although legal in themselves, are clearly motivated by malice on the part of the client and are brought solely for the purpose of injuring the other party,

    (b) knowingly assist or permit the client to do anything that the lawyer considers to be dishonest or dishonourable,

    (c) appear before a judicial officer when the lawyer, the lawyer’s associates or the client have business or personal relationships with the officer that give rise to or might reasonably appear to give rise to pressure, influence, or inducement affecting the impartiality of the officer, unless all parties consent and it is in the interests of justice,

    (d) endeavour or allow anyone else to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to influence the decision or action of a tribunal or any of its officials in any case or matter by any means other than open persuasion as an advocate,

    (e) knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct,

    (f) knowingly misstate the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the substance of an argument, or the provisions of a statute or like authority,

    (g) knowingly assert as true a fact when its truth cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence or as a matter of which notice may be taken by the tribunal,

    (h) make suggestions to a witness recklessly or knowing them to be false;

    (i) deliberately refrain from informing the tribunal of any binding authority that the lawyer considers to be directly on point and that has not been mentioned by an opponent,

    (j) improperly dissuade a witness from giving evidence or advise a witness to be absent,

    (k) knowingly permit a witness or party to be presented in a false or misleading way or to impersonate another,

    (l) knowingly misrepresent the client’s position in the litigation or the issues to be determined in the litigation;

    (m) needlessly abuse, hector, or harass a witness,

    (n) when representing a complainant or potential complainant, attempt to gain a benefit for the complainant by threatening the laying of a criminal charge or by offering to seek or to procure the withdrawal of a criminal charge,

    (o) needlessly inconvenience a witness; or

    (p) appear before a court or tribunal while under the influence of alcohol or a drug. [Amended – October 2014]

    The problem here, is although there are rules of conduct, the rules of conduct also state that lawyers must take every avenue available to help out their clients.  So, it seems that the line between zealous advocacy and professional misconduct gets rather blurry.  While not necessarily criminal offences, these things would throw the law into disrespute, and could cause problems for lawyers.  Cases in point:

    i) After the Florence Appeals Court ruled against Knox and Sollecito in January 2014, defense lawyer Guilia Bongiorno tried to have Judge Nencini disciplined for making some rather innocuous remarks to reporters.  This was baseless and vindictive.  If you lose an appeal, you don’t maliciously try to take down the lead judge.  It is a clear violation of clause (a).

    ii) Judge Hellmann was installed as lead judge for Knox and Sollecito’s original first appeal.  Hellmann was a business judge, and the much more qualified Judge Chairi was forced off the case.  There was no legitimate reason for doing this—Hellmann was there as the result of ‘‘judge-shopping’‘.  He then proceeded to make a complete mess of that appeal, so much so that Cassation completely annulled it in March 2013.  Putting him on the bench in this case is a conflict of interest and violation of clause (c)

    iii) Judge Hellmann also went out of his way to twist and distort much of what the prosectors had presented in the 2009 trial, including witness testimony and evidence.  Few believe this was accidental.  If intentional, it would be violations of clause (d),allowing influence other than as an advocate; and clause (f), distorting evidence and testimony.

    iv) Judge Hellmann dragged out the appeal by holding it only a few times each month, which caused enormous burdens on both prosecutors, and the Kercher family.  Not only is this rude, it could be seen as a violation of clause (o).

    v) Knox’s lawyers, Luciano Ghirga and Carlos Dalla Vedova allowed Knox to make many accusations on the witness stand in June 2009. Among the most serious is Knox’s claim she was physically assualted November 5th/6th.  Ghirga himself had said publicly Knox wasn’t hit.  These lawyers also passed along Knox’s false email to Judge Nencini, and Vedova filed a bogus claim to the European Court of Human Rights.  This is knowingly letting Knox do dishonest things, and repeated violations of clause (b).

    vi) Knox and Sollecito’s defence has been shown to be relying many times on false facts and pretences.  Although lawyers are obligated to defend their clients, deep down they have to know that the defences they are making is true.  These are violations of clause (e), but are prime examples of duty to the court directly conflicting with duty to the clients.

    vii) Ted Simon, Knox’s now (absent) U.S. lawyer, has changed his tune.  He spoke out publicly in 2008 saying that there actually was a strong case against Knox (motive notwithstanding).  However, when he came on board, he ‘‘adjusted’’ his views, and now claims that there is no evidence, never was, and never will be.  Although not present at the trial or appeals, Simon has made claims that he himself knows to be false, violating clause (g).

    viii) Bob Barnett helped Knox land her book deal with HarperCollins, even though proceedings were still underway, knowing that Knox made false claims, knowing that Knox had been convicted of making false accusations, and knowing that Son-of-Sam laws prohibited such actions.  He helped Knox do something dishonourable, violating clause (b).  Or, if Mr. Barnett didn’t know, then he is far too incompetent to be a lawyer.

    While lawyers are obligated to advocate on behalf of their client, the line seems rather fuzzy as to what actually constitutes ‘‘advocacy’’ and what constitutes ‘‘misconduct’‘.  I believe the examples above are all professional misconduct.  They were done with the intention of helping AK/RS, but step far, FAR over the line.  While this is quoted from the Ontario site, other Provincial and Territorial Law Societies have very similar rules.

    16. Where This Series Is Headed Next:

    This concludes the part of Canadian laws that would have applied to Knox, Sollecito and Guede, had they committed the crime here.  #9, which Knox bragged about to her friends, wrote about in her book, and told to police, would be considered prostitution, when you realize she got drugs for it.  And #13 was added after the juror from the Florence appeal, Genny Ballerini, decided to talk to the media.  All of the crimes listed in the first 3 parts are all crimes under Italian law, even if they are called something different.  These 3 parts were kind of a Canada v.s. Italy perspective.

    The next pieces will cover other common law nations, and contrast their varying decisions.  Peter suggested giving an even wider context for crime and punishment across the globe.  The final piece will be some loose ends, and requests for content are encouraged.  If there is a topic I missed, or something that needs more depth, ask.

    Complete Listings

    1st post appears here:  An Overview.

    2nd post appears here:  Public Mischief and Perjury

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

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

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

    6th post coming soon:  Canada and our Family

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

    Posted on 04/27/15 at 09:13 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (4)

    Thursday, April 23, 2015

    The Knox Interrogation Hoax #18: The Final Pre-Trial Opportunities Which Knox Flunked

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    Image of Judge Micheli who presided over the hearings that remanded Knox to trial.

    1. Overview Of The Interrogation Hoax Series

    In Post #1 there’s a long summary of what various courts concluded in sentencing Knox for calunnia to three years. 

    All 17 posts prior to this one are linked-to there. The first twelve posts cover the key parts of the trial testimony and evidence from investigators for the events at Perugia’s central police station on 5-6 November 2007.

    The next six including this show how Knox failed to convince numerous magistrates at many hearings that she was ever interrogated or abused or made to lie. For the most part in fact she did not even try. 

    2. The Six Pre-Trial Opportunities Which Knox Flunked

    The previous five posts and this one cover the six hearings from late 2007 to late 2008, any one of which was a big opportunity for Knox. She could have been released if the evidence was weaker and the arguments of herself and her legal team stronger.

    Knox blew all six opportunities. The judges were Claudia Matteini, Massimo Ricciarelli and two others, Torquato Gemelli and four others, and Paolo Micheli (this post). A total of 10 judges, and Dr Mignini. After the first two, one of Knox’s lawyers walked off the job.

    Those ignorant of the reports of these hearings (all but one newly translated for this series with the Micheli to come) often demonize the prosecutor, Dr Mignini, as somehow taking a harder line than all those judges.


    Read all of the reports and in fact every one of those judges took a harder line than Dr Mignini who worked very hard to be fair. His early version of the attack on Meredith was of an almost accidental death with sexual humiliation in the course of a hazing.

    This went out the window, and all of the judges without exception adopted a harder position - that Knox’s anger had spiraled over Meredith’s difficulties with her, and a barbaric 15-minute torture-attack resulted in Meredith’s death which may have been premeditated in a timespan between minutes and days.

    Judge Matteini, Judge Ricciarelli, and Judge Micheli (see below) all flat-out warned that they considered RS and AK to be dangerous to others and that they needed to be kept locked up pending trial.  Judge Gemmelli and other Supreme Court judges endorsed this.

    Typically Knox was constrained by her lawyers to say little or nothing.

    They were already wrestling to try to wind back the three problematic statements she demanded to make on 5-6 November - mainly by changing the subject and aggressively attacking Guede. 

    She was allowed to be questioned by Judge Ricciarelli and she herself volunteered to be questioned by Dr Mignini three times, but her performances were shaky and erratic and once she seemed to break down in tears.

    There was little or no hint of the inflammatory claims which cost her three years which Knox came up with when she had to take the stand mid-2009 to try to defend her framing of Lumumba.

    3. Micheli Hearings September and October 2008

    This Sky News report describes how prior to the Micheli hearings Knox’s lawyers seemed pretty desperate to change the subject.

    Valter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile said they wanted Guede’s trial to be separate from that of Knox and Sollecito because they feared a pact against their client. Mr Biscotti added: “We feel the urgent need to have our trial heard independently of the other two suspects.

    In recent weeks a lot of poison has been spread by the defence teams and we feel the necessity to find some form of serenity in a separate hearing.  That’s why we have asked for a fast-track hearing just for our client and we want that hearing as quickly as possible.  At this hearing we will prove that our client has absolutely nothing to do with the tragic death of Meredith Kercher.”

    On 16 Sept 2008 Judge Micheli accepted the Guede team’s request for a fast-track trial and as the rules require moved all of the hearings behind closed doors.

    A fast-track proceeding is closed to the public, unlike a full trial. It will be held before the same judge, who is expected to issue the verdict at the time he decides whether to indict Knox and Sollecito. The rulings are expected next month.

    Judge Micheli had mountains of investigative reports and physical evidence to plow through. He heard witnesses in four hearings (with Meredith’s family present at several) on the DNA collection, on the character of Rudy Guede, and also on the three defendants acting menacing outside their house, which he heavily discounted.

    Late on 28 October Judge Micheli issued a 17-page ruling which includes almost no mention of Knox implicating Patrick. He convicted Guede of murder and sexual assault, and sentenced him to 30 years. He also ordered Knox and Sollecito to stand trial on charges of murder and sexual assault.

    As the UK Guardian and many other media reported, Judge Micheli assessed Knox and Sollecito as being dangerous. 

    The suspected killers of Meredith Kercher were refused transfer from jail to house arrest last night while awaiting trial for her murder, because of the danger that they might flee and kill again.

    After 12 hours’ deliberation in Perugia, the judge, Paolo Micheli, said there was a “concrete possibility” that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito would run off if freed from prison.

    In a written ruling to lawyers, he said he believed the murder of the British student was not premeditated, but the likely “absolute disregard” shown by Knox and Sollecito for the victim’s life meant they would be capable of murdering again….

    Turning down their request for house arrest yesterday, Micheli agreed with prosecutors that more than one person took part in the sexual assault and murder, dismissing claims that the 47 bruises and knife wounds on Kercher’s body could have been made by a single attacker.

    He upheld the testimony of a neighbour who heard more than one person fleeing Kercher’s house, adding that while footprints there might not definitely belong to Knox and Sollecito, they did indicate more than one attacker.

    He stood by forensic evidence indicating Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA on a knife found at Sollecito’s house which investigators suspect is the murder weapon, and ruled Sollecito’s DNA on Kercher’s bra strap as reliable evidence.

    On 30 October Judge Micheli was interviewed. No sign in this that any claim of unfairness to Knox was on his radar.

    4. Apparent False Claim Of A Statement By Knox

    Bearing in mind that these hearings were all behind closed doors, none of the Italian and English-language media reports including those of the New York Times make any mention at all of Knox testifying or answering questions. Nor do the books of Sollecito or John Follain.  We are still checking with Italy to make sure.

    To jump the gun on the series a bit, a probable non-statement by Knox morphed in Knox’s 2013 book into this heated claim below, which we have already been told, based on court transcripts and Judge Micheli’s immediate 17 page report, was definitely not what was said, if anything, in court.

    On October 28, the final day, I got to speak for myself. Since the judge understood English, I stood up without my interpreter and tried to explain what had happened during my interrogation. I told the judge that I hadn’t meant to name Patrick or to cause confusion but that the interrogation had been the most brutish, terrifying experience of my life. I’d been exhausted to begin with, and I had gotten so scared and confused that it was as though I went out of my mind. My interrogators told me that they had evidence I’d been at the villa, that Raffaele was no longer vouching for my whereabouts that night, that I had been through such a horrible trauma, I had amnesia. “I believed them! I’m innocent!” I cried.

    Posts #1 to #12 have shown that Knox experienced no “brutish, terrifying experience”. Trauma was inflicted only by Sollecito and then by Knox on herself. With high confidence, we can conclude that as so often in her book Knox was simply making this up. So much for Linda Kulman’s fact checking.

    5. The Micheli Sentencing Report Of January 2009

    Finally three months later Judge Micheli issued a sentencing report of about 100 pages. While it has still not been fully translated we did summarise it in four posts here.

    In the Italian original (which is equally firm to harsh on all three defendants) it is quite graphic about what the physical evidence says of the callous role of Knox and Sollecito in the torture-attack.

    Judge Micheli does note how often Knox and Sollecito help to destroy one another’s stories which numerous witnesses confirmed helped to spark Knox’s conniption and framing of Patrick.

    There is no mention at all of Knox taking exception to her “interrogation”.

    Tuesday, April 21, 2015

    The Certainties And Open Questions In The Amanda Knox Trial Starting In Florence On 9 June

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    Dr Giuliano Giambartolomei prosecutes in both the Sollecito and Knox trials

    1. A Bizarre Crime

    What Knox will soon be on trial for is one of the most bizarre crimes conceivable.

    If you followed all the links in the post directly below this (with more to come soon) you will see that the evidence is overwhelming that Knox maliciously and self-servingly invented the Interrogation Hoax of 5-6 November 2007 for very little likelihood of benefit and with massive damage done to good people and the proud image of Italy.

    So what does Knox do? Learn anything? No. She serves three years for framing Patrick - and comes right out of prison to repeat more or less the self-same crime but this time on steroids. Passages in her book and claims in interviews were almost hysterically insistent, and the email she sent to Judge Nencini in December 2013 even more-so. In that email she actually ranted on about torture.

    And dozens of others in the US picked up on the false claims and, as Steve Moore and John Douglas and Bruce Fischer did, heavily embellished them. What Knox was convicted for is still right there on a dozen YouTubes all “helpfully” uploaded by Bruce Fischer. 

    Some few in Italy might have been undecided a month ago whether Sollecito was really there when Meredith was murdered. But nobody at all in Italy likes the dangerous and inflammatory campaign Knox has spearheaded.

    This really could be Knox’s OJ Simpson moment. This time she could face as much as six years, and the US would seem to have zero grounds to resist extradition.

    And as Knox was finally confirmed as sentenced for calunnia to the detriment of Lumumba by Cassation in 2013, left unaffacted by Cassation in 2015, Knox can no longer make any claim to have been induced to do so by the police and prosecution.

    If she has a viable defense nobody, repeat nobody, right now seems able to imagine it. 

    2. The Certainties

    The trial will begin on 9 June in the Florence courthouse in front of Judge Anna Liguori.  The lead prosecutor will be Dr Giuliano Giambartolomei who is also the chief prosecutor in the Sollecito & Gumbel book trial which convenes next on 30 April.

    While charges in the Sollecito & Gumbel trial are for diffamazione and vilipendio (slander of officials and of the system) the anticipated charges in the Knox case are for the more serious crime of calunnia (for accusing justice officials of crimes in court).

    For a very good reason, diffamazione and vilipendio and especially calunnia are taken more seriously in Italy than equivalent contempts in some other systems.

    This is because of a long-running (if declining) tendency for “connected” defendants to try to take the justice system down a peg in the hope of an unfair break in trials they or their unsavory buddies are in the midst of.

    3. The Open Questions

    The Knox book and email to Judge Nencini and TV claims cannot be a part of a calunnia case but certainly can be used as evidence of Knox’s disingenuousness and malice. To what extent this will happen is not clear yet, but signs are a lot of online evidence on these lines is being captured.

    Nor is it clear yet who will represent Knox. Possibly Ghirga and Dalla Vedova, but they may not be the “best” team for her as they are credited in Knox’s book for its content and they handed over as a court document the inflammatory Knox email to Judge Nencini. (Remember, Sollecito is not being defended in his trial by Bongiorno or Maori.) 

    Nor is it clear yet what line Knox’s defense may take. It is quite out of the question that she again simply repeats the claims that already cost her three years signed off on twice by Cassation. If Sollecito seems seriously stuck for a defense, Knox seems even more-so.

    Nor is it clear yet if the defense team will make an immediate bid to Cassation for dismissal. The Fifth Chambers which overturned the murder conviction is already deeply entangled and under scrutiny, and judges there may already be wondering if they have committed career suicide to very little real benefit for anyone.

    Also it is not clear yet how this will impact the pending trial of Curt Knox and Edda Mellas for diffamazione for repeating as gospel Knox’s false claims to a British reporter, and we dont know how this will impact Oggi’s trial for enthusiastically publishing some of Knox’s false claims.

    It is not clear yet how the Knox PR (if it is still active) or the pro-Knox opportunists or the highly confused US media will handle this - but to repeat as gospel any of Knox’s claims could from now on be legally radioactive.

    it is not clear yet how the Obama Administration will (if at all) react to this. Whether there will again be covert intervention, or whether they will finally concede that Italy did get it right and crimes should be paid for and not given a free pass. 

    Finally, will Knox again be a no-show in Florence, as she was (against her lawyers best advice) at her own appeal? And if so, will she and her forces again falsely claim that she is being tried in absentia? That wouldnt win her points in Italy.

    4. Further Background

    Click here:   1. Could The Italian Authorities Be Starting A Wave Of Libel + Slander Investigations?

    Click here:   2. Interrogation Hoax: Knox Hearing On Calunnia Charges, Then Trial To Resume June 16

    Click here:   3. Calunnia Claims At The Core Of The Problem For Amanda Knox - And Her Parents

    Click here:   4. Knox Calunnia Hearing: Amanda Knox Enters Court Via The Underground Entrance

    Click here:   5. Another In Seeming Never-Ending Disasters For Hapless Knox Campaign

    Click here:   6. A Perugian Media Report (Neutral As Usual) In Italian On Knox’s Calunnia Hearing

    Click here:   7. Curt Knox And Edda Mellas Defamation Trial To Go Ahead On July 4

    Click here:   8. Umbria’s Chief Prosecutor Will Proceed Against Knox And Sollecito And Also Aviello

    Click here:   9. The Curt Knox And Edda Mellas Diffamazione Trial Will Resume In Perugia 30 March.

    Click here:   10. False Allegations Against Italian Officialdom Sparking Increasingly Tough Legal Reaction

    Click here:   11. An Overview From Italy #2: Current Perceptions In Italy, Sollecito Case, Mignini’s Full Vindication

    Click here:   12. With Diffamazione Complaint Against False Claims In Oggi Knox’s Legal Prospects Continue To Slide

    Click here:   13. Expected Calunnia And Diffamazione Trials Could Reverse Another Attempt To Take Justice Down A Peg

    Click here:   14. Questions For Knox: Did You Undergo An Illegal Interrogation By Mignini Or Did You Try To Frame Him?

    Click here:   15. Desperate Ghirga Urges Amanda Knox To Show At Florence Appeal, But She’s Created More Problems

    Click here:   16. Pushback Against Mafia Playbook Gathers Speed With Denial Of False Accusation of “Satanic Theory

    Click here:   17. Why It Will Be Republic Of Italy v Knox And Sollecito For The Myriad False Claims They Have Made

    Click here:   18. False Claims By Amanda Knox & The Book Team May End Up Costing $10 Million

    Posted on 04/21/15 at 08:16 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (15)

    Wednesday, April 15, 2015

    Dupe Watch: Professional Hoax Exposer Benjamin Radford Himself Gets Seriously Duped

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    Despite vast, easily accessible evidence to contrary, Radford regurgitates proven Knox lies

    1. Who Is Benjamin Radford?

    Benjamin Radford is the deputy editor of the popular Skeptical Inquirer which has very active Twitter and Facebook presences.

    In normal cool-minded mode, he is an effective and useful exposer of hoaxers and dupes and a good entertainer. He himself has seemed fairly impervious to hoaxes. From his website here are his career highlights.

    Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and a Research Fellow with the non-profit educational organization the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He has written over a thousand articles on a wide variety of topics, including urban legends, the paranormal, critical thinking, and media literacy.

    He is author of six books [including]: Hoaxes, Myths, and Manias: Why We Need Critical Thinking; and Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us; and The Martians Have Landed! A History of Media-Driven Panics and Hoaxes…

    Just our kind of guy, right? In this case, so badly needed. Such a huge opportunity for him. And yet…

    2. Radford Swallows The Interrogation Hoax

    A dozen deliberate PR-inspired hoaxes (there are also others) to the advantage of Knox and Sollecito are taken apart on TJMk under this right-column heading.

    Radford would seem to have very fertile territory there. But instead, Radford himself becomes the latest dupe of the Knox Interogation Hoax.

    Instead of actually doing any checking, Radford simply quotes one of Knox’s numerous dishonest and easily disprovable accounts which have already cost her three years in prison and the prospect of more court action ahead for her.

    This false statement appeared yesterday in an article by Radford on the Discovery Channel website titled NYC Murder Trial: The Problem With Confessions

    The Amanda Knox Confession

    False confessions can, of course, have serious consequences for the person who wrongly confesses, but can also pose a real threat to innocent people. That’s what happened in the case of Amanda Knox, the American woman arrested for the 2007 murder of student Meredith Kercher in Italy.

    After an extended interrogation Knox confessed to police that she was there during the time of the murder. She implicated not only herself but also Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar she worked at, saying she was present when Lumumba murdered Kercher and could hear her screams. Lumumba, however, was cleared weeks later when a university professor came forward to report that he was with Lumumba in his bar at the time of the murder.

    Knox later claimed that her confession had been false and coerced: “In regards to this ‘confession’ that I made last night, I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn’t remember a fact correctly…. it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers.”

    Based in part on that confession, Knox was found guilty in 2009 and sentenced to 26 years in prison. Appeals and retrials lasted years, and last month the Italian Supreme Court overturned the previous guilty verdicts, effectively ending the case.

    Confessions don’t need to be beaten or tortured out of a person; sometimes they can come after hours of psychological pressure and exhaustion. When someone is put under sustained pressure, they may tell their interrogator whatever they want to hear to make it stop, whether truthful or not.

    There was no “hours of psychological pressure and exhaustion”. Nor was there any confession - only a false accusation. In fact (see below) there was not even an interrogation.

    And the Supreme Court did not overturn all previous guilty verdicts. That court had no power to overturn the guilty sentence and the three years Knox served for lying about the interrogation, and for falsely blaming Lumumba.

    3. Hard Realities Of The Interrogation Hoax

    Based on numerous court transcripts (see Part 4 below) this is a TRUTHFUL account of what happened at Perugia’s central police station on 5-6 November 2007.

    This sequence led into her arrest and eventually to her three years in prison for calunnia, a sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court - a well-known fact which the avid researcher Benjamin Radford appears to have ignored, misunderstood, or been unaware of.

    Prior to the night of 5 November Knox, Sollecito and many others had sat voluntarily with police officers to help them to build a complete picture. None were suspects and none were put through interrogation.

    Knox’s claimed hours associated with this questioning included a lot of time spent waiting around - in Knox’s and Sollecito’s cases the hours mounted because they were conspicuoslu eager to be there. 

    Senior Inspector Rita Ficarra testified that she arrived back at the police station late on 5 November, and finds her way blocked by a cartwheeling Knox.

    She rebukes Knox, who testily responds that she is tired of the investigation. Rita Ficarra tells Knox to go home and get some sleep. Knox refuses.

    Shortly after, Ficarra suggests to Knox that if she really wants to help, she could add to the list of possible perps - men who Meredith knew and who might have visited the house.

    As the defenses acknowledge during their cross-examinations of key investigators present on the night, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation.

    Knox eagerly agrees. So they begin on the list.

    This goes slowly because of language problems, until an interpreter, Anna Donnino, arrives. In total Knox and four others (three of them women) are present. Knox builds a list of seven people and adds maps and phone numbers (in evidence) in a calm proceeding. These were the names: Peter Svizzero, Patrick, Ardak, Juve, Spiros, Shaki and “a South African [Guede]” who played basketball near the house.

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

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

    Suddenly, to the considerable surprise of all present, Knox has a yelling, head-clutching conniption (the first of several that night) when they observe a text she had denied sending, saying she would see that person later. Knox explains that it was Patrick, along with a torrent of accusations.

    Warned she should not do so without a lawyer, Knox insists on a recorded statement which says she headed out to meet Patrick that night after he texted and she accuses Patrick of killing Meredith.

    Knox is put on hold, given more refreshments, and made comfortable on some chairs so she might try to get some sleep.

    A second session ending at 5:45 is intended as merely a reading of Knox’s legal rights, with Dr Mignini presiding. No questions are asked.

    Having just been warned she should not do so without a lawyer present, Knox insists on a second recorded statement which also says she went out to meet Patrick that night and also accuses Patrick of killing Meredith.

    Just before noon, now under arrest and about to be taken to Capanne Prison, a third statement this time in English, and seemingly gleefully hands it to Rita Ficcara. She yet again accuses Patrick but also ponts some suspicion toward Sollecito.

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

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

    4. Trial Transcripts And Other Evidence Against Knox

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

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

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #3: More Defense Pussyfooting Toward Rita Ficcara, Key Witness

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #4: More Hard Realities Fron Rita Ficcara, More Nervousness From Defense

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

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #6: Sollecito Transcript & Actions Further Damage Knox Version

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #7: Testimony Of Witness Lorena Zugarini On The Knox Conniption 5-6 Nov

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #8: Testimony Of Interpreter Anna Donnino On Events Night Of 5 November

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #9: Officer Moscatelli’s Recap/Summary Session With Sollecito 5-6 Nov

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #10: Challenge To Readers: Spot The Two Landmines For Lawyers & Knox

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #11: Why Prosecution And Defenses Never Believed Knox’s Version

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #12: Proof Released That In 5-6 Nov Session Knox Worked On Names List

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #13: The First Two Pre-Trial Opportunities Which Knox Flunked

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #14: The Third Pre-Trial Opportunitty Which Knox Flunked

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #15: Dr Mignini’s Knowledge Of Knox “Interrogation” Explained To Media

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #16: The Fourth Pre-Trial Opportunity Which Knox Flunked

    Click here: The Knox Interrogation Hoax #17: Sollecito April 2008 Before Supreme Court Again Coldsholders Knox

    Posted on 04/15/15 at 08:37 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (37)

    Friday, April 10, 2015

    Those Pesky Certainties Cassation’s Fifth Chambers May Or May Not Convincingly Contend With #1

    Posted by Cardiol MD

    The Italian Supreme Court is in the background

    1. How Overload Can Overwhelm The Checks And Balances

    The Italian Supreme Court (SCC) has 396 Judges in Rome and elsewhere.

    Because of the enormous pro-defendant tilt in the system, the SCC hears about 80,000 appeals a year - more than all other Supreme Courts in the rest of Europe combined.

    The SCC operates in panels, typically of 5 justices; that scales to about 4 appeals/panel/workweek, or about 1 appeal/panel/workday. A huge workload impinging on carefulness and promoting distraction and exhaustion.

    Even with a law-clerk infrastructure, and the most ingenious exploitation of human concentrated-attention-span, highly questionable outcomes such as that for Meredith’s case would seem inevitable.

    The four SCC judges panels (2008, 2010, 2013, 2015) which have ruled on various issues arising as Meredith’s murder case inched its way through the Italian legal system have been composed of different judge-combinations, with different skills, different knowledge, different education, and different experiences.

    In many cases high-tech issues are an integral part of the evidence before the courts. This requires the enlistment of expert opinions because the judges may not be versant in the relevant high-tech issues. All sides, the defence, the prosecution, other interested parties, and even the judges, can cherry-pick experts for hire, who often use brazen sophistry to persuade the judges in the experts’ favour.

    These facts may help to explain if not justify the unexpected conclusion of this current SCC judges panel which is now drafting the Motivazione.

    2. Circumstantial Evidence And The Italian Requirement For Certainty

    Near the start of the 2015 SCC hearings Judge Bruno, one of the 5 members of the Marasca SCC-Panel, was quoted as having said that the trials had “not many certainties beyond the girl’s death and one definitely convicted.”

    As we await this particular Motivazione intended to explain its decision, we will review the Massei Motivazione, the Nencini Motivazione, and the several past SCC rulings to establish what do constitute the certainties - of which in fact as Italian law defines them there is actually a large number.

    In order to be classified as Circumstantial Evidence in Italian Law an evidentiary circumstance or fact must be true to the level of being a certainty. Note that this rule does not supersede BARD, it applies only to the the acceptance of individual items of evidence as circumstantial, so it can mislead and confuse authors and readers.

    As will be noted below, under this Italian requirement the unverifiable RS/AK broken water-pipe story can not be classified as pro-defense Circumstantial Evidence. Therefore it cannot legally be argued as corroboration of the excuses of Knox & Sollecito, including their mop claims.

    Sollecito’s father, Dr. Francesco Sollecito, did say that RS had mentioned the alleged-leak of Nov. 1st, 2007, in the father’s 221 seconds, 20:42:56 call of Nov.1st, 2007.  Hellmann/Zanetti bought into this story, discussing it in their Motivazione.

    AK is quoted by Nencini as referring to the alleged-leak in her testimony, but neither Galati nor the 2013 Hellmann/Zanetti-annulling SCC panel mentioned the alleged-leak. All seemed aware that there was no certainty.

    3. An Explanation Of Why This Will Matter So Much In Future

    In 2013 the SCC itself annulled most of the Hellmann-Zanetti verdict in part because there was an obvious parceling-out of the pieces of circumstantial evidence and a lack of assessment of each piece of circumstantial evidence. Hellmann-Zanetti had failed to check whether the possible flaws and lacks in the logical value of each single piece of evidence could be resolved by cross-checking them and taking in account the whole.

    Have the SCC judges themselves now made this same mistake? It is especially at this level that informed legal analysis in Italy of the pending SCC Motivazione will concentrate, future books on the case will concentrate, and the final degree of legitimacy will be established.

    Given the peculiarity that the case was not referred back down to Florence for adjustment, worries at this level especially could be driving the very obvious nervousness of all of the defense counsels, shushing and restraining their clients in the presumed hope that the SCC judges really can square the circle and achieve legitimacy.

    4. Certainties And Certainly-Nots In The Circumstantial Evidence

    1. Fracture Of Hyoid Bone?

    The SCC-Panel for Guede’s Sentencing (English Translation) wrote on Pages 4-5:

    c) The body presented a very large number of bruising and superficial wounds – around 43 counting those caused by her falling – some due to a pointed and cutting weapon, others to strong pressure: on the limbs, the mouth, the nose, the left cheek, and some superficial grazing on the lower neck, a wound on the left hand, several superficial knife wounds or defence wounds on the palm and thumb of the right hand, bruises on the right elbow and forearm, ecchymosis on the lower limbs, on the front and inside of the left thigh, on the middle part of the right leg, and a deep knife wound which completely cut through the upper right thyroid artery fracturing the hyoid bone, a wound which caused a great deal of bleeding from the vessels of both lungs.

    This caused a haemorrhagic shock and asphyxiation by the presence of blood in the respiratory passages, an exitus [decease] placed at around 23:00 of Nov. 1 by the forensic pathologist.

    The emphases are mine. The knife cut through the hyoid bone rather than fractured it (in the English version it should say that it severed the hyoid bone; this is a translation issue). A Certainly-Not then.

    The wound certainly did not cause any bleeding at all from the vessels of either lung; this is not a translation issue. This is a factual error in the original Italian Sentencing Report. A Certainly-Not then.

    (This shows how the SCC-Panel Reports are not infallible. Unfortunately the Marasca Panel will have to dredge-up some past, fallible SCC-Panel Reports in order to explain its own reasoning.)

    2. Two Knives?

    Massei Translation p377: “There must necessarily have been [405] two knives at the scene of the crime.”

    Certainly! There were 2 major, penetrating knife-wounds into Meredith’s neck; one entering on the left-side, and one entering on the right-side, which was made by a pocket-knife of the size Sollecito customarily carried. The latter wound could not have been made by whatever knife entered on the left-side. Therefore 2 knives were Certainly used.

    3. Single Blow?

    Massei Translation p 371 ”…a single blow was apparently halted by the jawbone…”

    Certainly Not.

    The statement that a blow could be “apparently halted” by Meredith’s jawbone is at best a figure of speech, and the quotes of Prof Cingolani on page 152 of the Massei Translation clearly indicate that any cause and effect inference from the phrase “apparently halted”, “did not…. have elements of certainty to establish” it was “stopped by the jawbone.” Prof Cingolani “did not, however, have elements of certainty to establish that the blade which had caused the wound 4 centimetres deep had stopped at the said depth because [it was] stopped by the jawbone.”

    Maybe there is a Judicial, translational, or typographical glitch and “by” the jawbone should have been “near” the jawbone. Skin is soft and bone is harder but there is no way that the knife striking the jawbone or hyoid bone would halt the knife in this case, they would just roll with the blow, depending on the angle of attack.

    Furthermore, contact between the knife and jawbone or hyoid bone would not mark the knife because living-bone is softer than the knife. When your pet gnaws on a non-living cow-bone, neither the bone nor your pet’s teeth can bend; both your pet’s teeth and the bone can be broken, and the bone gets scratches on it because it is still softer than the teeth, but your pet’s teeth do not get scratches on them, because they are harder even than the non-living bone.

    If someone is stabbed in the back with a kitchen carving knife, penetrating ribs on its way to the heart, the knife may have no scratches at all, nor show any signs of damage caused by that action. Any implication in the statement quoted above that stabbing Meredith’s neck with enough force to penetrate the layers of her neck and then strike bone would have the effect of signs of damage to the knife-blade, is a mistaken implication.

    It is an old rule of materials-physics that a softer substance cannot mark a harder substance. [To some people this may be counter to their intuition, so I have passed it by an eminent MIT physicist, and he agrees with me that the knife blade would certainly not show signs of damage caused by the stabbing in this case.]

    4. SMS Message?

    It is Certain that at 20:18:12 on Nov.1st, 2007 Amanda Knox’s mobile-phone received 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.

    Remember that mobile-phones are equivalent to convicts’ ankle-monitor bracelets, their use creates with Certainty a record of the Times of cell-phone activities, the Location of the corresponding transmitter-cell, and hence the general location of the mobile-phone, especially Ruling-Out particular Locations e.g. Proving whether the carrier of the phone was in or out of the range of their home transmitter-cell. Call Verbal-Content is not publicly available.

    Here the mobile-phone Record proves that Knox’s mobile-phone was Certainly-Not in Sollecito’s lodging-house at 20:18:12 on Nov.1st, 2007:

    At the time of reception, Knox’s phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house. Amanda Knox’s mobile phone, and therefore Knox herself, 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.

    Knox was therefore Certainly Not at Sollecito’s Corso Garibaldi Lodging at that time, contrary to the allegation that she was, and Knox Certainly-Could have been at her Cottage.

    5. SMS Reply?

    At 20.35.48 on Nov.1st, 2007, Amanda Knox Certainly sent an SMS in reply to Patrick, at No. 338-7195723; the message was sent when her on Nov.1st, 2007 mobile phone was in Corso Garibaldi 30 or in the immediate neighbourhood. The cell used, in fact, was that of Via Berardi sector 7 - no other [use] was shown for the day of 1.11.07, noting that Amanda declared during hearings that she had switched her mobile phone off once she had returned 323 to Raffaele’s house, claiming she was more than happy she did not have to go to work and could spend the evening with her boyfriend.

    (Knox may also have been LESS than happy that Lumumba preferred Meredith instead of Knox as an employee. This was perhaps humiliating enough to Knox for Knox to decide that the time to cut Meredith down-to-size was now.)

    6. Bomb Threat?

    Massei Translation page 25: On “the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything….”

    This call was Certainly received, the Police Certainly came to Mrs. Lana’s home, presumably not long after 10: pm on the evening of November 1, 2007 (Time & Duration of Police presence apparently not publicly-available).

    The Courts must know those times accurately and precisely; reasonably assuming them to be after Meredith’s murder, and near the time of the Phone-Dump (Otherwise, the necessary combination of coincidences is too implausible).

    It is most likely that the visible, and possibly audible, presence of Police triggered the panicked disposal of the Cell-Phones down the steep slope that falls sharply into the valley below.

    There is no need to invoke any awareness by the phone-dumper[s] of the reason(the hoax-call) that the Police were near Mrs. Lana’s residence.

    So if the killers saw flashing police-lights, or any other sign of police near Mrs. Lana’s place, that sign could be enough to explain panic phone-dumping - then and there (not considering whether the phones were switched-on or switched-off).

    According to John Follain the slope is heavily overgrown with trees and bushes, an ideal place to dispose of evidence. If the phones had fallen just a few yards further, they would certainly have gone over the edge of the cliff, down into a 50m gully, straight into a thick scrub of nettles, and probably been lost forever….

    7. Phone Dialings?

    There were four dialings on Meredith’s mobile phones after her arrival home on the evening of 1 November ‘07:

        i. 20:56 hours on 1 November 07, attempted call to Meredith’s mother’s home in England.

      ii. 21:58 hours on 1 November 07, attempted call to mobile phone’s answering service, voicemail ‘901’.

      iii. 22:00 hours on 1 November 07, dial to Meredith’s London bank ‘ABBEY’.

      iv. 22:13:29 hours (9 seconds) on 1 November 07, attempted internet connection. Connection consistent with being attempted from cottage, but inconsistent with being attempted from Mrs.Lana’s.

    These dialings are Certain with regard to Existence, Timings, and Location.

    Massei Translation, page 331, attributes the above 4 dialings to Meredith absent-mindedly playing with the mobile phone in her hand, and her phone may well have still been in her hand when her attackers surprised her.

    8. Phone Location?

    Was Meredith’s Phone still in the cottage at Via della Pergola at 22:13:29 hours on 1 November 07? Yes. Certainly.

    9. A Tow Truck?

    At about 22:30 hours Car broken-down nearby. Tow-Truck called-for.

    At about 23:00 hours Tow-Truck arrives to load car.

    At about 23:13 hours Tow-Truck leaves with loaded car.

    These events Certainly occurred, but those times are approximate.

    10. Francesco Called?

    @23:41:11 RS’s father attempts phone-call but makes no oral contact. Father leaves message which is not received until 06:02:59 on 2.11.07.

    This 23:41:11 call was attempted during the very time-frame of the attack on Meredith, her murder, and the flight of her killers with her mobile telephones. Meredith’s Phone[s] were removed from her cottage by about Midnight, less than 20 minutes after this attempted call.

    These phone calls are Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

    11. Phone Location?

    For 2.11.07 the first record is that of MKP - [0]0:10: 31, (i.e. Very early in the a.m. 10 minutes and 31 seconds after midnight) “when it has been established as an incontrovertible fact that Meredith’s English mobile phone was no longer in Via della Pergola, the mobile phone having received the contact under the coverage from Wind signal [cell] ..25622, which is incompatible with the cottage.”

    Was Meredith’s Phone still in the cottage at Via della Pergola at 00:10: 31, 2.11.07? No!

    Therefore Meredith’s English mobile phone had been removed from her cottage between 10.13.39 p.m. on 1.11.07 (more likely about 11.13 p.m.  when tow-truck departed) and 0:10:31 on 2:11:07; about 10 ½ minutes after midnight – say Meredith’s Phone[s] Removed By About Midnight, allowing for the time-elapse before being dumped near Mrs. Lana’s place. (Hellmann falsified this time-span on page 14 of his report, stating it to be more than 10 hours after midnight rather than about 10 ½ minutes after midnight.)

    12. Phones Stolen?

    At some time before Meredith’s attackers fled, they had seized her mobile telephones, probably near the beginning of the attack, having started their attack with a pre-emptive strike to intimidate Meredith, remove all hope, surround her, display knives, seal all possible escape-routes, and remove any possibility of phone-calling for help.

    Immediately after Meredith’s scream her attackers had silenced her with the fatal stabbing, and then fled immediately.

    They fled with her already-seized but still switched-on mobile telephones, probably without locking anything, including Meredith’s door.

    Their over-riding and 1st imperative was not-to-be-caught-at-the-crime-scene.

    See item 6. above.

    13. Crimescene Meddling?

    Having accomplished the Phone-Dump, Meredith’s killers next re-model the crime-scene, minimising the evidences of their identities, cleaning-up the evidences that it was ‘an inside job’, and simulating the appearances that it was ‘an outside job’.

    One should bear in mind that these killers should have still been overwhelmed by their having actually committed a crime beyond their wildest imaginings.

    Their panic impaired their thinking, and their ignorance, immaturity, inexperience, lack of technical resources and their arrogance precluded their selecting deceptions more effective against knowledgeable, experienced professional crime-investigators with a large fund of resources. They probably think that throwing the stone from inside Filomena’s room was a brilliant deception.

    They wish it had never happened.

    They wish they could make it unhappen (Hellmann/Zanetti got close to fulfilling this wish, but got themselves unhappened by Cassation)

    They wish they could prevent the discovery of Meredith’s murder.

    They cannot prevent the discovery of Meredith’s murder.

    They may be able to postpone its discovery, but not longer than the inevitable return of the cottage-mates, later that day.

    They believe that the person who ‘discovers’ a murder may become 1st-suspect.

    They may be able to manouevre others-than-themselves into being the ones that make the discovery – quite a wily aim.

    It is beyond reasonable doubt that:

    Meredith’s killers seized her mobile telephones, and that

    Her killers did not switch-off these mobile telephones, and that.

    Her killers threw the telephones into an apparent ravine, landing in Mrs.Lana’s garden, and that

    This phone-dump was accomplished before 00:10: 31, 2.11.07, and that

    Amanda Knox caused:

      i. the English phone to ring at 12:07:12 (16 seconds) and be discovered by Mrs.Lana’s daughter only because it rang , and

      ii. the other phone, registered to Filomena Romanelli, to ring, very briefly, at 12:11:02 (3 seconds) and,

      iii. the English phone to ring again, also very briefly, at 12:11:54 (4 seconds), after being brought into Mrs.Lana’s house. 6. Sollecito had more than 5 days, from about 11.30 pm on November 1st, 2007 until November 6, 2007, to remove from the killing-knife the traces of Meredith’s DNA.

    In the opinion of the Court of Assizes (Massei Translation p.325), Amanda Knox’s call to Meredith’s phone was

    ...the first indispensible step before putting the [348] planned staging into action. The lack of a reply, since the poor girl was obviously already dead, gave a reason for reassurance about the fact that the young woman’s phone had not somehow been retrieved, [and] was therefore safe in the spot where it had been thrown, which, according to the expectations [in the minds] of the murderers was a precipice or some other inaccessible spot, rather than in the garden of a villa located barely outside the city, where the vegetation concealed it from view.

    Knox may well have expected that she was safe from phone-discovery, but these calls turned out to be the very instrument of a phone-discovery.

    Had Knox not made these obfuscatory stabs, in the time-frame she made them Meredith’s phone would not have rung when it did ring and would therefore not have been discovered by Mrs. Lana’s daughter when she did discover it.

    14. Phone Switched On?

    For the day of 2.11.07, when Meredith was already dead, the traffic registered for the Vodafone number was shown to be the following:

    00:10:31; duration and caller unspecified, but Wind signal [cell] incompatible with cottage, but compatible with Mrs. Lana’s place.

    Therefore, Meredith’s mobile cell-phone had already been taken away from the cottage by her killers. It is not possible to determine from this phone-record whether the phone was switched on or off, but this phone was discovered at Mrs. Lana’s place because it was ringing, and therefore was “on”.

    12:11:02 (duration of 3 seconds): Knox’s phone call reached the phone and was diverted to the answering service. The Vodafone cell used by Meredith’s service provider was situated in Strada Vicinale S. Maria della Collina sector 1.

    12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made by Knox’s phone towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)

    Three more phone-calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

    15. Francesco SMS Received?

    At 06:02:59 Raffaele Sollecito received the SMS from his father allegedly wishing Raffaelle a good night; from the evidence of the mobile phone record printouts of Dr. Francesco Sollecito, it was shown that the sending of the message occurred at, as has been said, 23:41:11 of 1.11.07. This was the last SMS sent from that mobile phone during the whole day of 1.11.07

    3+ Hours after receiving his father’s message from 23:41:11 of 1.11.07:

    At 09:24 Raffaele Sollecito received a phone call from his father lasting 248 seconds]

    At this time RS’s consiousness would be dominated by his guilty knowledge, and probably far-advanced in the accomplishment of the 3rd imperative.

    Did RS and father spend 4+ minutes discussing the weather?

    This is the first father/son opportunity to formulate the two-pronged water-leak story.

    Although AK had already been to the hardware store 2 hours before, they may well not have known the potential DNA problems with the knife, the need to scrub it vigorously, to clean-out, and repair the drain-pipes under the sink, and the need to return the knife to RS’s kitchen drawer.

    As it turned-out, Sollecito had more than 5 days, from about 11.30 pm on November 1st, 2007 until November 6, 2007, to remove from the killing-knife the traces of Meredith’s DNA.

    They probably did not know that incriminating stains could be invisible, but can be revealed by Luminol.

    16. Francesco Calls Received?

    At 09:29 another call was received lasting 38 seconds

    At 09:30 (duration unspecified?) the father called Raffaele; the call connected to the Vial Belardi sector 7 cell.(the best server cell for Corso Garibaldi 30).]

    These two calls, Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations, were probably spent dotting ‘i’s, crossing ‘t’s, and exchanging options, such as enlisting sister Vanessa’s skills and contacts.

    17. More Calls Later?

    Another 2+ Hours later:

    At 12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number 00447841131571belonging to Meredith Kercher. The mobile phone connects to the cell at [346] Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (the signal from this cell is picked up at Sollecito’s house)

    At 12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347-1073006; the mobile phone connects to the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell (which covers Sollecito’s house)

    Discovery will be inevitable when Filomena eventually arrives-back at the cottage.

    AK/RS have accepted that they have to ‘stand-pat’ with their efforts so-far to accomplish not-to-be-the-“discoverers”-of-Meredith’s-body.

    Amanda did not say a word in this phone-call to Filomena about Amanda’s phone call to Meredith, thereby withholding information that should have led Amanda to initiate discovery of Meredith’s body, and help Amanda to manouevre someone other than Amanda into being the one who ‘discovers’ Meredith’s body.

    At 12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-4673711 belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (cell used: Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector3)

    18. Yet More Calls?

    For the day of 2.11.07, when Meredith was already dead, the traffic registered for the Vodafone number was shown to be the following 5 calls, Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations:

      i. 12:11:02 (duration of 3 seconds): Amanda’s phone call reached the phone and was diverted to the answering service. The Vodafone cell used by Meredith’s service provider was situated in Strada Vicinale S. Maria della Collina sector 1.

      ii. 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)

      iii. 12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox (No. 348-4673590); Amanda receives the call connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (still at Raffaele’s house)

      iv. 12:20:44 (lasting 65 seconds) Romanelli F. calls Amanda, who receives the call connecting to the cell in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (good for Corso Garibaldi 30)

      v. 12:34:56 (48 seconds): Filomena calls Amanda who receives it from the cottage on Via della Pergola 7 (the cell used is that on Piazza Lupattelli sector 7. As mentioned, Raffaele also used the same cell when he called the service centre at 12:35 hours to recharge [the credit of] his mobile phone)
    19. RS Phone Location?

    At 12:35: Raffaele’s mobile phone contacted a service centre for a phone [credit] recharge (the cell used was that of Piazza Lupattelli sector 7, which gives coverage to the little house on Via della Pergola 7. The signal in question does not reach Corso Garibaldi 30, which instead is served by the signal from Piazza Lupattelli sector 8)

    At 12:38: Vodafone sent R.Sollecito a message of confirmation of phone [credit] recharge (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell, good for Via della Pergola 7)

    At 12:40: incoming call from RS’s father’s mobile phone (lasting 67 seconds; connection through Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell, compatible with the Sollecito’s presence near the little house)]

    At 12:47:23 (duration of 88 seconds): Amanda calls the American (USA) number 00120069326457, using the cell on Piazza Lupatetlli sector 7; the phone call takes place prior to the one which, at 12.51.40, Raffaele Sollecito will make to ‚112?, connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1, which gives coverage to Via della Pergola 7]

    In “Waiting To Be Heard” Knox can hardly deny having made this 1st call, acknowledges making the call, and purports, now, to recall its substance, providing the reader with her version of what was said.

    At 13:24:18 (duration of 162 seconds): Amanda calls the same American number which corresponds to the home of her mother, Mrs Edda Mellas, using the same cell. It is obvious that the young woman is inside the cottage, where by this point, several minutes earlier, the Postal Police had shown up, [347] represented by Inspector Battistelli and Assistant Marzi, who were engaged in the task of tracking down Filomena Romanelli, who was the owner of the Vodafone phonecard contained in the mobile phone found earlier in the garden of the villa on Via Sperandio]

    In “Waiting To Be Heard” Knox can hardly deny having made this 2nd call either, she acknowledges making the call, and provides the reader with her current version of what was said.

    20. More Phone Locations?

    At 12:50:34 outgoing call directed at mobile phone 347-1323774 belonging to Vanessa Sollecito, sister of the defendant; duration 39 seconds. Connection to Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell 320

    At 12:51:40 Raffaele Sollecito called ‚112? to inform the Carabinieri of the presumed theft in Romanelli’s room (duration 169 seconds; connection to Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1 cell, which covers Via della Pergola 7)

    At 12:54: a second call by Raffaele to ‚112? (57 sec.; connection to Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell)

    Three more Sollecito calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

    21. More Phone Locations?

    At 13:17:10 (lasting 1 second) to Meredith’s phone: the cell used was located in the same place, sector 7

    At 13:27:32 (duration of 26 seconds): Amanda calls the American number 0012069319350, still using the cell at Piazza Lupattelli sector 7.

    At 13:29:00 (duration of 296 seconds) Amanda receives [a call] from No. 075/54247561 (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell)

    Three more Knox calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

    22. Another Phone Location?

    At 13:40:12: incoming call from his father to RS (94 sec.; Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1 cell)

    Another Sollecito call Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

    23. More Knox Calls?

    At 13:48:33 (1 second): this is an attempted call to AK’s mother’s number

    At 13:58:33 (1 second): this is an attempted call to her mother’s number

    The above item is a faithful translation from the Massei Motivazione section on Amanda Knox’s mobile phone traffic, but is listed out-of-time-sequence; the assigned-time is probably a ‘typo’ – “13:48:33” is much more likely correct.

    Two more Knox calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

    24. Francesco Call?

    14:33: Sollecito’s father called Sollecito for 21 seconds (as above)]

    Do RS and father exchange more caveats in their call Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations?

    25. More Knox Locations?

    At 14:46:14 (102 seconds) Amanda receives a call from the German number 494154794034, most likely belonging to her aunt Doroty Craft

    Call to Meredith’s phone at 15:13:43 (5 seconds) cell not indicated.

    At 15:31:51 (1 second): Knox receives an SMS sent from the number 389/1531078; at this point the cell being used is the one on Via Cappuccinelli 5/A sector 2, where the Questura [police headquarters] is located.

    Two more Knox-related calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

    In the hours that followed the [mobile phone record] printouts show that the answering service of Amanda’s number 348-4673590 was activated due to a lack of signal coverage.

    Massei Translation p.324:

    Finally, the analyses of the [phone record] printouts highlight that the first phone call made by Amanda on the day of 2 November was to Meredith Kercher’s English number.

    The American student called her English flatmate even before contacting Romanelli Filomena to whom she intended to express, as she testified in court, her fears about the strange things she had seen in the cottage, which she had returned to at about 11 o’clock in order to shower in preparation for the excursion to Gubbio which she and Raffaele had planned.

    It is strange that Amanda did not say a word to Filomena about the phone call to their flatmate, when the call, not having been answered, would normally have caused anxiety and posed some questions as to why Meredith did not answer the phone at such an advanced hour of the day.

    26. Sollecito Locations?

    At 17:01: RS’s father called RS for 164 seconds; cell used is that of Via Cappucinelli 5/A sector 2, corresponding to the location of the Perugia Police Station

    At 17:42: RS’s father called RS for 97 seconds (as above).

    With regard to Raffaele Sollecito’s landline home phone (No. 075-9660789)

    The above 2 calls presumably covered final agreements on the Father/son stories.

    For the entire day of 1 November and then of 2 November, Raffaele Sollecito’s fixed line was not affected by any calls, either incoming or outgoing.

    This series continues here.

    Wednesday, April 08, 2015

    In Big Complication For Cassation Guede Demands New Trial To Prove He Was Not “Accomplice Of Myself”

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    Above: Rudy Guede’s smart lead lawyer Walter Biscotti on another high profile case

    The Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court was the one that allowed Knox and Sollecito to walk free.

    Sooner or later they must explain. Initial statements of their reasons has many Italian justice officials in strong disbelief.

    If there were evidence problems (and we know of next to none and hundreds of evidence points suggesting guilt) the Florence appeal court was the correct court to put them to bed.  Cassation has no legal mandate for that.

    It gets worse. Somehow the Fifth Chambers has to explain why the First Chambers ruled the other way on some very key points in 2010 and 2013 and why it confirmed Knox’s sentence for the felony of calunnia with no further possibility of appeal.

    It gets worse. The five judges would seem to have to come down for either the highly discredited Lone Wolf Theory or for two other “missing killers” (for which there is zero evidence) to have attacked Meredith. 

    From 2007 to 2015 two defense teams tried very hard but without conviction or success to do both of those things - even though Guede and his defense had no way to answer back as they were not even in court.

    Those same two teams tiptoed away from much of the pesky evidence against all three which they were simply powerless to explain.

    So Guede’s demand for a new trial reported today could not be timed worse from the Fifth Chambers judges’ point of view.

    Chances are that this request will be ruled on by another Chambers of Cassation. It might take some time but they might have no compunction (especially if they are the First Chambers) about hanging the increasingly embattled Fifth Chambers out to dry.

    No way Guede’s conviction ever gets reversed. He knows that. We all know that. The evidence is way too strong. But Guede could really rub it in that he was not the initiator of the 15-minute attack and could certainly not have done it alone. That he had no motive at all. That he was not a drug dealer or a burglar - no evidence for either exists.

    That he was not the one who had a reason to clean up the house as his own trial ruled. And that he did not wield the final blow.


    Added to the top post on Thursday, and amended Friday.

    It looked briefly like his lawyers contradicted Guede. But legally Guede is the one with much at stake and gets to call the final shots.

    And Biscotti merely added that while he didn’t know exactly what Rudy said, his words should not be considered as a public statement, he did not intend for them to go public.

    Of course, Biscotti would want to keep their powder dry, and keep Guede out of harms way, and keep all possible options open in Cassation.

    Smart legal, safety and financial tactics.

    Posted on 04/08/15 at 08:44 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in The former defendantsRudy GuedeOfficially involvedSupreme CourtCrime hypothesesVarious scenariosAppeals 2009-2015Guede appealsMeredith-case hoaxesThe Guede hoax
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (23)

    Monday, April 06, 2015

    Columbia University Journalism School Blasts Fabricated Story - But What Of Hundreds In Our Case?

    Posted by Peter Quennell

    1. The Damage From False Media Reports

    Once a false meme is put out there it can do immense harm and be almost impossible to turn around.

    Public relations houses try to propagate memes, and if they are false that is sleazy and unethical but usually does not contravene criminal law.

    But serious media spreading such memes have a very strong moral mandate and at times a legal mandate to check, double-check, and check again.

    Often the real damage extends way beyond immediate victims and witnesses and families and friends. It can chill and distort right across law enforcement and the justice system and deeply affect paranoia-prone minds.

    2. The Rolling Stone Article Report

    What was misreported in the fortnightly Rolling Stone is described chronologically today by Rolling Stone itself here.

    Essentially, an experienced reporter with a valid story did not go the extra mile to check if her highly inflammatory flagship claim was true.

    There seems no question now that it was not.

    The first report that the story did not smell right was posted by a respected reporter here. A week later, the Washington Post reported serious discrepancies here and here.

    A few days later Rolling Stone itself cautiously began to ‘fess up. The story was indeed untrue. Neither the reporter nor the editor had checked, double-checked, and checked again.

    Its owner Jann Renner contracted with the Columbia University Graduate Journalism School to publish an in-depth report.  The supposed victim was increasingly contradicted by her own friends and shown to have changed stories a lot. On 23 March local police reported that their investigation turned up no sign of a crime.

    Yesterday the journalism school published their conclusions on “What Went Wrong” and they will make available and summarise the full version of their report on April 8th.

    Damage has rippled on and on not least to women who have a huge interest in being taken seriously when they have a complaint.

    The University of Virgina is in full damage control mode (that campus is about one hour’s drive southwest of Washington). Who could now be charged or sued is discussed here in the Washington Post. Many reputations have come out looking worse.

    3. Relevance To Meredith’s Case?

    On 27 June 2011 (right in the middle of the Hellmann appeal) Rolling Stone published one of the least accurate and most damaging and defamatory of literally hundreds of inaccurate reports.

    Nathaniel Rich reported only in English, of course, from safely across the Atlantic, and there was zero due diligence by the editor at Rolling Stone (the same editor as today). His false claims were very widely quoted elsewhere. See here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

    Rolling Stone inflamed public opinion through false claims.  It added to the perception that an extradition battle could drop two governments in the soup. That may have impacted the Supreme Court.

    Yes, this case of mass misreporting seems every bit as bad. 

    Posted on 04/06/15 at 10:59 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Reporting on the caseV bad reportingThe wider contextsAmerican context
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (10)

    Thursday, April 02, 2015

    The Psychology Of The Human Race Puts Us On A Rising Curve Toward True Justice For All

    Posted by SeekingUnderstanding

    Above and below: more and more people worldwide are on the march to make justice for victims work

    1. The “Just-World” Is Built

    When we were children, we listened to fairy tales. Most cultures have a library of myths.

    They frequently had ‘happy ever after’ endings, where everything worked out well, after many scares, struggles and deep sorrows. Rarely did the ‘bad people’ win, in the very end, although there were often sacrifices along the way required by those who were true to themselves, and cared for others and the world. The ruthless, selfish, greedy people often appeared in disguise - their ugly and scheming natures only revealed by chance at The End.

    We often asked our fathers to read us these stories, before we were tucked up safely in bed. Usually we went to sleep reassured. This is because such tales reinforce a concept known as ‘the just-world’. In this just world, good thoughts and deeds are rewarded, eventually, and the bad and cruel actions will reap the punishment they deserve, even if patience is required until this comes about.

    Our belief in this concept helps us, as we begin to go out in the world and face its stresses and dangers. It gives us hope and courage, in our tiny childhood bodies.

    Our parents are our caretakers, there to guide us and protect us from harm. Good parents, who are teachers too, show us right from wrong, good from bad. We grow, and begin to form a sense of Self, a core self that finds meaning and values, experiences beauty and ugliness, joy and pain.

    At least one of our caretakers will empathize with us, and give us what is known as validation. Gradually, we learn to be self-reliant and do this for ourselves, although we will always still turn towards the caretaker for this reassurance at certain times.

    2. When Our Just-World is Broken

    And then, suddenly, one day, something else happens. (Hopefully, this day doesn’t come when we are so very young - if it does, it is frequently disastrous).

    Our belief in the Just World is fractured. It cracks, and comes crumbling down around us, terrifying us as it does. Life goes into slow motion, and we remember the colours, shapes, smells, words, for the rest of our lives. Someone who has done wrong is praised and rewarded, and the little person who is ‘me’, who was being as good as we knew how to be, is scolded, teased, taunted, hurt (perhaps physically), neglected, ignored, humiliated, punished. We suffer when we do not deserve to, sometimes when we least deserve to.

    Most of all, our ‘caretaker’, whose function it is to protect us, now reprimands us, withdraws their love or approval and, worst of all, refuses to believe us. We are telling it as it is, telling the truth as we have been taught to do, and the very person we have entrusted with truth, rejects us, and believes the one who is lying. We feel despair,and we feel isolated. We panic inside, and experience fear as we have not known it.

    Our adrenalin and other endocrine reactions are set in motion. Our heart thumps. We don’t know what to do, we feel numb, confused, it is hard to concentrate. We are unlikely to be able to say, at that point, - but what we are feeling is betrayal. All our inner security has temporarily dissolved.

    Not only has the person insulted and harmed us with their wrong-doing, but they compounded this by sanctimoniously pretending that they were ‘put upon’, a victim no less, while simultaneously the true victim is blamed and derogated. It is outrageous, and moreover it is disempowering (at first).

    It is our first experience of injustice.

    3. The Experience of Acute Distress

    If our psyche is healthy, we will recover, both physically and emotionally within a short period. Human beings have innate coping mechanisms, and we learn gradually to activate these. Different personalities develop different ways.

    But the period of stress and distress does need to be of a short duration. This is important. If it is not, we now know that very real damage occurs. This is not something vague, but is actual, biological, involving the Hippocampus and other specific areas in the brain.

    When we talk about ‘healing’, this is not just a fancy word for getting into a better mood : real healing and correction need to occur in the cell tissues. Stress really does damage your health, and if we need to take time out to recover from it, - this is a real need. The greater and more prolonged the distress, the longer the time needed to rebuild, to adapt and adjust. Music, and being in nature, often have an important role to play here. People find their own ways, in their own time.

    The other thing of prime importance is contact and talking, sharing, with others to whom we feel bonded. It may seem like saying the obvious - but it has been shown that victims of trauma heal very much more quickly when their contact with their loved ones in the aftermath had been immediate.

    What is needed is the opposite of isolation, which would simply increase the undermining of the sense of self and our own identity, which has been hurt, or sometimes splintered.

    People are isolated in cases of torture - the perpetrators of it know this isolating alone is punishing, fragmenting, weakening and eroding to the self.

    We need the validation of our true friends. Perhaps this is the origin of the saying, ‘A friend in need is a friend indeed’.

    To recap slightly : our first experience of having our illusion of a totally Just World challenged probably first occurs as we are growing up, perhaps at school or similarly.

    I will not, here, address the very serious cases where child abuse happens in the home, where the damage may never be repairable (although a certain amount can be done, miraculously, with professional and skilled help). Neither is this the place to describe terrible trauma caused by murder and terrorism. Extreme experience of injustice, especially continuous, leads to severe trauma, which at the extreme end leads to PTSD.

    Needless to say, those who survive need the utmost sensitivity and skill to help them deal with the sheer inhumanity of their situations.

    4. The Caretaker in the Wider World

    As we go out into the world, ‘the family’ and with it, the head of the family or the main caretaker extends onto a more macro scale. The head of an institution becomes the caretaker. The headmaster or headmistress has a duty of care and protection : they are ‘in loco parentis’.

    And so on upwards - the head of a large company where we may work has to duty of care that his employees are kept safe; we have local heads of government, police commissioners etc., whose responsibility includes the safety and protection of the citizens - this is achieved through law and order. And so we finally go to the top, and have the governments of countries, and their judiciary and courts, and the Head of State.

    Governments carry the ‘caretaker’ role for the people, the citizens. They are entrusted with our ultimate safety, security and defence - against violence, against terror, unreason, and the break-down of law and order into chaos and tyranny. We entrust them to save us from barbarism.

    It is because they have this extension of the caretaker role (a leader will sometimes be called ‘The Father of the Nation’), that when something goes badly wrong, we can feel betrayed. Our own personal memories of betrayal, which may exist in layers of many chapters, can suddenly be triggered. It matters not that physically, personally, we may not be anything like in proximity or involved in what has just happened.

    A feeling of insecurity, of being totally let down, indeed of being betrayed, is experienced in the collective, the caretaker of which is the top of government and judiciary.
    The shockwaves in the collective trigger our personal memories of our own past trauma. Just as happens when someone we know is bereaved, and we then suddenly recall our own bereavements, as clear as day. Our own memories are re-experienced within the present, integrated into the collective event.

    When a member of the Royal Family (in Britain) for whom there is much affection, dies, one can see an outpouring of collective sentiment. Some may disparage it (as in, ‘well, how could they possibly have known her!’ etc), but the phenonomen of collective sentiment is very real, and contains more than the sum of its parts. As all collective moods, it will operate as a wave - a wave that may sweep reason aside.

    5. Injustice Is So Like Bereavement

    Injustice affects us as bereavement does. When we are bereaved, and perhaps especially when we lose a parent (our original ‘caretaker’), we are affected physiologically as well as emotionally.

    Our fear responses are heightened, (sometimes called heightened arousal), our heart rate changes, our concentration and memory are affected, as too our ability to regulate our emotions (be overwhelmed by them); our perception itself is affected, including our perception of who we are ourselves, our very core identity.

    It is very common to feel we have lost a part of ourself with the loss of the one we loved, or, importantly, who loved us. Their love for us was part of what made us feel valid. How many feel, when bereaved, lost themselves, - rudderless, as it were? We have to re-learn, and validate ourselves.

    Why, you may wonder, are we discussing bereavement here? Because the responses that we go through (and it happens involuntarily) are the same as when experiencing the distress of injustice, or injustice trauma where it is extreme.

    The same shattering of world-view is involved, and the same loss of security, which affects us fundamentally.

    We need ‘safe-holding’ - first our parents provide this, then gradually other people and other structures out in society provide this keeping of us safe and secure. Being able to dependably rely on the administrators of just law to do exactly that is a very important part of our security. We trust them. We trust our government to use their powers judiciously, to look after our best interests, or at least to try.

    If suddenly justice itself appears from every logical perspective to be in fact injustice, it is a great threat to our psychological security, for reasons I’ve tried to explain.

    If the collective has been subject to such stress, then the process of repair or healing is required to happen in the collective, exactly as it is when the injustice stress or trauma has occurred on a personal level. It is just as essential. As one of our commentators said, ‘Silence is not an option’.

    But fortunately, humanity is resourceful. We can all think of ways and times when people of every diversity have come together in adversity, and pulled together, in generosity, kindness and strength. There is the dual instinct in most people (who are not dysfunctional, damaged or disturbed) which is for both justice and compassion - civilized, just action - .. and when we recover from the adrenalin state, where one feels temporarily stunned in disbelief, we slowly regain our ability to creatively engage in the present.

    6. How The Healing Process Works

    Many people come and seek out counselling when they are recovering from extended periods of stress and distress, caused by a wide variety of reasons, and within a wide spectrum of severity. There are a number of effective techniques to aid the self-therapy.

    These include understanding one’s own fear responses and calming these; recognizing personal triggers, and having a method to deal with flashbacks when they occur; working on acceptance, and being ‘grounded’ or anchored; and learning to create a feeling of safety and security for yourself in the present, and recalling the stressful time but placing it carefully in the past.

    7. Narrative Therapy For RS And AK

    Sollecito admitted to lies, Knox served three years for lies, and both are still on trial in Florence for many more. Even their best friends know that.

    In order to make progress in recovery, with counselling, some sort of ‘narrative therapy’ is needed, where what has been so distressing can be processed and talked about from the perspective of the present, looking back and making sense -  but not talking as if one is still there in the experience.

    To be able to arrive at this narrative is an important healing step. But if instead, the story is made of fragmented flashbacks, and the talk slips back into the present tense, as if the person is there again at the scene…really this is not good news. (cf AK was doing this in one of her last interviews last year - the one where she talked about ‘the corpse’).

    There is avoidance, where the person can’t bear to think about the stress, and there are intense flashbacks, re-lived, - which can re-traumatise.

    The narrative that we seek, and that helps bring calm and the ability to move forward, is neither of these. But to reach the good narrative the person will have to go through the detail of the traumatic event, and face the pain it causes them. They will have to be truthful. The therapist helps them do this incrementally, within a very safe environment. It does work, but it takes time - the greater the trauma, the greater the time.

    This knowledge is useful to anyone recovering from a major stressful life event, but the reason I mention it here is in thinking about our two ex-defendants. Stepping aside for the moment from the flip-flopping judgement delivered, - what concerns me is whether and how healing is possible - for everyone.

    There are so very many deeply disturbing aspects to this dreadfully drawn-out case, - most have been noted. But one that disturbs me most is that the ex-defendants have wound themselves up to delivering false narratives to the media circuses - to the point where they can’t now recant them without getting their respective knickers in a complete twist, knots that can’t be unravelled, nor make any sense.

    As it is, it seems we have two ghosts who held down Meredith, where Guede was the third man.

    My serious point here being that, for their own sakes if no-one else’s, the ex-defendants will need to tell a truthful narrative, in order to find any kind of reasonable and balanced functioning in their lives.

    Quite simply, healing will not be possible unless they arrive at telling a truthful narrative in the way I touched on above - even if this is in confidentiality, to a therapist, - it will need to be done. It cannot be done in fiction.

    If they do not go through the necessary steps in the process as outlined - instability, gross insecurity, and states of fear and anxiety will persist, and the trauma can and will always re-emerge unpredictably, and haunt and shadow their lives with flashbacks.

    This process is well-known, and well-documented.

    This site is primarily to support the Kercher family, who are the genuine, innocent victims of the most appalling trauma - one that has been selfishly drawn out by ruthless external forces, thus putting their own recovery in jeopardy, and causing great suffering.

    They should always have been put first, but now, at this point in time, it is more vital than ever.

    They will need, as all victims in recovery, to be able to make their ‘good narrative’. But they cannot fully do so without the truth - even if it has to remain just a sketch of the truth. I wish with all my heart they can find the whole narrative that they need - I do not know how at this point, with so much obfuscation abounding.

    But I do not give up hope : healing can always arrive, for those with good will, and good hearts…so however long it takes, I have faith that it can, and it will.

    Posted on 04/02/15 at 07:51 AM by SeekingUnderstanding. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in The former defendantsAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoCrime hypothesesThe psychologyPondering motiveMeredith-case hoaxesDemonized pair hoax
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (37)

    Tuesday, March 31, 2015

    A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy Begins

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    1. Current State Of Play

    As we so often hear, true justice has to be SEEN to be done.

    At the end of the day it’s the legitimacy that counts - whether most informed people buy in - and the fight for this could play out over years.

    Maybe that was on the minds of the tense Sollecito lawyers seen above after the surprise outcome was announced. Can those five judges make what seemed like a shoot-from-the-hip decision stick?

    Back in 2009 the prosecution put on a very fine case, after Knox and Sollecito had failed six great opportunities in 2007 and 2008 to be let out. Prosecutors touched all the bases fast and, including what was presented in closed court, offered a very legitimate case for guilt which a unanimous panel of judges bought into.

    Defense attorneys were rumored to be despondent and they never really hit a high point. Sollecito talks in his book about Maori having little conviction in him. Bongiorno was said to feel the same way and to not like Sollecito very much. Several times she was a surprise no-show in court. Ghirga was affable but uncomfortable, and sometimes he dozed off.

    Was there under UK and US common law a strong case for an appeal? Under UK and US law an appeal must be requested, and a judge must decide. We have yet to read one opinion by a UK or US judge (and yes, they do write) that a case for granting an appeal was very strong.

    In other words, under UK and US common law, the unanimous verdict and sentence would almost certainly have been it. All three would be serving their terms, and five years ago the whole world would have moved on.

    In 2010 a clear case of judge-shopping occurred.  Dont take our word for it - the senior and very experienced criminal-law Judge Chiari openly said he had been pushed aside as he resigned. He had been one of Italy’s finest prosecutors, and mentally and in terms of the law and grasp of the facts he was a giant compared to the bumbling ill-qualified Hellman, a business judge with only one other murder trial (a fiasco) in his past.

    Throughout 2011 legitimacy swayed this way and that. The prosecutors began to smell a lot of rats and Prosecutor Comodi publicly said so. The chief prosecutor Dr Galati (who had just arrived from the Supreme Court) maintained that it didnt altogether matter, because he just knew the Supreme Court would throw a bum outcome out.

    He was right. In March 2013 the elite First Section of the Supreme Court threw the bum outcome out, except for the part about Knox framing Patrick for which she had served three years.

    The elite First Section handed the case back down to a new court, the Florence appeal court.

    The Florence courts are staffed with very fine prosecutors and judges as they often handle national cases. Right now that court is handling a major investigation into national government corruption on a grand scale, Knox adulator Rocco Girlanda is one of those named.

    National politicians under the gun like to knock chips off the courts given half a chance. Ex PM Berlusconi’s allies were said to have this as a fairly consistent aim. Any outcome ever in Rome which takes the Florence courts down a peg (as now) gets a lot of close looks.

    Rumors abound in Rome that the president of the group of five judges and maybe one other felt the outcome of the Florence appeal court was the right one. If this is true, they may have never bought in and may now be only going through the motions with a forced grin.

    The president of the court already issued an explanation of sorts. This has many in their peer group - the Council of Magistrates (which edged Hellmann out - refused him a promotion so he had nowhere to go) and all of the other judges and prosecutors in Italy - scratching their heads and wondering how in the Sentencing Report the circle can be squared.

    Meanwhile on other fronts legitimacy is now on the line. Sollecito is due back in court in Florence on false claims in his book on 30 April. Knox’s calunnia trial is due to resume again shortly in Florence with expanded charges targeting false claims in her book. The Oggi trial for quoting false claims in Knox’s book has a testimony session 16 June.

    The final verdict and sentence maybe cannot be wound back and their chances of serving more time for murder and a sex crime are remote. (Knox could be sentenced to more time at her second calunnia trial).

    But the circumstances in which they are walking around may come to look very odd. The Supreme Court actually can be sued now for an inexplicable outcome, and made to take another look.

    The President of the Italian Republic (who is the ultimate head of the justice system) can be petitioned to step in. Political parties like Beppe Grillo’s astonishingly popular Five Star Movement (said to be already snooping) have a lot of power to make things come unstuck. .

    So, in the months and even years ahead, this is clearly going to be a long game, with legitimacy as the ultimate prize. Sorry, Sollecito and Knox, but it aint over till the fat lady sings.

    2. New Developments Indicate Concern

    Seven developments in this race for legitimacy points suggest that the RS and AK camps are very concerned about it, and are not at all sure what to do.

    1) Francesco Sollecito is quoted as asking Guede to endorse the outcome. Guede already said the opposite although his main statement was in the annulled Hellmann appeal. Aviello is still on trial by the way, in 2011 he pointed at the Sollecitos as not playing by the rules.

    2) Francesco can be sure Guede wont actually speak out, as he will have his own legal action in the works to get his case reviewed. That could go to another section of Cassation and if they rule differently really open a can of worms.

    3) Sollecito has spoken out heatedly and vengefully on Italian TV in effect wanting the Italian state to pay him off in a big way and everybody else to believe him or shut up.

    4) Bongiorno publicly disagreed with him and she said such actions need to be considered with a cool head down the road.

    Report on the Il Tempo website.

    Lawyer Bongiorno. “In the coming days we will evaluate request for compensation,” announced Raffaele’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, after the acquittal of the young man for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

    “There are feelings of revenge in Sollecito’s soul,” added the lawyer today. “We will wait for the motivations. Not thrash/lambaste those who might have done [Sollecito] wrong.”

    “We’ll see if there were errors and what measures and initiatives could be undertaken. Civil liability - she concluded - is a serious institution that should not be exercised in the spirit of revenge.” (Translation by Guermantes on Dot Net)

    5) Barbie Nadeau quotes an Italian expert who says that because RS and AK both provably lied to the police and led them astray, any claim for compensation could be dead on arrival.

    Bongiorno may already realise this. She may also realise that having a litany of lies read out hardly advances their quest for legitimacy points.

    6) This is previous news. Bongiono passed on being the lead lawyer in Sollecito’s book case. Nothing could cost legitimacy points more than a loss at the Florence trial on the false claims in RS’s book.

    Note that at the moment few Italians - including Cassation - know what is in the book. It is possible Bongiorno wants to make herself scarce before the legitimacy points just gained head down the tubes.

    7) The Fischer disinformation group (see posts coming up) has moved from shrill to frantic harrassment mode.

    Let’s guess. Bongiorno and the other Perugia lawyers would think that a really bad idea, as Knox and RS are still on trial and abuse wont make that go away. Legitimacy if any will come not from strongarming but from cool heads.

    Here’s betting all 4 main lawyers and both families would like to keep RS and AK on a really short string. Nothing will screw them like yet another of their open spats.

    Right up to last week RS was still distancing himself a mile from Knox.

    Posted on 03/31/15 at 08:44 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Officially involvedThe defensesSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Cassation appeal 2
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (45)

    Monday, March 30, 2015

    Appeal By RS And AK Against Florence Court Verdict: The Supreme Court Dispositivo

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    1. Dispositivo issued by Judge Marasca

    This statement by Dr Marasca was dated 30 March 2015. An English translation follows.


    seen art. 620 lett. A) c.p.p.;

    annuls the impugned verdict as for the charge in count B) of the indictment section because the time of limitation of the offence has expired;

    seen articles 620 lett. L) and art. 530 second paragraph of c.p.p.;

    excluding the aggravating circumstance under art. 61 n.2 c.p. in regard to the felony of calunnia, annuls the impugned verdict without remand as for the crimes charged in counts A), D) and E) of the indictment section due to the recurrents not having committed the crime; re-determines the penalty inflicted to recurrent Amanda Knox in three years imprisonment for the crime of calunnia.

    2. Some analysis by Machiavelli

    Main poster Machiavelli (Yummi) reported the Fifth Chambers proceedings in previous posts. He advises:

    (1) The statement “because they did not commit the crime” does not imply a finding of innocence under Italian law; and when the art. 530.2 is mentioned there is no possibility of a finding of innocence;

    (2) There are major legal blunders: the Cassazione is not allowed to make any finding of facts of any kind, it does not assess evidence directly, and it may not mention 530.2.

    (3) Also it cannot re-determine the penalty for calunnia, since the penalty for calunnia was already definitive.

    Posted on 03/30/15 at 11:59 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (1)

    Saturday, March 28, 2015

    Meredith May Not See Justice (Yet) But She Will Leave At Least Three Legacies

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    Meredith’s goal in life was to help people, and she had thought of making a career in the European institutions in Brussels.

    So much of human organization is messy and very hard to make better. She would have found that.  But somehow, often in a terrifying lurch, systems do sometimes tend to get better.

    These better systems between them benefiting millions may all be attributed to Meredith. More than 99% of humanity can achieve in a lifetime.

    1) Perugia is a safer more thriving place now

    This is a repeat of our post of 9 April 2010 - there has been a mayor-change, but the broad safety and economic trends continue.

    Meet Wladimiro Boccali. The mayor of Perugia.

    A year ago when Mr Boccali ran for office (video above) it was in the context of a city-wide desire for prosperity, public safety, support for the police and the court system, the enhancement of Perugia’s reputation, and the clamping down on drug dealing and student excesses.

    A mood that very much flowed from the shock of Meredith’s passing. A sense that certain things had gone too far.

    Since then, Mr Boccali has been in the Italian national news almost daily, and he is coming to be seen as the kind of political leader Italy could really use in a turbulent future.

    He is in the news again right now, because there was a riot in the main piazza of the old city by some drunks late last saturday night.

    In part inspired and encouraged by good town leadership, Perugia’s economy is now one of the more thriving city economies in Italy. Perugia’s median IQ is extremely high (Perugia is probably one of the smartest cities in Europe) and a lot of very advanced research goes on there.

    Perugia’s town administration does many caring things, such as the special city council meeting for Sonia Marra.

    And seemingly attracted by all of this, people are moving to Perugia in droves - its population is increasing at double the national growth rate.

    So. Meet the new Perugia. Meredith’s own qualities, writ large.

    Since that post Perugia and the university have recognised Meredith by way of a scholarship and a one-day seminar.

    2) American universities acted to stop future Knoxes

    Knox behaved grossly irresponsibly in heading to Perugia under-funded, intent on drug-doing, and with zero intention of seriously studying.

    The University of Washington and many others realised they could have huge liabilities if they did not distance themselves a lot from such loose cannons in future.

    In October 2009 we reposted this report by Andrea Vogt which described the initiation of measures many American universities have now come to implement.

    Mirroring a nationwide trend, the University of Washington is overhauling how its students and professors interface with foreign countries….

    The UW study abroad experience today involves much more oversight than it did two years ago when Amanda Knox left on an unsupervised European adventure that quickly degenerated into a nightmare.

    When Knox, who is on trial for murder in Italy, left her familiar U-district environs in late summer 2007, she embarked on her own independent study in Umbria with very few guidelines or institutional oversight.

    She arrived in the tolerant student melange of Perugia, a vibrant college town with temptation at every turn and many paradoxes (drug deals and party plans are often made on the steps of the cathedral).

    A month later, the honor student’s pub-crawling, pot-smoking college shenanigans had taken a very serious turn and she was being hauled off to the Capanne penitentiary, where she remains today, pleading her innocence as the trial and controversial accusations against her plod forward.

    Once her troubles began, the university tried to offer support, but had very few official guidelines to follow for responding to the kind of complicated legal-judicial matter Knox faced.

    It’s different now….

    In the wake of several negative overseas episodes, officials are busy raising awareness about the positive impact the UW is having worldwide and taking steps to improve communications, regulation and emergency preparedness for its students abroad.

    Compared with two years ago, international education officials are more closely tracking who, where and what study-abroad programs involve. The university has new rules:. The department chair has to sign off on the program. Insurance is required. So is a cell phone. No program money can be used to buy alcohol, just for starters.

    “There’s a much more formal process now,” said Taso Lagos, a UW professor who teaches international communication and manages a study-abroad program in Greece. “With administrators that are very aware, with lines of communication open and policies in place if something happens.”...

    The UW’s growing commitment to international education—- even in a budget crisis—is reflected in some developments. [UW Vice Provost for Global Affairs Stephen Hanson] was named a vice provost in January, and in the spring, the UW dedicated an entire wing of the Gerberding Hall administration building to growing an international mission and profile.

    This year, a travel security and information officer is coming on board to oversee emergency response and preparedness, as is Peter Moran, a new director of international programs and exchanges who previously worked at the Fulbright Commission office in Katmandu, Nepal.

    New guidelines are being put in place to streamline communications, ease financial transactions and institute mandatory training for faculty taking students abroad. The Global Support Project, a rapid-response team with one person from each branch of the central administration, takes on cross-disciplinary international challenges.

    Such reforms aren’t unique to UW.

    Universities across the country are examining how better to organize study abroad to meet blossoming demand from students (and prospective employers) for foreign experience. Many are turning to independent service providers whose business it is to contract housing, health care or niche risk management services dealing with legal, financial or public relations crises when things go haywire abroad…..

    Though the university bore no responsibility for any of the events Knox became entangled in, media across the world continued to mention the University of Washington—whether it was because of character witnesses who were her college buddies, reports of wild off-campus parties Knox attended in Seattle or her studies while in prison.

    3) Italy’s justice reforms will be nudged hard

    Italian justice has a systemic problem, it has been made to tilt hard toward defendants over the years. That problem was described here and here and touched on in many other posts.

    Polls have show that though Italians admire and trust their justice system and especially the brave people within it (over 100 have died fighting mafia) a majority would like some rebalancing toward victims and families.

    Justice reforms are now on the national agenda. What happened in Rome yesterday to deny Meredith justice is stirring Italy and seems certain to impact them.’

    Court days to flow continuously? Some backing off from automatic appeals? No juries at the second level? Prosecutors and judges to be allowed to speak out more? Maybe in lieu of some of those onerous sentencing reports? Limits to defendants talking without cross-examination in the courtroom?

    These are not extreme, they are mainstream in the common-law system, and they would speed Italy’s up, make it fairer, and cost less (a lot less!).


    All incredibly worthwhile. For one so young, in death Meredith may come to help millions for the better.

    Posted on 03/28/15 at 05:01 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Concerning MeredithHer memoryItalian justice v othersThe wider contextsPerugia contextItalian contextAmerican context
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (94)

    Friday, March 27, 2015

    Supreme Court Appeal By RS And AK Against Florence Court Rejection Of Their First Appeal #2

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    This was in 2009, Meredith’s family, not in court, may hear things came full circle today

    Tweets from the court

    New tweets from the court if any (we may have to wait for breaks) are being added under the various author’s names below. Numbering flows from Wednesday’s post.

    Any breaking news

    22. Reason for delay in the announcement is paperwork we believe, there were dozens of reasons for an overturn in the two written appeals, and they would have to be responded to one by one if appeal is denied. The Telegraph seems to be planning a live website feed though it may be from outside. .

    21. Here is where Sollecito is headed if he makes it before any guilty verdict and the 2 police cars in his rear mirrors him stop him and take him in:  41°14’37.80"N 16°29’2.50"E Put that into Google Earth search and then descend to street view. Thats the gate for the compound, chez Sollecito is a couple of houses down on the left. Francesco Sollecito has addressed crowds of reporters there. 

    20. Video here of RS and his sister Vanessa leaving by side entrance, possibly for Bari. As Florence prosecutors are in court, this may be his way of ensuring he is not photographed being frogmarched out of there.

    19. Knox undercut her own defence by stiffing Florence court. Could in new Florence trial face more years for criminal defamation. Moore & Burleigh & Fischer & other PR shills may face citations too, as their excesses outnumber those of Gumbel and Sforza already in court. Tweeting stalkers too. Communication Police looking now.

    18. Italian ANSA report is calling RS lawyer Giulia Bongiorno’s address to the court “Bye Bye Amanda” as she says only questionable DNA relates RS to scene of crime. [Oh? Several footprints? Opposing knife wounds? Multi alibis? Computer? Cellphone?]

    17. Media, please get it right: Amanda Knox was not “tried in absentia” at Florence “trial”. IT WAS HER OWN APPEAL and Italian lawyers argued with her for a week that she really needed to be there. Having abused so many in Italy, and put drug dealer in jail, was her no-show really such a surprise?

    16. Strong-arming unethical Gogerty-Marriott PR firm closes down in Seattle with a final dishonest thump of the chest. Said to be freaked by potential legal liability. Maybe Knox herself should sue as they made her plight much worse.

    15. So NYC Sollecito advisor John Q Kelly shows his face again. He was wildly wrong on the hard facts late 2009 and promptly disappeared.

    Tweets from journalist Andrea Vogt

    17. Heavy media & police presence at Italy’s high court this a.m. for final hearing in #amandaknox case. Sollecito’s defense at 9.

    18. Raffaele Sollecito’s Italian and American lawyers Giulia Bongiorno & John Q Kelly just greeted in hall outside Aula Magna

    19. Giulia Bongiorno on the lack of DNA from #amandaknox and sollecito in murder room: only a dragonfly leaves no trace.

    20. Bongiorno casting doubt on forensic police dna interpretation. “Maybe, in science, does not exist. Either it is Raffaele ‘s dna or not.”

    21. High court judges in #amandaknox case are going into deliberations now. They will alert all one hour before they announce decision.

    22. Court can: 1) call appeal [outcome] inadmissable 2) accept it 3) reject it 4) annul convictions & back to appellate 5) annul convictions.

    23. Members of Florence prosecutor’s office are at Rome court today for decision on #amandaknox / Sollecito appeal of their convictions.

    24. #amandaknox convictions have been completely overturned. She is a free woman.

    25. Both raffaelle Sollecito and #amandaknox convictions have been fully overturned. Cries of joy in courtroom from sollecito’s family

    Tweets from main poster Kristeva

    15. Follow @andreavogt as she has better phone reception than me. I apologize

    16. Much larger crowd today attending the final hearing for #amandaknox & #RaffaeleSollecito

    17. The general feeling among reporters is that #RaffeleSollecito might get a second appeal. no chance 4 #amandaknox

    18. Several reporters interested in http://Themurderofmeredithkercher.com and will call me to have more info in the next days

    19. I was asked how the #MeredithKercher support website started and I gave the whole history

    20. Spoke to Maresca to thank him and in return he thanked our volunteer work for http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com 

    21. Reporters were also interested in PR machine for #AmandaKnox and I referred them to http://TrueJustice.org

    22. After Bongiorno, Maori will give his arguments and Judges with enter chambers to deliberate verdict

    23. Timing of verdict for #amandaknox and #RaffeleSollecito unpredictable. May justice 4 #MeredithKercher prevail. My prayers for family

    24. [6.15 am US east coast time] Maori finished. Judges have entered chambers to deliberate verdict.

    25. No more appeals. Case over #amandaknox #RaffaeleSollecito acquitted for murder of #MeredithKercher #SHAME

    26. I am shocked

    Tweets from main poster Machiavelli

    17. [no tweets yet]

    Tweets from journalist Barbie Nadeau

    4.  High court now deliberating fate of #amandaknox and #RaffaeleSollecito in #MeredithKercher murder case.

    Wednesday, March 25, 2015

    Supreme Court Appeal By RS And AK Against Florence Court Rejection Of Their First Appeal

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

    Above: stock image on another day of the Supreme Court’s Great Hall

    Tweets from the court

    New tweets from the court are all being added under the various author’s names below. This will continue Friday for sure.

    Any breaking news

    13. Court is over for the day and will resume on Friday.

    12. La Nazione reports: “The judgment of the Supreme Court on the murder of Meredith Kercher will not arrive before Friday 27, the day when the judges will meet in closed session. This was announced by the President of the Fifth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, Gennaro Marasca, during today’s hearing.”

    11. We dont know the local telephone network capacity there. But many cellphone transponders can handle only 24 calls at a time. Demand for “outside lines” could number in the hundreds from the entire court. Maybe there’s an open WAN but we doubt.

    10. Regardless of outcome Knox legal problems could go on for years. Since 2009 she has faced calunnia charges for lying on the stand. Possible sentence six years. Now Florence court has added calunnia charges for lying in her book, in Oggi, on her website, and on American TV. Perception going back to Ricciarelli is she is dangerous and hurts people, even if final murder verdict is not in.

    9. Popper says of Dr Pinelli: “In his late 50s (a young man ref Cassazione average), a career both in Abruzzo region (Avezzano where he was born in 1957) and L’ Aquila, and then Naples in the Procura Generale; then promoted to Cassazione. Very much acquainted with murders and organised crime.”

    8. Popper says of Dr Marasca: “Section President of Cassation [one of the few] and member of Consiglio Direttivo, a sort of Executive Board of the Supreme Court ... one of the most experienced magistrates in Italy, born in 1944. Since 1970 a magistrate.”

    7. News service ANSA: “The head judge is Gennaro Marasca. The lead prosecutor is Mario Pinelli. After the prosecutor has spoken it will be the turn of Maresca (for the Kerchers). Then they’ll hear from Bongiorno and Maori, Ghirga and Dalla Vedova”.

    6. New report with today’s date from Barbie Nadeau on the CNN Website. Seems CNN like most US media no longer solidly in Knox camp.

    5. The Court has placed a ban on live tweeting from inside the courtroom, where mobile phone reception is poor anyway. Reports will come during the breaks.

    4. Best guess at timing of decision is late PM US East Coast time. In 2013 it came the next day.

    3. As with previous court outcomes, expect long-form analyses of outcome by Machiavelli etc within the next few days.

    2. New York Times’s Elisabetta Povoledo provides a good overview of today’s context.

    1. See our own scenario for today and coming weeks in the event the Florence verdict and sentences is confirmed.

    Tweets from journalist Andrea Vogt

    1. Raffaele Sollecito is here in court, speaking with his lawyer Giulia Bongiorno. #amandaknox lawyers and Patrick Lumumba also present.

    2. Cannot tell how the court is leaning. Reviewer made hurtful and helpful comments to both sides. Still could go either way. #amandaknox

    3. Court pres Gennaro Marasca calls break until 2:30. PG Mauro Pinelli has another hour of arguments. Arguments & ruling could be Friday

    [break for lunch]

    4. There is a sense among some observers that the Court is differentiating between positions of amanda knox and raffaelle Sollecito.

    5. Maresca: I am representing the Kercher family in court for the 8th time. I hope this will be the last arguments I give on their behalf.

    6. Maresca: It is time for the Kercher family to finally be able to remove this poor victim from the law courts.

    7. Ghirga: “its not that we want to blame the poor black guy, its that you cannot rule out a single aggressor.”

    8. Lawyer Luciano Ghirga: The scientific evidence favors #amandaknox (no trace of her in the murder room).

    9. Carlo dalla Vedova has launched a blistering attack on the state of Italian justice system and the problem of “the neverending trial.”

    10. Dalla Vedova for #amandaknox: How can we tolerate in Italy that trials can go on forever?

    11. Hearing over for the day. Raffaelle Sollecito’s defense will continue Friday, march 27.

    12. Ghirga: “its not that we want to blame the poor black guy, its that you cannot rule out a single aggressor.”

    13. Lawyer Luciano Ghirga: The scientific evidence favors #amandaknox (no trace of her in the murder room).

    14. Carlo dalla Vedova has launched a blistering attack on the state of Italian justice system and the problem of “the neverending trial.”

    15. Dalla Vedova for #amandaknox: How can we tolerate in Italy that trials can go on forever?

    16. Hearing over for the day. Raffaelle Sollecito’s defense will continue Friday, march 27.

    Tweets from main poster Kristeva

    1. I have arrived outside Section V. Sollecito, father and Greta. Poor [cellphone] reception.

    2. Spoke to Avv. Maori & asked him who general prosecutor is and he doesn’t know yet. there are 2.

    3. Andrea Vogt has just arrived and speaking to Avv. Ghirga

    4. American British Journalists are all talking to Avv Dalla Vedova now.

    [court session starts]

    5. Relator Judge P. A. Bruno laughs once and while getting names wrong such as Hallowo instead of Halloween.

    6. Prosecutor finds Rudy’s climbing up wal