Breaking news. Knox is widely claiming she was "exonerated". SHE WAS NOT. Final ruling put her right there with blood on her hands, and confirmed THREE attackers as final word. Only Supreme Court doubt: did she plunge in the knife? (Ludicrous - it just didnt matter in law.) She is still a convicted felon. No DNA was ever proved contaminated. "Independent" DNA experts were rejected by 3 courts, labs closed down, may be criminally charged soon.

All our posts on Amanda Knox

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Bad News For Knox -  Buzz From Italy Is Spurious ECHR Appeal Will Fail & Netflix Movie Not Pro Knox

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



[The European Court Of Human Rights in Strasbourg France]

1. Knox ECHR “Appeal”

One major lie out of the Knox campaign in recent months was that the ECHR had agreed to entertain her appeal. See here and here and here (wow) and here (wow!).

We have posted repeatedly that the ECHR had “accepted” nothing - a processing clerk had merely asked prosecution and defense for actual hard facts “acccidentally” omitted from defense lawyer Dalla Vedova’s submission documents.

Had Dalla Vedova acted ethically and truthfully, there would have been no need at all for this stage.

We explained especially that Knox’s team had never lodged a complaint with any Italian court as Italian law requires and so due process in Italy prior to involving the heavily burdened ECHR had not even begun.

And that pre-emptively the Italian Supreme Court itself had already forcefully ruled that Knox had no ECHR case. 

All this was known to Knox and her lawyers and PR but they continued to lie to the world anyhow.

Now the buzz is that detailed Italian government submissions to the ECHR have killed all prospects for Knox’s fraudulent appeal.

The absence of any effective comeback to the ECHR from the hapless Knox lawyer Dalla Vedova is understandable - by not filing any complaint in Italy first on behalf of Knox he was in fact breaking Italian law.

With luck we will see him in court, perhaps along with Sollecito lawyer Maori who for doctoring DNA results may lose his law license and worse.

2. Knox Netflix Movie

Participants among Italian officialdom in the forthcoming Netflix movie about the “Knox case” who insisted on viewing the final version due to air late next month found it pretty okay, and not pro-Knox.

The only complaints we hear are that it lacks reporting on the muddled and ambivalent Maresca/Bruno report and lacks reporting that the Hellmann DNA consultants Conti and Vecchiotti were provably bent and were chastized - and that Hellmann’s appointment to the case itself was “defense-engineered”.

We have been discussing this production in the thread immediately below starting here (scroll down).  The suspect influence of the biased reporter Stephen Morse described by Ergon in that thread will be a late factor if it is at all.

We will be posting on the bias of Morse. Please keep eyes peeled. 

Posted on 08/17/16 at 12:29 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxes KnoxKnox alibis hoaxKnox interrog hoaxKnox ECHR hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (24)

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Revenge of the Knox, Series 4: Exposing The Tortured Logic That Permeates Her Book #2

Posted by Chimera



Agent Robert Barnett promoted this bigoted, defamatory, deeply dishonest book

1. Series Overview

This is the second in a two part series contexted at the top of the previous post here.

Further context can be found in our numerous posts on the Knox psychology here. These passages go to show to what extreme lengths Knox had to go in contradicting her own self to make the big lie stick.

They are vital to all the hoaxes being pulled off.

It is deeply shameful that the book agent did not pick up on this, or the shadow writer, or the publishers, or any of the US media, or more than a very few readers - there are dozens of unquestioning 5-star reviews seething venom against Italy and the officials that handled the case. 

2. Examples of Tortured Logic (Continued)

Tortured Logic #21: AK and RS go Before a Judge to Determine if They can be Released

[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.”

[Chapter 14, Page 166] ” .... The report continued: “It is possible to reconstruct what happened on the evening of November 1.
Sollecito Raffaele and Knox Amanda spent the entire afternoon smoking hashish.”
Judge Matteini claimed that I met Patrick at a “previously arranged” time and that Raffaele, “bored of the same old evening"—a phrase Raffaele had once posted online about himself—came along.
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.
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.

[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.

Commentary: This even though bail for such crimes does not exist and house arrest is very rare. If bail doesn’t exist, then why is she getting what amounts to a bail hearing?

Tortured Logic #22: Dalla Vedova and Ghirga Have Never Heard of a SECONDARY CRIME SCENE

[Chapter 27, Page 330]  Carlo, who’d never sugarcoated my situation, said, “These are small-town detectives. They chase after local drug dealers and foreigners without visas. They don’t know how to conduct a murder investigation correctly. Plus, they’re bullies. To admit fault is to admit that they’re not good at their jobs. They suspected you because you behaved differently than the others. They stuck with it because they couldn’t afford to be wrong.”

Commentary: Just because a murder occurred in a single room, does not mean the surrounding areas are not relevant.  If you consider Meredith’s room to be the primary crime scene:, then (a) Filomena’s room—the entry point; (b) the bathroom where Guede took a sh**; (c) the other bathroom where AK/Meredith’s blood was; (d) the hallway with Guede’s shoeprints and the cleaned prints of AK/RS; (e) AK’s room where the lamp was taken should all be considered secondary crime scenes.

Of course, one could also argue that the entire house is the primary crime scene, and that: (a) RS’s home (where the knife was, and the computers for his alibi); (b) the yard where Meredith’s phones were tossed; (c) RS’s car—if he transported evidence would all be considered secondary crime scenes.

Tortured Logic #23: Guede is Both a Skilled Burlgar and a Disorganized One

(Illogical) Guede breaks in through Filomena’s window, the most visible one from the street.

(Illogical) Guede “breaks in” some time between 8 and 10pm, when people are usually home and awake.

(Illogical) Guede chooses an entry point with a difficult climb.

(Organized) Guede is able to get into Filomena’s room without leaving a trace of himself.

(Brilliant) Guede breaks the window after it is open from the inside, making police suspect an insider.

(Disorganized) Guede leaves plenty of evidence (which AK assures us is strong, in Meredith’s room

(Brilliant) Guede ransacks the place,  and then breaks the window, again, making it look like an insider.

(Brilliant) Guede leaves not his blood, but AK and Meredith, leaving himself a patzy.

(Illogical) Guede takes a dump in 1 bathroom, but “cleans up” in the other.

(Illogical) Guede cleans up bare footprints of AK/RS, but leaves his own shoeprints.

(Illogical) Guede’s accomplices—“Mr. X’’ and ‘‘Mr. Y’’ leave no traces of themselves at the entry point, murder scene, or elsewhere.

Commentary: Having trouble classifying Guede as an offender?  Me too.

Tortured Logic #24: A Burglar or Killer’s Point of Entry is not Relevant

[Chapter 6, Page 68] ” .... 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!”

Commentary: Ask any police officer, and they will tell you that how a person breaks in and how they leave are very relevant to the crime investigation.  However, AK downplays this for 2 reasons: (1) As shown in the last point, #23, breaking in through Filomena’s room was an illogical place, for many reasons; and (2) Guede’s blood/DNA is not in that room, but AK’s is, mixed with Meredith’s.

Tortured Logic #25: A Sh***y Bathroom is Relevant, While a Bloody Bathroom is not

[Chapter 6, Page 65] ” .... 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?”

[Chapter 6, Page 66] ” .... 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.”

[Chapter 6, Page 75] ” .... 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?”

[Chapter 7, Page 77] ” ... I was the first person to come home that morning. I was anxious to explain everything I’d noticed, starting with the open front door and the droplets of blood in the sink.”

Commentary: So the killer cleans up in one bathroom, but then takes a dump in the other?  I would be more concerned with the bloody bathroom.  While a sh***y bathroom may indicate carelessness, or a plumbing malfunction, no one but AK would instinctively think that it belonged to the killer, and she seems to give them equal weight.  And at this point it must be 12+ hours old and REALLY reek.  AK never says she ever thought about flushing, as would any normal person.

Tortured Logic #26: AK and RS Walk Around With Bleach on Their Feet

[Chapter 27, Page 339] ” .... The situation was similar to the prosecution’s claim throughout the investigation, the pretrial, and now the trial that my feet were “dripping with Meredith’s blood.” My lawyers and I had spent hours trying to figure out why they thought this. We knew that investigators had uncovered otherwise invisible prints with luminol. Familiar to watchers of CSI, the spray glows blue when exposed to hemoglobin. But blood is not the only substance that sets off a luminol reaction.
Cleaning agents, bleach, human waste, urine stains, and even rust do the same. Forensic scientists therefore use a separate “confirmatory” test that detects only human blood,
Under cross-examination during the pretrial, Stefanoni was emphatic. “No,” she responded.  It wasn’t until Dr. Gino read the documents Judge Massei had ordered the prosecution to share with us that she, and then the rest of my defense team, began seeing a pattern. As with the knife, it turned out that Stefanoni’s forensics team had done the TMB test and it came out negative. There were footprints. But they could have come from anything—and at any time, not necessarily after the murder. What matters is that there was no blood.

Commentary:  In Honor Bound, Andrew Gumbel argues that there were measurement errors.  Here, AK just says the foot prints weren’t blood.  Okay, if it were just a cleaning agent, , then wouldn’t we expect to see stains from other people who may have walked through it at some times?  Or was there a special cleaner used this time?  Rust?  The floor is not metallic.  So the question is: why are AK and RS walking around with bleach or cleaning agents on their feet?

Tortured Logic #27: CDV and Ghirga Don’t Think AK Needs to Know What her Legal Options Are

[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third…’‘

Commentary: After 11 months in custody, AK is now just being told about this?!

Tortured Logic #28: CDV and Ghirga Fight For Knox, But DON’T Report Her Being Sexually Assaulted and Mistreated in Prison

[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? ....’‘

[Chapter 12, Page 149] ‘’ .... 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.”  “Ive heard similar things about the police from other prisoners,” the guard standing in the background said.

[Chapter 16, Page 191] Doctor-patient confidentiality didn’t exist in prison. A guard was ever-present, standing right behind me. This bothered me so much that, as time went on, I skipped a needed pelvic exam and didn’t seek help when I got hives or when my hair started falling out. Whatever happened in the infirmary was recycled as gossip that traveled from official to official and, sometimes, back to me.
How each visit went depended on the doctor, and I was grateful for any gesture that wasn’t aggressive or disdainful. A female physician liked to talk to me about her trouble with men. And one day, when I was being seen by an older male doctor, he asked me, “What’s your favorite animal?”
“It’s a lion,” I said. “Like The Lion King—Il Re Leone.”
The next time I saw him he handed me a picture of a lion he’d ripped out from an animal calendar. I drew him a colorful picture in return, which he taped to the infirmary wall. Later, when he found out that I liked the Beatles, one of us would hum a few bars from various songs to see if the other could name the tune.

[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.”

[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….’

Tortured Logic #29: Accomplices Who Go ‘‘Short Form Trial’’ For the 1/3 Deductions Should Serve LONGER Jail Sentences

[Chapter 30, Page 384] ” .... That feeling was compounded when, about three weeks after Raffaele and I were convicted, the appeals court cut Rudy Guede’s sentence nearly in half, from thirty years to sixteen. Meredith’s murderer was now serving less time than I was—by ten years! How can they do this?! I raged to myself. It doesn’t make sense!  The unfairness of it burned in my throat.
Guede’s fast-track conviction for murder and rape in collaboration with others had earned him the maximum. The appeals court had also found him guilty on the same count. But the prosecution’s new view—and the reason for the reduced sentence—was that Guede had not had the knife in his hand, and therefore had played only a supporting role, more responsible for Meredith’s rape than for her murder.

Here, AK answers her own questions

[Chapter 21, Page 254] “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede.’‘

[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third…’‘

Commentary: While AK tries to act stunned, Guede went ‘‘short-form trial’’ for 2 reasons: (1) AK/RS tried to pin it all on him; and (2) the short-form trial offers a lesser sentence.  The fast track trial ended with him getting the maximum “allowed under those rules”, which was only 30 years, AK leaves that detail out.  And AK lies when she says the reduction from 30 to 16 was due to a less participatory role.  AK/RS got 24 years for the murder itself—and they chose the long form trial—and 1/3 less is 16 years.  Guede would have gotten more if he had staged the crime scene, transported a weapon, or falsely accused an innocent person.

Tortured Logic #30: The Hardworking CSIs Who ‘‘Nail’’ Guede, are the Same Incompetents Who ‘‘Contaminate’’ Things for AK/RS

On the evidence against Guede .....

[Chapter 10, Page 105] ‘’ .... 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.’‘

[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... “Amanda, the investigators are in a conundrum,” Carlo said. “They found so much of Guede’s DNA in Meredith’s room and on and inside her body. But the only forensic evidence they have of you is outside her bedroom. Raffaele’s DNA evidence is only on the bra hook. If you and Raffaele participated in the murder, as the prosecution believes, your DNA should be as easy to find as Guede’s.” “But Carlo, no evidence doesn’t mean we cleaned up. It means we weren’t there!” “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede. I know it doesn’t make sense. They’re just adding another link to the story. It’s the only way the prosecution can involve you and Raffaele when the evidence points to a break-in and murder by Guede.”

[Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... Guede’s lawyers must have realized that he was better off in a separate trial, since the prosecution was intent on pinning the murder on us. The evidence gathered during the investigation pointed toward his guilt. His DNA was all over Meredith’s room and her body, on her intimate clothing and her purse. He had left his handprint in her blood on her pillowcase. He had fled the country. The prosecution called Guede’s story of how he “happened” to be at the villa and yet had not participated in the murder “absurd”—though they readily believed his claims against Raffaele and me. One of the big hopes for us was that with so much evidence against Guede, the prosecution would have to realize Raffaele and I hadn’t been involved….’‘

[Chapter 23, Page 274]  ... He didn’t look like a murderer. He was wearing jeans and a sweater. It was almost impossible to imagine that he had cut Meredith’s throat. But if he hadn’t, his DNA wouldn’t have been everywhere in Meredith’s room.”

[Chapter 27, Page 339] ”  Copious amounts of Rudy Guede’s genetic material had been found in Meredith’s bedroom, on her body, in her purse, and in the toilet.”

[Chapter 27, Page 342] ‘’ .... Had Raffaele been in the room, his DNA would have been as abundant as Guede’s. It would be illogical to suggest that it was left on a single small hook on Meredith’s bra and nowhere else.’‘

[Chapter 28, Page 352] ‘’ ... Guede had stolen! He had killed Meredith! He had left a handprint in Meredith’s blood! He had fled! He had lied!’‘

[

Afterword, Page 464] ” .... None of my DNA was found in my friend Meredith Kercher’s bedroom, where she was killed. The only DNA found, other than Meredith’s, belonged to the man convicted of her murder, Rudy Guede. And his DNA was everywhere in the bedroom. It is, of course, impossible to selectively clean DNA, which is invisible to the naked eye. We simply DNA and left Guede’s and Meredith’s behind. Nor was any other trace of me found at the murder scene, not a single fingerprint, footprint, piece of hair, or drop of blood or saliva. My innocence and Raffaele’s was irrefutable. Like my legal team, I believed that the Corte di Cassazione would affirm the innocence finding.

And on the evidence against AK/RS ......

[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.”

[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…’

[Chapter 23, Page 276] ” ... Starting right after we were indicted, Raffaele’s and my lawyers had requested the raw data for all Stefanoni’s forensic tests. How were the samples collected? How many cotton pads had her team used to swab the bathroom sink and the bidet? How often had they changed gloves? What tests had they done - and when? Which machines had they used, at what times, and on which days? What were the original unedited results of the DNA tests?”

[Chapter 25, Page 304] ‘’ ... When the defense questioned her, Napoleoni’s manner switched from professional —albeit dishonest—to exasperated, incredulous, and condescending. For instance, when Raffaele’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno asked if the gloves police used at the crime scene were sterilized or one-use gloves, Napoleoni took a snarky tone, saying, “It’s the same thing.”

[Chapter 27, Page 335]  ‘‘On the witness stand, Marco Chiacchiera of the Squadra Mobile had explained that “investigative intuition” had led him to the knife. That flimsy explanation did not help me understand how the police could pull a random knife from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer and decide that it was, without the smallest doubt, the murder weapon. Or why they never analyzed knives from the villa or Rudy Guede’s apartment.’‘

[Chapter 27, Page 338]  ‘’ ....Gino said. Stefanoni had met none of the internationally accepted methods for identifying DNA. When the test results are too low to be read clearly, the protocol is to run a second test. This was impossible to do, because all the genetic material had been used up in the first test. Moreover, there was an extremely high likelihood of contamination in the lab, where billions of Meredith’s DNA strands were present.

[Chapter 32, Page 414]  Before the first trial, the defense began requesting forensic data from the prosecution in the fall of 2008, but DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni dodged court orders from two different judges. She gave the defense some of, but never all, the information. Now it was Conti and Vecchiotti’s turn to try to get the raw data that Stefanoni had interpreted to draw conclusions about the genetic profiles on the knife and the bra clasp. Stefanoni continued to argue that the information was unnecessary. Not until May 11, under additional orders from Judge Hellmann, did she finally comply.

Commentary: Either the police got the right suspects, or they completely f***ed up the crime scene.  It can’t simultaneously be both.  AK/RS never argue that contamination wrongfully put Guede away.

Tortured Logic #31: Judge Paolo Micheli is the Wise Judge Who Convicted Guede, and the Moron Who Sent AK/RS to Trial

[Chapter 23, Page 276] ” .... The pretrial judge, Paolo Micheli, allowed testimony from two witnesses. The first was DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni for the Polizia Scientifica.  Starting right after we were indicted, Raffaele’s and my lawyers had requested the raw data for all Stefanoni’s forensic tests. How were the samples collected? How many cotton pads had her team used to swab the bathroom sink and the bidet? How often had they changed gloves? What tests had they done - and when? Which machines had they used, at what times, and on which days? What were the original unedited results of the DNA tests?
Her response was “No. We can’t give you these documents you continue to ask for, because the ones you have will have to suffice.”

[Chapter 23, Page 277] ” .... The other testimony came from a witness named Hekuran Kokomani, an Albanian man the prosecution called to prove that Raffaele and I both knew Rudy Guede. Our lawyers argued that Raffaele had never met Guede. I’d said “Hi” to him once when we hung out at the apartment downstairs. My other encounter with him was taking his drink order at Le Chic.
Kokomani said he’d seen the three of us together on Halloween, the day before the murder.  A massive lie. Kokomani’s testimony made the pretrial seem like a farce. According to him, after dinner on Halloween, driving along Viale Sant’Antonio, the busy thoroughfare just above our house, he came upon a black garbage bag in the middle of the road. When he got out of his car, he realized the “bag” was two people: Raffaele and me. He told the court that Raffaele punched him, and I pulled out a huge knife the length of a saber, lifting it high over my head. “Raffaele said, ‘Don’t worry about her. She’s a girl,”’ Kokomani testified. “Then I threw olives at her face.”

Commentary: Seriously?  This is how your pre-trial went?  Why no complaints?  And why no defence that Guede may be wrongfully convicted?  After all, that is your new calling in life.

Tortured Logic #32: AK is Both A Daffy, Clueless Woman, and a Careful Observer During the Trial

[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. 1 saw the absurdity in it and documented it in my head.’‘

Commentary: AK projects herself as being observant and following the proceedings very carefully.  Yet her antics throughout the 2009 trial showed that she was very unaware (or just didn’t care), what she showed to others.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/trial_defendant_noticeably_bubblier_than_merediths_sad_friends/

Tortured Logic #32: Pacelli (Lumumba’s Lawyer) and Prosecutors ‘‘Grill’’ AK on the Witness Stand, but Don’t Ask any Questions about the Evening Meredith was Murdered

[Chapter 23, Page 323] ” ... The first person to question me was Carlo Pacelli, Patrick’s lawyer. Lawyers technically aren’t allowed to add their own commentary at this point, only to ask questions. But he made his opinions known through pointed questions like “Did you or did you not accuse Patrick Lumumba of a murder he didn’t commit?” and “Didn’t the police officers treat you well during your interrogation?”

[Chapter 23, Page 324] ” .... Pacelli tried to insinuate that I’d come up with Patrick’s name on my own in my interrogation. “No,” I said. “They put my cell phone in front of me, and said, ‘Look, look at the messages. You were going to meet someone.’ And when I denied it they called me a ‘stupid liar.’ From then on I was so scared. They were treating me badly, and I didn’t know why.
“It was because the police misunderstood the words ‘see you later.’ In English, it’s not taken literally. It’s just another way of saying ‘good-bye.’ But the police kept asking why I’d made an appointment to meet Patrick. ‘Are you covering for Patrick?’ they demanded. ‘Who’s Patrick?”’

[Chapter 23, Page 325] ” ... I slapped my own head to demonstrate.
“One time, two times?” Luciano asked.
“Two times,” I said. “The first time I did this.”
I dropped my head down as if I’d been struck and opened my mouth wide in surprise.
“Then I turned around toward her and she gave me another.”

[Chapter 23, Page 326] ” .... Then it was Mignini’s turn. “Why did you say, ‘Patrick’s name was suggested to me, I was beaten, I was put under pressure?”’
As soon as I started to answer, Mignini interrupted with another question. He’d done the same thing to me during my interrogation at the prison. This time, I wasn’t going to let it fluster me. I was going to answer one question at a time. Showing my irritation, I said, “Can I go on?”
I described my November 5 interrogation again. “As the police shouted at me, I squeezed my brain, thinking, ‘What have I forgotten? What have I forgotten?’ The police were saying, `Come on, come on, come on. Do you remember? Do you remember? Do you remember?’ And then boom on my head.” I imitated a slap. “‘Remember!’ the policewoman shouted. And then boom again. ‘Do you remember?”’

[Chapter 23, Page 326] ” .... When the hearing ended, I got two minutes to talk to my law-yers before the guards led me out of the courtroom. “I was nervous when you first spoke,” Luciano admitted, “but by the end I was proud of you.”

Commentary: The reason AK’s 2 days on the witness stand (June 12/13, 2009) only focused on this was because of pre-arranged rules limiting the scope of questioning..  It didn’t help.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/italy_shrugs_why_the_defendants_testimony_seems_to_have_been_a_real_fl/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/this_testimony_does_not_seem_to_have_gained_much_traction_here_in_ital/

Tortured Logic #34: CDV and Ghirga Keep Trying to Put AK on Trial Again and Again

[Chapter 31, Page 397] ” .... The appeal wouldn’t be a redo of the first trial. Italy, like the United States, has three levels of justice—the lower court, the Court of Appeals, and the highest court, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, their version of our Supreme Court. The difference is that, in Italy, someone like me is required to go through all three levels, all the way to the Cassazione, whose verdict is final.
Cases often take turns and twists that would surprise and unsettle most Americans. Even if you’re acquitted at level one, the prosecution can ask the Court of Appeals to overturn the verdict. If the appeals court finds you guilty, it can raise your sentence. Or it can decide that a second look is unnecessary and send you on to the Cassazione for the final stamp on the lower court’s decision—in Raffaele’s and my cases, to serve out our twenty-five- and twenty-six-year sentences.  At each level, the verdict is official, and the sentence goes into immediate effect unless the next court overturns it.
In Italy’s lower and intermediate levels, judges and jurors decide the verdict. And instead of focusing on legal errors, as we do in the United States, the Italian appellate court will reopen the case, look at new evidence, and hear additional testimony—if they think it’s deserved.
In our appeal request, we asked the court to appoint indepen-dent experts to review the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp, and to analyze a sperm stain on the pillow found underneath Meredith’s body that the prosecution had maintained was irrelevant. In their appeal request, the prosecution complained about what they thought was a lenient sentence and demanded life in prison for Raffaele and me.

Commentary: While AK’s summary is fairly good in some ways, she neglects to mention that the DEFENCE actually filed the appeal, (the one that ended up before Hellmann/Zanetti).  AK/RS were convicted at trial, and they appealed the convictions.  The Prosecution CROSS-APPEALED, saying that AK/RS should actually have been given a longer sentence.  This happens fairly often in Common Law Countries.  AK also omits that the 3 tier system also lets convicted defendants, like herself, get 2 automatic appeals, something the Common Law does not permit—those require a higher burden.  AK also leaves out that an appellate trial is not a full trial, and that calling in expert witnesses should be done at the trial level.  No appellate court in the Common Law is asked to “re-try” the case.

3. The New 2015 Afterword

[Afterword, Page 465] ‘’ .... But in March 2013 the high court ordered yet another trial, directing the next appeals court to reexamine certain aspects of the case. My world was shattered—again. The court gave three primary reasons.”

Commentary: Casstion “allowed” AK/RS to refile their first level appeal, but did not “mandate” them to.  The appeal that went to Judge Nencini was AK/RS’s own appeal.  AK also minimizes just how thoroughly Hellmann/Zanetti had been repudiated

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/a_summary_of_the_cassazione_ruling_on_annulment_of_the_knox-sollecito_

[Afterword, Page 463] ” .... We’d been through one lower court trial, two appellate trials, and a prior decision by the Corte di Cassazione. We had been found guilty, innocent, and guilty again. Based on this past, the best possibility my lawyers, my family, and I could imagine was that the judges would send the case back down to the appellate court for a fourth trial.

Commentary: So, at best, Cassation would allow you a 3rd attempt at your own appeal?

[Afterword, Page 466] ” .... Once again, our case had to go to the Corte di Cassazione. But my confidence had dissipated. If the Florence court could find us guilty after incontrovertible proof that we had no connection to Meredith’s murder, I didn’t know what to expect from the high court. I didn’t know how I would survive if I were made to go back to prison with no hope of an appeal.

Commentary: Without hope of appeal????  This Cassation appeal was AK/RS appeal against the Florence Appeals Court where Nencini (2014) upheld Massei (2009).  It seems like AK/RS need better lawyers.  These ones keep trying to put their clients on trial

(a) DEFENCE appeal—2011 (Hellman/Zanetti)
(b) PROSECUTION appeal—2013 (Cheiffi at Cassation)
(c) DEFENCE appeal—2013/2014 (Nencini)
(d) DEFENCE appeal—2015 (Bruno/Marasca at Cassation)
(e) DEFENCE appeal—2016 (hypothetical proposed by AK on page 463)

Tortured Logic #35: Prosecutors Don’t Feel the Need to Present Evidence at These ‘‘New Trials’‘

[Afterword, Page 466] ” .... The new court-ordered test on the knife revealed the source of the trace DNA. It was not Meredith’s. It was mine, likely left there when I used it to cook in Raffaele’s kitchen, as I had in the days before the murder. This reconfirmed the independent experts’ earlier finding that there was no proof that the knife was the murder weapon. I wasn’t surprised, but I was elated. This was the only new material evidence the prosecution presented and it undermined their case. Without new condemning evidence, everything was on track to clear us again and finally end this nightmare.”

Commentary: Yes, the knife was tested, but the DNA which AK refers to was found in the HANDLE, and it did strengthen the Prosecution’s case.  And since when is the Prosecution expected to present more evidence when the “Defence” files an appeal?  They presented their evidence in the trial stage.

Tortured Logic #36: Guede’s Prior Break in is ‘‘Relevant’‘, but AK’s ‘‘Staged Break in’’ is not

[Chapter 28, Page 352] ‘’ ....Evidence of Rudy’s crimes was everywhere, and his history of theft matched the burglary. Poor Rudy? Guede had stolen!

Commentary: Since we are getting into the character assassinations, then let’s include this one.  Yes, Rudy, with his prior break in could have done it.  Then again, Knox, with her prior “staged” break in could also have done it.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/Amanda_Knox_Confirms_she_staged_a_breakin/#comments

Tortured Logic #37: Business Judges Make Great Substitutes at Murder Appeals

Commentary: This is left out of AK’s book entirely, but Hellmann wasn’t supposed to be the lead judge at the 2011 appeal.  It was a qualified judge named Chairi, who was pushed out in favour of Hellmann, who as it turns out is a business judge.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/umbria_attorney-general_galati_files_111-page_supreme_court_appeal_aga/#comments
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/dissecting_the_hellmann_report_1/#comments
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/dissecting_the_hellmann_report_2_how_judges_zanetti_and_hellman_tilted_/#comments
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/dissecting_the_hellmann_report_3_how_zanetti_and_hellmann/#comments
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/dissecting_the_hellmann_report_4_the_contortions/#comments
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/dissecting_the_hellmann_report_5_their_obfuscation_of_merediths_time/#comments
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/reasonable_doubt_in_italian_law/#comments

Tortured Logic #38: Prison Snitches Are Reliable Witnesses

[Chapter 32, Page 418] ” .... Mario Alessi was a brick mason given a life sentence for murdering an infant boy in 2006. He was in the same prison as Rudy Guede, and had written to Raffaele’s lawyers that he had information for our defense: Alessi said he went outside for exercise with other prisoners, including Rudy Guede, on November 9, 2009. “Guede told me he wanted to ask me for some confidential advice,” Alessi said in his court deposition. “There wasn’t a day that Guede and I didn’t spend time together ...
“I responded that I wasn’t a lawyer, and I didn’t know what to say, but that I believed it would be useful to tell the truth. So he confided in me, describing what happened the night of the murder.”  Guede told Alessi that he and a friend had run into Meredith in a bar a few days before the murder.  On the night of November 1, Alessi said, the two men surprised Meredith at the villa and, “in an explicit manner,” asked her to have a threesome.
Alessi said that Meredith “rejected the request. She even got up and ordered Guede and his friend to leave the house. At this point Guede asked where the bathroom was, and he stayed in the bathroom for a little while, ten to fifteen minutes at most. Immediately after, reentering the room, he found a scene that was completely different—that is, Kercher was lying with her back to the floor and his friend held her by the arms. Rudy straddled her and started to masturbate. While Guede told me these things, he was upset and tears came to his eyes ...

Commentary: Yeah, forget those false alibis, false accusation, turned off phones, mixed blood, bloody footprints .... I’m convinced.

Tortured Logic #39: Allegations of Bribery of Witnesses are Not Relevant

[Chapter 32, Page 420] ” ... Alessi’s story, however, sickened me when I heard it and haunted me long after. I knew it was only hearsay and that even though two of Guede’s other prisonmates corroborated it, it couldn’t be used as direct evidence.  Real or not, it forced me to focus on the torture that Meredith was put through. And it opened up a question I’d never seriously considered and could barely handle: Had there been someone with Guede?

Commentary: AK leaves out the name of Luciano Aviello, how testified but alleged to have been bribed for this testimony.  Some tell all book.  And had someone been with Guede?  Not that the prosecution was trying a “multiple-attackers” theory

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/giulia_bongiornos_next_super-witness_the_apple/#comments

Tortured Logic #40: Sending a Email Works Just as Well as Showing up to Court

[Afterword, Page 466] ” .... No legal process was issued to request my return to Italy for the September 2013 appellate trial in Florence. My lawyers presented my defense in my absence.”

Commentary: This seems like a tortuous way of saying AK didn’t show because she couldn’t be forced to.  In reality, she hit the media circuit claiming to be afraid.  She also claimed she couldn’t afford to go back which caused disbelief, given her book deal.  But apparently was still concerned, as she sent an email to the Florence Court.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/questions_for_knox_how_do_you_explain/
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/multiple_ways_in_which_amanda_knoxs_email/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/The_Nencini_Email_Why_This_May_Be/#comments

Tortured Logic #41: Cassation Learned as Much in 2 Days as the Massei Trial Court did in a Year

[Afterword, Page 478] ” .... On Wednesday, March 25, the Corte di Cassazione began hearing arguments by the prosecutors, the civil parties, and my defense attorneys. Unlike the previous high court hearing, the justices listened to all sides without interrupting the defense. The hearing took so many hours the court decided to reconvene in two days.

Commentary: Odd, how Cassation, even over 2 days, can learn as much as the 2009 trial court did.  No witnesses, evidence, experts, or AK herself ever presented.  And how can AK know how the 2013 and 2015 hearings differed?  She attended neither.  More likely, she remembers Carlo Dalla Vedova “filibustering” Mignini during her June 2009 questioning and assumes that Supreme Court appeals work the same way

Tortured Logic #42: Guede is an Accomplice to Murder, With no Actual Killer

Commentary: Guede’s Cassation appeal in 2010 confirmed he was guilty, but did not act alone.  AK/RS 2013 Cassation hearing annulled the Hellmann acquittal, so those 5 judges believed that they were involved as well.  AK/RS 2015 Cassation hearing clears them, but since no one else was ever charged, it leaves Guede as an accomplice with no actual killer.

Tortured Logic #43: AK was Present, RS Probably Was, but Meredith was Killed by ‘‘X’’ and ‘‘Y’‘

Commentary: Just read these fine summaries.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C856/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C855/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C853/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C854/
http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2016-March-Draft_Bruno-Marasca-rebuttal.pdf

Tortured Logic #44: AK Still Hasn’t Learned not to Publish a Book Before the Cassation Report Comes Out

[Afterword, Page 480] ‘’ ... Minutes later Carlo Della Vedova, one of our two Italian lawyers, called.
“Does acquitted mean not enough evidence to convict?” I asked him. “Or did they find us innocent?”
“They found you innocent. Amanda!” he said. “It’s the best result possible!”;
0ne trial. Two appellate court retrials. Two Italian Supreme Court decisions. Four years in prison.
Seven and a half years of suspended life.”

Commentary: AK originally released the book after the March 2013 hearing, but before the report came out.  She does the same thing here again: re-releasing in June 2015, after this ruling, but before the report was released in September 2015.  Judges Bruno and Marasca stick the knife in AK/RS’s backs (how’s that for a metaphor), concluding AK was at the scene—though did not participate—and RS probably was there too.

See #43 for the summaries.

Bruno/Marasca can be explained in 1 word FINALITY

(1) B/M don’t want the ECHR reviewing the case too carefully, so they sabotage AK’s appeal for calunnia
(2) B/M don’t want AK/RS crowing about their innocence, so they write it this way to shut them up.
(3) B/M don’t want a civil suit from AK/RS, so they make it clear they don’t believe they are innocent.  RS sues anyway.
(4) B/M don’t want to be investigated for corruption, so they try to make it more plausible than Hellmann/Zanetti.
(5) B/M don’t want the Kerchers going ahead, so they placate them, but stop just short of outright guilt.

Tortured Logic #45: Hellmann/Zanetti and Bruno/Marasca Must Have “Forgotten” About AK Falsely Accusing PL

[Epilogue, Page 444] ” .... “For the charges prescribed in letters A, B, C, D, and E,” Judge Hellmann continued, “La torte assolve gli imputati, per non aver commesso ifatfi7—“the defendants are acquitted by the court, for not having committed the acts.”

[Afterword, Page 480] ” .... “It’s confirmed!” I shouted. “We’re acquitted! We’re free! No more trials! It’s done!”
I jumped up from the table. Everyone started whooping and crying, hugging one another—spitting out the fear and tension of the past seven and a half years.
Minutes later Carlo Della Vedova, one of our two Italian lawyers, called. “Does ‘acquitted’ mean not enough evidence to convict?” I asked him. “Or did they find us
innocent?”
“They found you innocent. Amanda!” he said. “It’s the best result possible!”
0ne trial. Two appellate court retrials. Two Italian Supreme Court decisions. Four years in prison. Seven and a half years of suspended life.
The relief I felt was so sudden, so unexpected, so encompassing, I felt as weightless as a bubble. I feel freer than I have felt since I was twenty.
I’m as grateful for the reversal of Raffaele’s wrongful conviction as I am for my own. But I’m acutely aware that the loss of Meredith can never be reversed. This story cannot end happily. That is not possible. Nothing will bring Meredith back to her loved ones.

Commentary: For all her proclaimed mindfulness to detail, AK leaves out that Bruno/Marasca did not touch her calunnia conviction.  In fact, they later sabotaged her ECHR appeal.  In the original edition of the book, AK left out that Hellmann not only upheld that conviction, but raised it to 3 years.  And how can it be a wrongful conviction, when she spent 3 years, 11 months in jail, but received a 3 year sentence?  It is more or less “time served”.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/amanda_knox_team_to_appeal_conviction_and_3-year_sentence_for_fingerin/#comments

Tortured Logic #46: AK Still Hasn’t Learned That Making False Accusations is not a Good Idea

Commentary: At the time ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’’ was released in April 2013, AK’s: (1) calunnia for falsely accusing PL of rape and murder had been confirmed, as had the 3 year sentence; (2) calunnia for falsely accusing police officers of assault, coercion and intimidation was still before the courts.

So you think any intelligent ghost writer (Linda Kulman) or publishing agent (Robert Barnett) or publisher (HarperCollins) might have had second thoughts about any of the following?  Did they ever read it?

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_tide_of_malicious_defamation_now_threatens_to_swamp_knox_1/#comments

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_her_tide_of_malicious_defamation_now_threatens_to_swamp_knox_2/#comments

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_her_tide_of_malicious_defamation_now_threatens_to_swamp_knox_3/#comments

Tortured Logic #47: A Creative Writing Graduate Needs a Professional Writer for HER Story

[Acknowledgements, Page 460]  ” .... I wouldn’t have been able to write this memoir without Linda Kulman. Somehow, with her Post-it Notes and questions, with her generosity, dedication, and empathy, she turned my rambling into writing, and taught me so much in the meantime. I am grateful to her family—Ralph, Sam, Julia—for sharing her with me for so long.”

Commentary: A university graduate in writing needed someone else to ghostwrite her book.  I know university standards are steadily declining,  but come on.

Tortured Logic #48: AK got paid $3.8 million for SOMEONE ELSE to Write This

Commentary: Originally I was just going to put “fuck my life”, but here is something more productive

AK’s take was $3.8M.  It is reasonable to assume that there was a large advance, say a million upfront, with the rest based on sales.  It is also reasonable to assume that Linda Kuhlman and Robert Barnett also got a significant chunk.  And for easy numbers, let’s say publishing costs were $1M as well.  (750,000 copies originally produced at $1.33/book is $1M).

While stores like Chapters/Coles/Indigo may sell the book for $30 retail, the publisher, HarperCollins does not get all that.  Bookstores have employees and overhead, so HC may be able to get half of that, or $15 per book.  Considering that nearly all books have large amounts of unsold copies, higher margins have to be factored in.

Also, keep in mind that bookstores routinely discount prices, even on relatively new books.  And online options, like Kindle or Amazon, while lower overhead, sell for much, MUCH less than bookstores.  If a copy is sold for $5.99, then rest assured H.C. is not getting $15/book.

A more likely scenario is HarperCollins getting about $8/book, and that is generous.  Low margin sales, while they are “sales”, undermine profitability

***Scenario A: Very Few Books are Sold

AK still gets her $1M advance, and HarperCollins still has to pay $1M for publishing

RESULT: Loss of $2M

***Scenario B: 250,000 Books are Sold

AK gets $1M advance, and $1M for sales; H.C. incurs $1M for publishing.  Total spent is $3M.
However, 250,000 copies sold at $8/copy is a $2M income.
RESULT: Loss of $1M

***Scenario C: 500,000 Books are Sold

AK gets $1M advance and $2M for sales.  H.C. incurs $1M for publishing.  Total spent is $4M.
However, 500,000 copies sold at $8/book is $4M income
RESULT: Approximate break even

***Scenario D: All 750,000 Books are Sold

AK gets all $3.8M; H.C. incurs $1M for publishing.  Total spent is $4.8M.
However, 750,000 copies sold at $8/copy is a $6M income.
RESULT: Profit of $1.2M on $4.8M spent, a return of 25%

While a return of 25% is decent, it makes many assumptions: (a) That most or all books are sold; (b) That H.C. actually gets $8/book; (c) Kuhlman’s and Barnett—and anyone else’s—fees are neglible; (d) That H.C. won’t be sued by anyone or have the book forcibly pulled (see #46).  Those are huge assumptions, and considering how successful HarperCollins is, this seems like a very bad business deal.  Having to sell 70%+ just to break even?

So, I have to ask, did someone at HarperCollins get a bribe or a kickback to see this loss-making deal go through?

4. And So In Conclusion

This concludes the series, “Revenge of the Knox”, which was meant to expose just how completely false and malicious this “memoir” really is.  It is insulting, inflammatory, literally makes hundreds of false claims, slimes many, accuses others of crimes, whitewashes AK’s history—including banging a coke dealer for drugs, greatly distorts the factual evidence, and makes very little sense, even to those who have not followed the case closely.

There is very little of this book that is not either exaggerated or outright made up.  AK gets the major dates right, and most of the names, but that is about the extent of it..  This book reads like it was written by an angry 12 year old girl, detached from reality.  Ironically, that part actually rings true.  Pardon the cheap shot, but the quality of the writing sucks.

AK claims that she relies on court documents, but the only one she significantly references is her November ruling from Judge Matteini.  She holds it up as proof that PL was framed.  This is rather bitter, as she directly caused him to be wrongly arrested.  She includes her 3rd statement (where she muddies the waters), but omits the 1st and 2nd where she conclusively accuses PL.

On a personal note, I actually enjoyed other research topics more.  This book just gets me worked up.  However it gets far higher readership.  Oh well.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/probable_legal_scenario_if_the_crime_against_meredith_had_taken_place/
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/justice_systems_comparisons_5_how_appeals_differ_in_italy/

Hope you’ve enjoyed the s**tshow.  Don’t get any on you.

Posted on 06/14/16 at 09:00 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyThose who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxes KnoxKnox book hoaxes
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (5)

Monday, May 23, 2016

Carlo Dalla Vedova, Is ECHR Made Aware Italian Law REQUIRES Lawyers To First File Local Complaints?

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters





Carlo Dalla Vedova,

You are aware of this, right? It is not optional: if Italian clients credibly claim police abuse, their lawyers MUST lodge a complaint.

This is a serious requirement in Italian law, which looks to protect the client while heading off innuendo and frivolous appeals years down the road.  Under the principle of infedele patrocinio (betrayal of the interest of the client), if you really believed Knox’s varying claims that she was abused, it seems you’d have no choice but to lodge a formal complaint. 

Not only was no formal complaint that we know of ever filed by you, and so no investigation ever begun, summaries of your ECHR case by Cassazione and by ECHR itself make no mention of any process having been followed. They specifically ask you about this. 

The ECHR quotes in full a letter to you from Amanda Knox dated 9 November 2007 claiming at length that police abuse explained why she was “confused” at the so-called “interrogation” of 5-6 November 2007.

But the ECHR seems to have not been made aware that you never passed this letter on to any prosecutor or any judge.  In fact, you provide it as evidence only now. Why was this not made clear?

And even more daunting for your appeal, your legal colleague Luciano Ghirga at Rudy Guede’s trial late in 2008 specifically said this - in effect, the exact opposite of your current claim.

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

Now the ECHR in its first response to your submission is asking some questions of fact. It has addressed this first question to you.

1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

It appears that no, Knox the applicant never did initiate the formal process to seek a remedy through Italian law. The point is one that ends the ECHR appeal process all by itself if the answer is no.

    (1) because of the obvious status of inadmissibility of the application under the ECHR rules (no domestic remedy was first attempted),

    (2) because of its damaging probative value for assessing the credibility of the version of facts provided by the applicant.

You will of course know of the legal provisions under Italian law about which the ECHR may not yet be aware:

    (1) the crimes of beating (cp 581), or physical violence or threat (cp. 610-612) require the victim to file a complaint in order to allow prosecution of the charge, otherwise investigation cannot be initiated;

    (2) the Ethics Code of lawyers requires a defence attorney to file a charge if he/she collects a claim by a client under detention, and to properly inform the client about the necessity to file a complaint;

    (3) if a lawyer is informed by a client under detention that the same client suffered violence or offence by authorities, and does not take proper legal steps, the lawyer would commit the extremely serious criminal offence of infedele patrocinio (betrayal of the interest of client) besides breaching the Ethics Code;

    (4) a defence attorney is also required to object any irregularity of breach of the code that could be suffered by the client, namely, in any particular case, if the applicant’s current claims had been made at the time, the lawyers should have denounced the breach of Procedure Code claiming that a prosecution interrogation had taken place (thus, that would mean breaching the Procedure code that prevents prosecution from questioning a suspect prior to his/her appearance before a judge)

So, in summary, no formal complaint ever seems to have been filed allowing local investigations to begin. And the failure to initiate the procedure for domestic remedy by the applicant on this claim could be a crime under Italian law if Knox had insisted on it.

And it would seem to render the request inadmissible on this point. It also undermines any possible credibility of the claim itself. Regardless of whoever dropped the ball here, lawyer or client, it does not bode well.


Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Revenge of the Knox, Series 4: Exposing The Tortured Logic That Permeates Her Book #1

Posted by Chimera



HarperCollin’s Jonathan Burnham and Claire Wachtell who edited and published Knox’s book

1. Series Overview

Waiting to be Heard was first released in April 2013, after Cassation had confirmed AK’s false accusation of PL for rape and murder, and after it had thrown out the Hellmann/Zanetti finding of not guilty.

That successful prosecution appeal reverted their legal status back to “guilty, pending further appeals”.  In light of this, the publisher, HarperCollins, seemingly thought they could avoid legal trouble if the book was pulled from the UK (on advice of their own lawyers) and Italy.

The paperback version was released on June 9, 2015, the day AK’s second calunnia trial—for making false accusations on the stand against Perugia police—was set to begin.  The “new version” contained a whiny afterword, but left the previous stuff untouched.

Once again, it was released prior to Cassation actually releasing its sentencing report, in this case late in 2015, and once again it has come back to haunt AK/RS.

This is the fourth and final series of over 20 posts on the book in total, the previous series having been on (1) Knox’s 600 or so malicious and self-serving lies, (2) Knox’s 100 or so false accusations, and (3) instances of Knox being contradicted by the Supreme Court.

All the 20-plus posts can be read in sequence in our Knox book hoaxes category. 

Included among around 600 smears and malicious lies, there are numerous smears about her “friends” Meredith, Laura and Filomena, about drug use while Knox with characteristic hypocrssy AK omits her own heavy drug use and her exchanges of sex for free drugs from Federico Martini.

Included among around 100 false accusations: AK accuses (1) Judge Paolo Micheli (pre-trial) and Judge Giancarlo Massei (trial) of professional misconduct; (2) Judge Claudia Matteini (preliminary hearing) of incompetence; (3) Prosecutors Mignini/Comodi of misconduct and suborning perjury; (4) Rita Ficarra of assault; (5) Ficarra, Monica Napoleoni, Marca Chiacchiera, Patrizia Stefanoni of committing perjury; and (5) translator Anna Donnino of misrepresenting herself.

(6) Knox also accuses the justice officials of trying to frame her and RS—and vilify them in the media—to save their careers and to look good.  (7) She also claims that the police coerced/bullied her into making the false accusation of Patrick Lumumba. AK also accuses prison officials (8) of sexual assault; (9) of intimidation; (10) of sexual harassment; (11) of harassment; (12) of covering up police brutality; (13) of leaking confidential medical records; (14) of providing an unsafe environment for her; (15) of keeping her in isolation unnecessarily; and (16) of denying her counsel.

No complaints were ever filed, either in jail after being released, though Italian defense lawyers are REQUIRED to file complaints if their client tells them of illegalities. Publishing a book 18 months later is not at all the same thing and in fact sets up liabilities.

1. Knox’s Tortured Logic

The book just doesn’t make sense.  It contradicts itself repeatedly, and makes many claims that just do not pass muster.  It speaks to Knox’s extreme unreliabilty as a narrator and to her self-servingness at every posibility. Read these three posts for yourself, and see if any of this actually seems normal.

Tortured Logic #1: AK Shows What This is All About

[Chapter 2, Page 16] 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. I jumped up, kissed him once more, and said good-bye. I went upstairs to the tiny room Deanna and I were sharing.
She was wide awake, standing by the window. “Where have you been?” she asked. “I didn’t know where you were or if you were okay.”

[Chapter 3, Page 32] “Do you want to eat at my place?” Mirko asked. “We can watch a movie.”
“Sure,” I said, and instantly felt an inner jolt. It came from the sudden certainty that we would have sex, that that’s where our flirtation had been heading all along.
We carried our pizza boxes through Piazza Grimana, by the University for Foreigners, and down an unfamiliar street, past a park. Mirko’s house was at the end of a gravel drive. “I live here with my sister,” he told me.
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, “Hell000, Amanda. Sex is normal.”  Casual sex was, for my generation, simply what you did.

[Chapter 4, Page 39] 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. 1 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.

[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.

Commentary: So 4 of the first 5 chapters are devoted to describing her ‘‘campaign for casual sex’‘.  Is that really why she wrote the book - to prove she is sexually obsessive and voracious?

Tortured Logic #2: AK Turning Off her Phone Would Notify Patrick She was Unavailable if he Texts

[Chapter 5, Page 62] 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 piu 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!”

Commentary: If Patrick called then he would know she was unavailable, but texting a message would not get rejected.

Tortured Logic #3: AK Turning Off her Phone to be Alone—And This Happened to be the First and Only Time

[Chapter 5, Page 62] 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!”

Commentary: If AK did this normally, this wouldn’t raise much suspicion.  But it is the first time, and both she and RS do it.  If AK was really wanting private liasons, wouldn’t it make more sense to do it when she is with Cristiano (a.k.a. Federico Martini, the drug dealer she met on the train)?

Tortured Logic #4: Knox’s ‘‘Account’’ of November 6th, After she has had 6 years to think about it.

[Chapter 6, Page 65-67] 0n that cold, sunny Friday morning, I left Rafael 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, “,  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 “, 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.”
Hearing Mom’s voice calmed me. It can’t be that bad, I thought.  Im out of the house. Nothing happened. Pm safe. No one’s in danger.  I called Filomena first and was relieved when she picked up. “Ciao, ,” 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?”

Commentary: This is an excerpt, the whole passage is too long to quote it all here, but AK tries to ‘‘combine’’ every alibi and excuse she has had in here.  It actually comes across as more absurd.

Tortured Logic #5: AK Takes Her Ear Piercings Out Just After Getting Them Done

[Chapter 6, Page 65]  ” ... faucet. Weird. I’d gotten my ears pierced. Were they bleeding?”

Commentary: In some versions, AK describes herself as “taking them out to clean”.  This is absurd, as any woman who has gotten piercings knows that lobe piercings stay in at least 6 weeks.  Cartilage piercings can be 3 months or more.

Tortured Logic #6: Knox is Targeted Although ‘‘Everyone’’ From the House was Detained.

[Chapter 7, Page 89] 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. Rafael 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.

Commentary: AK whines that she was targeted, but by her own admission everyone from the house was held at the Questura.

Tortured Logic #7: Knox’s “Friends” Don’t Mind her Publishing Embarrassing Things About Them

[Chapter 8, Page 88] ” ... Did we ever smoke marijuana at No. 7, Via dells Pergola? “No, we don’t smoke,” I lied, squirming
inwardly as I did…”

[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.”

Commentary: So much for being respectful as she so often praises herself for.

Tortured Logic #8: Perugia’s Micromanaging ‘‘Mayor’’ Leads Murder Investigations

[Chapter 10, Page 119] Eventually they told me the pubblico ministero would be coming in. I didn’t know this translated as prosecutor, or that this was the magistrate that Rita Ficarra had been referring to a few days earlier when she said they’d have to wait to see what he said, to see if I could go to Germany. I thought the “public minister” was the mayor or someone in a similarly high “public” position in the town and that somehow he would help me.

[Chapter 11, Page 136] My memorials 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.

[Chapter 14, Page 164] ” ... 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.”

Commentary: If AK really wanted to go with the ‘‘public figure’‘, then Attorney General or Police Commissioner would have made more sense.

Tortured Logic #9: Police Tap Knox’s Phone, but Don’t Bother Pulling Her Phone Records

[Chapter 7, Page 78] ” .... 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.”

Commentary: Setting aside that fact that MANY phones were bugged, why would the police not go the extra mile and actually pull the records of AK’s calls and text?  Also, why would they not be able to find out then and there that AK actually had her phone turned off?  As AK assures us that this was a police sting, it seems very half-assed.

Tortured Logic #10: Police Leak to the Press That Meredith’s Roommates are Suspected PRIOR to Making an Arrest

[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.”  Or I might simply have thought: It’s not Laura, it’s not Filomena, it’s not me. Whom could they possibly be thinking of?

Commentary: It is not common practice—anywhere—to name a possible suspect, or drop hints, who has not been arrested, unless asking for the public’s help tracking him or her down.

Tortured Logic #11: U.S. Embassies Are Good Sources of Information for all Potential Witnesses in Murder Investigations

[Chapter 10, Page 105] ‘’ .... When my phone rang I drew in my breath, exhaling only after I realized it was Dolly. “Have you reached the American embassy?” she asked.
“No,” I said, stepping into the hall. “I haven’t had time, but I’ll try to figure it out.  I’m back in class.’‘
In truth, I hadn’t even thought about calling the embassy.’‘

Commentary: Sure after one has been arrested abroad, an embassy may be helpful.  But why contact them during a murder investigation?  And in the next point, #12, the UW exchange office calls to check on AK, just because there happened to be a murder in Europe.

Tortured Logic #12: The University of Washington Monitors its Former Students While on Vacation

[Chapter 1, Page 10] ” .... “No, I’ll have to find my own housing, but I’m sure I can get a good apartment close to campus. I checked with the UW foreign exchange office—they say the University for Foreigners will give me a housing list when I get there. I’d really like to live with Italians so I can practice speaking the language.”

Commentary: She checked with the UW foreign exchange office?  Why?  She wasn’t on an exchange.

[Chapter 8, 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.” I didn’t want to admit that they were right, that what I was going through was too stressful for me to handle by myself. But the last thing I wanted from my parents—even though it’s probably what I needed most—was to be treated like a child.”

Commentary: Several things: (1) AK wasn’t on any official exchange with the U of W; (2) AK wasn’t actually taking any classes at U of W at all; (3) How would UW even know where AK is at the moment, let alone care?; (4) Even if UW knew where AK was, why would they monitor global news to see what was happening in Perugia?; (5) Was UW foreign exchange office acting like a probation officer or something?; (6) Does UW monitor many students, or just AK?

Tortured Logic #13: AK is ‘‘Lured’’ to the Police Station by Police Who Tell Her to Go Home

[Chapter 10, Page 108] Did the police know Id show up, or were they purposefully separating Rafael and me? When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside, that I’d have to wait for Rafael in the car. I begged them to change their minds. I said, “I’m afraid to be by myself in the dark.”

Commentary: AK is lured to the Questura, but has to beg and plead to be let in?  Some sting.  What if AK, like 99% of people, had just left when told to? 

Tortured Logic #14: AK is ‘‘Lured’’ Into a Sting, but no Interpreter or Video Cameras are Available

[Chapter 10, Page 108] ‘’ ... 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.  To the unnamed police officer, I said, "Okay, but I’ve told you everything I know. I don’t knowvwhat else to say."
‘‘Why don’t you keep talking about the people who’ve been in your house—especially men?’’ he suggested.

[Chapter 10, Page 110] ‘’ ... The walls were blank. I had nowhere to look but at the police. They said, “We’re going to call in an interpreter.”
While we waited for the interpreter to arrive, they said, “Tell us more about the last time you saw Meredith.”

Commentary: If what AK says is true, then she was a suspect all along.  So, in 4 days, no cameras or interpreters were available for the “sting”?

Tortured Logic #15: The Police Have a Male ‘“Suspect’’ Available, but get Knox to Accuse SOMEONE ELSE

[Chapter 9, Page 99] ‘’ .... But as much as he was helping me, we were careening to a bad end together. Whether it was kissing outside the house while Meredith lay inside dead, or whispering, joking, and making faces in the questura, our behavior had aroused suspicion. I was oblivious to it, but apparently once the police thought we were guilty, it colored everything.’‘

[Chapter 10, Page 108] ‘’ .... Did the police know Id show up, or were they purposefully separating Rafael and me?’‘
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 wouldnt stop until they had it.

[Chapter 10, Page 113] ‘’ .... Just then a cop - Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa - opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.”

[Chapter 10, Page 114] ‘’ .... “Where did you go? Who did you text?” Ficarra asked, sneering at me.“I don’t remember texting anyone.”
They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history.
“You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”
“My boss at Le Chic.”
“What about his text message? What time did you receive that?”

Commentary: Assuming (for the sake of argument) that RS ‘‘had’’ been lured to the Questura to break AK’s alibi, why have AK accuse someone else entirely?  It would make far more sense to get AK to flip on RS.  Remember: AK was acting weird and inappropriate “with” RS.  And if you assume that because it was a sexual assault that a man did it, again, RS would be the perfect target.

Tortured Logic #16: Police Are Able to Target a Couple Who Both Incredibly have Such a Loose Grip on Reality

Eead here and here.  This isn’t so much about tortured logic but the most bizarre and fortunate coincidence for the police.  They couldn’t have targeted 2 better patsies.

[Chapter 9, Page 102] ” .... I was naive, 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 Rafael and I hadn’t been so immature?  What if Id 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?”

Commentary: So, sleeping around, being juvenile and showing off her vibrator got her arrested?  I can understand the desire to flee the country or get a lawyer, but this just makes no sense.

Tortured Logic #17: Police Simultaneously Want to Know: (a) Who Patrick is; (b) Who Knox Went Off to Meet.

Seems Like They Answer Their Own Questions

[Chapter 10, Page 114] ” .... “I don’t remember texting anyone.”
They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history.
“You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”
“My boss at Le Chic.”
“What about his text message? What time did you receive that?”

[Chapter 10, Page 116] ” ... “Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person?
Who’s Patrick?”
The questions wouldn’t stop. I couldn’t think. And even when it didn’t seem possible, the pressure
kept building.
I said, “Patrick is my boss.”

[Chapter 10, Page 117] ” .... People were shouting at me. “Maybe you just don’t remember what happened. Try to think. Try to
think. Who did you meet? Who did you meet? You need to help us. Tell us!”
A cop boomed, “You’re going to go to prison for thirty years if you don’t help us.”

Commentary: AK told them who Patrick was, yet the police seem to still want to know who Patrick is.

[Chapter 10, Page 117] ” .... The silver-haired police officer took both of my hands in his. He said, “I really want to help you. I want to save you, but you need to tell me who the murderer is. You need to tell me. You know who the murderer is. You know who killed Meredith.”

Commentary: AK has told them who she went to meet, and who Patrick is.  Do they not put 2 and 2 together?

[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.”

Commentary: See point #9, the police apparently had the foresight to tap AK’s phone, but never bothered to pull her phone records.  Had she been a target all along, they could have had this information when they launched their sting (meaning not calling AK and telling her to go home when she arrived uninvited).

Tortured Logic #18: Italian Prisons and Police Stations Double as Hotel Rooms

[Chapter 11, Page 129] “We need to take you into custody,” she said. “Just for a couple of days—for bureaucratic
reasons.”
Custody? What does that mean? Are they taking me to a safe house?
The silver-haired cop had told me during my interrogation that they would protect me if I cooperated, if I told them who the murderer was. Will my mom be there with me? Can I call her? What does “bureaucratic reasons” mean? Does it mean they’re just processing my paperwork, my spontaneous declarations?

Commentary: AK is again turning on the BS machine.

Tortured Logic #19: AK, Who Speaks Limited Italian, is Able to Remember VERY LONG Quotes in Italian Years Later (With no Interpreter)

[Chapter 10, Page 110]  Then they said, “Okay, minute by minute, we want you to tell us what happened.”
I still thought they were using me to find out more information about Meredith - her habits,
whom she knew, who could possibly have had a motive to kill her. I started trying to describe the
exact time I saw Meredith leave the house. I said, “I think it was around two P.M. - one or two.
I’m not sure which. I don’t wear a watch, and the time didn’t matter - it was a holiday. But I
know it was after lunch.”

[Chapter 10, Page 111] ‘’ ... Then the questions shifted. They asked, “When did you leave your house?”
At first, when they started questioning me about what I did, I thought they were just trying to test whether I was telling the truth - maybe because I’d lied about our marijuana use.
I said, “Before dinner - four- ish maybe.”
They said, “Are you sure it was four- ish? Was it four o’clock or five o’clock? You didn’t see the time?”
“No. Then we went to Raffaele’s place.”
“How long it did it take you to get there?”
“I don’t know - a couple of minutes. He doesn’t live far away.”
“What happened then?”
“Nothing happened. We had dinner; we watched a movie; we smoked a joint; we had sex; we went to bed.”
“Are you positive? Nothing else?”
“Well, I got a text message from my boss telling me I didn’t have to work that night.”
“What time did that happen?”
“I think around eight P.M. - maybe. Maybe it was before then.” I was thinking, It had to be before I’d normally go to work. “Maybe seven or eight?”
That wasn’t good enough for them.
They kept asking me for exact times, and because I couldn’t remember what had happened from 7 P.M. to 8 P.M. and 8 P.M. to 9 P.M. they made it seem as if my memory were wrong. I started
second- guessing myself. Raffaele and I had done some variation of watching a movie, cooking dinner, reading Harry Potter, smoking a joint, and having sex every night for the past week.
Suddenly it all ran together so that I couldn’t remember what time we’d done what on Thursday, November 1. I kept saying, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.”
I was afraid to say that I didn’t know the difference between 7 P.M. or 8 P.M., and I was beginning to feel panicky because they were demanding that I know. My heart was hammering,
my thoughts were scrambled, and the pressure on the sides of my head made it feel as if my skull were going to split apart. I couldn’t think. Suddenly, in trying to distinguish between this time or
that time, this sequence of events or that one, I started forgetting everything. My mind was spinning. I felt as if I were going totally blank.
“Which was it?”
I took a deep breath. “I don’t remember.”
Ficarra thrust her hand out aggressively and insisted, “Let me see your cell phone.”
I handed it to her. As they looked through it, they kept pounding me with questions. “What
movie did you watch?”
“Amélie.”
“How long is that movie?”
“I don’t know.”
“Did you watch it all the way through?”

[Chapter 10, Page 112]  “Well, we paused it at some point, because we noticed that the sink was leaking.”
“But you said you’d had dinner before that.”
“I guess you’re right. I think the sink leaked before we watched the movie, but then I remember pausing it.”
“Why did you pause it?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Why? Why? What time?”

[Chapter 10, page 113] ‘’ ... The interpreter, a woman in her forties, arrived at about 12:30 A.M. It’s inconceivable to me now that all the questioning up to that point had been in Italian. For a couple of hours I’d done my best to hang in there, to grasp what they were saying. I kept saying, “Okay, I understand.” I was always mortified when I had to admit that my Italian wasn’t up to speed.’‘

[Chapter 12, Page 149]  ‘’ ....Amanda Knox. K-n- o-x.”
“Do you have allergies, illnesses, diseases?”
“No,” I replied.
“Well, we’ll need to do blood work anyway,” he said. Just then I felt a sharp pinch from the back of my head. The nurse had snuck around me and plucked a hair from my scalp. I started to turn and glare at her, but instead asked the doctor, “Blood work? For what?”
“For diseases,“he said. “Sign this. For the tests.” He pushed a document and a pen in front of me, and I signed it.
“How do you feel?”
“Worried”, I said. “Worried and confused.”
I shrank down in my seat.
“Confused?”; he asked.
“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,”; Argiro 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.

Commmentary: How is this possible? (a) As AK keeps pointing out, there were no cameras; (b) All of the police accounts are very different; (c) AK claims she was traumatized.  Makes you suspect she made the whole thing up.  This book has many such conversations, all while AK claims to have only a rudimentary knowledge of Italian.

Tortured Logic #20: Italian Police Give ‘‘Good-Bye” Hugs to Accused Sex Killers as They Drop them Off

[Chapter 11, Page 141] ‘’ .... At a wave from our driver, we entered the building, 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.”

Commentary: Not sure what to say here.

Posted on 05/17/16 at 04:08 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxes KnoxKnox book hoaxesHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas team
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

Monday, May 02, 2016

Revenge “On” The Knox: Bruno And Marasca Strike Back

Posted by Chimera



Judge Bruno the drafter of the seriously bizarre Fifth Chambers report “Who, me?!!!”

1. Overview Of The Post

We have posted both multi-part analyses of the Amanda Knox book (extended 2015 edition) and also multi-part analyses of the 2015 Supreme Court verdict attempting to apply closure to the case.

Primarily because they both make so much up and leave so much out, both efforts appear to Italian lawyers and observers and our own team to have fallen far short.

Worse, as I demonstrate here, Knox and the Supreme Court were not even on the same page. They used different arguments which tend to cancel one another out.

In effect the report of Judges Bruno and Marasca late in 2015 pulled the rug out from under Knox’s book published a few months before.   

2. Arguments Of The Supreme Court

The final report from the 5th Chambers of Cassation was released in September 2015, several months late, with rumors swirling in Rome that it was proving a tough task. 

Our five critique series were put together by (1) the Perugia prosecution, (2) Machiavelli, (3) Catnip, (4) James Raper (the longest of those four), and (5) in draft by Olleosnep.

From James Raper critique Part 1

The Fifth Chambers argued as follows:

1.  The standard of “beyond any reasonable doubt” was not met due to insufficient and/or contradictory evidence - pursuant to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.  Multiple attackers upheld. Guede was guilty with others unknown.

3.  The break-in in Romanelli’s room was staged.

4.  Amanda Knox was present in the cottage at the time of the murder but there is insufficient evidence that she played a participatory role.

5.  The DNA profile of Meredith Kercher on the knife and the DNA profile of Raffaele Sollecito on the bra clasp have “no probative or circumstantial relevance”

6.  “Motive is not irrelevant” and motive was not established.

7.  No selective cleaning.

8.  No purpose would be served in remanding the case back to the 1st instance court of appeal (as had occurred on appeal against acquittal)

From James Raper Critique Part 5

The Fifth Chambers argued as follows:

1.  Knox was present in the cottage at the time of the murder but in a non-participatory role. Very probably (if this is not a held fact) she had scrubbed Meredith’s blood off her hands in the small bathroom.

2.  Sollecito was very probably there as well, but it cannot be known when.

3.  There was certainly an assailant (and perhaps more than one) in addition to Guede.

4.  There was a staging of the break-in in Filomena’s room.

While this seems (in a very tortuous way), to assert an “insufficient evidence” finding rather than an “innocence” finding, the findings of the 5th Chambers are now considered final, unless they are overturned.

That being said, these findings directly refute the bulk of Knox’s book “Waiting to be Heard”

3. Arguments of Amanda Knox

Our 12-part series taking apart the claims in Knox’s book can be found here.

(1) Chapter 5, 6: The Evening and Morning After Meredith Died

Knox Version (A): AK/RS were at his apartment, watching Amelie, smoking pot, reading Harry Potter and f***ing.  AK returned to her home late the next morning.

Knox Version (B): AK was in the kitchen while PL was murdering Meredith

Knox Version (C): AK was in the kitchen while PL was murdering Meredith, and RS was probably there

Knox Version (D): AK has no clue what was going on, and doesn’t remember anything.

Version (A) is the story AK told in her book and on television—though the details are flexible.  Versions (B), (C), and (D) are the 3 statements she made November 5th/6th.

However, the truth Bruno and Marasca think is closest to the truth (pun intended), is version (C), with Guede as the killer instead of PL.

Other courts: Pre-Trial Judge Micheli (October 2008), Trial Judge Massei (2009), Appeal Judge Nencini (2014) all found that Knox was not only involved, but that she personally killed Meredith.  Even if you accept the Cassation ruling that AK wasn’t actually involved, the final ruling did place her at the crime scene, and RS probably so.

Bullshit level: COMPLETE

(2) Chapters 7, 8, 9: The Ensuing Investigation

AK goes on and on in WTBH about how she was trying to help the police.  She complains about how she was subjected to repeated and very lengthy interviews.  However, she never shared any of the insider information she had about that night.  The police officers involved noted that she and RS seemed particularly unhelpful.

Bullshit level: COMPLETE

(3) Chapters 10, 11: The Knox Interrogation Hoax

AK goes on in great detail especially in Chapter 10 about how she was lured to the police station, and brutally interrogated.  In her December 2013 email to Judge Nencini, she refers to it as “torture”.

Interesting how she remembers it with such lurid detail.

  As AK points out, there is no recording or video
  All of the officers involved give “very” different accounts
  AK claims to be traumatized and have her memory go blank

AK’s performance was convincing enough to make Judge Claudia Matteini (November 2007) believe PL was the killer.  But since then ....

(a) the 3 judge panel headed by Judge Massimo Ricciarelli (November 2007);

(b) the 5 judge Cassation panel headed by Judge Torquato Gemelli (April 2008);

(c) pre-trial Judge Paolo Micheli (October 2008);

(d) trial jury headed by Judge Giancarlo Massei (December 2009);

(e) appellate jury headed by Hellmann/Zanetti (October 2011);

(f) Cassation panel headed by Judge Chieffi (March 2013);

(g) appellate jury headed by Judge Alessandro Nencini (January 2014);

(h) Cassation panel headed by Bruno/Marasca (March 2015)

.... have ALL ruled that AK framed PL, and that she did it willingly, and wasn’t tricked or coerced.

Bullshit level: COMPLETE

(4) The Afterword: Everything After Hellmann’s Ruling

AK triumphantly declares that Cassation (2015) found her and RS innocent.  But once again, AK releases her book prior to the Cassation report.  Idiot.

Se especially here.

AK does misrepresent far more than just the 2015 Cassation findings in the Afterword.  More on that later.

Bullshit level: COMPLETE

(5) Understanding the Bruno/Marasca Ruling

At a minimum, Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and the Afterword of “Waiting to be Heard” are complete bullshit.

Considering that these bogus claims are repeated throughout the book, it can reasonably be inferred that much of the rest is made up as well. 

This is not me talking.  This is referencing the Bruno/Marasca ruling, which as it stands, is final.

(6) Author’s Note

This is a lot of speculation on my part, (as Andrew Gumbel would say “hearsay and speculation abound”), but feel free to comment

The B/M report can be understood in one word: finality.  They don’t want any one else looking at it.

(A) B/M rule “insufficient evidence” rather than “innocent” hoping to placate the Italian public.

(B) B/M sabotage AK’s ECHR appeal chances, as they don’t want another court looking to carefully at it

(C) B/M ruling essentially says “just short of guilty” to stop AK/RS from crowing about their innocence.

(D) B/M ruling claims AK/RS lied and obstructed to ward off any potential wrongful imprisonment lawsuit.

(E) B/M do strongly imply AK/RS are guilty to try to give a “moral win” to the Kerchers.

(F) B/M appear to bend over backwards to acquit, trying to look “incompetent, at worst”, rather than corrupt.

(6) The problem is: Bruno and Marasca haven’t taken into account the personalities of everyone involved

(a) The Hellmann/Zanetti ruling (October 2011) stunk of corruption, so Italy would be immediately suspicious of anything remotely similar.

(b) AK’s ECHR appeal seems to warded off for now, but AK seems hell bent on going ahead anyway.

(c) AK/RS did start parading around again, and AK re-released her book

(d) RS and Papa Sollecito sued anyway.

(e) Far from giving a “moral win”, this ruling and the accompanying report just leave a bad taste.

(7) Bullshit in WTBH (Beyond Bruno/Marasca)

Chapter 1: Before Leaving Italy

Questions For Knox: Why The Huge Lie About Your ZERO Academic Intentions In Europe?

Chapter 2: Federico Martini (a.k.a. Cristiano)

US And UK Media Wrongly Attribute Italian Report Of Knox/Cocaine-Dealer Link To Trial Prosecutors

Multiple: Capanne Chapters

The Amanda Knox Book: Good Reporters Start To Surface Amanda Knox’s False Claims In Droves

Chapter 31-35: The Hellmann Appeal

A Summary Of The Cassazione Ruling On Annulment Of The Knox-Sollecito Appeal

4. Final Thoughts

I stand by my claim that WTBH is 90-95% bullshit.

Fair to say, Bruno and Marasca would likely agree.


Wednesday, April 06, 2016

How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #3

Posted by Chimera



Knox with her lawyers - she accused even them of crimes

1. Overview Of This Post

We have just reported on how some of Knox’s malicious false claims have Oggi’s editor and veteran crime reporter facing a possible six years in prison.

Oggi’s lawyers could have phoned it in, so skimpy has their defense been. As noted previously, it seems nobody manages to make Knox’s myriad false claims stick while facing implacable truths.

I explained in the first post of this series that if complaints by those impugned are lodged, Knox would be charged for some or all of the myriad false accusation in her 2015 book.

This is the final 1/3 of approximately 100 claims that could inspire complaints by those impugned to prosecutors.  It is a minimalist list. There are plenty more.

2. False Accusations Of Crimes #3

[Chapter 27, Page 331]  ‘‘And for Mignini, appearing to be right superseded everything else. As I found out that summer, the determined prosecutor had a bizarre past, was being tried for abuse of office, and had a history of coming up with peculiar stories to prove his cases. His own case is currently pending on appeal.
In 2002, on the advice of a psychic, he reopened a decades-old cold case. The Monster of Florence was a serial killer who attacked courting couples in the 1970s and ’80s. After murdering them he would take the women’s body parts with him. Mignini exhumed the body of Dr. Francesco Narducci after the psychic told him that Narducci, who died in 1985, was the Monster and that he hadn’t committed suicide, as had been supposed. Instead, Mignini believed that Narducci had been murdered by members of a satanic sect, who feared the Monster would expose them. He charged twenty people, including government officials, with being members of the same secret sect as the Monster.
Mignini had a habit of taking revenge on anyone who disagreed with him, including politicians, journalists, and officials. His usual tactic was to tap their telephones and sue or jail them. The most famous instance was the arrest of Italian journalist Mario Spezi, and the interrogation of Spezi’s American associate Douglas Preston, a writer looking into the Narducci case, who subsequently fled Italy.
In the hour we had each week to discuss my case, my lawyers had never thought there was a reason for us to talk about Mignini’s outlandish history. Carlo and Luciano told me only when it became apparent that, for Mignini, winning his case against Raffaele and me was a Hail Mary to save his career and reputation.
“The whole story is insane!” I said. I couldn’t take it in. It struck me that I was being tried by a madman who valued his career more than my freedom or the truth about Meredith’s murder!’‘

But see here and also here and especially here. Knox falsely accuses Mignini of framing her and RS in order to “save his career”. Myriad facts wrong. Mignini never took revenge on anyone, ever. The vindictive Florence prosecutor and judge who pursued him lost out, and were reversed on two appeals. He charged no-one with being members of a secret sect; he charged them with obstruction of justice, and the final word from the Supreme Court was that he was correct. Preston & Spezi were trying to frame an innocent man, for their gain.  The psychic (who Mignini had arrested) did not spark any investigation, ever.

[Chapter 27, Page 332]  ‘‘Our lawyers’ arguments stirred up all my outrage. The prosecution had kept Raffaele and me in jail for twenty-one months for no reason. If the judges and jury were fair, they’d see that the prosecution had tried to thwart us.’‘

AK falsely accuses the prosecution of trying to keep her and RS in jail without cause. Every judge who reviewed their case in 2007 and 2008 and made the actual decisions with MANY reasons given took a harder line. Example here and another here. There would have been zero equivalent reviews in the US.

[Chapter 27, Page 335]  ‘‘On the witness stand, Marco Chiacchiera of the Squadra Mobile had explained that “investigative intuition” had led him to the knife. That flimsy explanation did not help me understand how the police could pull a random knife from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer and decide that it was, without the smallest doubt, the murder weapon. Or why they never analyzed knives from the villa or Rudy Guede’s apartment.’‘

AK falsely accuses Marco Chiacchiera of improper procedures for collecting/handling evidence which she describes completely wrong. All his steps were correct. He was a very good cop. See Cardiol’s series starting here.

[Chapter 27, Page 344]  ‘‘The prosecution contended that, as representatives of the state, they were the impartial party and maintained that their conclusions were legitimate. Our experts, they said, couldn’t be trusted because they were being paid to defend us. And our critiques, objections, and conclusions were just smoke screens created to confuse the judges and jury.’‘

AK falsely accuses the prosecution of trying to ‘‘slime’’ defence witnesses. Actually all the real sliming of witnesses was by the RS and AK defense. Every one was at one time or another slimed, no holds barred. Knox “forgets” that one of her own lawyers (Dr Costa) walked off the job in disgust.

[Chapter 30, Page 384]  ‘‘But when the emotionless guard pushed the paper across the desk, I saw, to my astonishment, and outrage, that it was a new indictment—for slander. For telling the truth about what had happened to me during my interrogation on November 5-6, 2007.  In June 2009, I testified that Rita Ficarra had hit me on the head to make me name Patrick.  I also testified that the police interpreter hadn’t translated my claims of innocence and that she’d suggested that I didn’t remember assisting Patrick Lumumba when he sexually assaulted Meredith.’‘

AK falsely repeats the accusations of assault and a brutal interrogation. See our Interrogation Hoax series.

[Chapter 30, Page 385]  ‘’ According to Prosecutor Mignini, truth was slander.  All told, the prosecution claimed that I’d slandered twelve police officers—everyone who was in the interrogation room with me that night—when I said they’d forced me to agree that Meredith had been raped and pushed me into saying Patrick’s name.  It was my word against theirs, because that day the police apparently hadn’t seen fit to flip the switch of the recording device that had been secretly bugging me every day in the same office of the questura leading up to the interrogation.’‘

AK falsely accuses the police of lying, and deliberately not recording the ‘‘brutal interrogation’‘. See our Interrogation Hoax series.

[Chapter 30, Page 385]  ‘‘Mignini and his co-prosecutor, Manuela Comodi, had signed the document. The judge’s signature was also familiar: Claudia Matteini, the same woman who’d rejected me for house arrest two years earlier because she said I’d flee Italy.  I hadn’t expected this maneuver by the police and prosecution, but it now made sense. They couldn’t admit that one of their own had hit me or that the interpreter hadn’t done her job. Above all, they couldn’t admit that they’d manipulated me into a false admission of guilt. They had their reputations to uphold and their jobs to keep.’‘

Who hit her? No-one did. Even her lawyers said she made that up. AK falsely accuses the courts of trying to frame her to protect their reputations and jobs. But they were all career staff with nothing to lose.

[Chapter 30, Page 385] ‘‘I’d calculated that I could be released in twenty-one years for good behavior. Now this looked unlikely. If I were called to testify in the slander trial, I’d have to restate the truth: I had been pressured and hit. They’d say I was lying. If the judges and jury believed the police, that would wipe out my good behavior and add three years to my jail time.  Could Mignini, Comodi, and the whole questura keep going after me again and again? Would I be persecuted forever?’‘

AK falsely accuses the courts of persecuting her. Nobody “called” her to testify, that was her strong choice (as was her attempt to bamboozle Mignini in Dec 2007) and she blew it big-time.

[Chapter 31, Page 397]  The prosecution had based their case on misinterpreted and tainted forensic evidence and had relied heavily on speculation. But Judge Massei’s faith was blind. Patrizia Stefanoni would not “offer false interpretations and readings,” he wrote.

AK falsely accuses the prosecution of deliberate misconduct with zero proof. See Dr Stefanoni’s massive proof here.

[Chapter 31, Page 398]  For example, Madison wrote, “Witnesses: the prosecution knowingly used unreliable witnesses.
“Interrogation: the police were under enormous pressure to solve the murder quickly.
“There’s a pattern of the police/prosecution ignoring indications of your innocence. This must be pointed out. You were called guilty a month before forensic results, you were still considered guilty even though what you said in your interrogation wasn’t true, obviously false witnesses were used against you.’‘

AK drops her friend Madison Paxton in it, quoting her falsely accusing others crimes. Note that Paxton has distanced herself now. Knox claims about her finding the imposter Saul Kassin are probably also untrue.

[Chapter 31, Page 399]  ‘‘I knew that the most critical point was to be able to say why I’d named Patrick during my interrogation.’‘

AK falsely repeats the accusation that she only falsely accused PL because of assault. See our Interrogation Hoax series.

[Chapter 31, Page 400]  ‘‘According to Kassin, there are different types of false confessions. The most common is “compliant,” which usually happens when the suspect is threatened with punishment or isolation. The encounter becomes so stressful, so unbearable, that suspects who know they’re innocent eventually give in just to make the uncomfortably harsh questioning stop. “You’ll get thirty years in prison if you don’t tell us,” says one interrogator. “I want to help you, but I can’t unless you help us,” says another.
This was exactly the good cop/bad cop routine the police had used on me.’‘

Again the ‘‘brutal interrogation’’ nonsense. See our Interrogation Hoax series.

[Chapter 31, Page 401]  Three years after my “confession,” I’d blocked out some of my interrogation. But the brain has ways of bringing up suppressed memories. My brain chooses flashbacks - sharp, painful flashes of memory that flicker, interrupting my conscious thoughts. My adrenaline responds as if it’s happening in that moment. I remember the shouting, the figures of looming police officers, their hands touching me, the feeling of panic and of being surrounded, the incoherent images my mind made up to try to explain what could have happened to Meredith and to legitimize why the police were pressuring me.

[Chapter 31, Page 401]  In my case they’d put several interrogators in a room with me. For hours they yelled, screamed, kept me on edge. When they exhausted themselves, a fresh team replaced them. But I wasn’t even allowed to leave to use the bathroom.

[Chapter 31, Page 402] It had been the middle of the night. I’d already been questioned for hours at a time, days in a row. They tried to get me to contradict myself by homing in on what I’d done hour by hour, to confuse me, to cause me to lose track and get something wrong. They said I had no alibi. They lied, saying that Raffaele had told them I’d asked him to lie to the police. They wouldn’t let me call my mom. They wouldn’t let me leave the interrogation room. They were yelling at me in a language I didn’t understand. They hit me and suggested that I had trauma- induced amnesia. They encouraged me to imagine what could have happened, encouraged me to “remember” the truth because they said I had to know the truth. They threatened to imprison me for thirty years and restrict me from seeing my family. At the time, I couldn’t think of it as anything but terrifying and overwhelming.

More of the made-up claims. See our Interrogation Hoax series.

[Chapter 32, Page 413]  Under the judges’ questioning, Curatolo, talked about his personal history: “I was an anarchist, then I read the Bible and became a Christian anarchist,” he said.  He confirmed that he was now in prison, adding, “I haven’t quite understood why yet.” Asked if he’d used heroin in 2007, he answered, “I have always used drugs. I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen.”

Again with the drugs. But see this.

[Chapter 32, Page 414]  Before the first trial, the defense began requesting forensic data from the prosecution in the fall of 2008, but DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni dodged court orders from two different judges. She gave the defense some of, but never all, the information. Now it was Conti and Vecchiotti’s turn to try to get the raw data that Stefanoni had interpreted to draw conclusions about the genetic profiles on the knife and the bra clasp. Stefanoni continued to argue that the information was unnecessary. Not until May 11, under additional orders from Judge Hellmann, did she finally comply.

AK again falsely accuses Patrizia Stefanoni of deliberately withholding evidence. It is documented that she withheld none. See it here.

[Chapter 32, Page 416]  When Luciano came to Capanne for our weekly Wednesday meeting, he told me that a special award had been given to officers in the Squadra Mobile for its work on Meredith’s murder investigation.  The citation read: “To recognize elevated professional capabilities, investigative acumen, and an uncommon operative determination. They conducted a complex investigation that concluded in the arrest of the authors of the murder of the British student that had taken place in the historic center of Perugia.”
Four of the sixteen police officers receiving the Police Holiday award were named in the police’s slander charge against me.
They included Vice Superintendent Marco Chiacchiera, whose “investigative instinct” led him to randomly select Raffaele’s kitchen knife from the drawer as the murder weapon; Substitute Commissioner and Homicide Chief Monica Napoleons; and Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra.
The news infuriated me. I knew it was just another face-saving ploy. How could they commend the officer who had hit me during my interrogation and those who had done so much wrong?
But I wasn’t surprised. It was completely in line with the prosecution’s tactics to discredit my supporters and me. Mignini had charged my parents with slander for an interview they gave to a British newspaper in which they told the story of my being slapped during the interrogation. He was the one who had charged me with slandering the police.

AK rehashes her false accusations.  These are all repeats from elsewhere. See above.

[Afterword] ‘‘Unlike the previous high court hearing, the justices listened to all sides without interrupting the defence’‘

AK accuses the Chieffi Court (Cassation 2013) of misconduct in how they handled the appeal. What “all sides”? The Perugia and Florence prosecutions were not ever even there.

3. Other Ways Knox Gets In The Knife

Knox Sticks It To Her Own Lawyers

[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.”

Knox claims CDV and Ghirga don’t report alleged sexual harassment by a prison guard. A felony and disbarment act.

[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…’‘

Knox claims CDV seems to think that the prosecutor goes around framing people. A felony and disbarment act.

[Chapter 21, Page 250] ‘’ ... My lawyers complained to the judges that the prosecution was using the media to our disadvantage, but the judge said that whatever was reported in the press wouldn’t be held against us. The flow of information between the prosecution and the media was an accepted but unacknowledged fact….’‘

AK claims Ghirga and CDV made formal complaints about the media attention.  In reality, the attention came from the US press, much by the instigation of the Knox family. For example see this here.

[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... “Amanda, the investigators are in a conundrum,” Carlo said. “They found so much of Guede’s DNA in Meredith’s room and on and inside her body. But the only forensic evidence they have of you is outside her bedroom. Raffaele’s DNA evidence is only on the bra hook. If you and Raffaele participated in the murder, as the prosecution believes, your DNA should be as easy to find as Guede’s.” “But Carlo, no evidence doesn’t mean we cleaned up. It means we weren’t there!” “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede. I know it doesn’t make sense. They’re just adding another link to the story. It’s the only way the prosecution can involve you and Raffaele when the evidence points to a break-in and murder by Guede.”

Again, Knox claims CDV seems to think the prosecution is framing AK and RS.  This claim was never reported.  A felony and disbarment act.

[Chapter 22, Page 270] ‘’ ... Carlo, the pessimist, said, “Don’t get your hopes up, Amanda. I’m not sure we’ll win. There’s been too much attention on your case, too much pressure on the Italian legal system to think that you won’t be sent to trial.”

Again, Knox claims CDV never makes a formal complain about this, or even says it publicly.  A felony and disbarment act.

[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third…’‘

AK accuses CDV and Ghirga of incompetence and malpractice.  She has been in custody a year, and they are only ‘‘now’’ just telling her about this?! In fact the very public ganging-up of the Knox and Sollecito teams against Guede in mid 2008 forced him to separate for his own good.

[Chapter 27, Page 330]  Carlo, who’d never sugarcoated my situation, said, “These are small-town detectives. They chase after local drug dealers and foreigners without visas. They don’t know how to conduct a murder investigation correctly. Plus, they’re bullies. To admit fault is to admit that they’re not good at their jobs. They suspected you because you behaved differently than the others. They stuck with it because they couldn’t afford to be wrong.”

CDV still never files a formal complaint (in Italy) about this.  The ECHR complaint is not the same thing.

[Acknowledgements] ‘’ ... And finally, Luciano Ghirga, Carlo Dalla Vedova, and Maria Del Grosso, for defending and caring about me as if I were one of their own.’’

Sure thing. Way to drop your lawyers in it. See above.

“Some Credit Where Credit is Due”

‘’ ... I wouldn’t have been able to write this memoir without Linda Kulman. Somehow, with her Post-it Notes and questions, with her generosity, dedication, and empathy, she turned my rambling into writing, and taught me so much in the meantime. I am grateful to her family—Ralph, Sam, Julia—for sharing her with me for so long.’‘

Yup, a creative writing graduate who needed someone else to help write ‘‘her’’ memoir.

P.S. even with professional help, the writing is still crap.

Does ‘‘Laura From Prison’’ Even Really Exist?

At the very end are these little quotes:

‘’ ... The writing of this memoir came to a close after I had been out of prison for over a year. I had to relive everything, in soul-wrenching detail. I read court documents and the transcripts of hearings, translated them, and quoted them throughout. Aided by my own diaries and letters, all the conversations were rendered according to my memory. The names of certain people, including friends, prisoners, and guards, have been changed to respect their privacy.’‘

‘’ ... The names and identifying characteristics of some of the individuals featured throughout this book have been changed to protect their privacy.’‘

Okay, so does that mean that this friend ‘‘Laura’’ is completely made up?  Think about it:

  • ’‘Laura’’ is American, living in Ecuador, and gets arrested in Italy.  Sounds very worldly.
  • AK’s roommate, the one she admired, is also named ‘‘Laura’‘
  • This ‘‘Laura’’ was apparently railroaded for drug use.  AK accuses the police of trying to smear her for drugs.
  • AK’s ‘‘friend’‘, Federico Martini, aka ‘‘Cristiano’’ is a convicted drug dealer.
  • This ‘‘Laura’’ is apparently out, and presumably back in Ecuador.  No way to check it out.
  • This ‘‘Laura’’ might be a rebuttal to the claim that AK was unable to make friends in Italy or in prison.
  • None of the few who have publicly reported have ever mentioned this ‘‘Laura’‘.

Are Lupa and Cera made up too?  AK seems to have never ever have had qualms about dropping names and seeking to hurt. See for example here.

Posted on 04/06/16 at 12:44 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxes KnoxKnox book hoaxesHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas team
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (24)

Tuesday, April 05, 2016

How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #2

Posted by Chimera




1. Overview Of This Post

We have just reported on how some of Knox’s malicious false claims have Oggi’s editor and veteran crime reporter facing a possible six years in prison.

Oggi’s lawyers could have phoned it in, so skimpy has their defense been. As noted previously, it seems nobody manages to make Knox’s myriad false claims stick while facing implacable truths.

I explained in the first post of this series that if complaints by those impugned are lodged, Knox would be charged for some or all of the myriad false accusation in her 2015 book.

This is another 1/3 of approximately 100 claims that could inspire complaints by those impugned to prosecutors.

2. False Accusations Of Crimes #2

[Chapter 16, Page 191] Doctor-patient confidentiality didn’t exist in prison. A guard was ever-present, standing right behind me. This bothered me so much that, as time went on, I skipped a needed pelvic exam and didn’t seek help when I got hives or when my hair started falling out. Whatever happened in the infirmary was recycled as gossip that traveled from official to official and, sometimes, back to me.
How each visit went depended on the doctor, and I was grateful for any gesture that wasn’t aggressive or disdainful. A female physician liked to talk to me about her trouble with men. And one day, when I was being seen by an older male doctor, he asked me, “What’s your favorite animal?”
“It’s a lion,” I said. “Like The Lion King—Il Re Leone.”
The next time I saw him he handed me a picture of a lion he’d ripped out from an animal calendar. I drew him a colorful picture in return, which he taped to the infirmary wall. Later, when he found out that I liked the Beatles, one of us would hum a few bars from various songs to see if the other could name the tune.

AK lies about there being no medical privacy in prison.  There are Italian laws to ensure that there is, and there is no proof that they are not observed.

[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.”

No groundwork. AK accuses a guard at the prison of sexual harassment despite never claiming this to her family or staff of the American Embassy, or “monitoring” MP Rocco Girlanda. If she claims she told her lawyers they will be made to testify.

[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.”
‘’ ... 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.”

No groundwork. AK in effect accused Dalla Vedova and Ghirga of not reporting alleged sexual harassment. She never claimed this to her family or staff of the American Embassy, or “monitoring” MP Rocco Girlanda.

[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….’

No groundwork. Three pages late, another accusation of sexual harassment either never passed on or never acted upon.

[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….’‘

AK accuses the police of taking a knife at random for evidence, which is professional misconduct—rather than them checking for a specific imprint, which is what actually happened.

[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.”

AK and allegedly her lawyers accuse the prosecution of engaging in a witch hunt, of trying to frame her.

[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…’

AK accuses the prosecution of misconduct by trying to shape the evidence to fit pre-conceived notions.

[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…’‘

AK accuses the prosecution of engaging in a smear campaign.  Did they hire Marriott-Gogerty?

[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…’‘

AK still accusing the prosecution of doing a smear job.  Pot, meet Kettle.

[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….’‘

AK again accuses this prison guard of sexual harassment, and possibly coercion.  Again, it goes unreported.

[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….”

AK accuses the prison medical staff of violation patient confidentiality.

[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….’‘

AK accuses the police of mistreating Lumumba, and trying to cover up incompetence.

[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…’‘

AK accuses the police of knowingly keeping an innocent person in prison.

[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….’‘

AK accuses the prosecution of trying to cover up their mistakes.

[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….’

Once again, there was no pressure, except RS pulling her alibi.

[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…’‘

According to Dalla Vedova, Mignini typically tries to frame people.  Did CDV ever report any of these incidents?

[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…’‘

AK accuses the prosecution of trying to distort her words, which at a minimum would be professional misconduct.

[Chapter 21, Page 252] ‘’ ... One morning, when I was walking into the bathroom to put something away, I bumped into Cera, and she kissed me on the lips. I just stood there staring at her, too surprised to know what to say. “Your face is telling me that was not okay,” she said quickly. “I’m really sorry.”  She never made physical advances after that, but she did once ask if I was curious what it was like to have sex with a woman, like her. My stock answer—an emphatic no —made her feel bad…’‘

AK accuses an inmate of making advances on her.

[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... “Amanda, the investigators are in a conundrum,” Carlo said. “They found so much of Guede’s DNA in Meredith’s room and on and inside her body. But the only forensic evidence they have of you is outside her bedroom. Raffaele’s DNA evidence is only on the bra hook. If you and Raffaele participated in the murder, as the prosecution believes, your DNA should be as easy to find as Guede’s.” “But Carlo, no evidence doesn’t mean we cleaned up. It means we weren’t there!” “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede. I know it doesn’t make sense. They’re just adding another link to the story. It’s the only way the prosecution can involve you and Raffaele when the evidence points to a break-in and murder by Guede.”

Again, CDV seems to think the prosecution is framing AK and RS.  This claim was never reported.

[Chapter 22, Page 261] ‘’ ... Oh my God. I’ve been formally charged with murder. I wanted to scream, “This is not who I am! You’ve made a huge mistake! You’ve got me all wrong!”  I was now fluent enough in Italian to see how ludicrous the charges were. Along with murder, I was charged with illegally carrying around Raffaele’s kitchen knife. It was galling. Real crimes had been committed against Meredith; the police owed her a real investigation. Instead, they were spinning stories to avoid admitting they’d arrested the wrong people…’‘

AK accusing the police of attempting a cover-up of their own incompetence.

[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third…’‘

AK accuses CDV and Ghirga of incompetence and malpractice.  She has been in custody a year, and they are only ‘‘now’’ just telling her about this?!

[Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... Guede’s lawyers must have realized that he was better off in a separate trial, since the prosecution was intent on pinning the murder on us. The evidence gathered during the investigation pointed toward his guilt. His DNA was all over Meredith’s room and her body, on her intimate clothing and her purse. He had left his handprint in her blood on her pillowcase. He had fled the country. The prosecution called Guede’s story of how he “happened” to be at the villa and yet had not participated in the murder “absurd”—though they readily believed his claims against Raffaele and me. One of the big hopes for us was that with so much evidence against Guede, the prosecution would have to realize Raffaele and I hadn’t been involved….’‘

AK again accuses prosecutors of trying to frame her.  In reality, Guede feared an alliance between AK and RS to pin it all on him.

[Chapter 23, Page 276] ‘’ ... The pretrial judge, Paolo Micheli, allowed testimony from two witnesses. The first was DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni for the Polizia Scientifica. Starting right after we were indicted, Raffaele’s and my lawyers had requested the raw data for all Stefanoni’s forensic tests. How were the samples collected? How many cotton pads had her team used to swab the bathroom sink and the bidet? How often had they changed gloves? What tests had they done ­ and when? Which machines had they used, at what times, and on which days? What were the original unedited results of the DNA tests?

Her response was “No. We can’t give you these documents you continue to ask for, because the ones you have will have to suffice.“’‘

[Chapter 23, Page 277] ‘’ ... The other testimony came from a witness named Hekuran Kokomani, an Albanian man the prosecution called to prove that Raffaele and I both knew Rudy Guede. Our lawyers argued that Raffaele had never met Guede. I’d said “Hi” to him once when we hung out at the apartment downstairs. My other encounter with him was taking his drink order at Le Chic.
Kokomani said he’d seen the three of us together on Halloween, the day before the murder.A massive lie.

Kokomani’s testimony made the pretrial seem like a farce. According to him, after dinner on Halloween, driving along Viale Sant’Antonio, the busy thoroughfare just above our house, he came
upon a black garbage bag in the middle of the road. When he got out of his car, he realized the “bag” was two people: Raffaele and me. He told the court that Raffaele punched him, and I pulled out a huge knife the length of a saber, lifting it high over my head. “Raffaele said, ‘Don’t worry about her. She’s a girl,”’ Kokomani testified. “Then I threw olives at her face.“….’‘

AK accuses Judge Micheli of misconduct in how he handled the pre-trial, and Guede’s short form trial.

[Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... We held onto the belief that the law would be on my side when my trial started. I was innocent. No matter how the prosecution misconstrued things, there would never be evidence enough to convict me. And I had the great consolation of knowing that prison wasn’t my world. In time, I’d be set free. I could survive this as long as it took.  But I never thought it would take years….’‘

Once again, AK accuses the prosecution of trying to frame her.

[Chapter 25, Page 296] ‘’ ... Smoking pot was one of the ways we socialized together. But when Raffaele’s lawyer Luca Maori cross-examined her about her drug use, Filomena rewrote our shared history. “To tell you the truth, I sinned once,” she said, looking down at her lap. “I sinned.”

AK returns to making accusations about drug use against Filomena.

[Chapter 25, Page 296] ‘’  ... During her testimony a week later, Laura also avoided eye contact—and it was every bit as hurtful. But I was pleased that, at least under questioning, she didn’t make it seem that my behavior had been out of step with the rest of the house. When Mignini brought up names of guys who’d come over, Laura replied, “Those are my friends.” When he asked if anyone in the villa smoked marijuana, she said, “Everyone.”

And similar accusations against Laura and the others.

[Chapter 25, Page 303] Everything she did and said—her choice of words, the content, and the emphasis—was to impress the judges and jury with her professionalism. She defended the shoddy work of her investigators. She was repellent. She was in control of herself, sitting in a court of law and lying without a second’s hesitation. When she answered Prosecutor Mignini’s questions, she was clear, straightforward, and self-serving. She was smarter than her fellow officers. She knew the court was looking for police slipups. “We did our jobs perfectly, all the time,” she testified. “We didn’t hit Amanda.” “We’re the good guys.”

AK accuses Monica Napoleoni of trying to cover up assault and police misconduct.

[Chapter 25, Page 304] ‘’ ... When the defense questioned her, Napoleoni’s manner switched from professional —albeit dishonest—to exasperated, incredulous, and condescending. For instance, when Raffaele’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno asked if the gloves police used at the crime scene were sterilized or one-use gloves, Napoleoni took a snarky tone, saying, “It’s the same thing.”

AK accuses Monica Napoleoni of perjury.

[Chapter 25, Page 308] ‘’ ... On the stand, my chief interrogator, Rita Ficarra, seemed much smaller than she had at the police station. Middle-aged, with dull, shoulder-length brown hair, she came across as reasonable. Who would believe that she’d been ruthless, questioning me for hours, refusing to believe that I didn’t know who’d murdered Meredith? I wondered how this woman, who now struck me as average in every way, had instilled such fear in me. Like Napoleoni, Ficarra insisted, “No one hit her.” She was serene and straight-faced as she testified. Ficarra elaborated. “Everyone treated her nicely. We gave her tea. I myself brought her down to get something to eat in the morning,” she said, as if she were the host at a B&B. Then she added, “She was the one who came in and started acting weird, accusing people.”

There was no formal ‘‘interrogation’‘, but AK still accuses Rita Ficarra of perjury.

[Chapter 25, Page 310] ‘’ ... Judge Massei asked Ficarra if I spoke to her in English or Italian.
“In Italian,” Ficarra answered. “I repeat that she speaks Italian. She spoke only Italian with me. I don’t understand a word of English.”
I remembered my interrogation, when they yelled that if I didn’t stop lying and tell them who had killed Meredith they would lock me up for thirty years. That was still their goal. I was terrified now that I was the only one who saw through them….’

AK accuses Ficarra of trying to cover up abuse and assault.

[Chapter 26,Page 317] ‘’ ... Instead they glossed over these facts and used Capezzali’s testimony to determine what time Meredith had died. Based on the scream, they decided that she died at 11:30 P.M. Even though Meredith’s digestion indicated an earlier time of death, they were fixated on that scream. Meredith had been murdered by 10 P.M., based on her stomach contents, but the prosecutors invented a scenario in which Meredith was home alone between 9:30 P.M. and 11:30 P.M. According to their argument, the sphincter between the stomach and the small intestine tightens at the moment of trauma, and digestion temporarily stops. Left unanswered was what trauma in that two-hour space interrupted her digestion—the same two hours when the prosecution said she was relaxing on her bed with her shoes off, writing an essay due the next morning. They were ignoring basic human physiology and hanging Meredith’s time of death on an older woman’s urination habits….’‘

AK accuses the prosecution of trying to gloss over exculpatory evidence.

[Chapter 26, Page 321] ‘’ ... At first my lawyers said letting me testify was a risk. I could be provoked. They worried the prosecution would push me to unwittingly say something incriminating. I’d fallen for Mignini’s word-twisting when he interrogated me in December of 2007. I’d dissolved into tears at my pretrial.
But I was adamant. “I’m the only one who knows what I went through during the interrogation,” I told Luciano and Carlo. “Having you defend me isn’t the same as defending myself. I need to show the court what kind of person I am.”

AK accuses Mignini of deliberately distorting what she said in the December 2007 interview.

[Chapter 26, Page 323] ‘’ ... The first person to question me was Carlo Pacelli, Patrick’s lawyer. Lawyers technically aren’t allowed to add their own commentary at this point, only to ask questions. But he made his opinions known through pointed questions like “Did you or did you not accuse Patrick Lumumba of a murder he didn’t commit?” and “Didn’t the police officers treat you well during your interrogation?  The lawyer looked disgusted with me. I sat as straight as I could in my chair and pushed my shoulders back—my I-will-not-be-bullied stance.
Within a few minutes I realized that the interpreter hired to translate my English into Italian—the same useless woman I was assigned earlier in the trial—wasn’t saying precisely what I was saying…’‘

AK accuses her court-funded translator of mis-translating what she says.

[Chapter 26, Page 325] ‘’ ... “One time, two times?” Luciano asked. “Two times,” I said. “The first time I did this.”  I dropped my head down as if I’d been struck and opened my mouth wide in surprise. “Then I turned around toward her and she gave me another.” “So you said what you said, and then you had a crisis of weeping. Then they brought you tea, some coffee, some pastries? When did this happen? If you can be precise,” Luciano asked. “They brought me things only after I made declarations”—depositions—“that Patrick had raped and murdered Meredith, and I had been at the house covering my ears….’‘

AK tries to explain her false accusation of Lumumba .... by falsely accusing Ficarra of assault.

[Chapter 26, Page 325] ‘’ ... “Before they asked me to make other declarations—I can’t say what time it was—but at a certain point I asked, ‘Shouldn’t I have a lawyer or not?’ because I didn’t honestly know, because I had seen shows on television that usually when you do these things you have a lawyer, but okay, so should I have one? And at least one of them told me it would be worse for me, because it showed that I didn’t want to collaborate with the police. So I said no.”

AK accuses the police of violating her right to counsel.

[Chapter 26, Page 314] ‘‘He [Quintavalle] hadn’t wanted to get involved in the murder case and had come forward only at the urging of a journalist friend in August 2008. I relaxed a little. The jury would see what was true and what wasn’t. The media purposely did not. “A New Hole Appears in Amanda Knox’s Alibi” and “Witness Contradicts Amanda Knox’s Account.” News stories like this infuriated my family and friends. But strangers, no doubt, would think, There goes Amanda, lying again.’‘

AK accuses Marco Quintavalle of coming forward at the encouragement of a journalist friend.  She implies this is for the attention.

[Chapter 27, Page 330]  ‘‘That had been in September 2008. By then it was July 2009. Ten months had passed. On the day the court recessed for the summer, Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to give us the data. They still held back some information, but within the papers they did give us, our forensic experts found the prosecution had failed to disclose a fact that should have prevented us from ever being charged. There was no way to tie this knife—and therefore, me—to Meredith’s murder. I’d always known that it was impossible for Meredith’s DNA to be on the knife, and I’d long known that the prosecution had leaked assumed evidence to the media. Now I knew that these mistakes weren’t missteps. Stefanoni and her team had made giant, intentionally misleading leaps, to come up with results designed to confirm our guilt.’‘

AK accuses the DNA expert, Stefanoni, of withholding evidence, and then intentionally misconstruing the findings.


There will be another 1/3 of the accusations in the final post shortly.

Posted on 04/05/16 at 09:11 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamKnox book hoaxes
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (8)

Thursday, March 31, 2016

On April 26 Possible 6-Year Prison Sentences For Publishing Criminal Defamation By Knox

Posted by Peter Quennell



Umberto Brindani, editor of Oggi, and Giangavino Sulas, veteran crime reporter

1. New Court Development In Italy

The Italian mafias have used three main weapons against the judiciary: bribes, slanders, and blowing them up.

As a result judges and prosecutors are protected in various ways. One is to make it a felony crime to maliciously defame them to try to throw trials off-course.

We are 1/3 of the way through Chimera’s elucidation of the 100 or so criminal felonies in Knox’s book, and the other two posts will follow next.

The first of what could be numerous trials of those who published them and repeated them is now approaching its climax.

This is the trial of Umberto Brindani, the editor of the weekly magazine Oggi, and Giangavino Sulas, a veteran crime reporter on his staff.

They have put up what amounts to zero defense, and on tuesday the chief prosecutor requested the judge to impose prison sentences of six years. Even if those sentences are minimised under Italian rules and no time will be served, each will still have a criminal record for life.

A guilty verdict bodes badly for Amanda Knox and her book agent Bob Barnett, her publishers, her lawyers, and her fellow-travelers, who could then all be easy targets for Italian prosecutors in future trials. 

The foolish and uncomprehending Joel Simon of the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, who knows nothing about WHY Italian prosecutors are protected from criminal defamations, could also find himself in the crosshairs. 

Here below, from our posts of 12 May 2013, are Oggi’s paraphrasings of Knox’s claims (translation by Catnip) and our own rebuttals of those same claims.

2. Knox’s Defamatory Claims In Oggi

Amanda Knox: The American girl’s sensational story

Chilling. No other adjectives come to mind after having read Waiting to be Heard, finally released in the United States. An extremely detailed and very serious charge against the police and magistrates who conducted the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Immediately after the crime, Amanda recounts, and for entire days and nights, they had interrogated the American girl and placed her under pressure to make her confess to a non-existent truth, without officially investigating her, denying her the assistance of a lawyer, telling her lies, even prohibiting her from going to the bathroom and giving her smacks so as to make her sign a confession clearly extorted with something similar to torture.

And now the situation is very simple. There are only two choices: either Amanda is writing lies, and as a consequence the police officers and magistrates are going to have to sue her for defamation; or else she is telling the truth, and so they are going to have to go, not without being sanctioned by the CSM [the magistrates’ governing body] and the top brass of the Police. The third possibility, which is to pretend that nothing has happened, would be shameful for the credibility of our judicial system.

Amanda Knox has written her Waiting to be Heard memoir with the sense of revulsion and of relief of someone who has escaped by a hair’s breadth from a legal disaster, but has got her sums wrong. Cassation has decided that the [appeal] proceedings have to be redone and the hearings should be (re)commencing in October before the Florence Court of Appeal.

In a USA Today interview, Ms Knox has not excluded the possibility of “returning to Italy to face this battle too”, but it would be a suicidal decision: it’s likely that the appeal will result in a conviction, and the Seattle girl will end up in the black hole from which she has already spent 1,427 days.

In this way Waiting to be Heard risks being the “film” on which Amanda’s last words are recorded about the Mystery of Perugia, her definitive version.

We have read a review copy. And we were dumbfounded. Waiting to be Heard is a diary that has the frenetic pace of a thriller, written in a dry prose (behind the scenes is the hand of Linda Kulman, a journalist at the Huffington Post), even “promoted” by Michiko Kakutani, long-time literary critic at the New York Times.

The most interesting part does not concern the Raffaele Sollecito love story (which Amanda reduces it to puppy love: “With the feeling, in hindsight, I knew that he… that we were still immature, more in love with love than with each other”), and whoever goes looking for salacious details about the three Italian boys Amanda had casual sex with, one night stands, will be frustrated (Ms Knox describes those enounters with the nonchalance of an entomologist disappointed with his experiments: “We undressed, we had sex, I got dressed again with a sense of emptiness”).

There are no scoops about the night of the murder and even the many vicissitudes endured during the 34,248 hours spent in Capanne prison – the [claimed] sexual molestations suffered under two guards, the unexpected kiss planted by a bisexual cellmate, the threats made by another two prisoners – remain on the backdrop, like colourful notations.

Because what is striking and upsetting, in the book, is the minute descriptions, based on her own diaries, on the case documents and on a prodigious memory, of how Ms Knox had been incriminated (or “nailed”).

COME IN KAFKA. A Kafkian account in which the extraordinary naivety of Amanda (the word naïve, ingénue, is the one which recurs most often in the 457 pages of the book) mixes with the strepitous wickedness of the investigators decided on “following a cold and irrational trail because they had nothing better in hand”.

Devour the first 14 chapters and ask yourself: is it possible that the Police and Italian justice work with such incompetence, ferocity, and disdain for the truth? You place yourself in her situation and you scare yourself: If it happened to me? You’re in two minds: is it a likely accusation, or a squalid calumny, the version of Amanda?

Because in reading it you discover that in the four days following the discovery of Meredith Kercher’s body (on 2 November 2007), Amanda was interrogated continuously, and without the least of procedural guarantees [=due process].

She changes status from witness to suspect without being aware of it.” No one had told me my rights, no one had told me that I could remain silent”, she writes. When she asked if she had the right to a lawyer, the Public Prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, had responded like this: “No, no, that will only worsen things: it would mean that you don’t want to help us”. Thus, the Public Prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini.

For a long period of time, Ms Knox, who at the time spoke and understood hardly any Italian at all, mistook him for the Mayor of Perugia, come to the police station to help her.

Then, with the passage of time and of the pages, the assessment changes: Mignini is a prosecutor “with a bizarre past”, investigated for abuse of office (he was convicted at first instance, but Cassation annulled the verdict on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction: the case will be held in Torino – ndr) and with the hunger to fabricate “strange stories to solve his cases”.

Mignini “is a madman who considers his career more important than my liberty or the truth about the killing of Meredith”. On the phone, the Perugian prosecutor reacts with aplomb: “First I will read the book and then I will consider it. Certainly, if it really calls me ‘mad’ or worse, I think I will file suit”.

BEING IN PRISON IS LIKE CAMPING Amanda goes looking. When the officers mysteriously bring her along to the crime scene inspection of the apartment below the one in which she and Meredith were living in, Ms Knox put on the shoe protectors and the white forensics gloves and called out Ta-dah! spreading her arms “as if I was at the start of a musical: I wanted to appear helpful”.

When they dragged her in handcuffs into Capanne Prison, she believed what the Police would have told her, and that was they would hide her for a couple of days to protect her (from the true killer, one presumes) and for unspecified bureaucratic reasons. “In my head I was camping: ‘This won’t last more than a week in the mountains’, I told myself,” writes Amanda.

They take her money off her, and her credit cards, licence and passport, and she draws strength from repeating to herself that “surely they’re not going to give me a uniform, seeing that I’m a special case and that I’ll be here for only a little while”.

But it’s the account of the notorious interrogation that takes the breath away. Around ten in the evening on her last day of freedom, Ms Knox accompanies Raffaele to the police station (he was called in, also without a lawyer, by the Police) and is thrown into a nightmare which she populates with many faces: there is Officer Rita Ficcara, who gives her two cuffs on the head (“To help you remember,” she would say); there’s another officer who advises her: “If you don’t help us, you’ll end up in prison for 30 years”; Mignini arrives and advises her not to call a lawyer; super-policewoman Monica Napoleoni dives in and bluffs: “Sollecito has dropped your alibi: he says that on the night of the murder you had left his apartment and that you had told him to lie to ‘cover you’”.

And a crescendo of yelling and intimidations that lasts from 11 at night until 5.45 in the morning. Seven hours “produce” two confessions that, exactly because they are made without a defence lawyer, cannot be used in the proceedings, but forever after “stain” the image of the accused Knox: Amanda places herself at the scene of the crime and accuses Patrick Lumumba.

RAFFAELE CONFIRMS THE ACCUSATIONS An account of the horror is confirmed by Sollecito in his memoir, Honor Bound, Raffaele writes of having heard “the police yelling at Amanda and then the cries and sobs of my girl, who was yelling ‘Help!’ in Italian in the other room”, and of having being threatened in his turn (“If you try to get up and go, I’ll punch you till you’ll bleed and I’ll kill you. I’ll leave you in a pool of blood”, another officer had whispered to him).

Published lines which have passed right under the radar of the Perugian investigators: “No legal action [against the interrogators] has been notified to us,” Franco Sollecito, Raffaele’s dad, tell us. For having recounted the sourness of her interrogation in court, Amanda was investigated for calunnia: the trial will take place in Florence. This one, too, will be a circumstantial case: it’s the word of two young people against that of the public prosecutor and the police.

The recording of the interrogation would have unveiled which side the truth stands on. But it has gone missing.


3. Our Rebuttals Of Knox’s Claims

  • Knox was NOT interrogated for days and nights. She was put under no pressure in her brief witness interviews except possibly by Sollecito who had just called their latest alibi “a pack of lies”.

  • Knox WAS officially investigated in depth, after she surprisingly “confessed” and placed herself and Patrick at the scene. Prior to that she’d been interviewed less than various others, who each had one consistent alibi.

  • Knox herself pushed to make all three statements without a lawyer on the night of 5-6 November 2007 in which she claimed she went out from Sollecito’s house, met Patrick, and witnessed him killing Meredith.

  • Far from Knox being denied a lawyer, discussions were stopped before the first statement and not resumed, in the later hearing she was formally warned she needed one; she signed a confirmation of this in front of witnesses.

  • Prosecutor Mignini who Knox accuses of telling her a lawyer would hurt her prospects when she claims she asked for one was not even in the police station at that interview; he was at home.

  • She was not prohibited from going to the bathroom. At trial, she testified she was treated well and was frequently offered refreshments. Her lawyers confirmed this was so.

  • She was not given smacks by anyone. Over a dozen witnesses testified that she was treated well, broke into a conniption spontaneously, and thereafter was hard to stop talking.

  • There is no evidence whatsoever that Knox was subject to “something similar to torture” and as mentioned above only Sollecito applied any pressure, not any of the police.

  • There is nothing “suicidal” about returning to Italy to defend herself at the new appeal. Sollecito did. She risks an international arrest warrant and extradition if she doesn’t.

  • There is no proof except for her own claims of sexual molestations in prison; she is a known serial liar; and she stands out for an extreme willingness to talk and write about sex.

  • Many people have testified she was treated well in prison: her own lawyers, a member of parliament, and visitors from the US Embassy were among them; she herself wrote that it was okay.

  • She may have based her account on her diaries and “prodigious memory” but the obviously false accusation against the prosecutor suggests that much of the book was made up.

  • The investigators had a great deal of evidence against Knox in hand, not nothing, and they were not ever faulted for any action; they helped to put on a formidable case at trial in 2009.

  • “Police and Italian justice work with such incompetence, ferocity, and disdain for the truth” is contradicted by a very complete record prior to trial which was praised by the Supreme Court.

  • Mr Mignini has NO bizarre past at all. He is widely known to be careful and fair. He would not have been just promoted to first Deputy Prosecutor General of Umbria otherwise.

  • He was put on trial by a rogue prosecutor desperate to protect his own back from Mignini’s investigations; the Supreme Court has killed the trumped up case dead.

  • There was nothing “mysterious” about Knox being taken to the crime scene to see if any knives were gone, but her wailing panic when she saw the knives was really “mysterious”.

  • Knox never thought she was in prison for her own protection; she had signed an agreement at the 5:00 am interview confirming she did know why she was being held.

  • Monica Napoleoni did not “bluff” that Sollecito had just trashed their joint alibi; he actually did so, because his phone records incriminated him; he agreed to that in writing.

  • There was no crescendo of “yelling and intimidations that lasts from 11 at night until 5.45”. There were two relatively brief sessions. Knox did most of the talking, named seven possible perps, and drew maps.

  • There was zero legal requirement to record the recap/summary interview, no recording has “gone missing” and many officers present testified to a single “truth” about what happened.
Posted on 03/31/16 at 05:39 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxes KnoxKnox alibis hoaxKnox interrog hoaxKnox confession hoaxKnox book hoaxesOther legal processesKnox followup
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (7)

Friday, March 25, 2016

How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #1

Posted by Chimera



The European Court of Justice in Luxemburg is not Amanda Knox’s friend

1. Legal Overview

Knox might be alone on a very small island before too long.

Her myriad false claims are becoming almost impossible for the remaining Knox cranks to support without legal threat. Her own family may already have signed off.

We already count well over 100 reporters and hacks like Timothy Egan and Doug Preston and Francesco Sforza and Bruce Fischer who posted factually wrong and defamatory claims about Dr Mignini and numerous other Italian officials online. Knox has placed targets on all of their backs.

They would never have gone there though without the mothership: the “professional” PR campaign ordered by Curt Knox and orchestrated by David Marriott which tilted the playing field in the US.

It did this both via dissemination to the media of myriad false claims and via countervailing and awkward facts left out - such as that Knox was in fact not found “innocent” last year by the Supreme Court.

By far the biggest and most damaging body of lies is to be found in Knox’s 2013 book, which Knox added-to last year. She KNEW the book was largely made up but the new edition, while added-to, remained otherwise unchanged.

I previously identified over 400 lies in the Knox book in a dozen long posts which I hope you have read or might read.

Now within them we have narrowed down to about 100 malicious false claims of crimes made by Knox. We have been told many among them will be the subject of new charges against Knox in the Florence Court. (The statute of limitations extends to at least 2021.)

Action against Knox’s false accusations of crimes will follow the same route as the action against Sollecito for his book - a prosecutor will charge Knox with diffamazione and vilipendio, and if the government case is won, civil suits against Knox for damages by those harmed can then begin.

With extreme fortuitus timing, a second route to push back by those Knox impugned against herself and her team has also opened up.

Under a new EEC-wide “right to be forgotten” law Google and other search engines must remove all links to false claims which cause personal harm.  This was confirmed as legally valid worldwide for European residents by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in 2014.

Now a French court has imposed the first fine on Google for failure to comply and they are expected to begin. 

2. False Accusations Of Crimes

In this and the next two posts we will quote what crimes Knox claimed and who she impugned and why each claim was wrong. Those impugned can submit complaints which require prosecutors to investigate them. Gravity varies considerably - some might merit merely a fine, others such as the claims against Dr Mignini could incur prison time.

Knox is already a felon for life for falsely accused Patrick of rape and murder, as ordered by Judge Massei (2009); Judge Hellmann (2011); Cassation Judge Chieffi (2013); Judge Nencini (2014); and Cassation Judge Marasca (2015).

It may therefore seem to you really moronic that Knox put this book out in April 2013, and then re-released it, added-to but unamended, with all malicious false charges of crimes intact.

[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 ...’‘

‘‘Cristiano’’ is actually Federico Martini, a drug dealer who swapped drugs for sex

[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…’‘

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[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.

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[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.”

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[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. ....’

Accusation of illegal drug use.

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.

Knox claims she was illegally targeted, but MANY phones were tapped.

[Chapter 8,]  When we finished, a detective put me through a second round of questioning, this time in Italian. Did we ever smoke marijuana at No. 7, Via della Pergola? “No, we don’t smoke,” I lied, squirming inwardly as I did.

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 8] I didn’t think I could take any more surprises, but they kept coming. Next, the police opened up a closet to reveal five thriving marijuana plants. “Does this look familiar?” they asked.
“No,” I said. Despite my earlier lie about not smoking in our house, I was now telling the truth. I was stunned that the guys were growing a mini-plantation of pot. I couldn’t believe I had talked to them every day since I’d moved in six weeks earlier and they’d never mentioned it. I said, “I don’t really hang out down here a lot.”

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 8] 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.

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[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.

False accusation of illegal interrogation.

[Chapter 10] Just then a cop—Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop
and the mop at the villa—opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on
Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you.
He’s taken away your alibi.”
My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded, devastated. What? I couldn’t believe that
Raffaele, the one person in Italy whom I’d trusted completely, had turned against me.
How could he say that when it wasn’t true? We’d been together all night. Now it was
just me against the police, my word against theirs. I had nothing left.
“Where did you go? Who did you text?” Ficarra asked, sneering at me.
“I don’t remember texting anyone.”
They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history.
“You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”
“My boss at Le Chic.”
“What about his text message? What time did you receive that?”
“I don’t know. You have my phone,” I said defiantly, trying to combat hostility with
hostility. I didn’t remember that I’d deleted Patrick’s message.
They said, “Why did you delete Patrick’s message? The text you have says you were
going to meet Patrick.”
“What message?” I asked, bewildered. I didn’t remember texting Patrick a return
message.
“This one!” said an officer, thrusting the phone in my face and withdrawing it before I
could even look. “Stop lying! Who’s Patrick? What’s he like?”
“He’s about this tall,” I said, gesturing, “with braids.”
“Did he know Meredith?”
“Yes, she came to the bar.”
“Did he like her?”
“Yes, he liked Meredith. He was nice to her, and they got along.”
“Did he think Meredith was pretty?”
“Well, Meredith was pretty. I’m sure he thought she was pretty.”
“When did you leave to meet Patrick?”
“I didn’t meet Patrick. I stayed in.”
“No, you didn’t. This message says you were going to meet him.”
“No. No, it doesn’t.”

False accusation of illegal interrogation. For someone in ‘‘trauma’‘, AK seems to “remember” it quite well.

[Chapter 10]  A beefy cop with a crew cut thought I’d said, “Fuck you,” and he yelled, “Fuck you!”
back.
They pushed my cell phone, with the message to Patrick, in my face and screamed,
“You’re lying. You sent a message to Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”
That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head.
“Why are you hitting me?” I cried.
“To get your attention,” she said.
“I’m trying to help,” I said. “I’m trying to help, I’m desperately trying to help.”
The pressure was greater than just being closed in a room. It was about being yelled
at relentlessly by people I trusted completely, by people I’d been taught to respect.
Everything felt bigger, more overwhelming, more suffocating, than it was because
these were people whom I thought I was helping and they didn’t believe me; they kept
telling me I was wrong.

False accusations of abuse and physical assault.

[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…’‘

False accusation; it really was a spontaneous declaration Knox absolutely insisted to make.

[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.”

False accusation; AK was never hit.

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

False accusation; Dr Mignini fully briefed Knox on why she was being locked up.

[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….’‘

False accusation; AK wasn’t screamed at in the first place, and she did intentionally mislead them.

[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….’‘

False accusation; police had formed no such view. And ‘cConfessing’’ means admitting guilt, it does not mean ‘‘accusing’’ someone else. And “hard won”?  AK flipped almost instantly once she was told Sollecito was blaming her.

[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….”

Starting at the house the day after Meredith died Dr Mignini repeatedly explained to Knox who he was.

[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? ....’‘

Knox falsely accuses the medical staff of sexual assault.

[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….’‘

Knox claimed to ‘‘witness’’ Patrick murdering Meredith but accuses the police of acting inappropriately.

[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.”

Knox falsely accuses the police of assault, and the medical staff of covering up frequent incidents.

[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….’‘

Knox falsely claims the guard locked her up in isolation and lies about the reason for it.

[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….’‘

Knox falsely accuses of the authorities of trying to prevent her and RS from seeing counsel in order to make the frame job much easier.

[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…’

Again false accusations of assault, verbal abuse and intimidation

[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.”

Knox falsely accuses the police of making threats to ensure co-operation.

Parts #2 and #3 follow next.

Posted on 03/25/16 at 06:24 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxes KnoxKnox book hoaxesHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas team
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (7)

Friday, February 26, 2016

Surprising Similarities Between Sammy The Bull Gravano And The Ex-Perps In Meredith’s Case

Posted by Chimera


Overview

This piece is about Salvatore (Sammy the Bull) Gravano, an admitted serial killer.

He had a career in the mafia, and was the underboss and hitman for the notorious mob boss John Gotti.  Although his is a case about organized crime, there are many similarities between Gotti v Gravano, and Knox v Sollecito v Guede.

Some Gotti/Gravano history

John Gotti was a captain in the Gambino crime family (named after Carlo Gambino), based in New York, NY.  A serious problem emerged for him when several members of his ‘‘crew’’ were indicted for drug dealing.

These indictments included his younger brother, Gene Gotti, and Angelo Ruggiero, a childhood friend.  The policy within the crime family for many years had been ‘‘deal-and-die’‘.

The upper leadership of the mob had figured that drug dealing was too high profile a crime, and that the extra police attention was not worth it.  True, this was extremely hypocritical, as the bosses collected their cut of all income, knowing that a large portion of those proceeds came directly from drugs.

The drug indictments suddenly meant that John Gotti was in danger.

Though not personally implicated, he thought he might also be killed on the assumption that he approved of the alleged dealing.  He decided to strike first, to save his own neck by having then boss Paul Castellano ‘‘rubbed out’‘.  Gotti solicited the help of Salvatore (Sammy the Bull) Gravano, who was known as a prolific killer.

Paul Castellano had inducted Gravano into the mob in 1978.  However, Gravano had no qualms about killing his ‘‘friend’’ since Gotti offered him even more: a promotion to ‘‘capo’’ or to ‘‘captain’‘.

Gravano helped Gotti set up the hit for December 16, 1985.  With Castellano (and driver Tommy Billoti who was at the time underboss) dead, the family was temporarily leaderless.  Gotti got himself voted in, and took over the Gambino family.

Castellano wasn’t the only ‘‘friend’’ that Gravano murdered, or would later murder.  Gravano murdered Robert di Bernardo—a business partner, Louie Molito—a childhood friend, and others.  He then took over any assets that they had.  Some ‘‘friend’‘.

For the next several years, Gotti deliberately put himself into the spotlight.  He managed to win 3 criminal trials, and seemed untouchable.  However, in 1990, his mouth got him into trouble, and the FBI recorded Gotti implicating himself and other Gambino associates on murder and other crimes.

Gotti also made many nasty insults towards Gravano, now his underboss.

Gotti, Gravano, and Frank LeCasio (then the 3rd in command) were arrested December 11, 1990.  All were held without bail.  When Gravano finally heard the tapes of what Gotti had been saying about him, he turned and became a ‘‘mob rat’‘.  Gotti and LeCasio were convicted of murder, racketeering and other crimes, and received life without parole. 

Gravano, however got a deal that would put Karla Homolka to shame: 5 years for 19 murders.  True, he could have served 20 for racketeering, but the judge cut it far below that.

For the complete interview, please see the YouTube video at the top here. This was shot in the 1990’s and converted to digital, so the quality is not that great.  Here are a few more for background.  The third one, the movie ‘‘Gotti’’ is fairly accurate, though off on some points.


Gambino family highlights

(1) Albert Anastasia (underboss to Vincent Magino) made his ‘‘friend’’ disappear.  Anastasia then took over.

(2) Carlo Gambino (underboss to Albert Anastasia) had his ‘‘friend’’ shot in a barbershop.  Gambino then took over.

(3) Carlo Gambino made sure the ‘‘best qualified person’’ took over when he had a heart attack.  He hand picked his brother-in-law Paul Castellano to succeed him.

(4) Paul Castellano’s underboss, Neil Delacroce, died of cancer.  Castellano hand picked his buddy, Tommy Bilotti, to become new underboss.

(5) John Gotti and Salvatore (Sammy) Gravano, had their ‘‘friend’’ Paul Castellano shot dead in public.  Gotti took over.

(6) While in prison, John Gotti made sure the best qualified person succeeded him as boss.  He hand picked his son, John Jr.

So…. murder and nepotism seem to be how the top spots get filled in the mafia.

Excerpts From the Video

2:55 (Gravano)  You can relate me to a soldier in Vietnam who killed hundreds of people.  I was a soldier of Cosa Nostra.  I am a hitman.

No. You are just a slimeball who kills for money.

3:25 (Gravano)  Here I am

3:30 (Sawyer)  They have said that you are the single most important witness ever to testify against the mob.

3:36 (Gravano)  I think I am.

3:39 (Sawyer)  So there’s a word you use, for people who turn ...

3:42 (Gravano)  Who cooperate.  You trying to goat me into the word?  Rat?  Is that the word?

3:51 (Sawyer)  That’s the word.  So are you a rat?

3:53 Gravano)  I look at it as ‘‘I was betrayed.  I betrayed him.’‘

3:59 (Sawyer)  Double crosser?

4:01 (Gravano) Loud sigh ... master double-crosser.  John’s a double-crosser.  I’m a master double-crosser.  We played chess, and he lost.

Gravano had in the past sneered at the idea of people testifying.  However, when it is his turn, he dismisses it as a game.

4:30 (Gravano)  Power has a way, where you can believe for a while that you can walk on water.  And I think this is what happened to him.

And people who can walk away from 19 murders?  What are they thinking?

5:25 (Sawyer)  Were you Gotti’s friend?

5:30 (Gravano)  His pit bull.  And his friend.

5:42 (Sawyer)  What was the reason, the real reason you cooperated?  Or was it just to save your skin?

5:48 (Gravano)  I was just tired of the mob, and tired of fighting.  It was a door out of the mob.  You know I watched the David Karresch incident, and I would say to myself: ‘‘how could these people get so brainwashed?  Are they crazy?  Are they nuts?’’ And then I look at myself in the mirror and I say ‘‘brainwashed?’’  Here I am on orders, killing people left and right.  And I’m calling them brainwashed.

6:18 (Sawyer)  There was a book written about you that you said you had a characteristic of committing murder with the non-chalence of someone pulling open the tab on a can of beer.  That was about all that it phased you, or about all it took.

6:30 (Gravano)  As far as being a hitman goes, I was actually good at it.

6:36 (Sawyer)  Because you were fast, and lethal?

6:39 (Gravano)  And loyal.  If I was on your case, I dropped everything.

6:45 (Sawyer)  Look at this list.  There are ... how many?

6:49 (Gravano) 19

6:51 (Sawyer)  Serial killers don’t have 19.

6:53 (Gravano)  We’re worse than they are.

Okay, which is it?  You turned on Gotti because it was a chess game?  Or you did it because you were tired of the mob and the games?  It can’t be both.

7:00 (Gravano)  We only kill ourselves.  What are you worried about?  The public seems to like what we do.  Look at John Gotti.  If I have 19, forget about what he has.  When he wanted a hit, he wanted it done yesterday.  He would sent me to supervise it, or to control it, make sure the job got done.  And I obviously did.  When you’re the boss, and you’re giving orders, you’re credited with all of it, even if you’re not on the street.

Gravano is pulling the ‘‘John was even worse’’ card here.  And he seems somewhat proud of what he has done.  Sicko.

17:55 (Gravano)  I remember something that surprised me is that I had no remorse at all.  None.  I didn’t feel sorry for him in the least.  I felt power.  I felt like my adrenaline in my body was completely out of control.

18:09 (Sawyer)  You were excited?

18:13 (Gravano)  I guess it’s like an animal going after its prey.

18:35 (Gravano)  Everything changed.  .... At a club, oh, no Sammy, you don’t have to wait in line.  You can come right in.

18:40 (Sawyer)  You were a player?

18:45 (Gravano)  I was out of the minor leagues.  I was in the major leagues.

No comment needed.

Other parallels with our pair

  • Gravano is of Italian-American descent.
  • Knox is American.
  • Sollecito is Italian.


  • Gravano was paid $1.5 million for ‘‘his’’ book called Underboss.
  • Knox was paid $3.8 million for ‘‘her’’ book called Waiting to be Heard.
  • Sollecito was paid $950,000 for ‘‘his’’ book, called Honor Bound


  • Gravano tried to ‘‘cash in’’ on his murders by admitting what he had done.
  • Knox/Sollecito tried to ‘‘cash in’’ on Meredith’s murder


  • ’‘Gravano’s’’ book was really written by Peter Maas.
  • ’‘Knox’s’’ book was really written by Linda Kuhlman.
  • ’‘Sollecito’s’’ book was really written by Andrew Gumbel.


  • The families of Gravano’s victims are outraged he is cashing in on the notoriety of his crimes.
  • The Kercher family is outraged AK/RS are cashing in on the notoriety of their crimes.


  • Gravano got an interview from Diane Sawyer.
  • Knox’s first (of many) interviews was with Diane Sawyer.
  • Sollecito’s first (of several) interviews was with Katie Couric.


  • Gambino boss John Gotti was referred to as ‘‘John Gotti’‘.
  • Sammy Gravano was referred to as ‘‘John Gotti’s Hitman’‘.
  • Amanda Knox is referred to as ‘‘Amanda Knox’‘
  • Raffaele Sollecito is referred to as ‘‘Amanda Knox’s Italian Ex-Boyfriend’‘


  • Gravano has no problems airing personal details about his ‘‘friend’’ John.
  • Knox has no problems airing personal details about her ‘‘friend’’ Meredith.


  • Gravano criticizes Gotti’s public lifestyle, then after his deal becomes a media whore.
  • Knox claims she wants to live in peace, but becomes a media whore to sway public opinion, and sell ‘‘her’’ book.
  • Sollecito claims he was just dragged into Knox’s case, but becomes a media whore for the same reasons as Knox.


  • Gravano blames Gotti for destroying the Gambino family, even though he was the one who testified at trial.
  • Knox seems to blame Meredith for her own death, even though she stuck the knife in (well, she had it coming).


  • Gravano (at least he claims) to have rigged Gotti’s racketeering trial to ensure an acquittal (or at worst a hung jury)
  • Knox’s and Sollecito’s case was rigged by Hellmann/Zanetti and Marsca/Bruno to ensure an acquittal.


  • Gravano was psychologically evaluated before leaving prison, and the results were disturbing.
  • Knox and Sollecito were psychologically evaluated in prison, and the results were disturbing.


  • Gravano smeared other mob associates for getting involved with drug trafficking.
  • Knox smeared others (especially in her book) for drug use.


  • Gravano’s drug smears were hypocritical as he was later brought to justice for drug trafficking.
  • Knox’s drug smears were hypocritical, as she was into drugs, and slept with a dealer (Federico Martini) for drugs.


  • Gravano’s most depraved act (outside of murder), was marrying a woman whose brother he had killed (Nick Scibetta).
  • Knox’s most depraved act (outside of murder), was continuing her sex-for-drugs deal even after Meredith’s death.
  • Sollecito’s most depraved act (outside of murder), was his various bride shopping efforts to avoid extradition.


  • Warning signs?  Gravano murdered his business ‘‘friends’‘, so betraying Gotti was no real surprise.
  • Warning signs?  Knox staged a break in, wrote rape stories, and threw rocks at cars, so violence in her home was no real surprise.
  • Warning signs?  Sollecito had supposedly attacked a classmate with scissors, so stabbing someone was no real surprise.


  • Collateral damage?  Gravano was prepared to kill innocent bystanders during the December 16, 1985 hit on boss Paul Castellano.
  • Collateral damage?  Knox framed an innocent person (Lumumba), and tried to pin it all on accomplice Rudy Guede.
  • Collateral damage?  Sollecito helped to pin it all on Guede, and cost his sister Vanessa her career with the Carabinieri.


A Final Thought:

Knox liked the Beatles.  Here is ‘‘Working Class Hero’’ by John Lennon.

.... There’s room at the top
They’re telling you still
.... But first you must learn how to
Smile as you kill
.... If you want to be like all
The folks on the ‘Hill

Posted on 02/26/16 at 09:17 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyThose who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoOther legal processesThose elsewhereThe wider contextsN America context
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (7)

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Sollecito Lawyers Threaten To Sue If Guede Tells Any Lies; Dont Hold Your Breath…

Posted by Peter Quennell

Bongiorno goes overboard at end of Nencini appeal; Italy laughs


Way to ensure high ratings? Now Bongiorno threatens to sue RAI if the interview propagates any “lies”.

Sources here and here. Good luck! If she DOES sue (dont put any money on that regardless of what Guede says) the Fifth Chambers report will not be her friend and she surely knows.

She hasnt commented publicly on that report though Sollecito has been very sulky of late. She still talks as if the March verdict is the only one that stands.

At other times there have been such threats to sue. None ever happened there. Examples:

  • Bongiorno didnt sue Aviello for saying she had been offering bribes to his cellmates in exchange for their testimony to help RS despite a threat.

  • Bongiorno didnt sue Lifetime TV as threatened for the movie about Knox - the RS character barely appears, maybe that was her beef - despite a threat.

    And Mignini’s case against Maori will really put Bongiorno and Maori in a bind, if Guede doesnt do damage enough.

    Posted on 01/20/16 at 07:03 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoRudy GuedeAppeals 2009-2015Cassation 2015Hoaxes GuedeGuede sole perp hoaxGuede good guy hoax
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (77)

    Friday, January 15, 2016

    Beyond The Italian And UK Media Reports That Knox Was Found Not Guilty Of Calunnia II

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    Knox with Rita Ficarra who Knox accused of hitting her.


    UK media are reporting that the case was about slander, in effect a civil case by those who consider themselves damaged.

    But in fact this was calunnia, which is more serious, a false accusation of a crime to a justice official, in this case the claim Knox made on the stand that she was forced to finger Patrick.

    We are told this is key context which the UK reporting leaves out. 

      1. The original complaint was made (the rules required it) by those who were accused before the 2009 trial ended with a verdict of Knox’s guilt.

      2. Preceding Knox on the stand had been all of those she accused. So to court-watchers in Italy her testimony was not a convincing show.

      3. Knox was thereafter found guilty for essentially the same crime, with a sentence set at three years by Judge Hellmann and endorsed by the Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court.

    In effect, justice had been served for the false claims. Italian justice officials still have a big shot at worse claims in Knox’s book.

    Under the Statute Of Limitations, as the book was added-to and re-issued in 2015, that opportunity exists for another five years.

    Posted on 01/15/16 at 04:21 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxThose officially involvedPolice and CSIOther legal processesKnox followupThe wider contextsItalian context
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (18)

    Thursday, December 03, 2015

    Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book #12: Finally, We Nail Knox’s Self-Serving 2015 Afterword

    Posted by Chimera



    Phew. The nasties do finally go down.  Click here to get to Comments fast.

    1. Overview Of This Series

    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.

    One more quick post after this one, on the new Afterword, and the series will be done here. Then we will repost the final version on a new Knox Liewatch page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The ten posts before this one can all be read here.

    Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.


    2. Overall How The Afterword Misleads

    1. Again Knox goes on and on about how there is no evidence against her or Raffaele in the ‘‘murder room’‘, or the ‘‘murder scene’‘.  This is false and seriously misleading for several reasons:

      (1) Knox’s bloody shoeprint was found on Meredith’s bed (even though the shoes were not recovered).

      (2) Knox’s lamp (wiped of prints), was found on the floor in Meredith’s room.

      (3) The bloody impression of a knife (which matches a knife taken from Sollecito’s flat), was found on the bed.

      (4) Sollecito’s DNA was found on Merdith’s bra clasp, in the room.  Defence screams ‘‘contamination’‘, but doesn’t suggest where it came from.

      (5) Knox defines the crime scene solely as Meredith’s room.  It does not take the rest of the house into account.

        (a) Mixed blood of Knox/Meredith in Filomena’s bedroom, the supposed ‘‘point of entry’’ for the burglar.  But no trace of Guede.
        (b) Mixed blood of Knox/Meredith in their bathroom.
        (c) Sollecito’s bloody bare footprint on the bathmat.
        (d) Bare footprints (wiped away, revealed by luminol), of Knox and Sollecito in the hallway


    2. While Knox predictably misconstrues the evidence against her, she doesn’t talk about the other things we would like to see addressed.

    Of course, in this new addition to her book, Knox doesn’t talk about any of the hard evidence (of a non forensic nature).  She doesn’t address any of the multiple false alibis that she and Sollecito gave.

    Amanda Knox… Trapped, In Her Own Words

    Raffaele Sollecito… Trapped, In His Own Words


    3. Knox does briefly mention the false accusation against Lumumba, but again reiterates that it only happened due to police pressure.  A stunningly stupid thing to say, as she is facing a calunnia trial over exactly this issue.  But that is not disclosed.

    Updates: Sollecito’s Trial For Vilipendio And Diffamazione, Knox’s Trial For Calunnia #2


    4. In this new afterword, Knox fails to mention that the Italian magazine, Oggi, got into legal trouble from publishing parts of her book.

    (1) The Oggi Article Which Conveys To Italy Knox’s Claims Of Crimes Oggi Is Now Charged For

    (2) The Oggi Article Which Conveys To Italy Knox’s Claims Of Crimes: Our Claim By Claim Rebuttals


    5. Knox also fails to mention Sollecito’s current legal troubles over his own book which also made many false claims.

    The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #1

    The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #2

    The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #3

    The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #4

    The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #5


    6. Knox leaves out that this may not be the end (probably to secure the next publishing at this time).

    A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy Begins

    A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy #2


    7. Knox writes positively about Sollecito, but leaves out his ‘‘bride-shopping’’ efforts and anger at her.

    Interview Part 1 With Kelsey Kay About Her Sad Experience With Serial Exploiter Sollecito

    Interview Part 2 With Kelsey Kay About Her Sad Experience With Serial Exploiter Sollecito


    8. Knox omits Sollecito’s various efforts to throw her under the bus (Mr. Honour Bound wants to save himself), most amusingly.  Sollecito’s line since the Florence appeal is that he doesn’t really know where Knox was that night.

    Sollecito Suddenly Remembers He Wasnt There But Cannot Speak For Knox Who (As She Said) Went Out

    Spitting In the Wind: Sollecito News Conference Backfires On Him AND Knox - What The Media Missed

    Sollecito On Italian TV: Seems RS And AK Selling Out One Another Is Gravitating To A Whole New Plane


    9. Knox leaves out the resentment and bitterness she herself feels toward ‘‘Mr. Honour Bound’‘.

    Seeds Of Betrayal: In Interview Knox Reveals To Italy Her Considerable Irritation With Sollecito


    10. Knox leaves out that Guede said after the March verdict that he will push for a new trial.

    In Big Complication For Cassation Guede Demands New Trial To Prove He Was Not “Accomplice Of Myself”


    11. Knox still spends more time talking about her sex life in the early chapters than Cassation 1, Florence, Cassation 2 combined.


    12. Knox lies, and distorts much of the body of facts.  Her recollections are totally unreliable despite all the malicious quotes.


    13. Knox leaves out any information on the upcoming adventures of her, Sollecito and Guede. She acts like this is settled.


    14. The paperback was released June 9th, the same day her 2nd calunnia trial started in Florence.  No coincidence I’m sure.


    15. Much of the ‘‘I love my family’’ feels fake and contrived.


    3. Dissection Of Specific Knox Claims

    Here are dissections of the new part of Knox’s book.  Not all of it is included, just the most blatant stuff.

    My friend and co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, but the past 7 1/2 years have shown that innocent people can be wrongfully convicted.  And that some minds will not be changed by the truth.

    • Well, Patrick Lumumba came close to being wrongfully convicted, as a result of your statements, remember that?

    • Some minds will not be changed by the truth?  Well, maybe Edda and Madison, they noticeably backed away.

    We’d been through one lower court trial, two appellate trials, and a decision by Corti di Cassazione.  We had been found guilty, innocent, and guilty again.

    • Finally, Knox seems to understand the difference between a trial and an appeal. Those verdicts were all only provisional, under Italian law.

    My hopes had been high during my first trial, in 2009, but Raffaele and I were convicted amid a media circus.

    But our first appellate trial, in which ended in October 2011, resulted in a clear and unequivocal finding that we were innocent, setting me free, and allowing my immediate return to the United States.  The presiding judge, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, had renewed my belief that innocent people are ultimately vindicated.

    • Hellmann also spoke the infamous and telling words: ‘‘The truth may be different.’‘

    • Hellmann released Knox even though she had a pending calunnia trial, for falsely accusing the police of brutality.

    • The prosecution didn’t get to present any evidence at all at this ‘‘new trial’‘, so it was very one sided.

    • Just to be clear, this was a defence appeal.  The prosecution did not ask for it.

    In Italy, every case is reviewed by the Corti di Cassazione before it is officially closed.  It seemed impossible that just seventeen months after we were found not just not guilty, but innocent, the justices would reverse the decision and send the case back for a retrial—especially since our appeal court-appointed experts rejected the prosecution’s handling of, and conclusions from, the DNA evidence.

    • Well, in this case the prosecution had valid reasons for asking Cassation to annul the Hellmann verdict.  More on that later.

    • The Massei trial court in 2009 saw all the evidence, and concluded guilt.  Hellmann only saw the cherrypicked pieces of evidence the defence contested, nothing else.

    • Cassation didn’t ‘‘send the case back for a retrial’‘.  They allowed you to file another appeal.  Big difference between the two.

    • C&V were not “independent” experts, they worked with the defense, and in fact were not really even experts as was later shown.  Consultants should not have been allowed at the appellate level.

    In fact, the DNA evidence cleared us conclusively.  It was straightforward: people leave DNA—lots of DNA—wherever they go.  None of my DNA was found in my friend, Meredith Kercher’s bedroom, where she was killed.  The only DNA, other than Meredith’s, belonged to the man convicted of her murder, Rudy Guede.  And his DNA was everywhere in the bedroom.  It is, of course, impossible to selectively clean DNA, which is invisible to the naked eye.

    • Very little usable DNA normally gets shed. There was even very little of Guede’s DNA in the room, in fact, and the entire room was not fully swabbed.

    • Knox’s DNA wasn’t found in Meredith’s bedroom, but your blood was found mixed with Meredith’s in Filomena’s room, (where the ‘‘burglar’’ broke in), and in the bathroom, where a killer cleaned up.

    • And while DNA might not be in the room, the alibi witness, Raffaele, has his on Meredith’s bra clasp.

    • It is also impossible to clean bloody footprints in the hallway, luminol brings them right out.

    • Even if defence claims about a few pieces of DNA had been valid, still it did not clear Knox conclusively.  It still doesn’t explain so many things: false alibis, false accusations, confusing accounts of your movements, shutting off your phones, and the other forensic evidence that was ‘‘not’’ in the appeal.

    We simply could not have cleaned our DNA and left Guede’s and Meredith’s behind.  Nor was any trace of me found at the murder scene: not a single fingerprint, footprint, piece of hair, drop of blood or saliva.  My innocence and Raffaele’s was irrefutable.  Like my legal team, I firmly believed that Corti di Cassazione would affirm the innocence finding.

    • First, Knox’s shoeprint (a woman’s size 37), WAS found in the room, so that is not true.

    • Knox’s lamp, wiped clean of prints, was also found in Meredith’s room and Knox was struck dumb trying to explain that.

    • Again, Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp, which had been cut off.

    • Bloody footprints (matching Knox and Sollecito), had been in the hallway, and cleaned.  Luminol revealed them.

    • Sollecito’s footprint in Meredith’s blood was found on the bathmat. It was unquestionably his.

    • The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s

    • An imprint (a clear one), in blood, on Meredith’s bed, matched a knife found in Raffaele’s home.

    • Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s and found in the bathroom and in Filomena’s room.

    • Knox associates only ‘‘forensic’’ evidence, but omits many other types of circumstantial evidence.

    • There was no trace of Guede in Filomena’s room, where the ‘‘break-in’’ took place, or on the ground or wall where he ‘‘climbed up’‘.

    • Again, Knox associates only ‘‘forensic’’ evidence with the guilty verdict , but omits many other types of circumstantial evidence.

    But in March 2013 the high court ordered yet another trial, directing the next appeals court to re-examine certain aspects of the case.  My world was shattered again.  The court gave 3 primary reasons.

    • Cassation didn’t order a new trial, but did give her the opportunity to appeal again.  Not the same thing.

    • Cassation gave many reasons, we’ll get to that.  But to focus on yours ....

    The first concerned the supposed murder weapon.  The independent experts had found there was no scientifically reliable proof that Meredith’s DNA was on it, but there was one micro-trace of DNA they deemed too small to test.  Based on the prosecution’s claim it could prove to be Meredith’s DNA, the justice’s said it should be tested in the new trial.

    • So, these experts deemed it too small to test, and therefore never actually did try to test it?  Some experts.

    • If a victim’s DNA could be on the murder weapon, that is a great reason to test it.

    • This is not a retrial.  It is Knox and Sollecito’s appeal.

    Second, during Guede’s appeal in 2009, the theory that there were multiple attackers worked in both the favour of the prosecution and Guede’s defence, which was aiming to reduce Guede’s sentence.  Neither Raffaele nor I could present evidence at that trial, so no evidence was presented that there was a single attacker.  In our hearing Corte di Cassazione said that Judge Hellmann had not properly factored in the findings of the court sentencing Guede that there had been—

    • Yes, strange that Knox can’t introduce evidence in the trial of someone she claims not to know.

    • It was more than just Guede’s appeal in 2009.  Judge Micheli in 2008 at the fast track trial, the 2009 appeal, and the 2010 Cassazione appeal all ruled that Guede was involved, but most likely was not alone.  Hellmann ‘‘should’’ have factored in the findings of the top court a year earlier.

    —this in spite of the fact that the only forensic at the murder scene belonged to Guede.  The court directed that the new trial must account for the other alleged attackers.

    • Knox repeats her 2 main lies:  (a) Forensic evidence is the only type that matters; (b) The ‘‘murder scene’’ is exclusively Meredith’s bedroom, not the whole house.

    • Again, it is not a new trial.  Knox and Sollecito have been allowed to redo their appeal.

    As for the third issue, the high court noted the Judge Hellmann looked at each piece of circumstantial evidence and found each to be unreliable.  The court directed that the circumstantial evidence should be reviewed ‘‘as a whole’’ in the new trial.

    • Again, it is not a new trial, it is an appeal. 

    • But otherwise, Knox is actually correct.  Cassation was very critical of how ‘‘piecemeal’’ and disjointed Hellmann seemed to view the evidence.  Cassation said that evidence should be considered in a way that best explains everything.

    • However, Knox seems to have preferred the disjointed method.

    My lawyers argued that this was like saying zero+zero+zero+zero=one.  Nonetheless the court ordered another trial.

    • This is getting repetitive, but Cassation did not order another trial.  It allowed Knox and Sollecito to redo their appeal.

    • 0+0+0+0=1 is a red herring.  Cassation thought that Hellmann considered everything to be unreliable because he viewed everything separately.  As a whole, the evidence makes sense, but only when trying to come up with (separate) explanations does Hellmann make sense.

    • Cassation was also critical as Judge Hellmann only considered a few pieces of evidence, rather than everything that was presented at trial.  Perhaps if a judge is to throw out the prosecution case, he/she should actually review it all.

    • Hellmann, while finding Guede unreliable, chose to reframe the time of death based solely on Guede’s statements.

    • Hellmann allowed Alessi and Aviello to testify for the defense, despite their history of making false claims.

    • Hellmann was critical of Antonio Curatolo, (who saw them together), and without cause found him to be unreliable.

    • Hellmann twisted parts of Marco Quintavalle’s testimony (who saw Knox in his shop the next morning).

    • Hellmann claimed Knox’s calunnia against Lumumba was due to duress, caused by a long interrogation.  This came despite the testimony in the 2009 Massei trial (and admitted by Knox herself), that she was treated well.  See, this is what happens when you have a one-sided trial.  Hellmann then increased Knox’s sentence for calunnia from 1 year to 3.

    • Speaking of the calunnia, Knox doesn’t mention this at all, but Cassation found that it was in fact done to divert attention from herself.  But this is left completely out of her ‘‘afterward’‘.

    • Cassation was critical of Hellmann for cherry-picking his facts.  Now, ironically, Knox does the same thing with her summary of Cassation’s verdict.

    • A Summary Of The Cassazione Ruling On Annulment Of The Knox-Sollecito Appeal

    No legal process was issued to request my return to Italy for the 2013 appellate trial in Florence.  My lawyers presented my defence in my absence.

    • It is expected that all accused will attend their own proceedings, especially when this is their own appeal.

    • Is this just a confusing way of saying she couldn’t be forced back?

    • Knox hit the talk shows claiming she is innocent, and afraid, and despite her $3.8 million book deal, can’t afford to go back.

    • Questions For Knox: How Do You Explain That Numerous Psychologists Now Observe You Skeptically?

    • Knox didn’t skip out of fear of prison officials, or the drug dealer, Federico Martini, that she got locked up, did she?

    • Yes, Knox’s lawyers did present in her absence.  Judge Nencini wrote it up as ‘‘FAILED TO APPEAR’‘.

    The new court-ordered test of the knife revealed the source of the trace DNA.  It was not Meredith’s, it was mine, likely left there when I used to cook in Raffaele’s kitchen, as I had in the days before the murder.  This reconfirmed the independent experts’ earlier finding that the knife was not the murder weapon.  I wasn’t surprised, but elated.  This was the only new material evidence the prosecution presented and it undermined their case.  Without new condemning evidence, everything was on track to clear us and finally end this nightmare.

    • Yes, it was Knox’s DNA, in a groove in the handle.  The issue wasn’t whether it was used on Meredith (her DNA was also on it), but whether it could definitively be linked to Knox.

    • Knox’s DNA on a knife used to kill Meredith is actually pretty strong evidence.

    • The only new material evidence?

    • On her May 2014 interview with Chris Cuomo, Knox claimed the evidence presented ‘’ has been proven less, and less, and less’‘.

    • The Cuomo Interview: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Tries To Argue Innocence On TV

    • On her own website, Knox claims ‘‘NO’’ new evidence was introduced at this ‘‘trial’‘.

    It made what came next even harder to stomach.  On January 30, 2014, the Florence court found Raffaele and me guilty again.  The court fell back on the multiple-attacker theory, even though there was no evidence to support it.

    • Hard to stomach?  Perhaps this is why Knox skipped her own appeal.

    • Why Knox & Sollecito Appeal Against Guilty Trial Verdict Fails: Multiple Wounds = Multiple Attackers

    • Meredith had 47 injuries, with no defensive wounds.  Unless Guede is Spiderman ....

    • Guede climbed Filomena’s wall, and broke in without leaving a trace outside.  Spiderman could do it ....

    • Guede was able to hop on one foot (one was bare, one had a shoe on it.  Spiderman could do it ...

    • Guede telepathically caused Knox and Sollecito to give multiple false accounts.  Did Spiderman have telekinesis? 

    • Guede left Sollecito’s bloody footprint and DNA behind.  Did Spiderman even know him?

    • Okay, we get it…. Guede is Spiderman.

    • While the first prosecutor initially that the murder was the result of a bizarre sex game gone wrong, the court now speculated that Meredith and I had fought over Guede’s presence in the apartment or money. and that an argument between us had somehow led Guede, Raffaele, and me to kill her.

    • Prosecutors never said it was a sex game gone wrong.  (Well, it might have been for Knox), but rather that it was a hazing/humiliation.

    My original sentence was 26 years, 4 of which I had served.  The new sentence was 28.5 years.  The extra time was for ‘‘aggravating circumstances’‘, meaning I’d purposely slandered Patrick Lumumba (when I’d been pressured into falsely implicating him—and implication I’d quickly recanted), in order to undermine the police investigation.

    Judge Hellmann, who had retired from the bench, did a rare and welcome thing—he publicly responded to the verdict, calling its decision ‘’ the result of fantasy’‘.  he told CNN.  ‘‘The Florence Appeal Court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book when it should have considered only the facts and evidence.’‘

    • Knox is being partially true here.  Hellmann did publicly criticise the Nencini verdict.

    • Knox, however, omits the fact that Hellmann was forced to retire by the CSM after his bungling of the 2011 appeal.

    • Knox also fails to detail the full reasons why Cassation so completely rejected his verdict.

    Once again, our case had to go to the Corti di Cassazione.  But my confidence had dissipated.  If the Florence Court could find us guilty after incontrovertible proof that we had no connection to Meredith’s murder, I didn’t know what to expect from the high court.  I don’t know if I would survive if I were made to go back to prison with no hope of an appeal.

    If the guilty verdict was upheld, Raffaele’s word would shrink to the size of his cell.  And there would be nothing that his family, his lawyers, or I could do about it.  Neither of us deserved jail, but being free while he wasn’t would torment me.

    The book advance helped repay some of the money my parents and step-parents had borrowed—the maximum allowed against their homes and retirements—and the mounting legal fees I owed my Italian lawyers.

    My notoriety left me vulnerable at times I least expected.  A couple of students in one of my large lecture classes at UW posted pictures of me online saying they were in class with a murderer.

    I had read Raffaele’s book and was surprised that there were things I hadn’t heard before.  This was my chance to ask him.  In it he describes himself as ‘‘Mr. Nobody’‘.  Although he had been falsely imprisoned as long as I had, the prosecution and media portrayed him as a second fiddle, manipulated by me.  The prosecution always said he took orders from me.  The media referred to him as ‘‘Amanda’s ex-boyfriend’‘.

    • There are probably many things in the book Raffaele hadn’t heard before.  He claims Andrew Gumbel wrote it, in his latest court proceedings.

    • This is Knox’s chance to ask him?  To get your stories straight?

    • He was falsely imprisoned for as long as Knox had?  Sollecito got 3 years for calunnia as well?

    • Yes, the media did portray it as the ‘‘Amanda Knox Show’‘.  He was just a secondary actor.

    He also writes that the prosecution had contacted his defence unofficially to suggest cutting a deal if he testified against me.  His family was willing to consider it, but Raffaele resolutely refused.  ‘‘I had no idea.’’ I said.  ‘‘Thank you.’‘

    In April 2013, when my memoir was published, I did my own media tour in New York.  I did a Primetime special with Diane Sawyer and made an appearance on Good Morning America!  I was featured in articles in USA Today and People.  I spoke with reporters as far away as Australia.  I gave so many interviews in my publisher’s office—one person after another—that my picture was being taken for one media outlet when the next reporter and photographer were coming in.  It was exhausting, but their was a huge upside.  I was sure once people hear me tell my story, they will embrace my innocence.

    Unlike the previous high court hearing, the justices listened to all sides without interrupting the defence.

    • As Knox did not attend the 2013 Cassazione hearing, she would not know how often they were interrupted.

    • Knox did not attend the 2015 Cassazione hearing, so she would not know how attentively they listened.

    • In fact neither in 2013 or 2015 were the Perugia or Florence prosecutions even represented at the Supreme Court at all.
    Posted on 12/03/15 at 07:00 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followupKnox book hoaxes
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (16)

    Saturday, November 28, 2015

    Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #11

    Posted by Chimera



    More implacable nastiness in Star Wars.  Click for Comments.

    1. Overview Of This Series

    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.

    One more quick post after this one, on the new Afterword, and the series will be done here. Then we will repost the final version on a new Knox Liewatch page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The ten posts before this one can all be read here.

    Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

    2. Dissection Of Pages 403 to Afterword

    Chapter 31, Page 403 ]  To the Kerchers, I wrote,

    I’m sorry for your loss, and I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to say so. Pm not the one who killed your daughter and sister. I’m a sister, too, and I can only attempt to imagine the extent of your grief. In the relatively brief time that Meredith was part of my life, she was always kind to me. I think about her every day.

    • Wow .... I was only kidding when I said Knox should send a ‘‘Sorry for your loss’’ letter.

    • You can only attempt to imagine the extent of your grief?  Right, you would have to care about Meredith.

    • You are charged with her death, and you think of her everyday?  Is that what you really meant?

    [Chapter 31, Page 403]  Disappointed and unsatisfied, I went back to my cell and came up with Plan B. I’d make a personal statement at the beginning of the trial. Unlike my declarations during the first trial, this one would be “spontaneous” in name only. I’d weave in Kassin’s work to explain why I’d reacted to my interrogation as I had. At the same time, I’d speak directly to Patrick and the Kerchers.I spent over a month writing drafts. Alone in my cell, I paced, muttering to myself as if I were speaking to the judges and jury.

    • So, you are allowed to address the court, and you try to get ‘‘scientific’’ information in by the backdoor?

    • You weren’t interrogated.  I get tired of saying that.

    • But at least since it is a defence appeal, prosecutors won’t be introducing any ‘‘evidence’’ in.

    • You come off as fake and rehearsed.  Now you admit you do rehearse.

    [Chapter 31, Page 404]  As I honed my statement, I decided it would be stronger to speak from my heart, without Kassin’s academic language. I’d tell the court about how I had been confused by the police and had lacked the courage to stand up to the authorities when they demanded that I name a murderer.  During the first trial, I believed my innocence would be obvious. It hadn’t saved me, and I might never again have the chance to approach Patrick and the Kerchers. This time I was determined to help myself.

    • Why are you honinh your statement if you are speaking from the heart?

    • Do you normally include ‘‘academic language’’ when speaking from the heart?

    • You’ll tell the police how you had been confused?  If you were confused 3 years ago, how do you remember now?

    • Which was it?  They demanded you name a killer, or they wanted to know who Patrick was?  It can’t be both.

    • You believed your innocence would be obvious?  Were you watching your trial, or someone else’s?

    [Chapter 32, Page 405]  0ne must necessarily begin with the only truly certain, undisputed, objective fact: on November 2, 2007, a little after one P.M., in the house of Via dells Pergola, Number Seven, in Perugia, the body of the British student Meredith Kercher was discovered.”

    Those were the opening words spoken at my appeal, by the assistant judge, Massimo Zanetti.

    • Yeah, screw that mixed blood, footprints, false alibis, false accusation double DNA knife, and no alibi.

    • Weren’t the closing words ‘‘the truth may be different’‘?  (meaning AK and RS may not be innocent).

    [Chapter 32, Page 406]  Rocco and Corrado had given Laura money to buy me appropriate court clothes. She turned out to be an excellent personal shopper.  My champagne-colored blouse and black pants told the judges and jury that I respected them and the law.

    • Not flirting and smirking would also tell the judges and jury you respect them.

    [Chapter 32, Page 406]  The judge’s opening statement gave us hope that the court wanted a trial grounded in facts, not theories. Will we finally get a fair trial? Will the judges and jury finally listen to what we have to say?

    • Judge Massei didn’t give you a fair trial?

    • Judge Micheli didn’t give you a fair pre-trial hearing?

    • Will the judges and jury listen to what you have to say?  Will you agree to an unrestricted cross examination?

    • Will Sollecito take the stand at all?  (and no, giving speeches doesn’t count).

    [Chapter 32, Page 406]  I stood to deliver my declaration, the one I’d worked on for weeks. Speaking in Italian, without an interpreter, I sensed my voice quavering, my hands trembling:

    • Yes, the ‘‘spontaneous declaration’’ that you spent weeks preparing ....

    • You could agree to answer questions about Meredith’s death, couldn’t you

    FOR A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE STATEMENT TO THE APPEALS COURT:

    http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/scientific_statement_analysis_4_amanda_knoxs_statement_to_the_appeal_c/

    [Chapter 32, Page 410]  My declaration left me feeling cleansed and relieved. I didn’t expect to change minds instantly—and I didn’t. Chris, Mom, and Madison told me later that the Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, had left the room at my first mention of Meredith’s family. “She bores me,”  the London Guardian reported him saying. “Her speech lacked substance, was designed to impress the court and was not genuine.”

    • Is he wrong?  You said that you rehearsed for weeks trying to impress.

    [Chapter 32, Page 410]  Maresca cared more about seeing me convicted than finding justice for Meredith. He always spoke of me as if I were a monster who must pay for Meredith’s death with my life.

    • So, someone who cashes in on the brutal killing of a ‘‘friend’’ is just quirky?

    • If you are guilty, then convicting you does mean justice for Meredith.

    [Chapter 32, Page 411]  Since court hearings were held only on Saturdays, an excruciatingly slow week would have to pass before we’d know Judge Hellmann’s mind. While we waited, Italy’s highest court signed the final paperwork on Rudy Guede’s verdict, approving his reduced sixteen-year sentence in the belief that he had not acted alone. Could that news influence Judge Hellmann’s decision? By pursuing our trial, he might seem to be contradicting the Supreme Court and make Italy look foolish.

    • It was slow for the Kerchers too.  One hearing every 2 weeks, it took almost as long as the Massei trial.

    • Guede’s sentence was reduced to 16 years because he chose the ‘‘fast-track option’’ that you referenced.  That means he gets 1/3 less than you for murder.  24 years - 1/3 = 16 years.

    • Hellmann would indeed make the Supreme Court and Italy look foolish, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. [Chapter 32, Page 411]  “I’m convinced the case is complex enough to warrant a review in the name of ‘reasonable doubt,”’ Judge Hellmann told the rapt courtroom. “If it is not possible to check the identity of the DNA, we will check on the reliability of the original tests.”

    • This sounds impressive, but bringing in of independent experts is meant for the ‘‘trial’’ phase, and not for the 1st level appeal.

    • Hellmann would later go on to say that he brought the experts: Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, since he didn’t understand much about DNA.

    • It would later be revealed that the 2 ‘‘independent’’ experts were not really independent.

    [Chapter 32, Page 411] I hadn’t wanted to admit to my lawyers or to myself how petrified I’d been. Only when the result came back did I realize how much fear I had had pent up. I brushed away tears. We might finally have a real chance to defend ourselves.

    Still, I was wary. The judge in the previous trial had granted our request for data and then sided with the prosecution’s interpretation.

    • You had many chances to defend yourself.  You went before Judge Claudia Matteini, November 8th, 2007.

    • http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_10_/

    • You went before a 3 judge panel chaired by Judge Massimo Ricciarelli, November 30, 2007.

    • You agreed to be questioned (with lawyers present), by Prosecutor Mignini,

    • http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/knox_tied_in_knots_by_her_own_tongue_translation_4/

    • You appealed to Cassation, headed by Judge Torquato Gemeli, in April 2008.

    • http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_16/

    • You attended pre-trial hearings in front of Judge Paolo Micheli in October and November 2008

    • http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_18_micheli/

    • You also had the opportunity to testify at your own trial in 2009.

    • http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/italy_shrugs_why_the_defendants_testimony_seems_to_have_been_a_real_fl/

      http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/this_testimony_does_not_seem_to_have_gained_much_traction_here_in_ital/

    • You seem unhappy that the expert opinion didn’t go your way?  Sollecito says the same thing in ‘‘Honor Bound’‘.

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

    • [Chapter 32, Page 411]  After that, we were back to waiting again. The independent experts, Dr. Carla Vecchiotti and Dr. Stefano Conti, forensic medicine professors at Rome’s university, La Sapienza, were sworn in, and Judge Hellmann charged them with figuring out whether a new analysis of the DNA on the knife and bra clasp was possible. If not, he wanted to know if the original results of the prosecution’s forensic expert were reliable: Were the interpretations of the genetic profiles correct? Had there been risk of contamination? The experts were given three months from the day the prosecution turned over the evidence.
      • Vecchiotti and Conti would claim that there is too little DNA to do additional testing.  However, when the Carabinieri got the knife back, they ‘WERE’ able to do an additional test.

      • Therein lies part of the problem.  It is not enough to say ‘‘there might have been contamination’‘.  You have to at least show ‘‘how’’ it was likely to have happened.

      [Chapter 32, Page 411]  During the first trial, Prosecutor Mignini had called the witness Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man referred to as “the stepping-stone leading us up to the murder.” Curatolo had testified that he’d seen Raffaele and me arguing on the basketball court in Piazza Grimana. It was key evidence in our conviction, because it contradicted our alibi that we’d never left Raffaele’s apartment. But it had been left unclear which night Curatolo, was describing—Halloween or November 1?

      [Chapter 32, Page 413]  Under the judges’ questioning, Curatolo, talked about his personal history: “I was an anarchist, then I read the Bible and became a Christian anarchist,” he said.  He confirmed that he was now in prison, adding, “I haven’t quite understood why yet.” Asked if he’d used heroin in 2007, he answered, “I have always used drugs. I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen.”

      • This is a made up passage to smear Curatolo as being disconnected from reality, and hence unreliable.

      • Hellmann would go on to discredit the witness without any real basis, and would be criticized for it

      [Chapter 32, Page 414]  “Curatolo didn’t know what he was talking about, poor guy. If my life didn’t depend on his being wrong, I’d just feel bad for him,” I reported.

      “The broadcasts here are saying that he’s a confused drug addict!” someone cried.

      It was ironic that I learned from my family in Seattle what the journalists in the courtroom were thinking. “The media are really figuring it out this time,” my family reassured me. “It’s going to be okay.”

      The media, yes. But what about the judges and jury? I wondered. Curatolo hadn’t been convincing in the first trial, either, but his testimony had contributed to our conviction.

      • The media is really figuring it out this time?  God job, Dave Marriott.

      • Those broadcasts?  Were they in the courtroom, or just reporting a PR line?

      • Worried about the judge and jury?  Don’t worry, it was already decided.

      [Chapter 32, Page 414]  Before the first trial, the defense began requesting forensic data from the prosecution in the fall of 2008, but DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni dodged court orders from two different judges. She gave the defense some of, but never all, the information. Now it was Conti and Vecchiotti’s turn to try to get the raw data that Stefanoni had interpreted to draw conclusions about the genetic profiles on the knife and the bra clasp. Stefanoni continued to argue that the information was unnecessary. Not until May 11, under additional orders from Judge Hellmann, did she finally comply.

      • So, you are accusing the analyst Stefanoni of committing a contempt of court (dodging court orders)?

      • You are accusing her of withholding documents and sabotaging your right to a fair trial?

      • Pretty serious claims to make.

      • Interestingly though, these ‘‘experts’’ only chose to test 2 pieces of DNA (Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp, and the DNA on the big knife).  What about the other DNA evidence that had been introduced?  Did Judge Hellmann even know about them?

      [Chapter 32, Page 415]  Before the court withdrew to decide whether to approve the delay, I made a statement. “I’ve spent more than three and a half years in prison as an innocent person,” I told the court. “It’s both frustrating and mentally exhausting. I don’t want to remain in prison, unjustly, for the rest of my life. I recall the beginning of this whole thing, when I was free. I think of how young I was then, how I didn’t understand anything. But nothing is more important than finding the truth after so many prejudices and mistakes. I ask the court to grant the extra time, so that the experts may complete a thorough analysis. Thank you.”

      • For someone supposedly wrongfully imprisoned (in part) to junk DNA, you seem really calm about this.

      • Silly question, why did you lawyers never attend the DNA testing in 2008, when they had the chances to?

      [Chapter 32, Page 416]  When Luciano came to Capanne for our weekly Wednesday meeting, he told me that a special award had been given to officers in the Squadra Mobile for its work on Meredith’s murder investigation.  The citation read: “To recognize elevated professional capabilities, investigative acumen, and an uncommon operative determination. They conducted a complex investigation that concluded in the arrest of the authors of the murder of the British student that had taken place in the historic center of Perugia.”

      Four of the sixteen police officers receiving the Police Holiday award were named in the police’s slander charge against me.

      They included Vice Superintendent Marco Chiacchiera, whose “investigative instinct” led him to randomly select Raffaele’s kitchen knife from the drawer as the murder weapon; Substitute Commissioner and Homicide Chief Monica Napoleons; and Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra.

      The news infuriated me. I knew it was just another face-saving ploy. How could they commend the officer who had hit me during my interrogation and those who had done so much wrong?

      But I wasn’t surprised. It was completely in line with the prosecution’s tactics to discredit my supporters and me. Mignini had charged my parents with slander for an interview they gave to a British newspaper in which they told the story of my being slapped during the interrogation. He was the one who had charged me with slandering the police.

      • You accuse (again) Chiacchiera of randomly selecting a knife and then calling it evidence

      • You accuse a dark haired woman (who you now name as Ficarra), as assaulting you

      • You accuse PM Mignini of an illegal interrogation, and of pursuing this case for his own career.

      • You accuse PM Mignini of trying to ‘‘discredit you’’ for filing a complaint about false claims your parents made

      • You accuse the citations as being ‘‘politically motivated’‘.

      • Oh right, you falsely accuse Patrick of raping and murdering Meredith.

      • Amanda, has it yet sunk in that making false accusations is not a good idea?

      [Chapter 32, Page 417]  British journalist Bob Graham interviewed Mignini for an article in The Sun that came out on Police Holiday. Mignini confided in Graham that he chose the parts of my interrogation that suited his purposes. He also said that my interpreter at the questura that night was “more investigator than translator.” When Graham asked the prosecutor why there was no evidence of me in Meredith’s bedroom, Mignini told him, “Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room.”

      • Which parts of your ‘‘interrogation’’ did ‘‘Mayor’’ Mignini choose if he asked no questions?

      • You accuse Anna Donnino of being a police plant, and not actually trying to be an interpreter.

      • No evidence of you in Meredith’s bedroom?  There is plenty just outside.

      • And what about your shoeprint and the DNA of your ‘‘alibi witness’‘?

      • To play devil’s advocate, you did write statements that you were in the kitchen, trying not to hear Meredith’s screams.

      [Chapter 32, Page 418] Mario Alessi was a brick mason given a life sentence for murdering an infant boy in 2006. He was in the same prison as Rudy Guede, and had written to Raffaele’s lawyers that he had information for our defense: Alessi said he went outside for exercise with other prisoners, including Rudy Guede, on November 9, 2009. “Guede told me he wanted to ask me for some confidential advice,” Alessi said in his court deposition. “There wasn’t a day that Guede and I didn’t spend time together ...

      “In this context, on November 9, 2009, Guede told me that in the following days, and in particular on November 18, 2009, he had his appeal and he was reflecting over whether to ... tell the truth about Meredith Kercher’s murder. In particular, he asked me what the consequences could be to his position if he gave statements that reconstructed a different truth about what happened the night of the murder.

      • Yes, jailhouse snitches are always reliable witnesses.

      [Chapter 32, Page 418]  Guede told Alessi that he and a friend had run into Meredith in a bar a few days before the murder.  On the night of November 1, Alessi said, the two men surprised Meredith at the villa and, “in an explicit manner,” asked her to have a threesome.

      • This is quite the revelation.  I thought Guede broke in to rob the place, and Meredith interrupted him.

      • Interestingly, this ‘‘other man’‘, is never identified.

      • Despite Guede leaving ‘‘vast amount of himself’’ at the crime scene, this unnamed accomplice apparently left none.

      • So ... if the intent ‘‘was’’ to have a 3-some, perhaps the burglary really was staged, and the police were correct.

      [Chapter 32, Page 418]  Alessi said that Meredith “rejected the request. She even got up and ordered Guede and his friend to leave the house. At this point Guede asked where the bathroom was, and he stayed in the bathroom for a little while, ten to fifteen minutes at most. Immediately after, reentering the room, he found a scene that was completely different—that is, Kercher was lying with her back to the floor and his friend held her by the arms. Rudy straddled her and started to masturbate. While Guede told me these things, he was upset and tears came to his eyes ...

      “The second part of his secret came out while we were in our respective cells ... at a certain point he and his friend changed positions, in the sense that his friend attempted to have oral sex with Meredith while Guede was behind. He specified in particular that his friend was in front of Meredith, who was on her knees, while Guede was behind Meredith, with his knee on her back. Kercher tried to wriggle out ...

      “Kercher tried to get away, and at this point Guede’s friend took a knife with an ivory-colored handle out of his pocket. While Kercher tried to get away, turning around, she was wounded by the blade. At this point, seeing as she began to bleed, Guede, finding his hands covered in blood, let her go. While Guede tried to staunch the wound with clothes, his friend reprimanded him, saying,

      ‘Let’s finish her. If not, this whore will have us rot in prison: At this point, his friend killed her, stabbing her various times while Guede gathered clothes to staunch the wounds. Then, realizing that she wasn’t breathing anymore, he left.”

      • Still wondering: why this other man left no traces in the murder room.  After all, Knox reminds us again and again and again that that is impossible.

      • Alessi seems to have a stunning memory.  He can recall precise details of a story he only heard.

      • However, he is a little vague: did Meredith greet them at the door, or does she just expect strange men in her home?

      • Alessi also remembers that Guede went to the bathroom.  Of course, it happens to be when ‘‘quirky’’ Knox refused to flush the toilet.

      • Also, is this a tacit admission that a ‘‘lone-wolf’’ attacker was just not possible?

      [Chapter 32, Page 419]  Listening to Alessi testify, I felt frozen in my chair, my limbs numb. Alessi was a calm, direct, convincing speaker. Is this possibly what happened the night of November 1 ? Is this the horror that Meredith experienced? For three and a half years, I’d tried to imagine Meredith’s murder and had to push it out of my mind. When the prosecutor had put Raffaele and me into the scene, it hadn’t bothered me nearly this much. We weren’t there, so Meredith’s murder couldn’t possibly have unfolded the way Mignini described. His story was so far-fetched, and it was so painful to hear myself described in bloodthirsty terms, that I couldn’t help but focus on the verbal attack on me rather than the physical attack on Meredith.

      • It is farfetched.  Why was there no trace of this ‘‘other man’‘?  You keep saying it is impossible to murder without leaving traces.

      • If you weren’t there, how could you know exactly how it could or couldn’t unfold?

      • What verbal attack?  The courts treated you fairly.  As for the media, thank Curt for that.

      • Why were you trying imagine Merediith’s murder if you were trying to put it out of your mind?

      [Chapter 32, Page 421]  Real or not, it forced me to focus on the torture that Meredith was put through. And it opened up a question I’d never seriously considered and could barely handle: Had there been someone with Guede?

      • Yeah, not that prosecutors were pushing a ‘‘multiple attacker’’ theory since November 2007.

      • It forced you to focus on the torture?  Why exactly?

      [Chapter 32, Page 421]  My lawyers once told me that investigators had found unidentified DNA at the crime scene, but I’d never dwelled on it. The prosecution had never presented it. Wouldn’t there have been signs of another person in the room and on Meredith’s body? I didn’t know. This is what I was sure of: Guede was there, Guede lied about us, Guede tried to escape his responsibility for the crime.  Guede would have to confess.

      • Well, your DNA is in your bathroom.  Oh, right, that only proves you lived there.

      • This ‘‘unidentified’’ DNA: was it blood, or something else?

      • Humour me, is an unflushed toilet part of the ‘‘crime scene’’ if it is not in the ‘‘murder room’‘?

      • Signs of another person?  Like DNA on the victim’s bra?  Oh, right Sollecito was at his home with you.

      • Signs of another person?  Such as lack of defensive wounds?

      • (1) Guede was there; (2) Guede lied about us; (3) Guede tried to escape responsibility.  Okay, let’s try this:

      • (1) You were there, your statements say you were, your blood mixed with Meredith’s.

      • (2) You lied about your alibi, according to Sollecito

      • (3) You tried to escape responsibility by framing Patrick.

      [Chapter 32, Page 421]  I desperately hoped he’d be honest when he took the witness stand. With the Supreme Court’s seal on his conviction, his sentence couldn’t be extended no matter how he incriminated himself. Since he truly had nothing to lose, I thought he might admit his crimes—and the fact that Raffaele and I weren’t there that night.

      • Actually, you desperately hoped he’d be silent.

      • Forget Guede, why don’t you simply testify (without restrictions), about what you were doing that night?

      [Chapter 32, Page 421]  In the meantime, I was agitated. I had no reason to expect that Guede would admit what had happened—anyone who can kill is already lacking a conscience. Even if Guede acknowledged Raffaele’s and my innocence, it still wouldn’t be enough on its own to free us—his statements were compromised since he’d lied before and wasn’t impartial. But it would be a huge step in the right direction—and an even bigger comfort to me.

      • Anyone who can kill lacks a conscience?  Amanda, I think we are making progress.

      • His statements were compromised?  Great, there isn’t any other evidence I assume.

      • It would be a comfort—that your frame job worked?!

      [Chapter 32, Page 423]  Twenty-four hours before the court-appointed experts were to present their findings on the DNA, only two words were going through my mind. What if? What if their review somehow - impossibly - confirmed Meredith’s DNA on the knife blade? What if they found that the bra clasp couldn’t have been contaminated?

      • What if they did confirm it?  What good is bleach then?

      • The bra clasp being contaminated how exactly?

      • Again, there are many other pieces of DNA evidence to tie you to the murder.  Why cherry-pick these two?

      [Chapter 32, Page 423] Or what if the experts risked telling the truth and sided with the defense?  I knew the prosecution’s DNA testing was flawed. But so little had gone right in this case, why would this go right?

      Science was on our side. The knife blade had tested negative for blood, and there was a high likelihood that the bra clasp had been contaminated while it sat on the floor for six weeks. But I had no faith in facts anymore. They hadn’t saved me before. It was terrifying to hope—and impossible not to.

      • This is a court.  People are not ‘‘punished’’ for telling the truth.

      • You knew the prosecutor’s DNA testing was flawed?  How much research have you done on the topic?

      • The bra clasp, in a sealed crime scene, was contaminated .... how?

      [Chapter 32, Page 423]  I had to hear the words myself. I went to the TV, madly changing channels until I found the news. “Svoltaa Giudiziaria” - “Judicial Turning Point” - the headline read, behind an announcer who was talking about my case. The crawl at the bottom read: “DNA damning Knox and Sollecito deemed unreliable by court-appointed experts. New hope arises for the defendants.”

      • Once again, why only test those 2 pieces of DNA evidence?  Do you not contest them?  Or not want Hellmann to consider them?

      • Why not get independent experts for the trial?  That is how things are normally done.
        Posted on 11/28/15 at 04:45 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followupKnox book hoaxes
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (18)

        Thursday, November 26, 2015

        Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #10

        Posted by Chimera



        More implacable nastiness in Star Wars.  Click for Comments.

        1. Overview Of This Series

        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.

        Two more quick posts after this one and the series will be done here. Then we will repost the final version on a new Knox Liewatch page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The nine posts before this one can all be read here.

        Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

        2. Dissection Of Pages 394 to 403

        [Chapter 31, Page 394] The questions and choices I made during the first trial ate at me. What if Id spoken up more, clarified more when other witnesses took the stand, pleaded my innocence more forcefully Would it have made a difference? I’d waited for the jury and the world to realize that there was no evidence against me. I wasn’t going to make the same mistake twice.

        • What if you’d spoken up more?

        • You did speak up that you ‘‘vaguely remembered’’ Patrick murdering Meredith.  It got you 3 years for calunnia.

        • You did speak up in June 2009 that you were hit by police.  You have another calunnia trial pending.

        • You got you parents to speak up that you were being mistreated.  It got calunnia complaints against them.

        • You frequently spoke up that you were mistreated.  Your own lawyers told you publicly to shut up.

        • ’‘Not speaking up enough’’ is not the problem.  The opposite in fact.

        • You waited for the jury to realize their was no evidence?  So, what were Mignini/Comodi presenting to the court?

        • You were waiting?  Well, when the defence files an appeal, the prosecution won’t be presenting ‘‘any’’ evidence.  Hmm…..

        • You won’t make the same mistake twice?  You keep making the same mistakes.

        [Chapter 31, Page 395]  Though I trusted my lawyers completely, this time I wanted to be involved in every decision. I owed it to myself. I couldn’t survive another guilty verdict if my team and I overlooked a single speck of favorable evidence.

        • You trust them completely, but now want to start micromanaging? 

        • If you overlook a ‘‘single speck’’ of favourable evidence?  Are you reduced to looking for ‘‘specks’‘?

        [Chapter 31, Page 395]  Once I started thinking about what might be possible, nothing seemed out of reach. Should I write to the new judge? The U.S. secretary of state? Why not the president?

        • You later tried that with Judge Nencini, while skipping your Florence appeal.  Didn’t go over well.

        • The Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton at the time)?  Sure, she doesn’t have any pressing foreign matters to deal with.

        • The President (Barack Obama)?  Sure, running the free world is just a part time gig.

        • Why might U.S. oficials be reluctant to get involved in ongoing murder trials?  Don’t know.

        [Chapter 31, Page 395]  Rather than write, I read. The 407-page report from Judge Massei explained why we’d been convicted and how Raffaele, Guede, and I had murdered Meredith.  The supposed motive was as far-fetched as a soap opera plot. “Amanda and Raffaele suddenly found themselves without any commitments; they met Rudy Guede by chance and found themselves together with him at the house on the Via dells Pergola where ... Meredith was alone,”

        • You and Raffaele suddenly found yourselves without any commitments?  Well you did get that text not to come to work.

        • Sollecito doesn’t have a job, so he likely didn’t have any commitments either.

        • You met Guede by chance?  You do seem to know him.

        • Guede ended up at the house with you?  You mean he didn’t break in leaving your blood mixed with Meredith’s?

        • Meredith was alone?  Okay, that is actually true.

        [Chapter 31, Page 395] The judges and jury hypothesized that Raffaele and I were fooling around, and that Guede started raping Meredith because we turned him on. Instead of helping Meredith, we inexplicably and spontaneously joined Guede, because it was “an exciting stimulant that, although unexpected, had to be tried,” he wrote. “[The criminal acts were carried out on the force of pure chance. A motive, therefore, of an erotic, sexually violent nature which, arising from the choice of evil made by Rudy, found active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.”  The report rejected the prosecution’s claim that Meredith and I had had a contentious relationship.  The judge wrote “the crime that was carried out ... without any animosity or feelings of rancor against the victim. . .”

        • You have said you want the Kerchers to read your book, but you put information such as this in?

        • Judge Massei didn’t contradict the claim of a strained relationship.

        • Meredith took your job at Le Chic .... and no hard feelings?

        [Chapter 31, Page 395]  They allowed that there was no evidence of contact between Guede and me—no e-mails, phone calls, or eyewitnesses. They discounted the testimony of Hekuran Kokomani, the witness from the pretrial and the trial who said he threw olives at me and who “identified” me by the nonexistent gap between my teeth. And they conceded that Raffaele and I were not likely killers.  Rather we were “two young people, strongly interested in each other, with intellectual and cultural curiosity, he on the eve of his graduation and she full of interests . . .”

        • No evidence of contact between you and Guede?  You admit that he visited the men downstairs.

        • No contact?  You say that their was laughter when Guede was asking if you were available.

        • No contact?  You admit to taking his order at Le Chic.

        • No contact?  You admit to contact in THIS VERY BOOK.

        • Casual sex, drugs and alcohol are ‘‘cultural events’‘?  Wow, the travel brochure leaves all this out.

        • If drugs and sex are ‘‘cultural’‘, that might explain things with Federico Martini.

        • You were interested in hooking up with Harry Potter.  Is that ‘‘cultural’‘?

        • ’‘Strongly interested’‘?  You knew each other for a week.

        [Chapter 31, Page 396]  Another factor, the judge wrote, was that Raffaele and I read comic books and watched movies “in which sexuality is accompanied by violence and by situations of fear . . .”  He brought up the disputed theory that Raffaele’s kitchen knife was the murder weapon, in addition to a new theory that I’d carried the knife in my “very capacious bag.” Why would I? “It’s probable, considering Raffaele’s interest in knives, that Amanda was advised and convinced by her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, to carry a knife with her ... during the night along streets that could have seemed not very safe to pass through at night by a girl.”

        • Yes, you were convicted on the basis of Manga porn and Amelie..

        • The theory is disputed because your own lawyers dispute it.  Self fulfilling prophecy?

        • Raffaele is guilty because he collects knives .... not the bloody footprint, DNA on Meredith’s bra, or false alibis.

        • Perugia is not safe?  Right, it’s a deathtrap that hadn’t seen a murder in 20 years.

        [Chapter 31, Page 397]  The lining of my bag wasn’t cut. The police found no blood in my bag. How can I prove what Ididn’t do?

        • The knife could also have been wrapped in something else.

        • The knife could still have been transported ‘‘to’’ the scene without blood.

        • Well, you can prove where you actually were when Meredith was killed.  That might help.

        [Chapter 31, Page 397]  The prosecution had based their case on misinterpreted and tainted forensic evidence and had relied heavily on speculation. But Judge Massei’s faith was blind. Patrizia Stefanoni would not “offer false interpretations and readings,” he wrote.

        • This all sounds impressive, but do you care to elaborate as to what evidence was misinterpreted or tainted?

        • Do you care to elaborate on what this ‘‘heavy reliance on speculation’’ is?

        • As for tainted evidence, why did your lawyers refuse to attend the testing?

        [Chapter 31, Page 397]  The appeal wouldn’t be a redo of the first trial. Italy, like the United States, has three levels of justice—the lower court, the Court of Appeals, and the highest court, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, their version of our Supreme Court. The difference is that, in Italy, someone like me is required to go through all three levels, all the way to the Cassazione, whose verdict is final.  Cases often take turns and twists that would surprise and unsettle most Americans. Even if you’re acquitted at level one, the prosecution can ask the Court of Appeals to overturn the verdict. If the appeals court finds you guilty, it can raise your sentence. Or it can decide that a second look is unnecessary and send you on to the Cassazione for the final stamp on the lower court’s decision—in Raffaele’s and my cases, to serve out our twenty-five- and twenty-six-year sentences.  At each level, the verdict is official, and the sentence goes into immediate effect unless the next court overturns it.

        • The appeal wouldn’t be a redo if the first trial?  So Hellmann releasing you was not double jeopardy.

        • Since you seem to understand the 3-level trial process, why lie and say it was over?

        • Getting 2 automatic appeals would suprise and unsettle most Americans?  Surprise them at least.

        • Yes, appeals court (in the Common Law courts too), can increase sentences for frivilous appeals.

        • To quote Alan Dershowitz, being released by an appeals court is not double jeopardy.

        • With this paragraph, Knox throws out her claim of being ‘‘retried’’ again.

        [Chapter 31, Page 397]  In Italy’s lower and intermediate levels, judges and jurors decide the verdict. And instead of focusing on legal errors, as we do in the United States, the Italian appellate court will reopen the case, look at new evidence, and hear additional testimony—if they think it’s deserved.

        • So you get an automatic appeal that allows the case to be reopened?

        • And this appeal allows for additional witnesses and evidence to be called?  Not restricted as a Common Law appeal?

        • Many defendants in the U.S. would be envious of such a legal avenue.

        [Chapter 31, Page 398]  In our appeal request, we asked the court to appoint independent experts to review the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp, and to analyze a sperm stain on the pillow found underneath Meredith’s body that the prosecution had maintained was irrelevant. In their appeal request, the prosecution complained about what they thought was a lenient sentence and demanded life in prison for Raffaele and me.

        • You did ask for experts.  However, criminal procedure only allows for it to be done at the lower trial level.

        • If this stain wasn’t analysed, then how exactly do you know it’s semen?

        • You appealed your convicted, and the prosecution ‘‘cross-appealed’‘, asking for a sentence increase.  Makes sense.

        [Chapter 31, Page 398]  I read and reread the Massei report, looking for discrepancies and flawed reasoning. I’m not a lawyer, but I had an insider’s perspective on the case, three years in prison, and eleven months in court. In one of Guede’s depositions, he claimed I’d come home the night of the murder, rung the doorbell, and that Meredith had let me in. Obviously he didn’t know it was our household habit to knock, not buzz. It was a little catch, but it was something my former Via dells Pergola housemates, Laura and Filomena, could confirm.

        • You are reading a 400 page legal document in Italian?  Guess we can drop all pretence you are limited in the language.

        • Looking for discrepencies?  How about all your different stories and alibis?  And Sollecito’s?

        • Looking for flawed reasoning?  Plenty of it.  Oh, you mean the prosecution’s flawed reasoning?

        • You had an insider’s perspective on the case?  You mean a front row seat with a lead role?

        • So, if someone buzzes the doorbell, you would not answer?

        [Chapter 31, Page 398]  For example, Madison wrote, “Witnesses: the prosecution knowingly used unreliable witnesses.

        “Interrogation: the police were under enormous pressure to solve the murder quickly.
        “There’s a pattern of the police/prosecution ignoring indications of your innocence. This must be pointed out. You were called guilty a month before forensic results, you were still considered guilty even though what you said in your interrogation wasn’t true, obviously false witnesses were used against you.

        • So, Madison Paxton accuses the prosecution of suborning perjury?  Nice to drop her in it, Knox.

        • Police have a pattern of ignoring signs you are innocent?  What signs did they miss?

        • You were called guilty before forensic results?  What about those statements where you say you were there?

        • Knox claims to be a witness to someone committing the crime.  Why would anyone think she was there?

        • False witnesses were used against you?  Patrick could make that claim.

        [Chapter 31, Page 399]  I knew that the most critical point was to be able to say why I’d named Patrick during my interrogation.

        • Once again, you were not interrogated.  Raffaele was called to the police station, and you came along.

        • Since you insisted on being there, Rita Ficarra asked if you would help make a list of potential contacts

        • Sollecito revoked your alibi, and you named Patrick, thinking it would get you off the hook.  It backfired.

        • That about covers it.

        [Chapter 31, Page 399]  The prosecution and civil parties argued that I was a manipulative, lying criminal mastermind. My word meant nothing. The court would always presume I was a liar. If, in their mind, I was a liar, it was an easy leap to murderer.

        I had been done in by my own words. I’d told the judges and jury things like “I didn’t mean to do harm” and “You don’t know what it’s like to be manipulated, to think that you were wrong, to have so much doubt and pressure on you that you try to come up with answers other than those in your memory.”

        • To go out on a limb here: if you are a manipulative liar, your word probably means nothing.

        • To prove the point, you are manipulating words to make it seem like people assume you are a killer.

        • You were done in by your own words.  For once, ‘‘best truthing’’ didn’t work.

        • You false accuse Patrick of rape and murder, but you didn’t mean any harm?

        • The only pressure was having to come up with a new alibi on the spot.

        [Chapter 31, Page 399]  Thankfully Madison had researched the science on false confessions. She found Saul Kassin, a psychologist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. A specialist in wrongful convictions, he took the mystery out of what had happened to me.

        • Blaming an innocent person is not ‘‘falsely confessing’‘.  It is ‘‘falsely accusing’‘.

        • Saul doesn’t seem to be a very good psychologist if he can’t distinguish between ‘‘confessions’’ and ‘‘accusations’‘.

        • Saul also doesn’t seem to grasp any of the hard facts in the case, but hey, nobody’s perfect.

        • A specialist in wrongful convictions?  From the Susan Smith School of Criminal Justice?

        • What about Saul’s realization that ‘‘false confessions’’ generally happen to weak-willed people?  Something you are not.

        • Saul Kassin must be connected to Saul Goodman (scummy lawyer in Breaking Bad).  Mystery solved.

        [Chapter 31, Page 399]  Before my interrogation, I believed, like many people, that if someone were falsely accused, they wouldn’t, couldn’t, be swayed from the truth while under interrogation. I never would have believed that I could be pressured into confessing to something I hadn’t done. For three years I berated myself for not having been stronger. I’m an honest person.

        • You were not interrogated.  You were asked for a list of contacts, when Sollecito withdrew his alibi for you.

        • You were swayed by the loss of your alibi witness.

        • You didn’t ‘‘confess’‘. You ‘‘accused’’ Patrick of raping and murdering Meredith while you were in the kitchen cowering.

        • Of course, to false accuse, you have to claim to be present, and to be a witness.

        • For not being stronger?  Like not having a ‘‘better’’ backup alibi?

        • You are an honest person?  I just threw up in my mouth.

        [Chapter 31, Page 399]  During that interrogation, I had nothing to hide, and a stake in the truth-1 desperately wanted the police to solve Meredith’s murder. But now I know that innocent people often confess. The records kept of people convicted of a crime and later exonerated by DNA evidence show that the DNA of 25 percent of them didn’t match the DNA left at the scene. The DNA testing showed that one in four innocent people ended up confessing as I did.

        • Once more, you were not interrogated.

        • You wanted to solve Meredith’s murder?  Makes sense, you left Guede’s traces intact.

        • DNA testing shows that 1 in 4 innocents falsely accuse others of crimes?

        [Chapter 31, Page 400]  According to Kassin, there are different types of false confessions. The most common is “compliant,” which usually happens when the suspect is threatened with punishment or isolation. The encounter becomes so stressful, so unbearable, that suspects who know they’re innocent eventually give in just to make the uncomfortably harsh questioning stop. “You’ll get thirty years in prison if you don’t tell us,” says one interrogator. “I want to help you, but I can’t unless you help us,” says another.

        This was exactly the good cop/bad cop routine the police had used on me.

        • So which were you, the ‘‘compliant’’ false accusation, or the ‘‘internalized’’ false accusation?

        • Not having an alibi from Raffy was that stressful, unbearable, you just had to make it stop?

        • Patrick will be relieved to hear it was just those ‘‘Jedi mind tricks’‘.

        • Who were the good cop(s) and who were the bad cop(s)?

        [Chapter 31, Page 400]  Besides being compliant, I also showed signs of having made an “internalized” false confession.  Sitting in that airless interrogation room in the questura, surrounded by people shouting at me during forty- three hours of questioning over five days, I got to the point, in the middle of the night, where I was no longer sure what the truth was. I started believing the story the police were telling me. They took me into a state where I was so fatigued and stressed that I started to wonder if I had witnessed Meredith’s murder and just didn’t remember it. I began questioning my own memory.

        • You showed signs of?  I think the term is ‘‘malingering’‘.

        • 43 hours?  You told Judge Nencini is was over 50 hours.

        • You also said (in this book), everyone from the house was detained, and that you spent most of your time sitting around with Meredith’s British friends.

        • You went to class on Monday, and skipped Meredith’s memorial to go strum a ukulele.

        • You also went underwear shopping with Raffaele, and had some ‘‘fun’’ with him.

        • You were also with Federico Martini (a.k.a. Cristiano) and got more drugs in return for sex.

        • When were these 43+ hours?  You seemed to have a lot of free time.

        • Does an ‘‘internalized false accusation’’ make someone really bad at time and math?

        [Chapter 31, Page 400]  Kassin says that once suspects begin to distrust their own memory, they have almost no cognitive choice but to consider, possibly accept, and even mentally elaborate upon the interrogator’s narrative of what happened. That’s how beliefs are changed and false memories are formed.  That’s what had happened to me.

        • This sounds impressive, but the questions stopped at this point.  There was no narrative to elaborate on.

        • Beliefs are changed?  As in the police don’t believe you now, but maybe if you come up with something .....

        • False memories?  Like you cowering in the kitchen with your hands on your ears, WHILE SOMEONE ELSE killed Meredith?

        • That’s what happened to you?  Is that your ‘‘best truth’‘?

        [Chapter 31, Page 401]  Three years after my “confession,” I’d blocked out some of my interrogation. But the brain has ways of bringing up suppressed memories. My brain chooses flashbacks - sharp, painful flashes of memory that flicker, interrupting my conscious thoughts. My adrenaline responds as if it’s happening in that moment. I remember the shouting, the figures of looming police officers, their hands touching me, the feeling of panic and of being surrounded, the incoherent images my mind made up to try to explain what could have happened to Meredith and to legitimize why the police were pressuring me.

        • Did you also ‘‘block out’’ what happened to Meredith?

        • There was no shouting except from you, when you faked having a fit?

        • You ‘‘remember’‘?  This from the woman who writes about things her mind made up….?!

        • How were they pressuring you when they stopped asking questions?

        [Chapter 31, Page 401]  In my case they’d put several interrogators in a room with me. For hours they yelled, screamed, kept me on edge. When they exhausted themselves, a fresh team replaced them. But I wasn’t even allowed to leave to use the bathroom.

        • There were teams of interrogators waiting for you?  Why exactly?

        • You showed up unexpected that night, and Rita Ficarra told you to go home.

        • You weren’t allowed to use the bathroom?  Your own lawyers have publicly said you were not mistreated.

        [Chapter 31, Page 402] It had been the middle of the night. I’d already been questioned for hours at a time, days in a row. They tried to get me to contradict myself by homing in on what I’d done hour by hour, to confuse me, to cause me to lose track and get something wrong. They said I had no alibi. They lied, saying that Raffaele had told them I’d asked him to lie to the police. They wouldn’t let me call my mom. They wouldn’t let me leave the interrogation room. They were yelling at me in a language I didn’t understand. They hit me and suggested that I had trauma- induced amnesia. They encouraged me to imagine what could have happened, encouraged me to “remember” the truth because they said I had to know the truth. They threatened to imprison me for thirty years and restrict me from seeing my family. At the time, I couldn’t think of it as anything but terrifying and overwhelming.

        • How was this elaborate trap in place if it was night time, and you showed up unannounced? 

        • All they were asking was a list of potential men who might have visited the home.

        • That part was truthful.  Sollecito did say you asked him to lie, which left you without an alibi.

        • Why does a 20 year old need to call her mom, when being asked questions about a murder?  Never mind.

        • Actually, you were free to leave at that point.

        • You didn’t understand the language?  What was your interpreter, Anna Donnino there for?

        • If you didn’t understand the language, how did you know they thought you had trauma-induced amnesia?

        • Police are looking for a killer, and they ask you to ‘‘imagine’’ things?  Right.

        • Yeah, getting busted for murder can be pretty overwhelming.  No argument here.

        [Chapter 31, Page 402]  Number one, I would have written to the Kerchers. I wanted to tell them how much I liked their daughter. How lovingly she spoke of her family. Tell them that her death was a heartbreak to so many.

        • Well, you could help them by not publishing embarrassing details.

        • Please don’t tell them you like their daughter.  And please don’t ask to see the grave.

        • Her death was a heartbreak to so many.  Oh, right, I was one of them.

        [Chapter 31, Page 402]  Number two, I’d have written Patrick an apology. Naming him was unforgivable, and he didn’t deserve it, but I wanted to say that it wasn’t about him. I was pushed so hard that I’d have named anyone. I was sorry.

        • Yes, naming him was unforgivable.

        • No, it wasn’t about him, it was about saving your own ass.

        • You pushed yourself to come up with something once Sollecito said you went out—alone.

        • You did name anyone: Patrick, Rudy, Juve, Shaky, Spiros, Federico Martini ....

        • You were sorry that it didn’t work out?

        [Chapter 31, Page 403 ]  Dear Patrick,

        The explanation you’ve heard a number of times about my interrogation is true and I’m sure you understand well since you were arrested the same night without being told why.  Ifee1guilo and sorry for my part in it.

        • He was arrested ONLY because of you, but shit happens, right?
        Posted on 11/26/15 at 07:35 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxKnox-Mellas teamKnox book hoaxes
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (10)

        Wednesday, November 25, 2015

        Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #9

        Posted by Chimera



        Implacable nastiness in Star Wars. Anakin is about to kill his wife here. Click for Comments.

        1. Overview Of This Series

        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.

        Four more quick posts and the series will be done here. Then we will post everything on a new Knox Lies page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The eight posts before this one can all be read here.

        Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

        2. Dissection Of Pages 355 to 394

        [Chapter 28, Page 355]  “I’d like to show the court a visual prop we’ve constructed to demonstrate our theory of the murder,” Comodi said. This introduced the most surreal moment of my nightmarish trial: a 3-D computer-generated animation with avatars representing me, Raffaele, Rudy Guede, and Meredith.  Carlo and Luciano were apoplectic. They shouted their objections, insisting that the film was unnecessary and inflammatory. Judge Massei allowed it. I didn’t watch it, but my lawyers said the avatar of me was dressed in a striped shirt like one I often wore to court. Raffaele, Guede, and I were depicted sneering.  Meredith’s avatar had an expression of horror and pain. The cartoon used real crime scene photos to show the blood splatters in Meredith’s room.

        • Trying to use a video simulation to explain a crime?  Happens regularly in U.S. courts.

        • So, should Meredith be sneering, and Knox, Sollecito, Guede have horrified expressions?

        [Chapter 28, Page 356]  I kept my head down, my eyes on the table. My stomach was churning. The courtroom was suddenly hot. I was boiling with anger and near tears. How are they allowed to make up what happened? I tried to block out Comodi’s voice as she narrated the imagined event.

        • Angry, why?  For having the brutality of it finally shown?

        • Was she supposed to narrate you in the kitchen covering your ears while Lumumba kills Meredith?

        • Was she supposed to narrate the one where Guede uses his 6 arms and spider-strength to overpower Meredith?

        [Chapter 28, Page 356] The cartoon couldn’t be entered as evidence, so no one outside the courtroom saw it. But the prosecution had achieved their goal. They’d planted an image in the minds of the judges and jury.  When the lights came up, Comodi closed with a straightforward request: Give Amanda and Raffaele life imprisonment.

        • Nobody outside the courtroom saw the cartoon since it “couldn’t” be entered as evidence?  In fact it was purely a choice of the prosecution and judge to stop it leaking to the media.

        • The points of clearing the court are to protect the dignity of the victim, and to prevent word of it from inflaming the public via the media.

        • The point is not to ‘‘plant an image’‘.  It is to provide the best interpretation of what happened.

        • Finally a truthful statement.  Yes, they did ask for life in prison.

        [Chapter 28, Page 357]  Then he [Pacelli] descended on me as if I were a witch on trial in the Middle Ages. “So who is Amanda Knox? In my opinion, within her resides a double soul—the angelic and compassionate, gentle and naive one, of Saint Maria Goretti, and the satanic, diabolic Luciferina, who was brought to engage in extreme, borderline acts and to adopt dissolute behavior. This last was the Amanda of November 1, 2007 ... It must be spelled out clearly: Amanda was a girl who was clean on the outside because she was dirty within, spirit and soul.. .”

        • Pacelli didn’t descend on you as if it were the middle ages.  He descended on you for having committed heinous acts.

        • Extreme, borderline acts?  I guess sexual assault and murder, then framing someone are ‘‘mainstream’’ ....

        [Chapter 28, Page 357]  How can any girl defend herself against a guy armed with a knife? “It’s a very long list of lesions: to the face, neck, hands, forearms, thighs. Try to understand the terror, the fear, the pain this girl suffered in the last seconds of her life in the face of the multiple aggression, an aggression brought about by more than one person.” Maresca didn’t mention that the prosecution’s own coroner—the only person who’d analyzed Meredith’s body—had said it was impossible to determine whether one or more people attacked Meredith.

        • How can any woman defend herself against a guy armed with a knife?  Many have before.

        • This is disingenuous.  The coroner is NEVER able to make the determination of multiple attackers based solely on injuries.  They can make reasonable assumptions and say things are likely, but few things are 100% certain.

        • That said, that many injuries with so few defensive marks leads to two possibilities: (1) The victim had been restrained; or (2) Multiple attackers were present.

        [Chapter 28, Page 358]  Maresca, like Mignini, criticized any media that had questioned his work. But what most enraged me was the false contrast he set up between the Kerchers and my family. “You’ll remember Meredith’s family for their absolute composure. They taught the world the elegance of silence. We’ve never heard them on the television ... in the newspapers. They’ve never given an interview. There’s an abysmal difference between them and what has been defined as the Knox Clan and the Sollecito Clan, which give interviews on national television and in magazines every day.” Thank God for my “clan,” I thought. They’re the only ones on my side.

        • Meredith: likeable, ambitious, driven student.

        • Knox: crass, lazy, does drugs and brings home strange men.

        • Kercher family: kept a low profile during the trial.

        • Knox family: parents hired a PR firm to rail about how Knox was being railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor, and ancient judicial system

        [Chapter 28, Page 358]  Meredith’s family is grieving, but my family knows that Pm not the cause of the Kerchers’ grief. Just as Meredith’s family came to Perugia to seek justice for their daughter, mine have come to seek justice for me. Both families are good. Both families are doing the best they can, the best way they know how..

        • Meredith’s family is grieving?  So that’s what grief looks like?  Good to know.

        • Well, your mother knew you were the cause of PATRICK’S grief, and did nothing about it.

        • If your family were here to seek justice, they would have let things play out.

        • The way they know how?  Oh, Judge Hellmann .....

        [Chapter 28, Page 358]  “Raffaele and Rudy Guede never met, went out together, or saw each other,” Maori said. “The two young men belonged to completely different worlds and cultures. Raffaele comes from a big and healthy family. Rudy rejected his family. Raffaele has always been a model student. Rudy was never interested in school or work. Raffaele is timid and reserved. Rudy is uninhibited, arrogant, extroverted.” “Accomplices who don’t know each other . Bongiorno said, drawing out the words to emphasize the paradox that they couldn’t have been accomplices if they didn’t even know each other! Raffaele, she told the court, was “Mr. Nobody"—put in by the prosecution as an afterthought.  “There was no evidence of him at the scene.” The prosecution had contradicted themselves. “He’s there, but he’s not. He has a knife, but he doesn’t. He’s passive, he’s active.”

        • Vanessa losing her job while interfering with the case is ‘‘healthy’‘?

        • Since we are talking about ‘‘work ethic’‘, Sollecito is the only one of the 3 who never held a job.

        • Rudy is uninhibited, arrogant, extroverted?  Umm…. so is Knox.

        • People with different personalities can still know each other.  Sollecito knew Knox.

        • And despite the claim Sollecito didn’t know Guede, they both knew Knox.

        • Sollecito wasn’t put there as an afterthought.  He was Knox’s alibi witness, until he said she made him lie.

        [Chapter 28, Page 359] In defending Raffaele, she also defended me. “If the court doesn’t mind, and Amanda doesn’t mind, the innocence of my client depends on Amanda Knox,” she said. “A lot of people think that she doesn’t make sense. But Amanda just sees things her way. She reacts differently. She’s not a classic Italian woman. She has a naive perspective of life, or did when the events occurred. But just because she acted differently from other people doesn’t mean she killed someone….

        • Sollecito’s innocence depends on Knox?  Wasn’t his ‘‘official’’ position that she went out?

        • She reacts differently?  Yeah, shit happens.

        • Her reactions don’t mean it, but false alibis, false accusations, turning off phones, mixed blood, etc ... do mean it.

        [Chapter 28, Page 359]  “Amanda looked at the world with the eyes of Am6lie” she said, referring to the quirky waif in the movie that Raffaele and I watched the night of Meredith’s murder.  Amelie and I had traits in common, Bongiorno said. “The extravagant, bizarre personality, full of imagination. If there’s a personality who does cartwheels and who confesses something she imagined, it’s her. I believe that what happened is easy to guess. Amanda, being a little bizarre and naive, when she went into the questura, was truly trying to help the police and she was told, ‘Amanda, imagine. Help us, Amanda. Amanda, reconstruct it. Amanda, find the solution. Amanda, try.’ She tried to do so, she tried to help, because she wanted to help the police, because Amanda is precisely the Am6lie of Seattle.”

        • Knox looks at the world with the eyes of Amelie?  Are you arguing innocence or insanity?

        • Knox didn’t ‘‘confess’’ to anything.  She falsely ‘‘accused’’ Patrick of something.

        • Knox didn’t ‘‘imagine’’ anything, except a possible way out after Sollecito pulled his alibi.

        • She didn’t go to the Questura to ‘‘help the police’‘.  She claimed she went because she was scared to be alone, and told to go home.

        • Knox wasn’t told to ‘‘imagine’’ how anything went.  She started writing a list of possible males who visited.

        • Sorry to pick up an old topic, but Knox is remembering all this as it was said?  Or did she get the trial transcripts?

        [Chapter 28, Page 360]  “At lunch hour on November 2, 2007, a body was discovered,” Luciano began. “It was a disturbing fact that captured the hearts of everyone. Naturally there were those who investigated. Naturally there were testimonies. Naturally there was the initial investigative activity. Immediately, immediately, especially Amanda, but also Raffaele, were suspected, investigated, and heard for four days following the discovery of the body. There was demand for haste. There was demand for efficiency. There was demand.

        • Knox has frequently claimed she was ‘‘interrogated’’ for days, but this is the first time, I am hearing about it happening to Sollecito.

        • ’‘ALL’’ of the residents of the house were detained, as Knox admits earlier in the book.  She was not targeted.

        • There was no ‘‘demand for haste’‘.  On November 5, 2007, the police asked him to come in to clear up his alibi.  Knox was not invited, and when she did show up, was asked to leave.

        • Again, how does Knox remember this summation, more than 3 years before she would write her book?

        [Chapter 28, Page 360]  “Such demand and such haste led to the wrongful arrest of Patrick Lumumba—a grave mistake.”  Carlo picked up the thread. “There is a responsible party for this and it’s not Amanda Knox. Lumumba’s arrest was not executed by Amanda Knox. She gave information, false information. Now we know. But you couldn’t give credit to what Amanda said in that way, in that moment and in that way. A general principle for operating under such circumstances is maximum caution. In that awkward situation there was instead the maximum haste.”  Having heard what they wanted to hear and without checking further, the investigators and Prosecutor Mignini arrested Patrick—bringing him in “like a sack of potatoes,” Luciano said.

        • Knox admitted in her June 2009 testimony that she was the one to bring Patrick’s name up.

        • She did this because Sollecito revoked his alibi, and she was suddenly desperate for a new one.

        • Caution?  Knox claimed to be a witness to the rape and murder.

        • Lumumba’s arrest WAS executed by Knox.  Judge Massei (2009), Judge Hellmann (2011), and Cassation (2013) all said it was.

        • They did check the facts.  Patrick was released once they investigated.

        • You guys are taking pot shots at the cops in your summation?  Somehow I doubt it.

        [Chapter 28, Page 361]  Maria Del Grosso criticized Mignini for the fiction he’d invented. “What must be judged today is whether this girl committed murder by brutal means. To sustain this accusation you need very strong elements, and what element does the prosecution bring us? The flushing of the toilet. Amanda was an adulterer. l hope that not even Prosecutor Mignini believes in the improbable, unrealistic, imaginary contrast of the two figures of Amanda and Meredith.”

        • The prosecution brought hard evidence to the trial.  What did you bring?

        • [I haven’t seen the trial transcript on this. Defence lawyers spin and distort things, but this may actually have been said.]

        [Chapter 28, Page 362]  Then Raffaele and I made our final pleas. Raffaele talked about how he would never hurt anyone.  That he had no reason to. That he wouldn’t have done something just because I’d told him to.  I’d spent hours sitting on my bed making notes about what I wanted to say, but as soon as I stood up, every word emptied from my brain. I had to go with what came to me, on the few notes I had prepared.

        • Yes, Sollecito, gave speeches about how he had no reason to hurt her, but refused to actually testify.

        • Likewise at the Nencini appeal, Sollecito gave speeches, but wouldn’t answer questions.

        • You have to make notes?  I guess it just doesn’t come naturally.

        [Chapter 28, Page 362]  “People have asked me this question: how are you able to remain calm? First of all, I’m not calm.  I’m scared to lose myself. I’m scared to be defined as what I am not and by acts that don’t belong to me. I’m afraid to have the mask of a murderer forced on my skin.

        • You were VERY calm after Meredith’s murder

        • Scared to lose yourself?  You mean, yet your cold-blooded side slip out?  Okay, probably true here.

        • Scared to be defined as something?  This is a murder trial.

        • Mask of a murderer?  Sweetheart, it’s not a mask.

        [Chapter 28, Page 362]  “I feel more connected to you, more vulnerable before you, but also trusting and sure in my conscience. For this I thank you ... I thank the prosecution because they are trying to do their job, even if they don’t understand, even if they are not able to understand, because they are trying to bring justice to an act that tore a person from this world. So I thank them for what they do ... It is up to you now. So I thank you.”  My words were so inadequate. But at least I remembered to thank the court again. Now I had to put my faith in what my lawyers and our experts and I had said month after month. I had to believe that it was good enough.

        • While I’m at it, I’d like to thank the director, the producer, and the supporting cast.

        • One more time people.  I don’t yet have the feel of this character.

        • Dammit guys!  We are shooting this film just great.

        • Your words are inadequate?  You should have hired Linda Kuhlman to ‘‘ghostwrite’’ your speech.  No, it would still suck.

        [Chapter 28, Page 364]  My head pounded as I shot from excitement to terror and back again—and again. My brain bounced between Please, please, please and Finally, finally, finally—THE END.

        • Yes, sequels are lame.  Like the sequel (or paperback) of this book.

        [Chapter 28, Page 364]  After dinner Tanya turned on the TV. Every channel was talking about my case: The big day! The world is hanging on, waiting to see what the decision will be in the “Italian trial of the century.”  Raffaele and Amanda have been charged with six counts. Meredith’s family will be there to hear the verdict. Amanda’s family is waiting in the hotel. The Americans believe there’s no case, but the prosecution insists that Meredith’s DNA is on the murder weapon and Raffaele’s DNA is on Meredith’s bra clasp. The prosecution has condemned the American media for taking an incorrect view of the case.

        • Well, the whole world wasn’t watching until Dad hired a PR firm.

        • Americans believe there is no case.  Probably due to a biased media that doesn’t bother to check their facts

        • Meredith’s DNA on the knife and Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp were only just 2 pieces of evidence, yet you try to portray it as about the only evidence.

        • Actually the prosecution condemned the US media notion that he was framing 2 ‘‘kids’’ for his career.

        [Chapter 29, Page 370]  My life cleaved in two. Before the verdict, I’d been a wrongly accused college student about to walk free. I was about to start my life over after two years. Now everything I’d thought I’d been promised had been ripped away. I was a convicted murderer.

        • Well, before the conviction Marriott portrayed you as the ‘‘wrongly accused’’ college student.

        • You were only taking the one course, so is that really a college student?  Not a full time load.

        • Everything you had been promised?  What kind of deal did you make?

        [Chapter 29, Page 370]  Carlo stopped us just before we started down the stairs. He was breathless. “I’m so sorry! We’re going to win! We’re going to win. Amanda, we’re going to save you. Be strong.”

        • You’ve got the business judge directory?

        [Chapter 30, Page 377]  “Can you possibly put me on the list for a two-person cell instead of the five-person cell?” I asked, sniffling. “That would mean a lot to me.” It was all I had. Begging for a better cell. It had come to this. This was my new life. I was in a position to ask. Twenty-six-year sentences were uncommon in Italy, especially at Capanne, which usually housed petty criminals and drug dealers serving sentences of a few months to a few years. After twenty-five months, not only had I earned seniority—I’d been there longer than almost everyone else—but I had a reputation as a model prisoner.

        [Chapter 30, Page 384]  As Lupa said, my lawyers would obviously appeal my conviction. But I couldn’t count on the Court of Appeals to free me. My case, tried daily in the media, was too big and too notorious. It was awful to hear that strangers believed I had killed my friend. That feeling was compounded when, about three weeks after Raffaele and I were convicted, the appeals court cut Rudy Guede’s sentence nearly in half, from thirty years to sixteen. Meredith’s murderer was now serving less time than I was—by ten years! How can they do this?! I raged to myself. It doesn’t make sense! The unfairness of it burned in my throat.

        • Cases are tried by the courts, not the media.

        • It was awful to hear stranger thinking you killed your friend?  Why so obsessed with what people think?

        • Your friend?  Meredith I assume?

        • Didn’t make sense?  Did you read this quote from pages 273/274 of this book?  Fast track trial ... ?

        • “The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third.”

        [Chapter 30, Page 384]  But when the emotionless guard pushed the paper across the desk, I saw, to my astonishment, and outrage, that it was a new indictment—for slander. For telling the truth about what had happened to me during my interrogation on November 5-6, 2007.  In June 2009, I testified that Rita Ficarra had hit me on the head to make me name Patrick.  I also testified that the police interpreter hadn’t translated my claims of innocence and that she’d suggested that I didn’t remember assisting Patrick Lumumba when he sexually assaulted Meredith.

        • Actually, it was a ‘‘long haired woman’’ you testified against.  Ficarra wasn’t named until this book came out.

        • You ‘‘didn’t remember assisting’‘?  Well, after days of lying, you admitted you were present.

        [Chapter 30, Page 385]  According to Prosecutor Mignini, truth was slander.  All told, the prosecution claimed that I’d slandered twelve police officers—everyone who was in the interrogation room with me that night—when I said they’d forced me to agree that Meredith had been raped and pushed me into saying Patrick’s name.  It was my word against theirs, because that day the police apparently hadn’t seen fit to flip the switch of the recording device that had been secretly bugging me every day in the same office of the questura leading up to the interrogation.

        [Chapter 30, Page 385] Mignini and his co-prosecutor, Manuela Comodi, had signed the document. The judge’s signature was also familiar: Claudia Matteini, the same woman who’d rejected me for house arrest two years earlier because she said I’d flee Italy.  I hadn’t expected this maneuver by the police and prosecution, but it now made sense. They couldn’t admit that one of their own had hit me or that the interpreter hadn’t done her job. Above all, they couldn’t admit that they’d manipulated me into a false admission of guilt. They had their reputations to uphold and their jobs to keep.

        • Judge Matteini was right.  You refused to attend the 2013 Cassation appeal, your own 2013/2014 Florence appeal, your own 2015 Cassation appeal, and are skipping the September 2015 calunnia trial.

        • So, the interpreter is refusing to translate properly .... to help frame you?

        • A police officer (whom you only now identify as Ficarra), assaults you, and everyone covers it up?

        • So, police and prosecutors are framing you to retains their jobs and reputations?

        [Chapter 30, Page 385]  I’d calculated that I could be released in twenty-one years for good behavior. Now this looked unlikely. If I were called to testify in the slander trial, I’d have to restate the truth: I had been pressured and hit. They’d say I was lying. If the judges and jury believed the police, that would wipe out my good behavior and add three years to my jail time.  Could Mignini, Comodi, and the whole questura keep going after me again and again? Would I be persecuted forever?

        • So which is it?  You will (a) Tell the truth; or (b) Restate that you had been hit?

        • Yes, ‘‘aggravated calunnia’’ has a tendency to add years to jail sentences.

        • Mignini, Comodi and the Questura are not ‘‘going after you again and again’‘.  They are obligated to report such complaints.

        • Not ‘‘persecuted’’ forever, but if you keep this pattern up, you may be ‘‘prosecuted’’ forever.

        [Chapter 30, Page 386] The indictment was a dark reminder of how completely vulnerable I was. Not only had the prosecution successfully had me convicted for something I hadn’t done, but also legally, my word meant nothing. I was trapped.

        • Yes, the word of someone convicted of making false accusations generally means nothing.  Quite true.

        [Chapter 30, Page 387] As I did for Mina’s mom, Gregora, I helped prisoners write letters, legal documents, grocery lists, and explain an ailment to the doctor. The Nigerian women treated me as an honored guest, setting me up at a table and offering tea and cake as they dictated to me. This was my way of being part of the prison community on my own terms, of trying to find a good balance between helping others and protecting myself. No matter how much I was hurting, I didn’t think it was right to ignore the fact that I could help other inmates with my ability to read and write in both Italian and English.  At bedtime each night, I made a schedule for the next day, organized task by task, hour by hour. If I didn’t cross off each item, I felt I’d let myself down. I wrote as much as I could—journals, stories, poems. I could spend hours crafting a single letter to my family.

        • The writing part is true.

        • The touching details about helping other inmates is not.  Knox kept to herself almost exclusively.

        [Chapter 30, Page 387]  The ways other prisoners had tried to kill themselves were well known—and I imagined myself trying them all.  There was poisoning, usually with bleach. Swallowing enough and holding it in long enough was painfully difficult. Usually the vomiting would attract the attention of the guards too soon, and then they’d pump your stomach. It seemed an agonizing way to go if success wasn’t guaranteed.  There was swallowing shards of glass from a compact mirror or a broken plastic pen, hitting your head against the wall until you beat yourself to death, and hanging yourself.  But the most common and fail-safe method of suicide in prison was suffocation by a garbage bag—two prisoners on the men’s side did this successfully while I was there. You could even buy the bags off the grocery list. You’d pull the bag over your head, stick an open gas canister meant for the camping stove inside, and tie the bag off around your neck. The gas would make you pass out almost instantaneously, and if someone didn’t untie the bag immediately, that was it.  Less effective but, I thought, more dignified was bleeding yourself to death. I imagined it would be possible to get away with enough time in the shower. The running water would deter cellmates from invading your privacy, and the steam would fog up the guard’s viewing window. I imagined cutting both my wrists and sinking into oblivion in a calm, quiet, hot mist.  I wondered which straw would need to break for me actually to do any of these. What would my family and friends think? How would the guards find my body?  I imagined myself as a corpse. It made me feel sick, not relieved, but it was a fantasy I had many times—terrible, desperate recurring thoughts that I never shared with a soul.

        • Not sure why Knox is telling us this.  Is it for shock value? Is she reveling in it?

        [Chapter 30, Page 387]  I thought about how much I wanted to get married and have kids. If I get released on good behavior when I’m forty-three, I can still adopt.

        • Yes, adoption agencies won’t have an issue with a 43 year old woman who spent nearly her entire adult in jail for rape and murder now adopting a child.

        [Chapter 30, Page 388] My mom couldn’t accept my sadness. She wrote, and talked to me, many times about how scared she was for me. “You’re changing, Amanda,” she said. “You’re not sunny anymore. I hope when you get out you can go back to being the happy person you were.  “Mom,” I wrote back, “good things don’t always work out for good people. Sometimes shit happens for no reason, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

        • You’re not sunny anymore?  Well, after Massei didn’t buy it, I’d be pessimistic too.

        • Shit happens for no reason?  Sorry, Meredith.

        [Chapter 30, Page 388]  I desperately didn’t want to be forgotten. But more than worrying about the logistics of such a life, I was terrified that we were coming to a point where we wouldn’t understand one another. They still had the right to choose what to do with their lives; they had freedom. I didn’t. I was at the mercy of my wardens. I worried that my new prison identity wouldn’t make sense to them, and my mom was evidence of that. If enough time passed, we’d be speaking two different languages—and it would have nothing and everything to do with their English and my Italian.

        • The first statement seems truthful, you really are desperate to not be forgotten.

        • But if you wanted to lessen the burden, you could have just come clean, and gotten a much lighter sentence.

        [Chapter 31, Page 393] Sitting beside me in the visitors’ room at Capanne, my friend Madison reached over and brushed my cheek. I flinched. “Baby, don’t worry. It’s just an eyelash,” she said.  My skittishness horrified me. “I guess I’m just not used to people touching me anymore!’

        • Too easy.  I won’t even try with this one.

        [Chapter 31, Page 394]  After I was convicted, my family, my lawyers, my friends, other prisoners—even, bizarrely, prison officials—tried to console me by telling me that I’d surely have my sentence reduced, if not overturned, on appeal. Rocco and Corrado assured me that in Italy about half the cases win on appeal.

        • Not true at all.  Very few cases are overturned on appeal.

        • You’d surely have your sentence reduced?  Are you working on those fake tears?

        [Chapter 31, Page 394]  But I’d been burned so often I was terrified. Why would the Court of Appeals make a different decision from the previous court? Or from the pretrial judge? Both had accepted the prosecution’s version. With my case, the Italian judicial system was also on trial. My story was well known, and the world was watching. It’d be difficult for the judicial authorities to back down now.

        • Good question.  Why would they make a different decision?

        • So, Mignini/Comodi’s case that you were involved in Meredith’s death was just a ‘‘version’‘?  Was it their version of the truth?

        • The judicial system is always on trial.  Judgements have to be able to withstand public and legal scrutiny.

        • You won’t get a fair appeal because their is media attention?

        [Chapter 31, Page 394] One thing had changed: me. I was different. In the year since my conviction I’d decided that being a victim wouldn’t help me. In prison there were a lot of women who blamed others for their bad circumstances. They lived lethargic, angry lives. I refused to be that person. I pulled myself out of the dark place into which I’d tumbled. I promised myself I’d live in a way that I could respect. I would love myself. And I would live as fully as I could in confinement.

        • Are you kidding?  Being a ‘‘victim’’ got you all this fame, I mean notoriety.

        • There are a lot of women who blame others for their circumstances?  Others like Mignini, Ficarra, Guede….

        • They lived lethargic, angry lives?  Your book is dripping with rage.

        • You refused to be that person?  How exactly?

        • Live in a way you can respect?  You seem to have pretty low standards.
        Posted on 11/25/15 at 01:00 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (3)

        Tuesday, November 17, 2015

        A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #5

        Posted by James Raper



        Image is of busy Rome at night

        The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report

        I conclude my critique of the final 34 pages of the Motivation Report, the decisions and verdict parts.

        The four previous posts can be read here and here and here and here. A full translation of the Marasca-Bruno Report can be read or downloaded here.

        The Critique Part 5

        So, let’s do a brief recap now

        1. The Report starts with sensationalized general slurs on the competence and motives of the investigators and judges.

        2.  Marasca and Bruno misunderstand the relevance of motive. Nencini was not in error. It is not relevant, or of less relevance, if the evidentiary framework of guilt is by itself sufficient to establish guilt. In such circumstances the normal formula is to attribute futile and trivial motives that require no further definition. Conversely motive does acquire importance, an element in itself, if that framework is insufficient.

        3. Their section on TOD produces nothing that is relevant.

        4.  Having failed to establish a convincing connection between “the primacy” of rules of evidence and a guarantee of the repeatability of DNA analysis, such that the latter is required by the former, or at least can be tolerated by it for some specific reason, they assert that the latter must prevail anyway. It requires numerous inconsistencies, a failure to follow the ground rules of evidence, and the illogicality of failing to follow their own argument, such as it is, to assert that Meredith’s DNA on the blade of the knife, and Sollecito’s DNA in a mixed sample from the bra clasp, have no probative or circumstantial value simply because they were not capable of repetition. That is simply a dogmatic assertion and one, as we shall see, that has no connection with the permitted grounds for appeal.

        5.  As if the foregoing was not enough, and perhaps conscious of it, they bring up the matter of contamination again. Which would not be relevant if the foregoing were true. The contamination argument has long been shown to have no mileage in it. The cardboard box (from the police station) is a stupid reference and that there was pre-existing dirt on a latex glove mere speculation, without context.

        6. The section on luminol hits and removal of blood traces is characterized by many misrepresentations and a chronic misunderstanding of the evidence and the inferences that can be drawn from it.

        7.  On the simulated break-in, which they accept, they declare that they are then stymied in the necessary inference by the feeblest of anomalies.

        8.  Now up to this point we have encountered few, if any, mistakes, inconsistencies and contradictions, of any significance, other than those that Marasca-Bruno are making, or making up, themselves. 


        ———————————————————————


        Remember this?  -

        “that fact finding is a task pertaining exclusively to the fact-finding judge, and not up to the Court of Legitimacy. The Supreme Court has to limit itself to whether the fact-finding judge’s reasoning is compatible with common sense and within the limits of an acceptable latitude (law cited) as well as compliant with the limits of evidence.”

        In fact appeals to the Supreme Court can only be made under the precise circumstances provided for by the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

        These are governed by Article 606. Of the provisions in this Article, only section 1, para (e) is applicable, as follows -

        “(e)  defect, contradictoriness or manifest illogicality of the judgement reasoning, when the error results from the text of the provisioning appealed, or from other documents in the proceedings specifically noted in the reasons of encumberment.”

        Therefore, although fact finding is the preserve of the lower courts, the Supreme Court can enter into the merits of the judgement appealed against on this ground.

        The question arises as to what constitutes a fact to which para (e) would not relate.

        There are probably not many, for most facts determined would require an element of reasoning. For instance, to hold that a particular witness was reliable, or otherwise, would require explanation, that is, reasoning, and so on.

        To be clear, “defect“, “contradictoriness” and “illogicality” all relate to the judgement reasoning.

        For instance, a failure to take into account contradictory evidence in the judgement reasoning must obviously be included as a defect.

        Another defect would, of course, be misapplication or misinterpretation of the law in the judgement reasoning, an error to which the 5th Chambers have already shown themselves prone.

        I am not quite sure how “contradictoriness” in the judgement reasoning is to be construed, but I suspect that there would be contradictoriness in asserting something contrary to the weight of the evidence, or indeed in the absence of any evidence in support. Another case might be in making a point which is then undermined elsewhere in the reasoning

        In any event a clear restriction on the Supreme Court entering into the merits of the judgement appealed against, apart from the foregoing, would appear to be that in the case of illogicality, that it has to be manifest.

        However, no particular instance of manifest illogicality is likely, on it’s own, to invalidate a verdict, unless it amounts to a serious defect from which the reasoning, as a whole, on the verdict, cannot recover.

        Effectively, there have to be numerous manifest illogicalities in the reasoning of the judgement appealed against, for this to happen. Under those circumstances one might actually describe the judgement as “perverse” at one end of the scale, and “unsafe“ at the other. Setting aside a conviction for such reasons I would understand.  Usually, at least in the UK, an unsafe conviction would result in a re-trial if the prosecution requested it.

        However even the Supreme Court has to motivate it’s decision making process, free from such defects. Clearly that has not been the case.

        The banal peppering of the Report with references to “manifest illogicality” and “intrinsically contradictory”, and so on, may impress the undiscerning reader, but the repetition and context are, frankly, “manifestly” unconvincing to the discerning reader.

        What we find, on analyzing the 5th Chambers’ motivation, is that when it enters into the merit, it does not do so in a balanced way, and without logical inconsistency on it’s own part, but simply by making dogmatic assertions on the merit. That is hardly extending an acceptable latitude to the fact-finding judge nor is it explaining why his reasoning is incompatible with common sense.

        In particular, I do not see how one can make the assertion that the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp has no probative or circumstantial relevance, because the tests were not repeated, when this can scarcely be described as a product of the application of section 1 (e) of Article 606.


        ————————————————————————


        Furthermore, one also has to consider the effect of Article 628. The 2nd paragraph states that -

        “In any event 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….”

        At the very least this should have served as a warning to the 5th Chambers.

        The Chieffi ruling annulling Hellmann was not intended as a foray into the merit but it was a criticism of the procedural defects and reasoning methodology of the Hellmann court, which errors we can see repeated in the Marasca-Bruno Report.

        The most obvious and most frequent error is the use of dogmatic assertion, the starkest example of the deployment of self-contained circular reasoning it is possible to have. Indeed, it does not warrant the description “reasoning”.

        Another important error was the “atomizing” or “parceling out” of the circumstantial evidence in an attempt to exclude items prior to assessing it in an overall evaluation. This error underwrites the 5th Chambers’ approach to the case, manifestly in it’s use of dogmatic assertion to achieve the aim of eliminating or reducing the evidence.

        Abstract hypothesizing on contamination is another.

        The reprise of Hellmann’s reasoning as to the reliability of the witness Curatolo is another, and most objectionable, one.

        Interestingly, the “validity” of the DNA testing was not an aspect raised by Galati and consequently not touched upon by Chieffi. The only conclusion has to be that the State (subsequently confirmed by Nencini) deemed the reliability of the results as perfectly safe.


        ————————————————————————————


        Article 530, Section 2 and Conclusions


        I now turn to the matter of the sufficiency of the evidence.

        There is no formula as such.

        The evidence is sufficient if the bar of culpable beyond a reasonable doubt is met, insufficient if it is not.

        The starting point is clearly the evidence itself, and then the inferences that are drawn logically from it.

        As to the evidence and inferences, we are assisted by the fact, under the Italian system, that all verdicts, whether at trial or appeal stage, are required to be motivated in writing. 

        The final motivation, prior to the 5th Chambers, is, of course, the Nencini report. It seemed to me that Nencini, despite a few flaws, did an excellent job in unifying the evidence in a global way, as is required of what is essentially circumstantial evidence, fully in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on the matter, and with all the arrows pointing in the same direction and substantially corroborating each other. It left no reasonable doubt, in my humble submission, that the Florence court’s affirmation of the guilty verdicts was correct.

        Now, we have already discussed the grounds on which an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court. The sufficiency of the evidence is not one of the stated grounds.That is a matter for the fact-finding judges of the lower courts. The 5th Chambers therefore knowingly exceeded their remit.

        We also find, having gone through the Marasca-Bruno criticism of the Nencini Report, in some detail, that many, if not most, of these criticisms lack substance and lack logical consistency in their own right.

        The overall effect has been to produce an improper, if not fraudulent, weighting (for want of a better word) on the matter of sufficiency, which should not have even been considered anyway.

        In addition the result of the Report has been to produce an interesting scenario based on the following conclusions.

        1.  Knox was present in the cottage at the time of the murder but in a non-participatory role. Very probably (if this is not a held fact) she had scrubbed Meredith’s blood off her hands in the small bathroom.

        2.  Sollecito was very probably there as well, but it cannot be known when.

        3.  There was certainly an assailant (and perhaps more than one) in addition to Guede.

        4.  There was a staging of the break-in in Filomena’s room.

        As to Knox having blood on her hands (literally rather than metaphorically) there are inconsistencies to be derived from this because, according to the Report, this would have been as a result of contact with blood outside Meredith’s room. Why? Where is that blood? Such blood could, of course, have been there prior to it being removed. However, to affirm that would be to prejudice a number of assertions they have already made. More likely is that Knox had been in Meredith’s room, during or after the event and without, we would have to observe with some interest, leaving any trace of herself there. That would also be the logical explanation for her lamp being on the floor there.

        Guede was not charged with, and hence was neither acquitted nor convicted of, the offence of staging, but in any event Marasca-Bruno did not attempt to attribute the staging to him. This leaves either Knox, an unknown person, or Sollecito. As to an unknown person it is manifestly difficult to see how he would be “a qualified person” for the purpose of the inference that only someone with an interest in removing suspicion from himself would do this. Knox and Sollecito qualify whether there is an anomaly or not.

        As to who Guede’s unknown accomplices may have been, Marasca and Bruno are silent. This is not surprising as there was no forensic trace of them. There were, in fairness, unidentified genetic profiles, male and female, obtained from cigarette stubs taken from the ashtray in the lounge/kitchen, but as with the mixed genetic profile of Knox and Sollecito on one of these, they cannot be dated and therefore cannot be placed within the time frame for the murder. For all we know they could belong to Romanelli and her boyfriend Marco Zaroli, both of whom were at the cottage earlier on the day of the 1st Nov, with Knox and Sollecito.

        More pertinently, however, is this scenario regarding Knox.  It is not one that her defence team, even in their wildest dreams, would have considered advancing on her behalf. She had, throughout the proceedings, maintained that she was not there, whether or not in a non-participatory role.

        That is not surprising. The scenario we have is that Knox and perhaps Sollecito were at the cottage with Guede, and at least one other, and that Guede and this other saw fit to commit a horrendous murder in their presence, without encouragement nor opposition from either of them it would seem, but certainly in the knowledge that such action, even if it met with cowed submission from them in the first instance, would meet with the utmost reprobation, and then they leave, trusting to Knox and Sollecito not spilling the beans. That really is stretching credulity well beyond the bounds of breaking point. Even more so if there was no unknown accomplice.

        Furthermore, and if that is nevertheless so, then Knox has had more than enough chances to put the record straight, particularly since her return to Seattle. She still has the opportunity to do so.

        What we have, therefore, is a fact that neither the defence nor the prosecution has ever advanced in the entire history of the proceedings, and not one that any previous judge has drawn.

        Now it may be something that can be justified by a fact-finding judge, on remand, and in the light of the Marasca-Bruno Report.  Not.  But it is surely beyond the remit of the 5th Chambers to hold that as a fact and without even permitting prosecution and defence submissions on it. That runs counter to the principle of natural justice, a violation inherent in the final appeal and in the decision not to permit a remand to a 1st instance court of appeal.

        It would have been interesting to have seen the defence submissions.


        ————————————————————-


        I said at the beginning that the Marasca-Bruno Report was a desperate attempt to bring home an incomprehensible verdict. It has been described elsewhere (by a reputable american reporter who had been present throughout the proceedings) as superficial and intellectually dishonest. It is not only that, it is a charade that sullies the good name of Italian justice.

        A question to arise is what truly motivated the verdict? It seems to me that the only “glaring investigative omission” in the case, is this. However that is a murky world of connections and undue influence about which we can only speculate at this stage.

        Had it been incompetence and had the five Supreme Court judges held up their hands and simply admitted that they had made a mistake, I might have had some sympathy for them. Instead they have persisted with a charade which is essentially corrupt.

        By “corrupt” I mean that they have knowingly acted in bad faith. They cannot otherwise have been such simpletons. It is also abundantly obvious why they did not dare risk remanding the case to another appeal court.

        As for Knox and Sollecito, sadly for them, they are anything but exonerated.

        Posted on 11/17/15 at 05:59 PM by James Raper. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoThose officially involvedSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Cassation 2015 critiquesJames R critique
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (24)

        Friday, November 13, 2015

        A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #4

        Posted by James Raper



        Image is of busy Rome at night

        The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report

        I continue critiquing the final 34 pages of the Motivation Report, the decisions and verdict parts.

        The three previous posts can be read here and here and here. A full translation of the Marasca-Bruno Report can be read or downloaded here.

        The Critique Part 4

        The Simulated Break In

        This is all too briefly treated by Marasca-Bruno (whom by now I am beginning to think of as Zaphod Beeblebrox from The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy) and by way of a sidetrack really.

        They in fact affirm the circumstances of simulation without actually having the gumpf to explicitly say so.

        They are more concerned to turn their attention to the inference that only a “qualified” person would have an interest in a simulation so as to remove suspicion from him/herself.

        Marasca-Bruno are not interested in Guede.

        They acknowledge that Knox and Sollecito are “qualified” persons…………

        “Yet this element is also substantially equivocal, especially in the light of the fact that, when the postal police arrived it was….Sollecito - whose trial position is inextricably bound to Knox’s - who pointed out the anomaly to the police officers, that nothing had been stolen from Romanelli’s room.”

        And that’s it? The smoking gun, the bull in the appellants’ china shop, brushed aside - because of an anomaly? Pathetic.

        It was staged but sadly not staged to perfection, by way of something actually being stolen. A stager, knowing this, would not countenance revealing this information to the police, although it may have been an inadvertent slip due to Sollecito being an idiot.

        An inadvertent slip aside, he would have no reason to mention that nothing had been stolen, unless he was as aware as others were that the staging had it’s flaws in other respects as well, in which case he could have thought that his comment had the appearance (Marasca and Bruno fall for it) of innocence.

        And how did he know that nothing had been stolen - which only subsequently turned out to be true when Filomena checked the contents of her room-  unless he was involved in the staging?

        Even if one accepts the anomaly and extremely dubious reasoning above, it only applies to Sollecito. There is nothing equivocal about the logical inference applying to Knox. That is so despite the illogical connection in asserting that their trial positions are inextricably linked.

        Is Knox a ventriloquist and Sollecito her dummy?

        Curatolo & Quintavalle

        “Nevertheless, the presence of intrinsic contradiction and poor reliability of witnesses [ ed: ie the above named] do not allow unreserved credit to be attributed to (their) respective versions, to the extent of proving with reasonable certainty the failure, and therefore the falsity, of the accused’s alibi, who insisted she stayed in her boyfriend’s home from late afternoon on the 1st November until the following morning.”

        Here Marasca-Bruno effectively reprise the reasoning of Hellmann.

        Curatolo was a tramp, a drug addict and pusher, and a prosecution witness stooge. The same evening he had seen Knox and Sollecito together in Piazza Grimana (1st Nov) he had seen revellers wearing Halloween masks, and the special buses to take them to discos and nightclubs, referenced by the witness, were not running that night.

        Marasca -Bruno overlook the improbability that Curatolo could have seen the two together on Halloween, given that it was established as a trial fact that on that evening Sollecito was attending a friend’s anniversary dinner outside Perugia, and Knox was meeting up with her friend Spiros.

        Perugia is a student town. There are numerous discos and nightclubs catering to this market. The defence did produce nightclub owners testifying to their clubs not being open the day after Halloween, and shuttle bus operators testifying that they were not running special buses to them, though these witnesses did not exclude the possibility that other nightclubs had some, or that other buses could have been hired for a private party.

        There were indeed still a good few discos and nightclubs open (these can be listed if required), with a normal bus service for Perugia as well. Guede, himself, was seen dancing at the Domus hours after the murder.

        [ Halloween is a relatively new festivity in Italy. All Saints Day (Nov 1st) and All Souls Day (Nov 2nd ) are holidays in Italy.]

        “This contradicts the balanced assessment - but always in a context of uncertainty and ambiguity - of the witness referring (regarding the context of when he saw the two accused together) to the day before he saw (in the afternoon) unusual movements of police and Carabinieri and, in particular, men wearing white overalls and headgear (they looked almost like aliens) enter the house on via della Pergola.”

        As regards Quintavalle, Marasca-Bruno are brief and equally dismissive. This is all they have to say -

        “Quintavalle - apart from the lateness of his statements, initially reticent and generic - offered no contribution to certainty, not even as to the product bought by the young woman he noted on the morning after the murder, when his shop opened. The fact he recognized Knox is worthless as her image had appeared in every newspaper and television news broadcast.”

        There was no evidence that the young woman had bought, or had tried to buy, a product.

        No, his identification testimony was not worthless on that account. If it was worthless for that reason then a lot of ID witness testimony would go by the board in today’s world of rapid 24 by 7 news coverage.

        Quintavalle was able to describe the clothes that the young woman was wearing, which description, blue jeans, grey jacket and scarf, was a match for the articles of clothing that the crime scene investigators had photographed scattered on the top of Knox’s bed at the cottage and which had immediately became material evidence along with everything else.

        Since Knox was wearing different clothes, including a long white skirt, when she and Sollecito were photographed outside of the cottage by the press, it is difficult to gauge how Quintavalle might have been influenced in his description.

        Raffaele Sollecito At House

        “In Sollecito’s case too the evidentiary frame work which emerges from the judgement under appeal is marked by inherent and irreducible contradiction…………………However, the strong suspicion remains that he was present in the house on via della Pergola on the night of the murder, albeit it has not been possible to determine when. On the other hand, if Knox’s presence in the home was certain, it would hardly be credible that he was not with her.”

        And More On Other Matters

        Marasca-Bruno return to the question of the knife again despite the fact that they have excluded it as having any “probative value or circumstantial relevance”.

        This is an inconsistent element in their own reasoning, such as their reasoning is.

        They remind us that no trace of blood was found on it, and assert that it was a questionable choice to go for a DNA test rather than establish the nature of the biological trace.

        “An extremely questionable option, given that the finding of blood traces, coming from Kercher, would have given the trial an element of strong evidentiary value, showing for certain that the weapon had been used to commit the murder.”

        One begins to wonder whether they are mentally fatigued at this point. But no, that can’t be it. They have had over 130 days to write 34 pages of reasons, and that wouldn‘t be particularly taxing, provided that there had been reasons for the verdict in the first place, and that they had remembered them.

        They are waffling, padding and turning to risible argument. Particularly given that they should know exactly why Dr Stefanoni had only one sensible option available to her. They had even referred to this in the preceding paragraph.

        Even if it had been blood in sample 36b then, without establishing whose blood it was, the knowledge that it was blood would be totally useless as a piece of evidence, as the blood could have come from anywhere, at anytime.

        “What is certain is that no traces of blood were found on the knife. Lack of which cannot be traced to meticulous cleaning. As noted by the defence, the knife showed traces of starch, a sign of ordinary domestic use and of cleaning that was anything but meticulous. Not only this, but starch is famous as a substance with a high absorbance rate, thus it is highly likely that, in the event of a stabbing, it would have retained blood traces.”

        As we come towards the end of their reasoning the dogmatic assertions start to pop up thick and fast out of nowhere.

        Why can lack of blood traces not be connected to meticulous cleaning? Isn’t that, by definition, what meticulous cleaning does?  Was there any expert evidence to the contrary? How can Maresca and Bruno be so sure that their version of common sense is shared universally?

        Yes, starch does absorb liquids. However, how do they know that the starch was there on the knife at the time of the murder? It is not improbable that having cleaned the knife it was used again for ordinary domestic use. The starch could also have got there as a consequence of the investigators handling it with latex gloves, which contain traces of starch, and this was pointed out at the Hellmann appeal.

        “Finally, the footprints found at the murder scene can in no way be traced to the appellant.”

        Another dogmatic assertion. They are, I should point out talking about Sollecito at this point, not Knox.

        The bloody footprint on the bathmat and a luminol enhanced footprint in the corridor were useful for negative comparison purposes and both were attributed by the prosecution experts to Raffaele Sollecito because of points of comparison with his foot and because neither had similar points of comparison with Knox and Guede.

        Their evidence was disputed by a defence expert witness.

        Massei and Nencini agreed with the prosecution experts, Hellmann did not.

        However, remember the bit about fact-finding being for the fact-finding judge and not the Court of Legitimacy?

        Not only do Marasca-Bruno break the rules at to their remit but they do not even give reasons for their assertion.

        “The computers of Amanda Knox and Kercher, which might have been useful to the investigation were, incredibly, burned by the careless actions of the investigators.”

        Another unjustified and dogmatic assertion. 

        Four computers were found to have sustained damage - probably an electrical burn-out - but it is not in evidence that they were damaged by the investigators.

        Indeed, I do not recall any trial evidence that they were working before they were recovered by the investigators. Certainly Sollecito’s Asus was not. That had been damaged for months. Filomena’s computer was found to have been already damaged when it was switched on in her presence at the police station.

        It may be the case that Knox, somewhere in her testimony, asserted that her computer was in working order when she last used it, or something like that. But then she would say that, wouldn’t she?

        Of all the computers that had problems, the data was ultimately recovered from all but Knox’s Toshiba.

        And realistically, what potential information relevant to the investigation did Marasca-Bruno think could be found? Photos of Knox together with Meredith? If there were such photographs, had they been deleted from the camera?

        Knox communicated with her family at home by means of an internet café because it had skype available.

        E-mail communication is recoverable whether or not the user’s computer is broken.

        Marasca-Bruno also opine that in respect of their alibis, what we are talking about is a failed alibi rather than a false alibi. Is this a necessary and relevant distinction?

        They both maintained, for trial purposes, that they had been together at Sollecito’s flat from about 9 pm onwards on the 1st November, that both had slept and that Knox had been the first to rise at about 10.30 am the next morning. Of course, Sollecito had contradicted this in his statement to the police. He said that Knox had gone out and not returned until 1 am. However this was not admissible as trial evidence.

        In relation to the crucial period of time in which TOD is ascertained to have occurred there is no independent corroboration of their alibi. In that sense it is a failed alibi.

        However the reliability of their alibi can certainly be assessed from the trial evidence. Sollecito’s phone was switched on at 6.03 am and earlier heavy music had been played on his computer for half an hour at 5.30 am, on the 2nd November. That manifestly contradicts the alibi. In short the pair were lying when they said that they had slept and that neither had risen until 10.30 am.  Accordingly, it is a reasonable inference that their alibi is not to be trusted.

        There is, in addition, the evidence of Curatolo and Quintavalle.

        What In Part Marasca-Bruno Left Out

        Finally Marasca and Bruno declare that -

        “The panorama of the declared evidence is complete.”

        Except that this is not true.

        They have not for example mentioned the following, which are certainly part of the declared evidence, and which certainly have to be taken into account if we are to consider the sufficiency of the evidence -

        1. The presence of Knox’s table lamp on the floor in Meredith’s room.

        2.  The police photograph of Knox’s throat and the statement of Laura Mezetti that what is seen in the photograph, as she had noticed at the Police Station, is a scratch.

        3.  Knox’s dried and congealed blood on the tap in the small bathroom next to Meredith’s room.

        4.  Knox’s e-mail to the world with it’s implausible aspects and which exposes crucial contradictions in the respective accounts of the appellants.

        5.  The phone records which expose a suspicious pattern of behaviour on their part and which show that the cell phones of both the appellants had been switched off, or rendered inoperative, between 8.42 pm on the 1st November and 6.03 am on the 2nd November.

        6. The luminol enhanced mixed DNA trace for Knox and Meredith on the floor in Filomena’s room, certainly requiring an explanation.

        ***

        Please click here for the next post.

        Posted on 11/13/15 at 02:00 PM by James Raper. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoThose officially involvedSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Cassation 2015 critiquesJames R critique
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (17)

        Tuesday, November 10, 2015

        A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #3

        Posted by James Raper



        Image is of busy Rome at night

        The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report

        I continue critiquing the final 34 pages of the Motivation Report, the decisions and verdict parts.

        My first post can be read here and the second read here.  A full translation of the Report can be read here.

        Traces in the Murder Room, the Small Bathroom and the Corridor

        A selection of quotes from the Report -

        “Total absence of biological traces attributable with certainty to the two defendants in the murder room.”

        “An insurmountable monolithic barrier on the path taken by the fact finding judge.”

        Selective cleaning - “an hypothesis that is patently illogical”

        “Selective cleaning not capable of escaping detection by luminol is, for sure, impossible”

        It follows, of course, that if the knife and bra clasp have no probative or circumstantial value (effectively rendered inadmissible as far as the incriminating traces on them are concerned) then there are no biological traces attributable to Knox and Sollecito in Meredith’s room. However it is an exaggeration to present this as an insurmountable monolithic barrier to the fact finding path.

        Marasca-Bruno misrepresent and trivialise what was undoubtedly a manipulation of the crime scene (i.e the cottage) by the removal of traces of blood, and in this limited sense “selective”, by insisting on using the word “selective” across the board, and in the main to refer to removal of DNA, in both a derogatory and confusing manner and to sidestep the real issue.

        The removal of traces of blood, whether selective or not, is not capable of escaping detection by luminol, as they appear to explicitly acknowledge.

        Therefore the comment that “selective cleaning” is an hypothesis that is patently illogical is patently deceitful and unworthy of their station as Supreme Court judges.

        Having just done a bit of misrepresenting themselves Mascara-Bruno then claim to have unearthed “an obvious misrepresentation of evidence” - presumably by judges previously involved in the case. They say that the SAL had excluded (because of the TMB test) that the luminol enhanced traces were of an haematic nature.

        This, of course, is a manifest misrepresentation. TMB is a specific presumptive test for blood. However, that the TMB testing was negative (no result) does not exclude that the traces were haematic in nature, even if the presumption must be that they were not.

        They then criticise Nencini -

        “Not only that, but it is patently illogical, in this context, the reasoning of the fact finding judge, who reckons being able to overcome the defensive objection that the luminescent bluish reaction generated by luminol can be produced by substances different from blood (for instance leftovers of cleaning detergents, fruit juice and many others), by arguing that the reasoning, while theoretically correct, has however to be contextualised, meaning that if the fluorescence occurs at a place where a murder occurred, the reaction cannot but be connected with haematic traces.

        The weakness of the argument is such, already at first sight, that it does not require any confutation, since to reason in that way one should also surmise that the house on via della Pergola was never the object of cleanings nor was a lived in location.

        This observation hence allows us to categorically exclude that those traces were made of blood and wilfully removed in that circumstance.”

        Oh dear. What is this Court of Legitimacy doing?  Cherry picking, misrepresenting the evidence, entering into a discussion of the merits in line with desperate defence submissions, and drawing conclusions on that basis, that’s what.

        I have refrained so far from bringing under discussion glaring omissions of evidence for the reason that I am responding to argument.

        However it’s time for the gloves to come off because the above is simply unacceptable.

        Reading through this report one gets the impression that Marasca-Bruno think it is sufficient that they are only responding to the Nencini Report and that it is sufficient to pick holes here and there, as if they were marking a student‘s exam paper, and with the defence submissions as a model answer. That is manifestly inappropriate, even for a Court of Legitimacy.

        So here are other reasons to support Nencini‘s contextualising.

        1.  If the luminol fluorescence was due to non-haematic substances such as bleach, fruit juice etc ( due to the fact that the cottage was lived in) then it is remarkable indeed, since the investigators could not see what they were looking for, and therefore where to spray, and therefore sprayed everywhere in the corridor and elsewhere (but not in Meredith’s room, it seems), that fluorescent patches did not appear in smears all over the place but instead were limited to and grouped in specific places, and in a specific way, that is, in the shape of footprints.

        2.  There were 4 obvious bare footprints located by the luminol and 3 of these were of a shape and size attributable to a woman - compatible with Knox in fact. One was in Knox’s bedroom, the other two in the corridor, that is, between Knox‘s room and Meredith‘s room. The two in the corridor contained Meredith’s DNA.  It is not possible to obtain DNA from bleach or fruit juice etc.

        3. The 4th was compatible with Sollecito and the bloody print on the bathmat in the small bathroom.

        4. The luminol hits took place on the 18th December whereas the murder occurred on the 1st Nov. The hypochlorite in bleach responsible for luminol emitting light evaporates naturally after just a few days and therefore bleach as a source for the fluorescence can be excluded.

        5.  If the fluorescence was due to the peradoxise in fruit juice or other vegetable matter then there should at least be some rational explanation as to why Knox had such substances on the sole of her foot, and why does the peradoxise not show up where she had not stepped in it? What would be the source for these substances and how would they have got there? No explanation has ever been advanced.

        6.  As already mentioned the TMB tests on the luminol hits do not categorically exclude blood. Indeed TMB applied after luminol is less likely to bring up a positive result because the chemical reaction for both applications is the same, and luminol is far more sensitive than TMB. That was made clear by, amongst others, Dr Gino who was in fact an expert witness for the defence.

        All in all, given the considerable quantity of blood in Meredith’s room, and the fact that it had certainly been tracked outside of her room, visually obvious in the small bathroom, Nencini’s “contextualizing” is not at all illogical. It is plain common sense.

        Indeed relevant observations here - before I leave the topic - are that there were no visible connecting bloody footprints between Meredith’s room and the bloody footprint on the bathmat in the small bathroom, and whilst there was blood on the inside handle of her door, there was none on the outside handle, although the door was closed and locked.

        When discussing the relative merit of presumptions arising from the luminol and TMB tests, context and the trial evidence are everything. If Marasca-Bruno are relying on some other source of information, then they should - if they are acting in good faith - have disclosed this.

        I will leave the last word on this to Nencini, who opined that the defence attempts to argue that the luminol hits were the consequence of a non-haematic source were “from an objective point of view a remarkable exercise in dialectical sophistry rather than trial evidence on which any judge might base reasoning that would be beyond criticism.”

        The Selective Search for Other Logical Inconsistencies

        “Another big logical inconsistency” is the explanation for why Meredith’s cell phones were removed; if to prevent them ringing, then the goal could have been achieved by switching them off or removing the battery.

        OK, point taken, but if that goal could have been achieved simply by switching them off or removing the battery, then why take them with them? The answer, if the perpetrators were thinking straight, would be that in switching them off or removing the battery, the perpetrator could have left his fingerprints on them.  So they would have had to take them anyway. So why bother with the manipulation? A logical inconsistency?

        Marasca-Bruno return to the Prosecution’s argument on motive at the Nencini appeal. We can recall that Crini had suggested that there could possibly have been an argument between Meredith and Knox over Guede’s use of the large bathroom. M-B say that the reason for a quarrel could certainly not have been this, as such an incident is not referred to in Guede’s evidence.

        Marasca-Bruno argue that the hypothesis of the theft of the money and credit cards that Meredith would have blamed Knox for is illogical and contradictory, given that Knox (and Sollecito) were acquitted of the charge.

        OK, but Nencini was not seeking to re-convict them. The hypothesis was based on trial facts and has a high degree of probability even if it did not reach the bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Meredith’s credit cards and rent money were never recovered.  He was simply looking for a plausible reason for a quarrel - on the basis of what Meredith would have thought – whether or not Knox was the responsible party. Nothing illogical or contradictory in that.

        Marasca-Bruno maintain that it is arbitrary to argue, just because Knox and Sollecito were at Sollecito’s flat viewing a movie, taking light drugs and having sex, that they were later at the cottage for a reason which included a sexual motive and destabilized by drugs.

        Marasca-Bruno maintain that there was another investigative omission in the failure to analyze the content of the cigarette stubs (presumably for drugs?) or to ascertain the biological nature of the trace, but just to go for a DNA test, on the basis that such tests would render the sample unusable.

        OK, but I am not sure that was the basis for not conducting the further tests. Establishing whether or not Knox and Sollecito had smoked a reefer, or a cigarette whilst under the influence of drugs, at the cottage, at some time, is really not that important. The biological nature of the trace was obviously saliva whether or not it contained drugs.

        “And all this was done with the brilliant result of delivering to the trial a totally irrelevant piece of information”  ……[given that the cottage was where Knox lived and where Sollecito “hung out”.]

        Irrelevant as it turned out, I agree. It seems a bit harsh to criticise the DNA test though. I am sure that M-B would have been ecstatic if the mixed trace had turned out to be Guede and an unknown, rather than Knox and Sollecito. And wasn’t the trace postulated as a source for contamination of the bra clasp?

        A Few General Remarks

        Get a load of this -

        “It is, surely, undeniable the interpretative effort displayed by the fact finding judge in order to remedy the unbridgeable investigative gaps and the significant shortfalls of evidence with shrewd speculations and suggestive logical arguments, even if merely assertive and apodictic.”

        As we are discovering, “shrewd speculations and suggestive logical arguments, even if merely assertive and apodictic” is exactly what Marasca-Bruno are up to.

        What investigative gaps and significant shortfalls of evidence are they talking about? Have we come across any yet? Anyway I will come to discuss this and other matters raised by the Report when I discuss the sufficiency of the evidence at the end of this critique.

        Marasca-Bruno then assert (to paraphrase) that fact finding is a task pertaining exclusively to the fact-finding judge, and not up to the Court of Legitimacy. The Supreme Court has to limit itself to whether the fact-finding judge’s reasoning is compatible with common sense and within the limits of an acceptable latitude (law cited) as well as compliant with the limits of evidence.

        That’s right. Remember that.

        “Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant.”

        Note the surprising inclusion of “missing” evidence, although M-B have merely been speculating wistfully about that and, for obvious reasons, it is not referenced in the wording of Article 530.

        Marasca-Bruno then spend far more words than is necessary on Nencini’s mistake of referring to Sollecito’s DNA being found on the knife blade.

        There is then a bit of sense but a lot of pompous waffle about the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.

        “It is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred in via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt”

        This is the precursor for what comes a bit later.

        Marasca-Bruno note that there is a difference between “passive behaviour” and “positive participation”.

        “It is indisputedly impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not have been found at the crime scene [ed: by which they mean “the murder room”] had they taken part in Kercher’s murder.”

        This is not a remark but a dogmatic assertion which is patently unconvincing. Had Knox and Sollecito been -

          (a) egging Guede on to a sexual assault
          (b) exhorting him to finish her off
          (c) whether with his own knife or one that was handed to him,

        then it is improbable in the aforesaid scenarios under (a),(b) and (c) that they would have left traces, but in the event of any one of the aforesaid (a),(b), and (c) they would be participating positively in the commission of the crime, and hence as guilty as Guede.

        So, the assertion is not just dogmatic but manifestly illogical.

        The Presence of Amanda Knox

        “With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it can now be observed that her presence in the house at the scene of the crime is considered an established fact from the trial, in accord with her own admissions…………….on this point the reliability of the judge a quo is certainly to be subscribed to.”

        Developing this affirmation, Marasca-Bruno hold that she was there at the time of the murder but in a different room.

        “Another element regarding her (presence) is represented by traces of mixed DNA, her’s and the victim’s, in the small bathroom; an eloquent confirmation that she had come into contact with the latter’s blood, while the biological traces belonging to her are a result of epithelial rubbing.”

        Also:

        “Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with the blood in circumstances where she would be attempting to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, and thus entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder…….her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.”

        I will comment on this later.

        As regards the false accusation against Patrick Lumumba - 

        “It is not understood what pushed the young American to make this serious accusation. The hypothesis that she did so to escape the psychological pressure of the investigators appears extremely fragile……………….nevertheless the calumny in question also represents circumstantial evidence against her in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, against whom she would have had an interest to protect herself due to retaliatory accusations against her. All is underpinned by the fact that Lumumba, like Guede, is black, hence the reliable reference to the former, in case the other was seen by someone, coming into or going out of the flat”

        Yes, indeed, but despite a clear run in to the try line M-B still manage to drop the ball. Nencini had no doubt that it was not just an initiative to cover for Guede, but also an opportunity to deflect the investigators from ascertaining her active participation in the murder. Lumumba, after all, would not be able to provide the investigators with any information on that score, or indeed about any others that might have been involved. M-B fail to mention that.

        ***

        Please click here for the next post.

        Posted on 11/10/15 at 06:21 PM by James Raper. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoThose officially involvedSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Cassation 2015 critiquesJames R critique
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (13)

        Saturday, November 07, 2015

        A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #2

        Posted by James Raper



        Image is of busy Rome at night

        The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report

        I continue critiquing the final 34 pages of the Motivation Report, the decisions and verdict parts.

        My first post can be read here. A full translation of the Report can be read here.

        Time of Death

        “Another judicial error is the finding that the establishment of Kercher’s exact time of death was irrelevant, in the belief that the approximate timing offered by the expert investigators was sufficient, for all that this may have been correct at the trial stage…………….time of death is an unavoidable factual pre-requisite for the verification of the defendants‘ alibis.”

        Once again, this is to entirely misrepresent Nencini.  He did not say that the TOD was irrelevant, and as for an exact TOD this would be impossible, even if the temperature of the body had been taken by the pathologist as soon as he arrived at the scene of the crime, which I am sure any intelligent and informed observer would understand. That would have narrowed the time frame very probably, but it was not a “judicial error”.

        We could go on and delve into the evidence, particularly the expert and other evidence which became available over time and which conditioned Nencini’s observations, but Marasca-Bruno do not, instead resorting to a banal statement that does not take account of any of the foregoing.

        “Deplorable carelessness in the preliminary investigative phase……[ ed: not taking body temperature, yes, but other forensic considerations had to apply as well]…....a banal arithmetic mean between a possible earliest time and a possible latest time (from around 6.50 pm on the 1st Nov to 4.50 am of the following day), thus fixing the time at about 11 -11.30pm”

        At the time of the Massei trial the pathologist, Dr Lalli had concluded that death may have occurred between 8 pm on the 1st Nov and 4.00 am the next day. This was based on calculating temperature decrease in the cadaver, taking the Henssge nomogram into account, rigor mortis, hypostatic marks etc. The Henssge nomogram also allows one to calculate back a specific number of hours from the time of first measurement and this permitted an intermediate valuation of about 11 pm. It was not simply an arithmetic mean.

        But in any event, the decision not to take the body temperature but rather preserve the scene for forensics for about 11 hours had no detrimental impact upon the defendants’ alibis. It is accepted that Meredith was certainly alive at 9 pm on the 1st Nov and there is nothing to corroborate an alibi for the accused from 9.15 pm onwards on the 1st Nov until 5. 30 am the following day.  Body temperature taken, and rigor mortis observed, earlier, would not have been able to narrow TOD down to a period of 15 minutes ( 9 to 9.15 pm), and hence prior to the last temporal reference point for a credible alibi, the interaction on Sollecito’s computer, or anything like that.

        On The Scientific Evidence

        Marasca-Bruno observe that there is a debate to be had here as to -

        “The legal value attributable to scientific evidence, with particular reference to the genetic investigations, acquired in violation of the rules established by international protocols.”

        The terms of the debate therefore define it‘s conclusion.

        There are, they say, two theories which have to be balanced -

        (1) “that which puts an increasing amount of weight on the contribution of science, even if not validated by the scientific community,” 

        and

        (2)  “that which insists on the primacy of law and postulates that, in deference to the rules of criminal procedure, only those scientific experiments validated according to commonly accepted methodological canons may be allowed to enter.”

        No cigars for guessing which self- formulated option they prefer. It is, of course, (2), but still they have already both begged and loaded the question with their insistence on “validation“ (which in this context means repeating the scientific test to obtain the same result) according to “international protocols”

        Then, to disguise that selection, we have this -

        “The court concedes that this delicate problem…..must find a solution in the general rules that inform our legal system….and not….in an abstract insistence on the primacy of science over law or vice versa…………………. Scientific proof cannot, in fact, aspire to an unconditional credit of self-referential trustworthiness in the trial setting, by the very fact that a criminal trial renounces all notion of legal proof.”

        Marasca-Bruno would not be so stupid as to insist that science has primacy over law in a trial setting.  Would they? The law, having primacy, must find the means to accommodate the maxims of science, but within the general rules that inform the legal system.

        They continue -

        “The reference co-ordinates will have to be those attaching to the principle of cross examination and to the judge’s control over the process of formation of evidence, which must respect preordained guarantees, the observance of which must strictly govern the judgement of the relevant results’ reliability.”

        Interesting. “Cross-examination”? Perhaps they are reminded of the decisive inadmissibility of the previously discussed section of Guede’s letter. Can the DNA traces on the knife and the bra clasp fall into the same category? Can “validity according to international protocols” be a preordained guarantee, in the same manner as the rights of an accused not to be incriminated by a witness who refuses cross-examination is guaranteed by Article 526 of the ICCP?

        If so, then some compelling reason will have to be advanced - abiding by the rules of evidence that inform the legal system. They cannot refer to an Article on the point in the ICCP. There is none, and if there were, and if it stated that the repeatability of a scientific test was a guarantee for the test to be reliable and/or admissible, then sample 36b from the knife would not even have made it into the trial. And this is not the fault of the ICCP. There is no other body of law in the world that I am aware of that embodies any such guarantee, even for Low Copy DNA. And the reason for that, in part, is that there is no internationally recognized protocol, and precisely because there is no agreement in the scientific community as to this as yet.

        Marasca-Bruno tend to treat “reliability” and “admissibility” as interchangeable concepts, and indeed, given the manner in which they consider these concepts, in the context of the topic under discussion, there is some logic to this, for surely if a piece of evidence is pre-ordained as unreliable then it must be inadmissible as well.

        There then follows a lot more pompous waffle that need not detain us, other than to comment that none of this advances, and indeed does not even consider, any compelling reason for regarding repeatability as a pre-ordained guarantee from the point of view of admissible, or reliable, evidence.

        Indeed, the ICCP does specifically take into account non-repeatable tests for we can find in Article 360 that provided the conditions therein are complied with then the results of non-repeatable technical tests are admissible.

        Why the insistence on repeatability despite Article 360?

        Does the testimony of an eye witness to a crime have to be corroborated by a video of the incident, or other eye witness testimony, before his testimony can be considered reliable and admissible?

        Why is the result of a scientific test, conducted in accordance with a method which has already been repeatedly used in the scientific community to establish the validity of the method, be treated any differently?

        The eye witness, of course, does not have a video of the incident by which to check his memory, whereas a biological trace may well be sufficient to allow for repeated tests. However in such cases, if there is no repeat, the result is not automatically ruled unreliable or invalid. It is for the defence to request a repeat and if they do not, then it does not happen.

        There would, of course, be a capacity for repeat, which Low Copy Number might not have, but if repeats do not occur when the capacity exists, then this is because the result is unambiguous, as the results were, for the judge a quo, in the case of Meredith’s profile on the knife and Sollecito’s profile on the bra clasp.

        However, Marasca-Bruno move on to declare that they do not share Nencini’s lack of hesitation in attributing evidentiary value to the knife and bra clasp results.

        They quote the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, in genetic investigations, about it’s degree of reliability -

        “full value of proof, and not merely as an element of circumstantial evidence according to Article 192.…”

        adding that

        “in cases where the genetic investigation doesn’t provide absolutely certain findings, circumstantial value can be attributed to it’s results (section 2,n. 8434 of 05/02/2013, etc……)……which mean that where identity is established, the findings of the genetic investigation assume significant evidence, while in the case of mere compatibility with a specific genetic profile, they only have circumstantial importance.”

        It is at this point that I had to pause and consider the very real possibility that Marasca-Bruno may have the combined denseness of two planks of wood nailed together. 

        The compatibility of trace B on the knife with the genetic profile of Meredith Kercher is such that it is full proof of the “identity” of the trace, certainly established, and that by any scientific protocol. That was acknowledged by all the trial experts and even, though with some reluctance, by Vecchiotti.

        Even if not full proof of ID it certainly has significant circumstantial relevance, according to the above and pursuant to Article 190 (which is mentioned later).

        With that uncomfortable thought perhaps lurking in the back of their minds, they seek to obfuscate matters -

        “As a general rule it is possible to adhere to these conclusions, on the condition, though, that the activity of collecting samples, storage and analysis of the exhibits has respected the regulations approved by the protocols of the profession.”

        They then, rather bizarrely, go on to aver that that the correct methods, to preserve authenticity, were stated by the Supreme Court…..“even if only on the subject of information technology evidence” 

        Eh ?!

        They refer to Article 192, section 2 -

        “The existence of a fact cannot be deduced from pieces of circumstantial evidence unless they are serious, precise and consistent.”

        They opine -

        “Taking into account such considerations [ed: “such considerations” need not concern us - they were just preceding waffle] one really cannot see how the results of the genetic analysis - that were performed in violation of recommendations for the protocols regarding the collection and storage - can be endowed with the characteristics of seriousness and preciseness.”

        John McEnroe and “You cannot be serious!“ springs to mind.

        They are also confusing the information obtained from the electropherogram with sample collection methods.

        It is, of course, important to maintain clarity of thought by keeping the issue of the value of the evidence [ed: it’s seriousness, precision and consistency] apart from the issue of contamination. As Nencini and others were able to do. Marasca-Bruno are running these issues together.

        “It is absolutely certain that these methods were not complied with [cites the C-V Report] -

        (a) The knife collected and then preserved in a cardboard box, of the sort used to package Xmas gadgets, agendas ……….

        (b) The bra clasp [collected 46 days after] …………..the photographic documentation demonstrating that at the time of collection, the clasp was passed from hand to hand…. In addition wearing dirty latex gloves.”

        Shall I comment? Oh, alright. What is the relevance of the cardboard box unless it was a conduit for contamination?  That was not even hypothetically plausible.

        Yes, as we all know the bra clasp was recovered after 46 days. But where are these collection protocols that are internationally recognized and are a pre-ordained guarantee recognized by law?

        As for dirty gloves the only evidence of this that I have seen is a photograph of the bra clasp being held in one gloved hand whilst the glove on another hand, patently belonging to the same operative, shows spots of some substance on it, which spots are most probably, in the circumstances, blood derived from the clasp the operative is holding.

        Where is the common sense of the 5th Chambers?

        What exactly was wrong with the in-depth common sense analysis of Massei and Nencini?

        And so we swing back to the conclusion that was their premise.

        “In essence, it is nothing less than a procedure of validation or falsification typical of the scientific method, of which we have talked before. And it is significant, in this regard, that the experts Berti-Berni, officials of the R.I.S Roma, carried out two amplifications of the trace (ed: 36I) retrieved from the knife blade.

        In the absence of verification by repetition of the investigative data, it is questionable what could be the relevant value to the proceedings, even if detached from the scientific theoretical debate, of the relevance of outcomes carried out on such scarce or complex samples in situations not allowing repetition.”

        Let us recall what actually happened with sample 36I. In 2013 this sample, which had not been analyzed by the Independent Experts, was analyzed by Berti-Berni. The sample was Low Copy Number and the quantum of DNA present was significantly less than was present with sample 36B. However they were able to carry out the test with a repeat because since 2007 there had been further technical advances in the equipment.

        The repeat confirmed the evidential value of the first test (Knox) despite the low level of DNA. Low Copy Number, as an inherent problem per se, and as evidence of contamination per se, as argued in the case of 36B (Meredith), was shown not to be an issue. That was what was truly significant about the test, and it underscores that the result of the test on 36B had significant evidential value.

        The knife and the bra clasp -

        “….cannot take on either probative or circumstantial relevance precisely because, according to the aforementioned laws of science, they necessitated validation and falsification.”

        The primacy of the rules of evidence has just been jettisoned with this dogmatic assertion, which is not even derived from the logic of the argument they have presented in support. Indeed much of the argument (or rather, the waffle) is merely this dogmatic assertion in numerous different guises and tediously extended formulations of itself.

        Not only that but Guede was also convicted on the basis of DNA tests that were not repeated!

        One wonders what criminal judges in Italy will make of this, and of the fact that judges from the 5th Chambers, who deal primarily in matters other than criminal law, have presumed to lay down law to them in this field.

        The reality is that despite this nothing will change as to the rules of evidence and how forensic evidence is evaluated in the criminal courts. The system, understandably, will not countenance that. That will leave this case, as it pertains to Knox and Sollecito, as an exception, a bizarre anomaly in the judicial record.

        Perhaps, in the future it will not present a practical problem, given that developments in technology are able to detect even smaller amounts of DNA, thus allowing for repeats.

        ***

        Please click here for the next post.

        Posted on 11/07/15 at 05:00 PM by James Raper. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoThose officially involvedSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Cassation 2015 critiquesJames R critique
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (21)

        Thursday, November 05, 2015

        A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #1

        Posted by James Raper



        Image is of busy Rome at night

        The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report

        I will be critiquing the final 34 pages of the Motivation Report, the decisions and verdict parts.

        This is the 54 page report released by the Fifth Chambers of the Italian Supreme Court late in September. For a full translation of the Report which can be referred to or downloaded please click here.

        Key Decisions Of The Court

        These are the eight main decisions I found In The Report -

          1.  The standard of “beyond any reasonable doubt” was not met due to insufficient and/or contradictory evidence - pursuant to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

          2.  Multiple attackers upheld. Guede was guilty with others unknown.

          3.  The break-in in Romanelli’s room was staged.

          4.  Amanda Knox was present in the cottage at the time of the murder but there is insufficient evidence that she played a participatory role.

          5.  The DNA profile of Meredith Kercher on the knife and the DNA profile of Raffaele Sollecito on the bra clasp have “no probative or circumstantial relevance”

          6.  “Motive is not irrelevant” and motive was not established.

          7.  No selective cleaning.

          8.  No purpose would be served in remanding the case back to the 1st instance court of appeal (as had occurred on appeal against acquittal)

        I am going to examine the 34 pages in which Marasca-Bruno present their rationale for the above. These pages also include reasons for the dismissal of various appeal submissions, which are of no interest to this critique.

        Central to the acquittals is of course the claim that that the evidence was insufficient and/or contradictory and I shall look closely at how the Report sets out to demonstrate this.

        We shall discover that a number of these co-called contradictions are not plausibly inherent in the trial evidence or in previous reports but are in fact the result of illogical reasoning, dogmatic assertion, indeed simply plucked from the air, by the 5th Chambers itself.

        My Own Overall Reaction To The Report

        My overall reaction to the Report is that it is quite unlike any other reasoning I have seen produced by a court of law. 

        It smacks of a desperate attempt to bring home an incomprehensible verdict.

        The language and the dogmatic assertions, unsupported by any evidence, are quite startling.

        The competence of the investigators, the forensic service and the judges who have adjudicated previously in the case, is called into question, frequently in a preposterous way. 

        I suspect that the Report was written with a view to the media being able to lift headlines from it, and many such potential headlines are to be found loaded towards the front of the Report. The busy tabloid editors dream.

        Indeed the Report (when it actually has anything to say) is akin to opinion based journalism; inadequately researched and ill-considered.

        There is a substantial amount of ponderous, self indulgent, and obfuscatory “scholastic” waffle in the Report. It forms a turgid barrier (like thick treacle) for the reader and, of course, the Courts’ affirmation that Knox was present when the murder was committed is only to be found deep into the Report.

        Remove this waffle and padding however and the illogical and self -defeating nature of the reasoning stands out.

        It is odd that some of the lengthy legal citations appear to conflict with the point that the Court is trying to make.

        The Report challenges, if not overturns, some settled and well understood legal concepts in criminal law and natural justice and violates aspects of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. This must be of some concern to the Italian judiciary in general.

        If ever there was a Supreme Court judgement that needed to be referred by the Italian President to the Council of Magistrates for review, this is it.

        My Critique Of The Decisions Part #1

        On The Nencini Appeal

        So, let’s start. We begin with Marasca-Bruno setting the stage for their play (which as it progresses, bears a marked resemblance to Hamlet).

        The Report claims that the Nencini appeal was -

        “conditioned by the prospect of the factual profile unexpectedly included in the sentence of annulment ( i.e annulling Hellmann); such that the stringent and analytical evaluation of the Supreme Court might unavoidably force one towards affirming the guilt of the two accused. Misguided by this basic misunderstanding, the same judge is drawn into logical inconsistencies and obvious errors of judgement that are here reported.”

        The Report refers to “the troubled and intrinsically contradictory path” of the history of the trial, by which, of course, they mean the acquittals at the Hellmann appeal.

        “An objectively wavering process, whose oscillations, however, are also the result of clamorous failures, or investigative “amnesia” and culpable omissions of investigative activity. Had they been carried out these would, in all probability, have led to a picture, if not of certainty, to at least of tranquil reliability, pointing to either the guilt or innocence of today’s accused. Such a scenario, intrinsically contradictory, constitutes in itself, already, a first and eloquent signal of an investigation that was never capable of reaching a conclusion that was beyond any reasonable doubt.”

        There are many carefully crafted layers of deception, supposition and “begging the question” in the above two quotes.

        The first is that there was a factual profile (without stating what this was) emerging from the sentence of annulment.

        That would not be true since all that the Supreme Court 1st Chambers did was annul Hellmann’s verdicts having accepted the prosecution’s grounds of appeal, one of which, incidentally, was that Hellmann was riddled with examples of “begging the question“, a trait which Marasca and Bruno are by no means averse to themselves.

        That left the judicial process with the factual profile that emerged from the Massei trial, modified, if at all, by trial evidence from Hellmann.

        Marasca-Bruno also quite arbitrarily assert that Nencini was “conditioned” and “misguided” by the terms of the annulment.

        Whatever errors Nencini may have made in his Report (and there were a few) I can only find one (see later) that could have been potentially significant, an error in law, that is certainly censurable, but it is highly subjective and offensive to assert that these were conditioned by and a consequence of the annulment, or imply that they had an impact on the verdict. That assertion is simply begging the question and is clearly an affront to the appeal judge.

        It is, of course, perfectly true that the Hellmann annulment came with a request from the 1st Chambers of the Supreme Court for the Florence appeal court to consider, (to paraphrase), “within it’s broadest discretion, the possibility of determining the subjective positions of Guede’s co-conspirators within a range of hypothetical situations, from premeditated intent to kill to an unwanted sex game that got out of control“.

        To be clear, being asked to consider someone’s subjective position is not just an invitation to consider motive but more broadly an invitation to consider that person’s understanding of the nature and consequences of his interaction, or non-interaction, with a situation.

        As it happened Nencini demonstrated latitude and independence in considering an entirely different and just as likely, if not more so, hypothesis. The hypothesis was not an affirmation of guilt, let alone proof, but was an element in the picture, and was certainly not forced upon the court by the terms of the annulment.

        Marasca-Bruno may not have cared much for Nencini’s hypothesis (see later) but they can hardly, to be consistent, deplore the motivation given that they come up with (be it on little evidence) a subjective and puzzling scenario of their own for Knox (see the end of this critique) that leaves a lot of questions begging.

        Equally begging the question is that the Hellmann acquittals were the consequence of an investigation that was never capable of reaching a conclusion that was beyond reasonable doubt. Marasca-Bruno also seem to accept, they certainly imply, that even an annulled verdict is evidence of reasonable doubt. Again there is no logical connection for that given that the verdict - they accept this - was correctly annulled..

        All these assertions require to be demonstrated. Are they?

        On The Claimed Media Impact

        Next the Report claims that the media impacted on the conduct of the investigation and the judicial proceedings. There was “an unusual media clamour” of an international nature that -

        “led to a sudden acceleration of the investigation, in the frantic search for one or more guilty people to placate international opinion, and certainly did not help lead to the truth……………………media attention led to “prejudicial reflexes”, “procedural deviations”, generating “illicit noise” in the provision of information. This is not so much from the late discovery of witnesses, as of the raiding of the trial by the impromptu propulsion of detainees with proven criminal records, who are certainly not people averse to moments of pathological lying…”

        The media, take note. But it is the investigators that are once again being called to account here.

        Marasca-Bruno do not identify the point at which the aforesaid sudden acceleration is supposed to occur but I would hazard a guess that it was when the investigators discovered the body of a girl who had been brutally murdered. The only propulsion required would be the perfectly natural need to identify and detain the perpetrators, and not what the media was saying about the case.

        Marasca-Bruno do not produce one convincing iota of evidence that the investigators were unduly influenced by the media attention rather than the evidence they were obtaining.

        There is, of course, more than a nod to the defence PR myth of a Rush to Judgement about the above. However it is overlooked that there was a period of 7 months between the arrest of Knox and Sollecito and the prosecution notifying all concerned that they were ready to press charges.

        Marasca-Bruno are, of course, perfectly right about Alessi and Aviello but omit to mention their names and that these were witnesses called by the defence. The media had nothing to do with that, but rather the evidence of multiple attackers.

        Thus ends the setting of the stage for a play within a play.

        We should now be aware that there is something rotten in the State of Denmark, with which a theatrical Marasca-Bruno, the personifications of Hamlet, are about to grapple. Nencini becomes Claudius who, as revealed by a supernatural apparition, had murdered Hamlet’s father (Hellmann).

        On Multiple Attackers

        We now come to a clear and unequivocal endorsement of multiple attackers. Well done.

        And then, and here I somewhat reluctantly have to agree, Marasca-Bruno identify an error in law in the Nencini Report.

        Nencini referred to Guede’s appearance at the Hellmann appeal when Guede was questioned as to the letter he wrote in response to the allegation concerning him made by Alessi. In this letter, read out to the court, Guede wrote “I hope that sooner or later the judges realize my complete lack of involvement in what was a horrible murder of Meredith a lovely wonderful young woman, by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.”

        Guede had not specifically said as much before and when cross-examined on the matter he declined to answer, referring the court to his previous statements. Nencini’s error was to treat the letter and those previous statements, in as much as they contained accusations placing Knox and Sollecito at the cottage at the time of the murder, as admissible circumstantial evidence.

        That, however, is expressly excluded by the rule that states that incriminatory statements made by a witness of another are inadmissible unless the witness submits to cross-examination on them.

        It should, however, be remembered that Guede did not give evidence at the Massei trial (nor were his previous statements admitted) and so it cannot be said that the error was that significant in the context of the evidence as a whole.

        On The Trial Process

        Having set the stage and dealt with points of law Marasca-Bruno now turn to the “merit of the trial process” which, of course they have already, and without merit, managed to sully.

        Particularly this involves looking at the “Motivational structure of the ruling under appeal”.

        “Discrepancies, inconsistencies and errors in judgement do not escape notice.”

        They then proceed to set these out.

        1. The Issue Of Motive

        “Erroneous, in the first place, is the assertion regarding the substantive irrelevance of ascertaining the motive for the murderous act. This cannot be accepted in the light of the unquestioned doctrine of this regulating court, relating to the relevance of motive as the glue that links the various elements of which proof is made, especially in circumstantial cases such as the one at hand”

        Well, Nencini did not maintain that motive was irrelevant, or even substantially irrelevant, per se. What he did say was this -

        “Regarding motive, first it is necessary to quote the teaching of the Court of Legitimacy on whose opinion the precise indication of a motive for the crime of murder loses relevance when the attribution of responsibility to a defendant derives from a precise and concordant evidentiary framework (see Supreme Court, section 1 Criminal Sentence No. 11807, 12th February 2009).”

        Marasca-Bruno ignore the above but quote another bit of law which, to paraphrase it,  because it becomes complicated in translation, states that motive, whilst capable of constituting an element, has to be congruent with and capable of pointing all the elements of the evidence in a single direction, in a clear, precise and convergent manner, failing which any motive so postulated attains an air of ambiguity unable to fulfill it’s purpose.

        Marasca-Bruno continue -

        “…..which as we shall see shortly, (such purpose) cannot be maintained in the case at hand, in the face of a body of evidence which is ambiguous and intrinsically contradictory.”

        If my paraphrasing is correct, then this does not contradict Nencini. Indeed the quotes, taken together, are complimentary and encapsulate what just about every criminal lawyer understands to be correct about the relevance of a motive in criminal proceedings. Nencini is not erroneous. Motive is not central. It is an element which may be useful. Futile and trivial motives are difficult to pin down to a specific cause. There are, indeed, glues other than motive, which fulfill the same purpose, such as the behaviour, lies, inconsistencies and contradictions referable to the words and actions of the accused themselves.

        Finally, on motive, Marasca-Bruno make another point.

        Guede had a sexual motive but this cannot be extended to others. To demonstrate the point they present the following argument, but here, again, I encounter a difficulty with the translation into English, and so I paraphrase:

        “If it would be manifestly illogical (ed: as it would be) to hypothesize the involvement of Romanelli and Mezetti in the murder, and in complicity with a complete stranger, then it is equally illogical not to extend the same argument to Sollecito who had never met Guede.”

        According to M-B, Nencini’s failure to advance this argument is a judicial error.

        However I can quite understand why he did not advance it.

        Firstly, the argument is based on Guede’s sexual motive and the implied premise that gender and sexual assault are related, which does render the involvement of Romanelli and Mezetti unlikely but does not help Sollecito.

        Secondly, the lack of a link to Guede, in either case but particularly in Sollecito’s case, has nothing to do with whether or not the hypothesized perpetrator would in fact possess such a motive. Thirdly there is a link anyway, Knox,

        The argument might conceivably operate on another plane, leaving aside sexual motive. Would anyone commit murder with a stranger?  Well it happens in fact, particularly if there is a party who can link the strangers together.

        The reason, of course, why one cannot hypothesize the involvement of Romanelli and Mezetti in the murder is that they both had proven alibis, whereas Sollecito did not, and that would seem to be the more pertinent fact.

        It is a suggestive argument but one that is flawed. In any event it is not significant and Marasca-Bruno are not averse from making significant judicial errors themselves, as we shall see.

        ***

        Please click here for the next post.

        Posted on 11/05/15 at 05:39 PM by James Raper. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoThose officially involvedSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Cassation 2015 critiquesJames R critique
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (15)

        Wednesday, November 04, 2015

        TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #7 Of 7: Attempt At Why Court Blinked At Guilt

        Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



        Cassation mural by Cesare Maccari 19th century, on the theme of justice

        Overview Of The Post and the Series

        This represents pages 41 to 46 of the original, which is 53 pages in total. Machiavelli posted the final few quite damning pages several weeks ago.

        The four part series by the lawyer James Raper that follows next concentrates on the analysis and conclusions in the second half. We have already carried a four part analysis by Catnip.

        We also posted these charges against defense lawyer Maori which also explain at length how the Fifth Chambers (which handles no murder cases normally) among numerous errors of its own broke two laws.

        Apart from questions as to why it wandered from its narrow mandate, that court should not have one-upped the First Chambers findings in 2013 or the Nencini findings in 2015 without referring the case back down to him.

        Those charges are now lodged with the Florence court, and the archaic “political-track” route to their questionable seats on the Supreme Court of Judge Marasca and Judge Bruno as opposed to career-track has already been sealed off by the Council of Magistrates.

        Translation was by a professional translator with extensive finalization by Machiavelli with some help from the Wiki team of the judicial terms used and the accuracy of the English relative to what is in the report.

        Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final.

        Attempt to Explain Why The Court Blinked At Guilt

        8. Now, in fluid succession, the points of clear logical disparity in the appealed motivation should be positioned.

        8.1 A process element of incontrovertible value – as will be explained further – is represented by the asserted absence, in the room of the homicide or on the victim’s body, of biological traces attributable with certainty to the two defendant, when, in contrast, there copious traces have been detected firmly referable to Guede.

        This was an insurmountable roadblock on the road taken by the trial judge to arrive at an affirmation of guilt of the current appellants, who were already absolved of the homicide by the Hellmann Appeal Court.

        To overcome the inconvenience of such negative element - unequivocally favorable to the current appellants – it has been sustained, in vain, that, after the theft simulation the perpetrators of the crime carried out a “selective” cleaning of the environment, in order to remove only the traces referable to them, while still leaving those attributable to others.

        The assumption is manifestly illogical. To appreciate, in full, the amount of disparity it is not necessary to carry out an expert investigation ad hoc, even if requested by the defense. Such a cleanup would be impossible according to common-sense rules of ordinary experience, an activity of targeted cleaning capable of avoiding luminol examinations which are in commonplace use by investigators (also used to highlight different traces, not just hematic ones).

        After all, the same assumption of an asserted precision in the cleaning is shown to be wrong in point of fact, considering that “in the little bathroom” hematic traces on the bathmat, on the bidet, on the faucet, on the cotton buds box, and on the light switch were found. And also, in a case of guilt of the current appellants, certainly they would have had enough time for an accurate cleaning, in the sense that there wouldn’t be any reasons for hurry that would have animated any other perpetrator of the crime who would probably be worried about the possible arrival of other persons. In fact, Knox, was well aware of the absence of Romanelli and Mezzetti from the house and she knew that they would have not returned home that night, therefore there would have been all the necessary time for an accurate cleaning of the house.

        With reference to the asserted hematic traces in the other environments, especially in the corridor, there’s also an obvious misrepresentation of the proof. In fact, the progress-of-works reports of the Scientific Police had excluded, consequent to the use of a particular chemical reagent, that, in the examined environments, the traces highlighted by the luminol were of hematic nature. Those -of-works certificates, despite being regularly compiled and registered in evidence, were not considered.

        Also manifestly illogical, in this regard, is the argument of the trial judge who (at f.186) assumes that he could overrule the defense objection in relation to circumstances in which the luminescent bluish reaction caused by the luminol is also produced in the presence of substances different from blood (for example, detergent residues, fruit juices and others), on the assumption that that, even if theoretically exact, would have to be “contextualized” in the sense that if the fluorescence manifests itself in an environment involving a homicide, the luminol reaction can only be attributed to hematic traces.

        The weakness of this, even at first sight, doesn’t require any notation, and it would furthermore require the assumptions that the house in via della Pergola was never subject to cleaning or that it was not ever lived in.

        This analysis permits us therefore to exclude, categorically, that hematic traces were removed on that particular occasion.

        There’s another clear logical disparity regarding the explanations given by the trial about the theft of the cellphones of Kercher,  which the unknown perpetrator or perpetrators, while moving away from via della Pergola, got rid of, after the homicide, tossing them into a plot next to the road which in the dark could appear like open country (while was a private garden instead).

        Far from plausible further more is the judge’s justification that the cellphones would have been taken to avoid their eventual ringing leading to discovery of the corpse of the young English woman before the hypothetic time, without considering that such an outcome could have more easily been achieved by shutting the telephones off or removing the batteries.

        It is also clearly illogical – and also little respectful of the trial’s body of facts – to reconstruct the motivation of the homicide on the basis of supposed disagreements between Kercher and Knox, enhanced by the irritation of the young English woman toward her housemate for having allowed Guede in the house, who had thereupon made an irregular use of the bathroom (f. 312). The explanation offered by the Ivorian in one of his declarations during the proceeding against him (and usable, according to what stated before, only in the parts which don’t involve responsibilities of third parties) is, instead, a different one. The young man in fact was in the bathroom, when he heard Kercher arguing with another person, who he perceived had a female voice, so that the motivation for the arguing could have not be constituted by his use of the bathroom.

        Also illogical and contradictory is the judge’s statement that, attempting to provide a cause for that disagreement (which was moreover denied in other declarations) doesn’t hesitate to retrieve the hypothesis of the money and credit card theft which Kercher was said to have attributed to Knox, despite the fact that, in a definitive finding, Knox, and Sollecito too, would be absolved because “there is no hard fact” on the crime of thievery in relation to the aforementioned goods (f.316).

        It is also arbitrary in the absence of any accepted confirmation to transfer to the house at via della Pergola the situations that Knox, in one of her declarations, had described and contextualized in a different timeframe and circumstance, which was in via Garibaldi n. 130, in Sollecito’s house: viewing of a movie, light consuming of drugs, sexual intercourse, and nocturnal rest lasting until the late morning of the 2nd of November, in a period before, during and after the homicide. This was introduced as a dynamic of the murder, the possible destabilizing effect of drugs.

        This also was done in the absence of any verification, and also because – among the multiple omissions or disputable investigative strategies – the police teams, even after collecting a cigarette butt from the ashtray in the living room containing biological traces of a mixed genetic profile (Knox and Sollecito), didn’t carry out any analysis on the nature of the cigarette’s substance because that investigation would have resulted in an impossibility to verify the genetic profile, making the sample “unusable”. And all of this with the brilliant [sic] result of submitting to the trial an absolutely irrelevant data, considered that it is certain that Sollecito frequented the house in via della Pergola, because he was sentimentally bound to the American girl; while in contrast the verification of the nature of the cigarette sample might have offered investigative leads of particular interest.

        What is underlined above is emblematic of the whole body of the appealed findings related to the reconstruction of the relevant event, reported in par.10 with the title: conclusive evaluations.

        It is undeniably a faulty interpretation attempt of the judge in order to compensate for some investigative lacks and obvious proof shortfalls with acute speculative activity and suggestive logical argumentations, being merely assertive and dogmatic.

        Now it is unquestionable that the factual reconstruction is an exclusive task of the trial judge and it is not the responsibility of the Court of Cassation to establish if the proposed assessment is actually the best possible reconstruction of the facts, nor to approve his justifications, requiring this court only to address verification if such justification is compatible - according to the basic jurisprudence formula – “with common sense and with the limits of a plausible appreciation of opinion” (among others, Section 5, n. 1004 of 30 November 1999, dep. 2000, Moro G, Rv. 215745), and also according to the probative requirements in the light of the text of article 606 lett. e) of the code of criminal procedure; it is also true that the chosen reconstructive version, even if in compliance with the standards of ordinary logic, has to adhere to the reality of the body of facts and be presented as the result of a process of critical evaluation of the points of proof acquired. Therefore the use of logic and intuition cannot compensate for shortfalls in proofs or investigative inefficiency. In the face of a missing, insufficient or contradictory proof, the judge must limit himself to accepting that and deliver an acquittal sentence, according to article 530, chapter 2, of the code of criminal procedure, even if driven by an authentic moral conviction of the guilt of the accused.

        Also, there is no shortage of errors in the motivation text of the examined sentence. Accordingly the assumption is totally erroneous in f. 321, according to which in the almost imperceptible grooves of the knife which was considered the weapon of the crime (item 36) DNA samples were attributable to Sollecito and also Kercher. The assumption is, in fact, in conflict with the lengthy exposition in the part concerning the aforementioned item (ff. 208 ss), where the outcomes of the genetic investigations which had attributed trace A to Amanda Knox, trace B to Kercher, a finally, trace I – the examination of which was unjustifiably passed over in the Conte-Vecchiotti survey – attributed after a new test to Knox. As will be stated further, given the attribution of the traces A and I to the current appellant, the reference of the trace B to Kercher cannot have – for the reasons stated above – any possibility of certainty being a low copy number sample meaning a scarce-quantity sample which could allow only one amplification (f.124). It doesn’t appear anywhere that the knife carried biological traces related to the genetic profile of Sollecito.

        9. The noted errors in judgment and the logical inconsistencies conflict fundamentally with the appealed sentence which therefore deserves to be annulled.

        The aforementioned invalidating reasons mount up in the absence of a possible framework of proof that could really be accepted as able to support a verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required by article 533 of the code of criminal procedure, in the recent text of article 5 of law n. 46 of 2006.

        Regarding the discussion of the range of meaning of that rule and its possible reflection on the evaluation of the evidence, this Court of Cassation has more than once had occasion to restate that “the normative prevision of the judgmental rule of beyond reasonable doubt which is based on the constitutional principle of presumed innocence, has not led to a different and more restrictive criteria of evaluation of the proof, but has coded the jurisprudential principle according to which the declaration of the sentence has to be based on certainty with regard to the accused ( Section 2, n. 7035 of 09 November 2012, dep. 2013, De Bartolomei, Rv. 254025; Section 2, n. 16357 of 2 April 2008, Crisiglione¸ Rv. 239795).

        It is not in essence an innovative or “revolutionary” principle, but the mere formal recognition of a judgment rule already existing in the judiciary experience of our Country and therefore already in firm force regarding the conditions for a sentence, given the preexistent rule of article 530, second chapter, of the code of criminal procedure, according to which, in case of insufficiency or contradiction of the evidence, the accused has to be acquitted. (Section 1, n. 30402 of 28/062006, Volpon, Rv.234374).

        On the basis of such premises the principle was enhanced according to which “the judgmental rule contained in the formula for beyond any reasonable doubt requires the pronouncing of a guilty sentence only when the acquired proofs excludes all but the remotest eventualities, even if supposable in theory and considered possible in the nature of things, but it is obvious that in this concrete case, the investigation results lacked any verification during the trial, unless outside the natural order of things and normal human rationality” (Section 2, n. 2548 of 19/12/2014, dep. 2015, Segura, Rv. 262280); together with the enunciation that alternative reconstructions of the crime have to be based on reliable probative elements, because the doubt which inspires them cannot be founded on merely conjectural hypothesis, even if plausible, but has to be characterized by rationality (cfr Section 4, n. 22257 of the 25/03/2014, Guernelli, Rv. 259204; Section 1, n. 17921 of the 03/03/2010, Giampà, Rv. 247449; Section 1, n. 23813 of 08/05/2009, Manikam, Rv. 243801).

        9.1 The intrinsically contradictory quality of the body of proof, the objective uncertainty of which is emphasized by the highlighted irregular progression of the proceeding, doesn’t allow us to consider it as having passed the standard of no reasonable doubt, the consecration of which is a milestone in juridical civilization which has to be protected for always as an expression of fundamental constitutional values clustered around the central role of the person in the legal system, whose protection is effected at trial by the principle of presumption of innocence until there is definitive verification, according to article 27, chapter 2, of the Constitution.

        9.2. The terms of objective contradictions in the proof here can be illustrated for each appellant, in a synoptic examination of the elements favorable to the hypothesis of guilt and the elements to the contrary in the text of the appeal and the defense declarations.

        9.3. It is useful to the side by side examination of these profiles to consider that, given the committing of the homicide in via della Pergola, the supposed presence in the house of the current appellants cannot, in itself be considered as a demonstrative element of guilt. In the evaluative approach to the problematic compendium of proof offered by the appellate judge, we cannot ignore the juridical categories of “non-punishable connivance” and “participation of persons in the crime committed by others” and the distinction between them as accepted by indisputables decision of the Court of Cassation.

        In this regard, it is well understood that the distinction resides “in the fact that the first postulates that the agent maintain a merely passive behavior, of no contribution to the effecting of the crime, while the second requires a positive participatory contribution - moral or material – to the other’s criminal conduct in ways that aid or strengthen the criminal purpose of the appellant” (Section 4, n. 1055 of 12/12/2013, dep. 2014, Benocci, Rv. 258186; Section 6, n. 44633 of 31/102013, Dioum, Rv. 257810; Section 5, n. 2895 of 22/03/2013, dep. 2014, Grosu, Rv. 258953). Equally certain is the effect of this specific distinction in the subjectivity consideration, since in the actual participation by persons in the crime the subjective element can be identified in the conscious representations and will of the participant in cooperating with other subjects in the common realization of the criminal conduct (Section 1, n 40248 of 26/09/2012, Mazzotta, Rv. 254735).

        9.4 Now, a fact of assured relevance in favor of the current appellants, in the sense of excluding their material participation to the homicide, even assuming the hypothesis of their presence in the house of via della Pergola, lies in the absolute absence of biological traces referable to them (apart from the hook of which we will discuss later) in the room of the homicide or on the victim’s body, where in contrast multiple traces attributable to Guede were found.

        It is incontrovertibly impossible that that in the crime scene (constituted by a room of little dimensions: ml 2,91x3,36, as indicated by the blueprint reproduced at f. 76) no traces would be retrieved referable to the current appellants had they participated in the murder of Kercher.

        No trace assignable to them has been, in particular, observed on the sweatshirt worn by the victim at the moment of the aggression and nor on the underlying shirt, as it should have been in case of participation in the homicide (instead, on the sleeve of the aforementioned sweater traces of Guede were retrieved: ff. 179-180).

        The aforementioned negative circumstance works as a counterbalance to the data, already highlighted, on the absolute impracticality of the hypothesis of a posthumous selective cleaning capable of removing specific biological traces while leaving others.

        Posted on 11/04/15 at 05:41 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRudy GuedeRS v AK v RGThose officially involvedSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Report translation
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (8)

        Saturday, October 31, 2015

        The Marasca/Bruno Report, A Dissection In Four Parts: #4 Their Findings - Ambivalent In Spades

        Posted by catnip



        Sollecito & Bongiorno: reported as very un-thrilled at the findings RS was at crime scene and lied

        Overview

        This is my dissection of Part 9, the final 10 pages of the report.

        My previous dissections of the Fifth Chambers explanation can be read here and here and here.

        Dissections

        Each sentence in the paraphrased gist of the repoirt below corresponds to one paragraph in the text.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Errors in law and logical inconsistencies mean that the impugned judgment merits being cassated [quashed]. The evidential picture does not reach the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not an innovative or “revolutionary” principle and is already present in Italian law, implicitly in Article 530 para 2. Remote possibilities are not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’(Segura case, 2014) and mere conjecture, even though plausible, cannot found alternative reconstructions (Gurenelli case, 2014, etc) (9).


        COMMENT: Citing from cases is a good technique, even to including their names, à la common law systems. Not reaching the BARD standard is the crux of the matter.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: The contradictory evidence as illustrated by the up-and-down nature of the proceedings through the courts does not reach the BARD standard (9.1)


        COMMENT: This is disingenuous. The Perugia Court of Appeal judgment was annulled (except for the calunnia), so calling it into play again as one of the, presumably, “up” side of the ‘swings-and-roundabouts’ of the case as if it were a valid judgment is misleading.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: An overview of the for-and-against positions can be given (9.2)


        COMMENT: Given the appearance of a balanced handling of the matter is a good technique. The assumption that there are for-and-against positions is not clarified or explained, though, merely asserted.

        That is, a reading of the evidence as ‘not guilty’, to stand and be opposed to and contrasted with a reading of the evidence as ‘guilty’, involves a circularity of reasoning: it is the ultimate contradiction for the same evidence to support both positions simultaneously.

        The result of a ‘not guilty’ conclusion is that the evidence leads there, and away from a conclusion of ‘guilty’. A for-and-against view begins with the conclusion, in order to prove the conclusion: circularity.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Presence does not equate with guilt. Passive participation is different to active participation (Benocci case, 2013 etc). The subjective element can be found in voluntary participation and cooperation (Mazzotta case, 2012) (9.3)


        COMMENT: Absence of evidence does not equate with innocence (meaning evidence of absence). Quoting from cases is good: it gives the impression something legal is going.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Even given their presence, FOR the accused is the absence of their traces in the room or on the body (excluding the bra-clasp, of which more later), and likewise FOR the accused is the presence of Rudy’s evidence. The room is so small that is impossible not to leave any traces if they were murderers. Nothing of theirs was found on the victim’s top or the piece of clothing underneath, whereas Rudy’s trace was found on a sleeve of the top. This makes a clean-up impossible. (9.4)


        COMMENT: Declarations of certainty about the consequences of the size of the room are not evidence, no matter how close such declarations seem to be in going ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Given an erroneous starting point, impeccable reasoning can be applied, and a conclusion reached.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Amanda’s self-described presence is credible in that she described, for the first time, a possible sexual motive for the murder, and the piercing scream. In her calunnia she puts herself on the scene which no-one else (other than those others present, obviously) would have known. According to the calunnia, the scream and the murder is due to Patrick Lumumba. AGAINST: the mixed traces (dilute blood, skin cells) in the small bathroom.

        Suspicion is not decisive. The trace is not equivocal – there could have been posthumous contact with the blood.  There was no trace in the murder zone or on the body. The reason why she accused is incomprehensible – the psychological pressure theory is weak (fragile). She couldn’t think it would stand up, since she knew well that Patrick had no relationship with Meredith, or that Patrick wouldn’t have a cast-iron alibi. Maybe to cover for Rudy (both men being black), perhaps hypothesising that Rudy had been seen.

        The staged burglary scene, for the prosecution, pointed to somebody who knew the victim, but this is ambiguous because it was Raffaele who pointed out to the police that nothing had been carried off. Lies revealed by SMS and Curatolo and Quintavalle are suspicious, but they are scarcely credible witnesses. The enigmatic drug-dealer Curatolo, coming late to the case and no stranger to cases with a strong media presence, is contradicted by the lack of buses, and the masks and joking around of Halloween, apparently counterbalanced by seeing the accused the day before forensic spacemen arrived. Quintavalle, another tardy witness, has nothing specific to add, not even what purchases were made, and identifying in Amanda in the courtroom has no relevance since her image had appeared on all the newspapers and TV news.

        The “A” and “I” traces on the knife are neutral, given she lived with Raffaele, and (as said) there were no traces of Ms Kercher on the knife, contrasting with the prosecution hypothesis that it was the murder weapon. It was an arguable choice to test the trace for DNA rather than for what substance it was. Attributing the trace to Amanda is not unequivocal, and is indifferent, since she lived with Raffaele. Even attributing trace “B” to Meredith is not decisive (not being blood), since, with students, it’s plausible that convivial gatherings and other events would require the transport of a knife for domestic use. Starch implies ordinary use; lack of blood cannot lead to a cleaning action since starch is well-known to be absorbent and would have absorbed blood if it had been there.

        It’s implausible that Amanda would carry the kitchen knife for protection in her big bag, rather than carry a small flick knife like knife-collector and knife-fan Raffaele certainly had in his possession. Attributing the print in the homicide location to her is, finally, anything but certain. (9.4.1)


        COMMENT:  ‘All over the place like a dog’s breakfast’. Where to begin? The strong suspicion, reinforced with every statement made, is that Bruno is one sandwich short of a picnic. The main cause is due to taking the defence claims in their appeal papers as if they were the factual basis of a new trial. Which makes Bruno two sandwiches short of a picnic. For a Cassation judge, the picnic hamper and its contents is a serious matter. This whole section, and the following one, are destined to become a classic example.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: For Raffaele, the picture is likewise. The bra-clasp, the only trace of his, has no certainty, since there is no 2nd amplification, there is no probative value. There is a strong suspicion he was there on the night, but when is not possible to determine. Given Amanda was present, it’s scarcely believable he wouldn’t be with her. Amanda had versions of the “something strange” story and other versions of being present, it’s strange she wouldn’t have called her boyfriend, presumably being ignorant of Italian emergency procedures and having her boyfriend close by. No call, there was no phone record, implies he was with her.

        But presence at the scene is not certain proof. Defence arguments are insufficient to remove doubt. Even if Raffaele watched everything, it does not rule out his presence – he could have been at the house, it’s a short distance away, ten or so minutes. Amanda’s claims to have been at Raffaele’s house, countered by Curatalo’s and Quintavalle’s testimony, raises strong suspicion against Raffaele. But their strongly approximative and ambiguous statements cannot, reasonably, lead to certainty, notwithstanding the appeal court’s problematic subjective view on the matter. Suspicions rise from the substantive failure of the alibi about the computers, although it’s not a case of speaking about failed alibis, but rather alibis that didn’t make it. No certainty either about Raffaele’s prints, with their “probable identity”, rather than certainty. (9.4.2)


        COMMENT: Reasonable minds can (and often do) come to different conclusions on the same facts. But: Highly trained professional lawyers applied the incorrect methodology?! If Bruno thinks Florence did that, then what’s to stop anyone thinking that Bruno has done the same thing? Curatolo is an enigmatic drug-dealer (and again the media get a look-in), but the enigmatic drug-taking Raffaele isn’t, even with his knife-fetish?

        Luckily, enigmas, according to common experience, are not generally the convivial party-going kind, whereof large kitchen knives for domestic use are easily transported. Bruno, and the Bruno Cafe-and-Bar Specials, are ripe for satire (which may be the underlying ulterior intention, subconsciously-speaking: to make a mark, or a stain or a trace, no matter how indeterminate, or, keyword, indecisive.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Since the main charge is unsupported, the subsidiary charges also fall. (9.4.3)


        COMMENT: True, as a principle.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Contradictory probative elements must compel an acquittal. One last question remains to be resolved. Remand of the case to another court is logically linked to the objective possibility of further tests. The response is definitely negative. The traces are so small they cannot guarantee reliability. Amanda’s and Meredith’s computer were burned by the investigators, probably through the wrong electric current causing irreversible damage. The declaratory evidence is exhaustive. Rudy refused and cannot be compelled to testify.

        Defence technical requests cannot guarantee clarity, not only because of the amount of time, but the problematic testing (possibility of selective clean-up); obvious irrelevance (tests on Raffaele’s computer), given the possibility, no matter what the interaction, of going over to Meredith’s house; or clearly superfluous, given the completeness of the examination undertaken (for example, the autopsy and subsequent medico-legal tests). Remand of the case would be useless. Annulment of the conviction under charge (A)  [=aggravated murder] implies a redetermination of the sentence imposed, which will be set as the same one handed down by the Court of Appeal of Perugia, adequate and just.

        And so all other defence submissions petitions requests are to be considered denied, while any lines of argumentation, including those not examined, are inadmissible as being, clearly, related to the mertis. (10)


        COMMENT: Repeating of the same wallpaper pattern starting to occur. Which means, there is nothing more to say. Literally.

        Cassation (Bruno) – gist: It only remains to dispose the case (11):

        Charge (B): extinction of the charge by prescription
        The impugned judgment, excluding aggravated calunnia, annulled without remand on charges (A), (D)and (E) on the grounds on not having committed the deed
        Re-determine the sentence inflicted on Amanda for the crime of calunnia to three years of imprisonment.
        So decided 27/03/2015
        Signed
        (Bruno, Recorder) (Marasca, President)


        COMMENT: Only Bruno initialled each page; Marasca limited himself to signing at the end.

        Observations

        What have we learned on the first read-through of (the legal part of) the Cassation decision?

        • That the court is not slave to science, yet Bruno pronounces about repeatability and its scientific significance (which he mistakes for the significance of falsifiability). He makes repeatability a judicial truth. I expect Bruno will be surprised to “learn” that there are sciences where repeatability is not an option, yet they are still science.

        • That the court is not slave to the expert, yet when the defence claim that international standards have been breached in the collection of evidence, that is accepted as judicial truth.

        • That a person is not slave to their DNA: the presence of DNA (Raffaele’s on the cigarette butt) is proof of nothing since he was a visitor to the cottage, and the absence of DNA (in the room) is proof of everything since it “shows” (with certainty) that they weren’t there as murderers.

        • That the court is adept at applying common experience and associated physics, yet Bruno does not hesitate to declare what is and isn’t physically possible (in a small room, say; or with starch grains).

        • That the court applies logic and common sense and everyday knowledge, yet, in continuously describing the crime as senseless, incomprehensible, and indeed not of the everyday, Bruno looks for sense and rationality, and the not finding of it doesn’t alert him to the possibility that it isn’t there.

        • That the copy-paste function on junior judge’s computers should be switched off in cases of non compus mentus, or that at the least that copyright payments should be made to defence clerks for usage of the material, to offset their costs.

        Others here will pick up the baton on this. I look forward to seeing them run.

        Posted on 10/31/15 at 04:36 PM by catnip. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoThose officially involvedSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Cassation 2015 critiquesCatnip critique
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (8)

        Friday, October 30, 2015

        TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #6 Of 7: Why The DNA Evidence Was All Useless

        Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



        Luca Giordano (Fa Pesto), Love and Vice Disarm Justice, 17th century

        Overview Of The Post and the Series

        This represents pages 37 to 41 of the original, which is 53 pages in total. Machiavelli already posted the final few pages so one more post of 5 pages will see the completion.

        Following this 6th post will be a final brief analysis by Catnip, and following the 7th and final post will be a major analysis of the entire report by lawyer James Raper from legal and evidence standpoints.

        Translation was by a professional translator with extensive finalization by Machiavelli with some help from the Wiki team of the judicial terms used and the accuracy of the English relative to what is in the report.

        Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final.

        Why DNA Evidence Is All Rejected

        7.1. With these general and abstract considerations, we now examine from a new particular perspective specific details of a broadly problematic case.

        In this specific case, in fact, it is not a question of verifying the nature and admissibility of a scientific method that is not really new, as in the Franzoni sentence formerly mentioned, , on the admissibility of the “Blood Pattern Analysis” or B.P.A. (a procedure already accepted in the United States and Germany, combining scientific laws of different universally recognized disciplines) because the objects of examination are the outcomes of the one science, genetics, of well-known reliability and increasing use and utility in judicial investigations.

        Furthermore, this Court on multiple occasions has already recognized the procedural value of genetic investigation into DNA, given the statistically great number of confirmative recurrences, making the possibility of an error infinitesimally small (Section 2, n. 8434 of 05 February 2013, Mariller, Rv. 255257; Section 1, n. 48349 of 30 June 2004, Rv.231182).

        Here it is more a matter of verifying what kind of procedural value can be assigned in a trial to the results of a genetic investigation carried out in a context of verifying very small samples with very little respect for the rules included in international protocols by which, normally, such scientific research is inspired.

        Implicitly referring to the jurisprudential interpretation of legitimacy, the judge has not hesitated to attribute to the aforementioned outcomes evidential relevance (f. 217).

        The attribution cannot be shared.

        Important to note that the case law of this Supreme Court, cited above, has acknowledged of genetic investigations – specifically their degree of reliability – full evidential value, and not a mere evidential element, according to article 192, chapter 2, of the code of criminal procedure; adding that, in cases where the genetic investigation doesn’t have absolutely certain outcomes, it can be attributed lesser evidential value (Section 2, n. 8434 of the 05 February 2013, Mariller, Rv. 255257; Section 1, n. 48349 of the 30 June 2004, Rv.231182). This means that, in the situation of placing suspects in terms of firm identity, the outcomes of the genetic investigation can have conclusive relevance, while in case of mere compatibility with a determined genetic profile, the outcomes have a mere circumstantial relevance.

        This enunciation of principle needs a further clarification.

        Generally, it is possible to accept the respective conclusions, provided the sampling activity, conservation and analysis of the sample were respectful of the requirements stated in the relevant protocols. This is true also in the less firm hypothesis, in which the outcomes of the analysis don’t arrive at a firm identity result, but merely a compatibility one.

        The principle of necessary methodological correctness in the phases of collection, conservation and analysis of examined data to preserve their maximum integrity and validity has been stated by this Court in Section F, n. 44851 of 6 September 2012, Franchini, although that was in the area of IT evidence, on the basis that those principles have been included in the code of criminal procedure with the modification of the second chapter of article 244 of the code of criminal procedure and the new particular requirement of article 254 bis of the same code, introduced into law on 19 September 2008, n. 48.

        Justifying reasoning resides, for this Court, in the same notion of evidence offered by the standard code of procedure, which in article 192 chapter 2 states that “the existence of a fact cannot be deduced from evidence, unless they are serious, precise and concordant”, so that a procedural element, to be elevated to firm evidence, has to present the characteristics of seriousness, precision and concordance, according to a configuration borrowed from the civil law (article 2729, first chapter, civil code).

        This is all summarized in the so called “certainty” requirement of circumstantial, even if such a requisite is not expressly enunciated in article 192 of the code of criminal procedure, chapter 2. It’s about, in fact,  a further connotation considered non-failable in consolidated case law and intrinsically connected to the requirements for systematic evidential proof, through which, using a procedure of formal logic, a demonstration of the proof matter – a previously unknown fact - is achieved flowing from a confirmed fact and, therefore, considered true. It is well understood, in fact, that such a procedure would be, in short, fallacious and unreliable, in cases where it moves from non-precise to serious factual premises and therefore to certain. Given, obviously, the fact that the certainty, discussed here, is not to be understood in absolute terms, in an ontological sense; the certainty of the evidential data is, in fact, always a category of a procedural nature, falling within that species of certainty which takes form during the evidential procedure. (cfr. the Franzoni sentence).

        In the light of such considerations it’s not clear how the data of the genetic analysis – carried out in violation of the prescriptions of the international protocols related to sampling and collection – could be considered endowed with the features of seriousness and precision.

        And in fact, rules for crystallizing of the results from valid samples, strengthened through repeated experimentations and methodical statistical verifications of experimental data, promote the standards of reliability in the results of the analysis both in hypothesis and identity and simple compatibility with a particular genetic profile. Otherwise, no relevance could be attributed to the acquired data, not even of minor evidence (cfr. Section 2, n. 2476 of 27 November 2014, dep.2015, Santangelo, Rv. 261866, on the necessity of a correct conservation of the vessels containing the genetic imprints, for the purpose of “repeatability” of the technical verifications capable of duplicating the genetic profile; repeatability also is dependent on the quantity of the trace and the quality of the DNA present on the biological samples collected; id. n. 2476/14 cit. Rv. 261867).

        In this case, it is certain that these methodological rules have not being fully observed (cfr, among others, ff. 206-207 and the outcomes of the Conte-Vecchiotti survey, acquired by the Court of Appeal of Perugia).

        Just consider, in this regard, the modalities of retrieval, sampling and conservation of the two items of major investigative interest in the present judgment: the kitchen knife (item n. 36) and the brassiere hook of the victim (item n. 165/B), regarding to which, during the process, the conduct of the investigators was qualified as lacking in professionalism (f. 207).

        The big knife or kitchen knife, retrieved in Sollecito’s house and considered as the weapon of the crime, had been kept in a common cardboard box, very similar to the ones used to pack Christmas gadgets, like the diaries normally given to local authorities by credit institutes.

        More singular – and unsettling – is the fate of the brassiere hook.

        Observed during the first inspection of the scientific police, the item had been ignored and left there, on the floor, for some time (46 days), until, during a new search, it was finally picked up and collected. It is sure that, during the period of time between the inspection in which it was observed and when it was collected, there had been other accesses by the investigators, who turned the room upside down in a search for elements of evidence useful to the investigation. The hook was maybe stepped on or moved (enough to be retrieved on the floor in a different place from where it was firstly noticed). And also, the photographic documentation produced by Sollecito’s defense demonstrates that, during the sampling, the hook was passed hand in hand between the operators who, furthermore, wore dirty latex gloves.

        Questioned on the reasons for the absence of a prompt sampling, the official of the scientific police, doc. Patrizia Stefanoni, declared that, initially, the collection of the hook was not focused on because the team had already collected all the clothes of the victim. Therefore, no importance was attributed to that little detail, even if, in common perception, that fastening is the part of major investigative interest, being manually operable and, therefore, a potential carrier of biological traces useful for the investigation.

        Also, the traces observed on the two items, which the analysis of has produced outcomes that will be discussed further, were very small (Low Copy Number; with reference to the hook cfr. ff. 222 and 248), so little that it didn’t allow a repetition of the amplification¸ that is the procedure aimed to “highlight the genetic traces of interest in the sample” (f. 238) and attribute the biological trace to a determined genetic profile. On the basis of the protocols of the matter, the repetition of the analysis (“at least for two times” testimony of Major CC Dr Andrea Berti, an expert nominated by the Appeal Court, f. 228; “three times” according to Professor Adriano Tagliabracci, technical adviser for Sollecito’s defense, f.126) is absolutely necessary for a reliable analysis result, in order to marginalize the risk of “false positive” within the statistical limits of insignificant relevance. 

        In essence, it is nothing less than a procedure of validation or falsification typical of the scientific method, of which we have talked before. And it’s significant, in this regard, that the experts Berti-Berni, officials of the R.I.S. of Roma, carried out two amplifications of the trace retrieved from the knife blade (f. 229).

        In absence of verification for repetition of the investigation data, it is questionable what could be the relevant value to the proceedings, even if detached from the scientific theoretical debate on the relevance of the outcomes of investigations carried out on such scarce or complex samples in situations not allowing repetition.

        The Court is sure that the scientific truth, regardless of elaboration, cannot automatically be introduced in to the process to transform itself into procedural truth. As stated before, scientific proof requires a mandatory postulate, verification, so that the relevant outcome can take on relevance and be elevated to the rank of “certainty”; since otherwise it remains unreliable. But, independent of the scientific evaluation, an unverified datum, precisely because it is lacking in the necessary requirements of precision and seriousness, cannot be granted in the process any evidentiary relevance.

        Certainly, in such a context, is not a zero, to be considered non-existant. In fact, it is still process data, which, although lacking in autonomous demonstrative relevance, is nevertheless susceptible to appreciation, at least as a mere confirmation, within a set of elements already equipped with such inclusive indicative value.

        Therefore hidden here is the judicial error in which the trial judge committed in assigning evidential value to the outcome of the genetic investigation unsusceptible to amplification and resulting from an unorthodox procedure of collection and sampling.

        7.2 In order to clarify any possible misunderstanding in this regard, it is worth considering that if it is impossible to attribute significant demonstrative relevance, in the court process, to outcomes of genetic investigations not repeated and made unsusceptible to repetition, because of scarceness or complexity of the sample,  it is not possible to compensate by way of claiming the efficacy and usability of the “unrepeatable” technical verifications, in case of, as in this circumstance, observance of the defensive guarantees accorded in article 360 of the code of criminal procedure. In fact, the technical investigations to which the procedural rule mentioned are those that – for crystal-clear positive formulation – are related to “persons, things or places the status of which is subject to modification”, in other words situations of any type or category which, according to their nature, are variable, therefore it is necessary to crystallize their status unequivocally even before the preliminary investigation phase, to avoid irreversible modifications with an outcome that under standard procedures is destined to be utilized during the court hearings. This is allowed because the verification to be carried out, especially in cases of impossibility of repetition because of modification of the item to be examined, is still capable of highlighting already-accepted realities or entities equipped with demonstrative value. In this case, despite the observance of the rules expressed in article 360 of the standard code of procedure, the acquired data – not repeated and not susceptible to repetition for any reason – cannot assume either probative or evidential relevance, precisely because, according to the aforementioned laws of science, it requires validation or falsification. So, in one instance the empiric data, when immediately “photographed”, acquires demonstrative significance; while in another instance it’s lacking such a feature, precisely because its indicative relevance is indissolubly bound to its repetition or repeatability.

        Posted on 10/30/15 at 05:56 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoRudy GuedeThose officially involvedSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Report translation
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (11)

        Wednesday, October 28, 2015

        TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #5 Of 7: Some “Incongruencies” By Previous Courts

        Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



        Painting by Paride Pascucci of Siena on the theme of justice

        Overview Of The Post and the Series

        This represents pages 32 to 37 of the original, which is 53 pages in total. Machiavelli already posted the final few pages so two posts of 5 pages will see the completion.

        Translation was by a professional translator with extensive finalization by Machiavelli with some help from the Wiki team of the judicial terms used and the accuracy of the English relative to what is in the report.

        Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final. 

        On Further Appeal Grounds

        6. The examination of the motivational structure of the appealed sentenced, the object of multiple claims by the defenses, can now be proceeded with.

        Even from a very first reading, we can identify contradictions, incongruencies and errors in rulings which deeply permeate the whole argumentative structure.

        6.1 Firstly, the judges’ statement is erroneous that the motive for homicide does not have to be determined with precision

        The assumption is not acceptable in relation to the indisputable principle of this regulatory Court (from Section 1, n. 10841 of the 24 September 1992, Scupola, Rv. 192865) regarding the relevance of the motive as bond between multiple elements that the proof has constituted, during evidential procedures like the one examined here.

        Furthermore, the value in this as one of the strengthening elements of the evidence is, obviously, contingent on verification of the reliability coefficient of the evidences, by way of clarity, precision and concordance, with analytic and resulting appreciation of these, individually considered and subsequently placed in a global and unitary perspective (Section 1, n. 17548 of 20 April 2012, Sorrentino, Rv. 252889 in the wake of Section U, n. 45276, Andreotti, Rv. 226094 according to which the “cause”, representing a confirming element of the involvement in the crime of the subject intent on the physical elimination of the victim as it converges in its specificity and exclusivity in an unequivocal direction, nevertheless, but still preserving a margin of ambiguity, in the meantime can work as a catalytic and strengthening element of the evidential value of the positive elements of proof of responsibility, from which can be logically deduced, on the basis of known and reliable experience rules, the existence of an uncertain fact (that is the possibility of attributing the crime to the instigator), when, after analytic examination of each one of them and in the framework of a global evaluation, the evidences in relation to the interpretation supplied by the motive reveal themselves as clear, precise and convergent in their univocal significance).

        This, as will be stated below, cannot be confirmed in this case, because of an evidential compendium which is equivocal and intrinsically contradictory.

        Specifically, none of the possible motives in the scenarios of the appealed sentence have been firmed up in this case.

        The sexual motivation attributed to Guede during the separate procedure against him is not wholesale extensible to the supposed other attackers; for as has been stated before the hypothesis of a group erotic game has not been demonstrated; it is not possible to presume for each contestant a shared or combined motive assuming a sharing in the attack. Such an extension would have to postulate the existence of trusting interpersonal relationships between the contestants, which within the particular and sudden character of the criminal pact would lend verisimilitude to such a move.

        Now, though the sentimental relationship between Sollecito and Knox was fact, and though the girl had occasion to know Guede to some extent, there is no proof that Sollecito would have known or hung out with the Ivorian. On this point it is contradictory and clearly illogical to assume (see f. 91) the unreasonable hypothesis of participation in such a brutal crime with an unfamiliar person by the housemates Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti (who certainly didn’t know Guede), but not extend this argument to Sollecito, who also seems to have never known the Ivorian.

        6.2. Another error of judgment resides in the supposed irrelevance of the verification of the exact hour of Kercher’s death, considering sufficient the approximation offered by the examinations, even if assumed as correct during the trial pohase.

        With regards to this, Sollecito’s defense has reasons to appeal, since they signaled the necessity of a concrete verification specifically in the evidential proceedings, every consequential implication. Furthermore, the exact determination of the time of Kercher’s death is an inescapable factual prerequisite for the verification of the alibi offered by the defendant in course of the investigation aiming to verify the possibility of his claimed presence in the house at via della Pergola at the time of the homicide. And for this reason an expert verification was requested.

        So, specifically on this point, it is fair to note a despicable carelessness during the preliminary investigation phase. It is sufficient to consider, in this regard, that the investigations carried out by the CID had proposed a threadbare arithmetic mean between a possible initial time and a possible final time of death (from approximately 6:50 PM on 1st November to 4:50 AM on the next day) setting the hour of death approximately at 11-11:30 PM.

        The examinations of the gastrointestinal tract of the victim, who, in the late evening, had consumed a a meal with her English friends, has allowed – once again only with approximation, adjusted during the trial hearings – to much further circumscribe the temporal range.

        The Appeal Court further reduced the temporal range, placing it in the hours between 9 PM of the 1st of November (time of Kercher’s farewell to her friend) and 12:10:31 AM of the next day, on the basis of the recording (resulting from the acquired phone records) of a signal of one of the cellular phones of Kercher intercepted in a telephonic cell covering the area of via Sperandio, where the cellular phones had been abandoned by the perpetrators of the homicide.

        But this observation also suffers from approximation, because at the last indicated time, Meredith Kercher was already dead, even if only for a little time, precisely because the signal was registered in the area where the telephones had been abandoned, after being stolen, shortly after the homicide, within the house in via della Pergola, some hundreds of meters from the place of their retrieval.

        The contestant’s defense has offered, in this regard, a more reliable analysis, backed up by incontrovertible facts.

        From the examination of the telephonic traffic has emerged that, after the departure from her English friend’s house at 9 PM, the young woman had, in vain, tried to call her parents in England, like she used to do every day, while a last contact was registered at 10:13 PM, so that the temporal range has been further reduced to approximately 9:30/10:13 PM.

        7.  The second critical observation, relative to the appealed judgment, introduces the central matter of the judgment value attributable to the results of the scientific examinations, with particular reference to the genetic investigations, acquired in violation of the rules dictated by international protocols.

        The specific question falls within the doctrinal debate on the relation between scientific proof and criminal procedure, in search for an equilibrium between the orientation – which is amenable to certain foreign schools of interpretation – which tends to recognize ever more weight to the science contribution, even if not validated by the scientific community; and the orientation which claims the supremacy of the laws and postulates that, according to the rules of criminal proceeding, only scientific results tested according to methodological standards which are routinely accepted could be considered as relevant here.

        The present cultural debate, even if respecting the principle of free conviction of the judge, also tries to critically revisit the notion, by now obsolete and of dubious credibility, of the judge as a super-expert. In fact, the archaic rule of thumb reflects a cultural model that is not current anymore and instead is anachronistic, at least in the measure of what is supposed to be handled by the judge’s real capacity to manage the scientific knowledge flow that the parties would enter into the proceedings, where, instead, a more realistic configuration wants him completely unaware of that contribution of the knowhow,  the result of scientific knowledge that doesn’t belong to him and cannot – and has not to – belong to him. And this is truer in relation to genetic science, in which complex methods postulate a specific knowledge in the fields of forensic genetics, chemistry, and molecular biology, which are part of a knowledge patrimony very distant from the prevalently humanistic and juridical education of the magistrate.

        But the consequence of the inescapable acknowledgment of such a state of legitimate ignorance of the judge, and therefore of his incapacity of managing “autonomously” the scientific evidence, cannot be his uncritical acceptance, which would be equivalent – maybe for a misunderstood sense of free convincement and maybe also of a misunderstood concept of “expert of experts” – to a substantial renouncement of his role, through totally uncritical acceptance of the expert contribution to which is delegated the resolution of the judgment and therefore the responsibility for the decision.

        But also, in a situation of a one-sided scientific contribution coming from just one of the procedural parties, and thus standardly disposed of by the same judge, this can be welcomed as a paraphrasing in a more or less rational way of the technical argumentations presented to support the procedure, a problem dramatically arises when in a situation of conflicting scientific contributions, the same judge is called upon to settle upon a choice, and, in this case, the paraphrase is more complex, requiring a pertinent and valid motivation to explain the reasons for which an alternative scientific prospection would not be shareable. (cfr. Section 6, n. 5749 of 09 January 2014, Homm, Rv. 258630, according to which the judge who considers to adhere to the conclusions of the expert, in discordance with the ones presented by the defense adviser, even if not obliged to provide, as a reason, an autonomous demonstration of the scientific exactitude of the firstly cited, and the erroneousness, on the contrary, of the others, “he is however called to” demonstrate the fact that the expert conclusions have been valued “in terms of reliability and completeness”, and that the advisers’ argumentations have not been ignored).

        The court considers that this delicate problem, with regard to the present judgment, requires a solution within the general rules which compose our procedural system, and not from elsewhere in an abstract claim of a supremacy of the science over the law or vice versa. The scientific evidence cannot, in fact, aspire to an unconditional endorsement of reliability during the trial proceeding because the criminal procedure rejects every idea of legal proof. Also, known to everyone is that there doesn’t exist a single science, a bringer of absolute truth and immutability throughout time, rather various sciences and pseudo-sciences, both the official ones and the ones not validated by the scientific community because they reflect research methods not universally recognized.

        And therefore the solution to this problem must result from the consideration of principles and rules which regulate the acquisition and the formation of the evidence in the criminal procedure and, then, of criteria which support the relative evaluation.

        The citation points must be ones relating to the adversarial principle and the judge’s control over the path of formation of the proof, which has to respect predetermined guarantees, the observance of which must be a rigorous parameter of the judging and reliability of the relevant outcomes.

        So, a result of a scientific proof can be considered reliable only when examined by the judge, at least with reference to the subjective reliability of those who advance it, and the scientific method employed, and a more or less acceptable error margin, and the objective value and reliability of the obtained result.

        Therefore, observing a method of critical approach not different, conceptually, from the one required for the appreciation of ordinary evidence, aiming to elevate as much as possible the degree of reliability of the legal truth, or alternatively, reduce to reasonable margins the inescapable gap between procedural truth and substantial truth.

        Moreover, in procedures of inductive-inferential logic, which allow one to trace back from the known fact to the unknown one to be proved, the judge, in his full freedom of convincement, can use any element which would work as a bridge or bond between the two considered facts and allow one to trace back from the known one to the unknown one, according to parameters of reasonability and common sense.

        The connection can, therefore, be of the most varied nature: the so called “experience rule”, legitimated by common knowledge or by direct observation of the reality of a phenomenon, which registers the repetitiveness of specific events in constant, identical, determined, conditions; a scientific law, of universal value or more narrowly statistical; a law based on logic, which presides and orients the mental paths of human rationality and anything else useful to the purpose.

        The evidential reasoning which allows passing from the element of proof to the result of proof it is an element of the exclusive competence of the judge of merit, who has obviously to supply a concrete motivation and who, with regards to evidential proof, is required to apply a duplicable confirming scrutiny: a first verification concerning the so called “external justification” by way of which the same judge has to test the validity of the experience rule, or scientific-logic law, or any other rule observed; and a further verification related to the so called “internal justification” through which must be demonstrated, concretely, the validity of the result obtained through the application of the “bridge-rule” (Section 1, n. 31456 of 21 May 2008. Franzoni, Rv. 240764).

         

        Posted on 10/28/15 at 06:25 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoRudy GuedeThose officially involvedSupreme CourtAppeals 2009-2015Report translation
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (13)

        Page 1 of 15 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »