Breaking news. PM Renzi resigns. The size of his loss (close to 40-60) in the referendum (see tweets under top post) might trigger early election, with the anti-authoritarian, pro-environment Five Star Movement getting a possible clear majority in parliament. Good for Italy? We hope. It does open new possibilities in Meredith's case.

Collection: Other legal processes

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Florence Courts Resent Mangling Of RS/AK Appeal By Cassation Now Have Ominous Ways To Re-Visit

Posted by Peter Quennell



Highrise Florence courts are just visible at left background


The Marasca/Bruno verdict setting RS and AK free has taken some hard knocks within the Italian legal community.

It is not lost on anyone that Sollecito defense lawyer Bongiorno was given special favors, including being allowed to argue unchallenged before the Fifth Chambers for some hours beyond the legal limit. Or that the Fifth Chambers should never ever have received the appeal. Or that the drafter, Bruno, was suffering seriously ill health at the time, and delivered a report which is largely legal nonsense.

Here Machiavelli and Catnip and most exhaustively James Raper explained many of Marasca’s and Bruno’s absurdities.

But the Florence courts are not done yet. They are still processing cases involving Knox, Sollecito, Sfarzo and Aviello. They still sit on this potential bombshell of a case against Sollecito lawyer Maori, which explains how the Fifth Chambers apparently acted highly illegally.

Other cases are also possible, and two involving Knox are still continuing in Bergamo.

Now Rudy Guede’s team of lawyers in Rome and Viterbo prison have filed an appeal against his own conviction. It is filed with the courts in Florence.

The team notes that judgments against Guede up to and including the Supreme Court’s First Chambers concluded that he had acted against Meredith only in collusion with others and not in isolation.

This could reopen the Marasca/Bruno outcome which argued that he DID act alone or at least not with RS and AK though there is massive evidence to the contrary. That judgment while final in the normal course of things cannot stand under Italian law if illegalities were entered into.

With more and more documentation being read widely, the case against Knox and Sollecito acting in collusion with Guede is coming to look as strong as it did throughout their trial in 2009.

That is the quite possible Florence outcome.

It is one that Guede might accept fairly calmly, as his fury at Sollecito is quite palpable, and he wants nothing more than to nail his fellow attacker.


Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Artificially Controversial Adnan Syed Case Adds To Tilt Against Victims Worldwide

Posted by The Machine



Victim Hae Min Lee; bottom, podcaster Sarah Koenig basking in celebrity

1. The Media Overview

Doug Preston, John Douglas, Steve Moore and Bruce Fischer are by no means the only crackpots in America perpetrating innocence fraud.

Their main distinction was to perpetrate it in English against a victim and a police and court system of other countries, using ignorance and smears and a largely complicit American media to trample hard truths in the case.

But innocence fraud is still a tiny industry in Italy as compared with the godzilla it is becoming in America - often with politically vulnerable judges and usually with naive do-gooders in compliance. 

2. The Adnan Syed/Hae Min Lee serial podcast

Much of the public seems to have developed an insatiable appetite for documentaries about people who have been convicted of murders they allegedly didn’t commit. Faux TV documentaries title American Girl, Italian Nightmare, Paradise Lost, West of Memphis, and Making of a Murderer, have all been watched by millions of people.

Podcasts are another way of reaching them. Wikipedia defines a podcast as “a digital audio file made available on the Internet for downloading to a computer or portable media player, typically available as a series, new installments of which can be received by subscribers automatically.”

High school student Hae Min Lee was the victim in this 1999 Baltimore murder case and her ex-boyfriend Adnan Syed was convicted in 2000 of her murder and is serving a life sentence plus 30 years. 

The serial podcast about the Adnan Syed/Hae Min Lee case has been downloaded over 80 million times now. According to Apple, it’s the fastest podcast to reach five million downloads and streams in the history of iTunes.

In the light of public sentiment inflamed by it a retrial has been ordered, a ruling which Maryland’s attorney general will now seek to overturn.

Why was this serial podcast so popular?

Natasha Vargas-Cooper and Ken Silverstein made the following observation about the success of Serial in an article about the case for The Intercept:

“The reality is that ‘Serial’ only worked if it could demonstrate that there were serious doubts about the fairness of Syed’s trial and conviction. If he were guilty, there was no story. The storytelling device was to amplify claims that favored Syed’s defense and contrast that with a watered-down version of the state’s case”

TV producers and podcast makers know full well that an innocent person being railroaded by corrupt or incompetent cops is a far more melodramatic story than a run-of-the-mill domestic violence murder.

Paul Ciolino admitted in a question and answer session about the Meredith Kercher case at Seattle University that CBS News didn’t care whether someone was innocent. The only thing they care about is the story.

“I work for CBS News. I want to tell you one thing about CBS. We don’t care if you did it. We don’t care if you’re innocent. We like a story. We want to do a story. That’s all we care about.”

CBS News produced one of the most biased and factually inaccurate documentaries about the Meredith Kercher case “American Girl, Italian Nightmare”.

The CBS documentary is an archetypal example of innocence fraud. The story is told primarily from the defence point of view, incriminating pieces of evidence are ignored and the programme contains a number of significant factual errors.

3. Faults by podcast creator Sarah Koenig

The Serial is another example of innocence fraud. Sarah Koenig, the executive producer and host of Serial, tries to be partial and objective, but fails miserably.

Instead of maintaining a professional distance from Adnan Syed, she becomes emotionally attached to him, and it’s clear she desperately wants to believe he’s innocent.

She can barely hide her disappointment when she finds out things that show Syed in a bad light. Her comments that Syed doesn’t seem like a killer are just crass. She comes across as an unwordly academic who has been sheltered from the real world in her ivory tower. 

She says she doesn’t buy the motive put forward by the prosecution i.e. Adnan Syed couldn’t deal with being dumped by Hae Min Lee and it erupted in violence.

In reality, people kill other people for the most banal and trivial reasons. She doesn’t seem to understand that there are seven billion on the planet and not everyone shares her logic and morals. There have been a number of high-profile murder cases where seemingly normal people have committed horrific and senseless murders with little or no motive.

And motive is not a required element in any common law jurisdiction.

She adopts a piecemeal cherrypicking approach to the evidence and analyses each piece of evidence in isolation from the other pieces of evidence. If there’s an alternative innocent explanation not matter how far-fetched it is, she wrongly assumes it nullifies that particular piece of evidence.

It’s no surprise she concludes there isn’t enough evidence to convict Adnan Syed of murder: “It’s not enough, to me, to send anyone to prison for life.”

She doesn’t understand the concept and application of the “beyond a reasonable doubt standard” and that all the pieces of evidence have to be considered wholly, not separately - by a jury actually present to size up all witnesses.

According to the Supreme Court of the United States in Victor. Nebraska (92-8894), 511 U.S. 1 (1994):

“…absolute or mathematical certainty is not required.”

“You may be convinced of the truth of a fact beyond a
reasonable doubt and yet be fully aware that possibly you may be mistaken.”

You put all the pieces of evidence together to see whether a picture of guilt emerges.

According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Stewart v. The Queen, [1977] 2 SCR 748:

“It may be, and such is often the case, that the facts proven by the Crown, examined separately have not a very strong probative value; but all the facts put in evidence have to be considered each one in relation to the whole, and it is all of them taken together, that may constitute a proper basis for a conviction.”






4. Main facts of the case against Adnan Syed

The key pieces of evidence in the case were the testimony of his friend Jay Wilds and the mobile phone records which destroyed Adnan Syed’s initial alibi that he was at the mosque on the evening of 13 January 1999 - the day Hae Min Lee disappeared- and corroborated Wilds’ claims that he and Adnan were in Leakin Park that evening.

This is significant because Hae Min Lee’s body was found in Leakin Park. There’s no question that Jay Wilds had inside knowledge about the murder - he led the police to Hae Min Lee’s car. He confessed to being an accessory to murder after the fact.

On 13 January 1999, Hae Min Lee was supposed to pick up her cousin from the Campfield Early Learning Center after school and take her home. She must have been abducted by her killer whilst on the way to the kindergarten.

This means the window of opportunity for her killer to abduct her was extremely narrow. It takes approximately 11 minutes to drive the 3.8 miles from Woodlawn High School to the kindergarten. 

Jay Wilds told the police that Adnan Syed’s plan was to get a lift with Hae Min Lee. Becky and Krista, who were friends with Hae and Syed, claim they heard him asking Hae for a lift on 13 January 1999. Scott Adcock, a police officer, testified that Syed had told him he had asked Hae for a lift that day.

Syed would later deny that he had asked Hae for a lift. Adnan Syed had lent Wilds his mobile phone and car that day. However, it should be pointed out that it wasn’t the first time that Syed had done this.

Kevin Urick, one of the prosecutors, acknowledged in his interview with The Intercept that the two key pieces of evidence - the mobile records and Jay Wilds’ testimony - are of weaker probative value when considered separately, but pointed out that when you put them together, they are strong pieces of evidence.

“Jay’s testimony by itself, would that have been proof beyond a reasonable doubt?” Urick asked rhetorically. “Probably not. Cellphone evidence by itself? Probably not.”

But, he said, when you put together cellphone records and Jay’s testimony, “they corroborate and feed off each other–it’s a very strong evidentiary case.”

He also pointed out that the mobile phone records destroyed Adnan Syed’s alibi that he was at the mosque on the evening of 13 January 1999. From The Intercept:

“Yes. Early on in the Syed case, the defense sent us a disclosure of about eighty names stating that these were witnesses that were going to testify that Syed was at the mosque because it was Ramadan. He was praying all evening and that’s where he was [Intercept ed’s. note: We have corrected this in the introduction].

If they called those eighty witnesses, they would’ve obviously been testifying falsely, because the cellphone records in conjunction with all the evidence we gathered about the cellphone towers, who made the calls, who received them, place him everywhere but at the mosque.

The best defense an attorney can put on is the defense the client is telling them. But attorneys still are not supposed to put on fabricated evidence. And that would’ve been fabricated evidence. And I think once Gutierrez recognized that fact, she did not put it on.”

Adnan Syed chose not to testify at both his trials. If he had, Kevin Urick would have asked him a pertinent question.

“And my very last question would be, what is your explanation for why you either received or made a call from Leakin Park the evening that Hae Min Lee disappeared, the very park that her body was found in five weeks later?”

The mobile phone records also showed there was a call from his mobile phone to his friend Nisha’s landline at 3:32pm on the day Hae disappeared. This is significant because Jay Wilds didn’t know Nisha and Adnan Syed claims he didn’t have his phone at this time as Jay Wilds had it. The phone call lasted more than two minutes.

Sarah Koening speculates that the Nisha call could have been a “butt dial”.

Dana Chivvis, one of the “Serial” producers, puts the pieces of evidence together in episode 12 and seems to have serious reservations about Adnan Syed’s innocence.

“Adnan has always said it was his idea to loan Jay the car because he wanted to get Stefanie a birthday present right. So that’s pretty crappy luck that you loaned this guy who ends up pointing the finger at you for the murder that you loaned him your car and cell phone the day you ex-girlfriend goes missing. The next thing is that it seems pretty clear to me that Adnan asked Hae for a ride after school because we’ve got at least two of their friends saying they overheard him ask for a ride from Hae.

Adnan himself tells the cop that day he asked Hae for a ride. And In Jay’s first interview with the detectives, he says to them Adnan’s plan was to get in Hae’s car by telling her that his car was broken down and asking her for a ride. Then the next piece of bad luck is the Nisha call. I mean even if the Nisha call could potentially be a butt dial… in the realm of possibility maybe it was a butt dial, but what are the chances? Like that sucks for for you that your phone butt dialled the girl that only you know and would call on this day your ex-girlfriend goes missing that you happen to loan your car and phone out to the guy who ends up pointing the finger at you. That sucks.

And the last thing that I think really sucks for him if he’s innocent is that Jay’s story and the cell phone records match up from about 6 o’clock to about 8 o’clock which is when Jay is saying that you’re burying the body and that’s the time of day when you have no memory of where you were…But you Adnan you don’t really remember where you were that evening and that blank spot in your memory that’s the window of time when Jay’s story actually does seem to be corroborated by the cell phone records.”

It’s important to put the evidence that Dana Chivvis outlines into the wider context of Adnan Syed and Hae Min Lee’s deteriorating relationship.

In November 1998, two months before Hae Min Lee was murdered, she wrote a break-up note to Syed telling him to move on, accept her decision to end their relationship, and to “hate me if you will.” On the back of the note Adnan Syed wrote: “I’m going to kill.”

Is it a coincidence that two months later that Hae Min Lee was killed?

Is it a coincidence that Adnan Syed can remember very little about this day even though it wasn’t an ordinary day because the police called him to tell that Hae was missing and asked him if he knew where she was?

Ann Brocklehurst wrote a blog article criticising Sarah Koenig for consistently minimising the warning signs of intimate partner violence and noted that she overlooked that fact that Hae had asked a teacher, Hope Schab, to help her hide from Syed.




5. Doubts Sarah Koenig tries to raise

Sarah Koenig seems to think that Asia McClain is a credible witness - she claims she saw Adan Syed in the library that afternoon. However, Kevin Urick points out why the judge in the post-conviction trial didn’t take her claim seriously.

“I think the judge in the post-conviction trial does a very good job of pointing out that in the letters to Syed, she is very vague and indifferent about what she’s doing. The difficulty comes from Syed. In all his statements about his whereabouts the day of the case he says that he was at the school from 2:15pm to 3:30pm.

He never once, in any statement, at any time, made any reference about being in the public library. His defense was that he was at the school from 2:30 to 3:30. So [Asia McClain’s] reporting seeing him at the public library contradicts what he says he was doing.”

Kevin Urick also stated that Asia McClain told him she was being put under a lot of pressure from Adnan Syed’s family.

“Asia contacted me before the post-conviction hearing, she got my number and called me and expressed to me a great deal of concern about whether or not she would have to testify at the post-conviction hearing. She told me she was under a lot of pressure from Adnan’s family and to get them off her back she wrote him a couple letters.

The implication was she was trying to appease them and she didn’t want to have to stick by it at that time. And I testified to that when I appeared in the post-conviction hearing.”

Sarah Koenig also seems to think that Jay Wilds’ testimony shouldn’t have been used to convict Adnan Syed because he gave conflicting accounts. Kevin Urick explained why these inconsistencies don’t discredit him as a witness.

“Like I said, people who are engaged in criminal activity, it’s like peeling an onion. The initial thing they say is, ‘I don’t know a thing about this.’ And then ‘Well, I sort of saw this.’ You get different stories as you go along. This is the real world. We don’t pick our witnesses, we have to put them on as they are. There were a lot of inconsistencies throughout Jay’s prior statements. Almost all of them involve what we would call collateral facts.

“A material fact is something directly related to the question of guilt or innocence. A material fact would have been, ‘I was with Adnan,’ and then you’ve got the cellphone corroborating that material fact. A collateral fact would be, We were at Joe’s Sub Shop,’ but then you find out actually they were at the auto repair store. That’s a collateral fact. It’s not necessarily material to the question of guilt or innocence. So, many of the material facts were corroborated through the cellphone records including being in Leakin Park.”

Sarah Koenig is not the only person who thinks Jay Wilds’ testimony shouldn’t have been used to convict Adnan Syed.

Civil lawyer Richard Dwyer says doesn’t believe Adnan Syed and thinks he might be guilty, but he states he shouldn’t have been convicted because Jay Wilds gave conflicting statements and the timeline wasn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

There seems to be a widespread misconception that the prosecution must be able to prove with absolute certainty each and every element of a second-by-second comprehensive timeline and that witness testimony must be discounted if there are any contradictions. 

The bottom line is the jury found Jay Wilds to be a credible witness and found Adnan Syed guilty of murder.

6. Some Conclusions

A biased and one-sided 12-part documentary presented by a partisan journalist doesn’t supercede a criminal trial where the jurors get to hear the defence and prosecution present their cases and watch witnesses being cross-examined in court.

Justice shouldn’t be a like a reality TV show where the public gets to decide whether someone convicted of murder should be allowed leave the big house. However, there’s no doubt that these types of documentaries do influence legal proceedings. A judge has recently ruled that Adnan Syed will be given another trial.

We can expect Adnan Syed’s supporters and a number of media organisations will try to influence the legal proceedings before and during the new trial. This couldn’t happen in the UK because of the sub judice rules which prevents the media from commenting on a case until a verdict is reached in order to prevent the jury from being swayed.

The Guardian recently published an article entitled “Adnan Syed is innocent. Now find Hae Min Lee’s real killer”, which was written by Adnan Syed’s chief advocate Rabia Chaudry. I hope the mainstream media provide balanced and factually accurate reports on the case - something they didn’t do when covering the Meredith Kercher case.

Journalists and the public should remember that a miscarriage of justices are not just cases where innocent people have been convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. They include cases where people have literally got away with murder. I can’t think of one documentary about such a case.

7. The reactions of Hae Min Lee’s family

Hae Min Lee’s family sat through the trials along with the juries and have no doubts that Adnan Syed killed her.

“It remains hard to see so many run to defend someone who committed a horrible crime, who destroyed our family, who refuses to accept responsibility, when so few are willing to speak up for Hae.”

Unlike Sarah Koenig or any of the 80 million people who downloaded the Serial podcasts, they actually attended every day of both trials, heard the arguments put forward from the defence and prosecution and saw the witnesses being cross-examined on the stand.

“unlike those who learn about this case on the internet, we sat and watched every day of both trials – so many witnesses, so much evidence”.




Some Of The Main Sources

One: Serial Season One

Two: EXCLUSIVE: PROSECUTOR IN ‘SERIAL’ CASE GOES ON THE RECORD

Three: EXCLUSIVE: SERIAL PROSECUTOR DEFENDS GUILTY VERDICT IN ADNAN SYED CASE, PART II.

Four: Serial podcast rehabilitated a schoolgirl’s murderer, so where’s the feminist outrage?

Five: Serial case: victim’s family offers rare statement before hearing resumes

Six: Adnan Syed is innocent. Now find Hae Min Lee’s real killer

Seven: Syed Of ‘Serial’ Podcast Given Retrial

Eight: Serial Podcast Locations

Nine: ‘Serial’ takes the stand: How a podcast became a character in its own narrative

Ten: Serial Finale—Why I Don’t Believe Adnan Syed

 

Posted on 07/27/16 at 02:46 PM by The Machine. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Justice systemsOther systemsOther legal processesThose elsewhere
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (38)

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Crime Of This Self Adulating Killer Is As Horrific As Self Adulating Knox’s Killing Of Meredith

Posted by Peter Quennell



When Knox is not salivating over her own sheer amazingness, she salivates over the sheer amazingness of other crimes and other criminals.

Knox would find much to salivate over in Pakistan, where hundreds of women are being brutally killed annually by relatives in honor killings - and some of those relatives get to be on TV gloating over their own sheer amazingness.

The strangulation of Pakistani model Qandeel Baloch 10 days ago by one of her six brothers initially inspired much praise for him among twisted “traditionalists” but this is being overtaken by shocked reactions worldwide and to an increasing extent in Pakistan.

Made more-so because the brother and the father have been claiming on TV they did the right thing.

The brother fled but is already captured and faces a probable death sentence. Pakistan’s government could now have to move much more strongly to stop all these honor killings.

There are already over 100 YouTubes, many in remembrance and protest, with combined views totaling several millions.

Below, an outraged commentary just posted, by Pakistani-Canadian Giana Sim. Terrific statement, Giana.

Posted on 07/16/16 at 11:00 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyOther legal processesThose elsewhere
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (21)

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Carlo Dalla Vedova: Is ECHR Advised You Condoned Malicious Defamation By Knox Of Chief Prosecutor?

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters





Carlo Dalla Vedova,

You are trying to make the ECHR believe that while Knox may have lied to the police it was only under immense illegal pressure.

Really?!  In effect your case is that Knox only lies and defames under extreme pressure?

Knox and her agent and her publishers all claim you okayed the Knox book Waiting To Be Heard before publication. If you had advised otherwise the book would never have been published.

Under our own analysis that book includes perhaps 600 lies and 100 defamations by Knox, written when she was under no pressure at all and seemingly simply intent on damaging people.

You provided the go-ahead for the book to be published in the 2013 hardcover and again, unrevised but with an addition, in the 2015 softcover. And those 600 and 100 are only the lies and defamations in the book. Knox is on record for numerous others.

Here is one of the most dangerous and destructive lies by Amanda Knox in that book.

As you know Dr Mignini was not even at the central police station when Amanda Knox was sitting with Rita Ficarra quite voluntarily building a list which you wrongly describe to the ECHR as an interrogation.

Days and days of trial testimony by all who actually were there on the night - which you and Knox both sat through - proved that Dr Mignini only saw Knox much later, to read her her rights and then be subjected to her beating his ear about Patrick.  Knox finished the written statement she insisted upon at 5:45 am.

Knox here is claiming in her book written under zero pressure that Dr Mignini conducted a highly illegal interrogation - in effect he committed crimes which could destroy his career and perhaps even put him in prison -when in fact he was at home in bed at the time.

This is the spurious Knox claim about Dr Mignini in English. An Italian translation is at the bottom.
 

[This is a partial description of Knox’s voluntary discussion with Rita Ficarra concluding 12:45 am. Dr Mignini was at home in bed at the time.]
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.
They said, “You need to talk to the pubblico ministero about what you remember.”
I told them, “I don’t feel like this is remembering. I’m really confused right now.” I even told them, “I don’t remember this. I can imagine this happening, and I’m not sure if it’s a memory or if I’m making this up, but this is what’s coming to mind and I don’t know. I just don’t know.”
They said, “Your memories will come back. It’s the truth. Just wait and your memories will come back.”
The pubblico ministero came in.
Before he started questioning me, I said, “Look, I’m really confused, and I don’t know what I’m remembering, and it doesn’t seem right.”
One of the other police officers said, “We’ll work through it.”
Despite the emotional sieve I’d just been squeezed through, it occurred to me that I was a witness and this was official testimony, that maybe I should have a lawyer. “Do I need a lawyer?” I asked.
He said, “No, no, that will only make it worse. It will make it seem like you don’t want to help us.”
It was a much more solemn, official affair than my earlier questioning had been, though the pubblico ministero was asking me the same questions as before: “What happened? What did you see?”
I said, “I didn’t see anything.”
“What do you mean you didn’t see anything? When did you meet him?”
“I don’t know,” I said.
“Where did you meet him?”
“I think by the basketball court.” I had imagined the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, just across the street from the University for Foreigners.
“I have an image of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana near my house.”
“What was he wearing?”
“I don’t know.”
“Was he wearing a jacket?”
“I think so.”
“What color was it?”
“I think it was brown.”
“What did he do?”
“I don’t know.”
“What do you mean you don’t know?”
“I’m confused!”
“Are you scared of him?”
“I guess.”
I felt as if I were almost in a trance. The pubblico ministero led me through the scenario, and I meekly agreed to his suggestions.
“This is what happened, right? You met him?”
“I guess so.”
“Where did you meet?”
“I don’t know. I guess at the basketball court.”
“You went to the house?”
“I guess so.”
“Was Meredith in the house?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did Patrick go in there?”
“I don’t know, I guess so.”
“Where were you?”
“I don’t know. I guess in the kitchen.”
“Did you hear Meredith screaming?”
“I don’t know.”
“How could you not hear Meredith screaming?”
“I don’t know. Maybe I covered my ears. I don’t know, I don’t know if I’m just imagining this. I’m trying to remember, and you’re telling me I need to remember, but I don’t know. This doesn’t feel right.”
He said, “No, remember. Remember what happened.”
“I don’t know.”
At that moment, with the pubblico ministero raining questions down on me, I covered my ears so I could drown him out.
He said, “Did you hear her scream?”
I said, “I think so.”
My account was written up in Italian and he said, “This is what we wrote down. Sign it.”

And here is the same spurious Knox claim about Dr Mignini in Italian.

Alla fine mi dissero che sarebbe entrato il pubblico ministero.
Non sapevo che fosse l’accusa, o che fosse il magistrato a cui si riferiva Rita Ficarra qualche giorno prima, quando aveva detto che bisognava aspettare di sapere cosa avrebbe detto lui, per vedere se potevo andare in Germania. Pensavo che “pubblico ministero” fosse il sindaco o qualcuno che detenesse una carica politica simile in città e che, in qulche modo, mi avrebbe aiutata.
Dissero, “Devi parlare col pubblico ministero di ciò che ricordi.”
Dissi loro, “Non credo che questo sia ricordare. Sono davvero confusa in questo momento.” Gli dissi perfino, “Non mi ricordo di tutto ciò. Riesco ad immaginarlo, ma non sono sicura se sia un ricordo o se lo stia solo immaginando, ma è quello che mi viene in mente e non so. Davvero non so.”
Dissero, “I tuoi ricordi torneranno. E’ la verità. Aspetta e ti ritornerà la memoria.”
Entrò il pubblico ministero.
Prima che iniziasse a interrogarmi, dissi, “Guardi, sono davvero confuse, e non so cosa sto ricordando e non mi sembra giusto.”
Uno degli ufficiali di polizia disse, “Ci lavoreremo su.”
Nonostante il setaccio emotivo per il quale ero passata, realizzai che ero una testimone e che quella era una testimonianza ufficiale, che forse avrei dovuto avere un avvocato. “Ho bisogno di un avvocato?” chiesi.
Disse, “No, no, peggiorerebbe solo le cose. Sembrerebbe che tu non voglia aiutarci.”
Era una situazione molto più solenne e ufficiale dei miei precedenti interrogatori, benché il pubblico ministero mi stava facendo le stesse domande che mi avevano già posto: “Cosa è successo? Cosa hai visto?”
Dissi, “Non ho visto niente.”
“Cosa intendi dire con non ho visto niente? Quando l’hai incontrato?”
“Non so,” dissi.
“Dove l’hai incontrato?”
“Al campo da basket, credo.” Avevo immaginato il campo da basket a Piazza Grimana, proprio al di là della strada dall’ Università per Stranieri.
“Ho un’immagine del campo da basket a Piazza Grimana, vicino casa mia.”
“Cosa indossava?”
“Non so.”
“Indossava una giacca?”
“Credo di si.”
“Di che colore era?”
“Credo che fosse marrone.”
“Cosa ha fatto?”
“Non lo so.”
“Cosa vuol dire che non lo sai?”
“Sono confusa!”
“Hai paura di lui?”
“Suppongo.”
Mi sembrava di essere quasi in trance. Il pubblico ministero mi guidò in uno scenario e io concordai docilmente con i suoi suggerimenti.
“E’ successo questo, giusto? Lo hai incontrato?”
“Suppongo di si.”
“Dove lo hai incontrato?”
“Non lo so. Al campo da basket, suppongo.”
“Siete andati a casa?”
“Credo di si.”
“Meredith era casa?”
“Non ricordo.”
“Patrick é entrato?”
“Non so, crdo di si.”
“Dove vi trovavate?”
“Non lo so. Nella cucina, suppongo.”
“Hai sentito Meredith urlare?”
“Non lo so.”
“Come potevi non sentire Meredith urlare?”
“Non lo so. Forse mi sono coperta le orecchie. Non lo so, non so se mi sto solo immaginando tutto. Sto cercando di ricordare e voi mi dite che devo ricordare, ma non lo so. Non mi sembra che sia la cosa giusta.”
Disse, “No, ricorda. Ricorda cosa é successo.”
“Non lo so.”
In quel momento, mentre il pubblico ministero mi tempestava di domande, mi coprii le orecchie, così da non sentirlo.
Disse, “L’hai sentita urlare?”
Dissi, “Credo di si.”
La mia dichiarazione era scritta in italiano e lui mi disse, “Questo é quello che abbiamo messo a verbale. Firmalo.”

Posted on 05/26/16 at 07:42 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Those officially involvedThe defensesHoaxes KnoxKnox ECHR hoaxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followup
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (29)

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.


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 false memoryKnox book hoaxesOther legal processesKnox followup
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (7)

Friday, March 18, 2016

The Case Of Russell Williams: What a ‘‘Set-Up’’ Police Interview Really Looks Like

Posted by Chimera

Russell Williams’s “Compressed” Interview 2 Hours 40 Minutes Long

1. Post Overview

This contrast’s Knox’s claimed trick “interrogation” and “confession” with one known to be real.

Russell Williams, unbelievably, was a Colonel in the Canadian Air Force, and the Commanding Officer at Trenton Air Force Base.

(From Wikipedia) From July 2009 to his arrest in February 2010, he commanded CFB Trenton, a hub for air transport operations in Canada and abroad and the country’s largest and busiest military airbase. Williams was also a decorated military pilot who had flown Canadian Forces VIP aircraft for dignitaries such as Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, and the Governor General and Prime Minister of Canada.


2. Williams First Association With Crimes

It is early February 2010. Ontario Provincial Police are investigating 4 incidents in a region of Southern Ontario, believing they are connected.  They are, 2 unsolved sexual assaults, the sexual assault and murder a military flight commander, Marie-France Comeau, and the January 28 disappearance of a woman named Jessica Lloyd.

While Lloyd’s disappearance was still ongoing, a witness came forward and reported seeing an SUV-type vehicle nearby.  Police follow up and find tire tracks in that location.  They then go about trying to match those tracks to a particular vehicle.  Roadchecks are set up along various roads.

Williams gets caught in the checkpoint, and the police notice that the tires on his Nissan Pathfinder are identical to those tracks near Jessica Lloyd’s home.  Williams is let go, but under 24 hour surveillance at that point.

3. Narrative Of Williams Interview

It is Sunday, February 7, 2010. Williams is called into police headquarters to answer questions.  He arrives at 3pm, and stunningly, he is wearing the same boots he wore to Jessica Lloyd’s house.  Either moronic, or bold.

The interview starts off casually, though Williams is asked for evidence to prove he is not involved: DNA, fingerprints, and bootprints. 

Watch the video above, Williams is in shock when the topic of bootprints comes up.  At 6pm Det-Sergeant Smyth drops the bombshell:

(1) tire tracks near Jessica Lloyd’s home are from his vehicle;

(2) those are his bootprints behind her house;

(3) the DNA is about to be matched;

(4) the homes are being searched, and the vehicle seized.

Williams realizes at this point that he has been tricked, that it was a setup all along.

Confession “To Spare His Wife”

Williams did come clean about 5 hours into the interrogation.  The reason: to spare his wife the added trauma and humiliation of the police tearing the homes apart.

He rationalized that if he simply told the police where to find evidence, they would take it and go.  At that point, it was about all he could do.

(from Wikipedia) On October 21, 2010, Williams was sentenced to two life sentences for first-degree murder, two 10-year sentences for other sexual assaults, two 10-year sentences for forcible confinement, and 82 one-year sentences for breaking and entering, all to be served concurrently.

Civil Courts Follow-up

Williams’ wife, Mary Harriman did take control of the couple’s multiple properties in Ontario.  She sought a divorce, which has dragged on for years, and did try to get the proceedings banned from publication.

The problem, according to the victims and the families is that this transfer from him to her amounts to FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.

In plain English, the allegations are that Williams transferred everything to his wife in order to avoid having it seized by lawsuits.  Williams claimed he sold it (cheaply) to his wife since he was serving a life sentence and not likely to ever need it again.

Ms. Harriman is now also being forced to testify about the true nature of their marriage for civil matters.  The argument being advanced is that she either knew what was going on, and could not be that oblivious—in light of the shear volume of trophies Williams kept.

Wife of serial killer Russell Williams loses court battle

OPP detective used ‘Reid technique’ to get Russell Williams to confess

World’s Greatest Police Interrogator: Detective Jim Smyth

4. The Narrative Of Knox’s Interview

Knox showed up unexpectedly at the Questura the evening of November 5, 2007.  Sollecito had been called in—alone— to clear up inconsistencies in his stories.

Knox went anyway, and remained even when told to leave.  She was told by Inspector Ficarra that if she really wanted to help, she could put together a list of possible suspects who may have visited the house.  She agreed.

Sollecito, when shown proof in his phone records that contradicted his story, threw Knox under the bus.  He claimed that AK went out alone, he stayed inside and used the computer, and that Knox came back several hours later.  RS claims AK asked him to lie, and that he didn’t think of the inconsistencies at the time.

Knox, on the other hand, thought that RS had actually accused her of murder, not just pulled her alibi.  AK is shocked, and fakes a crying fit. 

She then responds by throwing—someone else completely—under the bus.  Not Sollecito.  Not Guede.

Of course once it turns out that PL is completely innocent, police and prosecutors don’t believe anything she says at this point.

The Knox Interrogation Hoax

#1 Overview Of The Series - The Two Version of the 5-6 Nov 2007 Events

#2 Trial Testimony From Rita Ficcara On Realities 5-6 Nov

#3 More Defense Pussyfooting Toward Rita Ficcara, Key Witness

#4 More Hard Realities From Rita Ficcara, More Nervousness From Defense

#5 Key Witness Monica Napoleoni Confirms Knox Self-Imploded 5-6 Nov

#6 Sollecito Transcript & Actions Further Damage Knox Version

#7 Full Testimony Of Witness Lorena Zugarini To Knox Conniption 5-6 Nov

#8 Testimony Of Interpreter Donnino And Central Police Officer Giobbi

#9 Officer Moscatelli’s Recap/Summary Session With Sollecito 5-6 Nov

5. Contrasts And Similarities

1-A The Williams case above is a clear instance of police luring in a suspect under the pretense of a ‘‘background interview’‘.  The Ontario Provincial Police spent days trying to put together a profile and work up a method of questioning such a suspect.  And it took Det. Sergeant Jim Smyth just 3 hours to get Williams to crack.

1-B Knox, on the other hand, showed up uninvited to the police station, most likely to keep RS on a short leash.  She not only wasn’t invited, but was told to leave.  She cracked when RS revoked her alibi.

2-A Williams says his main motivation in confessing was to spare his wife extra humiliation, and destruction to the houses.

2-B Knox, on the other hand, threw a totally innocent person, Lumumba, to the wolves.  She also has no qualms about protracting the publicity, and milking her ‘‘celebrity’‘.

3-A Williams wore the same boots to the police station

3-B Sollecito brought his knife to the police station, and had similar shoes to Guede

4-A Williams was nailed by his bootprints

4-B Knox was cast under suspicion by a shoeprint, and bare footprints nailed both AK and RS

5-A Williams wife illegally profited by taking the property in order to stave off having it seized

5-B AK and RS illegally profited by having other people (Kuhlman and Gumbel) write blood money books for them.

6. Analysis Of Williams Interview

This excellent analysis is one hour long.

 

 

Posted on 03/18/16 at 06:00 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Justice systemsOther systemsCrime hypothesesThe psychologyPondering motiveEvidence & witnessesOther witnessesOther legal processesThose elsewhere
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (7)

Saturday, March 05, 2016

Italian Justice & The Telling Status Of Extraditions To And From Italy

Posted by Peter Quennell




The Italian Justice System

Any faithful adherents of this campaign know that, in two respects, Italy’s popular justice system is very unusual. 

First, crime-rates and especially murder-rates are low by European standards and very low by American standards and its incarceration rate is only 1/6 that of the United States. At the same time it still does suffer under the presence of several mafias and their fellow travelers and nefarious cousins the rogue masons and corrupt politicians.

Second, Italy’s justice system was set up post WWII to be exceptionally fair to defendants and in subsequent reforms even more-so, for example all appeals are automatic and “fairness” process steps can stretch on for years. And yet even so, the mafias and their fellow travelers and rogue masons and corrupt politicians bend the system even more now and then to their advantage.

The Knox-Sollecito-Guede case played out in these contexts and was unquestionably corrupted.

There has still been zero attempt to repudiate these accusations of law-breaking by Judges Marasca and Bruno of the Fifth Chambers of Cassation. Sollecito’s several visits to the Caribbean hideyhole of these relatives to try to pull strings is known about on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Italian justice system does not give up easily. Multi-prong law-enforcement and media investigations do continue into those angles and other angles. To our occasional frustration they mostly play out behind the scenes. But clearly the case will not be not fully over for some years yet.

International Votes Of Approval

If countries agree to extradite to other countries, that suggests a high degree of trust in justice at both ends. They are in effect voting confidence in each other’s justice systems.

Italy achieves an exceptionally high rate of extraditions in both directions and continues to sign more bilateral treaties.

It is clearly trusted almost worldwide as a destination where those charged will receive a fair shake. And it is very no-nonsense about sending back fleeing felons who try to go to ground there.

Had Amanda Knox’s final appeal not been corrupted, it is extremely unlikely that any a-political judge in the United States would have concluded Italian police and prosecutors had done a poor job and refused to extradite her. Right now she would be serving out her much-deserved time in a nice Italian prison.

The CIA Operatives Case (Resumed)

Now back in the news is the Abu Omar kidnapping case. Remember that one? We posted on it frequently. See our posts here and here and here and here.

Milan CIA Chief Robert Lady and over 20 other CIA agents and several Italian agents kidnapped Abu Omar - a suspected radical who actually had zero involvement in terrorism - and most received prison sentences, some later anulled but not all of them.

For murky reasons Italy’s Ministry of Justice never formally requested the United States to extradite the operatives.

But they did initiate both European and worldwide arrest warrants (red notices) which are close to being the equivalent - they create a kind of living hell, label fugitives as felons worldwide, and make all their foreign travel parlous.

The fugitive Milan chief Robert Lady quietly set himself up in Panama which then had no extradition treaty with Italy. Panama was about to hand him over anyway, but he skipped out on an American aircraft. He was last heard from somewhere in the US lamenting that he is flat-broke (Italy seized his planned retirement home, his main asset) and not in good health and was muttering about suing the CIA or the State Department.

The President of the Italian Republic - the head of the justice system - did agree last year to reduce his sentence from nine to seven years.

Operative Sabrina de Souza

Sabrina de Souza (who has joint US and Portuguese citizenship) was another CIA operative the Italians have long wanted.

You can see her image above and in this report where she too was muttering about a lawsuit against the US government.

Five months ago, Sabrina de Souza was nabbed in Portugal and the Portuguese justice system observed due process in examining the arrest and extradition warrants.

It now seems likely that Sabrina de Souza will become the first CIA operative in the case to serve time in an Italian prison.

The US is not intervening, even though she may spill the beans in a way that could be embarrassing (well, embarrassing for the GW Bush legacy).

Our Own Learning Experience

Note that this case is five years older than Meredith’s case - the crime was in 2003 and trial in 2009 - and yet the legal processes keep ticking.

And Knox faces known further trials, and may not be safe from a red notice during her lifetime. 

Posted on 03/05/16 at 05:46 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Justice systemsItalian systemOther legal processesItalian unrelatedExtradition issues
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (4)

Thursday, March 03, 2016

Serial Killer Robert Pickton Tries To Cash In - Why Son-of-Sam Laws Should Be Enacted Worldwide

Posted by Chimera



Possibly not all of the victims of serial killer Robert Pickton, publicity hound

Son of Sam Anti Bloodmoney Laws

We explained here why laws against blood money are called Son of Sam laws in the US.

Attempts by murderers to persuade gullible publics by way of east access to tone-deaf publishers and TV is becoming an unwelcome phenomenon worldwide and maybe luring others into crime. 

Lawmakers worldwide are being prompted to set this right. There is currently no Son-of-Sam Law in the Canadian Province of British Columbia. Vancouver is the largest city in BC.

BC’s Robert Pickton Serial Killer Case

This is a Vancouver case now in the national Canadian news.

The transcription below is a jailhouse conversation between Robert Pickton, who stood accused of murder, and an undercover police officer.

[0:04] Pickton - They got me.  They got me on this one.

[0:07] Undercover - No.  No shit.

[0:18] Undercover - Fuck, what have they got? Fuck, there’s old carcasses.  So, what have they got, you know what I’m saying?

[0:26] Pickton - DNA

[0:28] Undercover - Fuck

[0:30] Pickton - Yeah

[0:32] Undercover - Come on buddy.  Fuck, that’s nothing.  They can’t finalize it though if you fucking got ... if you’ve fucking got a missing person.  It’s pretty hard to collect DNA on that

[0:44] Pickton - They got DNA

[0:45] Undercover - Fucking guy does it right.  I find the best way to dispose of something is fucking take it to the ocean

[0:56] Pickton - Oh really?

[0:58] Undercover - Oh, fuck, you know what the fucking ocean does to things?  There ain’t much left.

[1:14] Pickton - I did better than that.

[1:15] Undercover - Who?

[1:16] Pickton - Me

[1:17] Undercover - No. huh?

[1:34] Pickton - A rendering plant.

[1:36] Undercover - Hey?

[1:36] Pickton - A rendering plant.

[1:36] Undercover - Ha ha.  No shit.  That’s gotta be fucking pretty good, hey?

[1:44] Pickton - Mmm hmmm

[1:45] Undercover - There can’t be much fucking left?

[1:52] Pickton - Oh no, only I was kinda sloppy at the end, getting too sloppy.

Now, however, Pickton decides he doesn’t want to be just another inmate serving life.  He wants some fame, money and extra publicity as well.

Robert Picton’s Attempt At A Book

With this brazen act Robert Pickton joins the ranks of other sickos who commit murder and then cash in

    (1) O.J. Simpson was paid $600,000 for Pablo Fenjves and Dominick Dunn to write his book ‘’[If] I did it’‘.

    (2) Raffaele Sollecito was paid $950,000 for Andrew Gumbel to write his book ‘‘Honor Bound’’

    (3) Salvatore (Sammy) Gravano was paid $1.5 million for Peter Maas to write his book ‘‘Underboss’’

    (4) Amanda Knox was ostensibly paid $3.8 million (possible world record) for “Waiting to be Heard’‘

Pickton, who is serving 6 life sentences at the Kent Institution in British Columbia was apparently sending his work out piece by piece to Michael Chilldres out in California.  (Author’s Note: it is not clear if “Chilldres” is an alias).

Chilldres claims he only typed out the manuscript, and did not write it, and that it was being done for a friend.

The guards have long been aware of this, according to the Union.  But now that publishing is a reality, it is becoming clear that no effort was made to actually stop it.

    *** Side Note ***  Robert Pickton’s book, titled ‘‘Pickton: In his Own Words’’ was being sold by Barnes and Noble, who also helped Knox sell her (memoir) ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘.

    *** Side Note *** Pickton supposedly wrote his own manuscript, unlike creative writing graduate Knox.

    *** Side Note *** Pickton actually waited until his appeals were exhausted before writing a book (or having someone else do it).


A Partial Timeline

The numerous cruel murders took place more than a decade ago.

    December 2006: Jury selection takes place.

    December 2007: Pickton was convicted on 6 counts of 2nd degree murder (not 1st degree) and sentenced to 6 life sentences.

    February 2008: The B.C. Attorney General makes the controversial decision ‘‘not’’ to try Pickton for the additional 20 murders, if his current 6 convictions survive appeal

    June 2009: The BC Court of Appeals rejects 2-1 Pickton’s appeal for a new trial, saying the errors in jury instructions were not enough to overturn the conviction.

    July 2010: The Supreme Court of Canada rejects 9-0 Pickton’s appeal for a new trial.

    August 2010: BC confirms that to save time, money and hardship, the other 20 murder victims will not result in additional charges.

To clear up the confusion, the police and prosecutors actually had evidence that Pickton committed 26 murders, although he was suspected in many more. 

The Crown (Prosecution), chose to only prosecute the 6 strongest cases, leaving the other 20 in limbo.

The Crown argued that there wasn’t much of a difference between 6 life sentences and 26, and the time and expense had to be considered.

While this is true, it left a bad taste for the families of those victims.  Justice wasn’t being pursued literally because of convenience. 

Present State Of The Case

The Attorney General, Premier, and victims right’s groups are working to ensure not only that this book gets pulled, but that Pickton cannot profit from it. Some more:

Posted on 03/03/16 at 01:06 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Other legal processesThose elsewhereThe wider contextsN America context
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (4)

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)

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Italy Fights For Justice For A Murdered Student As The UK Government Never Did

Posted by Peter Quennell

Above: a minute’s silence in the Italian parliament for Giulio Regeni an Italian student found slain in Cairo a few days ago.

Hundreds of mourners have gathered in a village in northern Italy for the funeral of Giulio Regeni, a Cambridge PhD student found tortured and dead in a ditch on the outskirts of Cairo last week.

Flags were flying at half-mast in Fiumicello, where villagers offered spare rooms and couches for the 28-year-old’s friends and family, as the diplomatic fallout from his death continued in Rome.

The Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, warned Egypt that the health of the relationship between the two countries rested on the quality of the investigation into Regeni’s killing.

Compare with how the UK government reacted after Meredith died. Basically it looked the other way. Many in Italian justice were amazed at how totally disinterested the UK government was in the case in all the years since Meredith’s death.

The US government sprang into action to help Knox and to make sure she was treated right, though there was no proof the Italians would do anything but. They found her a Rome lawyer with good English (Carlos Dalla Vedova) and monitored all her court sessions and her four years in Capanne.

This came at a probable cost of over half a million dollars. And that is just the public support. Nobody ever said “the Federal budget cannot stand this”.

The extent of the British government in pushing justice for Meredith and her family? Exactly zero over the years.

Nothing was ever paid toward the legal costs or the very high travel costs of the Kercher family to be in court as the family finances ran into the ground. Nobody from the Foreign Office in London or the UK Embassy in Rome observed in court except in Florence, just the once.

Appalling pro-Knox Italy-bashing in the UK media based on highly inaccurate accounts was never tamped down - presumably because the Foreign Office was itself in the dark, and did not have a clue what was going on.

The ugly message this sent to the world?  If you are going to be a student in foreign trouble, be an American or Italian. Not a Brit.

However, years after four-year-old Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal, the UK government is spending heavily to right a possible wrong there.  Back in 2007 Meredith’s case and Madeleine’s case began just a few weeks apart.

Maybe to right a possible wrong in Italy, the UK government could do likewise here.


Posted on 02/14/16 at 12:13 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Justice systemsItalian systemOther systemsThose officially involvedVictims familyOther legal processesThose elsewhereThe wider contextsItalian contextEurope context
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (34)

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Prime Minister Renzi’s Proposed Reforms Might Have Received A Strange Nudge

Posted by Peter Quennell





So the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Italy sit in a museum in Rome and stare at… a horse.

You probably know by now that eight nude statues in a Rome museum, male and female, were boxed up on somebody’s orders when the President of Iran visited to discuss several multi-billion-dollar deals.

It was hard to see any relevance of the resultant fuss to our case at all, but the New York Times helps us out.

As a consequence of Boxgate, Italy has suffered ridicule. Nothing is worse than ridicule. Here it is merited. Not so much, I would argue, for Italy’s clumsy attempt at courtesy, for courtesy is important and has become an undervalued virtue. Reading the fall of the West into the concealment of a nude is going too far. Mistakes happen.

No, the ridicule is merited because the decision to hide the works of art was, it seems, made by nobody. In Rome, the buck stops nowhere.

The Capitoline Venus just boxed herself up one night because she was bored and took a few deities along with her.

The prime minister, Matteo Renzi, did not know. The foreign minister did not know. The culture minister called the decision “incomprehensible.” They were, they insist (perhaps too much), as surprised as anyone to find all those white cubes — none, incidentally, provided by the prestigious White Cube gallery in London.

One account has it that a woman named Ilva Sapora who works at Palazzo Chigi, where Renzi’s office is located, made the decision after visiting the Capitoline with Iranian Embassy officials. “Nonsense,” Jas Gawronski, a former Italian member of the European Parliament, told me. The notion that a midlevel Chigi official in charge of ceremonial matters could have made the decision does seem far-fetched. Gawronski believes it is more likely to have been officials at the Farnesina, home to the Foreign Ministry.

One thing can be safely said: Nobody will ever know. I was a correspondent in Rome for some years in the 1980s. Periodically there would be developments in terrorist cases — the Piazza Fontana bombing of 1969 or the Brescia bombing of 1974. Trials, verdicts, appeals followed one another. Facts grew murkier, not clearer. It would take decades to arrive at convictions that did not resolve doubts. Italy has never had much time for the notion that justice delayed is justice denied.

Renzi has wanted to break with this Italy of murky secrets, modernize it, bring stable government and install accountability.

So this incident in a blazing spotlight could even help to push the current reforms of the justice and governance systems along.

And the strongest reform proponents of all? To escape this hamster wheel, judges and prosecutors of Italy. 

Posted on 02/02/16 at 08:01 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Other legal processesItalian unrelatedThe wider contextsItalian context
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (0)

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)

Saturday, January 09, 2016

How A Major Media Controversy In The US Augurs Well For The Imminent Reframing Of The “Knox Case”

Posted by Peter Quennell


1. The Wisconsin Case Now In Dispute

1. The Netflix Report

In mid December a pay-per-view documentary about a murder case in Wisconsin was put online.

Millions of people in the US and elsewhere have paid up and watched the 10-hour Netflix report. Convinced that they are experts now on the whole case, hundreds of thousands of Americans have signed petitions to the President and the State Governor requesting that the convicted Steve Avery be released.

Some viewers have even taken to berating and threatening the investigators and the prosecution both online and in telephone messages and texts.

Their take seems to be of the investigators and the prosecution corruptly making many, many things up during the investigation and trial. Their supposed motive was to cover their tails in a previous case where Steve Avery was indeed wrongly convicted, for which they could now face court and loss of jobs.

Furthermore some reports claimed that a juror had said the jury felt intimidated and were never convinced of guilt.

2. Reaction Of US Media

A growing wave of reports and articles have been aired and published online in effect saying most of the hardest evidence was left out.

The lead prosecutor has been quoted as saying “90 percent of the evidence” against Avery and a relative convicted as an accomplice was not even mentioned in the report.

So a wave of fact-checking is going on.

Even though it is still early days here and here are Time Magazine. Here is the Los Angeles Times. Here is the New York Times. Here is On Milwaukee’s website. Here is the International Business Times.

Several TV documentaries contradicting the Netflix report are reportedly already in the works. See the reports here and here and also here.

And the juror has now denied that the jury was intimidated and did not do an honest job. So far, all the jurors seem to be standing by their verdict, in the face of a lot of heat.

Oh and on those petitions which Netflix stirred? President Obama’s spokesman has said it is not a Federal case so he will not intervene, and the Governor of Wisconsin has said he will not intervene either, as the state has good justice systems in place.

So they will ignore opinion that was deliberately muddled for commercial ends, and instead leave matters to the courts.

2. Parallels To Reporting Of The “Knox Case”

The parallels to the Perugia case are in fact immense.

The prosecution case in 2009 was extremely persuasive and the entire jury (panel of judges) voted for guilt. They sat through the very tough and convincing 1/4 of the trial that was held behind closed doors.

A majority of Italians still believe that Amanda Knox led a cruel pack attack on Meredith and (to Guede’s and Sollecito’s seeming considerable shock) landed the fatal stab in Meredith’s neck.  They watched Knox on the stand for two days, in fact doing herself great harm.

In contrast, almost the entire American media followed the Netflix route.

Main media have struggled to report the trial for language and local-staff reasons, and the Associated Press carried by 2000 media outlets actively misled. Main media presented almost no reporting of the very painstaking judicial checking by ten judges that preceded the case ever going to court.

Main media have still not translated not even one major document (the Wiki and two PMFs and TJMK have translated hundreds of documents now and are still not done) and have left hundreds of evidence points unaddressed.

Main media have also misreported the overturning of the Hellmann outcome and the Nencini appeal. They have especially misrepresented the supposed complete Marasca-Bruno reversal for the Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court.

As lawyers for Dr Mignini and three of our main posters (James Raper, Machiavelli and Catnip) have shown, in fact the Fifth Chambers (a) should not even have had the case; (b) broke two laws, (c) misinterpreted a few elements of the evidence, (d) left literally hundreds of evidence points out, (e) went against strongly established Italian legal precedents, and (f) even ridiculed plain hard science.

And even so, they still placed Knox right at the scene of the attack at the time, and Sollecito probably so. Accessories before or after the crime. Felons in their view in fact.

So here’s a prediction on what Americans will see in the media soon on this case.

The widespread media reaction against Netflix will be reflected in a major correction in the main media against the serious under-reporting and misreporting of the Perugia case.

We have some idea of what is already in the works. Stay tuned.

 

Posted on 01/09/16 at 01:52 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Reporting, media, moviesMedia newsOther legal processesThose elsewhereThe wider contextsN America context
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (24)

Thursday, January 07, 2016

A Stretch Inside Not Only Protects Society: For Perps It May Be Best Shot At Coming Right

Posted by Peter Quennell

Video 1: Very good analysis by psychologist Dr Drew Pinsky on Tuesday 5 January 2016


As we posted Ethan Couch killed four and maimed a fifth for life while drunk-driving in Texas two years ago.

He is now in a Mexico City lockup for illegal immigrants seeking to avoid extradition to the US where he has violated his highly controversial probation. Many or most think this was a travesty for the families of the victims. The judge retired early. Justice was not seen to be done.

Now he is reported to have run up a $1000 tab at a Mexican strip club which his mother paid. That $1000 apparently went in part toward drinks. He had skipped out of the US mid-December because he was videoed at a party with drinks.

Sources say Ethan Couch and his mother Tonya went to a strip club called Harem in Puerto Vallarta on the night of Dec. 23. According to club employees, the pair had drinks before Tonya Couch left the club. Ethan stayed at the club and employees told ABC News that he went off to a VIP room with two women who worked at Harem. Hotel and club employees said Couch was extremely drunk.

Few if any other criminal psychologists ever came out in support of Couch’s defense’s psychologist who convinced the judge two years ago that the affluence of the family was somehow a primary cause.

In the past few days there have been various psychology panels on cable TV discussing the case. Articles too.

From them Ethan Couch did not exactly get a lot of love. A term inside to remove him from his family and choke off his dependencies is what the psychologists incline towards, as Dr Drew in the top video highly recommends.

Video 2: Dr Drew two years ago (this video was previously at the top)

Posted on 01/07/16 at 08:12 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Justice systemsItalian systemOther systemsCrime hypothesesThe psychologyHoaxes KnoxNasty-prison hoaxOther legal processesThose elsewhere
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (12)

Friday, December 18, 2015

Knox Calunnia Trial #2: Judge Receives Arguments Of Prosecution And Knox; Verdict In New Year

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Court in session 7 September in Florence with Knox a no-show

1. Latest Development

We are informed that the final arguments to the judge by both sides have been submitted in writing.

We will summarise and/or fully translate them, hopefully next week. Next step is the verdict from Judge Boninsegna, which may come early in the New Year.

Below is a reposting of the background to this unusual case, and Machiavelli’s reports from the court on 7 September.

Such trials are very rare. Usually it is only organized crime figures that in the course of a trial impugn police and prosecutors who in Italy are much respected. Defendants rarely even get on the stand, and if they do so, they invariably follow the advice of defence counsel to not dig themselves in any deeper. 

In contrast, Knox pretty well went haywire. NOBODY in Italy has ever believed her. Not her own lawyers, nor multiple hearings & trial judges, or the skeptical media, or the watching population, or Hellmann & Zanetti, or even Marasca & Bruno…  Not even Curt Knox! He failed to turn up to give scheduled defense testimony that could have helped Amanda Knox last September.

Gee, thanks, Curt….

And she has left her own lawyers handicapped, as they had publicly counseled Knox to stop escalating her claims about illegal coercion at her “interrogation” on 5-6 November 2007.

Their filing probably needs to be especially careful to avoid their own liability. 

2. Background To Calunnia Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Machiavelli Reports From Trial 7 September

1. Tweets from the Florence court:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Emailed report following day (8 September):

No Knox calunnia session required today as last Friday and yesterday both sides completed their witness list.

Amanda Knox and Curt Knox chose not to testify.

Now Judge Boninsegna has ordered each side to prepare their arguments within three months (7 December).

The verdict is likely to arrive in the New Year.

 


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)

      Friday, September 18, 2015

      Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #7

      Posted by Chimera



      The Dark Force: evil for evil’s sake? This is a long post, click here to go straight to Comments.

      1. Overview Of This Post

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

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

      I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207. Post #5 dissected pages 207 to 243.  Post #6 dissected pages 243 to 291.

      2. Dissection Of Pages 291 to 327.

      [Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... Some evidence, including my 5:45 A.M. “confession,” when I confusedly described Patrick as the murderer, wasn’t allowed to be introduced in the criminal case. At that moment I had already officially became a suspect and had a right to a lawyer. The same evidence could be, and was, discussed in front of the jury in the civil cases….’‘

      • It was not a confession.  You claimed to witness Patrick, and it was a false accusation.  Big difference.

      • You weren’t confused.  You were stressed that Raffaele took your alibi, and this accusation was your ‘‘solution’‘.

      • Your 1:45am statement was also thrown out, but you neglected to list that.

      • Your line about becoming a suspect is the correct reasoning (for once).  However, it is undermined by your claims that you were mistreated.  You were not abused, and the only reason the first 2 statements were suppressed was because your status changed from ‘‘witness’’ to ‘‘suspect’‘.

      [Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... The way the Italian justice system works is that during deliberations, each of the judges and jurors gets to say what he or she believes the sentence should be—from nothing to life imprisonment. Unlike in the United States, where the decision has to be unanimous, what’s required in Italy is a majority consensus—the maximum sentence supported by at least five jurors….’‘

      • You say this in an insulting way.  A 5 juror minimum is still a significant burden to meet.

      [Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... It took hearing only a few sentences for me to know that the interpreter was giving me the condensed version. The one plus to prison was that my Italian had improved so much that I could think in the language. I decided not to use her anymore. My lawyers could explain what I didn’t understand….’‘

      • This is touching, but you spoke Italian quite well before ever being arrested.

      • Now you are getting cocky, and saying you think in the language?

      • You didn’t use her anymore?  There was an interpreter when you testified.  She was in the photo ‘YOU’ provided (page 200)

      • Your lawyers could explain what you didn’t understand?  Like the prosecution having a strong case?

      [Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... The first thing discussed was the motive. The prosecution’s simple story was absolutely false, but it apparently rang true for the authorities. They added flourishes in the course of the trial—Meredith was smarter, prettier, more popular, neater, and less into drugs and sex than I was. For some of or all these reasons, she was a better person, and I, unable to compete, had hated her for it. I had cut her throat in rage and revenge. It was idiotic….’‘

      • Meredith wasn’t into drugs at all.  You are lying on this point.

      • Less into sex than you?  Well, Meredith didn’t seem to need to write and talk about it all the time.

      • People have killed out of jealousy before.

      • Their theories are not idiotic, but it was idiotic to kill her in the first place.

      [Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... Mignini relied heavily on the testimony of Meredith’s British girlfriends. Robyn Butterworth testified that my unconventional behavior had made Meredith uneasy. The others agreed—they said I brought male friends over, didn’t know to use the toilet brush, and was too out in the open about sex. Small details built up to become towering walls that my defense team couldn’t scale. I was done in by a prank gift and my unfamiliarity with Italian plumbing….’‘

      • You are being disingenuous here. These issues may have been brought up, but they are not what convicted you.  There is plenty of actual evidence.

      [Chapter 25, Page 293] ‘’ ... My frustration doubled when Robyn talked about the bunny vibrator. I had to clarify this. When Brett gave it to me, TV shows like Friends and Sex and the City were an American obsession, with characters using vibrators as gags. The prosecution put the emphasis on sex—and me. The vibrator was proof that I was sex-obsessed—and proof that my behavior had bothered Meredith….’‘

      • You frustration doubled?  Being wrongly accused isn’t too bad, but misrepresenting the situation with your vibrator is?

      • The prosecutor’s emphasis is on sex?  Did you read chapters 2, 3, 4 of your own book? 

      • Did you write about your strip search, and include questions about Meredith liking anal in your emails?

      • The vibrator isn’t proof you are sex-obsessed, but this book might be.

      [Chapter 25, Page 294] ‘’ ... I stood. “Good morning, Judge,” I began. I was suddenly burning up, even on that cold February day. “I want to briefly clarify this question of the beauty case that should still be in my bathroom. This vibrator exists. It was a joke, a gift from a girlfriend before I arrived in Italy. It’s a little pink bunny about this long . . .”

      I held up my thumb and index finger to demonstrate.

      “About this long?” Judge Giancarlo Massei said, holding up two fingers to clarify.

      “Yes,” I said, turning red with embarrassment.

      “Ten centimeters [four inches],” he said for the court record.

      “I also want to say that I’m innocent, and I trust that everything will come out, that everything will work out. Thank you.”

      I remember thinking while I was speaking, Oh my God, I hope I don’t sound as stupid as I think I do. I sat down fast….’‘

      • Funny, I can actually picture Knox saying something like this.

      • The vibrator’s a joke.  Hope it all works out?  Okay ....

      [Chapter 25, Page 295] ‘’ ... It did seem I’d won a small victory when Mignini questioned my former housemate Filomena. She insisted that Meredith and I got along fine and hadn’t had a falling-out —only that we’d “developed different personal interests.” She didn’t make a big deal over the friends I brought home…. Other parts of Filomena’s testimony irked me. When Mignini asked how we divided up chores in the villa, she said that we took turns. “Turns were not always respected,” she added….’‘

      • So, you are okay with Filomena implying you are a slut, but offended when she says you neglected your housework?

      [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.”

      • Knox is trying to minimize her own drugs problems and smearing others in the process.

      [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.”

      • Your behaviour WAS out of step with the others.  Meredith was on a serious student exchange, and Laura and Filomena were working in their careers.  You just wanted to sleep around and do drugs.

      [Chapter 25, Page 297] ‘’ ... Then the prosecutor mentioned the hickey Raffaele had given me when we were fooling around the night of November 1. “Did you see if Amanda had an injury, a scratch, some wound?” he asked her. “I noticed that Amanda had a wound on her neck when we were in the questura,” Laura answered, “precisely because Meredith had been killed with a cut to her neck. I was afraid that Amanda, too, might have been wounded.”

      • Photos of the ‘‘hickey’’ are widely available, and it doesn’t look like a hickey—AT ALL.

      [Chapter 25, Page 297] ‘’ ... I liked Laura and had looked up to her. She’d lent me her guitar and thought it was cool that I practiced yoga. There was only one reason why she would turn a love bite into a sign of my involvement in the murder. My stomach plunged to my knees. I can’t believe Laura, of all people, thinks I’m guilty…’‘

      • Lending you her guitar and practicing yoga doesn’t make someone blind to what is staring them in the face.

      • You looked up to Laura?  Perhaps if you were a better person, she would look up to you as well.

      • Again, it was not a hickey.  It doesn’t not look like a hickey at all.

      [Chapter 25, Page 298] ‘’ ... Still, I wished I’d pushed my lawyers to let me speak more often. Luciano and Carlo’s intentions were good, but I believe they underestimated the power of my voice and the damaging effect of my silence. Even with my clumsy efforts to defend myself—and with other people describing me as the girl with a vibrator, a slob, a girl with a “scratch” on her neck—what did the most damage in those early weeks was a simple T-shirt, and that was my own fault…’‘

      • When are we going to hear the good stuff, like false alibis, and bloody footprints, or the double DNA knife?

      • You have that all wrong.  Your lawyers (and Patrick) understand full well the power, and damage caused by your voice.  If only you had kept silent.

      • Clumsy efforts to defend yourself?  Like writing accusatory statements that could easily be disproved?

      • The Beatles T-Shirt is not what did the most damage.  You are trying to deflect the hard evidence.

      [Chapter 25, Page 298] ‘’ ... I’m glad I didn’t wear a cross, but in hindsight I do wish someone had told me that my clothes should reflect the seriousness of the setting and my situation—that they were another way to convey my respect to the court. So when I wore the “All You Need Is Love” T-shirt, the press dwelled on what I meant by it. Is Amanda trying to say all she needs is love from the jury? One British newspaper headlined its story about that day’s hearing, “Obnoxious: Murder Trial Girl’s Love-Slogan T-Shirt. “Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality,” the article said….’‘

      • You really didn’t know that clothes reflect the seriousness of the setting and situation?  Wow.

      • Attention grabbing + Nonchalance = Psychopath?  Maybe.

      [Chapter 25, Page 299] ‘’ ... The press wrote that I had to be the center of attention. In reality, prison had taught me I was nothing. Nothing revolved around me. Nothing I said mattered. I had no power. I was just occupying space. I wanted to disappear. I didn’t want to be me anymore….’‘

      • Well, you definitely want to be the center of this book.

      • Nothing revolves around you?  You mean it revolved around that young woman who got her f***ing throat cut?

      • You didn’t want to be you anymore?  As in, facing a possible life sentence?

      [Chapter 25, Page 303] ‘’ ... I expected the prosecution to call police officers who’d been at the villa and those who were in the interrogation room, but initially I didn’t recognize Officer Monica Napoleoni. I’d never seen her dressed to suit her title—head of the Division for Homicide Investigation. Usually she wore skin-tight jeans, form-fitting shirts, and flashy sunglasses. Wearing a dark blue jacket adorned with medals the size of silver dollars, she now looked so unlike herself that it seemed she was playing dress-up to convince people of her authority. 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.”

      • Impress the judges with her professionalism?  Do I detect some jealousy here?  Please don’t kill her.

      • Lying without a second’s hesitation?  You are accusing her of perjury?  You already falsely accused Patrick of murder, falsely accused Rita Ficarra of assault…. your track record is not encouraging.  Be careful, you have enough calunnia charges already.

      [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.”

      • Funny, even with the best lawyers, you were never able to prove or even demonstrate contamination.

      [Chapter 25, Page 305] ‘’ ... I knew it was the police’s job to analyze the scene of a crime, gather clues, and determine who did it. But here in Perugia the police and the prosecutor seemed to be coming at Meredith’s murder from the opposite direction. The investigation was sospettocentrico—“suspect-oriented”: they decided almost instantly that Raffaele and I were guilty and then made the clues fit their theory. Instead of impartiality, the prosecution’s forensic experts were relentless in their drive to incriminate us. Their campaign was astonishing for its brashness and its singleness of purpose….’‘

      • This is contradicted in your own book. Chapter 7, you write that EVERYONE from your house was detained until 3am: Yourself, Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, Marco, and the other 2 men downstairs.  They did not focus on you.

      • You were not even supposed to be at the police station.  Raffaele was called to come —alone—to clear up inconsistencies with his alibi.  You say, in this book, you had to beg them to let you into the police station, as you were afraid.

      • Their ‘‘drive’’ is to find out the truth, and to let the forensic clues lead them to it.

      [Chapter 25, Page 305] ‘’ ... Napoleoni added that, later, at the questura, we “were absolutely indifferent to everyone. They sprawled in the waiting room, sprawled on the seats, kissed each other, made faces at each other the entire time . . . They talked to each other under their breath. I noted their behavior because it seemed impossible that these two kids thought to kiss each other when the body of their friend had been found in those conditions.” My housemates and their friends reacted more appropriately, Napoleoni said. They “were all crying,” she told the court. “Some despaired.” To Napoleoni, Raffaele and I were self-centered narcissists. We lacked basic compassion. And we were liars through and through….’‘

      • Meredith’s British friends, and the other housemates, including Giacomo, all corroborated this.  Were they all lying?

      • You are a liar through and through .... ironically, a very true statement.

      [Chapter 25, Page 306] ‘’ ... I was surprised but didn’t doubt her. Realizing that someone had broken in, I’d been afraid when I went back in the villa with Raffaele. I looked at the toilet from a distance and, not seeing anything in the bowl, assumed someone had flushed it. Clearly, I was wrong. Apparently the feces had slid down farther into the bowl. But Napoleoni acted as if, in discovering the unflushed toilet, she’d caught us in a lie and that we’d ineptly scrambled to come up with a cover…’‘

      • A cover?  As in why not just flush day old poop?

      [Chapter 25, Page 306] ‘’ ... Napoleoni went on, twisting each aspect of the case. “I immediately noted that the house couldn’t have been broken into from the outside. It seemed to have been done after the room was made a mess. I immediately noted that there was glass on the windowsill, and if a stone came from the outside, the glass should have fallen below.” She also said that when the Postal Police came to the villa with the phones Meredith had been using, “they asked Amanda if it was normal that Meredith locked her door. Amanda said Meredith always locked her door, even when taking a shower.”

      • Yes, the police saw signs the break in had been staged.

      • That is what you told the police.  The ‘‘clarifications’’ you try to add later in this book are deceptive.

      [Chapter 25, Page 307] ‘’ ... The homicide chief added that by checking telephone activity tables, the police discovered that both my cell phone and Raffaele’s had been inactive the night before Meredith was found. “Amanda from 8:35 P.M. and Sollecito from 8:42 P.M.” That fact meant nothing, but Napoleoni presented it as if, in turning off our phones, we had had an ulterior motive. That we’d wanted to watch a movie without being interrupted did not come up. “We looked for contradictions,” Napoleoni told the court, “and the contradictions always came from Amanda and Raffaele, because the account they gave us was too strange. It was improbable.”

      • Knox says this in a defiant way, but police did wonder why the phones were turned off, as they never had been before.

      • When the police have suspects, they do look for contradictions, and improbabilities.  It is called ‘‘DOING THEIR JOBS’‘.

      [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.”

      • Ficarra can say things straight faced.  Amanda, are you jealous you can’t lie like that?

      • We don’t believe that she was ruthless and grilled you for hours .... because it never happened

      • Yes, falsely accusing an innocent person is a bit weird.

      [Chapter 25, Page 309] ‘’ ... She told the jury that when she had returned to the questura at around 11 P.M., she and her colleague came through the door and into the hall. “I found Amanda . . . My astonishment was that I found her demonstrating her gymnastic abilities. She did a cartwheel, a bridge, she did splits,” Ficarra said. “It honestly seemed out of place to me.”

      • On her May 1, 2013 interview with Diane Sawyer, Knox clarified that she only did the splits.

      [Chapter 25, Page 309] ‘’ ... The longer Ficarra testified, the more she made it seem that the pressure the police exerted on me to confess was all in my head, that I’d blown the interrogation out of proportion. “In the end it was a calm dialogue, because I tried to make her understand that our intent was to seek collaboration,” she said…’‘

      • They weren’t pressuring you to confess.  Since you insisted on being there, they asked if you could think of anyone else who might have visited the house.  You made a list of 7 men (including Patrick, Rudy, Spyros and Juve), and drew maps.  However, this ‘‘list’’ is not mentioned in your book

      [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….’

      • You did speak Italian, even in 2007.  Read the December 2007 transcript with Mignini.  You understood most of his questions.

      [Chapter 25, Page 310] ‘’ ... The gossip at Capanne was that Guede had found God in prison, and when he walked to the witness stand, looking less cocky and more disheveled than during the pretrial, my hope surged. Maybe he’d been seized by his conscience. I imagined that he’d face Raffaele and me and say straight out that neither of us had participated in the murder. But after Guede was sworn in, he uttered just six words: “Riservo il diritto di non rispondere”—“I reserve the right not to respond.”

      Then he stepped down. He didn’t look at me or anyone else as he was led through the double metal doors in the back of the courtroom, flanked by guards just as Raffaele and I always were. He wore an expression of blank indifference.  Guede knew his silence could cost us our freedom. But there was no way to make him tell the truth. People have the right not to incriminate themselves—and in protecting himself, he helped to damn us…’‘

      • You only testified in the 2009 trial because the scope of questioning was limited.

      • You refused to testify at the 2011 Hellmann appeal

      • You refused to even attend the 2013/2014 Nencini appeal

      • You refused to even attend the 2015 Cassation appeal

      • Sollecito refused to testify at the 2009 Massei trial

      • Sollecito refused to testify at the 2011 Hellmann appeal

      • Sollecito refused to testify at the 2013/2014 Nencini appeal

      • Yet, it is Guede’s silence that damned you?

      [Chapter 26, Page 313] ‘’ .... After I was accused of murder, people read new meaning into everything about me. A hickey on my neck became a scratch from Meredith in her last, desperate moments. An awkward encounter about a dirty toilet became a murder motive. Male friends I brought home became mysterious lovers of questionable character. Rudy Guede’s aside to the guys downstairs about my being cute became proof that he would do anything to earn my attention and approval….’‘

      • Turn these things around, and they do explain your PR attempts somewhat.

      • A scratch, a wound from Meredith was explained away as a ‘‘hickey’‘.

      • A motive for wanting to kill Meredith, could be explained away as a ‘‘dirty toilet encounter’‘.

      • Lovers of questionable character, could be explained away as ‘‘just friends’‘.

      • A jealous male wanting your attention and approval, could be explained as ‘‘just thinking that you’re cute’‘.

      • Okay what did Sollecito use to give you that hickey?  His mouth?  Fingernails?  Knife?

      • So who were these ‘’ male friends’’ if they weren’t lovers?  What were you doing?  Do you even know their names?

      • Disingenuous on the dirty toilet, the toilet was just one thing in many of you being messy?

      • Guede thought you were cute.  Did you know this ‘‘before’’ Meredith’s murder?

      [Chapter 26, Page 314] ‘’ ... It wasn’t necessary for any of these people to be right. It was enough for them to raise doubts, to make it seem that I was lying. They had to be only marginally convincing…’‘

      • So, are you accusing the prosecution of suborning perjury?

      • If there is no evidence, as you repeatedly claim, what exactly were they all testifying about?

      [Chapter 26, Page 314] ‘’ ... Marco Quintavalle, a storekeeper who lived near Raffaele’s apartment, told the court that he saw a girl waiting for the shop to open at a quarter to eight on the morning of Friday, November 2. “She had a hat and scarf obscuring much of her face but what struck me was how pale she looked and the color of her blue eyes . . . she went to the section at the back of the supermarket on the left, where there are the cleaning products. I can’t remember if she bought anything.”

      • You imply that Quintavalle is lying.  Any thoughts as to why that may be?

      • His description is quite detailed, but then again, your ‘‘interrogation with Mignini’’ November 6th, was quite detailed too.

      • Silly question, you didn’t just shoplift some bleach, did you?

      [Chapter 26, Page 314]  But when he saw my picture in the paper a few days later, his memory was precise. “I recognized her as the same girl,” he said. When asked if the girl was in the courtroom, Quintavalle pointed at me. “It’s her,” he said. “I’m sure of it.” I’d gone to the little store once to pick up milk and cereal. Once. I’d never been in the back, where the cleaning products are apparently shelved.

      • You have such a poor memory about the time of Meredith’s murder, yet you are absolutely certain you only went there once—for cereal?

      •  
      • And you are absolutely certain that you only went to ‘‘certain parts’’ of the store?

      • Little store?  Is this an insult, or were you there enough to remember what it looks like.

      • Apparently stored? A pretty weak denial.

      [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.

      • That is not true at all, it was not a journalist friend that urged him to get involved?

      • Stories like this infuriated family and friends?  How?  Do any of them speak Italian?  Although present in court, could your family understand what was said?

      • Strangers would think you were lying?  Your own lawyers thought you were lying about being hit by police.

      • If people might think you are lying, was that the reason to hire a PR firm?  To set things straight?

      [Chapter 26, Page 315] ‘’ ... Nara Capezzali was a widow in her late sixties who lived in an apartment building behind the parking lot across the street from our villa. She testified that she heard a scream between 11 and 11:30 P.M. “It made my skin crawl, to be honest,” she said. She was certain of the time because she took a nightly diuretic and always woke up around 11 P.M. to use the bathroom…’‘

      • Interesting that you try to discredit her, but you and Guede (2 co-accused) had both confirmed Meredith screaming.

      • In your own (false accusation) statements, you include this detail about Meredith screaming.  Oops.

      [Chapter 26, Page 315]  Before falling back asleep, she said she heard footsteps running up the metal stairs by the parking lot. “At almost the same moment,” she heard the crunching of feet on gravel and leaves coming from the direction of our driveway. Never mind that our driveway wasn’t gravel; it was mostly dirt. Meredith’s room was on the back of our house, as far as possible from Capezzali’s. The defense doubted that anyone could have heard these noises across a busy road and behind closed windows with double panes. But the prosecution clung to Capezzali’s account, which was a linchpin used to approximate Meredith’s time of death.

      • Yes, because after hearing a ‘‘skin-crawling’’ scream, most people would just head off to bed.

      • You say Meredith’s room was ‘‘at the back, as far as possible from Capezzali’s’‘.  Yet, you also say that she was ‘‘across the road’‘, so your qualifier doesn’t do much to discredit her.

      • Really?  The road was busy at 11PM on a holiday?  Interesting.

      • Of course the ‘‘defense doubted’‘.  It is their job to doubt things.

      • The scream was ‘‘the linchpin’‘?  I guess hearing screams that ‘‘make your skin crawl’’ are common there.

      [Chapter 26, Page 316] ‘’ ... One of the few points on which the prosecution and defense agreed was that the police had made an inexcusable blunder shortly after the body was found. They prevented the coroner from taking Meredith’s temperature for hours, squandering the best chance to gauge her time of death. The second option—analyzing the contents of Meredith’s stomach—was far less reliable. The third—Capezzali’s memory—wasn’t reliable at all…’‘

        • The prosecution agreed that there was a blunder made?  Show us a transcript that says that.

        • Body temperature can give a rough estimate of T.O.D., based on the ‘‘1 degree an hour’’ guideline. Meredith had been dead at least 14 hours at that point.  Even if the police had waited a few hours more, they still could have gotten an approximate T.O.D.  Body temperature (of living people) has a very small range, and you can still work backwards to get it.

        • Stomach contents, and analysing digestion, can give an estimate on how long since a person last ate until death.  A guideline, once again.

        • Stomach content analysing is far less reliable?  It is used in the U.S. as well.  However, in the next page you say that it is far more reliable than the scream Nara heard.

        • No medical examiner with any integrity, would ever give an exact T.O.D., but rather a range, or an estimate.  Scientists are not supposed to make claims they do not know for certain.

        • Capezzali’s memory is not reliable? Read any of your own statements or emails?

        • So, she frequently hears screams that make her skin crawl and forgot the date?  Or she could not have heard a scream from across the street that you and Guede both confirm happened? 

        • And, did Capezzali testify to ‘‘things her mind made up?’’  Wait, you yourself make exactly those types of claims.

        [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….’‘

        • So you say that stomach digestion should have been the determining factor, even though you acknowledge that body temperature was taken, and you yourself say it is reliable.

        • You say that stomach digestion should be used, but it the last page you say it is far less reliable that body temperature.

        • They weren’t hanging Meredith’s T.O.D. on Nara’s bathroom habits, but on when she heard Meredith scream

        • So you are able to keep up with a medical examiner’s testimony (in Italian)?  Impressive.

        • You think you know more than the actual professionals?  Okay….

        [Chapter 26, Page 317] ‘’ ... The problem: Meredith’s body wasn’t discovered until after 1 P.M. on November 2.  When Mignini asked Capezzali if she might have heard the scream on Halloween and not on November 1, she snapped, “I don’t remember these things, these hours, these things. I don’t remember them anymore.”

        I was sure there was no way the jury would put their faith in someone who said she didn’t remember….’‘

        • Not true.  She was sure when she heard the scream.

        • Put their faith in someone who doesn’t remember?  Like someone whose mind makes things up?  Hypocrite.

        [Chapter 26, Page 318] ‘’ ... The basketball court was made to order for the prosecution. The most direct walk from Raffaele’s apartment to my villa was through Piazza Grimana. It was also the place where Rudy Guede was known to play pick-up games and hang out. It was where I’d once tried to shoot hoops with the guys from downstairs and ended up watching from the sidelines. I hadn’t argued with anyone there, and I’d never been back, but what if the jury bought this guy’s story?  And why was the prosecution bringing it up? If the story was true, we would have had an alibi. If Curatolo had seen us in the piazza that early, we couldn’t have committed the murder between 9:30 P.M. and 10 P.M., when the defense believed Meredith died. And if he’d seen us as late as midnight, we couldn’t have made Meredith scream at 11:30 P.M., as Nara Capezzali had reported. His account undermined the prosecution’s theory….’‘

        • You tried shooting hoops at the piazza before?  Another time you met Rudy?  You say he was known to play there.

        • The most direct route between your route and your boyfriend’s, but you’d only been through once?

        • You are being disingenuous.  There was not an ‘‘exact’’ T.O.D., but rather the range of a few hours.  Whether Curatolo saw you before or after the murder does not give you an alibi.

        [Chapter 26, Page 320] ‘’ ... I dreaded Patrick Lumumba’s testimony for his civil trial. It still gnawed at me that I’d never apologized to him. I was sure the man I’d wrongly named would rail against me.  He had told the media that he would never forgive me, he’d lied about firing me, and he had called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.” His lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, had called me “Luciferina” and said I had “an angel’s face with a demon’s soul.”

        • It gnawed on you that you never apologized?  Did it ever gnaw on you for doing it in the first place?

        [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.”

        [Chapter 26, Page 321] ‘’ ... Raffaele didn’t testify. That may have been the right choice for him. Most of the media attention had landed on me—Raffaele was seen as someone who had gone along with his evil girlfriend…’‘

        • Really, Raffaele is ‘‘falsely’’ accused of a gruesome sex killing, and he doesn’t want to clear things up?

        • He doesn’t want to at the Hellmann appeal either?

        • Or at the Nencini appeal?

        [Chapter 26, Page 322] ‘’ ... In testifying, I wanted to make a point: You guys make me sound like I was crazy that I found three droplets of blood in the bathroom sink and didn’t call the police immediately. But I was a twenty-year-old who handled the situation the same way a lot of inexperienced people would have. It’s easy to look back and criticize my response, but when I went home that day I didn’t know there had been a break-in or a murder. To me, it was a regular day. Yes. The door was open. But I’d known since I moved in that the lock was broken. Maybe it was a cause for concern, but I just figured one of my roommates was taking out the trash or had run to the corner store. I was focused on getting ready for our romantic weekend in Gubbio. My thoughts were mundane. I’ll grab a shower. I’ll pack. I’ll get back to Raffaele’s, and we’ll go…’‘

        • Where to begin with this one?  You found ‘‘smears’’ in the sink, not droplets.

        • You also found ‘‘an orange shaped lump’’ of blood on the bathmat.

        • You then do the bathmat shuffle to your room.

        • Open door?  Totally normal.

        • Right, and that rank smelling toilet you still never flushed.

        • You are going for a trip to Gubbio, but you never do pack, and just forget about it.

        • Inexperienced people ... in what context?  First time killers?

        [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…’‘

        • You are facing civil and criminal charges for calunnia (making false accusations), and you are annoyed about being asked it directly?

        • The interpreter hired to translate your English into Italian?  Wait, you said you didn’t have an interpreter. (Photo on page 200).

        • Useless woman?  Was she not good at spinning your B.S. the way you wanted her to?

        • Why not answer in Italian?  You said your language improved so much ...

        • Even in English, you are not clear and precise.

        [Chapter 26, 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?’ ”

        • Pacelli didn’t insinuate you came up with Patrick’s name on your own.  The police all said you did

        • You didn’t understand that a simple, common expression from English means something different in Italian?  Some language student.

        [Chapter 26, Page 324] ‘’ ... I’d purposely tried to forget the emotional pain of the slap to my head. Other memories had become muddled by time. For instance, I remembered calling my mom only once after Meredith’s body was found, but cell phone records indicated that I’d made three calls while Raffaele and I were standing in my driveway….’‘

        • You have spent the better part of 2 years preparing for this, but your memories are muddled by time?

        • Aren’t you harshly critical of Capezzali and Quintavalle for having ‘‘muddled memories’‘?

        • The phone records contradict your account.  Which is more reliable?

        [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….’‘

        • Again, you were not hit, not even once.  You still have outstanding calunnia charges for this.

        • Tea, coffee, pastries?  So much for being starved.

        • You made these declarations freely, and then were hungry afterwards.

        • You made these declarations .... and corroborated the ‘‘scream’’ detail.

        [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.”

        • You were advised of your right to a lawyer, after you admitted witnessing a crime you didn’t report.

        • You had previously collaborated, drawing up maps of ‘‘other suspects’‘, to divert attention.

        [Chapter 26, Page 326] ‘’ ... When Mignini told me I still hadn’t proved that the police had suggested Patrick’s name, my lawyers jumped up. The exchange was so heated that Judge Massei asked if I wanted to stop….’‘

        • Silly Mignini, mentioning that you have no evidence to back up your accusations.

        [Chapter 26, Page 327] ‘’ ... Carlo said, “Amanda, you nailed it. You came across as a nice, intelligent, sincere girl. You left a good impression.” I took this to mean that I didn’t come across as “Foxy Knoxy.”  For a while during the trial, the guards would let my parents say hello and good-bye to me in the stairwell just before I left the courthouse for the day. My mom, my dad, Deanna, Aunt Christina, and Uncle Kevin were waiting for me there that day. They hugged me tightly. “We’re so proud of you,” they said. I hadn’t felt this good since before Meredith was murdered. After another few days in court, the judge called a two-month summer break.

        Posted on 09/18/15 at 06:11 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 teamOther legal processesKnox followupNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (30)

        Sunday, September 13, 2015

        Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #6

        Posted by Chimera



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

        1. Overview Of This Post

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

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

        I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207 and Post #6 dissected pages 243 to 289.

        2. Dissection Of Pages 243 to 291.

        [Chapter 21, Page 244] ‘’ ... At twenty, I still had a childlike view of people. I looked for the saving graces in everyone. I thought people were naturally empathetic, that they felt ashamed and guilty when they mistreated someone else. That faith in humanity was being picked away, but I held to the belief that people were basically good. And that good people would believe me and set me free….’‘

        • You look for the saving graces in everyone, yet you assume everyone thinks you are a monster?

        • People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T tell someone that their friend had ‘‘their throat fucking slit’‘?

        • People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T say that ‘‘shit happens’’ regarding a murdered friend’?

        • People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T claim someone is a friend, then that you want to get on with your life?

        • Why would being good have anything to do as to whether you are believed or not?  Murder cases hinge on evidence, not feelings.


        [Chapter 21, Page 244] ‘’ ... Part of the growing up I did in prison was learning that people are complicated, and that some will do something wrong to achieve what they think is right. Since my second interrogation with Mignini, I knew the prosecution was intent on undermining my alibi. Over the coming weeks and months, I would learn just how far they would go to try to prove me guilty….’‘

        • Some will do something wrong to achieve what they think is right?  So, falsely accusing PL, because getting away was right?

        • Which alibi was Mignini intent on undermining? The one that Raffaele refused, the party that he made up, or the one that he was alone on his computer while you went out?  Or was it your alibi (statements), that you were a witness to PL killing Meredith?  Or the one where you and Raffy were at his apartment?

        • 2nd interrogation?  It was his first ‘‘interrogation’‘.  To recap:

        • Mignini was not present at your 1:45 statement.  Chapter 10 in your book is 100% fiction.

        • Mignini was present (he was called from home), at your 5:45 statement, but asked you no questions.

        • You seem to remember your number of interrogations the way you remember how many times you met Guede

        • How far Mignini would go?  You mean, present your lies, false statements, phone records, DNA evidence .... that is what prosecutors DO.  There are these things (both in Italy and in America), called TRIALS.  You will learn more.


        [Chapter 21, Page 245] ‘’ ... The prints couldn’t have been made by Raffaele’s newer Nike Air Force 1s, he said. “They had just seven concentric circles.” By show’s end he had removed the possibility that Raffaele had been at the murder scene and put another strike against Guede. Raffaele’s family must have felt euphoric….’‘

        • Well, the shoes might not implicate Raffy, but those bare feet, and that ‘‘hammer toe’’ will

        • Euphoric, at another strike against Guede?  Hmmm…. were you trying to frame him or something?


        [Chapter 21, Page 245] ‘’ ... I knew this “evidence” could hurt us. I also knew that Raffaele had as much chance of coming into contact with Meredith’s bra as Meredith had meeting up with a knife from Raffaele’s apartment. Neither could be true, but the prosecution would use both these findings to tie us to the crime….’‘

        • Well, this is true, but in a manipulative way.  Yes, Raffaele would have as much chance, namely both incidents would only happen, if Raffaele were involved in the killings.

        • Victim’s DNA on suspect’s knife, and suspect’s DNA on victim’s bra?  Why would the prosecution see that as evidence?

        • Yes, they do tie you to the crime.  No need to be sarcastic.

        [Chapter 21, Page 246] ‘’ ... I wasn’t implicated by the clasp, but I knew that the prosecution would never believe that Raffaele had acted without me. They’d say I gave him access to the villa. I was the reason he’d met Meredith. We were each other’s alibis. If they could show that Raffaele was directly connected to the crime, I would, at the very least, be charged as his accomplice…’‘

        • You are being disingenuous again.  While the DNA conclusively links Raffaele to the scene, you are implying that the police would leap to conclusions to connect you as well.

        • While you present these as fantasies, they are quite reasonable.  Raffaele’s connection to the house was you, his ‘‘girlfriend’‘.  You claimed you were with him, yes, you were each other’s alibis.  Yes, disproving the alibi of one would cast suspicion on the other.

        [Chapter 21, Page 248] ‘’ ... This new claim was another barricade separating me from my real life—one more accusation on a growing list. Too many impossible things were being served up as “truth”—Meredith’s DNA on Raffaele’s kitchen knife, Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, and now Meredith’s blood on the soles of my feet….’‘

        • Separating you from your real life?  What, you just want to get on with your life?

        • Did you see the crime scene photos?  There was a lot of blood in Meredith’s room.  Yes, you could have stepped in some.

        [Chapter 21, Page 248] ‘’ ... It was crazy enough to be told that “investigative instinct” had convinced the police I was involved in Meredith’s murder—that I was dangerous and evil. Now forensic science—the supposedly foolproof tests I was counting on to clear me—was turning up findings I knew were wrong. I, like most people who get their information from TV crime shows, was unaware that forensic evidence has to be interpreted, that human error and bias can, and do, upend results…’‘

        • It wasn’t investigative instinct.  It was those damn false accusation statements you insisted on writing.

        • Well, innocent people don’t write such things, and they tend to have just one (1) alibi.

        • The foolproof tests you were expecting to clear me ... and implicate Guede?

        • You are unhappy and surprised that TV and CSI lied to you?  Okay ....

        • Human error and bias can upend results.  So can falsely claiming to witness someone doing the crime.

        [Chapter 21, Page 249] ‘’ ... I always liked seeing my lawyers, but now I had to brace myself for each visit. I didn’t have to wait long before they brought more devastating news. Less than a week later, investigators reported that they’d found my DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood ringing the drain of the bidet in our shared bathroom. The implication was that I’d rinsed my hands and feet in the bidet after slashing her throat. They said that my skin cells had shown up—not Raffaele’s or Rudy Guede’s—because I was the last person to wash up in that bathroom…’‘

        • You are unhappy because the lawyers only bring bad news?

        • Mixed DNA in the bathroom?  What about the mixed DNA in Filomena’s room—you omit that.

        • You know, for all your TV interviews, you claim ‘‘no evidence’‘, but your own book lists quite a lot of it.

        • You were the last person to wash up there?  Finally, another truthful statement.

        • You sure didn’t ‘‘shower’’ in that blood soaked bathroom the morning after, did you?

        [Chapter 21, Page 250] ‘’ ... The pictures of the chemical-stained bathroom did what, I have to assume, the police wanted. The public reaction proved that a picture—especially a “bloody” picture from a crime scene—is worth a hundred thousand words. At least. I knew what people were thinking. Who but a knife-wielding killer would take a shower in a “blood-streaked” bathroom? Who but a liar would say there had been only a few flecks of blood? The answer? Foxy Knoxy….’‘

        • You are trying to be flippant and sarcastic here, but most people would draw the same conclusions.

        [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….’‘

        • Using the media to your disadvantage?  Did the prosecution hire a PR firm or something?

        • The PR didn’t convict you, the evidence, which you have been listing so well in your book, does.

        [Chapter 21, Page 251] ‘’ ... The denial, fear, and bafflement I felt in the beginning of this nightmare had turned into quiet indignation and defiance. I finally accepted that I was my only friend inside Capanne. I clung to my dad at every visit. The rest of the time, I used the only coping tool I knew: I retreated into my own head….’‘

        • You are your only friend?  What about the bisexual Cera, or Lupa, who believes in you?

        • Retreating into your head is okay, just please don’t sign any more statements.

        [Chapter 21, Page 251] ‘’ ... Cera’s sense of control came from cleaning. When I moved in I liked that her cell was spotless. I didn’t understand that it was her obsession, until she demanded that I dry off the walls of the shower before I dried myself; place the shampoo and lotion bottles in a perfect line on the counter, equally spaced apart; tuck in my bedsheets with military precision; arrange the apples in the fruit bowl stem up; and avoid using the kitchen sink. I tried hard to get along with Cera. I helped her with her schoolwork and either cleaned alongside her or stayed out of the way. My job, after she was done mopping and drying the floor, was to take a panno spugna—a spongelike cloth—and clean the baseboards on my hands and knees. I complained bitterly to Mom about these things when she came to Italy over her spring break…’‘

        • Why include any of this?  It doesn’t help clear anything up.

        • You are falsely imprisoned, and you are complaining about having to clean?

        [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…’‘

        • So, you proudly announce (and publish) that you are a random slut, but being a lesbian puts you off?

        • Even if any of this is true, why include it?  Are you just trying to humiliate Cera, they way you publish personal details about Meredith?

        [Chapter 21, Page 253] ‘’ .... My only hope and constant thought during that winter and spring was that the judge might allow me to live with my family in an apartment, under house arrest. My first plea had been rejected, but my lawyers had another hearing scheduled for April 1. Even though Carlo and Luciano weren’t confident about the outcome, I was sure it would happen. I was counting the days….’‘

        [Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... Luciano and Carlo came to see me the next day. They reassured me that no one, not even the prosecution, believed Guede. “He ran away, he’s a liar, a thief, a rapist, a murderer,” Carlo said. “No one could ever consider him a reliable witness, because he has everything to gain from blaming you. The prosecution is making a big deal about it because it incriminates you.”  “Please, Amanda,” Luciano said. “This is not what you need to worry about. You need to stay strong.” Still, I couldn’t be consoled. With Guede’s testimony against me, there was absolutely no chance a judge would free me from prison….’‘

        • Knox is distorting things once again.  Yes, accomplices turning on each other is powerful, but prosecutors usually suspect that the one is minimizing his own involvement for a reduced sentence.

        • And it is not Guede that got house arrest denied.  There was PLENTY of other evidence.

        • There was also those psychiatric evaluations, which were a large factor, yet you don’t publish them

        • http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_17

        [Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... In early April, Carlo came to Capanne. His face gave away his worry. “Amanda,” he said, “the prosecution now says there’s evidence of a cleanup. They contend that’s why there’s no evidence that you and Raffaele were in Meredith’s bedroom—that you scrubbed the crime scene of your traces.”

        • No evidence of you in Meredith’s room?  What about that size 37 shoeprint, which was NOT Meredith’s?  Or Raffy’s DNA (which you describe), or the bra clasp?

        • This is a twist of what the prosecutors believe.  They thought you tried to selectively clean up, but that there was still evidence there.

        [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.”

        • This is once again twisting things.  Five (5) spots of mixed DNA Amanda/Meredith were found, including in Filomena’s room. Guede’s DNA was NEVER found in Filomena’s room, even though it is where he ‘‘supposedly’’ broke in.

        • Just because these 5 mixed spots were not in the bedroom, does not mean they must be ruled out.

        • And what about your shoeprint in Meredith’s room?  Wait, that is not on Meredith’s body.

        • Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the bathroom mat, should that be excluded simply because it was not in the ‘‘murder room’‘?

        • Should that bathroom in general be excluded, simply because Meredith was not killed in the bedroom?

        • Should Filomena’s bedroom be excluded, despite the (alleged) burglary point of entry, simply because Meredith wasn’t killed there?

        • Should the other bathroom, where Guede left his poop be excluded, since Meredith was not killed there?  Wait, that is evidence against Guede ....

        • Should the hallway, where the luminol revealed bloody footprints be excluded, just because Meredith was not killed in the hall?

        • Should Sollecito’s kitchen, where the murder weapon was found, be excluded, simply because Meredith was not killed there?

        • So, there may be no evidence here… but only if you redefine what the crime scene is.

        [Chapter 21, Page 255] ‘’ ... Judge Matteini sent me her decision about house arrest on May 16: “Denied.” By then the prosecution had stacked so much against me that Guede’s testimony hadn’t even figured in her decision. Even though I hadn’t left the country before my arrest, the judge was certain that Mom would have helped me leave when she was to have arrived in Perugia on November 6. That, she said, is why the police planned to arrest me before Mom could get to me. It turned out that they’d gotten her itinerary the same time I did—by bugging my phone….’‘

        • Judge Matteini send the decision about house arrest on May 16th?  That long?  Matteini is the Judge who you saw back in November 2007, and it was the Ricciarelli court in Noivember 2007 and the Italian Supreme Court (Cassation) in April 2008 who heard the appeal and denied house arrest.  You are mixing these up, either accidently, or on purpose.

        • The police planned to arrest you?  Okay, so when they called Raffaele about his alibi, they knew you would show up?  They knew you would beg to be let in (after they told you to go home)?  They knew you would bring your homework, and start doing guymnastics?  They knew that after some questioning, your mind would suddenly imagine an innocent man committing the crime?  They knew you had such communication problems, that your statements would only get more confusing?  Wow, these cops are diabolical.

        • If they knew your Mother was coming, wouldn’t they have ‘‘set the trap’’ sooner, to make sure you were locked up in case Mom came early?

        [Chapter 21, Page 256] ‘’ ... This new setback conjured up all the desperation, the nauseating helplessness, I’d felt that morning. I could hardly breathe thinking about it. I remembered how relieved I’d been that my mom was flying over, how much I needed her. As soon as she said she was coming to Italy, I realized I’d been stubbornly, stupidly insistent that I could help the police find Meredith’s killer on my own.  I’d been tricked…’

        • You could help the police find Meredith’s killer?  Well, you did, you just layered it in total B.S.

        • After days of claiming to know nothing, you had a vision, or conniption, that you witnessed someone else do it.

        • In your later statement, you said that Raffaele ‘‘might’’ be there.

        • In the statement after that, you say you don’t know what is true, and you made things up

        • You helped, in that you left some of Rudy’s forensic traces behind.

        • You’d been tricked?  You mean CSI and TV lied to you?

        [Chapter 21, Page 256] ‘’ ... Cera started trying to prepare me for the chance of another fifteen years in prison. “I think you should say you’re guilty,” she advised me one day, “because it will take years off your sentence.” “I will not lie!” I yelled, spitting out one word at a time. “I’m not scared of Guede or the prosecutor! I’m ready to fight! I don’t know anything about this murder, and I will go free!”

        • You will not lie?  Wow, that is a first.

        • You’re not scared of Guede?  More likely he is scared of you.

        • You’re not scared of the prosecutor?  You found out he’s not the Mayor?

        • You don’t know anything about the murder?  Ummm…. those statements you signed….

        [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…’‘

        • Not who you are?  That is irrelevant, it is what you did on one day.  Why do you seem so concerned with how you appear?

        • No, I think they have it pretty right.

        • Police did owe Meredith an investigation, and it overwhelmingly concluded that you, Sollecito, and Guede were involved.

        • They arrested the wrong people?  Well, Lumumba was innocent, but who was it who got him locked up?

        [Chapter 22, Page 262] ‘’ ... Finally we could combat all the misinformation leaked to the media. We could explain that the knife had never left the kitchen, the striped sweater had never gone missing, the receipts weren’t for bleach, the underwear I bought wasn’t sexy. We could describe how the prosecution had come up with the bloody footprints. We’d explain why Meredith’s blood had mixed with my DNA in our shared bathroom, how my blood got on the faucet, and correct the notion that the crime was a sex game gone wrong. We could object to the prosecutor painting me as a whore and a murderer. My lawyers would finally get to see the prosecution’s documents. No more surprises….’‘

        • Yes, you could combat the misinformation leaked to the media.  You still have Marriott’s number?

        • You could ‘‘explain’’ the knife never left the kitchen, but you aren’t actually saying here that it never did.

        • You could ‘‘describe’’ how the prosecution came up with the bloody footprints?

        • You would ‘‘explain’’ Meredith’s blood mixed with your DNA, how your blood got on the faucet?

        • The prosecution never claimed it was a sex game gone wrong.  It was a ‘‘misinformation leaked’’ by your own people

        • Objecting to the prosecutor calling you a whore might be difficult, as he never did that.

        • Objecting to the prosecutor calling you a murderer… well, that is what trials are for.

        • Your lawyers would get to see the prosecution’s documents.  It is called ‘‘discovery’’ and is standard in Western courts.

        • For all your ‘‘no evidence’’ claims, you oddly seem to be listing a lot of evidence here.  I am confused.

        [Chapter 22, Page 263] ‘’ ... “We’re taking you off your restricted status.” Just like that. While I was being investigated, I was under judge’s orders to be kept separate for my own safety. But now, as an accused criminal, I passed from the judge’s responsibility to the prison’s…’‘

        • Like much of the book, this makes little sense.

        • If you were being kept separate, it would be for your protection, or because you were deemed to be a threat to other inmates.  The state of your investigation would be irrelevant.

        • Once you entered Capanne, you were the responsibility of the prison.  The judge is responsible for reviewing the legal case, but the prison monitors your welfare.  Are you being deliberately deceptive?  (And am I being rhetorical)?

        [Chapter 22, Page 263] ‘’ ... Prison officials had always claimed I was kept separate—I had cellmates but, with the exception of a few prescribed events, couldn’t interact with the broad population —because other inmates would probably beat me. Now, with only the mildest caution —“Be careful of the other girls!”—Argirò opened a second door. Instead of having passeggio by myself, I was in the company of fifteen sweaty women.

        • As soon as I walked outside, the gaggle of prisoners started hooting and hollering, “She’s out! She’s with us! Way to go!”

        • You were in danger of being beaten up?  Did you report this when you had representatives from the state department visiting?

        • Really?  You got a cheering for being out with other women?  Ego tripping here?

        [Chapter 22, Page 265] ‘’ ... Wilma’s behavior wasn’t that different from that of other prisoners—most were manipulative and liked to stir up drama—but she wasn’t smart enough to recognize this and to fake loyalty to the other women. People were able to see through her actions….’‘

        • Most are manipulative and like to stir up drama? It’s a shame you didn’t fit in better here.

        • People can see through her actions?  Too bad you didn’t realize that people can see through yours.

        [Chapter 22, Page 266] ‘’ ... As soon as I read the letter, I realized it was real. I was shocked that he was writing me. I’d felt betrayed by the months of silence and by his comments in the press distancing himself from me. And of course there was the issue of his previous claim that I had left his apartment the night of the murder and asked him to lie for me. He wrote that he’d been aching to contact me, and that it was his lawyers and family who hadn’t permitted him to get in touch. He said everyone had been afraid when we were first arrested, but that now he realized it had been a mistake to abandon me and wrong to submit to police pressure and acquiesce to their theory. “I’m sorry,” he said. “I still care about you. I still think about you all the time.”

        • You feel betrayed by Raffaele’s ‘‘distancing’’ comments?  But isn’t he serving time rather than throw you under the bus?  Hell that was the whole premise of ‘‘Honor Bound’‘.  Wait, it was all a crock.

        • So, you acknowledge Raffaele ‘‘did’’ say you asked him to lie. So you are admitting evidence of a false alibi exists?

        • He realizes ‘‘now’’ that abandoning you was a mistake?

        • He submitted to police pressures? You told Oggi that you broke up with Sollecito after he withdrew your alibi, yet considering you were ‘‘pressured’’ as well, you think you would be a bit more understanding.  Wait, the ‘‘pressures’’ never happened.

        • Raffaele is in this mess largely due to Amanda.  He likely DOES think about her a lot.

        [Chapter 22, Page 266] ‘’ ... I felt completely reassured by his letter. It wasn’t lovey-dovey, and that suited me fine. I no longer thought of us as a couple. Now we were linked by our innocence. It was a relief to know we were in this fight together. It was only much later that I learned how his interrogation had been as devastating as mine. I wrote him back the next morning. I was explicit about not wanting a romantic relationship anymore but added that I wanted the best for him and hoped he was okay. I knew I shouldn’t write about the case, so I only said I was optimistic that our lawyers would prove the prosecution wrong….’‘

        • You are fine with not seeing Raffaele and yourself as a couple?  Guess you moved on with your life.

        • You were linked by your innocence, or in the hollow claims of your ‘‘innocence’‘?

        • If you wanted the best for Raffy BEFORE Meredith’s death, you would not have involved him in your scheme.

        • If you wanted the best for Raffy AFTER Meredith’s death, you wouldn’t have dragged this court case for 7+ years.

        • You were in the fight together?  Good to know Raffaele would corroborate your alibi at trial, and wouldn’t ask to sever the Florence appeals, or say on American TV that he has questions about your behaviour, or hold a press conference to denounce you, or go on Porta a Porta to denounce you….

        [Chapter 22, Page 269] ‘’ ... All this happened while Luciano and Carlo were preparing the defense for my pretrial. They didn’t have everything they needed to break down the case completely —Meredith’s DNA on the knife and my “bloody” footprints were going unanswered. Two days before the pretrial started, we got news that was both heartening and unnerving. Police investigators revealed that they’d found an imprint of the murder weapon in blood on Meredith’s bedsheets, making it clear the weapon wasn’t in fact the knife with the six-and-a-half-inch blade the prosecution was claiming. The imprint was too short to have been made by Raffaele’s kitchen knife….’‘

        • You are omitting a lot here.  Forensic evidence is not the only thing the defence needs to ‘‘break down’‘.  There is also those false accusation statements you insisted on writing, your false alibis, you and Raffaele turning off your phones, the details you knew (such as Meredith screaming and having her throat cut).  These things have not been successfully challenged EVER.

        • Actually, the knife imprint WAS quite clear, so the police knew exactly what kind of knife they were looking for.

        • And the impression doesn’t have to be for the ENTIRE knife, if it is fairly distinctive.

        [Chapter 22, Page 269] ‘’ ... I reminded myself that we also had common sense on our side. There was no motive. I had no history of violence. I’d barely met Rudy Guede. Raffaele had not met him at all…’‘

        • Common sense is telling me that it is odd, you keep saying you had no history of violence, rather than just saying you didn’t do it.

        • You had barely met Guede ... but the details on that are very ... flexible.

        • Raffaele and Guede lived 100m apart, yet never met.

        • Speaking of motive: Raffaele is your ‘‘boyfriend’‘, and from this book, Guede has the hots for you.  Coincidence?

        • Speaking of motive: While it is useful to be able to explain a crime, motive is not required to prove in any country.

        [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.”

        • So, your lawyer is telling you that the justice system is being leaned on to prosecute you?  If someone called Carlo Dalla Vedova, would he confirm this?

        [Chapter 23, Page 272] ‘’ ... “You’re going to be a good girl so we don’t have to handcuff you, right?” another guard said. I had always been so polite and docile that a guard had once said to me, “If all the inmates were like you, we wouldn’t need prisons.”

        • True, Knox and Sollecito were not handcuffed going into court, but there is speculation this was a visual in order to seem ‘‘less harsh’‘

        • This seems a bit illogical, if all inmates were like you, we wouldn’t need prisons?  Yet you need to go to prison to be an inmate.

        • Yes, Knox was polite.  The guards also called her controlled and manipulative.

        [Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... My first thought wasn’t They think I’m a murderer. It was Meredith’s parents? I finally get to meet them…’‘

        • Well you are charged with their daughter/sister’s killing. They probably do think you are a murderer.

        • You finally get to meet them?  Surely, they would delighted to get to know you.

        [Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... I was devastated. I’d anticipated meeting them for a long time. I’d written and rewritten a sympathy letter in my head but had never managed to put it on paper. Now I felt stupid. How had I not anticipated their reaction? Why are you so surprised? What do you think this has been about all along? My grief for Meredith and my sadness for her family had kept me from thinking further. Of course they hate you, Amanda.  They believe you’re guilty. Everyone has been telling them that for months….’‘

        • You anticipated meeting them for a long time?  Killing Meredith is an odd way to expand your circle of friends.

        • A sympathy letter?  Saying sorry for your loss?

        • Your grief for Meredith?  Didn’t you say at trial that you only knew her for a month, and you were trying to move on with your life?

        • They hate you?  Well, they might hate you less if you told the truth about what happened, and showed actual remorse.

        [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…’‘

        • Guede requested the abbreviated trial because he feared you and Sollecito would pin it all on him, yet you omit that part.

        • Of course witnesses are called.  Who do you think has to testify about the evidence?  However, all least some facts have to be agreed upon to go short-form.

        • If he is guilty, his sentence is cut by 1/3. Absolutely right.  THAT is why Guede got those deductions, not from any deal, or testifying against you.

        • Out of curiosity, why didn’t you or Raffaele opt for the short form trial?

        [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….’‘

        • In your book, your lawyers say there is no evidence against you.

        • No evidence against you?  Did you read your own book?

        • In your book, you reference the missing sweater (Filomena saw you wear that day), but it still was never found.

        • In your book, you mentioned the writings (you said you would kill for a pizza)

        • In your book, you claim the blood on the faucet was from your pierced ears.  (According to Barbia Badeau, your mother said the blood was from your period).

        • In your book, you acknowledge Raffaele took away your alibi.

        • In your book, you claim that Guede backs your alibi, but refutes Sollecito, which doesn’t make sense if you were together.

        • In your book, you say you were there. (You claim it meant RS apartment), yet you let PL remain in prison.

        • In your book, you admit writing a letter (you claim it was misinterpreted), claiming that Raffaele killed Meredith and planted your fingerprints.

        • In your book, you sarcastically admit you were the last person to wash up in a bloody bathroom.

        • In your book, (the Matteini decision) you say that the prosecution had stacked so much evidence Guede’s testimony wouldn’t have mattered.

        • In your book, you mention the police arresting the wrong people, but hypocritically, omit your false accusation of PL

        • In your book, you reference Meredith’s DNA on the knife (which RS claimed was during a cooking accident)

        • In your book, you reference your bloody footprints

        • In your book, you reference the bra clasp having Raffaele’s DNA

        • In your book, you acknowledge claims of a partial crime scene cleanup.

        • And we still haven’t gotten to those pesky statements you wrote and signed.

        • No evidence against you?

        [Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... I felt the way about Guede that Meredith’s family felt about me. As soon as I saw him, in a subsequent hearing, I thought angrily, You! You killed Meredith! 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. And he wouldn’t have lied about Raffaele and me. The other thing I noticed: he wouldn’t look at me….’‘

        • Why would you feel angry?  You said in court you only knew her for a month.

        • He didn’t look like a murderer?  Don’t you keep repeating that you are not the type of person to do this.

        • It is difficult to imagine he cut Meredith’s throat?  Right, because you knew before the police did that her throat was cut.

        • There were traces of Guede’s DNA, but it was not everywhere.  And you omit your own DNA mixed with Meredith’s

        • He wouldn’t have lied about you? Well, you lied to Judge Nencini in your email, and claimed you never met Guede.

        [Chapter 23, Page 275] ‘’ ... The prosecution spun this assumption further. According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that? In their scenario, I hated Meredith because we’d argued about money. Hearing Mignini say that I told Guede to rape Meredith was upsetting. He added that I was the ringleader, telling Raffaele to hold her down. When he said that I threatened Meredith with a knife, I felt as if I’d been kicked. Even worse was hearing him say that when Meredith refused to have sex, I killed her…’

        • Again, prosecutors never said it was a sex game.

        • Who thinks like that? Well, who stages a break in on her Seattle roomies for fun?

        • Hearing Mignini say you told Guede to rape Meredith was upsetting?  Didn’t you publish a rape story on MySpace?

        • You were the ringleader?  Well, you arranged the ‘‘break-in’’ in Seattle.  You have leadership skills

        [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?

        • 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.”

        • If this were actually true, it would be grounds to open up the case.  Did you actually appeal on these grounds?

        • Interestingly, lawyers for you, Sollecito, and Guede all refused to attend the testings, but later claimed contamination.

        [Chapter 23, Page 279] ‘’ ... I was morbidly curious about Guede and simultaneously completely repulsed. Mostly I was disappointed. I had thought we’d have the chance to confront him. But he let his lawyers do all the talking…’‘

        • You only testified at trial with strict protections as to what topics would be covered.  Your lawyers constantly interrupted.

        • Raffaele never took the witness stand at trial.

        • You never took the stand at the 2011 Hellmann appeal

        • Raffaele never took the witness stand at the 2011 Hellmann appeal.

        • You refused to attend the 2013/2014 Florence appeal.

        • Raffaele refused to take the witness stand at the 2013/2014 Florence appeal.

        • You were refusing to attend the 2015 Cassation appeal.

        • Yet… Guede let his lawyers do all the talking?  Pot, meet kettle.

        [Chapter 23, Page 279] ‘’ ... “Isn’t that possible?” Biscotti asked. “Isn’t that what the evidence shows? It shows him being there, and he’s admitted to that. He says he left because he was scared. Of course he was scared! He’s a young black man, living the best he could, abandoned by his parents. He stole sometimes, but out of necessity. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say that he killed. The knife has Amanda’s DNA, and the bra clasp has Raffaele’s. Rudy admits that he was there, he tells what happened, and I believe him.” No witnesses were called for Guede. His lawyers could only interpret the evidence the prosecution had provided. They argued that his DNA had been found at the crime scene because he was scrambling to help Meredith and that he left because he was afraid. I remember his lawyer saying Guede didn’t go to the disco to give himself an alibi but to let off steam. He escaped to Germany because he was worried that he’d be wrongly accused….’‘

        • It’s too bad Guede didn’t have the money and PR to proclaim his innocence the way you did.

        [Chapter 23, Page 280] ‘’ ... Still, there were reasons to be worried. Because the prosecution was withholding information, there was evidence I couldn’t refute: the knife, my “bloody” footprints, Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp. And how would we fight the prosecution’s claim that we’d cleaned up the crime scene? I went to sleep every night telling myself that it would work out because we were innocent—and because it was so clear that Guede was guilty and lying. My lawyers argued exhaustively that Meredith and I had been friends—that there was no animosity between us. They argued that we had no connection to Guede, that Kokomani was a lunatic. But the case hinged on DNA, not on logic…’‘

        • What is the prosecution withholding?  It seems they released very powerful evidence.

        • Accusing prosecutors of withholding evidence, if false, is calunnia.  Don’t you ever learn?

        • It was so clear Guede was lying?  Well, you would know better than anyone, except maybe Raffy.

        • Your lawyers argued exhaustively you and Meredith were friends?  Why wouldn’t you just testify to that? Oh, right, cross examination.

        • Also, why wouldn’t any of Meredith’s other friends testify to how things were between you?  Oh, right, they did.

        • Murder cases often do hinge on DNA, and not lawyerly logic.  Good point.

        [Chapter 23, Page 281] ‘’ ... When the prosecution rested their case, Mignini demanded a life sentence for Guede and a full trial for Raffaele and me. After the judge retired to his chambers, we were each taken to a different empty office in the courthouse to wait for his decision. Raffaele folded a page from that day’s newspaper into a flower, which the guards brought to me. But I was focused on Guede, who was being held in the room next to mine. I could hear him talking with the guards, cracking jokes, and chuckling. I was fuming! I wanted to beat on the wall and tell him to shut up. His nonchalance incensed me. I thought, Does no one else feel this?...’‘

        • His nonchalance?  Were you not the one flirting with people in court?

        • Were you not the one wearing the ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt to court?

        • Rested their case?  Listening to ABC or CNN, I thought there was no evidence against you.

        [Chapter 23, Page 282] ‘’ ... I entered the courtroom. I could barely walk. Judge Micheli read Guede’s verdict first: Guilty for the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher, with a sentence of thirty years. The verdict didn’t surprise me at all—for a second, I was enormously relieved. I thought, He’s the one who did it. The judge’s delivery was so flat he could have been reading the ingredients off a box of bran flakes. Still, my chest clenched when I heard “thirty years.” Not because I pitied Guede. I’d been so focused on whether he would be found guilty or innocent, I hadn’t thought about the length of his sentence. I was twenty-one; thirty years was more time than I’d been alive—by a lot. I breathed in. “The court orders that Knox, Amanda, and Sollecito, Raffaele, be sent to trial.” I broke down in huge, gulping sobs. I’d made a heartfelt plea—“I’m telling you I’m innocent! I’m sorry for any of the confusion I’ve contributed.” The judge hadn’t believed me….’‘

        • Just to be clear on this: Guede’s 30 year sentence was the MAXIMUM the judge could hand down in a short-form trial.

        • Was your chest clenched, because you weren’t sure how merciful the judge(s) might be in this case?

        • Maybe if you had actually testified, you might be believed a bit more.

        • The confusion you caused?  Getting an innocent man locked up is more than just confusion.

        • It surprised you that the judge didn’t believe you?  You listed so much evidence against you just in this book.

        [Chapter 24, Page 286] ‘’ ... “Spiegare che cosa?” I asked, baffled. “Explain what?” I could see that the headline said something about me. “It’s an interview,” she said. “It talks about Cera.” “You know I don’t give interviews!” I said. The inspector turned the paper around so I could read the article. The reporter claimed to have interviewed my mother, who talked about things I’d said. “You need to tell your mother to refrain from speaking about the inner workings of the prison,” the ispettore said sternly. “My mom would never do that!” I screeched. “She only gives interviews to talk about my innocence. She would never reveal our private conversations.” But the article was full of insider information. They’d gotten Cera’s name and certain details right. They said she kissed me once and that I feared further sexual harassment. They knew she was a cleaning fanatic and that she wouldn’t let me make coffee because it would leave water spots on the sink….’‘

        [Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... Cera had been the one to tell me how mean, how crazy, how awful, prisoners could be to one another. I hadn’t wanted to believe her, and I’d promised myself that I’d never become bitter like she was. But I was getting closer. I refused to become so cynical and angry that I felt spite, but my natural hopefulness was flagging….’ The only place I found peace was inside my own head. I started expecting nothing. The one thing that surprised me was the occasional time another prisoner, like Fanta, treated me kindly. As excruciating as this was, it forced me to develop a sense of independence, a faith in myself.

        • Really?  You claim you are innocent, yet you have been in jail a year, have just had Judge Micheli (at pretrial), send you off to trial, and you’re hopefulness is flagging?  Why is that?  You thought you’d be able to lie your way out of it?

        • Innocent people wrongfully in jail would be pissed off.  You aren’t.  Why?

        [Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... Don Saulo was the one person who cared about any of us. In spite of the awful way the other prisoners treated me, he restored some of my faith in humankind. “It doesn’t matter what people think you did,” he told me. “What matters is what you did do.  Don’t worry if people can’t see your goodness. The only important thing is your conscience. You have to take heart and strength in that.”

        • Father Saulo, normally that is good advice, but what happens if the person doesn’t have a conscience?

        [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….’‘

        • The law on your side?  The law isn’t supposed to be on anyone’s side.  It is supposed to apply to all.

        • The prosecution didn’t twist anything.  They gave you every chance to explain things.

        • There would never be enough evidence?  Did you read any of the earlier chapters in your book?

        • (Chapter 13) you mention a LONG list of what you and Raffaele talked about, but don’t remember if you read or had sex?

        • (Chapter 17) you reference the missing sweater (Filomena saw you wear that day), but it still was never found.

        • (Chapter 17) you mentioned the writings (you said you would kill for a pizza).

        • (Chapter 18) you claim the blood on the faucet was from your pierced ears.  (According to Barbie Nadeau, your mother said the blood was from your period).

        • (Chapter 18) you acknowledge Raffaele took away your alibi.

        • (Chapter 19) you claim that Guede backs your alibi, but refutes Sollecito, which doesn’t make sense if you were together.

        • (Chapter 19) you acknowledge the knife with your DNA on the handle, Meredith’s on the blade—the infamous double DNA knife.

        • (Chapter 20) you say you were there. (You claim it meant RS apartment), yet you let PL remain in prison.

        • (Chapter 20) you admit writing a letter (you claim it was misinterpreted), claiming that Raffaele killed Meredith and planted your fingerprints.

        • (Chapter 21) you reference RS DNA on the bra clasp but saying it does not implicate you directly.

        • (Chapter 21) you admit (and I believe this), that much of your knowledge comes from crime TV.

        • (Chapter 21) you sarcastically admit you were the last person to wash up in a bloody bathroom.

        • (Chapter 21)—the Matteini decision—you say that the prosecution had stacked so much evidence Guede’s testimony wouldn’t have mattered.

        • (Chapter 22) you mention the police arresting the wrong people, but hypocritically, omit your false accusation of PL.

        • (Chapter 22) you reference Meredith’s DNA on the knife (which RS claimed was during a cooking accident).

        • (Chapter 22) you reference your bloody footprints, and mentioned Raffaele’s

        • (Chapter 23) you reference the bra clasp having Raffaele’s DNA

        • (Chapter 23) you acknowledge claims of a partial crime scene cleanup.

        • (Chapter 25) you acknowledge Filomena testifies you brought other ‘‘friends’’ to the house.

        • (Chapter 25) you acknowledge the cut on your neck, which you claim was a hickey.

        • (Chapter 25) you acknowledge telling the police Meredith always locked her door, though you try to spin it.

        • (Chapter 25) you acknowledge your cellphone and Raffaele’s were turned off, though you give different reasons why.

        • How much evidence does the prosecution need?  These notes all came from YOUR book. THIS BOOK.

        [Chapter 24, Page 288] ‘’ ... The only place I found peace was inside my own head. I started expecting nothing. The one thing that surprised me was the occasional time another prisoner, like Fanta, treated me kindly. As excruciating as this was, it forced me to develop a sense of independence, a faith in myself….’‘

        • You developed a sense of independence?  By relying on your family to clean up your mess?

        • You could find more peace if you would own up to what you did to Meredith.

        [Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... The pretrial had been like the first reading of a play. No costumes, no audience, no reporters, and very few players. It was held in chambers and closed to the press. The lawyers wore suits. Only two witnesses—the prosecution’s DNA analyst and a man who claimed to have seen Rudy Guede, Raffaele, and me together—testified….’‘

        • I hope you are being sarcastic here.  The pretrial was like the first reading of a play?  This is a murder case, not some theatre production.

        • Really?  None of the police officers (whom you accused of police brutality), testified here?

        • Really?  None of the CSI’s from the home, only the DNA guy, testified?

        • You still could have testified on your own behalf, if this was a misunderstanding. Why didn’t you?

        [Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... The full trial for Raffaele and me was like opening night. I wasn’t prepared for the spectacle…’‘

        • Again, this is a murder case, not a theatre.

        • Although, if you are this detached from reality, is that why you wore the ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt?

        [Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... Three no-nonsense guards—one in front of me and one on either side—led me in through the door in the back of the packed courtroom. Police officers, including some who had interrogated me fourteen months before, were lined up against the back wall. I knew that almost every observer thought I was guilty and wanted me to suffer….’‘

        • The police didn’t interrogate you.  You were giving a witness summary, until you were informed Raffaele removed your alibi.  You then proceeded (without provocation), to try to frame Patrick, and it backfired.

        • 14 months ago, and now you are at trial?  Wow, that seems a bit faster than the U.S. and Canadian systems.

        • They don’t want you to suffer, they want to know exactly what happened to Meredith.

        [Chapter 25, Page 290] ‘’ ... I knew I wasn’t alone. I gave them a little wave and a big smile to let them know how glad I was they were there. I never anticipated that that smile would be reported as “Amanda Knox beamed as she was led into an Italian court.” And the Daily Mail amped up my regular walk: “She made her entrance like a Hollywood diva sashaying along the red carpet.” I don’t know if the reporting was skewed to sell papers or if the presumption of my guilt colored the way the reporters saw me. Anyone reading or watching the TV reports would have come away believing the girl called Foxy Knoxy was amoral, psychotic, and depraved…’‘

        [Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... In the United States, civil and criminal trials are held separately; in Italy, they’re combined. The Italians clearly believe their jurors can compartmentalize—the same eight people decide all the verdicts. Moreover, jury members are not screened for bias, nor guarded from outside influence. The government was trying Raffaele and me for five crimes: murder, illegally carrying a knife, rape, theft, simulating a robbery, and a sixth just for me: slander. The Kerchers, believing Raffaele and I had killed their daughter, were suing both of us for €5 million—about $6.4 million—€1 million for each of Meredith’s five family members, to compensate for their loss and emotional anguish. Patrick Lumumba was suing me for slander for a yet to be determined amount. The owner of the villa was suing me for €10,000 for damages and lost rent….’‘

        • You are insulting, but there is a logic to it.  In the U.S., if someone were found guilty in a criminal case, often a civil one would follow.  Of course, not being convicted would make the civil case harder.

        • Jurors are screened for bias.  You are being blatantly dishonest—again.

        • You are being sued by the family of the woman you murdered, the man you tried to frame, and the homeowner whose property you damaged, and had turned into a crime scene.  Makes sense.

        Posted on 09/13/15 at 03:09 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 followupNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (36)

        Tuesday, September 08, 2015

        Court Filing Suggesting 5th Chambers Encroached Illegally On 1st Chambers & Florence Court Powers

        Posted by The TJMK Main Posters





        This opinion was drafted by several of Italy’s most experienced lawyers and it was filed with the Florence court several months ago.

        These passages quoted below raise issues of what the Fifth Chambers under the Penal Code legally can and can not do, with respect to prior rulings of (1) the Supreme Court (the First Chambers which mostly overturned Hellmann in 2013) and (2) the Florence appeal court.

        According to this opinion, the Fifth Chambers has significantly overstepped its legal boundaries in brushing aside previous rulings and trying to fulfill the role of an appeal court, or a first-level trial court (the same stretch the First Chambers considered the Hellmann appeal court to have been indulging in). 

        This is uncharted territory. Judges of the First Chambers and Florence court and the Council of Magistrates all seem likely to side with this seemingly watertight opinion, and so reactions could ripple on for years.

        The Fifth Chambers judges might find themselves increasingly beleaguered. And their rulings on evidence items and the investigators and prosecutors and foreign media would all seem to be moot, if the perception grows that the Fifth Chambers should not even have gone there.

        the judgment of the [Florence] court remitted to would have been impugnable only for reasons not regarding the points already decided by the Court of Cassation, according to the very clear disposition of Article 628, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code. From this it follows that the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, called on to decide the merits of the appeals brought by the accused against the decision of the court remitted to, would have had to consider as inadmissible the appeals presented in violation of the second paragraph of Article 628 Criminal Procedure Code and, in any case, would have had to rigorously conform with the points already decided by the First Chamber and with all the questions of law decided by the same…

        the Court of Cassation cannot, therefore, ever adopt decisions on the merits and issue orders of acquittal under Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

        ...two chambers of the same Court of Cassation, the First (the one competent for proceedings in homicide matters, whose decision of annulment is definitive and who had identified and decided questions of law in a definitive and un-retractable manner) and the Fifth (who would have had to decide the appeals presented only on grounds of legitimacy of the defendants’, constrained by what had already been definitively decided by the First) have handed down two absolutely divergent decisions and the second had annulled the Florentine decision, positively excluding any remitting to another court and acquitting the defendants pursuant to Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

        the judgment of the [Florence] court remitted to would have been impugnable only for reasons not regarding the points already decided by the Court of Cassation, according to the very clear disposition of Article 628, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code. From this it follows that the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, called on to decide the merits of the appeals brought by the accused against the decision of the court remitted to, would have had to consider as inadmissible the appeals presented in violation of the second paragraph of Article 628 Criminal Procedure Code and, in any case, would have had to rigorously conform with the points already decided by the First Chamber and with all the questions of law decided by the same…

        the Court of Cassation cannot, therefore, ever adopt decisions on the merits and issue orders of acquittal under Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

        ...two chambers of the same Court of Cassation, the First (the one competent for proceedings in homicide matters, whose decision of annulment is definitive and who had identified and decided questions of law in a definitive and un-retractable manner) and the Fifth (who would have had to decide the appeals presented only on grounds of legitimacy of the defendants’, constrained by what had already been definitively decided by the First) have handed down two absolutely divergent decisions and the second had annulled the Florentine decision, positively excluding any remitting to another court and acquitting the defendants pursuant to Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.

        from these starting points in fact and in law which are absolutely undeniable, it emerges that the course of proceedings in this case have been absolutely linear and respectful of the substance of the procedural rules up to and including the Florentine decision.

        the Court of Cassation, on the appeal of the Prosecutor-General of [the Perugia] district Court, had in a radical and definitive manner annulled the acquitting pronouncement and had remitted it to the Florentine district court because the same would adopt the consequent decisions of merit in the line of reasoning of the principles of law laid down by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court and of the points decided by it.

        These principles of law are by now unmodifiable and unarguable: the [Fifth Chambers] , called on to decide the matter, as a “second opinion”, concerning the appeal of the defendants from the [Florence] judgment below, would have had to hand down a judgment fully within the “railway tracks” of the law, as fixed by the First Chamber, like the Florentine district court did, principles from among which we may cite:

        [Umodifiable principle] the principle, in fact the unfailing legal prerequisite of a Supreme Court decision, namely the fact that the Court is precluded from “trespassing into a re-evaluation of the compendium of evidence” (see the judgment of the First Chamber at page 40);

        [Unmodifiable principle] the principle of law of the total and holistic evaluation of the probative material, as opposed to the “parcelled-up and atomistic evaluation of the pieces of circumstantial evidence, taking them into consideration one at a time and discarded in terms of their demonstrative potentiality”, which characterised instead, in the negative, the decision of the Court presided by Pratillo Hellmann (see the decision of the same First Chamber at pp. 40 and 41… ). The ancient brocard “Quae singula non probant, simul unita probant” [‘Those which alone do not prove, together do prove’], quoted on p 41 of the First Chamber’s judgment, consecrates in a definitive and unmodifiable manner this requirement of a global and holistic approach in which each individual piece of the jigsaw puzzle of reconstruction of the facts is considered together with all the others in their demonstrative synergy;

        [Unmodifiable principle] the principle by which the [Hellmann] court had run afoul of grave shortcomings and contradictory lines of reasoning and in glaring misrepresentations of the outcome, even in the attempted decoupling of the calunnia, by now definitively attributed to Ms Knox, with the result of masking from view the responsibility of the same in the homicide;

        [Unmodifiable principle] the principle according to which the testimony of the homeless person Mr Curatolo ought to have been evaluated on the basis of corroboration between his statements and the objective and unarguable circumstances emerging from the trial (such as the fact that the witness had with absolute decisiveness anchored the fact of having seen the two accused in the precincts of the basketball courts of Piazza Grimana, nowadays Piazza Fortebraccio, the evening before the arrival, the following day, at the Via della Pergola house of the men from Forensics in their white coveralls), rather than on the basis of Mr Curatolo’s social conditions and lifestyle (see the cited judgment of the First Chamber at page 50);

        [Unmodifiable principle] the principle according to which the definitive conviction of accomplice Rudy Hermann Guede ought to have been taken into account (no. 7195/11, published on 16.12.2010, it also from the First Criminal Chamber of Cassation), Guede having been held to have been extraneous to the simulation of burglary of a house. [A] habitation that, on the night of the murder, was solely at the availability of the victim and of Amanda Knox and from the statements made by the same Rudy before the Perugian district court, according to which Meredith was killed by the two co-accused (see the judgment at pages 55 and 56).

        [Unmodifiable principle] The principle by which contamination of the evidence is to be proved by the party invoking it and which, on the facts of the case, no evidence in support had been offered and which the [Hellmann} Court had seriously confused the abstract possibility of the fact with the averment of the fact (see the judgment at page 69).Umodifiable principle] The principle according to which it was a matter of a homicide committed by multiple persons, in concourse amongst themselves (see page 73 of the cited judgment).

        Here is a translation of Article 530:

        Article 530:

        1. If the act does not subsist [541 2, 542], if the defendant has not commited it [541 2, 542], if the act is not an offence or it is not envisaged by law as an offence, that is, if the offence has been committed by a non-indictable person [c.p. 85] or by a not punishable person for other reasons, the judge issues a judgement of acquittal, stating the reason. 

        2.The judge issues a judgement of acquittal also when there is lack of evidence or it is not sufficient, or there is contradictory evidence that the act subsists, that the defendant has comitted it, that the act constitutes an offence or that the offence has been committed by an indictable person.(1).

        3. If there is evidence that the act has been committed in circumstances of a legal excuse or exemption from criminal liability, that is, there is doubt about them, the judge issues a judgement of acquittal pursuant to clause 1.

        4. In the event of an acquittal the judge applies security measures, in the cases provided for by law.

        And here is a translation of Article 628:

        Impugnability of a ruling issued by a judge after remand

        1. A verdict that had been issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand, may be impugned through a recourse at Supreme Court of Cassation if the ruling was issued on an appeal instance, and through the mean provided by law if was issued on a first instance level.

        2. In any case a verdict issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand may be appealed only on the reasons that do not concern those that had already been decided by Cassation on the order of remand, or for not abiding to disposition of art. 627 paragraph 2.


        Monday, September 07, 2015

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

        Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




        1. Overview Of This Post

        The post is in 3 parts and was added to on the fly as new information flowed in.

        Part 2 below summarizes what this trial is all about. It is not about Knox’s book, it is about her claims on the stand in mid 2009 of crimes committed by numerous investigators and the lead prosecutor.

        Part 3 below is live reports from the court. Part 4 is about the Supreme Court sentencing report released today in Rome.

        2. Background To Calunnia Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        2. Machiavelli Reports From Calunnia Trial

        1. Tweets from the Florence court:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        2. Emailed report following day (8 September):

        No Knox calunnia session required today as last Friday and yesterday both sides completed their witness list.

        Amanda Knox and Curt Knox chose not to testify.

        Now Judge Boninsegna has ordered each side to prepare their arguments within three months (7 December).

        The verdict is likely to arrive in the New Year.

        4. Machiavelli On Cassazione Sentencing Report

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

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

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

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


        Friday, September 04, 2015

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

        Posted by Chimera



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

        1. Overview Of This Post

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

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

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

        2. Dissection Of Pages 207 to 243.

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

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

        • Yes, posing on a piano bench.  Good impression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Do you feel bad for Patrick and his family?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Give it up. Meredith was not your friend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • You felt almost smug?  Probably.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • And this is the PROOF you are innocent?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • How is this a momentary problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Naming Patrick to cover for Guede?  Reasonable suspicion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Yes, he does deserve an explanation and apology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Trick you?  Or expose your lies and inconsistencies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • You were denied house arrest? Go figure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

        • You have been formally charged with murder, and a judge has said there is cause to hold you.  People might think you are a killer.
        Posted on 09/04/15 at 10:02 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
        Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxOther legal processesKnox followupNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (8)

        Tuesday, September 01, 2015

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

        Posted by Peter Quennell



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

        1. Most Bungling Team In Legal History?

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

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

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

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

        You want to see manipulation in spades?

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

        You want to see bungling in spades?

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

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

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

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

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

        2. Bungling In Knox’s Calunnia Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        So, good luck, Amanda Knox. GREAT TEAM!

        3. Day Two Of Knox’s Testimony

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

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

        Cross Examination By Prosecutor Mignini

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

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

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


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

        Posted by Peter Quennell



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

        1. Arrangements For Knox Trial In Florence

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

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

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

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

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

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

        2. Why Knox Was On The Stand in 2009

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

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

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

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

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

        3. The Knox Defense Team’s Uphill Task Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        4. Day One of Knox’s Testimony

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

        Relevant Questions By Lumumba Lawyer Pacelli

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Relevant Questions By Knox Lawyer Ghirga

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

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

        Amanda Knox’s first letter of Nov 9, 2007

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

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

        Per I Miei Avvocati

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


        Part 2 (Day Two) in our next post.


        Page 1 of 8 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »