Collection: Knox-Mellas team

Friday, October 28, 2016

Netflixhoax 15: Omitted - Amanda Knox’s Incriminating Lies To The Police, Prosecution And Courts

Posted by The Machine



In 2008 Knox lawyers publicly ask that she stop lying publicly; one resigned earlier over lies.

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.


Overview Of This Post

The filmmakers allow Amanda Knox to portray herself as a terrified ingenue.

One who lied about Diya Lumumba killing Meredith and placed herself at the cottage only because she was subjected to a coercive police interrogation and was physically assaulted.

They don’t question ANY of the witnesses who were present when she was questioned at the police station to contradict her account of events - witnesses who testified as to exactly what did happen over many days at the trial in 2009.

They allow her account of her questioning to go unchallenged though NOT ONE JUDGE at pre-trial hearings, the trial, first appeal, Supreme Court, second appeal, and Supreme Court appeal considered any of her varying accounts to be the truth.

The filmmakers also don’t address the fact that Amanda Knox lied repeatedly to the police and others both before and after her questioning on 5 November 2007, let alone provide viewers with a plausible innocent explanation for these lies.

In this article, I will detail the lies Amanda Knox told the police and others using the official court reports and court testimonies as well as Amanda Knox’s book Waiting to Be Heard.

Instances Of Knox Lies Refuted

Amanda Knox lied to Filomena about where she was on 2 November 2007.

But the Nencini report, 2014, page 174, said:

“In the first telephone call the defendant made to Filomena Romanelli, she clearly said that she would go back to Raffaele’s place to tell him about the strange things discovered in the apartment, and then return with him to check the situation. This circumstance is clearly false, since when Amanda Knox made the first call to Romanelli at 12:08:44 pm on 2 November 2007 she was at already Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment and not at 7 Via Della Pergola.

This fact is certain because it is gleaned from the telephone records, as has been already been said, and specifically from the fact that the telephone call above connected to the cell that served precisely 130 Via Garibaldi, a cell that is not within reach of anyone who would have been at 7 Via Della Pergola.

Amanda Knox claimed that she and Sollecito called 112 before the arrival of the postal police officers at the cottage.

But the Nencini report, 2014, page 176, said:

“There was one specific circumstance about which, this time, both the defendants lied. This is about the succession of events at the moment when the postal police intervened on the spot.”

And the Nencini report, 2014, page 179, said:

“From the testimony of the witnesses referred to above it thus clearly emerges how both of the defendants (but to be precise it was Raffaele Sollecito to tell the police this) declared to Inspector Battistelli that they were sitting there awaiting the arrival of the Carabinieri whom they had called. However Inspector Battistelli indicated in his service notes that he arrived on the scene at 12:35 pm, and questioned in the court hearings by the Judges of First Instance Court, he explained that he looked at his watch at the moment when he arrived at the cottage.” (The Nencini report, page 179).

Amanda Knox told the postal police on 2 November that Meredith always locked her door.

But the Massei trial report, 2010, page 31, said:

“This last circumstance, downplayed by Amanda, who said that even when she went to the bathroom for a shower Meredith always locked the door to her room (see declarations of Marco Zaroli, page 180, hearing of February 6, 2009 and declarations of Luca Altieri, page 218, hearing of February 6, 2009), had alarmed Ms. Romanelli more. She said she was aware of only once, when she had returned to England and had been away for a few days, that Meredith had locked the door of her room. (This circumstance was confirmed by Laura Mezzetti, page 6, hearing of February 14, 2009).”.

Knox pretended she hadn’t called Meredith when she spoke to Filomena.

But the Massei trial report, 2010, page 387, said:

“Amanda called Romanelli, to whom she started to detail what she had noticed in the house (without, however, telling her a single word about the unanswered call made to Meredith, despite the question expressly put to her by Romanelli)”

Amanda Knox falsely claimed in her e-mail to friends on 4 November 2007 that she had called Filomena first

But she had actually called Meredith a minute earlier.  The Nencini appeal report, 2014, page 169, said:

“A first discrepancy is immediately noticeable between what the defendant states in the memorial and what is ascertained from the telephone records.”

“At the moment when Amanda Marie Knox rang Filomena Romanelli she had already made a call to the English telephone used by Meredith Kercher, not therefore the opposite.”

Amanda Knox claimed that when she called Meredith’s English phone after speaking to Filomena, it “just kept ringing, no answer”.

But the Nencini appeal report, 2014, page 170, said:

“From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds”

Amanda Knox claimed she slept until around 10:00am the next morning.

But the Nencini appeal report, 2014, page 158, said:

“What the Court finds proved is that at 6:02:59 am on 2 November 2007 they were not in fact asleep, as the defendants claim, but rather the occupants were well awake. At 5:32 am on 2 November 2007 the computer connected to a site for listening to music, remaining connected for around half an hour. Therefore, at 5:32 am someone in the house occupied by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito sat in front of the computer and listened to music for around half an hour and then, at 6:02:59 am, switched on Raffaele Sollecito’s mobile phone…”

Amanda Knox claimed she was at Sollecito’s apartment when she received Diya Lumumba’s text message.

But the Nencini appeal report, 2014, pages 132-132, said: 

“At 8:18 pm and 12 seconds, Amanda Marie Knox received a text message sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, in which he informed her that it would not be necessary for her to go to the bar to carry out her usual work. At the time of receipt, Amanda Marie Knox’s handset connected via the sector 3 mast at Torre dell’Acquedotto, 5 dell’Aquila, as shown by phone records entered in evidence. This mast cannot be reached from the vicinity of 130 Corso Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito. According to the findings of the judicial police entered in evidence, this mast could be reached by anyone in Via Rocchi, Piazza Cavallotti or Piazza 4 Novembre, all locations in Perugia which are intermediate between 130 Corso Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito, and Via Alessi, where the “Le Chic” bar is located.

“From this set of facts established in the case, Amanda Marie Knox’s claim, according to which she received Patrick Lumumba’s text message while she was at 130 Corso Garibaldi, appears false. Given the mast connected to and the time, it is reasonable to assume that, when Amanda received the message, she had already left Raffaele Sollecito’s home and was on her way to the ‘Le Chic’ bar. Presumably, she then turned around and went back.”

Amanda Knox initially claimed she was at Sollecito’s apartment on the night of the murder.

But Sollecito categorically stated in his own signed witness statement that Amanda Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the night of the murder: Raffaele Sollecito’s witness statement, 5 November 2007, said:

“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call, and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning, I think.”

And Judge Bruno and Judge Marasca of the Fifth Chambers stated in their 2015 report that Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

The Bruno and Marasca report, 2015, said:

“… now we note, regarding Amanda Knox, that her presence in the dwelling, that was the “theatre of the murder”, was proclaimed in the trial process in alignment with her own admissions, including those contained in her signed statement in the part where she states she was in the kitchen, after the young English girl [Meredith] and another person went off to Kercher’s room for sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she fell down huddled on the floor, holding her hands tightly against her ears so as not to hear more.

We do indeed share the previous judge [Nencini’s] opinion that this part of the accused’s story is reliable, due to the plausible observation that it was she who first put forward a possible sexual motive for the murder and mentioned the victim’s harrowing scream, at a time when the investigators still didn’t have the results of the examination of the corpse or the autopsy, nor the witness information, which was subsequently gathered, about the victim’s scream and the time it was heard.

Amanda Knox told the police she hadn’t replied to Diya Lumumba’s text message.

But Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, 2008, page 36, said:

“the police, who merely asked Ms Knox whether she had replied to the message that he had sent her, that her phone showed she had received, and to the young woman’s negative response it was put to her that [her telephone showed] that a reply was in fact given.”

Amanda Knox claimed the police hit her.

But the witnesses who were present when Knox was questioned, including her interpreter, testified under oath at the trial in 2009 that she wasn’t hit.

These repudiations are from the relevant court transcripts:

Giuliano Mignini: ... violence, of …

Monica Napoleoni: But absolutely not!

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

Anna Donnino: Absolutely not.

GM: She suffered maltreatments?

AD:  Absolutely not.

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

Anna Donnino:  Absolutely not.

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

AD:  Absolutely not!

CP:  Miss Knox was, however, threatened?

AD:  No, I can exclude that categorically!

CP:  With thirty years of prison… ?

AD:  No, no, absolutely not.

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

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

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

AD:  Yes.

Carlo Della Valla:  This…

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

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

AD:  Yes.

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

AD:  I would say yes. Absolutely yes.

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

AD:  No.

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

AD:  No.

Knox told the police she hadn’t smoked marijuana.

But Amanda Knox herself in “Waiting to Be Heard” said:

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

Amanda Knox was forced to accuse Diya Lumumba of murder.

But Amanda Knox voluntarily told the police and her interpreter that Diya Lumumba had killed Meredith.

Anna Donnino: “It’s a thing that has remained very strongly with me because the first thing that she did is that she immediately puts her hands on her ears, making this gesture rolling her head, curving in her shoulders also and saying ‘It’s him! It’s him! It was him!’”

Rita Ficarra: “She suddenly put her hands to her head, burst out crying and said to us ‘It’s him, it’s him, it was him, he killed her’.

Amanda Knox then claimed Diya Lumumba killed Meredith in two witness statements she insisted on writing.

But the Nencini appeal report, 2014, page 114, said:

“Amanda Marie Knox accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder at 1:45 am on 6 November 2007.”

“Amanda Marie Knox repeated the allegations before the magistrate, allegations which she never retracted in all the following days.”

Also Amanda Knox reiterated her false allegation against Diya Lumumba on 6 November 2007 when under no pressure.

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

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

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

For several weeks Amanda Knox let the police believe Diya Lumumba killed Meredith.

But the Nencini report, pages 115-116, said:

She never retracted her false and malicious allegation the whole time he was in prison. This verdict from the 2013-14 Nencini Appeal Court was THE FINAL WORD from the courts; the Supreme Court did not reverse it: 

“Amanda Marie Knox maintained her false and malicious story for many days, consigning Patrick Lumumba to a prolonged detention. She did not do this casually or naively. In fact, if the young woman’s version of events is to be relied upon, that is to say, if the allegations were a hastily prepared way to remove herself from the psychological and physical pressure used against her that night by the police and the prosecuting magistrate, then over the course of the following days there would have been a change of heart. This would inevitably have led her to tell the truth, that Patrick Lumumba was completely unconnected to the murder. But this did not happen.

“And so it is reasonable to take the view that, once she had taken the decision to divert the attention of the investigators from herself and Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Marie Knox became fully aware that she could not go back and admit calunnia. A show of remorse would have exposed her to further and more intense questioning from the prosecuting magistrate. Once again, she would bring upon herself the aura of suspicion that she was involved in the murder.

Indeed, if Amanda Marie Knox had admitted in the days following to having accused an innocent man, she would inevitably have exposed herself to more and more pressing questions from the investigators. She had no intention of answering these, because she had no intention of implicating Rudy Hermann Guede in the murder.

“By accusing Patrick Lumumba, who she knew was completely uninvolved, because he had not taken part in the events on the night Meredith was attacked and killed, she would not be exposed to any retaliatory action by him. He had nothing to report against her. In contrast, Rudy Hermann Guede was not to be implicated in the events of that night because he, unlike Patrick Lumumba, was in Via della Pergola, and had participated [100] in the murder. So, he would be likely to retaliate by reporting facts implicating the present defendant in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

“In essence, the Court considers that the only reasonable motive for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba was to deflect suspicion of murder away from herself and from Raffaele Sollecito by blaming someone who she knew was not involved, and was therefore unable to make any accusations in retaliation. Once the accusatory statements were made, there was no going back. Too many explanations would have had to be given to those investigating the calunnia; explanations that the young woman had no interest in giving.”

Knox claimed that Mignini questioned her and made suggestions on 5 November 2007.

But the transcript of Knox’s cross-examination at trial 2009 said:

Amanda Knox: 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 [Giuliano Mignini].

Carlo Pacelli: Excuse me, but at 1:45, the pubblico ministero was not there, there was only the judicial police.


Conclusion

The computer and telephone records as well as the corroborative testimony of multiple eyewitnesses provide irrefutable proof that Amanda Knox lied repeatedly to the police and others. Many of these lies were told before and after her questioning on 5 November 2007, so they can’t be attributed to police coercion.

There isn’t a plausible innocent explanation for these lies. Perhaps that’s the reason why the filmmakers don’t address them - they presumably don’t want to portray Amanda Knox in a negative light. It would be far harder to persuade their audience that Amanda Knox is an innocent victim, which is undeniably their ultimate objective. They were never interested in making an objective and balanced documentary that give viewers the full picture. 

Judge Bruno and Judge Marasca clearly couldn’t brush these numerous lies under the carpet and pretend they didn’t exist because Judge Massei, Judge Nencini and Judge Chieffi had detailed Amanda Knox’s lies in their reports. They acknowledge that Amanda Knox lied and claimed she had lied to cover for Rudy Guede.

The Netflix filmmakers completely hide all of this in their documentary.


Thursday, October 13, 2016

Netflixhoax 12: Omitted - How In Multiple Ways Poorly Researched Movie Contradicts Knox’s Own Book

Posted by Chimera



Ummmm… Amanda Knox is wildly unable to keep her multiple stories straight

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.


1 Knox’s Own Book Says Differently

Inadmissibility issues aside, the film is blatantly contradicted by many claims WITHIN KNOX’S OWN BOOK.  Links below are for my extended series “Revenge of the Knox” on close to 1000 defamations and lies.

I rated the book as 90-95% bullshit.  There is a reason it was not 100%—because there are truthful parts of it which contradict other parts.  Research anyone?

Click here for post:  Revenge Of The Knox: How Knox’s Body Of Lies Headed For The Dark Side (Series Overview)

Click here for post:  Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #1

Click here for post:  How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #1

Click here for post:  How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #2

Click here for post:  How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #3

Click here for post:  Revenge “On” The Knox: Bruno And Marasca Strike Back

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

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

2. Precisely How Knox Tries To Have It Both Ways

(A) Knox didn’t speak Italian in 2007, but supplies long conversation (that were in Italian), word for word.

(B) Knox tries to be “respectful” towards Meredith’s memory, while publishing lurid details about her death and sexual assault.

(C) Knox tries to be “fair” towards others in her life, while smearing them for drug use.

(D) Knox “thanks” her lawyers, while citing supposed incidents of their illegal acts, and professional misconduct.

(E) Knox was traumatized by her “interrogation” from Mignini, but remembers it (in Italian), word for word

(F) The same crime scene experts who “bungled” things for AK/RS were professional regarding Guede

(G) The same DNA experts who “failed to meet international standards” for AK/RS, did a great job against Guede

(H) The same authorities who “jumped to conclusions” against AK/RS, handled Guede properly.

(I) The same Judge Paolo Micheli who ran a “farce of a pre-trial” for AK/RS, properly presided over Guede’s short form trial

(J) Roommates and eyewitnesses who implicate AK/RS are “unreliable”, yet jailhouse snitches who make exculpatory claims are “very credible”.

(K) AK frequently claims “I don’t remember”, while criticizing unreliable memories of Capazelli, Quintavalle, and others.

(L) AK criticizes Italian Authorities for being dishonest, but admits to fabricating parts of this “memoir”

(M) And on, and on, and on ....

3. Contradictions Just In Author’s Note At Back

Admission #1: Knox Admits she Didn’t Write WTBH

[Author’s Note] ” .... I wouldn’t have been able to write this memoir without Linda Kulman. Somehow, with her Post-it notes and questions, with her generosity, dedication, and empathy, she turned my rambling into writing, and taught me so much in the meantime.”

Commentary:

So why isn’t Linda Kuhlman listed as the author instead of Knox?

Admission #2: Knox Admits She Doesn’t Know What her Source Material is

[Author’s Note] ” .... The writing of this memoir came to a close after I had been out of prison for over a year. I had to relive everything, in soul-wrenching detail. I read court documents and the transcripts of hearings, translated them, and quoted them throughout.”

So, what is the main source of the book?  AK claims that court documents and transcripts are translated and quoted throughout, yet those quotes are oddly absent from the book.  What exactly is AK “re-living”?  She claims not to speak Italian, yet quotes Italian conversations verbatim.  Knox also claims to have been traumatized, but she “remembers” the details and conversations almost perfectly.  And wasn’t a huge part of the 2009 defense that she and RS couldn’t remember anything?

The only documents that seem to be “quoted” are: (1) Matteini verdict where Knox did a snowjob on Judge Matteini by framing Lumumba; (2) 3rd Statement of November 5/6, 2007; (3) AK’s statement to Hellmann Appeal Court.

Admission #3: Knox Admits Parts of the Book are fabricated

[Author’s Note] ” .... The names of certain people, including friends, prisoners, and guards, have been changed to respect their privacy.”

Commentary:

Knox “did” create the persona of Cristiano, the man she met on the train.  His real name is Federico Martini, a drug dealer whose number Knox gave to authorities.  This information is publicly available.  Some “tell-all” book. Makes one wonder if AK “changed” the name of her attacker to Rita Ficarra, or “changed” the name of her interrogator to Guiliano Mignini.  Unfortunately, AK never specifies “which” names she changed.  Also makes one wonder if AK should also have added the disclaimer that certain events had been changed as well.

Admission #4: Knox Admits she Spoke Italian (even in 2007)

[Author’s Note] ” .... Aided by my own diaries and letters, all the conversations were rendered according to my memory.”

Commentary:

How did Knox “remember” long Italian conversations is 2007?  She claimed to know only basic Italian, so either that claim is false, or the conversations are largely made up.  Or both.

Admission #5: Knox Implies Book is Largely Fictional

[Author’s Note] ” .... So much has been said of the case and of me, in so many languages, in so many books, articles, talk shows, news reports, documentaries, and even a TV movie. Most of the information came from people who don’t know me, or who have no knowledge of the facts.”

Commentary:

While this comment seems to imply that “other” media is based on people with no knowledge of the case, taken literally, it could mean that WTBH was also written by someone who didn’t know Knox, and had no knowledge of the case. Ms. Kuhlman?  I’m looking at you.

Admission #6: Knox Never Bothered to Change Anything From the 2013 Version of WTBH

[Author’s Note] ” .... Until now I have personally never contributed to any public discussion of the case or of what happened to me.”

Commentary:

While that “may” have been true when the book was released in 2013, Knox did at least 30 interviews since then

4. Contradictions In Body Of Book Itself

Admission #7: Knox Admits There was no Contamination of Evidence

(a) While Claiming Evidence Against AK/RS is “contaminated”  ....

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

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

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

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

(b).... Knox Admits Evidence Against Guede is Solid and “Properly” Collected

[Chapter 10, Page 105] ‘’ .... There was a bloody handprint smeared on the wall and a bloody shoeprint on the floor. A blood-soaked handkerchief was lying in the street nearby.’‘

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

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

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

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

Commentary:

AK goes on at length about how unprofessional the Italian CSI are, and how substandard their methods are.  However, AK repeatedly rants about how strong the evidence is against Guede.  “Copious” amounts of evidence seems to be Knox’s favourite expression.  So, are the Italian authorities complete crime-scene-destroying screw-ups, or did they do a good job?  It can’t simultaneously be both.  Perhaps the “A-Team” was sent in first get the evidence against Guede, while the “Inspector Gadget Team” went bumbling in afterwards.

Admission #8: Knox Admits that Conti and Vecchiotti Were “Selective” in Which DNA They Tested

[Chapter 32, Page 415] ” .... Now it was Conti and Vecchiotti’s turn to try to get the raw data that Stefanoni had interpreted to draw conclusions about the genetic profiles on the knife and the bra clasp. Stefanoni continued to argue that the information was unnecessary. Not until May 11, under additional orders from Judge Hellmann, did she finally comply.”

Commentary:

AK talks many times about how these experts were “independent, court appointed”.  In the Common Law Countries, such experts are referred to as “friends of the Court”, meaning their allegience is to the Court, not to either the Prosecution or Defense.  If that was the case, would they not want to test as many samples as possible to see just how far (if at all), that contamination really happened?  If police methods were as shoddy as AK describes, why in the world analyze just 2 samples???  Why go through the time, effort and expense to hire these experts if you are only going to contest 2 pieces of DNA???  Heck, just look all the above section, with all those “copius” amounts of evidence that supposedly implicated Guede. 

Conti and Vecchiotti later ran into legal trouble over their methods, but just from reading this book, it seems they were partial and selective about their work.

Admission #9: Knox Admits that Claims of her Being “Sex-Obsessed” Really Are True

[Chapter 2, Page 16] This was my first bona fide one-night stand.
I’d told my friends back home that I couldn’t see myself sleeping with some random guy who didn’t matter to me. Cristiano was a game changer.
We didn’t have a condom, so we didn’t actually have intercourse. But we were making out,  fooling around like crazy, when, an hour later, I realized, I don’t even know this guy. I jumped up, kissed him once more, and said good-bye. I went upstairs to the tiny room Deanna and I were sharing.
She was wide awake, standing by the window. “Where have you been?” she asked. “I didn’t know where you were or if you were okay.”

[Chapter 3, Page 32] “Do you want to eat at my place?” Mirko asked. “We can watch a movie.”
“Sure,” I said, and instantly felt an inner jolt. It came from the sudden certainty that we would have sex, that that’s where our flirtation had been heading all along.
We carried our pizza boxes through Piazza Grimana, by the University for Foreigners, and down an unfamiliar street, past a park. Mirko’s house was at the end of a gravel drive. “I live here with my sister,” he told me.
During dinner at his kitchen table my thoughts battled. Was I ready to speed ahead with sex like this? I still regretted Cristiano. But I’d also been thinking about what Brett and my friends at UW had said. I could picture them rolling their eyes and saying, “Hell000, Amanda. Sex is normal.”  Casual sex was, for my generation, simply what you did.

[Chapter 4, Page 39] The next morning I got up before he did, got dressed, and went to make myself breakfast. Bobby came into the kitchen a few minutes later. We were eating cookies when Laura came out of her bedroom. I’d never entertained a lover at the villa for breakfast, and it was awkward, despite Laura’s proclaimed sense of easy sexuality. All three of us tried to ignore the feeling away.
After breakfast Bobby left to return to Rome. 1 walked him to the door. He smiled, waved, and walked away.
I didn’t feel the same regret I’d had after sex with Mirko, but I still felt the same emptiness. I had no way of knowing what a big price I would end up paying for these liaisons.

[Chapter 5, Page 57] Being with Raffaele also taught me a big lesson about my personality that I’d tried so hard—and harmfully, in Cristiano’s case—to squelch. I was beginning to own up to the fact that casual hookups like I’d had with Mirko and Bobby weren’t for me.
I like being able to express myself not just as a lover but in a loving relationship. Even from the minuscule perspective of a few days with Raffaele, I understood that, for me, detaching emotion from sex left me feeling more alone than not having sex at all—bereft, really.

Commentary:

This isn’t so much an “admission”, but showing the obvious.  4 of the first 5 chapters go on and on about her casual flings, and the book is littered with references to her bunny vibrator.  Later chapters make serious accusations (never reported) of sexual assault, and sexual harassment.

Admission #10: Knox Admits She Likes Writing Stories (True or False) About Women Being Sexually Abused

[Chapter 6, Page 73] ” .... itself—how sadistic her killer had been. When the police lifted up the corner of Meredith’s beige duvet they found her lying on the floor, stripped naked from the waist down. Her arms and neck were bruised. She had struggled to remain alive. Her bra had been sliced off and left next to her body. Her cotton T-shirt, yanked up to expose her breasts, was saturated with blood. The worst report was that Meredith, stabbed multiple times in the neck, had choked to death on her own blood and was found lying in a pool of it, her head turned toward the window, eyes open.”

[Chapter 8, Page 92] ” .... While we stood there, the detectives started asking me pointed questions about Giacomo and Meredith. How long had they been together? Did she like anal sex? Did she use Vaseline?”

[Chapter 10, Page 104] “.... There was evidence that Meredith had been penetrated, but none that proved there had been an actual rape.”

[Chapter 10, Page 119] ” .... I do not remember if Meredith was there or came shortly afterward. I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her.”

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

[Chapter 12, Page 145] ” .... “Your panties and bra, please,” Lupa said. She was polite, even gentle, but it was still an order.  I stood naked in front of strangers for the second time that day. Completely disgraced, I hunched over, shielding my breasts with one arm. I had no dignity left. My eyes filled with tears. Cinema ran her fingers around the elastic of the period-stained red underwear I’d bought with Rafael at Bubble,”

[Chapter 12, Page 152] ” .... Later, while I was sitting on the toilet, the redheaded guard came by and watched me through the peephole. So there was no privacy at all, then.”

[Chapter 16, Page 192] ” .... The first time he asked me if I was good at sex, I was sure I’d misheard him.
I looked at him incredulously and said, “What?!”
He just smiled and said, “Come on, just answer the question. You know, don’t you?”
Every conversation came around to sex. He’d say, “I hear you like to have sex. How do you like to have sex? What positions do you like most? Would you have sex with me? No? I’m too old for you?”

[Chapter 17, Page 197] ” ....November 15-16,2007.Vice-Comandante Argiro broke the news. Instead of his usual greeting—a lecherous smile and a kiss on both cheeks—he stayed seated behind his desk.”

[Chapter 18, Page 207] ” .... They were convinced that Meredith had been raped—they’d found her lying on the floor half undressed, a pillow beneath her hips—and that the sexual violence had escalated to homicidal violence.”

[Chapter 24, Page 286] ” .... 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 27, Page 335] ” .... I couldn’t stand thinking about Meredith in the starkly clinical terms the scientists were using to describe her. Did her bruises indicate sexual violence or restraint? What did the wounds to her hands and neck suggest about the dynamics of the aggression? What did the blood splatter and smears on the floor and armoire prove about her position in relation to her attacker or attackers?”

[Chapter 30, page 377] ” .... When we first met, we’d entertained each other making light of prison’s darkest aspects—being subjected to daily strip searches by agenti”

Commentary:

AK was made (more) infamous from her “Baby Brother” story, published online in 2007

Short Story Shows Amanda Knox Had Rape “In Her Mind”

[Chapter 18, Page 207] ” ....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.”

Commentary:

Also see this (supplied by Hopeful), where Knox gets to “proxy-rape” someone else.  The 3rd paragraph is disturbing.

How Amanda Knox Is Encouraging West Seattle To Adulate Seriously Sick Individuals

Amanda’s View: The Stanford rape case: redirecting focus

Commentary:

Again, not so much an admission, but showing the obvious.  Just a thought, but maybe Meredith’s murder really wasn’t about anger or jealousy.  Perhaps Knox is just a sexual predator, who decided to “silence” her victim afterwards.

Admission #11: Knox Admits There is a Strong Case

[Chapter 6, Page 65] Reference to the bloody footprint on the bathmat, (dismissed as “dripping”)

[Chapter 10, Page 113] Knox admits Sollecito pulled her alibi.

[Chapter 17, Page 197] References the murder weapon being found.

[Chapter 17, Page 199] Reference to a striped sweater that went missing.

[Chapter 18, Page 212] Reference to AK’s blood on the faucet (and implausible story about taking earrings out).

[Chapter 20, Page 234] Reference to story of RS killing Meredith, then planting AK’s fingerprints.

[Chapter 21, Page 245] Reference to RS DNA on bra clasp.

[Chapter 21, Page 246] Reference to the bloody footprints in the hall.

[Chapter 21, Page 250] Reference to blood soaked bathroom.

[Chapter 22, Page 269] Reference to the bloody knife imprint on Meredith’s bedsheet.

[Chapter 23, Page 280] References to attempts to stage crime scene.

[Chapter 25, Page 291] References to statements of November 5/6.

[Chapter 25, page 297] Reference to the cut on AK’s neck (which she calls a hickey)

[Chapter 25, Page 307] Reference to AK/RS phones being switched off.

[Chapter 26, Page 313] Reference to Kokomani seeing Knox/Sollecito/Guede together.

[Chapter 26, Page 314] Reference to Marco Quintavalle seeing Knox in his store the morning after.

[Chapter 26, Page 315] Reference to neighbor Nara Capezzali hearing Meredith scream.

[Chapter 26, Page 318] Reference to Antonio Curatolo seeing Knox.

[Chapter 26, Page 325/326] Knox testimony restricted to calunnia charge.

[Various] See the section below.  Knox makes numerous incriminating admissions.  Details she knew about the murder.

Admission #12: Knox Admits She Knows What Happened to Meredith

(a) Knox knew that Guede had used the toilet at her flat.  There is no other explanation.  Consider that Meredith’s murder happened sometime between 10pm and midnight, and Knox came back around 11am the next morning.  This means it had been unflushed for 11-13 hours.

(b) Knox knew Meredith had her throat cut—before the police did.

(c) Knox knew that Meredith had been moved—before the police did.

(d) Knox knew Meredith had been sexually assaulted—before the police did.

(e) Knox knew that Meredith had suffered.

(f) Knox knew that Meredith had screamed—a detail confirmed by neighbours.

(g) Knox knew more about Guede’s criminal past than the police did assuming this isn’t just another smear

(Why Knox’s Damning Last Live TV Interview Was Attacked And Labeled “Controversial”)

(h) Know knew which knife was the murder weapon

(Why Knox’s Damning Last Live TV Interview Was Attacked And Labeled “Controversial”)

(I) Knox knew that Meredith’s money had been taken.

(j) Knox knew—as did Sollecito—that nothing had been taken during the break in.

(k) Knox knew a black man was involved.  She just falsely accused the wrong one.

(l) Knox’s “alibi” for her footprints—Sollecito’s—in Meredith’s blood was that it was just bleach.

Commentary:

Although the details have been “dripping” out, this in particular reads like a pretty damning murder confession.)

Admission #13: Knox Admits her “50 hour interrogation” is false

[Chapter 6, Page 77] ” .... Now I see that I was a mouse in a cat’s game. While I was trying to dredge up any small thing that could help them find Meredith’s killer and trying to get my head around the shock of her death, the police were deciding to bug Raffaele’s and my cell phones.

[Chapter 7, Page 83] ” .... The police weren’t stopping to sleep and didn’t seem to be allowing us to, either. Rafael and I were part of the last group to leave the questura, along with Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, and the other guys from downstairs, at 5:30 A.M. The police gave Rafael and me explicit instructions to be back at the questura a few hours later, at 11 A.M. “Sharp,” they said.

[Chapter 10, Page 105] ” .... But trying to be adult in an unmanageable situation, I borrowed Raffaele’s sweatpants and walked nervously to my 9 A.M. grammar class. It was the first time since Meredith’s body was found that I’d been out alone.
Class wasn’t as normal as I would have liked. Just before we began the day’s lesson, a classmate raised her hand and asked, “Can we talk about the murder that happened over the weekend?”

[Chapter 10, Page 108] ” .... Did the police know Id show up, or were they purposefully separating Rafael and me? When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside, that I’d have to wait for Rafael in the car. I begged them to change their minds. I said, “I’m afraid to be by myself in the dark.”
They gave me a chair outside the waiting room, by the elevator. I’d been doing drills in my grammar workbook for a few minutes when a silver-haired police officer—I never learned his name—came and sat next to me. He said, “As long as you’re here, do you mind if I ask you some questions?”
I was still clueless, still thinking I was helping the police, still unable or unwilling to recognize that I was a suspect.”

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

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

Commentary:

A number of points to address in the “Knox Interrogation Hoax”

(a) Knox complains that her phone and RS’ were tapped, but it seems that no effort was ever made either to pull their phone records, confirm their locations, confirm if the phones were on, or to read any text messages.  Seems very half assed.  Knox further claims that while she and RS were the targets, police went out of their way to get them to implicate—someone else! Patrick Lumumba.

(b) Knox admits that “all” the residents of the house were detained, not just her.  And hanging around the central police station is not the same as being questioned.

(c) Knox admits she went to class on Monday

(d) Knox admits she showed up at the Questura uninvited

(e) Knox admits she had to ask to be let in and to stay on

(f) Knox admits she gave PL’s name to the police

Admission #14: Knox Admits that Mysogeny was not an Issue

All of these women were involved in the case and none claimed THEY were made targets:

(a) Monica Napoleoni—Chief Inspector

(b) Rita Ficarra—Inspector

(c) Manuela Comodi—Prosecutor

(d) Claudia Matteini—Judge

(e) Patrizia Stefanoni—DNA expert

(f) Sarah Gino—Defense DNA expert

(g) Maria del Grosso—Knox lawyer

(h) Guilia Bongiorno—Sollecito lawyer

(i) Carla Vecchiotti—“Independent” expert appointed by Judge Hellmann

Commentary:

So at least 9 women were described in positions of power and influence in WTBH, and none of them claimed bias or discrimination.

Admission #15: Knox Admits Her Lawyers Didn’t “Sign Off” on her Book

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

[Chapter 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…’‘

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

[Chapter 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.”

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

Commentary:

While Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga don’t seem overly bright (or ethical), it is very doubtful that either would commit career suicide by endorsing such claims, in essence that they failed to act to protect their client.  These claims from the book were never reported.

Admission #16: Knox Admits that Guede got no “Deal” to Testify

[Chapter 22, 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.”

[Chapter 30, Page 384] ” .... friend. That feeling was compounded when, about three weeks after Raffaele and I were convicted, the appeals court cut Rudy Guede’s sentence nearly in half, from thirty years to sixteen. Meredith’s murderer was now serving less time than I was—by ten years! How can they do this?!”

In summary:

WTBH is mostly dishonest crap, but the truthful parts (about 5-10%) contradict the other parts.  Research, anyone?

5. Will the documentary makers please actually read AK’s book?

Painful yes, but red flags are everywhere. I ASSUME they want the truth…

6. Knox Illegally In Toronto

This post is one in our ongoing series.

Netflix’s “Amanda Knox” was first shown at the September 2016 Toronto International Film Festival. Knox herself attended to promote the movie.

That got it off to a fast start but under the law, with her criminal record, she should not even have been there.  Knowing her criminal record, it is unclear “why” she was allowed into Canada.  Section 140 of the Canadian Criminal Code (public mischief), makes it a crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison to falsely accuse someone of a crime, or to divert suspicion from him/herself.

This is the Canadian equivalent of “calunnia”, which Judge Massei gave her 1 year for, which Judge Hellmann raised to 3 years.  Even though Canada has a different name for calunnia, the act itself is still very much illegal.

Since the financial restitution to PL was never paid for the hell she put him through, AK still has outstanding legal obligations, another reason she is inadmissible.

Knox claims she was not paid or compensated in any way for this documentary, though that is very unlikely.  Further, the Province of Ontario has rules which prohibit criminals from cashing in on the notoriety of their crimes, still another reason Knox should not have been allowed into Canada.  This is similar to American “Son-of-Sam” laws.

Even though the rape and murder charges were ultimately thrown out, Canada Border Services and Canadian Immigration are required to not allow entry to persons who pose a danger to the public.  “Present at the murder scene, washing blood off her hands” isn’t exactly being “innocent” of the crime.  This is the strongest reason Knox should have been denied entry.

In future, countries she visits should be put in the know on all of this.


Below: Stephen Robert Morse, Rod Blackhurst, and Brian McGinn: NO CLUE what is in book?


Saturday, October 08, 2016

Netflixhoax 10: Omitted - How Amanda Knox Falsely Accused Dr Mignini Of A Felony

Posted by Peter Quennell


Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.


1. The 2009 Trial Verdict Was Exactly Right

The 2009 prosecution phase was as perfect as any Italian prosecution heard in court. 

This phase from January to June was fast and implacable, about as forceful as a high-speed train. Amidst so much that damned, days of largely unchallenged police testimony for example proved that Knox framed Patrick only because Sollecito sold her out.

Nothing else. He said she had made him lie, and never wanted to see her again, and he and Knox never got back to one narrative theme.

Knox on the witness stand in June was a wince-making disaster - this tough sarcastic rather thuggish girl claiming “the cops were meanies to fragile little me” did not exactly ring true.

The defense lawyers never ever recovered from that and we expected at least two to simply walk off. Late in the trial Sollecito lawyer Maori sarcastically said Knox had been high on cocaine (we believe that is true) as barb after barb was exchanged.

Remember that the Massei court was the only one to see all of the massive evidence.  That included days and days of autopsy-related evidence in closed court with both the perps being closely observed throughout.

And that jury got the verdict and sentence exactly right. Knox and Sollecito should indeed be serving their time as in the US or UK they would. 

So. Why did the two ever get released? Simple. Gaming of the Italian justice system to produce two bent appeals.

The 2011 appeal court was bent when the defenses got the Umbria region’s top criminal judge blatantly forced aside in favor of a semi-senile business judge absolutely at sea on the law.  Additionally his “independent” DNA experts were cherry-picked for him.

The 2015 Supreme Court was bent by way of known mafia connections and of the blatant breaking of Italian appeal law. Italian law enforcement never talks about mafia investigations before some bad guys are locked up, but one day the whole story should be widely known. We know much of it now.

2. Thirty PR Hoaxes To Make You Ignore The Above

Check out the 30 PR Hoaxes in our right column, or better still, wait a few days, and we will open a new page summarizing each hoax. What the Netflix hoaxers have done is to pick up a few of those hoaxes, and run with them in a mocking, sneering tone.

Hence the mocking, sneering tone of many ill-researched movie reviews.

The best way to annihilate the Netflix slant is to fully comprehend each hoax they used. One major hoax is that the synthetic Knox you see now is the real-life Knox around the time of the crime and at trial through 2009.

We can show that back then Amanda Knox was a loose cannon - and widely seen as such.

Another major hoax Amanda Knox herself advances in the film is that she was yelled at and abused by cops on 5-6 November 2007 over a long time. And so, desperate, she fingered as the real killer Patrick Lumumba.

Believe her? We address this question to Knox herself about the “interrogation” as described in her book six years later. Let us see if her response (if any) makes her look like someone you can blindly trust.

We will also post more later to destroy the interrogation hoax.

3. Question For Knox About Her “Interrogation”

Here is how you describe in BOTH editions of your book (2013 and 2015) a supposed interrogation by Prosecutor Mignini at your first (witness) interview. Below the quote, we describe what everyone else present says took place.

[This is the voluntary witness interview.] 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.”

So you choose to portray yourself as reluctant to talk at all? While Dr Mignini relentlessly edges you more and more into saddling Patrick with the blame? While you have no lawyer there?

In fact, as you well know, every word of that dialogue is made up. You invented it. Dr Mignini was not even there. Right then, he was home in bed.

Now we contrast this malicious figment of your imagination with the account of that night by many others who were present at various times. Even you yourself essentially agreed to this narrative at trial, with the one exception that the slaps to your head that several observed were by you were actually by someone else.

Feel free to tell us where we have got this wrong:

1. You insist on being around in the central police station despite being grumpy and tired while Sollecito helps investigators to check a few claims.

2. After a while an investigator, Rita Ficarra, politely invites you to help build a list of names of men who might have known Meredith or the house. She is somewhat reluctant as it was late and no interpreter was on hand. You quite eagerly begin. An interpreter is called from home. You calmly produce seven names and draw maps.

3. Sollecito breaks suddenly and unexpectedly early in his own recap/summary session when confronted with phone records which showed he had lied. He quickly points the finger at you as the one having made him lie. You are briefly told he is saying you went out.

4. You break explosively soon after when an outgoing text shows up on your phone after you had claimed you sent none. You slap your head. You yell words to the effect that Patrick is the one, he killed Meredith. Police did not even know of the existence of Patrick before you identified the text as to him.

5. Thereafter you talk your head off, explaining how you had overheard Patrick attack Meredith at your house. The three ladies present and one man do what they can to calm you down. But you insist on a written statement, implicating him, and stating you went out from Sollecito’s alone.

6. This from about 2:00 am is the state of play. You are taken to the bar for refreshments and helped to sleep. You testify at trial that you were given refreshments, and everybody treated you well.

7. As you had admitted being at the scene of a crime you had not reported, you had in effect admitted to a crime, so a legal Miranda-type caution is required saying the signee understands they should not talk without a lawyer, and if they do talk that can be used as evidence in court.

8. Dr Mignini, the on-call duty judge for that night, is by multiple account, including your own at trial, not present at that list-building session with Rita Ficarra, and in fact knows nothing about it until Rita Ficarra closes it down. He comes from home.

9. Dr Mignini reads you your rights. You now sign acknowledging you know you should not talk unless your lawyer is there. Dr Mignini asks you no questions. He is anxious to get the session over so he can get on to the task of pulling Patrick in. You yourself shrug off a lawyer and repeat your accusation and insist on a new written statement. Though you are again warned, you see it done.

10. Under Italian law that second statement could and should have been used against you, but the Supreme Court denied its use except against Patrick. Dr Mignini has said he thinks that was wrong in law but did not appeal.

Really a very simple chain of events, which was attested to at trial by all of those who had been present on the night, even including yourself.

There are no signs at all in anyone else’s description that you were leaned on by anybody, and nobody at the central police station had the slightest vested interest in making you into a target that night.

So where precisely does this new claim in your book and the Netfllix film of an illegal interrogation by Dr Mignini fit in? Now would seem a very good time to simply admit it is a hoax. Remember all courts saw it as such.


Sunday, October 02, 2016

Netflixhoax 7: Omitted - Amanda Knox’s Many Misrepresentations To Florence Appeal Court

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters


Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.


1. Many false claims in the film

NONE of the false claims by speakers were rebutted. Not one, by the Knox PR team moonlighting as serious directors and producers.

The producers’ bizarre technique was to place Knox, Sollecito, Conti & Vecchiotti in front of a camera and then to let them lie unchecked as they did repeatedly throughout the 90 minute film.

For example, Knox makes a very shrill claim in the film that she was repeatedly hit and forced into a “confession” by angry and abusive cops.

In fact she wasnt hit by anyone, except by herself. There was not even an interrogation that night - only the building of a list of names with a couple of kind cops.

Her own lawyers confirmed she was not hit, and they never filed a complaint. They publicly pleaded that she stop making things up. The movie never tells us this, never ever challenges Knox.  We’ll return to this false claim in depth.

For balance, how many Italian justice officials do you suppose the PR team invited to represent the huge team of police, prosecutors and judges, and all of the witnesses, and the huge body of evidence? And to rebut Knox’ claims? After, all she was accusing his staff of crimes.

Precisely one. Dr Mignini. That was it.

He was not even told of the accusations of crimes from Knox. Instead he was asked to address only childish touchy-feely questions which no Italian journalist would ever dream of addressing to a highly trained prosecutor or judge. Dr Mignini is a regular on Italian TV explaining serious legal issues of some complexity, and is a master at it. 

2. Lies previously reported and rebutted

We have so far rebutted seven false claims made by the team in the media or in the film in the previous posts here..

(1) That Knox was found innocent by the Fifth Chambers and fully exonerated or exculpated. No she wasnt. She was confirmed as being at the scene at the time with blood on her hands based on copious evidence, and any trial or appeal court which normally handles murders (the Fifth Chambers does not) would have insisted the Nencini verdict should stand. She remains guilty for life of calunnia and she still owes Patrick his award. Research anyone?

(2) That Dr Mignini hoodwinked the Justice system some way in a supposed pursuit of Amanda Knox although 30-plus judges in fact guided the judicial process - in Italian justice they and not prosecutors are the equivalent of American district attorneys. Raffaele Sollecito is conveniently not accounted for in this conspiracy theory, although with the possible exception of Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer, Sollecito’s words for Knox were the harshest, and his anger rattled on for years. Research anyone?

(3) That Dr Mignini pursued this because he had been convicted, although the conviction, by a rogue prosecutor and rogue judge in Florence with murky connections, had been annulled (in effect deleted; no record) by an appeal court and that confirmed by a strident Supreme Court ruling more than three years prior to the Netflix movie. Research anyone?

(4) That Dr Mignini had consulted a psychic, though it was widely known for many years that he had done no such thing and had written to Corriere at length refuting this more than three years prior to the Netflix movie. Research anyone?

(5) That Dr Mignini holds satanic and sex-orgy theories in this and other cases. No he does not. He has been on national TV pushing satanic theories back and saying they are few. The satanic theory of the Monster of Florence case goes back over a decade before he was requested to check an arm of the case. Knox and Sollecito and Guede were all convicted of murder with a sex-crime element, read all the judges reports prior to trial, all agreed an attack with a sexual aspect was what the evidence said.  Research anyone?

(6) That the Italian justice system is somehow a dangerous error-prone joke (widely accepted as gospel by the movie’s reviewers) though in fact it is one of the most careful systems in the world and unlike the American system (with which it links extensively) never ever sees a false conviction standing by the end of the exhaustive appeals process. Research anyone?

(7) That the release of a provisional positive HIV finding for Knox and a list she created of her recent sex partners was a malicious act by prison staff or prosecutors, though they released precisely NOTHING and it was the Knox defense team that was fervently distributing those materials (of considerable damage to Knox’s public perception). Research anyone?

3. Starting to address Knox’s lies

Much of what Knox says in the movie is untrue. That is not unusual. She consistently lies in all her interviews. She also consistently tries to damage people.

In her book alone we have counted several lies on each page, close to 1000, and about 100 instances of defamations, lies intended to create real damage.

We are going to post separately on each of Knox’s most sweeping and most self-serving lies. Here, we give several dozen examples of lies repeatedly refuted, some of which are in the movie.

The Knox PR team moonlighting as serious directors and producers claim that they devoted SIX YEARS to getting their movie right. They could have found these rebuttals and read them all in a day or two if an honest movie was what they wanted to make.

Perhaps they were simply uncaring of the truth, lost in the complexities of the case, and uncaring of who they damaged, including the real victim’s family, and of what portrait they offered of Italy and Italian justice and its officers, however damaging and vile and untrue.

Or perhaps they were already deeply corrupted, and crazed at the prospect of fame and future career prospects and bloodmoney. If so, they are in unsavory company.

4. Knox’s lies to Italy (#1) rebutted

Knox does not often get the opportunity to lie on a grand scale to Italians. Just as well for her as the negative reaction is opposite and immediate.

Italians followed the trial in real-time witnessed a strident contemptuous sharp-tongued “Terminator Knox” on the witness stand for two days at trial, resulting in this sarcastic reaction and this sarcastic reaction.

“Daffy Knox” and “Terminator Knox” who forever sought media attention at trial in 2009 were retired from 2010 onward in favor of “Whiny Victim Knox”.

In 2013 Knox was too timid to return for her own Florence appeal presided over by Judge Nencini, but not too timid to send him a massively self-infatuated email containing some of the same lies Knox repeats in the movie. Here they all are, easily rebutted by Finn MacCool in Dec 2013. Research anyone?


[By Finn MacCool] You can read here the email Amanda Knox sent to Judge Nencini.

It is dated 15 December 2013 and was handed to Dr Nencini by Dr Ghirga, apparently to the disdain of both of them. It contains many statements which, if she were under oath, could be considered perjury.

One telling point is that she claims “I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.”  Her co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, was not so afraid and he did present himself at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

He made a spontaneous statement and the judge assured him that he should feel free to intervene and make further interventions whenever he wished. So far he hasn’t wished to - he preferred to head back to the Caribbean for his holiday.

But that event and that presence by Sollecito completely undermine the credibility of Knox’s claim that she feels afraid of the court proceedings. There would be nothing to stop her coming and going, at this stage, just as Sollecito did.

I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified accusations of the prosecution and civil parties.

That’s what her lawyers were about to try to do. But instead they had to hand this email to the judge, showing their client’s complete contempt for the court process.

I seek not to supplant their work

She doesn’t want to supplant the work of her own lawyers? Most defendants don’t, nor do they feel the need to tell the court that using an archaic seventeenth-century grammatical construction (where modern English would have “I do not mean to…” or “I do not wish to…”)

Because I am not present to take part in [my own appeal], I feel compelled to share.

As Judge Nencini said, if anyone wants to talk to a court, come to court. Knox chose not to be present, which means that the word “because” is not a logical connector for why she feels compelled to share what she thinks. “Even though” would make more sense.

The Court has access to my previous declarations and I trust will review them…

The court has access to thousands of pages. Everybody trusts that courts will review the evidence before passing judgment – that’s how the legal process works.

I must repeat: I am innocent.

In fact she does not have to repeat that, which is simply a reiteration of her not guilty plea.

I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.

The wording is reminiscent of a previous declaration, “I am very afraid of Patrik, the African boy who…” Also the court may remember the presence of her co-defendant, who made a brief presentation to the court (and was invited to intervene again at any time he saw fit) and who afterwards flew back to his extended vacation in the Dominican Republic. It is difficult to see what the defendants have to be afraid of from the court, except perhaps the truth.

I am afraid that the prosecution’s vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you.

The prosecution’s case has already been made; this was the opportunity for the defense to make their case. It is the court’s duty to consider the evidence without being overly swayed by the vehemence of lawyers from either side – they look at the facts, and pass judgment based on that, and this happens in literally millions of cases every year. (Cassazione alone reviews more than 80 thousand cases each year.)

This is not for lack of faith in your powers of discernment, but because the prosecution has succeeded before in convincing a perfectly sound court of concerned and discerning adults to convict innocent people – Raffaele and me.

The second half of the sentence contradicts the first. The writer is explicitly stating that she doubts that the court has sufficient powers of discernment to be able to see through the prosecution’s arguments. Her justification for saying this is simply that it has happened before, with a previous court.

I’ve attentively followed this process and gleaned the following facts…

This is a delusional statement. The writer is the defendant, who is the subject of the process, not an external observer to it. We can compare it with her statements following her arrest, in which she claimed still to be helping the police on an equal basis with them, despite being charged with the murder.

No physical evidence places me in Meredith’s bedroom, the scene of the crime…

The bedroom is where the murder took place, but the crime scene is much wider than that, and certainly encompasses the adjoining room where the burglary was faked, the bathroom where the killers cleaned up, and the corridor that connects those rooms. Knox’s blood, DNA, bare footprints are all found in those places. Within Meredith’s room itself, there is also a woman’s shoeprint that does not match the victim, and which Knox’s own lawyer was obliged to claim was caused by an unfortunate fold in the pillowcase.

Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence in the brutal scenario: handprints, footprints, shoe prints in Meredith’s blood, DNA in her purse, on her clothing, in her body.

The term “brutal scenario” makes no sense here, although she repeats it again a couple of lines later. Perhaps she means “crime scene” or “bedroom”. The only footprints found at the crime scene are those of Knox and Sollecito. A woman’s shoeprint in the room where the murder took place cannot be that of either Guede or the victim, and is most likely that of Knox.

The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have… been the one to fatally wound Meredith – without leaving any genetic trace of myself. That is because it is impossible.

Actually it is perfectly possible to do this – for example, simply by stabbing someone to death while wearing gloves. However, in this case the prosecution has in fact explained how several traces of Knox’s DNA have been found on the handle of the knife which had the victim’s DNA on the blade. That obviously fits a scenario in which Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher with that knife.

Either I was there, or I wasn’t.

The same thing applies to the appeal court. Either the defendants are there, or they are not. In this case, the defendant is not.

The analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn’t there.

Knox’s footprints, blood and DNA, sometimes mixed with that of the victim, all place her at the crime scene, and so does her DNA on the handle of the murder weapon.

My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “confession” that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime.

“Non-knowledge” is a curious word. Knox’s witness interview was perfectly legal – it was only the unexpected confession from the witness that changed the status of that interview, so that its contents could no longer be used against her. But there is no question over its legality.

The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander…

This is an extraordinary aside. The defendant is here rejecting the legitimacy of the Italian Supreme Court, which has definitively found against her, and is also rejecting the findings of the Hellmann court that provisionally freed her, pending appeal. Every single court has found against her on this count.

. ...did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “confession”.

Let us reread some excerpts from this supposed recantation: “After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele’s hand… I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik… In these flashbacks I’m having, I see Patrik as the murderer…Why did I think of Patrik?... Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?” This is not a recantation, and it does in fact contain further accusations of Patrick Lumumba while also seeking to throw suspicion both on Sollecito and an unnamed “other person”.

My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence.

As dozens of witnesses have testified in a series of trials and appeals, Knox’s post-murder behavior indicated the exact opposite, which is why suspicion fell on her in the first place.

I did not flee Italy when I had the chance.

On page 71 of her memoir, Knox recounts the following exchange with Officer Ficarra, on the day after the murder was discovered: “My parents want me to go to Germany to stay with relatives for a couple of weeks. Is that okay?” She said, “You can’t leave Perugia. You’re an important part of the investigation.”

I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50 hours in four days.

Chapter Ten of her memoir gives her own account of what she did on Monday, November 5th. She went to a nine o’clock grammar class, at which she refused to discuss the case with her fellow students; she spoke on the phone with her Aunt Dolly, admitting that she had not yet contacted the US embassy; she bumped into Patrick Lumumba where she refused to talk to BBC reporters; she spent the afternoon with Sollecito and then accompanied him to a friend’s house where she played the ukulele. Far from being at the police’s beck and call, she ignored their request that she stay home while they interview Sollecito separately, and turned up to the Questura regardless, although not before they had finished their evening meal.

The police coerced me into signing a false “confession”….

Her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, for which she was convicted and has already served four years in prison, was not a confession and was not coerced.

. …one may be coerced into giving a false “confession” because of psychological torture… This is a universal problem.

The US-based Innocence Project reports that there have been 244 exonerations since 2000, which is just over seventeen per year, which in turn means that currently in the USA, roughly 0.1% of cases are eventually overturned. Being wrongfully convicted might be devastating for the person concerned, but it is not a universal problem.

I did not carry around Raffaele’s kitchen knife.

The defendant has not been accused of carrying the knife around, but rather of stabbing Meredith Kercher to death with it. Forensic evidence supports that accusation, too.

I had no contact with Rudy Guede. Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guede.

Very typical of Knox’s writing is this kind of self-contradiction, sometimes occurring within the same sentence, or as in this case, in consecutive sentences, seemingly with no self-awareness that any contradiction has even occurred.

If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics.

The prosecution is present in the court, having made its presentation in the usual way. The defense lawyers are about to do exactly the same thing. The only theatrics happening in the court at that moment is a bizarre email sent by one of the defendants, in lieu of attending her own appeal to her own murder conviction.

But because no evidence exists that proves my guilt, the prosecution would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements.

No further comments… [End Finn MacCool] 

5. Knox’s lies to Italy (#2) rebutted

The Italian weekly magazine Oggi is actually on trial for contempt of court for translating and republishing some of the numerous lies and defamations in Knox’s book Waiting To Be Heard.  This is the article with offending Knox quotes in bold, and below our own rebuttal. Research anyone?

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.

Our own rebuttals:

  • 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, though she did repeatedly smack her own head. Over a dozen witnesses testified that she was treated well, broke into a conniption spontaneously, and thereafter her talking was hard to stop.

  • 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.


6. Coming up In Our Next Posts

More of the same. Knox blowing smoke and our exposing her. Some of the same smoke she blew for Netflix. And also, our lies of omission seies.


Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Netflixhoax 6: Omitted - The Almost Unique Carefulness Of Italy’s Justice System

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Bigotry for fame and profit: Stephen Robert Morse, Rod Blackhurst, and Brian McGinn

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.


1. Wrong “facts” and numerous omissions

As first explained previously in this series the very loaded Netflix report Amanda Knox included some seriously wrong “facts”.

Here is another of them.  The HIV Hoax. Italian doctors did NOT fool Knox about a possible HIV positive; they told her in confidence not to worry, they would retest (a common practice in HIV testing) and that test soon came back negative.

NOBODY in the justice system leaked about this. The leak to the media complete with Knox’s list of recent sex partners was blatantly and well-recordedly made by the Knox-Mellas defense team. Even several of us were leaked-to - this was months before we got a grip on the case.

We shall be deconstructing the various wrong “facts”.

But mainly though the film operated at the level of cut-and-paste innuendo. And it banked on the extreme ignorance of its audience.  Hundreds of inconvenient facts were omitted, any few of which would have disrupted its propaganda purpose.

We shall be adding in the numerous omissions.

2. The report’s macro-level takeaways

About 50 movie reviewers so far have mostly declared these to be their main takeways.

    (1) A muddled or desperate or evil Dr Mignini framed Knox and fooled his co-prosecutor, numerous experts, 30-plus judges, and most of Italy.

    (2) The justice system of Italy is a dangerous error-prone joke, but thankfully some much smarter Americans are here, to save silly Italy from itself.

    (3) Somehow a few BRITISH tabloids influenced an ITALIAN jury to vote “guilty” and the damning prosecution case the hapless defenses did not once dent in 2009 was immaterial.

All three of them are untrue. We’ll take a first stab at correcting for them below, with much more to come.   

(1) The REAL Dr Mignini

He framed Knox? On this there is vast evidence to the contrary. Dr Mignini has already explained some and we have much more to come. Dr Mignini had no motive, early on he was pretty good to Knox, and the checks and balances against any such hoax are simply enormous.

Ask yourself, why would a prosecutor intent on framing Knox do this recorded interrogation?

In fact he did it as a favor to Knox, because she asked him for it. She asked also for the interrogation at trial. Those were the ONLY two interrogations of Knox. Both damning. There were no others, ever.

In both of them, Knox by her own tongue dropped herself in it, far more than any police or prosecutor ever did. The second had a major effect on the jury (and on Italy).

In that same post we pointed to two of the Netflix team’s numerous self-serving omissions.

(1) [The movie]  appears to accept that innocence was proved and that Knox and Sollecito had zero role. That was not what the Supreme Court said. [See Dr Mignini’s final paras.]

(2) Italian lawyers think the Fifth Chambers ruling may have been illegal as well as bent. The reasoning can be read here. That is headed to court soon.


(2) Italy’s REAL justice system

Pretty well the exact opposite of what you’d suppose if you read only Michael Heavey and Frank Sforza and Paul Ciolino and Bruce Fischer and John Douglas and Saul Kassin and Steve Moore and of course Doug Preston and the late Mario Spezi. Read only them, and one might be excused for thinking Italy’s is a huge, horrible system which the Italian population desperately needs THEM to save it from! Bigotry for fame and profit.

A total illusion, which Morse, Blackhurst, and McGinn now want you to swallow. Bigotry for fame and profit.

The main characteristics of the Italian system are (1) a large and visible national and local police presence with excellent forensics labs, (2) a low crime rate even by European standards, and even more-so by American standards, and (3) a very low rate of incarceration that is only 1/6 the rate of the US.

The system is immensely careful and with two AUTOMATIC rights of appeal for convictions for serious crimes the chances of a false conviction standing are zero. Compare this with thousands uncovered in the US. The vast wave of appeals has clogged the courts and right now Parliament is trying to reverse this. 

Appellants have a huge advantage which makes it easy for them to game this system: the prosecution presents their case ONLY at trial. Then seasoned defences can game bewildered prosecutors at higher levels.

Officially the US knows all of this. It has much to gain politically from Italian co-operation and works very hard on their functional relationships. The FBI and the Italian equivalent embed one another’s officers in Rome and Washington, aid one another’s labs, share huge amounts of information, mutually take down mafia, and organize dozens of extraditions annually.

Almost all prosecutors are highly-trained by career-path; the only three who were not in this case (Judges Hellmann, Marasca and Bruno) and sprung Knox and Sollecito are all believed to have been corrupted.

Finally, the mafias and fellow-travelers work hard to smear police and prosecutors (as well as assassinating them, over 100 now). In this respect the Knox PR has wittingly or unwittingly been functioning as an arm of the mafias. Bongiorno, substituted for the hapless Sollecito PR which cost Vanessa her Carabinieri post, became famous for mafia defenses.

The 20 posts we link to below go deeper. You might read at least the headlines and the quotes below. That Italy’s is a pretty good system should be compelling.


1. Click here for post: How Italian Justice REALLY Works

Comparing the US and UK common law system - a model founded on non-written laws and developed through judicial proceedings - with this system which arose from the Roman Law model - based on a written civil code - is really like comparing apples to oranges.

They were both conceived to protect individual’s rights at a maximum level, while seeking justice for the victims. But with entirely different processes.

One is not necessarily better or worse. But there are legal experts who think the Italian system is distinctly fairer - much more weighted toward the defendants. In the US and the UK the prosecutor usually has to make it through only one pre-trial hoop. In Italy the prosecutor has to make it through a whole row of pre-trial hoops…

2. Click here for post:  Why The Prosecutors In Italy Are Relatively Popular

Italy’s a tough country with, albeit dwindling now, a legacy of violent crime, and many brave prosecutors over the years have been assassinated.

And the Italian legal system is not particularly weighted in their direction, with a large number of hurdles they have to climb over before a case ever gets to trial.

And the Italian prison system is relatively lenient, heavily pro-prisoner-remediation and early release, and proportionally only 1/10 the size of the US’s.

So the endemic attempts to undermine Prosecutor Mignini have invariably won only MORE popular support for him and his case in Perugia and Italy in general.

3. Click here for post:  Why The Italian Judiciary’s Probably Less Prone to Pressure Than Any Other In The World

Italian magistrates enjoy an extraordinary level of autonomy from the other powers of government (executive and legislative) and the point of this post is to explain why. This autonomy is above all due to the Italian constitutional framework.

That framework is intended to guarantee such an exceptional level of independence so as to avoid the abuses that occurred during Mussolini’s fascist regime, when Italian magistrates were forced by the executive to prosecute (and persecute) political opponents to the fascist dictator…

4. Click here for post:  Explaining How The Italian Appeals Process Works And Why It Consumes So Much Time 

The extraordinary broad appeal rights awarded by the Italian system are all part of the 1989 reform, which intended to add even more guarantees to the right of the accused. This has resulted in an incredible increase in pending cases in the overburdened Italian justice system….

This situation is exacerbated by the broad appeal rights guaranteed also on the 2nd level of appeal, at the Supreme Court of Cassation. Like other supreme courts around the world, such court does not re-examine the entire body of evidence, but only ‘errores in iudicando’ and ‘errores in procedendo’ (errors in procedure or application of the law).

However, unlike its American or English counterparts, the Italian Supreme Court cannot refuse to review a case, and defendants have unlimited appeal rights to the Supreme Court of Cassation. They don’t even have to wait for the Appeal Court. You can in fact appeal to the Supreme Court directly after the first trial. ...

5. Click here for post:  Barbara Benedettelli: Campaigner For Victims And Families Says Italian System Denies Them Justice

There are proportionally very few perpetrators in Italians prison by global standards, and when there in prison they are given quite a nice time, trained to perform usefully when released, and very often get out of prison early.

Seemingly very humane. But this does carry very high costs. There are often almost unbearable pressures on victims’ families, as Meredith’s father John Kercher has several times described. On top of all this, there is the growing western fascination with perps, and in many cases their elevating to popular cult-worship status.

Barbara Benedettelli is a writer and columnist and the editor of the popular “Top Secret” program on Rete4 TV…  Her latest book (only in Italian) is called “Victims Forever”. She talks of various prominent perps and the enormous and unrequiting pressures on victims’ families. In polls a large majority of Italians detest this. They want much less stress on “fairness” and MUCH more compassion for victims families and, if still alive, for the victims.

6. Click here for post:  Harvard Political Review Writer Alex Koenig Reproaches The Sliming of Italy’s Justice System 

The fact of the matter is, those that immediately claim that Knox was wrongly accused and jailed by a corrupt justice system make two extremely arrogant assumptions that reveal perverse American exceptionalism.

1) It is assumed that, as an American – an American woman no less – Knox is incapable of murder. This case differs, of course, from the 1,176 domestic murders committed by women because, well, who knows?

2) It is assumed that not only is the Italian justice system incapable of fulfilling its legal duties, but that the intentions of the court were swayed by anti-Americanism.

This is not merely an abstract sentiment, but was actually articulated by Senator Maria Cantwell (D) of my home state of Washington.

7. Click here for post:  Interesting Tilts Of Marcia Clark And Alan Dershowitz Toward Educated, Informed Italian-type Juries 

“[American] jury instructions are so numerous and complex, it’s a wonder jurors ever wade through them. And so it should come as no surprise that they can sometimes get stuck along the way. The instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing even to lawyers. And reasonable doubt? That’s the hardest, most elusive one of all. And I think it’s where even the most fair-minded jurors can get derailed.”

“Well, if you want justice, don’t look to the criminal law system. That’s not its job. Its job is not to produce a just result. Its job is to produce a legally correct result…”

“We’ve opted for a much more democratic system, and it means that in the end you’re going to be dissatisfied with a lot of verdicts. Just don’t expect too much from our legal system. Don’t expect truth. Don’t expect justice, because that’s not what it’s supposed to give you.”

8. Click here for post:  The Chief Enforcer Of The Constitution And The Rule Of Law is Wildly Popular Throughout Italy 

He is said to receive dozens of petitions a day and in certain cases he does act to get things done. Significantly, two that he chose to ignore recently concerned the ongoing Sollecito-Knox appeal process.

Of two pretty blatant attempts to bias the Perugia process, one came from Joel Simon of the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists, and one came from the junior Berlusconi-party MP Rocco Girlanda.

President Giorgio Napolitano simply ignored both of them.

9. Click here for post:  Compared To Italy, Say, Precisely How Wicked Is The United States? 

We have often remarked that Italy’s crime rate is low, the three mafia families (Sicily, Calabria and Naples) are on the rocks, and the justice system is one of the most cautious - conviction rates are infuriatingly low for the suffering families of victims, but in a forgiving Catholic nation rates of incarceration are unlikely to jump any time soon.

The American incarceration rate in sharp contrast has for a decade led the rest of the world, and it increased every year for nearly 30 straight years from the arrival of President Reagan to the departure of President GW Bush. Its prison rate is ahead of Russia’s, with its mafias and corruption and poverty, and ahead of China’s, with its large population of political prisoners.

10. Click here for post:  Involvement Of The Formidable Carabinieri Shows How Italian Justice Will Not Be Leaned Upon 

Judge Nencini may have invoked the help of the Carabinieri for reasons going beyond simply very good science.

Italy has among the world’s lowest crime-rates, murder-rates and incarceration-rates. Unusually low criminal and anti-social tendencies among native-born Italians, and strong family pride, explains a large part of this.

But another main reason is the high-profile and exceptionally smart police presence. Deliberately a cool presence rather than a hot and intimidating presence, and in fact a very popular one

11. Click here for post:  Italy’s Unpopular Politicians And Mafia Fellow Travelers Against Italy’s Popular Justice System 

For comparison, in 2011 the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the justice system “a lot” or “enough” was 53.3%. By comparison, the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the government “a lot” or “enough”  were 14.7%, and those who trust the parliament were only 15%.

In 2012, the percentage of Italians who trust the parliament is now only 9.5%, and those who trust the Mario Monti administration are only 21.1%.

Over the eight years from 2004 to 2012 the percentage of Italians who trust the justice system was always bigger than those who trust parliament or government by at least ten points, and in some years we can see a spread of 20, 30, even 39 percentage points achieved by the judiciary over the parliament and government.

12. Click here for post:  Italy’s Advanced, Effective, Humane Law & Order System Also Adopted By City Of New York

New York is now the safest big city in America. It is following a route that is not only almost identical to Italy’s - it is being watched and emulated elsewhere across the US….

Now that the United States has the world’s highest reported rate of incarceration, many criminologists are contemplating another strategy. What if America reverted to the penal policies of the 1980s? What if the prison population shrank drastically? What if money now spent guarding cellblocks was instead used for policing the streets?

13. Click here for post:  Italian Prime Minister Renzi Will Push Measures To Speed Up Justice 

In a move popular not least among those who are part of it Mr Renzi announces moves to speed up Italian justice.

Italian justice and those who work in it are widely trusted and respected in Italy. But a very humane system designed post WWII to give those accused a level of rights unique in the world has been even further tilted over the years by politicians passing laws to aid political and business colleagues in legal trouble.

14. Click here for post:  Why Numerous American JUDGES Favor The Supremely Neutral Italian Kind Of System 

See that above at the bottom of the YouTube screen? Some $280 million has been spent since the year 2000. Can you guess what the $280 million was for?

In fact the $280 million is funds raised and spent for judges’ election campaigns in the roughly 3/4 of all American states where such judges’ elections are held - the original intention of which was good: to get judicial choices out of smoke-filled rooms.

15. Click here for post:  Meredith May Not See Justice (Yet) But She Will Leave At Least Three Legacies 

Knox behaved grossly irresponsibly in heading to Perugia under-funded, intent on drug-doing, and with zero intention of seriously studying.

The University of Washington and many others realised they could have huge liabilities if they did not distance themselves a lot from such loose cannons in future.

In October 2009 we reposted this report by Andrea Vogt which described the initiation of measures many American universities have now come to implement….

16. Click here for post:  Counterterrorism: Another Way Italian Law Enforcement Is An Effective Model For Everywhere Else 

A leading military analyst is citing Italy as a model of counterterrorism done right, pointing out that despite many factors going against it, Islamic terrorists have failed to kill a single person on Italian soil.

17. Click here for post:  Italian Justice & The Telling Status Of Extraditions To And From Italy 

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.

18. Click here for post:  Knox’s Nasty-Prisons Hoax: NY Times Describes How Italy Leads The World In Rehabilitation 

Around five years ago, largely because of immigrant crimes, the prison population (previously below 100,000 - in the US, California prisons alone hold almost twice that) began to balloon.

New prisons were built, with no expenses spared, and in these images you can see the result.

Stories of extreme over-crowding have gone away, and the New York Times profiles the new prisons and their programs of today.

19. Click here for post:  How The Italian “Justice Tortoise” Is The Likely Winner Compared To For Example the US System 

Italy is working to try to update its justice system right now and we will report on that shortly. At least in theory, it has one of the easiest tasks in the world, because post WWII its legal system was redesigned from the ground up. It had already junked bad aspects, some going back centuries.

Italy already has some of the world’s smartest juries - jury service is compulsory, so smart people cannot dodge them. And the system already has some other very positive things going for it.

Mainly what is needed is some weeding. And such reforms are made easier in Italy because (1) judges and prosecutors all follow career paths and so they are not politically competing with one another;  and (2) there is the Council of Magistrates (CSM) which can be very progressive in the reforms it pushes at its level.

20. Click here for post:  So Where Would YOU Want To Go On Trial? In Italy Or In The U.S.?

We have still not seen even ONE American lawyer claim that after the first trial in 2009 which found RS and AK guilty that there were strong grounds for an appeal.

In the US, back in 2009, full prison terms would have been begun.

And in fact virtually nothing at the 2009 trial was challenged in the appeal. But the defenses subversively organized to get Civil Judge Hellmann instead of Criminal Judge Chiari to preside, and in 2011 a farcical “not guilty” outcome was the result.

Then there was a THIRD jury trial, in 2013-14, which (as so often in Italy) threw out the not guilty outcome of the previous appeal trial.

And finally, in 2015, due to more subversive defense machinations with a little mafia help, the final Supreme Court appeal was assigned to the FIFTH Chambers, for the first murder appeal that Chambers has ever heard.

A second farcical “not guilty” outcome was the result.

Say what you like about the American system, there is not remotely any parallel in its judicial history to all of that.  Quite the opposite in fact. We have had various posts pointing to an increasingly hard line in the US.


(3) British tabloids corrupted a jury in THIS system?

Subject of future posts. Check back shortly.


Thursday, September 22, 2016

Netflixhoax 5 Omitted - Blackhurst Now Nervous Of Legal Risks & Doing Mafias’ Dirty Work?

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Netflix Director Rod Blackhurst has worked for Knox PR since 2010

1. How Blackhurst Went Wrong

First, see above. Blackhurst’s pro-Knox fanaticism goes back seven years THAT is sure not explained in the film.

Second, see the image of Blackhurt’s bizarre tweet at bottom, conceivably welcoming our expose of his huge hoax. A minor development which could come to signify more.

The REAL story here is not the framing of Knox or a justice system that doesnt play fair. It is instead the giant innocence fraud perpetrated by Curt Knox and David Marriott since late 2007, and the known mafia manipulation to spring RS and AK and to bring Italian justice down a peg.

The aggressive PR scheme is not even mentioned at all, though it put out and took in millions of dollars. It has promoted anti-Italy fanaticism to the extent that several dupes have screamed at public events in Perugia and cops have been told to be wary of Americans who might tote guns.

Check out the 30 hoaxes in our right column hatched by the PR which we will expand upon in coming weeks. Many are furthered by this hapless film.

2. How Blackhurst Might Get Things Right

Blackhurst could start setting things right by starting way back when. That well-documented childhood abuse (touched on also in Knox’s book) could explain why so many have found Amanda Knox erratic and hard to take.

Not the least of those of course is Sollecito, who on and off  since 2007 has railed at her.

Meredith and her other flatmates and her cellmates in prison and pretty well anyone she ever met in Perugia found her hard to take, though when she was not high on drugs she did seem now and then to be trying to act right.

Why did Curt Knox initiate take-no-prisoners PR in a heartbeat in 2007? To cover his own tail for damage he had done to her in childhood, provoking a crazed escalation resulting in Meredith’s death? And why did so few in Seattle speak up for Amanda Knox in 2007? Why were so few parents keen to see an award created in her name at her high school?

Let’s hope Blackhurst is capable of real work and not simply parroting the PR..



Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Netflixhoax 4: Omitted - Stephen Robert Morse Defamed Reporters & Italian Officials For Years

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters


Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.

Pretty funny, that last tweet above. Almost nobody has painted a larger legal target on his own back over many years than the blustering Netflix producer Stephen Robert Morse himself.

The first two tweets are of course both defamatory lies. See the two posts below for an honest take on Dr Mignini, not the mafia’s one which Morse parrots. .

As he was lying about an officer of the Italian court in the first two tweets, he could in theory be charged with contempt of court on the same basis as Frank Sforza and Andrew Gumbel have already been charged.

He could certainly be made to sweat pounds off in a British or Italian civil court. Hot potato in waiting for Netflix there.


Friday, September 09, 2016

Netflixhoax 1: Omitted - Netfix’s Own Difficulties In The Business World Makes For Suspect Messenger

Posted by Peter Quennell



Top curve: S&P 500 stockmarket index 2016. Bottom curve: Netflix’s stock plunge this year.

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.



Netflix stock has lost more than 1/5 of its value this year. That’s around $10 billion. Stockbrokers are issuing sell-the-stock recommendations.

Axiom Capital’s Victor Anthony this morning initiated coverage of the stock with a Sell rating, and an $80 price target, based on concerns about its “super-rich multiple” against “rising competition, diminishing pricing power, and rising content costs.” “Netflix has enjoyed premium valuations for rapid subscriber growth,” he writes, “but subscriber growth is slowing.”

Owww. How timely if the documentary “Amanda Knox” burnishes Netflix’s reputation!

Obviously it would help Netflix a lot if everyone who really knows the case declares the report to be even-handed and objective - and especially if it doesnt leave key facts on the cutting-room floor.

The movie premiers tonight in Toronto.

From the reporting in the next few days, we will gain an increasing sense of the value and slants of its content. Ergon hopes to offer us a review in about a week’s time, and of course at the end of this month we can all shell out to watch it.

If the Netflix report has indeed left anything out we will start building an online list of these omissions.

Maybe the report wont, of course.

But all non-Italian media, virtually without exception, has left things out - hundreds and hundreds of points, points that have almost 100% of Italians seeing Knox and Sollecito as guilty.

This was one example. This is another.

Non-Italian media incessantly repeats the notion that Knox’s interrogation on 5-6 November scared her into fingering Patrick.

Those stories leave out that really there wasnt even an interrogation as defined under Italian law. Knox was in fact amiably building a list of vistors with names and phone numbers.

It leaves out that Sollecito tossed her under the bus that night and many, many times later.

It leaves out that Knox herself demanded to make both the written statements she signed that night. It leaves out that in both statements she said she went out from Sollecito’s house on the night. So much for several of her numerous alibis claiming she didnt.

Already we count two dead canaries in the Netflix coalmine. 

1) Ergon has just posted this statement in the thread under the previous post - itself a pretty awkward post for Knox apologists.

Press release from the Meredith Kercher Wiki re the Netflix documentary:

“For The Press. September 09, 2016: The Netflix documentary “Amanda Knox” opens at the Toronto International Film Festival today Amanda Knox. While claiming to be a balanced perspective its producer Stephen Robert Morse had made inflammatory reports about the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (who was interviewed by the film makers) of “having been convicted of crimes” (he was acquitted) and being “a power-hungry prosecutor running the show”. Requests to producer Mette Heide on August 13, 2016 for comment about his bias were not replied to by this time.”

Well, Dr Mignini was never “running the show”. In fact a whole row of judges, up to and including five Supreme Court judges, was always calling the shots though to trial, and more subsequently.

On 17 December 2007 Dr Mignini kindly gave Knox a UNIQUE opportunity to clear herself (she dismally failed it). There was a very compelling trial, and a unanimous trial jury, and a 400 page verdict report - which barely mentions Dr Mignini.

And in a fiery repudiation Cassation agreed with the appeal court in reversing his conviction (for cops planting a bug a judge had in fact approved), and roasted both the Florence trial judge and prosecutor who since have fared badly. Meanwhile Dr Mignini is expected to be the next Prosecutor-General of Umbria.

2) This is from a film review today by Seattle’s Moira Macdonald

Mostly without editorializing [the filmmakers Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn] just let the witnesses speak — among them the DNA experts whose eventual testimony led to Knox and Sollecito’s eventual exoneration —  and I suspect some members of the lingering Amanda-is-guilty camp might revise their opinions by the end of the running time.

The “independent” Hellmann DNA consultants Conti and Vecchiotti? Who were roasted by the Carabinieri labs, the Florence Appeal Court, and the First Chambers of the Supreme Court for bias and extremely sloppy methods? See the image at botttom.

Dear Netflix: You really chained your future to Amanda Knox, and to that very discredited pair? You hired the crackpot Stephen Robert Morse to guide you? You didnt do any due diligence? You piled on more anti-Italy bigotry?

Poor Netflix. At first glance, it seems the stockbrokers’ advice could be smart advice.



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.”


Tuesday, May 17, 2016

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

Posted by Chimera



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

1. Series Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Knox’s Tortured Logic

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

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

[Chapter 2, Page 16] This was my first bona fide one-night stand.
I’d told my friends back home that I couldn’t see myself sleeping with some random guy who didn’t matter to me. Cristiano was a game changer.
We didn’t have a condom, so we didn’t actually have intercourse. But we were making out,  fooling around like crazy, when, an hour later, I realized, I don’t even know this guy. I jumped up, kissed him once more, and said good-bye. I went upstairs to the tiny room Deanna and I were sharing.
She was wide awake, standing by the window. “Where have you been?” she asked. “I didn’t know where you were or if you were okay.”

[Chapter 3, Page 32] “Do you want to eat at my place?” Mirko asked. “We can watch a movie.”
“Sure,” I said, and instantly felt an inner jolt. It came from the sudden certainty that we would have sex, that that’s where our flirtation had been heading all along.
We carried our pizza boxes through Piazza Grimana, by the University for Foreigners, and down an unfamiliar street, past a park. Mirko’s house was at the end of a gravel drive. “I live here with my sister,” he told me.
During dinner at his kitchen table my thoughts battled. Was I ready to speed ahead with sex like this? I still regretted Cristiano. But I’d also been thinking about what Brett and my friends at UW had said. I could picture them rolling their eyes and saying, “Hell000, Amanda. Sex is normal.”  Casual sex was, for my generation, simply what you did.

[Chapter 4, Page 39] The next morning I got up before he did, got dressed, and went to make myself breakfast. Bobby came into the kitchen a few minutes later. We were eating cookies when Laura came out of her bedroom. I’d never entertained a lover at the villa for breakfast, and it was awkward, despite Laura’s proclaimed sense of easy sexuality. All three of us tried to ignore the feeling away.
After breakfast Bobby left to return to Rome. 1 walked him to the door. He smiled, waved, and walked away.
I didn’t feel the same regret I’d had after sex with Mirko, but I still felt the same emptiness. I had no way of knowing what a big price I would end up paying for these liaisons.

[Chapter 5, Page 57] Being with Raffaele also taught me a big lesson about my personality that I’d tried so hard—and harmfully, in Cristiano’s case—to squelch. I was beginning to own up to the fact that casual hookups like I’d had with Mirko and Bobby weren’t for me.
I like being able to express myself not just as a lover but in a loving relationship. Even from the minuscule perspective of a few days with Raffaele, I understood that, for me, detaching emotion from sex left me feeling more alone than not having sex at all—bereft, really.

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

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

[Chapter 5, Page 62] Quickly checking my phone, I saw that Patrick had sent me a text telling me I didn’t have to come in. Since it was a holiday, he thought it would be a slow night.
“Okay,” I texted back. “Ci vediamo piu tardi buona serata!“— “See you later. Have a good evening!” Then I turned off my phone, just in case he changed his mind and wanted me to come in after all. I was so excited to have the night off that I jumped on top of Raffaele, cheering,  “Woo-hoo! Woo-hoo!”

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

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

[Chapter 5, Page 62] Then I turned off my phone, just in case he changed his mind and wanted me to come in after all. I was so excited to have the night off that I jumped on top of Raffaele, cheering, “Woo-hoo! Woo-hoo!”

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

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

[Chapter 6, Page 65-67] 0n that cold, sunny Friday morning, I left Rafael asleep in his apartment and walked home to take a shower and get my things together, thinking about our romantic weekend in the Umbrian hills. In hindsight, it seems that arriving home to find the front door open should have rattled me more. I thought, That’s strange. But it was easily explained. The old latch didn’t catch unless we used a key. Wind must have blown it open, I thought, and walked inside the house calling out, “Filomena? Laura? Meredith? Hello? Hello? Anybody?”
Nobody. The bedroom doors were closed.
I wasn’t alarmed by two pea-size flecks of blood in the bathroom sink that Meredith and I shared.  There was another smear on the faucet. Weird. I’d gotten my ears pierced. Were they bleeding? I scratched the droplets with my fingernail. They were dry. Meredith must have nicked herself.  It wasn’t until I got out of the shower that I noticed a reddish-brown splotch about the size of an orange on the bathmat. More blood. Could Meredith have started her period and dripped? But then, how would it have gotten on the sink? My confusion increased. We were usually so neat. I went to my room and, while putting on a white skirt and a blue sweater, thought about what to bring along on my trip to Gubbio with Raffaele.
I went to the big bathroom to use Filomena’s blow dryer and was stashing it back against the wall when I noticed poop in the toilet. No one in the house would have left the toilet unflushed. Could there have been a stranger here? Was someone in the house when I was in the shower? I felt a lurch of panic and the prickly feeling you get when you think someone might be watching you. I quickly grabbed my purse and coat and somehow remembered the mop I said I’d bring back to Raffaele’s. I scrambled to push the key into the lock, making myself turn it before I ran up the driveway, my heart banging painfully.
By the time I was a block from home I was second-guessing myself. Maybe I was overreacting. Maybe there was a simple reason for the toilet being unflushed. I needed someone to say, “,  you’re right to be scared. This isn’t normal.” And if it wasn’t okay, I wanted someone to tell me what to do. My skittering brain pulled up my mom’s mantra: when in doubt, call. Forgetting the nine-hour time difference between Perugia and Seattle, I pressed the number sequence for home.  My mom did not say hello, just “, are you okay? What’s wrong?” It was in the middle of the night in Seattle, and she was worried.
“I’m on my way back to Raffaele’s,” I said, “but I just wanted to check in. I found some strange things in my house.” I explained my reasons for worrying. Then I asked, “What do you think I should do?”  “Call your roommates,” she said. “Go tell Raffaele, and call me right back.”
Hearing Mom’s voice calmed me. It can’t be that bad, I thought.  Im out of the house. Nothing happened. Pm safe. No one’s in danger.  I called Filomena first and was relieved when she picked up. “Ciao, ,” she said.  “Ciao,” I said. “I’m calling because when I came home from Raffaele’s this morning, our front door was open. I found a few drops of blood in one bathroom and shit in the other toilet. Do you know anything about it?”

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

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

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

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

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

[Chapter 7, Page 89] It was early morning by the time I put my notebook away. The police weren’t stopping to sleep and didn’t seem to be allowing us to, either. Rafael and I were part of the last group to leave the questura, along with Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, and the other guys from downstairs, at 5:30 A.M.

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

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

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

[Chapter 8, Page 92] ” ... Next we went to the room that Marco and Giacomo shared. There was no blood—or contraband plants. While we stood there, the detectives started asking me pointed questions about Giacomo and Meredith. How long had they been together? Did she like anal sex? Did she use Vaseline? “For her lips,” I said. When I’d first gotten to town, Meredith and I had hunted around at different grocery stores until we found a tiny tub of Vaseline.
Giacomo and Meredith had definitely had sex, but I certainly didn’t know which positions they’d tried. Meredith didn’t talk about her sex life in detail. The most she’d done was ask me once if she could have a couple of the condoms I kept stashed with Brett’s still-unused gift, the bunny vibrator, in my see-through beauty case in the bathroom Meredith and I shared.”

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

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

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

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

[Chapter 14, Page 164] ” ... room—Monica Napoleoni, the black-haired, taloned homicide chief; a male officer from my interrogation; and Pubblico Ministero Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, who I still thought was the mayor. Napoleoni was resting her chin on her hand glowering at me, studying my reaction. She seemed to be enjoying this.”

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

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

[Chapter 7, Page 78] ” .... Now I see that I was a mouse in a cat’s game. While I was trying to dredge up any small thing that could help them find Meredith’s killer and trying to get my head around the shock of her death, the police were deciding to bug Raffaele’s and my cell phones.”

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

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

[Chapter 9, Page 97] Had I seen a news item that morning in The Mail on Sunday, a London tabloid, it might have shifted everything for me. The article said the Italian police were investigating the possibility that the murderer was a woman—someone whom Meredith had known well. “‘We are questioning her female housemates as well as her friends,’ a senior police detective said.”  Or I might simply have thought: It’s not Laura, it’s not Filomena, it’s not me. Whom could they possibly be thinking of?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chapter 8, Page 86] ” .... I hated that I felt so traumatized. As my family, friends, and the UW foreign exchange office checked in one after another, they each said some version of “Oh my God, you must be so scared and alone.” I didn’t want to admit that they were right, that what I was going through was too stressful for me to handle by myself. But the last thing I wanted from my parents—even though it’s probably what I needed most—was to be treated like a child.”

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

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

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

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

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

[Chapter 10, Page 108] ‘’ ... I was still clueless, still thinking I was helping the police, still unable or unwilling to recognize that I was a suspect. But as the next hours unfolded, I slowly came to understand that the police were trying to get something out of me, that they wouldn’t stop until they had it.  To the unnamed police officer, I said, "Okay, but I’ve told you everything I know. I don’t knowvwhat else to say."
‘‘Why don’t you keep talking about the people who’ve been in your house—especially men?’’ he suggested.

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

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

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

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

[Chapter 10, Page 108] ‘’ .... Did the police know Id show up, or were they purposefully separating Rafael and me?’‘
I was still clueless, still thinking I was helping the police, still unable or unwilling to recognize that I was a suspect. But as the next hours unfolded, I slowly came to understand that the police were trying to get something out of me, that they wouldnt stop until they had it.

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

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

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

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

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

[Chapter 9, Page 102] ” .... I was naive, in over my head, and with an innate stubborn tendency to see only what I wanted.
Above all, I was innocent. There were so many what -ifs that I never even began to contemplate.  What if I hadn’t thrown the bunny vibrator in my clear makeup case for anyone to see? What if I hadn’t gone on a campaign to have casual sex? What if Rafael and I hadn’t been so immature?  What if Id flown home to Seattle right after the murder, or to Hamburg? What if I’d asked my mom to come immediately to help me? What if I had taken Dolly’s advice? What if I’d gotten a lawyer?”

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

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

Seems Like They Answer Their Own Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary: AK is again turning on the BS machine.

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

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

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

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

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

[Chapter 12, Page 149]  ‘’ ....Amanda Knox. K-n- o-x.”
“Do you have allergies, illnesses, diseases?”
“No,” I replied.
“Well, we’ll need to do blood work anyway,” he said. Just then I felt a sharp pinch from the back of my head. The nurse had snuck around me and plucked a hair from my scalp. I started to turn and glare at her, but instead asked the doctor, “Blood work? For what?”
“For diseases,“he said. “Sign this. For the tests.” He pushed a document and a pen in front of me, and I signed it.
“How do you feel?”
“Worried”, I said. “Worried and confused.”
I shrank down in my seat.
“Confused?”; he asked.
“I feel terrible about what happened at the police office. No one was listening to me,” I said.
Tears sprang to my eyes again.
“Hold up there, now,”; Argiro said.
“Wouldn’t listen to you?” the doctor asked.
“I was hit on the head, twice,” I said.
The doctor gestured to the nurse, who parted my hair and looked at my scalp.
“Not hard,” I said. “It just startled me. And scared me.”.
“I’ve heard similar things about the police from other prisoners,” the guard standing in the background said.

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

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

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

Commentary: Not sure what to say here.

Posted on 05/17/16 at 09:08 AM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Those Italy chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxes By Knox & teamKnox book hoaxesHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas team
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

Monday, May 02, 2016

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

Posted by Chimera



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

1. Overview Of The Post

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

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

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

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

2. Arguments Of The Supreme Court

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

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

From James Raper critique Part 1

The Fifth Chambers argued as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.  No selective cleaning.

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

From James Raper Critique Part 5

The Fifth Chambers argued as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Arguments of Amanda Knox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit level: COMPLETE

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

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

Bullshit level: COMPLETE

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

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

Interesting how she remembers it with such lurid detail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit level: COMPLETE

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

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

Se especially here.

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

Bullshit level: COMPLETE

(5) Understanding the Bruno/Marasca Ruling

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

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

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

(6) Author’s Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) RS and Papa Sollecito sued anyway.

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

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

Chapter 1: Before Leaving Italy

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

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

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

Multiple: Capanne Chapters

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

Chapter 31-35: The Hellmann Appeal

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

4. Final Thoughts

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

Fair to say, Bruno and Marasca would likely agree.


Wednesday, April 06, 2016

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

Posted by Chimera



Knox with her lawyers - she accused even them of crimes

1. Overview Of This Post

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

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

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

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

2. False Accusations Of Crimes #3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again with the drugs. But see this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Other Ways Knox Gets In The Knife

Knox Sticks It To Her Own Lawyers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Some Credit Where Credit is Due”

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

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

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

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

At the very end are these little quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on 04/06/16 at 05:44 AM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Those Italy chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxes By Knox & teamKnox book hoaxesHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas team
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (24)

Tuesday, April 05, 2016

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

Posted by Chimera




1. Overview Of This Post

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

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

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

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

2. False Accusations Of Crimes #2

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

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

[Chapter 16, Page 192] ‘’ ... But sometimes what I thought was a kind overture would take an ugly turn. I was required to meet with Vice-Comandante Argirò every night at 8 P.M. in his office—the last order before lights out at 9 P.M. I thought he wanted to help me and to understand what had happened at the questura, but almost immediately I saw that he didn’t care.
When I ran into him in the hallway he’d hover over me, his face inches from mine, staring, sneering. “It’s a shame you’re here,” he’d say, “because you are such a pretty girl,” and “Be careful what you eat—you have a nice, hourglass figure, and you don’t want to ruin it like the other people here.”

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

[Chapter 16, Page 194] ‘’ ... Silently, I rehearsed what I would say to him: “These conversations repulse me.” But when we were face-to-face, I balked, settling on something more diplomatic—“Your questions make me uncomfortable,” I said.
“Why?” he asked.
I thought, Because you’re an old perv. Instead I said, “I’m not ashamed of my sexuality, but it’s my own business, and I don’t like to talk about it.”
‘’ ... Luciano looked revolted, and Carlo urged me, “Anytime Argirò calls you alone into an office, tell him you don’t want to speak with him. He could be talking about sex because Meredith was supposedly the victim of a sexual crime and he wants to see what you’ll say. It could be a trap.”

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

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

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

[Chapter 17, Page 202] ‘’ ... Investigators apparently had confiscated the knife—a chef’s knife with a black plastic handle and a six-and-a-half-inch blade—when they searched Raffaele’s apartment after our arrest. It was the only knife they considered out of every location they’d impounded, the top knife in a stack of other knives in a drawer that housed the carrot peeler and the salad tongs. I’d probably used it to slice tomatoes when Raffaele and I made dinner the night Meredith was killed.
The officer who confiscated the knife claimed that he’d been drawn to it by “investigative intuition.” It had struck him as suspiciously clean, as though we’d scrubbed it. When he chose it, he didn’t even know the dimensions of Meredith’s stab wounds….’‘

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

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

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

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

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

[Chapter 18, Page 207] ‘’ ... Overnight my old nickname became my new persona. I was now known to the world as Foxy Knoxy or, in Italian, Volpe Cattiva—literally, “Wicked Fox.” “Foxy Knoxy” was necessary to the prosecution’s case. A regular, friendly, quirky schoolgirl couldn’t have committed these crimes. A wicked fox would be easier to convict.
They were convinced that Meredith had been raped—they’d found her lying on the floor half undressed, a pillow beneath her hips—and that the sexual violence had escalated to homicidal violence.
They theorized that the break-in was faked.  To make me someone whom a jury would see as capable of orchestrating the rape and murder of my friend, they had to portray me as a sexually deviant, volatile, hate-filled, amoral, psychopathic killer. So they called me Foxy Knoxy. That innocent nickname summed up all their ideas about me…’‘

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

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

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

[Chapter 18, Page 213] ‘’ ... Argirò was standing a foot behind me when I got the news. “Maybe you should have thought about that before you slept with lots of people,” he chided. I spun around. “I didn’t have sex with anyone who had AIDS,” I snapped, though it was possible that one of the men I’d hooked up with, or even Raffaele, was HIV-positive.
“You should think about who you slept with and who you got it from.”  Maybe he was trying to comfort me or to make a joke, or maybe he saw an opening he thought he could use to his advantage. Whatever the reason, as we were walking back upstairs to my cell, Argirò said, “Don’t worry. I’d still have sex with you right now.
Promise me you’ll have sex with me.” But sometimes I was just angry….’‘

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

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

AK accuses the prison medical staff of violation patient confidentiality.

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

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

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

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

[Chapter 19, Page 226] ‘’ ... The prosecution could have redeemed themselves. Instead, they held on to Raffaele and me as their trophies.
I learned that when he signed the warrant for Patrick’s release, Giuliano Mignini said that I’d named Patrick to cover up for Guede. It was his way of saying that the police had been justified in their arrest of three people and that any confusion over which three people was my fault. I was made out to be a psychotic killer capable of manipulating the police until my lies, and the law, had caught up with me….’‘

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AK accuses an inmate of making advances on her.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AK returns to making accusations about drug use against Filomena.

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

And similar accusations against Laura and the others.

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

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

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

AK accuses Monica Napoleoni of perjury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AK accuses the police of violating her right to counsel.

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

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

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

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


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

Posted on 04/05/16 at 02:11 AM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Those Italy chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamKnox book hoaxes
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (8)

Thursday, March 24, 2016

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

Posted by Chimera



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

1. Legal Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. False Accusations Of Crimes

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

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

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

[Chapter 2, Page 16] ‘’ ... We shared a joint, and then, high and giggly, we went to his hotel room. I’d just turned twenty. This was my first bona fide one-night stand. I’d told my friends back home that I couldn’t see myself sleeping with some random guy who didn’t matter to me. Cristiano was a game changer. We didn’t have a condom, so we didn’t actually have intercourse. But we were making out, fooling around like crazy, when, an hour later, I realized, I don’t even know this guy ...’‘

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

[Chapter 2, Page 22] ‘’ ... They said I wasn’t the first roommate they’d interviewed. A guy they called “totally uptight” was interested in renting, until he found out they smoked—cigarettes and marijuana. “Are you okay with that?” Filomena asked…’‘

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 3, Page 37] ‘’ ...Around our house, marijuana was as common as pasta. I never purchased it myself, but we all chipped in. For me, it was purely social, not something I’d ever do alone. I didn’t even know how to roll a joint and once spent an entire evening trying. I’d seen it done plenty of times in both Seattle and Perugia, but it was trickier than I thought it would be. Laura babysat my efforts, giving me pointers as I measured out the tobacco and pot and tried rolling the mixture into a smokable package. I never got it right that night, but I won a round of applause for trying. Either Filomena or Laura took a picture of me posing with it between my index and middle finger, as if it were a cigarette, and I a pouty 1950s pinup.
I was being goofy, but this caricature of me as a sexpot would soon take hold around the world.

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 4, Page 46] ‘’ ... Giacomo handed me a beer, and I pushed my way through the crowd to find Meredith. When we had rejoined the guys, they introduced us to a friend who, I’d later learn, had moved to Italy as a kid, from Ivory Coast. His name was Rudy. They sometimes played pickup basketball with him.  The five of us stood around for a few minutes before walking home together. The guys invited us to their apartment, but Meredith and I first stopped at ours to drop off our purses.
“Ready to go downstairs?” I asked her.
“You go. I’ll be down in a second,” she said.
When I opened the door to the downstairs apartment, Giacomo, Marco, Stefano, and Rudy were sitting around the table laughing. “What’s funny?” I asked.  “Nothing,” they said sheepishly.  I didn’t think another thing about it until months and months later, when it came out in court that just before I’d opened the door, Rudy had asked the guys if I was available.
A short time later, Meredith came in and sat down next to me at the table. The guys passed us the joint they were smoking. We each inhaled, handed it back, and sat there for a few minutes while they joked around in Italian. Tired and a little stoned, I couldn’t keep up with their conversation. After a little while I told Meredith, “I’m going up to bed.”

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 5, Page 54] ‘’ ... Raffaele looked surprised, then pleased. “Do you want to come to my apartment and smoke a joint?”
I hesitated. He was basically a stranger, but I trusted him. I saw him as a gentle, modest person. I felt safe. “I’d love to,” I said.
Raffaele lived alone in an immaculate one-room apartment. I sat on his neatly made bed while he sat at his desk rolling a joint. A minute later he swiveled around in his chair and held it out to me….
The marijuana was starting to kick in. “You know what makes me laugh?” I asked.
“Making faces. See.” I crossed my eyes and puffed out my cheeks. “You try it.”
“Okay.” He stuck out his tongue and scrunched up his eyebrows.
I laughed.
By then, Raffaele had moved next to me on the bed. We made faces until we collided into a kiss. Then we had sex. It felt totally natural. I woke up the next morning with his arm wrapped snugly around me. ....’

Accusation of illegal drug use.

Chapter 7, Page 77] ‘’ ... Now I see that I was a mouse in a cat’s game. While I was trying to dredge up any small thing that could help them find Meredith’s killer and trying to get my head around the shock of her death, the police were deciding to bug Raffaele’s and my cell phones.

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

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

Accusation of illegal drug use.

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

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 8] Laura and Filomena were each consulting a lawyer about how to get out of the lease.  No doubt their lawyers were also counseling them on other things, such as how to deal with the police and on our pot-smoking habit, but they didn’t mention any of that.

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 10, Page 103] ‘’ ... Police officer Rita Ficarra slapped her palm against the back of my head, but the shock of the blow, even more than the force, left me dazed. I hadn’t expected to be slapped. I was turning around to yell, “Stop!”—my mouth halfway open—but before I even realized what had happened, I felt another whack, this one above my ear. She was right next to me, leaning over me, her voice as hard as her hand had been. “Stop lying, stop lying,” she insisted.
Stunned, I cried out, “Why are you hitting me?”  “To get your attention,” she said. I have no idea how many cops were stuffed into the cramped, narrow room.  Sometimes there were two, sometimes eight—police coming in and going out, always closing the door behind them. They loomed over me, each yelling the same thing: “You need to remember. You’re lying. Stop lying!” “I’m telling the truth,” I insisted. “I’m not lying.” I felt like I was suffocating. There was no way out. And still they kept yelling, insinuating.  The authorities I trusted thought I was a liar. But I wasn’t lying. I was using the little energy I still had to show them I was telling the truth. Yet I couldn’t get them to believe me.
We weren’t even close to being on equal planes. I was twenty, and I barely spoke their language. Not only did they know the law, but it was their job to manipulate people, to get “criminals” to admit they’d done something wrong by bullying, by intimidation, by humiliation. They try to scare people, to coerce them, to make them frantic. That’s what they do. I was in their interrogation room. I was surrounded by police officers. I was alone.

False accusation of illegal interrogation.

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

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

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

False accusations of abuse and physical assault.

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

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

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

False accusation; AK was never hit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knox falsely accuses the medical staff of sexual assault.

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

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

[Chapter 12, Page 149] ‘’ ... “I feel terrible about what happened at the police office. No one was listening to me,”  I said. Tears sprang to my eyes again.
“Hold up there, now,” Argirò said. “Wouldn’t listen to you?” the doctor asked. “I was hit on the head, twice,” I said. The doctor gestured to the nurse, who parted my hair and looked at my scalp.
“Not hard,” I said. “It just startled me. And scared me.” “I’ve heard similar things about the police from other prisoners,” the guard standing in the background said. Their sympathy gave me the wrongheaded idea that the prison officials were distinct and distant from the police.
“Do you need anything to sleep?” the doctor asked. I didn’t know what he meant, because the idea of taking a sleeping pill was as foreign to me as being handcuffed. “No,” I said. “I’m really tired already.”

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

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

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

[Chapter 14, Page 165] ‘’ ... There hadn’t been enough time between their hiring and this preliminary hearing for Carlo and Luciano to meet with me. But more time might not have made a difference. It turned out that, mysteriously, Mignini had barred Raffaele’s lawyers from seeing him before his hearing. Would the prosecutor have treated me the same? I think so. I can’t be certain who ordered that I be put in isolation and not allowed to watch TV or to read, to cut me off from news from the outside world. But I believe that the police and prosecution purposely kept me uninformed so I would arrive at my first hearing totally unprepared to defend myself.
I do know this: if I’d met with my lawyers, I could have explained that I was innocent, that I knew nothing about the murder, that I imagined things during my interrogation that weren’t true. The only thing my lawyers knew about me was that when I talked I got myself in trouble. I understand their impulse to keep me silent then, but in the end, my silence harmed me as much as anything I’d previously said….’‘

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

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

Again false accusations of assault, verbal abuse and intimidation

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

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

Parts #2 and #3 follow next.

Posted on 03/24/16 at 11:24 PM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Those Italy chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxes By Knox & teamKnox book hoaxesHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas team
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (7)

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.

 


Wednesday, December 02, 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 12/02/15 at 11:00 PM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Those Italy 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 08:45 AM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
      Archived in Those Italy chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followupKnox book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (18)

      Thursday, November 26, 2015

      Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #10

      Posted by Chimera



      More implacable nastiness in Star Wars.  Click for Comments.

      1. Overview Of This Series

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

      Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either.

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

      Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

      2. Dissection Of Pages 394 to 403

      [Chapter 31, Page 394] The questions and choices I made during the first trial ate at me. What if Id spoken up more, clarified more when other witnesses took the stand, pleaded my innocence more forcefully Would it have made a difference? I’d waited for the jury and the world to realize that there was no evidence against me. I wasn’t going to make the same mistake twice.

      • What if you’d spoken up more?

      • You did speak up that you ‘‘vaguely remembered’’ Patrick murdering Meredith.  It got you 3 years for calunnia.

      • You did speak up in June 2009 that you were hit by police.  You have another calunnia trial pending.

      • You got you parents to speak up that you were being mistreated.  It got calunnia complaints against them.

      • You frequently spoke up that you were mistreated.  Your own lawyers told you publicly to shut up.

      • ’‘Not speaking up enough’’ is not the problem.  The opposite in fact.

      • You waited for the jury to realize their was no evidence?  So, what were Mignini/Comodi presenting to the court?

      • You were waiting?  Well, when the defence files an appeal, the prosecution won’t be presenting ‘‘any’’ evidence.  Hmm…..

      • You won’t make the same mistake twice?  You keep making the same mistakes.

      [Chapter 31, Page 395]  Though I trusted my lawyers completely, this time I wanted to be involved in every decision. I owed it to myself. I couldn’t survive another guilty verdict if my team and I overlooked a single speck of favorable evidence.

      • You trust them completely, but now want to start micromanaging? 

      • If you overlook a ‘‘single speck’’ of favourable evidence?  Are you reduced to looking for ‘‘specks’‘?

      [Chapter 31, Page 395]  Once I started thinking about what might be possible, nothing seemed out of reach. Should I write to the new judge? The U.S. secretary of state? Why not the president?

      • You later tried that with Judge Nencini, while skipping your Florence appeal.  Didn’t go over well.

      • The Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton at the time)?  Sure, she doesn’t have any pressing foreign matters to deal with.

      • The President (Barack Obama)?  Sure, running the free world is just a part time gig.

      • Why might U.S. oficials be reluctant to get involved in ongoing murder trials?  Don’t know.

      [Chapter 31, Page 395]  Rather than write, I read. The 407-page report from Judge Massei explained why we’d been convicted and how Raffaele, Guede, and I had murdered Meredith.  The supposed motive was as far-fetched as a soap opera plot. “Amanda and Raffaele suddenly found themselves without any commitments; they met Rudy Guede by chance and found themselves together with him at the house on the Via dells Pergola where ... Meredith was alone,”

      • You and Raffaele suddenly found yourselves without any commitments?  Well you did get that text not to come to work.

      • Sollecito doesn’t have a job, so he likely didn’t have any commitments either.

      • You met Guede by chance?  You do seem to know him.

      • Guede ended up at the house with you?  You mean he didn’t break in leaving your blood mixed with Meredith’s?

      • Meredith was alone?  Okay, that is actually true.

      [Chapter 31, Page 395] The judges and jury hypothesized that Raffaele and I were fooling around, and that Guede started raping Meredith because we turned him on. Instead of helping Meredith, we inexplicably and spontaneously joined Guede, because it was “an exciting stimulant that, although unexpected, had to be tried,” he wrote. “[The criminal acts were carried out on the force of pure chance. A motive, therefore, of an erotic, sexually violent nature which, arising from the choice of evil made by Rudy, found active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.”  The report rejected the prosecution’s claim that Meredith and I had had a contentious relationship.  The judge wrote “the crime that was carried out ... without any animosity or feelings of rancor against the victim. . .”

      • You have said you want the Kerchers to read your book, but you put information such as this in?

      • Judge Massei didn’t contradict the claim of a strained relationship.

      • Meredith took your job at Le Chic .... and no hard feelings?

      [Chapter 31, Page 395]  They allowed that there was no evidence of contact between Guede and me—no e-mails, phone calls, or eyewitnesses. They discounted the testimony of Hekuran Kokomani, the witness from the pretrial and the trial who said he threw olives at me and who “identified” me by the nonexistent gap between my teeth. And they conceded that Raffaele and I were not likely killers.  Rather we were “two young people, strongly interested in each other, with intellectual and cultural curiosity, he on the eve of his graduation and she full of interests . . .”

      • No evidence of contact between you and Guede?  You admit that he visited the men downstairs.

      • No contact?  You say that their was laughter when Guede was asking if you were available.

      • No contact?  You admit to taking his order at Le Chic.

      • No contact?  You admit to contact in THIS VERY BOOK.

      • Casual sex, drugs and alcohol are ‘‘cultural events’‘?  Wow, the travel brochure leaves all this out.

      • If drugs and sex are ‘‘cultural’‘, that might explain things with Federico Martini.

      • You were interested in hooking up with Harry Potter.  Is that ‘‘cultural’‘?

      • ’‘Strongly interested’‘?  You knew each other for a week.

      [Chapter 31, Page 396]  Another factor, the judge wrote, was that Raffaele and I read comic books and watched movies “in which sexuality is accompanied by violence and by situations of fear . . .”  He brought up the disputed theory that Raffaele’s kitchen knife was the murder weapon, in addition to a new theory that I’d carried the knife in my “very capacious bag.” Why would I? “It’s probable, considering Raffaele’s interest in knives, that Amanda was advised and convinced by her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, to carry a knife with her ... during the night along streets that could have seemed not very safe to pass through at night by a girl.”

      • Yes, you were convicted on the basis of Manga porn and Amelie..

      • The theory is disputed because your own lawyers dispute it.  Self fulfilling prophecy?

      • Raffaele is guilty because he collects knives .... not the bloody footprint, DNA on Meredith’s bra, or false alibis.

      • Perugia is not safe?  Right, it’s a deathtrap that hadn’t seen a murder in 20 years.

      [Chapter 31, Page 397]  The lining of my bag wasn’t cut. The police found no blood in my bag. How can I prove what Ididn’t do?

      • The knife could also have been wrapped in something else.

      • The knife could still have been transported ‘‘to’’ the scene without blood.

      • Well, you can prove where you actually were when Meredith was killed.  That might help.

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

      • This all sounds impressive, but do you care to elaborate as to what evidence was misinterpreted or tainted?

      • Do you care to elaborate on what this ‘‘heavy reliance on speculation’’ is?

      • As for tainted evidence, why did your lawyers refuse to attend the testing?

      [Chapter 31, Page 397]  The appeal wouldn’t be a redo of the first trial. Italy, like the United States, has three levels of justice—the lower court, the Court of Appeals, and the highest court, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, their version of our Supreme Court. The difference is that, in Italy, someone like me is required to go through all three levels, all the way to the Cassazione, whose verdict is final.  Cases often take turns and twists that would surprise and unsettle most Americans. Even if you’re acquitted at level one, the prosecution can ask the Court of Appeals to overturn the verdict. If the appeals court finds you guilty, it can raise your sentence. Or it can decide that a second look is unnecessary and send you on to the Cassazione for the final stamp on the lower court’s decision—in Raffaele’s and my cases, to serve out our twenty-five- and twenty-six-year sentences.  At each level, the verdict is official, and the sentence goes into immediate effect unless the next court overturns it.

      • The appeal wouldn’t be a redo if the first trial?  So Hellmann releasing you was not double jeopardy.

      • Since you seem to understand the 3-level trial process, why lie and say it was over?

      • Getting 2 automatic appeals would suprise and unsettle most Americans?  Surprise them at least.

      • Yes, appeals court (in the Common Law courts too), can increase sentences for frivilous appeals.

      • To quote Alan Dershowitz, being released by an appeals court is not double jeopardy.

      • With this paragraph, Knox throws out her claim of being ‘‘retried’’ again.

      [Chapter 31, Page 397]  In Italy’s lower and intermediate levels, judges and jurors decide the verdict. And instead of focusing on legal errors, as we do in the United States, the Italian appellate court will reopen the case, look at new evidence, and hear additional testimony—if they think it’s deserved.

      • So you get an automatic appeal that allows the case to be reopened?

      • And this appeal allows for additional witnesses and evidence to be called?  Not restricted as a Common Law appeal?

      • Many defendants in the U.S. would be envious of such a legal avenue.

      [Chapter 31, Page 398]  In our appeal request, we asked the court to appoint independent experts to review the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp, and to analyze a sperm stain on the pillow found underneath Meredith’s body that the prosecution had maintained was irrelevant. In their appeal request, the prosecution complained about what they thought was a lenient sentence and demanded life in prison for Raffaele and me.

      • You did ask for experts.  However, criminal procedure only allows for it to be done at the lower trial level.

      • If this stain wasn’t analysed, then how exactly do you know it’s semen?

      • You appealed your convicted, and the prosecution ‘‘cross-appealed’‘, asking for a sentence increase.  Makes sense.

      [Chapter 31, Page 398]  I read and reread the Massei report, looking for discrepancies and flawed reasoning. I’m not a lawyer, but I had an insider’s perspective on the case, three years in prison, and eleven months in court. In one of Guede’s depositions, he claimed I’d come home the night of the murder, rung the doorbell, and that Meredith had let me in. Obviously he didn’t know it was our household habit to knock, not buzz. It was a little catch, but it was something my former Via dells Pergola housemates, Laura and Filomena, could confirm.

      • You are reading a 400 page legal document in Italian?  Guess we can drop all pretence you are limited in the language.

      • Looking for discrepencies?  How about all your different stories and alibis?  And Sollecito’s?

      • Looking for flawed reasoning?  Plenty of it.  Oh, you mean the prosecution’s flawed reasoning?

      • You had an insider’s perspective on the case?  You mean a front row seat with a lead role?

      • So, if someone buzzes the doorbell, you would not answer?

      [Chapter 31, Page 398]  For example, Madison wrote, “Witnesses: the prosecution knowingly used unreliable witnesses.

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

      • So, Madison Paxton accuses the prosecution of suborning perjury?  Nice to drop her in it, Knox.

      • Police have a pattern of ignoring signs you are innocent?  What signs did they miss?

      • You were called guilty before forensic results?  What about those statements where you say you were there?

      • Knox claims to be a witness to someone committing the crime.  Why would anyone think she was there?

      • False witnesses were used against you?  Patrick could make that claim.

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

      • Once again, you were not interrogated.  Raffaele was called to the police station, and you came along.

      • Since you insisted on being there, Rita Ficarra asked if you would help make a list of potential contacts

      • Sollecito revoked your alibi, and you named Patrick, thinking it would get you off the hook.  It backfired.

      • That about covers it.

      [Chapter 31, Page 399]  The prosecution and civil parties argued that I was a manipulative, lying criminal mastermind. My word meant nothing. The court would always presume I was a liar. If, in their mind, I was a liar, it was an easy leap to murderer.

      I had been done in by my own words. I’d told the judges and jury things like “I didn’t mean to do harm” and “You don’t know what it’s like to be manipulated, to think that you were wrong, to have so much doubt and pressure on you that you try to come up with answers other than those in your memory.”

      • To go out on a limb here: if you are a manipulative liar, your word probably means nothing.

      • To prove the point, you are manipulating words to make it seem like people assume you are a killer.

      • You were done in by your own words.  For once, ‘‘best truthing’’ didn’t work.

      • You false accuse Patrick of rape and murder, but you didn’t mean any harm?

      • The only pressure was having to come up with a new alibi on the spot.

      [Chapter 31, Page 399]  Thankfully Madison had researched the science on false confessions. She found Saul Kassin, a psychologist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. A specialist in wrongful convictions, he took the mystery out of what had happened to me.

      • Blaming an innocent person is not ‘‘falsely confessing’‘.  It is ‘‘falsely accusing’‘.

      • Saul doesn’t seem to be a very good psychologist if he can’t distinguish between ‘‘confessions’’ and ‘‘accusations’‘.

      • Saul also doesn’t seem to grasp any of the hard facts in the case, but hey, nobody’s perfect.

      • A specialist in wrongful convictions?  From the Susan Smith School of Criminal Justice?

      • What about Saul’s realization that ‘‘false confessions’’ generally happen to weak-willed people?  Something you are not.

      • Saul Kassin must be connected to Saul Goodman (scummy lawyer in Breaking Bad).  Mystery solved.

      [Chapter 31, Page 399]  Before my interrogation, I believed, like many people, that if someone were falsely accused, they wouldn’t, couldn’t, be swayed from the truth while under interrogation. I never would have believed that I could be pressured into confessing to something I hadn’t done. For three years I berated myself for not having been stronger. I’m an honest person.

      • You were not interrogated.  You were asked for a list of contacts, when Sollecito withdrew his alibi for you.

      • You were swayed by the loss of your alibi witness.

      • You didn’t ‘‘confess’‘. You ‘‘accused’’ Patrick of raping and murdering Meredith while you were in the kitchen cowering.

      • Of course, to false accuse, you have to claim to be present, and to be a witness.

      • For not being stronger?  Like not having a ‘‘better’’ backup alibi?

      • You are an honest person?  I just threw up in my mouth.

      [Chapter 31, Page 399]  During that interrogation, I had nothing to hide, and a stake in the truth-1 desperately wanted the police to solve Meredith’s murder. But now I know that innocent people often confess. The records kept of people convicted of a crime and later exonerated by DNA evidence show that the DNA of 25 percent of them didn’t match the DNA left at the scene. The DNA testing showed that one in four innocent people ended up confessing as I did.

      • Once more, you were not interrogated.

      • You wanted to solve Meredith’s murder?  Makes sense, you left Guede’s traces intact.

      • DNA testing shows that 1 in 4 innocents falsely accuse others of crimes?

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

      This was exactly the good cop/bad cop routine the police had used on me.

      • So which were you, the ‘‘compliant’’ false accusation, or the ‘‘internalized’’ false accusation?

      • Not having an alibi from Raffy was that stressful, unbearable, you just had to make it stop?

      • Patrick will be relieved to hear it was just those ‘‘Jedi mind tricks’‘.

      • Who were the good cop(s) and who were the bad cop(s)?

      [Chapter 31, Page 400]  Besides being compliant, I also showed signs of having made an “internalized” false confession.  Sitting in that airless interrogation room in the questura, surrounded by people shouting at me during forty- three hours of questioning over five days, I got to the point, in the middle of the night, where I was no longer sure what the truth was. I started believing the story the police were telling me. They took me into a state where I was so fatigued and stressed that I started to wonder if I had witnessed Meredith’s murder and just didn’t remember it. I began questioning my own memory.

      • You showed signs of?  I think the term is ‘‘malingering’‘.

      • 43 hours?  You told Judge Nencini is was over 50 hours.

      • You also said (in this book), everyone from the house was detained, and that you spent most of your time sitting around with Meredith’s British friends.

      • You went to class on Monday, and skipped Meredith’s memorial to go strum a ukulele.

      • You also went underwear shopping with Raffaele, and had some ‘‘fun’’ with him.

      • You were also with Federico Martini (a.k.a. Cristiano) and got more drugs in return for sex.

      • When were these 43+ hours?  You seemed to have a lot of free time.

      • Does an ‘‘internalized false accusation’’ make someone really bad at time and math?

      [Chapter 31, Page 400]  Kassin says that once suspects begin to distrust their own memory, they have almost no cognitive choice but to consider, possibly accept, and even mentally elaborate upon the interrogator’s narrative of what happened. That’s how beliefs are changed and false memories are formed.  That’s what had happened to me.

      • This sounds impressive, but the questions stopped at this point.  There was no narrative to elaborate on.

      • Beliefs are changed?  As in the police don’t believe you now, but maybe if you come up with something .....

      • False memories?  Like you cowering in the kitchen with your hands on your ears, WHILE SOMEONE ELSE killed Meredith?

      • That’s what happened to you?  Is that your ‘‘best truth’‘?

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

      • Did you also ‘‘block out’’ what happened to Meredith?

      • There was no shouting except from you, when you faked having a fit?

      • You ‘‘remember’‘?  This from the woman who writes about things her mind made up….?!

      • How were they pressuring you when they stopped asking questions?

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

      • There were teams of interrogators waiting for you?  Why exactly?

      • You showed up unexpected that night, and Rita Ficarra told you to go home.

      • You weren’t allowed to use the bathroom?  Your own lawyers have publicly said you were not mistreated.

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

      • How was this elaborate trap in place if it was night time, and you showed up unannounced? 

      • All they were asking was a list of potential men who might have visited the home.

      • That part was truthful.  Sollecito did say you asked him to lie, which left you without an alibi.

      • Why does a 20 year old need to call her mom, when being asked questions about a murder?  Never mind.

      • Actually, you were free to leave at that point.

      • You didn’t understand the language?  What was your interpreter, Anna Donnino there for?

      • If you didn’t understand the language, how did you know they thought you had trauma-induced amnesia?

      • Police are looking for a killer, and they ask you to ‘‘imagine’’ things?  Right.

      • Yeah, getting busted for murder can be pretty overwhelming.  No argument here.

      [Chapter 31, Page 402]  Number one, I would have written to the Kerchers. I wanted to tell them how much I liked their daughter. How lovingly she spoke of her family. Tell them that her death was a heartbreak to so many.

      • Well, you could help them by not publishing embarrassing details.

      • Please don’t tell them you like their daughter.  And please don’t ask to see the grave.

      • Her death was a heartbreak to so many.  Oh, right, I was one of them.

      [Chapter 31, Page 402]  Number two, I’d have written Patrick an apology. Naming him was unforgivable, and he didn’t deserve it, but I wanted to say that it wasn’t about him. I was pushed so hard that I’d have named anyone. I was sorry.

      • Yes, naming him was unforgivable.

      • No, it wasn’t about him, it was about saving your own ass.

      • You pushed yourself to come up with something once Sollecito said you went out—alone.

      • You did name anyone: Patrick, Rudy, Juve, Shaky, Spiros, Federico Martini ....

      • You were sorry that it didn’t work out?

      [Chapter 31, Page 403 ]  Dear Patrick,

      The explanation you’ve heard a number of times about my interrogation is true and I’m sure you understand well since you were arrested the same night without being told why.  Ifee1guilo and sorry for my part in it.

      • He was arrested ONLY because of you, but shit happens, right?
      Posted on 11/26/15 at 11:35 AM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
      Archived in Those Italy chargedAmanda KnoxKnox-Mellas teamKnox book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (10)

      Tuesday, November 24, 2015

      Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #9

      Posted by Chimera



      Implacable nastiness in Star Wars. Anakin is about to kill his wife here. Click for Comments.

      1. Overview Of This Series

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

      Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either.

      Four more quick posts and the series will be done here. Then we will post everything on a new Knox Lies page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The eight posts before this one can all be read here.

      Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

      2. Dissection Of Pages 355 to 394

      [Chapter 28, Page 355]  “I’d like to show the court a visual prop we’ve constructed to demonstrate our theory of the murder,” Comodi said. This introduced the most surreal moment of my nightmarish trial: a 3-D computer-generated animation with avatars representing me, Raffaele, Rudy Guede, and Meredith.  Carlo and Luciano were apoplectic. They shouted their objections, insisting that the film was unnecessary and inflammatory. Judge Massei allowed it. I didn’t watch it, but my lawyers said the avatar of me was dressed in a striped shirt like one I often wore to court. Raffaele, Guede, and I were depicted sneering.  Meredith’s avatar had an expression of horror and pain. The cartoon used real crime scene photos to show the blood splatters in Meredith’s room.

      • Trying to use a video simulation to explain a crime?  Happens regularly in U.S. courts.

      • So, should Meredith be sneering, and Knox, Sollecito, Guede have horrified expressions?

      [Chapter 28, Page 356]  I kept my head down, my eyes on the table. My stomach was churning. The courtroom was suddenly hot. I was boiling with anger and near tears. How are they allowed to make up what happened? I tried to block out Comodi’s voice as she narrated the imagined event.

      • Angry, why?  For having the brutality of it finally shown?

      • Was she supposed to narrate you in the kitchen covering your ears while Lumumba kills Meredith?

      • Was she supposed to narrate the one where Guede uses his 6 arms and spider-strength to overpower Meredith?

      [Chapter 28, Page 356] The cartoon couldn’t be entered as evidence, so no one outside the courtroom saw it. But the prosecution had achieved their goal. They’d planted an image in the minds of the judges and jury.  When the lights came up, Comodi closed with a straightforward request: Give Amanda and Raffaele life imprisonment.

      • Nobody outside the courtroom saw the cartoon since it “couldn’t” be entered as evidence?  In fact it was purely a choice of the prosecution and judge to stop it leaking to the media.

      • The points of clearing the court are to protect the dignity of the victim, and to prevent word of it from inflaming the public via the media.

      • The point is not to ‘‘plant an image’‘.  It is to provide the best interpretation of what happened.

      • Finally a truthful statement.  Yes, they did ask for life in prison.

      [Chapter 28, Page 357]  Then he [Pacelli] descended on me as if I were a witch on trial in the Middle Ages. “So who is Amanda Knox? In my opinion, within her resides a double soul—the angelic and compassionate, gentle and naive one, of Saint Maria Goretti, and the satanic, diabolic Luciferina, who was brought to engage in extreme, borderline acts and to adopt dissolute behavior. This last was the Amanda of November 1, 2007 ... It must be spelled out clearly: Amanda was a girl who was clean on the outside because she was dirty within, spirit and soul.. .”

      • Pacelli didn’t descend on you as if it were the middle ages.  He descended on you for having committed heinous acts.

      • Extreme, borderline acts?  I guess sexual assault and murder, then framing someone are ‘‘mainstream’’ ....

      [Chapter 28, Page 357]  How can any girl defend herself against a guy armed with a knife? “It’s a very long list of lesions: to the face, neck, hands, forearms, thighs. Try to understand the terror, the fear, the pain this girl suffered in the last seconds of her life in the face of the multiple aggression, an aggression brought about by more than one person.” Maresca didn’t mention that the prosecution’s own coroner—the only person who’d analyzed Meredith’s body—had said it was impossible to determine whether one or more people attacked Meredith.

      • How can any woman defend herself against a guy armed with a knife?  Many have before.

      • This is disingenuous.  The coroner is NEVER able to make the determination of multiple attackers based solely on injuries.  They can make reasonable assumptions and say things are likely, but few things are 100% certain.

      • That said, that many injuries with so few defensive marks leads to two possibilities: (1) The victim had been restrained; or (2) Multiple attackers were present.

      [Chapter 28, Page 358]  Maresca, like Mignini, criticized any media that had questioned his work. But what most enraged me was the false contrast he set up between the Kerchers and my family. “You’ll remember Meredith’s family for their absolute composure. They taught the world the elegance of silence. We’ve never heard them on the television ... in the newspapers. They’ve never given an interview. There’s an abysmal difference between them and what has been defined as the Knox Clan and the Sollecito Clan, which give interviews on national television and in magazines every day.” Thank God for my “clan,” I thought. They’re the only ones on my side.

      • Meredith: likeable, ambitious, driven student.

      • Knox: crass, lazy, does drugs and brings home strange men.

      • Kercher family: kept a low profile during the trial.

      • Knox family: parents hired a PR firm to rail about how Knox was being railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor, and ancient judicial system

      [Chapter 28, Page 358]  Meredith’s family is grieving, but my family knows that Pm not the cause of the Kerchers’ grief. Just as Meredith’s family came to Perugia to seek justice for their daughter, mine have come to seek justice for me. Both families are good. Both families are doing the best they can, the best way they know how..

      • Meredith’s family is grieving?  So that’s what grief looks like?  Good to know.

      • Well, your mother knew you were the cause of PATRICK’S grief, and did nothing about it.

      • If your family were here to seek justice, they would have let things play out.

      • The way they know how?  Oh, Judge Hellmann .....

      [Chapter 28, Page 358]  “Raffaele and Rudy Guede never met, went out together, or saw each other,” Maori said. “The two young men belonged to completely different worlds and cultures. Raffaele comes from a big and healthy family. Rudy rejected his family. Raffaele has always been a model student. Rudy was never interested in school or work. Raffaele is timid and reserved. Rudy is uninhibited, arrogant, extroverted.” “Accomplices who don’t know each other . Bongiorno said, drawing out the words to emphasize the paradox that they couldn’t have been accomplices if they didn’t even know each other! Raffaele, she told the court, was “Mr. Nobody"—put in by the prosecution as an afterthought.  “There was no evidence of him at the scene.” The prosecution had contradicted themselves. “He’s there, but he’s not. He has a knife, but he doesn’t. He’s passive, he’s active.”

      • Vanessa losing her job while interfering with the case is ‘‘healthy’‘?

      • Since we are talking about ‘‘work ethic’‘, Sollecito is the only one of the 3 who never held a job.

      • Rudy is uninhibited, arrogant, extroverted?  Umm…. so is Knox.

      • People with different personalities can still know each other.  Sollecito knew Knox.

      • And despite the claim Sollecito didn’t know Guede, they both knew Knox.

      • Sollecito wasn’t put there as an afterthought.  He was Knox’s alibi witness, until he said she made him lie.

      [Chapter 28, Page 359] In defending Raffaele, she also defended me. “If the court doesn’t mind, and Amanda doesn’t mind, the innocence of my client depends on Amanda Knox,” she said. “A lot of people think that she doesn’t make sense. But Amanda just sees things her way. She reacts differently. She’s not a classic Italian woman. She has a naive perspective of life, or did when the events occurred. But just because she acted differently from other people doesn’t mean she killed someone….

      • Sollecito’s innocence depends on Knox?  Wasn’t his ‘‘official’’ position that she went out?

      • She reacts differently?  Yeah, shit happens.

      • Her reactions don’t mean it, but false alibis, false accusations, turning off phones, mixed blood, etc ... do mean it.

      [Chapter 28, Page 359]  “Amanda looked at the world with the eyes of Am6lie” she said, referring to the quirky waif in the movie that Raffaele and I watched the night of Meredith’s murder.  Amelie and I had traits in common, Bongiorno said. “The extravagant, bizarre personality, full of imagination. If there’s a personality who does cartwheels and who confesses something she imagined, it’s her. I believe that what happened is easy to guess. Amanda, being a little bizarre and naive, when she went into the questura, was truly trying to help the police and she was told, ‘Amanda, imagine. Help us, Amanda. Amanda, reconstruct it. Amanda, find the solution. Amanda, try.’ She tried to do so, she tried to help, because she wanted to help the police, because Amanda is precisely the Am6lie of Seattle.”

      • Knox looks at the world with the eyes of Amelie?  Are you arguing innocence or insanity?

      • Knox didn’t ‘‘confess’’ to anything.  She falsely ‘‘accused’’ Patrick of something.

      • Knox didn’t ‘‘imagine’’ anything, except a possible way out after Sollecito pulled his alibi.

      • She didn’t go to the Questura to ‘‘help the police’‘.  She claimed she went because she was scared to be alone, and told to go home.

      • Knox wasn’t told to ‘‘imagine’’ how anything went.  She started writing a list of possible males who visited.

      • Sorry to pick up an old topic, but Knox is remembering all this as it was said?  Or did she get the trial transcripts?

      [Chapter 28, Page 360]  “At lunch hour on November 2, 2007, a body was discovered,” Luciano began. “It was a disturbing fact that captured the hearts of everyone. Naturally there were those who investigated. Naturally there were testimonies. Naturally there was the initial investigative activity. Immediately, immediately, especially Amanda, but also Raffaele, were suspected, investigated, and heard for four days following the discovery of the body. There was demand for haste. There was demand for efficiency. There was demand.

      • Knox has frequently claimed she was ‘‘interrogated’’ for days, but this is the first time, I am hearing about it happening to Sollecito.

      • ’‘ALL’’ of the residents of the house were detained, as Knox admits earlier in the book.  She was not targeted.

      • There was no ‘‘demand for haste’‘.  On November 5, 2007, the police asked him to come in to clear up his alibi.  Knox was not invited, and when she did show up, was asked to leave.

      • Again, how does Knox remember this summation, more than 3 years before she would write her book?

      [Chapter 28, Page 360]  “Such demand and such haste led to the wrongful arrest of Patrick Lumumba—a grave mistake.”  Carlo picked up the thread. “There is a responsible party for this and it’s not Amanda Knox. Lumumba’s arrest was not executed by Amanda Knox. She gave information, false information. Now we know. But you couldn’t give credit to what Amanda said in that way, in that moment and in that way. A general principle for operating under such circumstances is maximum caution. In that awkward situation there was instead the maximum haste.”  Having heard what they wanted to hear and without checking further, the investigators and Prosecutor Mignini arrested Patrick—bringing him in “like a sack of potatoes,” Luciano said.

      • Knox admitted in her June 2009 testimony that she was the one to bring Patrick’s name up.

      • She did this because Sollecito revoked his alibi, and she was suddenly desperate for a new one.

      • Caution?  Knox claimed to be a witness to the rape and murder.

      • Lumumba’s arrest WAS executed by Knox.  Judge Massei (2009), Judge Hellmann (2011), and Cassation (2013) all said it was.

      • They did check the facts.  Patrick was released once they investigated.

      • You guys are taking pot shots at the cops in your summation?  Somehow I doubt it.

      [Chapter 28, Page 361]  Maria Del Grosso criticized Mignini for the fiction he’d invented. “What must be judged today is whether this girl committed murder by brutal means. To sustain this accusation you need very strong elements, and what element does the prosecution bring us? The flushing of the toilet. Amanda was an adulterer. l hope that not even Prosecutor Mignini believes in the improbable, unrealistic, imaginary contrast of the two figures of Amanda and Meredith.”

      • The prosecution brought hard evidence to the trial.  What did you bring?

      • [I haven’t seen the trial transcript on this. Defence lawyers spin and distort things, but this may actually have been said.]

      [Chapter 28, Page 362]  Then Raffaele and I made our final pleas. Raffaele talked about how he would never hurt anyone.  That he had no reason to. That he wouldn’t have done something just because I’d told him to.  I’d spent hours sitting on my bed making notes about what I wanted to say, but as soon as I stood up, every word emptied from my brain. I had to go with what came to me, on the few notes I had prepared.

      • Yes, Sollecito, gave speeches about how he had no reason to hurt her, but refused to actually testify.

      • Likewise at the Nencini appeal, Sollecito gave speeches, but wouldn’t answer questions.

      • You have to make notes?  I guess it just doesn’t come naturally.

      [Chapter 28, Page 362]  “People have asked me this question: how are you able to remain calm? First of all, I’m not calm.  I’m scared to lose myself. I’m scared to be defined as what I am not and by acts that don’t belong to me. I’m afraid to have the mask of a murderer forced on my skin.

      • You were VERY calm after Meredith’s murder

      • Scared to lose yourself?  You mean, yet your cold-blooded side slip out?  Okay, probably true here.

      • Scared to be defined as something?  This is a murder trial.

      • Mask of a murderer?  Sweetheart, it’s not a mask.

      [Chapter 28, Page 362]  “I feel more connected to you, more vulnerable before you, but also trusting and sure in my conscience. For this I thank you ... I thank the prosecution because they are trying to do their job, even if they don’t understand, even if they are not able to understand, because they are trying to bring justice to an act that tore a person from this world. So I thank them for what they do ... It is up to you now. So I thank you.”  My words were so inadequate. But at least I remembered to thank the court again. Now I had to put my faith in what my lawyers and our experts and I had said month after month. I had to believe that it was good enough.

      • While I’m at it, I’d like to thank the director, the producer, and the supporting cast.

      • One more time people.  I don’t yet have the feel of this character.

      • Dammit guys!  We are shooting this film just great.

      • Your words are inadequate?  You should have hired Linda Kuhlman to ‘‘ghostwrite’’ your speech.  No, it would still suck.

      [Chapter 28, Page 364]  My head pounded as I shot from excitement to terror and back again—and again. My brain bounced between Please, please, please and Finally, finally, finally—THE END.

      • Yes, sequels are lame.  Like the sequel (or paperback) of this book.

      [Chapter 28, Page 364]  After dinner Tanya turned on the TV. Every channel was talking about my case: The big day! The world is hanging on, waiting to see what the decision will be in the “Italian trial of the century.”  Raffaele and Amanda have been charged with six counts. Meredith’s family will be there to hear the verdict. Amanda’s family is waiting in the hotel. The Americans believe there’s no case, but the prosecution insists that Meredith’s DNA is on the murder weapon and Raffaele’s DNA is on Meredith’s bra clasp. The prosecution has condemned the American media for taking an incorrect view of the case.

      • Well, the whole world wasn’t watching until Dad hired a PR firm.

      • Americans believe there is no case.  Probably due to a biased media that doesn’t bother to check their facts

      • Meredith’s DNA on the knife and Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp were only just 2 pieces of evidence, yet you try to portray it as about the only evidence.

      • Actually the prosecution condemned the US media notion that he was framing 2 ‘‘kids’’ for his career.

      [Chapter 29, Page 370]  My life cleaved in two. Before the verdict, I’d been a wrongly accused college student about to walk free. I was about to start my life over after two years. Now everything I’d thought I’d been promised had been ripped away. I was a convicted murderer.

      • Well, before the conviction Marriott portrayed you as the ‘‘wrongly accused’’ college student.

      • You were only taking the one course, so is that really a college student?  Not a full time load.

      • Everything you had been promised?  What kind of deal did you make?

      [Chapter 29, Page 370]  Carlo stopped us just before we started down the stairs. He was breathless. “I’m so sorry! We’re going to win! We’re going to win. Amanda, we’re going to save you. Be strong.”

      • You’ve got the business judge directory?

      [Chapter 30, Page 377]  “Can you possibly put me on the list for a two-person cell instead of the five-person cell?” I asked, sniffling. “That would mean a lot to me.” It was all I had. Begging for a better cell. It had come to this. This was my new life. I was in a position to ask. Twenty-six-year sentences were uncommon in Italy, especially at Capanne, which usually housed petty criminals and drug dealers serving sentences of a few months to a few years. After twenty-five months, not only had I earned seniority—I’d been there longer than almost everyone else—but I had a reputation as a model prisoner.

      [Chapter 30, Page 384]  As Lupa said, my lawyers would obviously appeal my conviction. But I couldn’t count on the Court of Appeals to free me. My case, tried daily in the media, was too big and too notorious. It was awful to hear that strangers believed I had killed my friend. That feeling was compounded when, about three weeks after Raffaele and I were convicted, the appeals court cut Rudy Guede’s sentence nearly in half, from thirty years to sixteen. Meredith’s murderer was now serving less time than I was—by ten years! How can they do this?! I raged to myself. It doesn’t make sense! The unfairness of it burned in my throat.

      • Cases are tried by the courts, not the media.

      • It was awful to hear stranger thinking you killed your friend?  Why so obsessed with what people think?

      • Your friend?  Meredith I assume?

      • Didn’t make sense?  Did you read this quote from pages 273/274 of this book?  Fast track trial ... ?

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

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

      • Actually, it was a ‘‘long haired woman’’ you testified against.  Ficarra wasn’t named until this book came out.

      • You ‘‘didn’t remember assisting’‘?  Well, after days of lying, you admitted you were present.

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

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

      • Judge Matteini was right.  You refused to attend the 2013 Cassation appeal, your own 2013/2014 Florence appeal, your own 2015 Cassation appeal, and are skipping the September 2015 calunnia trial.

      • So, the interpreter is refusing to translate properly .... to help frame you?

      • A police officer (whom you only now identify as Ficarra), assaults you, and everyone covers it up?

      • So, police and prosecutors are framing you to retains their jobs and reputations?

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

      • So which is it?  You will (a) Tell the truth; or (b) Restate that you had been hit?

      • Yes, ‘‘aggravated calunnia’’ has a tendency to add years to jail sentences.

      • Mignini, Comodi and the Questura are not ‘‘going after you again and again’‘.  They are obligated to report such complaints.

      • Not ‘‘persecuted’’ forever, but if you keep this pattern up, you may be ‘‘prosecuted’’ forever.

      [Chapter 30, Page 386] The indictment was a dark reminder of how completely vulnerable I was. Not only had the prosecution successfully had me convicted for something I hadn’t done, but also legally, my word meant nothing. I was trapped.

      • Yes, the word of someone convicted of making false accusations generally means nothing.  Quite true.

      [Chapter 30, Page 387] As I did for Mina’s mom, Gregora, I helped prisoners write letters, legal documents, grocery lists, and explain an ailment to the doctor. The Nigerian women treated me as an honored guest, setting me up at a table and offering tea and cake as they dictated to me. This was my way of being part of the prison community on my own terms, of trying to find a good balance between helping others and protecting myself. No matter how much I was hurting, I didn’t think it was right to ignore the fact that I could help other inmates with my ability to read and write in both Italian and English.  At bedtime each night, I made a schedule for the next day, organized task by task, hour by hour. If I didn’t cross off each item, I felt I’d let myself down. I wrote as much as I could—journals, stories, poems. I could spend hours crafting a single letter to my family.

      • The writing part is true.

      • The touching details about helping other inmates is not.  Knox kept to herself almost exclusively.

      [Chapter 30, Page 387]  The ways other prisoners had tried to kill themselves were well known—and I imagined myself trying them all.  There was poisoning, usually with bleach. Swallowing enough and holding it in long enough was painfully difficult. Usually the vomiting would attract the attention of the guards too soon, and then they’d pump your stomach. It seemed an agonizing way to go if success wasn’t guaranteed.  There was swallowing shards of glass from a compact mirror or a broken plastic pen, hitting your head against the wall until you beat yourself to death, and hanging yourself.  But the most common and fail-safe method of suicide in prison was suffocation by a garbage bag—two prisoners on the men’s side did this successfully while I was there. You could even buy the bags off the grocery list. You’d pull the bag over your head, stick an open gas canister meant for the camping stove inside, and tie the bag off around your neck. The gas would make you pass out almost instantaneously, and if someone didn’t untie the bag immediately, that was it.  Less effective but, I thought, more dignified was bleeding yourself to death. I imagined it would be possible to get away with enough time in the shower. The running water would deter cellmates from invading your privacy, and the steam would fog up the guard’s viewing window. I imagined cutting both my wrists and sinking into oblivion in a calm, quiet, hot mist.  I wondered which straw would need to break for me actually to do any of these. What would my family and friends think? How would the guards find my body?  I imagined myself as a corpse. It made me feel sick, not relieved, but it was a fantasy I had many times—terrible, desperate recurring thoughts that I never shared with a soul.

      • Not sure why Knox is telling us this.  Is it for shock value? Is she reveling in it?

      [Chapter 30, Page 387]  I thought about how much I wanted to get married and have kids. If I get released on good behavior when I’m forty-three, I can still adopt.

      • Yes, adoption agencies won’t have an issue with a 43 year old woman who spent nearly her entire adult in jail for rape and murder now adopting a child.

      [Chapter 30, Page 388] My mom couldn’t accept my sadness. She wrote, and talked to me, many times about how scared she was for me. “You’re changing, Amanda,” she said. “You’re not sunny anymore. I hope when you get out you can go back to being the happy person you were.  “Mom,” I wrote back, “good things don’t always work out for good people. Sometimes shit happens for no reason, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

      • You’re not sunny anymore?  Well, after Massei didn’t buy it, I’d be pessimistic too.

      • Shit happens for no reason?  Sorry, Meredith.

      [Chapter 30, Page 388]  I desperately didn’t want to be forgotten. But more than worrying about the logistics of such a life, I was terrified that we were coming to a point where we wouldn’t understand one another. They still had the right to choose what to do with their lives; they had freedom. I didn’t. I was at the mercy of my wardens. I worried that my new prison identity wouldn’t make sense to them, and my mom was evidence of that. If enough time passed, we’d be speaking two different languages—and it would have nothing and everything to do with their English and my Italian.

      • The first statement seems truthful, you really are desperate to not be forgotten.

      • But if you wanted to lessen the burden, you could have just come clean, and gotten a much lighter sentence.

      [Chapter 31, Page 393] Sitting beside me in the visitors’ room at Capanne, my friend Madison reached over and brushed my cheek. I flinched. “Baby, don’t worry. It’s just an eyelash,” she said.  My skittishness horrified me. “I guess I’m just not used to people touching me anymore!’

      • Too easy.  I won’t even try with this one.

      [Chapter 31, Page 394]  After I was convicted, my family, my lawyers, my friends, other prisoners—even, bizarrely, prison officials—tried to console me by telling me that I’d surely have my sentence reduced, if not overturned, on appeal. Rocco and Corrado assured me that in Italy about half the cases win on appeal.

      • Not true at all.  Very few cases are overturned on appeal.

      • You’d surely have your sentence reduced?  Are you working on those fake tears?

      [Chapter 31, Page 394]  But I’d been burned so often I was terrified. Why would the Court of Appeals make a different decision from the previous court? Or from the pretrial judge? Both had accepted the prosecution’s version. With my case, the Italian judicial system was also on trial. My story was well known, and the world was watching. It’d be difficult for the judicial authorities to back down now.

      • Good question.  Why would they make a different decision?

      • So, Mignini/Comodi’s case that you were involved in Meredith’s death was just a ‘‘version’‘?  Was it their version of the truth?

      • The judicial system is always on trial.  Judgements have to be able to withstand public and legal scrutiny.

      • You won’t get a fair appeal because their is media attention?

      [Chapter 31, Page 394] One thing had changed: me. I was different. In the year since my conviction I’d decided that being a victim wouldn’t help me. In prison there were a lot of women who blamed others for their bad circumstances. They lived lethargic, angry lives. I refused to be that person. I pulled myself out of the dark place into which I’d tumbled. I promised myself I’d live in a way that I could respect. I would love myself. And I would live as fully as I could in confinement.

      • Are you kidding?  Being a ‘‘victim’’ got you all this fame, I mean notoriety.

      • There are a lot of women who blame others for their circumstances?  Others like Mignini, Ficarra, Guede….

      • They lived lethargic, angry lives?  Your book is dripping with rage.

      • You refused to be that person?  How exactly?

      • Live in a way you can respect?  You seem to have pretty low standards.
      Posted on 11/24/15 at 05:00 PM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
      Archived in Those Italy chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (3)

      Friday, October 23, 2015

      Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #8

      Posted by Chimera



      Implacable nastiness - in NYC’s Central Park. Click here to go directly to 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. In the first seven posts there are 350, many with several lies bundled together, and in this post I identify another 60 making the total 410 so far with more pending.

      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.

      This series is previewed and it’s explained why the “Revenge of the Knox” motif in this post here. The seven posts before this one can all be read here.

      Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

      2. Dissection Of Pages 313 to 354

      [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.

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

      • Disingeuous, the toilet was just one thing in many of you being messy?

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

      • 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.  The thought that these witnesses might wow the jury and judges terrified me.

      • So Judge Massei writes up a 400 page report, and Judge Nencini a 350 page report of ‘‘marginally convincing’‘?

      • Wtnesses are not supposed to ‘‘wow’’ a jury and judge.  They are supposed to present what they saw or heard.

      • Why would it terrify you?  Do they know things you wish they didn’t?

      [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.

      • So, you are accusing police of ‘‘coaching’’ a witness?

      • He spoke up and said it was you?  Was he speaking Italian?  Sorry to keep beating this dead horse.

      • 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?

      [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.

      [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.

      • Body temperature can give a rough estimate of T.O.D., based on the ‘‘1 degree an hour’’ guideline.  But far from exact, regardless of what C.S.I. says.

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

      • 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?  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 make those types of claims.

      [Chapter 26, Page 316]  There were many bad days during my trial. The worst was the afternoon when evidence was presented to establish the time of Meredith’s death. Since the judge had ruled that to protect Meredith’s privacy the press and public couldn’t see her autopsy photos, he cleared the courtroom of everyone who wasn’t directly involved in the trial. Pictures of Meredith’s dissected stomach were projected onto a screen like the kind used for home movies. I knew that if I looked, I’d have the same reaction as the juror who bolted for the ladies’ room. Even more devastating than the actual image of the stomach was knowing it was my friend’s.

      • Yes, the court was cleared when Meredith’s autopsy photos were shown.  Damn those courts to show the victim and her family a little consideration.

      • Considering that you publish personal details of Meredith’s sex life, I can see why this would bother you?

      • Were these ‘‘bad days’’ as there was less chance for scrutiny, or did you really want Meredith ‘‘put out there’’ like that?

      [Chapter 26, Page 316]  Throughout the display, the prosecution delivered a primer on the human digestive system. We learned it takes about two to four hours to digest a meal. Meredith’s friends had said that they’d started dinner around 6 P.M. Since the food hadn’t yet passed into Meredith’s small intestine, my lawyers said she died between 9 and 9:30 P.M.-10 P.M. at the latest.  Any later and her stomach contents would have shown up in her small intestine. According toMeredith’s friends, she had gotten home at around 9 P.M.

      • ’‘Meredith’s friends’‘?  You really don’t like dropping names, do you?

      • The digestion rates are only estimates, not exact.

      • ’‘Around 6PM’’ is not exact, and could be 6:30, or 6:45 for all we know before she actually ate.  When you order meals, do they actually arrive right away?

      • Meredith had ‘‘partially digested’’ her meal, so your claim is a red herring

      • Of course ‘‘your lawyers’’ say things like that.  Doesn’t mean they are true.

      • Also, do you have an interpreter or are you following the trial in Italian (in real time)?

      [Chapter 26, Page 316]  On the only computer the police hadn’t fried, Raffaele’s laptop, the hard drive showed that we’d finished watching Amelie and clicked Stop—the last “human interaction” th the computer—at 9:15 P.M. The tight timing gave us an alibi that even the prosecution didn’t try to disprove.

      • An alibi how?  Even by your ‘‘version’’ of events, your last ‘‘human interaction’’ on the computer is 9:15PM, and Meredith could have been killed as late at 10:00PM.

      • Your flat is a few minutes away from Sollecito’s.

      • And in Sollecito’s November 5th/6th statement, he says he went out from 9PM to 1AM, and he doesn’t know where.

      • You yourself write statements saying you were at your home, covering your ears to drown out Meredith’s screams.

      [Chapter 26, Page 317]  What made their theory even weaker was Capezzali herself. She testified that the morning after she heard the scream, some kids ran by while she was cleaning her apartment and told her a girl in the villa had been killed. Then, at around 11 A.M., when she went out to buy bread, she saw posters with Meredith’s face at the newsstand.

      • 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.

      • Knox is trying to smear Capezzali as unreliable, and Mignini as coaching her, but misses the point. 

      • Obviously the poster wasn’t up PRIOR to Meredith being discovered, but if Mignini were to lead the witness, it would have made far more sense to ask if Capezzali had seen the poster on November 3rd or 4th, to have the story make sense

      • Juries are not supposed to believe witnesses with memory problems, just defendants?  Okay ....

      [Chapter 26, Page 317]  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 Id once tried to shoot hoops with the guys from down-stairs 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?

      • The most direct walk to your ‘‘boyfriend’s’’ home is through Piazza Grimana where Guede plays?

      • You admit you have been there with the men from downstairs?

      • Oh, wait, you have never crossed paths with Rudy Guede

      [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.”

      • He didn’t lie about firing you.  He was going to replace you for being lazy

      • You never apologized to him?  Did you ever try?

      [Chapter 26, Page 320] He was also far more forgiving than I’d expected. I wasn’t the best waitress, but I was a fine person, he said.I can only guess why Patrick had decided to tone down his anti-Amanda commentary. Either he felt he had to be honest under oath or his lawyer had advised him to act meek and likeable—and let the venom be rained down by Pacelli himself. Whatever the reason, Patrick told the court, “We always had a good relationship.”

      • You weren’t acting like a waitress at all?  You were flirting with everyone instead of working.

      • You always had a good relationship?  Was that before or after you had him falsely arrested?

      • He had ‘‘to be honest under oath’‘, so now he suddenly starts saying nice things about you?

      [Chapter 26, Page 321] Then it was my turn. 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.”

      • I felt it was crucial that I testify. I wanted to talk about my relationship with Meredith. I needed to explain my behavior in the wake of her murder.

      • 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.

      • Yes, your lawyers don’t want you to say anything (else) incriminating?  Good call.

      • ’‘Showing the court what kind of person I am’’ isn’t the reason people should testify.  It is to have your version of events heard.

      • You wanted to talk about your relationship with ‘‘your friend’‘?  You mean, it hadn’t soured, as others testified to?

      • Yes, conflicting alibis, lies, false accusations, etc .... do need to be cleared up

      • Sollecito didn’t testify.  In fact, he would never take the witness stand.

      • Knox however, did not agree to full cross examination.  The questions (agreed in advance), were limited to the ‘‘calunnia’‘.

      [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.

      • It was not ‘‘3 droplets of blood’‘.  The bathroom was soaked in blood.

      • And what about the ‘‘unflushed toilet’’ you wanted everyone to know about?

      • And that broken window (Filomena’s), facing you as you walk towards the house?

      • You were excited for Gubbio, but then just forget all about it?

      • This is all academic though.  The questioning was restricted to the police interrogation (Nov 5th/6th).

      [Chapter 26, Page 323]  I knew Mignini liked to intimidate people. I gave myself a pep talk. He scared and surprised you the first and second times. But three times? I don’t think so!

      As the date got closer, I slept little and talked less. Journalists reported that I was pale and had dark circles under my eyes.

      True. I was wearing my anxiety on my face. The day before I had to testify, a nasty cold sore appeared on my lip. My mantra for myself ran through my mind. You are not afraid. You are not afraid of Mignini. This is your chance.

      When I saw the prosecutor in court, Mignini seemed like a blowhard in a silly robe. I wished I had felt that way when he questioned me before.

      • Yes, Mignini intimidated you by telling you to seek legal advice before answering potentially incriminating questions.

      • The second time?  Is that when you had legal counsel, and the ever elusive Giancarlo Costa was one of your lawyers?

      • Mignini seemed ‘‘like a blowhard in a silly robe’‘?  Good to know you take this seriously?

      [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.

      • Pacelli isn’t giving commentary.  He is asking pointed questions.  This is a murder trial.

      • Looking disgusted qualifies as ‘‘bullying’‘?  Okay.

      • Useless?  She was hired by the court to help you.

      • The interpreter isn’t saying precisely what you are saying?  Do you mean her translation isn’t word for word, or she is off of the content?  Or is she not being as evasive as you hoped she would be?

      • And when asked questions in Italian, you answer in English, and have the translator go English-to-Italian in return?  Why do this?  Are you hoping for mis-communications to be made?

      • If you don’t need her, why not just have the questioning completely in Italian?

      • Note: 323-327 is Knox’s account of her testimony.  In reality, she was on the stand June 12th and June 13th.  Notice that she is never questioned about the evidence of the murder.  The scope of the questioning was limited beforehand.

      [Chapter 27, Page 329] Carlo [Dalla Vedova] leaned across the table in the visitors’ room. “Amanda,” he said. “They’re wrong!”  His customary pessimism had vanished. “There was no blood on the knife,” he said. “And there was so little DNA present they didn’t have enough to get valid results. We have everything we need to overturn the case!”

      • This conversation likely never took place, and if so, Dalla Vedova is truly incompetent.  There was plenty of evidence, both forensic and non-forensic to tie Knox and Sollecito to the crimes.  This knife was not a make-or-break.

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

      • Knox claims the prosecution withheld evidence that would exonerate her.  Serious charge to make.

      • How do you know that it was impossible to have Meredith’s DNA or it?  Did you clean it, or use a different knife?

      • It had Meredith’s DNA on the blade, yours in a groove in the handle, (the double-DNA knife).  Seems pretty conclusive.

      • So, Stefanoni commits misconduct, lies about, and leaks false results?  Did you ever file a complaint?

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

      • Earlier you quote Dalla Vedova as saying the detectives don’t know what to do, as they haven’t had a murder to investigate in 20 years.  Yet, you refer to your home and town as a ‘‘deathtrap’‘.

      • Dalla Vedova claims they are incompetent, and withhold information to cover up their mistakes?  Did he ever say this publicly?

      [Chapter 27, Page 331]  And for Mignini, appearing to be right superseded everything else. As I found out that summer, the determined prosecutor had a bizarre past, was being tried for abuse of office, and had a history of coming up with peculiar stories to prove his cases. His own case is currently pending on appeal.

      • Update on that: the appeals court (and Cassation), ruled that the charges were baseless and threw them out.

      [Chapter 27, Page 331]  Mignini had a habit of taking revenge on anyone who disagreed with him, including politicians, journalists, and officials. His usual tactic was to tap their telephones and sue or jail them. The most famous instance was the arrest of Italian journalist Mario Spezi, and the interrogation of Spezi’s American associate Douglas Preston, a writer looking into the Narducci case, who subsequently fled Italy.

      In the hour we had each week to discuss my case, my lawyers had never thought there was a reason for us to talk about Mignini’s outlandish history. Carlo and Luciano told me only when it became apparent that, for Mignini, winning his case against Raffaele and me was a Hail Mary to save his career and reputation.


    • “The whole story is insane!” I said. I couldn’t take it in. It struck me that I was being tried by a madman who valued his career more than my freedom or the truth about Meredith’s murder!

      • Mignini is required to file complaints about people who make false accusations.  Otherwise the prosecutor’s office could easily be pushed around.

      • Doug Preston was interrogated by Mignini?  Explains a lot about one of your ‘‘allies’‘.

      • Yes, lucky for Mignini’s career that Meredith happened to come along and get killed.

      • ’‘It struck you that you were being tried by a madman’‘?  Did telling all those lies ever strike you as the reason for being tried?

      [Chapter 27, Page 332]  Giulia Bongiorno made a speech that gave me even more cause for optimism. Keeping the raw data from us until July 30 had violated our rights as defendants. If we’d had it earlier—when we first requested it—it would have altered the trial from the beginning. “The question for the court,” Bongiorno said, “is the DNA evidence decisive or not? If you believe it’s not, then there hasn’t been an injury to the rights of the defense. But if the DNA is decisive, you have to ask yourselves: Did the defense have the possibility to examine the data to be able to counter the conclusions? Did the defense have the diagrams, the electropheragrams, the quantity of DNA, the procedures? You have the answer.

      • So, either the DNA is conclusive or it is not.

      • If it is conclusive, then, it must be contaminated.

      • If it is conclusive, then the defences should have been able to examine it, and to witness

      • Reality: defence lawyers WERE given the chance to be present, but chose not to, so they could later claim contamination.

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

      • Yes, the prosecutors are trying to thwart you by having defense lawyers choose to not attend DNA testing.

      [Chapter 27, Page 332]  Adjusting his glasses, Judge Massei droned in his unassuming voice, “There will be no annulment.  We’ll hear both sides discuss the forensic evidence.”  I swallowed hard and closed my eyes, willing my tears back in their ducts.

      • Massei droned?  Way to take pot-shots at the lead judge.

      • Silly Massei.  Wanting to hear both sides before making a decision.

      [Chapter 27, Page 334]  No one was contesting the brutality of Meredith’s death—only how it had happened and who was responsible. Everyone believed that Rudy Guede had been there and that he had killed Meredith. He was already serving a thirty-year sentence for her sexual assault and murder.

      The goal of the prosecution was to prove that I had been there, too.

      • Originally you, Sollecito and Guede were to be tried together.  But Guede asked for a short form trial when you and Sollecito teamed up against him. 

      • For some reason, short-form trials go quicker than full trials.

      [Chapter 27, Page 334]  During the testimony phase, from January to July, witnesses discussed everything from my housekeeping habits to my character and sexual activity. It was intensely personal, and sometimes mortifying.

      • Mortifying?  Really?  Have you read your own book?  You splash around everyone’s secret’s true or false.

      [Chapter 27, Page 334]  Picking up after the summer break, the forensics phase lasted only three and a half weeks, but it was still interminable: hour after hour of examination and cross-examination. Witnesses were called to talk about the knife, the bra clasp, my “bloody” footprints, how my DNA could have mixed with Meredith’s blood in the bathroom, and our alleged cleanup of the villa. Each expert explained how the evidence was found and documented, how results were calculated and interpreted. They were dissecting a crime I hadn’t committed, blaming me using terminology I didn’t know. I felt like an observer at someone else’s trial. The experts would say things like   “Amanda’s DNA was on the knife handle,” and I would think, Who is this Amanda?

      • Huh?  I thought there was no forensic evidence against you.  Okay.

      [Chapter 27, Page 334]  I’d rest my chin in my hand, trying to look contemplative—a skill I’d developed during boring college lectures. But no matter how hard I tried to focus, my attention would wander, my head.  would bob, and the agente standing behind me would awaken me to the nightmare. More than feeling embarrassed, I was terrified that my inattention would be interpreted as my not caring and become another mark against me—even though some of the jurors also habitually dozed off.

      • Wow, you are comparing your murder trial to college lectures

      • Why are you having trouble focusing?  Is it that boring to hear about these things?

      • You are terrified about being seen as not caring?  Your behaviour in court would contribute more to that (All You Need Is Love?)

      • The jurors dozed off regularly?  Can I assume that you put that in your appeal?  No ... ?!

      [Chapter 27, Page 335]  When testimony wasn’t dull, it was disturbing. I couldn’t stand thinking about Meredith in the starkly clinical terms the scientists were using to describe her. Did her bruises indicate sexual violence or restraint? What did the wounds to her hands and neck suggest about the dynamics of the aggression? What did the blood splatter and smears on the floor and armoire prove about her position in relation to her attacker or attackers?

      • Turn that first sentence around.  ‘‘When testimony wasn’t disturbing, it was dull.’‘

      • You can’t think of Meredith in those terms?  In May 2014, you told Chris Cuomo Meredith was a ‘‘corpse’’ and a ‘‘body’‘.

      • Yes, bruises indicating ‘‘restraint’‘.  Kind of suggests there were ‘‘multiple attackers’‘.

      • You seem rather interested in blood spatter and smears. 

      [Chapter 27, Page 335]  The hearings were tedious, gruesome, and enormously upsetting. But we were no longer at the crippling disadvantage we’d been at for two years. Now that the prosecution had been made to show their notes, testing, and some of the raw data, we finally had facts. And the facts supported what I had always known: Raffaele and I had had nothing to do with Meredith’s murder. Meredith had never come into contact with Raffaele’s kitchen knife. I hadn’t walked in her blood.

      • The hearings were upsetting?  To you or to the Kerchers?

      • You know, the defence lawyers could have had the data and seen the testing, but they refused to attend.  Makes it difficult to claim ‘‘contamination’’ if it is done in front of them.

      • So, the evidence and facts were never shared with you?  So what information did Cassation rely on in 2008 to deny house arrest?

      • You say that the facts supported you and Raffaele having nothing to do with the murder.  Which facts in particular?

      • Meredith never came in contact with Raffaele’s knife?  Why did he invent a story about Meredith pricking her hand while cooking?

      • You hadn’t walked in Meredith’s blood?  Were you hopping?  Bathmat shuffling?

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

      • Okay, let’s hear this ‘‘flimsy explanation’’ that you refer to, and we can decide for ourselves.

      • One of the knives had left a distinct imprint on Meredith’s bedsheet.  Police were looking for knives that could possibly match.  Why lie?

      [Chapter 27, Page 336]  Then we heard the prosecution’s hired forensic experts describe the knife as “not incompatible"with Meredith’s wounds.  I wasn’t the only person who was perplexed. The experts debated the meaning of this phrase as intensely as they did the physical evidence being presented. During cross-examination, Carlo demanded, “‘Not incompatible?’ What does that even mean? If the knife was compatible, wouldn’t you have written ‘compatible’? You wouldn’t have bent over backward, twisting words around to create this ambiguous meaning. ‘Not incompatible’? Am I to understand, perhaps, that the confiscated knife is ‘not incompatible’ if only because it’s a pointy knife with a single sharpened edge? Am I to understand that any pointed knife with a single sharpened edge—most knives—would equally qualify as ‘not incompatible’ with Meredith’s wounds? Yes?”

      • Knox is being facetious here, at best.  It is virtually impossible to conclusively tie a specific knife to am injury, especially if the body had undergone any decomposition.  You can however, exclude potential weapons.  What was being testified to was that the smaller knife (Sollecito’s) could not be ruled out

      [Chapter 27, Page 336]  The third and fatal wound was a gash to the throat. The pathologist said Meredith had been stabbed at least three times in the same spot.

      • This is extremely confusing.  The 3rd wound was fatal, meaning that the first 2 would not have been.  So, if Meredith was stabbed at least 3 times in the same spot, would these not be the 3rd, 4th, 5th (and possibly 6th or 7th stab wounds)?

      • Or does Knox mean that Meredith was stabbed 3 times in the exact same place, and that the third time was fatal?

      [Chapter 27, Page 336]  Under Carlo’s questioning, Professor Torre, a serious man in his sixties who favored lime-green glasses, explained that in a moment of homicidal frenzy, it would be highly unlikely for a killer to plunge a knife in only halfway, to 3.149 inches. And the odds would rise to impossible when you considered driving a knife in, to precisely the same depth, measurable to a thousandth of an inch, three times in a row.

      • Why refer to Professor Torre as a ‘‘Serious Man’‘?  Is that praise for him, or insults at other experts?

      • Actually, as a knife goes deeper it does get harder to push in.  More surface area in contact with knife means more resistance.  Would you like to borrow a physics textbook?

      • Seriously?  The killer plunged the knife 3 times the exact same depth in the exact same location?  The killer has that level of control, yet wasn’t able to drive the knife in deeper?

      • Can you refer to where the police/prosecutors claim 3 identical stab wounds?  That information is news to me.

      [Chapter 27, Page 337]  Torre brought in a foam bust and an exact copy of the knife to demonstrate how implausible this feat would be. I thought it was a good idea, but I couldn’t watch anyone stab anything—even a dummy. The notion that anyone thought I could have done that to a person—to my friend—made me not just heartsick but feeling like I might throw up. I squeezed my eyes shut.

      • Again, why are you trying to simulate 3 identical stab wounds?  That was never claimed by the prosecution.

      • Besides, a knife doesn’t have to go it all the way.  It can strike a bone, or the killer could be new to killing.

      [Chapter 27, Page 337]  At the next hearing Manuela Comodi, the co-prosecutor in charge of forensics for the trial, swept into the courtroom triumphantly carrying a flat cardboard box, a little smaller than the ones used for carryout pizza. After opening it, Comodi paraded it in front of the court, as though she were displaying the queen’s jewels. Her pride showed on her face as the jurors and experts stood up, straining in her direction to get a good look at what was inside—the knife that had been confiscated from Raffaele’s apartment was wrapped in a baggie. Only Comodi was allowed to touch it, to pick it up and hold its plastic-shrouded blade up to the light.  Her theatrics were exasperating.

      • Is this a strange attempt at humour?

      • ’‘A box a little smaller than the ones used for carryout pizza’‘?

      • Comodi ‘‘paraded it in front of the court’‘?

      • As if ‘‘she were displaying the Queen’s jewels’‘?

      • ’‘The pride showed on her face’‘?

      • ’‘Only Comodi was allowed to touch it’‘?

      • Comodi’s theatrics?

      [Chapter 27, Page 338]  During the pretrial, Stefanoni testified that she had tested enough DNA from the knife to get an accurate reading. But now, a year later, Dr. Gino had seen the raw data, including the amount of DNA that was tested. If there was any DNA there at all, it was too little to determine using the lab’s sensitive instruments, Gino said. Stefanoni had met none of the internationally accepted methods for identifying DNA. When the test results are too low to be read clearly, the protocol is to run a second test. This was impossible to do, because all the genetic material had been used up in the first test. Moreover, there was an extremely high likelihood of contamination in the lab, where billions of Meredith’s DNA strands were present.

      • So, DNA tests are conducted, but now your expert claims (if there is any DNA), it is too little to be tested?

      • So, which international standards were not met?  This sounds impressive, but please be more exact.

      • If there is little DNA, the protocol is to run MORE tests?  Makes sense

      • You claim contamination is the lab.  Any precise information on the exact route of contamination?

      • Dalla Vedova/Ghirga and Maori/Bongiorno could have been present during previous testing, but then, how would they explain ‘‘errors’’ going on under their noses?

      [Chapter 27, Page 339]  What I couldn’t understand was why this infinitesimal, unconfirmed sample found on a random knife that didn’t correspond with Meredith’s wounds or the bloodstain on the bedsheet—the murderer’s signature— held any sway. Copious amounts of Rudy Guede’s genetic material had been found in Meredith’s bedroom, on her body, in her purse, and in the toilet.

      • Well, bleaching a bloody knife tends to destroy most of the DNA.

      • And a knife doesn’t have to ‘‘go in all the way’’ to be the murder weapon.

      • Yes, why bother with this small DNA amount, when there were 5 large mixed blood samples of you and Meredith.  Oh wait, you lived in that house for a month.

      • And of course, the police found Guede’s DNA in Filomena’s room (the break in point)?  No, just yours mixed with Meredith’s.

      • Correct, Rudy’s crap was found in the toilet, the toilet that anyone else in the world would have flushed immediately.

      [Chapter 27, Page 339]  The situation was similar to the prosecution’s claim throughout the investigation, the pretrial, and now the trial that my feet were “dripping with Meredith’s blood.” My lawyers and I had spent hours trying to figure out why they thought this. We knew that investigators had uncovered otherwise invisible prints with luminol. Familiar to watchers of CSI, the spray glows blue when exposed to hemoglobin. But blood is not the only substance that sets off a luminol reaction.

      Cleaning agents, bleach, human waste, urine stains, and even rust do the same. Forensic scientists therefore use a separate “confirmatory” test that detects only human blood, to be sure a stain contains blood. Had the Polizia Scientifica done this follow-up test? Under cross-examination during the pretrial, Stefanoni was emphatic. “No,” she responded.

      • Okay, even if it were another substance, why is it in the shape of your feet and Sollecito’s feet?  What was on the floor that you were tracking from Meredith’s room?

      • If it was a cleaning agent, or rust, why weren’t other people’s footprints found in it?

      • Why is this ‘‘other substance’’ limited to 2 of your footprints, and 2 of Sollecito’s?

      • If Guede left, as his shoeprints indicate, why did he leave a bare bloody print on the bathmat?

      • Also, how did Guede leave the footprint on the mat, but none in the hall?  Can ‘‘Spider-Man’’ fly?

      [Chapter 27, Page 340]  As with the knife, it turned out that Stefanoni’s forensics team had done the TMB test and it came out negative. There were footprints. But they could have come from anything—and at any time, not necessarily after the murder. What matters is that there was no blood.

      • With a good ‘‘scrubbing’‘, the TMB tests would have been irrelevant anyway.

      • Yes, but they were your footprints, and Sollecito’s, and there were no one else’s that reacted.  So, you 2 had stepped in something, very recently.

      [Chapter 27, Page 340]  November 2. Of course my DNA would be mingled with Meredith’s in the common hallway between our bedrooms—we’d lived in the same house and walked on the same floor tiles for six weeks.

      The prosecution had no evidence against us, and worse yet, they’d withheld information likely to prove our innocence.

      More infuriating was that Stefanoni continued to argue the prosecution’s inaccurate points during cross-examination.

      • So, the forensic evidence is irrelevant because you and your lawyers say it is?  Let’s get you out right away then.

      • Things like repeated false alibis, making false accusation, and repeatedly lying are not evidence against you?  Most think it is.

      • Yes, it is frustrating that prosecution witnesses do not automatically agree with half-truths from the defence.

      [Chapter 27, Page 342]  Had Raffaele been in the room, his DNA would have been as abundant as Guede’s. It would be illogical to suggest that it was left on a single small hook on Meredith’s bra and nowhere else.  Furthermore, one of Raffaele’s defense experts pointed out that the genetic profile was incomplete, and could have matched hundreds of people in Perugia’s small population.

      • Merely being in a room doesn’t result in an abundance of DNA

      • It doesn’t mean everything was tested for DNA.  If an area was dusted for fingerprints, DNA testing would not be possible on that spot

      • The result was 17 of 17 loci, which was very conclusive

      • Interesting argument.  There is none of Raffaele’s DNA.  If there was, it was due to contamination.  And even if so, it could have been anyone’s.

      • And contaminated from what?  If DNA was trekked in, it would have been everywhere.  From your own words, this was the only place.

      [Chapter 27, Page 342]  One morning, Manuela Comodi, the co-prosecutor, told the court that to show her dedication to the case, she had brought in her own bra.  She was carrying a white cotton underwire bra, the closest match in her drawer to what Meredith had been wearing, although, she said, chuckling, it was larger than Meredith’s. Comodi hung the bra on a hanger to mimic a person wearing it. Using her index finger, she showed the mesmerized court how Raffaele could have hooked his finger to pull the back strap of Meredith’s bra (somehow leaving DNA on the clasp but not the cloth) and then sliced off the fastener section with a knife.

      • Prosecutors trying to explain how DNA is present?  Go figure.

      • Well, to cut someone’s clothing off, holding it at some point seems reasonable.

      [Chapter 27, Page 343]  Another day, the prosecution said that finding my DNA in the bathroom was proof I’d been involved in the murder. They didn’t consider that I had lived in the villa and used that bathroom every day for weeks. Even rookie forensic scientists know that roommates leave DNA in bathrooms, but the prosecution insisted it was incriminating evidence. They claimed that the only way my DNA could have been collected with the samples of Meredith’s blood was if I’d been washing her blood off my hands.

      • While DNA in your own bathroom is very common, mixed blood is not.  You omit that detail.

      • You also leave out that you had said before that the blood was not there the day earlier.

      [Chapter 27, Page 343]  The prosecution said they were certain the murder had been a group attack. Why, then, was none of my DNA or Raffaele’s DNA in Meredith’s bedroom? Their answer: because Raffaele and I had scrubbed the crime scene clean of our DNA, leaving only Guede’s.  That theory gave me super powers. DNA is not something you can cherry-pick; it’s invisible. Even if I could somehow magically see DNA, there is no way I could tell one person’s DNA from another’s just by looking—no one can.

      • You’re right, you can’t always see DNA.  That is how your blood was left (mixed with Meredith’s) in 5 places

      • And footprints, even if invisible to the naked eye, can be raised—via luminol

      • DNA is just one type of evidence to consider.  The real world is not a C.S.I. episode.

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

      • Your experts are just trying to throw up smoke screens.  Screaming ‘‘contamination’‘, and ‘‘too small to test’’ without some basis is just creating noise.

      [Chapter 27, Page 344]  It distressed me that Meredith’s family thought I was guilty, but I always had huge empathy for them.

      • It distressed you enough to write this nasty book?  To include details of Meredith’s sex life?

      • The woman you only knew for a month must have suffered, since she had her fucking throat cut?  Well, shit happens, but you need to move on with your life.

      [Chapter 27, Page 345]  But I was still so blinded by hope, and my faith in my own innocence, that I actually read this news as positive. I could be accused, but they couldn’t possibly convict me of something I hadn’t done. There was only one honest outcome. I couldn’t imagine that the jurors would side with the police without question. They couldn’t ignore everything that our defense had put forth. “They must think we don’t need the review because there’s already enough reasonable doubt,” I said to Luciano.

      • They didn’t convict you for something you didn’t do.  They convicted you for murdering Meredith and framing Patrick—things you actually did.

      • Again, you need some basis to make these claims.  Merely objecting without offering something isn’t helpful.

      [Chapter 27, Page 347]  In the weeks leading up to the closing arguments, I put our chances of winning at 95 percent.  Carlo gave us fifty-fifty. “Judge Massei challenges the defense a lot more than he does the prosecution,” he said. “And the judges and jury nod whenever the prosecution or the Kerchers’ lawyer talks, but look bored when it’s our turn.” Still, I held tight to optimism. Not without reason. Journalists told Mom and Dad they weren’t convinced by the prosecution’s arguments. Even the Italian media, uniformly negative since the beginning, seemed to be turning around. A show I saw on the second anniversary of Meredith’s death replayed Rudy Guede’s first recorded conversation, in which he said that I wasn’t at the villa. If the press can see the truth, surely the judge and jury can, too.

      • You put your chances at 95%?  Any reason, or just a number you made up?

      • The Italian media was with you?  Maybe the misinformed American media.

      • Yes, Guede’s conversations are so reliable.  Did they play the ones where he accused you and Sollecito of the murder?

      [Chapter 27, Page 347]  A public opinion poll on TV said that more than 60 percent of Italians thought I was guilty. The people who only watched television reports most likely sided with the prosecution. That realization spawned a deep-down fear that I’d be convicted, my innocence be damned. Prisoners gossiped about my case all the time, behind my back and to me. “Come on, Amanda. You can tell me.”

      • This is confusing.  You said that the media was now with you a few pages back, yet you claim that people who only watch television reports most likely sided with the prosecution

      • The media is with you, but they report negative things?

      • And if the people watching at home think your’re guilty, (which is about 60%), does that mean the other 40% of Italy attended the trial?


      [Chapter 28, Page 350]  One day I got up the courage to ask Chris, who was in Perugia leading up to the closing argumentsand verdict, “What would a conviction mean?” So afraid to acknowledge that uncharted, dark place, I could only whisper. “There would be an appeal, and if you didn’t get acquitted, then the Supreme Court would exonerate you. At the most, Amanda, it would take five years,” Chris explained. “Five years?!” That was way more than I wanted to know. Chris jumped in to reassure me. “If that happened, Amanda, we’d find a way to save you! But don’t worry! It’s not going to happen! And if for some utterly bizarre reason it goes the wrong way, I’m moving to Italy.”

      • Well, finally some truth.  Convicted defendants get an automatic appeal, then a Cassation (Supreme Court) hearing.  2 automatic appeals.

      • A huge cry from the ‘‘put on trial again and again’’ that we keep hearing about.

      [Chapter 28, Page 351]  Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini gave his closing argument first. Alternating between a calm, almost quiet recitation of the “facts” and the fiery rants of a preacher at a tent revival, Mignini summarized Raffaele’s and my part in the savagery that took Meredith’s life. He started with the idea that Filomena’s window was too high to be a credible entry point into the villa and ended with our tossing Meredith’s stolen British and Italian cell phones over the garden wall.  Raffaele and I had accused “this poor Rudy,” as Mignini called him, of “being the only one” to attack Meredith. “He has his own grave responsibility, but the responsibility is not only his own,”  Mignini intoned.

      • Wow, you call his closing the ‘‘rants of a preacher at a tent revival’‘.

      • Not only was Filomena’s room too high, there was nothing to grab onto, and it was the most visible point of entry.  Lousy place to break into.

      • Tossing the phones was seen as a way to divert attention, though it ultimately backfired.

      • Knox and Sollecito did try to pin it all on Guede as the ‘‘lone wolf’‘.

      [Chapter 28, Page 351]  I couldn’t believe what the prosecutor was saying. He, who was championing himself as the bearer of truth for Meredith’s family, was calling the murderer “Poor Rudy”? Evidence of Rudy’s crimes was everywhere, and his history of theft matched the burglary. Poor Rudy? Guede had stolen! He had killed Meredith! He had left a handprint in Meredith’s blood! He had fled! He had lied! Poor Rudy?

      • Interesting how you knew about Guede’s prior break in.  It’s almost as if you knew him.

      • And what of Guede’s ‘‘staged burglary’’ on his roommates as an April Fool’s Day prank?  Oh, that was you.

      • Yes, we know he left the handprint.  You were careful not to remove it.

      • Guede fled to Germany.  According to your November 4, 2007 email, you wanted to flee Italy, but weren’t allowed to.

      • Guede has lied.  However, he never claimed to be in the kitchen with his hands over his ears, vaguely remembering Patrick killing Meredith.

      [Chapter 28, Page 351]  “By now it was an unstoppable game of violence and sex. The aggressors initially threatened her and demanded her submission to the hard-core sex game. It’s easy to imagine Amanda, angry at the British girl for her increasing criticism of Amanda’s sexual easiness, reproaching Mez for her reserve. Let’s try to imagine—she insulted her. Perhaps she said, ‘You were a little saint. Now we’ll show you. Now you have no choice but to have sex.”’  He’s perverse! How did he come up with such a twisted scenario? He’s portraying me as a psychopath! Is Mignini allowed to put words in my mouth, thoughts in my head? I would never force anyone to have sex. I would never threaten or ridicule anyone.

      • You say you want Meredith’s family to read your book, and you include this?

      • How perverse to stage a burglary as a joke, or to throw rocks at cars.

      • You wouldn’t force anyone to have sex, you just write rape stories (like Baby Brother)

      • You are ridiculing just about everyone in this book.

      [Chapter 28, Page 354] Then he recalled from earlier in the trial, when Judge Massei questioned me about my interrogation. “Your Honor asked, ‘But a suggestion in what sense? Did they tell you, ‘Say that it was Lumumba?’ Because a suggestion is just that ... And Amanda said, ‘No. They didn’t tell me that it was him.’ And so what suggestion is it? “Amanda said, ‘But they told me, Ah, but we know that you were with him, that you met with him.’ The police were doing their job ... they were trying to make this person talk ... These are the pressures, then. Completely normal and necessary investigative activity. There were no suggestions because a suggestion is: Say it was Lumumba.” Mignini knew how my interrogation had gone. The police were yelling that I knew who the murderer was, that I had to remember, that I’d gone out to meet Patrick that night. They made me believe I had trauma-induced amnesia. They threatened me if I didn’t name the murderer—even though I said I didn’t know who the murderer was! How is that not suggestion? How is that not coercion?

      • Where to begin with this?

      • There were no pressures.  You went the police station uninvited when Sollecito was called in.

      • You were told to go home but refused.  You agreed to draw up a list of potential contacts.

      • The only pressure came when Sollecito pulled your alibi

      • You were not yelled at.

      • You were not threatened.

      • You were not hit either.  Oh, you forgot to include that.

      • It is not coercion because none of the above happened.

      [Chapter 28, Page 354]  Mignini’s rant lasted one day, from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M.

      • Show the ‘‘Mayor’’ some respect, you stupid liar…

      [Chapter 28, Page 354]  “I’d like to show the court a visual prop we’ve constructed to demonstrate our theory of the murder,” Comodi said. This introduced the most surreal moment of my nightmarish trial: a 3-D computer-generated animation with avatars representing me, Raffaele, Rudy Guede, and Meredith.  Carlo and Luciano were apoplectic. They shouted their objections, insisting that the film was unnecessary and inflammatory. Judge Massei allowed it. I didn’t watch it, but my lawyers said the avatar of me was dressed in a striped shirt like one I often wore to court. Raffaele, Guede, and I were depicted sneering.  Meredith’s avatar had an expression of horror and pain. The cartoon used real crime scene photos to show the blood splatters in Meredith’s room.

      • Trying to use a video simulation to explain a crime?  Happens regularly in U.S. courts.

      • So, should Meredith be sneering, and Knox, Sollecito, Guede have horrified expressions?

      • Posted on 10/23/15 at 09:30 PM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
        Archived in Those Italy chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
        Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

        Thursday, September 17, 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.


          Saturday, September 12, 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.


          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


          Monday, August 31, 2015

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

          Posted by Peter Quennell



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

          1. Most Bungling Team In Legal History?

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

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

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

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

          You want to see manipulation in spades?

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

          You want to see bungling in spades?

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

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

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

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

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

          2. Bungling In Knox’s Calunnia Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          So, good luck, Amanda Knox. GREAT TEAM!

          3. Day Two Of Knox’s Testimony

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

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

          Cross Examination By Prosecutor Mignini

          GM:  In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there’s Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn’t you ever mentioned him before?
          AK:  Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick’s name to me.
          GM:  All right, now is the time for you to make this precise and specific. At this point I will take…no, I’ll come back to it later. You need to explain this. You have stated: “The name of Patrick was suggested to me. I was hit, pressured.”
          AK:  Yes.
          GM:  Now you have to tell me in a completely detailed way, you have to remember for real, you have to explain step by step, who, how, when, was the name of Patrick suggested to you, and what had been done before that point. The name of Patrick didn’t just come up like a mushroom; there was a preceding situation. Who put pressure on you, what do you mean by the word “pressure”, who hit you? You said: “They hit me”, and at the request of the lawyer Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.
          AK:  Yes.
          GM:  So that would be what you meant by being hit?
          AK:  Yes.
          GM:  Or something else? Tell me if there was something else. You can tell us.
          AK:  Okay.
          GCM:  So, you are—[Interruptions] The question is—[Interruptions] Escuse me. Excuse me. The question is quite clear. He is repeating this in order to give the accused a chance to add something to these events that were explained by the accused yesterday. The pubblico ministero is asking to return to these events mentioned yesterday in order to obtain more detail about exactly what happened and who did it. Please be as precise as possible.
          GM:  So you were in front of—
          GCM:  The question is clear.
          GM:  All right, so tell us.
          GCM:  Yes, it’s clear.
          AK:  All right. Okay.
          GCM:  If you could give more detail, be more precise, exactly what was suggested to you, about the cuffs, all that.
          AK:  Okay.
          GCM:  And who did all this, if you can.
          AK:  Okay. Fine. So, when I got to the Questura, they placed me to the side, near the elevator, where I was waiting for Raffaele. I had taken my homework, and was starting to do my homework, but a policeman came in, in fact there were I don’t know, three of them or something, and they wanted to go on talking to me. They asked me again—
          GM:  Excuse me, excuse me—
          AK:  [coldly] Can I tell the story?
          GM:  Excuse me for interrupting you otherwise we’ll forget—
          CDV:  Presidente, I object to this way of doing things. The question was asked—[Yelling, interruptions]—we should wait for the answer.
          GM:  It’s impossible to go on like this, no, no.
          CDV:  If a question is asked, she has to be able to answer.
          GCM:  Please, please. That’s correct. There is a rule that was introduced, which says that we should absolutely avoid interruptions from anyone.
          CDV:  I want to ask that she be allowed to finish her answer. She has the right, no?
          GCM:  Please, please, pubblico ministero. It’s impossible to go on this way.
          GM:  I would like to, I can—
          GCM:  No no no, no one can. We have to make sure that while someone is speaking, there are never any superimposed voices. And since the accused is undergoing examination, she has the right to be allowed to answer in the calmest possible way. Interruptions and talking at the same time don’t help her, and they can’t be written down in the minutes, which obliges the courts to suspend the audience and start it again at a calmer and more tranquil moment.
          GM:  Presidente—
          GCM:  No, no, no! Interruptions are absolutely not allowed! Not between the parties, nor when the Court, the President is speaking. So, interruptions are not allowed. Now, the accused is speaking, and when she is finished, we can return to her answers—
          GM:  Presidente.
          GCM:  Excuse me, please! But at the moment she is speaking, we have to avoid interrupting her. But—I don’t know if this is what was wanted—but while you are speaking, if you could tell us when. For instance, you say you were doing homework, but you didn’t tell us when. We need to know when, on what day, the 2nd of November, the 3rd, what time it was. While you are talking, you need to be more detailed, as detailed as you can with respect to the date and the time.
          AK:  Okay.
          GCM:  And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
          AK:  Thank you. So, here is…how I understood the question, I’m answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I’m sorry, I don’t know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation. The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I didn’t do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.” So I said okay and went with them, and they started asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening. At least, they kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything about what I did. Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times and schedules, and time segments: “What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember. And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.” And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn’t there? I was there! Maybe I can’t say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because I didn’t look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And she would say “No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the house.” And I said, no, that’s not how it was. I was always in Raffaele’s apartment.
          GCM:  [taking advantage of a tiny pause to slip in without exactly interrupting] Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the cuffs, who gave them to you.
          AK:  All right. What it was, was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started to little by little and then more and more these remarks about “We’re not convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not remember another thing. We don’t understand how you could take a shower without seeing…” And then, they kept on asking me “Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.” Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that I had gone out of the house. I said look, it’s impossible. I don’t know if he’s really saying that or not, but look, I didn’t go out of the house. And they said “No, you’re telling a lie. You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.” Sure, take it. “All right.” So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling “We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?” But I kept saying no, no, I didn’t go out, I’m not pro-pro-pro—-
          GCM:  [taking advantage of her stammer] Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous crescendo.
          AK:  Yes.
          GCM:  As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as continuously as possible…
          AK:  Okay, I’m sorry.
          GCM:  So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who… these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me…
          AK:  Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said “Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick”, and I said I don’t think I did, and they yelled “Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here’s your message saying you wanted to meet him!” And I didn’t even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was telling me “Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you’re not able to remember anything you’ve done.” So I said, how could that be? And she said, “Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can’t remember it. Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg…”
          GCM:  The interpreter said this to you?
          AK:  The interpreter, yes.
          GCM:  I also wanted to ask you because it isn’t clear to me: only the interpreter spoke to you, or the others also?
          AK:  All the others also.
          GCM:  Everyone was talking to you, all the others, but were they speaking in English?
          AK:  No, in Italian.
          GCM:  In Italian. And you answered in Italian?
          AK:  In Italian, in English…
          GCM:  And what was said to you in Italian, did it get translated to you in English?
          AK:  A bit yes, a bit no, there was so much confusion, there were so many people all talking at the same time, one saying “Maybe it was like this, maybe you don’t remember,” another saying “No, she’s a stupid liar,” like that…
          GCM:  But everything was eventually translated, or you understood some of it and answered right away?
          AK:  It wasn’t like an interrogation, like what we’re doing now, where one person asks me a question and I answer. No. There were so many people talking, asking, waiting, and I answered a bit here and there.
          GCM:  All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about something that had happened to her. [Interruption by Mignini.] But you need to get back to the questions asked by the pubblico ministero. This isn’t a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we still haven’t really heard the answer to it.
          AK:  Yes, sorry.
          GCM:  Right, so you were saying that there was this continuous crescendo.
          AK:  It’s difficult for me to say that one specific person said one specific thing. It was the fact that there were all these little suggestions, and someone was saying that there was the telephone, then there was the fact that… then more than anything what made me try to imagine something was someone saying to me “Maybe you’re confused, maybe you’re confused and you should try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking, what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting “Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember,” and boom! on my head. [Amanda slaps herself on the back of the head: End of video segment] “Remember!” And I was like—Mamma Mia! and then boom! [slaps head again] “Remember!”
          GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me, please, excuse me…
          AK:  Those were the cuffs.
          GCM:  So, the pubblico ministero asked you, and is still asking you, who is the person that gave you these two blows that you just showed us on yourself?
          AK:  It was a policewoman, but I didn’t know their names.
          GM:  Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
          GM:  So, now, I asked you a question, and I did not get an answer. You ... [interruptions]!
          LG or CDV:  I object to that remark! That is a personal evaluation! Presidente! That is very suggestive. He is making an unacceptable conclusion. He can ask a question, but this is a personal opinion. It seems to me that she did answer. She answered for a good five minutes.
          GCM:  Sorry, but I said that we were supposed to avoid interruptions, that we weren’t supposed to interrupt when someone was speaking—
          LG or CDV:  But—
          GCM:  Wait—avvocato, excuse me, please, let’s try to avoid these moments which don’t help anybody and probably harm the person undergoing the examination because they create tension in the court—
          GM:  When I am doing the cross-examination I would like—
          GCM:  Please, pubblico ministero. This is another recommendation: let’s avoid analyses. Let’s take the answers as they come, later the right moment will come to say that from this examination, you did not obtain the answer that you expected, that the accused did not answer the questions. That is a later phase. At this moment, let’s stay with the answers that we have, even if they are not exhaustive, and return to the question, but avoiding personal evaluations of their value. Go ahead, publicco ministero, go ahead.
          GM:  I would like to—
          GCM:  Yes, yes, go ahead, return to your question. And then you can come back to it with more details.
          GM:  The central point of that interrogation was the moment when the name of Patrick emerged. You spoke of suggestions, you spoke of pressure, you spoke of being hit, I asked you to give me a precise description of who gave you the blows, you need to describe this person. Was it a woman or a man? Who asked you the questions? Who was asking you the questions? There was the interpreter, who was the person who was translating. But the exam, the interrogation, who was doing it? Apart from the people who were going in and out. You must have understood that there was a murder, and this was a police station, and the investigation was hot, and what I am asking you is, who was actually conducting the interrogation?
          GCM:  The pubblico ministero is asking you, you said that the two blows were given to me by someone whose name I don’t know. The pubblico ministero is asking you firstly if you can give a description of the person who hit you, if you saw her, and if you can give us a description. The second question—
          AK:  So, when I—the person who was conducting the interrogation—
          GCM:  That was the second question! You’re starting with the second question, that’s fine, go ahead, go ahead.
          AK:  Oh, sorry…
          GCM:  Go on, go on. The person who was conducting the interrogation…
          AK:  Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don’t know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?” Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn’t see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.
          GCM:  This was the same woman with the long hair?
          AK:  Yes, the same one.
          GCM:  All right. Are you finished? Tell me if you have something to add.
          AK:  Well, I already answered.
          GCM:  Fine, fine, all right. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
          GM:  I’ll go on with the questions. In the minutes it mentions three people, plus the interpreter. Now, you first said that they suggested things to you. What exactly do you mean by the word “suggestion”, because from your description, I don’t see any suggestion. I mean, what is meant by the Italian word “suggerimento”, I don’t find it.
          GCM:  [quelling them] Excuse me, excuse me, please, please, excuse me, excuse me! Listen, the pubblico ministero is asking you: “suggestions”, you also mentioned words that were “put in your mouth”, versions, things to say, circumstances to describe.
          The pubblico ministero is asking two things: who made the suggestions, and what exactly were you told to say? }}
          AK:  All right. It seems to me that the thoughts of the people standing around me, there were so many people, and they suggested things to me in the sense that they would ask questions like: “Okay, you met someone!” No, I didn’t. They would say “Yes you did, because we have this telephone here, that says that you wanted to meet someone. You wanted to meet him.” No, I don’t remember that. “Well, you’d better remember, because if not we’ll put you in prison for 30 years.” But I don’t remember! “Maybe it was him that you met? Or him? You can’t remember?” It was this kind of suggestion.
          GCM:  When you say they said “Maybe you met him?”, did they specify names?
          AK:  Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him—
          [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 14 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »