Breaking news. VICE Media have apparently hired the mother of all demonizers. For what? To compere a program about demonizers! Statute of limitations on demonizing Knox book still has several years to run. Sollecito has conceded in court his own book lied and demonized.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

The Knox Interrogation Hoax #3: More Defense Pussyfooting Toward Rita Ficcara, Key Witness

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



([Amanda Knox’s lawyers Luciano Ghirga and Maria Del Grasso who questioned Rita Ficarra]

1. Overview of this hoax series

Knox turned up at the central police station unwanted late on 5-6 Nov 2007 and briefly helped police with a list of seven names. Her version of this has morphed into a gigantic hoax.

One highly consistent version of the brief chat was testified to by all those officials present, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.

And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. Knox has done so in numerous interviews, in her 2013 book, on her website, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights. And the PR shills have done so on websites, on TV, in books, and in attempts to lobby the US federal government.

This version was repudiated several times by her smart Italian lawyers (though not by her foolish American lawyers) and they did next to nothing to try to verify it when questioning those officials at trial.

See a longer summary in Post #1 here.

2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra

In our hoax series second post we quoted two cross-examinations of Rita Ficarra by Sollecito’s lead lawyers. Here we quote two more, by two of Knox’s lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, and Maria Del Grasso.

Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax. 

This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki.

Defence Attorney Bongiorno [GB]

GB: Inspector, with respect to all these names that Amanda gave you, and that you reported in this note with your signature, what type of checks were carried out?

RF: On these people? There were made, I know, checks on every one of these people, however not personally by me.

I was, for example, charged with the person who then was [revealed as] Rudy Guede. I was charged with pinpointing, with identifying this person that we all know [NdT: ironic] who had had contact in some way with Meredith, because he had been, one evening, to the house of the students because he gravitated around the area of Piazza Grimana, and just like [with] him, I had [sic], I was charged with finding other subjects who gravitated around that place.

So much so indeed, that I then - if you see the subsequent oral evidence recaps/summaries - I found other subjects: someone who clearly indicated/suggested to me who that person was, and that enabled us to arrive at the identification of Rudy Guede.

GB: Yes, in fact, on Rudy there was effectively a whole thread/line of investigations and we know how that ended up.

RF: Yes. So I can report on that to you because I did it myself, and I was engaged in that type of checks myself.

GB: In reality, my question was, since in this note, as you recalled earlier, there were indicated so many names, Peter, Ardak, Juve, Spiros, Shaki.

RF: Spiros, for example, I myself heard/questioned him on [his] recap/summary.

GB: There you go. I wanted to understand what type of checks and investigative leads/threads had opened.

RF: I can tell you that Spiros, for example, I heard him myself, on [his] recaps/summaries, oral evidence.

GB: After having heard/questioned him, did you carry out checks, did you verify anything?

RF: Certainly, yes, Attorney. I didn’t do them myself, and I cannot report [on them] because, as I have already said to the President, I am part of a section of the Flying Squad that is not the Homicides section. I limited myself to helping - I and others - to helping colleagues of the Homicides section at the time when the event occurred, because we all collaborate.

GB: Do you know who carried out the checks, in fact?

RF: It was certainly Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni who did them, with the men of her squadron.

GB: So we will find checks…

RF: And the men also of the SCO.

GB: On all these, on all these ...

RF: Certainly. I remember some of them. I remember Spiros, I remember Shaki, who was the Moroccan or Algerian citizen, I don’t know that [sic, i.e. whether] he was indicated also by other girls, known.

GB: However you cannot tell me the threads/leads. Ok.

RF: I cannot tell you, myself.

GB: With regard to Lumumba, I want to know only one thing. Other than Amanda’s declarations, what objective elements were present in order to proceed then with Lumumba’s arrest? - SMSs and Amanda’s declarations - I want to know what are the other elements.

RF: I know that there were other checks carried out, sincerely, Attorney, I am an executer of orders. There was an [order for] arrest from the Public Prosecutor, it’s not as though I can criticize [NdT: also “examine”] the reasons [for it].

GCM: Excuse me. The Attorney is asking: there were the declarations of Amanda Knox, the message on the mobile phone taken, [were] there other elements… She is not asking for an evaluation/judgment.

RF: No. The other elements were those that the Public Prosecutor highlighted earlier, that on the scene…

GCM: No, with regard to Lumumba.

RF: Yes, on the crime scene, from the outset it was clearly a sexually-motivated crime, the declarations by Amanda in some way gave us to understand that the person that she had indicated had a sexual interest with regard to the victim, there had been the declarations that said in effect, in corroboration with the mobile phone, that there had been an appointment, that they had seen each other.

GCM: So the little message [SMS], yes.

RF: There and then, however, I don’t know then [what] the reasons ...

GCM: That ...

RF: The reasons for the arrest.

GB: I meant to say this: given that - let us forget the declarations and the SMS - were there, I don’t know, any papillary prints, blood, attributed to Lumumba, that is, was there any element, even objective? This is what I’m asking you.

RF: How could we say that about prints in that moment?

GCM: Excuse me, what seems to you, it was illustrative/as an example, the indication made…

GB: That is to say, if there was any other element other than these two?

RF: I don’t know.

GB: You are not able to say.

RF: No, I am not able to say.

GB: You said that, precisely, when you went to seek that wild cat, and then the cat remained there, and you said: “Ok, if someone wants to return to give food to the cat, they can return”. Did anyone return to give food to the cat?

RF: I don’t know that.

GB: Thank you.

RF: I repeat that at a certain point, I took myself off/left, I went back to my section to do the activities of my section, so I cannot say much about the progress/development [of the investigations]: I can report if they task me, if they say to me “Please, do this check for me, please”. I reiterate to you, I was concentrated on the subjects who gravitated around Piazza Grimana, on the identification of those subjects. Thus the investigative developments were the task of the section, therefore, of other investigators.

GCM: Good. Thank you. Please.

Defence Attorney Luciano Ghirga

LG: Ok. Describing/recounting the night between the 5th and the 6th, you say that you encountered Amanda at 2300 hours approximately, in a place near the elevator, that she was doing gymnastics and you admonished her. What do you mean? Who was present besides Amanda in that moment?

RF: As I have already reported, there were a few SCO colleagues, there was myself, who exited …

LG: A few colleagues…

GCM: Let’s let the witness finish and then …

RF: Three colleagues.

GCM: And then we will ask for clarifications.

RF: Then, with me, there was Chief Inspector Fausto Passeri, then at a certain point Zugarini Lorena came in through the doorway to the Flying Squad offices, and Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, at a certain point, opened the other door that gives access to the corridor, to the biggest lobby, and there was even deputy Commissioner Rapetti, as I recall, that evening.

LG: So colleagues of yours.

RF: All colleagues.

LG: And you admonished her because you found ...

RF: I admonished her because it is neither the place nor the right moment for doing certain things, but over and above the place, it was the moment [that was ill-chosen] more than anything.

LG: We are at the 5th, at 2300 hours approximately, the 5th of November at 2300 hours.

RF: Yes.

LG: Ok. Then you took her with you?

RF: Yes, into the office.

LG: Because, at least from the note that you fully reported, you took her with you and out came … “Tell us something, if you …” in short, out came the names?

RF: Yes.

LG: But also lies came out, [as] you call them yourself.

RF: Yes.

LG: And you admonish her another time, is it so?

RF: No, I she ….

LG: You said yes, you admonished her yes.

RF: Yes, but I admonished her in a good-natured way, I don’t even know what rebukes I used to her.

LG: What does “rebuke” mean? you used that term.

RF: Yes, I admonished her because, I told you [NdT: can also mean “her”] at the beginning, if I find someone who is doing twirls in the waiting room of the Questura…

LG: No, we’ve [already] done this.

RF: It is for the same reason, because I told her that in this way one makes oneself hard to believe. It was almost a maternal rebuke, I say: if you tell me lies the first time they might be understandable, if [you do so] the second [time] I say to you that there are both testimonial and fact-checking circumstances that demonstrate that you have told a lie: don’t insist on the same lie, because it might be little, but it makes you scarcely credible for your subsequent affirmations.

LG: We can clarify the concept better ...

GCM: We have clarified, please Attorney.

LG: The lies consisted in the use ...

RF: I cannot report on ...

LG: The lies, according to what you have reported, consisted in admitting that ...

RF: The use of narcotics, exactly.

LG: If it was a use of substances ...

RF: Yes.

LG: Something that earlier ... This is the episode that she reported to you [NdT: or possibly typo: “che Lei ha riferito” = “that you reported”].

RF: Yes yes yes.

LG: Eventually the recaps/summaries of 0145 hours begin, because God willing there is the opening time of these ...

RF: Yes.

LG: While this interrogation - let’s call it thus - was in progress, some colleagues arrive ...

RF: It was not an interrogation, Attorney.

LG: They are called recaps/summaries. Had it [sic] already begun when your colleagues arrive and say “Sollecito no longer gives an alibi to Amanda”? Were these interrogation operations already in progress?

RF: The recording/writing down of the witness recaps/summaries.

LG: And colleagues arrive from somewhere else?

RF: Yes, from the office where they were hearing/questioning Sollecito.

LG: You ask Amanda what she did that evening, is that so?

RF: Exactly, yes yes.

LG: So Amanda’s telephone was taken or handed over spontaneously, would you like to specify whether she gave it ...

RF: She was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to carry out checks, and she spontaneously gave it to us, and together with her, that is to say, near to her, we began to scroll…

LG: No. It was handed over without any problem.

RF: Yes yes.

LG: So then the little message to Patrick emerged, is that so?

RF: Along with the others, that one emerged too.

LG: This Patrick is the same Patrick about whom [reference was made] in the note that had been made earlier?

RF: Yes.

LG: The owner [of] the Chique where Amanda worked, etc., etc. ... Can I ask ...

RF: I had already written, perhaps I didn’t explain myself well…

LG: You wrote it [the note] earlier/first.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney.

LG: No no no.

RF:  I wanted to specify that she had made [NdT, i.e. said/given] that series of names of persons of which [it is spoken in] the note. I was starting to write and I had started with Patrick because he was the owner of where she worked, when then, that is to say, I didn’t have time to write because otherwise you would have found also all the subjects that I wrote in the note, it was in that moment that the information reached me that there were contradictions, that she no longer had an alibi, [that] I should ask what she might have done at that hour and ...

GCM: And so there was the request for the mobile phone.

RF: Yes.

LG: And then Patrick’s name emerged.

RF: Yes.

GCM: Excuse me Attorney, we are at what the witness…

LG: From the little message [NdT: i.e. SMS] Patrick [NdT: i.e. Patrick’s name] emerged in that moment?

GCM: Even from before that, in any case, Lumumba emerged.

RF: It emerged even earlier.

GCM: That is what I am saying.

LG: I asked, me: it is the same Patrick as is mentioned in the note?

RF: It is the same Patrick, yes.

LG: Perfect. So Amanda, what did she do? Did Amanda’s manner change?

RF: At first she remained amazed.

LG: This discussion on Patrick, since we do not have a question in any report, [it is] all ADR, ADR, ADR [NdT: “ADR” in a “Sommarie informazione” means “A domanda risponde” = “in answer to a/the question”], what type of question you asked her, if you remember it, since you have such precise/accurate memories.

RF: We asked her what that message meant, because from looking at the message it was a message of reply to another, because otherwise I don’t write to you certainly, [is that not] correct? What was the tenor of the message, if that meant an appointment [was made], if therefore she had gone out after that message or if she had remained at home, besides saying who is Patrick and having the confirmation of who he was.

LG:  This type of ….

GCM: Please, Attorney.

LG: [It’s] Ok like this. This type of dialogue between you and Amanda always took place as [if] in great harmony, in great calmness, or else speak, tell the truth, it’s better for you, was there some kind of … Not threat, I would never allow myself [to say that]. How [it] come about, did this type of … Given that the questions are not known.

RF: I have to make a simulation… I already said it, we carried out….

GCM: Whether she remained calm, whether there were, I don’t know, crises.

RF: I’ve already answered that everything took place calmly, actually, after …

LG: You said calmly.

RF: It happened calmly.

LG: So calmly that you had to interrupt the questioning/report.

GCM: Did you suspend the questioning/report?

RF: I stopped the questioning/report because there are indications of guilt. If someone tells me that they are in the house of the crime, excuse me, Attorney, what [else] should I do?

LG: But I …

GCM: Excuse me.

LG: Calmly/Tranquilly [sic] that indications of guilt emerge and of what type that suspend/interrupt the questioning/report and make Amanda at the disposition of the judicial authority [sic. NdT: this sentence makes no sense in the Italian]

GCM: Excuse me, excuse me.

LG: Is it so?

GCM: But she was ... Excuse me, Attorney. She was describing/portraying the behavior, such as it could be remarked/observed externally .This is what we’re at.

RF: In the moment when she saw the message initially, it is as though she were astonished. Can I give my impression? Well, if I cannot give it, then we cannot continue. I [will] give my impression and you will understand…

LG: You cannot do that.

RF: Then…

LG: You made it the same, you, because ...

GCM: Excuse me, please Attorney.

LG: And the questioning/report was suspended/paused…

RF: For a moment she is not looking [NdT: also “you are not looking”].

GCM: Please, let’s avoid overlapping each other with our voices, maybe let’s leave that question to rest for a bit…

LG: The Public Prosecutor arrives…

GCM: Excuse me Attorney, we’re there, the suspension/pause…

LG: We have suspended/paused the questioning/report and Amanda was made available …

FM [sic – i.e. Maresca]: She was answering.

GCM: She was answering, but she has already answered.

LG: But now …

GCM: Attorney, Attorney, if there are other questions, please.

LG: Look! [Now] I’ve been interrupted, me.

FM: Excuse me, she was answering.

LG: Excuse me, it is I who have been interrupted, not me who interrupts. Certainly there are other questions.

GCM: Can we close this parenthesis [NdT: i.e. “interval”], perhaps? Excuse me. Earlier she/you made a reference, it seems to me that I recall that at a certain point Amanda Knox burst out weeping, as connected with this.

LG: Yes, this too.

GCM: Can you pinpoint this moment…

RF: I was pinpointing, and I was interrupted. I am saying it. If you make me [NdT: or also “let me”] also give my impression, you will understand better what I want to say.

GCM: No, no, no. The impression [sic. NdT, typo: should be “non l’impressione” = Not the impression]. The crying …

RF: In the moment when she was [sic], she saw, the message from Patrick on the mobile phone, for a moment she stayed there looking at it, and then I can’t tell you my impression that she gave me in that moment, her manner, after which she burst out weeping and accused him of being the perpetrator of the murder and of having been, herself, there in the house of the crime that evening, together with him.

LG: We have reported everything. Very well.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, this, well, please. [sic]

LG: The Public Prosecutor arrives, what happens? Was a defence [lawyer] appointed to the young lady?

RF: The defence [lawyer] for the girl had been requested, even though probably ...

LG: But I asked you if he/she had been appointed.

RF: He/she had not been appointed.

GCM: But Attorney, excuse me Attorney, you have every possibility ...

RF: He/she was not appointed because there wasn’t one.

GCM: ... to make all the questions you want, however let’s let the witness finish when the questions are asked, otherwise it is useless to ask questions.

RF: The lawyer was not appointed because there was no lawyer.

LG: You know that on this point there is a ruling [made] by the Cassation… I ask, if you know, if you don’t know we will try it in a different way…

FM: No, Mr President, there’s opposition. It is we who make the evaluations/assessments about the Cassation, and not the witness.

LG: Then I will repeat the question, since I did not understand clearly the answer. Was a court-appoint lawyer/legal aid lawyer or a personal/private lawyer?

FM: She has already answered.

GCM: Please, let’s not interrupt. Please Attorney.

LG: Was he/she appointed or not, this Attorney?

RF: He was not appointed because there were none. If you look at the sequestration [arrest?] report, my next one [NdT. i.e. report] of that morning, I acknowledge that she could be assisted by a defence [lawyer], and she renounced that option, but if she renounced it, it is because there were none, and it is understandable because she is not Italian, not …

GCM: Ok.

RF: That is to say, the one who appoints.

LG: I wanted to ask a question. All these quote-unquote courteous activities - a hot tea, the brioche/cake - they took place, if I have understood correctly, after the spontaneous declarations given to the Public Prosecutor, and before the notification of arrest, or after the notification …

RF: Look! They took place even the day before.

LG: I’m asking you that. No, you say she was tired, I put the seats, I made her rest …

RF: Yes, she was tired afterwards, this after ...

GCM: Wait, wait for the question to be finished.

LG: This type of activity - so commendable - did it take place after the spontaneous declarations to the Public Prosecutor had finished, or not?

RF: Before and after.

LG: After the notification, you said that it was late in the morning.

RF: Yes.

LG: After the notification of arrest? If you remember.

RF: She at a sandwich.

LG: I am asking you after the notification of the arrest or before, if you recall?

RF: But what?

GCM: Excuse me, this behaviour, she has said that she ate a sandwich, after the notification of the arrest or before …

RF: I don’t remember clearly whether the sandwich was ...

GCM: But after the notification of the arrest, do you recall something/anything?

RF: Of after the notification I remember that she asked me immediately for the sheet, paper and pen, however it even be that she stopped at a certain point because it was late.

LG: In fact, I made a mistake, you are right.

RF: Furthermore, I remember that in any case she, that is to say, we had to waste time before accompanying her to the jail in any case, because there were the doctors to carry out the inspection, she had to do a urine test and she couldn’t manage because she had done it [NdT: i.e. urinated] earlier, because she had drunk tea and other things, and so we had gone down to get water, I remember. Now I can’t place [that], whether it was 5 minutes to 12 or 1230 hours, but I think that this doesn’t change very much.

LG: I will ask you a final question.

GCM: Please, Attorney.

LG: Because it seems to me. At any time were the handcuffs, or anything of the sort, put on [her] in the Questura?

RF: Absolutely not. I repeat to you that I was rebuked because I took her to the bar without handcuffs with respect to ...

LG: Clarify this then ...

RF: This comes back to my mind, it makes me remember, thank you Attorney, that I took her after the notification of the arrest.

LG: Clarify for everyone, for the Court, for the lay judges, the manner [NdT: i.e. the way things took place] of the little sheets [of paper], the expression I want to make you… That is, the “memoriale”, the first “memoriale”: were the little sheets [of paper] requested before being translated in jail, after the notification of the arrest and before the translation in jail, the expression that Commissioner Napoleoni and also you reported – “I want to give you a gift” – how did… If you have doubts, ask me first, but anyway Amanda said these words in the moment when …

RF: Yes, when she asked me for the sheets. The interpreter was also there…

LG:  Both of you used the same sentence: “I want to give you a gift”.

RF: Yes, she said “I want to make you a gift”, we understood there [sic. NdT: typo? “lì” (there) instead of “li” (them)] as gift.. I said “what gift are you giving me?” [NdT: or “what a gift you are giving me”]. As a gift, it was meant/understood as “I want to give you a thing”, but then the fact that she said to me “I want to give it to you so that you can read it before taking me to jail, so that you, if you have other questions to ask me, you [can/will] do that…”

LG: This is everything I wanted to know. Thank you.

Defense attorney Maria Del Grosso

MDG: I wanted to know, if you remember it seeing as the closing time of the recaps/summaries is not given, how much time, more or less, Amanda was heard for?

RF: When?

MDG: The first questioning/report.

RF:  The first questioning/report finished late.

MDG: Do you recall is it a case of 0100 hours, 0200 hours?

RF: No, more [i.e. later], more, because first we had the general chat on what she had seen… To me, in that moment, more than writing [what] interested me was understanding whether there were clues, whether there were elements [on which] one could immediately carry out checks, and so communicate to my colleagues what there was to be done.

MDG: It sufficed, the answer that you gave me. How many times did you admonish Amanda, because it seems to me that I understood that she had been rebuked for her behaviour with Raffaele, she had been rebuked for the cartwheel, she had been rebuked on other occasions.

RF: Amanda was rebuked every time that the circumstances were not appropriate for her behaviour and I tell you what those are, Attorney: they are the times when she was found kissing/cuddling/smooching with Raffaele along the corridor the very day in which the cadaver was found: tell me yourself whether it seems suitable, in an office of the Questura, with a dead body still inside the house, if this one [NdT: i.e. Amanda] should continue to smooch/kiss and cuddle?

MDG: Mr President, that is an evaluation/assessment.

GCM: Very well, Excuse me please, we are only at the answers.

MDG: I said how many times, not…

RF: It was the first.

GCM: Then without going on to give a reason.

MDG: I did not ask for an assessment of the expediency/suitability or otherwise of the rebuke.

RF: Very well Attorney. Well, that was the first time, and then the second that [was] when I found her outside the elevator/lift, giving a demonstration of her abilities, and she continued to chuckle/snigger and to skip [about].

GCM: The second time you have already spoken about. And then was there another occasion?

RF: If in the same circumstance when I told her that – I already reported that I rebuked her in a maternal manner to tell her that we had understood that she had said some lies, even …

GCM: That’s enough like that, please.

RF: Three.

MDG: You also rebuked her with reference to the SMS found in her mobile phone [that had been] sent to Patrick Lumumba?

RF:  What should I have rebuked her about there?

MDG: What did you say to her?

RF: I asked her who he is, why she had send him that message, if …

GCM: Excuse me, answer yes or no.

RF:  No.

MDG:  Because earlier you spoke of contradictions.

GCM: Excuse me, we are at the answers of the witness, please Attorney, so you said no about the message.

MDG: What did it mean for you, the SMS sent to Lumumba, in the moment when you read it?

RF: For us, it could signify an appointment that evening, after the time of sending of the message – which was around 2030 hours – because if one says “certainly”, answers a message and says “we’ll see each other later” [NdT: the literal translation of “ci vediamo più tardi” is “We will see each other later”, usually understood as “See you later” in English], “Good evening”.

MDG: Did you ask her: “why did you never tell us about this appointment”?

RF: No, we asked her what it meant and whether there was in fact, or not, an appointment – and with whom.

MDG: Do you know the meaning of the expression in English “see you later”?

RF: Yes.

MDG: What does it mean?

RF: We will see each other after, later.

MDG: In the sense that one is giving [NdT: i.e. arranging/setting up/confirming] an appointment?

RF: No, I know that it means we will see each other later.

GCM: Maybe the witness is not ... One can give various interpretations to the expression, for goodness sake…!

RF: It was written in Italian.

GCM: This cannot be the subject of a question to the witness, please.

MDG: So you never suggested names to Amanda?

RF: Names, no.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, the question?

MDG: Have you ever suggested names to Amanda?

RF: No.

MDG: Because a little earlier you reported, with reference to the indication of Rudy, that it was on [your/her] initiative that Amanda spoke of Rudy.

RF: To remember that subject, I asked her what he was called because we had not yet identified him in that moment, we did not know who he was. We knew he was called “the Baron” by the boys below, from the flat/apartment below, but we did not know his identity.

MDG: Did Amanda know the nickname “the Baron”?

RF: No. Amanda did not give us any indication. She said that she did not exactly remember.

MDG: Did you report/record [in writing] everything that Amanda related?

RF: I reported/recorded [in writing] in the note what she related to me that night; I report/record [in writing] the things that relate to me.

MDG: Yes yes. But I am talking also about the recaps/summaries; did you report/record [in writing] everything related by Amanda?

GM: There is the report.

MDG: I am asking since first the witness referred to declarations that were not reported/recorded [in writing], I wanted to understand…

RF: Un-reported/un-recorded [in writing] declarations are in the note.

MDG: No, in the same context, Mr President, otherwise I would not have asked it.

GCM: The situation was different. Were there other similar/analogous conversations that were not reported/recorded [in writing]?

RF: No.

MDG: I am referring to the context of the undertaking in recaps/summaries, not outside of that.

RF: No, in the context, no.

MDG: I have no other questions.

Series to be continued up to the present day.




Comments

Talk about a client from hell - and a witness from hell too. As we saw in the two previous transcript posts, these defense lawyers must have been dying slow deaths.

There is good reason for amusement here as, time and again, the super-smart Rita Ficarra shoots back with how things really were. The defense lawyers cannot hide that they were flying blind.

Often then, the defense lawyers process Ficarra’s responses, in a way that would make any prosecutor smile but bring no joy to a guilty client.

See these occasions on which Ghirga drops himself in the soup (and John Douglas, Steve Moore, Bruce Fischer, Saul Kassin, see posts forthcoming).

1. Ghirga accidentally confirms it wasn’t even a real interrogation:

LG: While this interrogation - let’s call it thus - was in progress, some colleagues arrive ...

RF: It was not an interrogation, Attorney.

LG: They are called recaps/summaries.

The kind of thing investigators do on the fly as they search for information, so of course there’s no question from Ghirga at all about why no tape recording.

2. Ghirga accidentally confirms it was Knox’s initiative to hand over her phone.

LG: So Amanda’s telephone was taken or handed over spontaneously, would you like to specify whether she gave it ...

RF: She was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to carry out checks, and she spontaneously gave it to us, and together with her, that is to say, near to her, we began to scroll…

LG: No. It was handed over without any problem.

RF: Yes yes.

3. Ghirga accidentally confirms that the meeting was calm.

LG: [It’s] Ok like this. This type of dialogue between you and Amanda always took place as [if] in great harmony, in great calmness, or else speak, tell the truth, it’s better for you, was there some kind of … Not threat, I would never allow myself [to say that]. How [it] come about, did this type of … Given that the questions are not known.

RF: I have to make a simulation… I already said it, we carried out….

GCM: Whether she remained calm, whether there were, I don’t know, crises.

RF: I’ve already answered that everything took place calmly, actually, after …

LG: You said calmly.

RF: It happened calmly.

4. Ghirga tries to stop Knox’s conniption being described (GCM is Judge Massei).

GCM: But she was ... Excuse me, Attorney. She was describing/portraying the behavior, such as it could be remarked/observed externally .This is what we’re at.

RF: In the moment when she saw the message initially, it is as though she were astonished. Can I give my impression? Well, if I cannot give it, then we cannot continue. I [will] give my impression and you will understand…

LG: You cannot do that.

5. Ghirga tries to stop it again (GCM is Judge Massei and FM is Maresca):

GCM: Excuse me Attorney, we’re there, the suspension/pause…

LG: We have suspended/paused the questioning/report and Amanda was made available …

FM [sic – i.e. Maresca]: She was answering.

GCM: She was answering, but she has already answered.

LG: But now …

GCM: Attorney, Attorney, if there are other questions, please.

LG: Look! [Now] I’ve been interrupted, me.

FM: Excuse me, she was answering.

LG: Excuse me, it is I who have been interrupted, not me who interrupts. Certainly there are other questions.

6. But Ghirga fails to stop the conniption being described - and moves on hurriedly to a couple of hours later.

RF: In the moment when she was [sic], she saw, the message from Patrick on the mobile phone, for a moment she stayed there looking at it, and then I can’t tell you my impression that she gave me in that moment, her manner, after which she burst out weeping and accused him of being the perpetrator of the murder and of having been, herself, there in the house of the crime that evening, together with him.

LG: We have reported everything. Very well.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, this, well, please. [sic]

LG: The Public Prosecutor arrives, what happens? [He arrives from home several hours later]

THIS should have been the moment when Ghirga zoomed in on those supposed many many cops who persecuted Amanda, and blown the whole trial out of the water…

Instead, we get in effect “Oops, let’s race on…”  So Ghirga did not believe the babblings about police pressure from his own client

Gee, thanks, Knox. Great job you did of setting your defense team up well. No wonder being in Florence for the appeal seemed like a bridge too far. You claimed to be scared, was it of having a new conniption as Prosecutor Crini looked you in the eye and described this?. 

We are not even finished, but even so, how will Steve Moore, Saul Kassin, John Douglas, Bruce Fischer explain how their carefully organized tag teams and food-and-sleep deprivations of Knox over long hours and desperation of cops to frame Patrick fit into this?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/15/14 at 08:08 PM | #

More to show how things really were at the police station on the night, and to reveal again how much Knox had left her own defense in the dark. Here is Knox lawyer Maria Del Grosso dying a slow death at the responses of the supersmart Rita Ficarra.

1. Del Gross wants to suggest the cops admonished Knox too much and she gets this back (oww):

MDG: It sufficed, the answer that you gave me. How many times did you admonish Amanda, because it seems to me that I understood that she had been rebuked for her behaviour with Raffaele, she had been rebuked for the cartwheel, she had been rebuked on other occasions.

RF: Amanda was rebuked every time that the circumstances were not appropriate for her behaviour and I tell you what those are, Attorney: they are the times when she was found kissing/cuddling/smooching with Raffaele along the corridor the very day in which the cadaver was found: tell me yourself whether it seems suitable, in an office of the Questura, with a dead body still inside the house, if this one [NdT: i.e. Amanda] should continue to smooch/kiss and cuddle?

MDG: Mr President, that is an evaluation/assessment.

GCM: Very well, Excuse me please, we are only at the answers.

MDG: I said how many times, not…

RF: It was the first.

2. Del Grosso accidentally confirms that Knox first came up with all the names on the list, Patrick’s too.

MDG: So you never suggested names to Amanda?

RF: Names, no.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, the question?

MDG: Have you ever suggested names to Amanda?

RF: No.

MDG: Because a little earlier you reported, with reference to the indication of Rudy, that it was on [your/her] initiative that Amanda spoke of Rudy.

RF: To remember that subject, I asked her what he was called because we had not yet identified him in that moment, we did not know who he was. We knew he was called “the Baron” by the boys below, from the flat/apartment below, but we did not know his identity.

3. Del Grosso fails to prove Ficarra’s notes on the recaps/summaries were incomplete.

MDG: Did you report/record [in writing] everything that Amanda related?

RF: I reported/recorded [in writing] in the note what she related to me that night; I report/record [in writing] the things that relate to me.

MDG: Yes yes. But I am talking also about the recaps/summaries; did you report/record [in writing] everything related by Amanda?

GM: There is the report.

MDG: I am asking since first the witness referred to declarations that were not reported/recorded [in writing], I wanted to understand…

RF: Un-reported/un-recorded [in writing] declarations are in the note.

MDG: No, in the same context, Mr President, otherwise I would not have asked it.

GCM: The situation was different. Were there other similar/analogous conversations that were not reported/recorded [in writing]?

RF: No.

MDG: I am referring to the context of the undertaking in recaps/summaries, not outside of that.

RF: No, in the context, no.

MDG: I have no other questions.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/15/14 at 08:27 PM | #

The translated trial transcripts such as this (thank you ZiaK) should be thrust under the noses of the ludicrous Steve Moore, and his equally ludicrous and unhinged internet stalker wife, every time they spout their ridiculous pure-nonsense claims.

However, I don’t think they would even blink, as the trial transcripts of what actually happened in reality clash too much with the agenda they have to follow. But for honest people with integrity they are excellent as people can clearly see what frauds the Moores and their ilk are.

Posted by DF2K on 05/16/14 at 01:24 AM | #

The entire point of the Moores is this.

Steve Moore claims repeatedly and very loudly, to anybody stupid enough to listen, that he is some some of super law enforcement counter intelligence consultant.

This of course is hokum, since he was a Cessna pilot and nothing else. However, just suppose for a moment that all his claims are true.
Then if he’s such a hot shot he could easily deduce from all the evidence to the contrary that Knox is indeed guilty as changed.

But No! Because he has his own agenda, that of duping the gullible public into hiring him as some sort Sherlock Holmes/Sam Spade member of some mythical CSI TV program.

In this he shoots himself in the foot as was especially shown by his disastrous interview on CNN when he tried to claim the Guede was a police informant. Being obsessed with Knox in the first place and fighting a losing battle with mediocrity must be very difficult for him.

But to champion Knox by dismissing the irrefutable evidence against Knox he shows himself to be what he truly is, which is a self serving enabler of a convicted murderer, and as time goes on this will become more and more apparent. Once more he will sink into the obscurity he comes from and so richly deserves.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/16/14 at 09:15 AM | #

An Italian who lives in Turin, Luca Cheli, is an incessantly confused poster on Ground Report and Fischer’s sites.

He should really not give up his day job. As the poster JAR points out on PMF Org this is Luca Cheli’s latest:

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/knox-and-sollecito-dissection-of-a-conviction/

On the 5-6 Nov Knox “interrogation” which we are focussing on in these posts, Luca Cheli has swallowed the Knox/FOA tale whole, and has not even read the trial transcripts.

First of all it is not true that Knox never retracted her accusation of Lumumba “for long days”: already her first memorial of November 6 could have been read as a partial retraction, but in any case her second memorial of November 7 was a full retraction and it has been totally ignored by Nencini (as it was by the Court of Cassation a year ago)

Untrue. Knox says she still sees Patrick as the murderer. She herself chose to write the 1:45 and 5:45 statements and was under no pressure, quite the opposite, those others present want to move on. So of course the cops took them seriously.

The third note was handwritten, without comprehending witnesses (Ficarra is trying to get Knox into the prison van), In English, which not all the cops understood. It very strongly looks like an attempt to wriggle away from Knox’s claim in both previous notes that Knox had headed out from Sollecito’s place to confront Patrick. And Cheli seriously believes this is a retraction?!

Secondly, Nencini’s analysis of the night interrogation is at least partially contradictory, as highlighted by the parts in bold: he admits that Knox had said that she had received pressures also by the Public Minister but then he says she should have found refuge in that same Public Minister against the “evil” cops, and then again he says “subtracted from the clutches of the police AND of the Public Minister”.

The public minister could not have pressured Knox. Nencini gets it, Cheli doesnt. Mignini was there only to preside over the 5:45 “reading Knox her rights” session which she hijacked to draft her second statement.

So, whatever one may think about that night, Nencini’s arguments present an evident contradiction, a further internal incoherence of the ruling.

No, Cheli is the one confused here.

The considerations about Knox and Sollecito’s behavior after the discovery of the murder are in my opinion just fluff, however I will give them a reply in my exposition about the root causes of the slander….
What instead is not explained is Knox’s root reason for slandering Lumumba: a generic “to sidetrack the investigators” is not enough. She could have as well remained silent, as the SMS exchange with Lumumba, because in no way crime related, did not put her in jeopardy in any way, while accusing an innocent was bound to cause her troubles, especially since, if guilty, she knew there weren’t Lumumba’s traces in Meredith’s room, but those of someone else.

Cheli should read the trial transcripts. Knox “could as well have remained silent”? She exploded - to the immense surprise of everybody.

The fact that Knox “introduces a motive of sexual nature” in her declarations is no proof of background knowledge: those motives were rampaging in the media since November 2 (an unavoidable consequence of the state the body was found in) and in any case Knox had been pounded with sex related questions by the police during all her interrogations.

All what interrogations? What pounding? There had not been one formal interrogation of Knox before 5/6 Nov, merely a little questioning on precisely the same lines as all the others were subjected to. Plus the house visit to check out the knives (which also caused a conniption).

The same can be said for Knox reporting a scream by Meredith in her dream-like statements: it is difficult to imagine that a victim killed in that way would not have screamed.

It is very easy to imagine if one actually studies the autopsy.

Since the “accusing an innocent” meme is a central point of any pro-guilt campaign, I will now expand on my personal view of the root causes of the calumny against Patrick Lumumba.

I have to begin by saying that my analysis may cause some puzzlement even in the pro-innocence field and hence I want to make it very clear that this is my personal interpretation and that, while based on known facts, it is nevertheless a product of my own theorizing.

First the statement meant for effect: Amanda Knox is not responsible for the statements signed during the night between 5 and 6 November 2007 at the Questura (police station) of Perugia because they were expressed in an altered state of mind that can only be fully qualified as temporary insanity and hence in a state of inability to understand and take action.

What altered state of sanity? She was sitting there willingly, happily building a list of names with Ficarra. BOTH the statements were Knox’s own idea.

Concerning lawyers, from the point of view of procedural strategies, sustaining a temporary inability to understand and take action could backfire in the defense against the more serious charge of murder: if it had been accepted that Knox could become “temporarily insane”, the judges might have thought that people who can go “crazy” once can go that way twice and maybe kill, or at least be capable of anything.

But the defenses had not an ounce of proof she had gone crazy; merely multiple versions of her experience on the night of 5-6 November, none of which for good reason they trusted.

About Amanda Knox herself, on the one hand it is understandable that it is very difficult for anybody to accept that one may even just have grazed a state identifiable as “madness”, while on the other hand once one leaves such a state, memories of it can only be very confused, just as those of Knox are.

Cheli really should read the trial transcripts. There was no madness.

Lo and behold, my interpretation of the reasons for the crime of slander against Patrick Lumumba by Amanda Knox is indeed based on the assumption that during the night of November 5-6 2007, the Seattleite was, for several hours and with after-effects for up to 24-48 hours, subject to a mental phenomenon of this kind, which created in her mind what are usually called “false memories” about Lumumba, which I consider instead as real hallucinations.

But the night interrogation of November 5-6 was not in itself the cause of this phenomenon; it was just the final disturbance that caused the collapse of the already proven mind of Amanda Knox, the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Cheli really, really should read the trial transcripts. There was no madness.

The day of November 5, until 10-10:30 pm, is instead a relatively normal day in which Knox tries to recover (even if only in part consciously) its own balance through ordinary acts and gestures, such as going to her class at the University for Foreigners or going with Sollecito in the evening to have dinner with friends of his.

All this allows her to distance herself a bit from that threshold (the threshold of equilibrium breaking, or of the catastrophic event in the mathematical sense) she had already arrived very close to, the day before at the cottage.

Consequently, when later that evening the interrogation begins that will then produce
the ill-fated statements and her and Sollecito’s arrests, the American girl has a mental situation stable enough to allow her to stand for about two hours to those external pressures that, whatever the intensity and the intentions, will finally lead to the “mental breakdown.”

There was no interrogation that night. Knox was not asked to be at the questura. Ficarra told she should go home and get some sleep. She instead agreed to help to build a list of names - and then the conniption.

This brings us to the fateful text message shown to Knox and to the persistent questions about it: this is the time when the breaking of the increasingly unstable equilibrium happens, the threshold is exceeded and the altered mind of the American girl produces those false memories or hallucinations that constitute the essence of the slander against Patrick Lumumba.

“In that instant, I snapped” writes Knox on page 117 of her book talking about this exact moment, and those words properly represent a moment of catastrophic transition between before and after. Prosecution’s witness Anna Donnino herself testified to a sudden change in Amanda’s behavior when the text message was shown to her, albeit Donnino’s interpretation of that change was probably different from mine.

If Knox’s mind was so disturbed after Meredith’s death who is to say it was not equally disturbed before her death? She went through the same experienecs as a number of others, who did not end up giggling or smooching or doing cartwheels or missing Merediths memorial.

By all accounts Knox was having a pretty good time - except for the conniption episodes, which were either mental episodes with deeper causes, or the well-known indicators of a prolonged amphetamine high.

My guess is the latter.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/16/14 at 10:17 AM | #

Amanda faked a fit of terror as she named Patrick Lumumba as the killer, yet he was innocent. Her histrionics to convince police of a major lie about him completely destroyed her credibility.

Knox showed herself to be a brazen rule breaker when she refused to stop her cartwheel antics and smooching in the police station, after more than one request by different police officers.

Can you imagine having to be admonished or rebuked three times by police inside a police station about your wild behavior, and remaining shameless? One rebuke is all it should have taken unless you were raised in a barn.

Ignorance of decorum is one thing, but the audacity to show contempt for the police warnings and for those in genuine grief, proved what Knox was capable of. Others could see her hard streak.

Raffaele with his more polite upbringing was totally ashamed of her behavior, but perhaps nothing in her manner would amaze him by then. He had seen much much worse at her hands.

Ghirgha, Maria Del Grosso, and even Bongiorno could not rattle the staunch policewoman Ficarra in court.

Ficarra was truly outraged at Knox’s behavior and show of contempt for her roommate’s death.

Knox’s hardheadedness persisted despite the kid glove treatment, the maternal admonitions, the cakes and tea, and the urging to tell the full truth about her drug use so that she could be believed in other matters, hinting that one lie out of personal embarrassment might be excused, but to come clean if she really wanted to “help the police” or help Meredith. This gentle approach did no good. Knox started with small lies and soon added big ones. Look at how she freely named several young men, but pretended not to know Rudy’s name. She gets very vague when it suits her. The more specific she is about something, the less believable.

So much for the young, quirky, innocent naïf role she later played to excuse the obvious hostility.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/16/14 at 10:40 AM | #

@Peter

“...a prolonged amphetamine high”.  That sums it up I reckon.

The pair were likely on speed from at least the moment the cover-up began in the cottage (the drug induces feelings of extreme self-confidence - on a high users typically become over-clever in the minutest detail, as if everything is just a game, to be played well).

However, the apparent rage during the murder is more typical in my opinion of heavy alcohol intake, though maybe mixed with amphetamines).

Clearly, if you’re “quirky” to begin with, a la AK (as in ” my people killed your people”), drugs really aren’t going to do you (or any poor soul in your ambit) any good at all.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/16/14 at 01:53 PM | #

Hi Odysseus

Right. The police knew decidedly more than they were allowed to say in court. It is quite obvious from the transcripts. For example Knox actually gave Ficarra the name of their drug dealer.

With little prompting Knox had already moved from “I did no drugs” to “we smoked hash and Raffaele told me he did cocaine” before being warned and arrested.

Amphetamines can lead to psychotic episodes and murder.  http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/137827763.html

A sign of the use of crystal meth is a strong smell of cat urine. The cops all noticed that urine was what Knox was stinking of outside the house when Meredith’s body was still inside.

Here is a list of the signs of meth use or addiction.  http://www.meth.us.com/Signs_of_Meth_Addiction.htm

The urine smell is first among them. Crystal meth use was quite common then in Perugia, and the cops guessed in seconds what they were encountering.

Not a possible defense the families chose to go with though charges might have been lowered.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/16/14 at 02:24 PM | #

@Peter

Thanks for that info. You learn something new everyday. I didn’t realise that Crystal Meth was so powerful and addictive - ten times more so apparently (I’ve just googled *) than the amphetamines I remember sampling in my youth (when the word was that it was pretty much ok to try anything once, “apart from folk-dancing and incest”. Youthful folly).

* http://www.thesite.org/drinkanddrugs/drugculture/wheredrugscomefrom/speed

Interesting about the urine smell and the likelihood of the cops being savvy about it.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/16/14 at 03:32 PM | #

Pete, really enjoyed your exposure of Ghirga’s ineptitude, and Witness Rita Ficarra’s quick-witted rebuttals.

Ghirga’s Duty to his client surely includes Competent, Zealous Representation, with Undivided Loyalty.

Instead, he was zealously Incompetent.

I submit some amplifications of your analysis re Ghirga’s textbook illustration of how NOT to cross-examine a witness:


“....I must admit to real amusement as, time and again, the super-smart Rita Ficarra shoots back with how it really was, and the lawyers cannot hide that they had no real idea.

Often then, the defense lawyers process her response in a way that would make any prosecutor smile but bring no joy to a guilty client at all.

See these occasions on which Ghirga drops himself (and Steve Moore, Bruce Fischer, Saul Kassin, on and on) in the soup.”

My amplifications {Indicated by brackets} :


1. Ghirga accidentally confirms it wasn’t even a real interrogation:

LG: While this interrogation - let’s call it thus - was in progress, some colleagues arrive ...

{Not a Q; an attempt to Improperly Insert non-existent Testimony into the Transcript.}

RF: It was not an interrogation, Attorney.

{Witness Rebuttal of Improper “Q”.}

LG: They are called recaps/summaries.

{Lame Admission by Questioner ineptly confirming Witness Rebuttal to detriment of Questioner’s Client.}


2. Ghirga accidentally confirms it was Knox’s initiative to hand over her phone.

LG: So Amanda’s telephone was taken or handed over spontaneously, would you like to specify whether she gave it ...

{Questioner’s inept Preamble to upcoming Question interrupted by Witness who out-wits Questioner:}

RF: She was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to carry out checks, and she spontaneously gave it to us, and together with her, that is to say, near to her, we began to scroll…

{Witness interrupts inept Question, seizing initiative to Testify that Defendant’s “Spontaneous-Giving” of mobile phone was in response to Request-to-do-so.}

LG: No. It was handed over without any problem.

{Defendant’s Attorney attempts to correct Witness’s response by ineptly incomplete contradiction.}

RF: Yes yes.

{Witness selectively “Confirms” incomplete contradiction.}


3. Ghirga accidentally confirms that the meeting was calm.

LG: [It’s] Ok like this. This type of dialogue between you and Amanda always took place as [if] in great harmony, in great calmness, or else speak, tell the truth, it’s better for you, was there some kind of … Not threat, I would never allow myself [to say that]. How [it] come about, did this type of … Given that the questions are not known.

{Defendant’s Attorney makes inept Preamble to Q. before Witness interrupts..:}

RF: I have to make a simulation… I already said it, we carried out….

{Witness’s interruption of Defendant’s Attorney is itself interrupted by GCM}

GCM: Whether she remained calm, whether there were, I don’t know, crises.

RF: I’ve already answered that everything took place calmly, actually, after …

{Witness responds a little tartly to GCM, emphasizing calmness to exclusion of “Crises”.}

LG: You said calmly.

{Defendant’s Attorney ineptly emphasizes calmness to exclusion of “Crises”, and seems not to pose a Question for Witness to answer.}

RF: It happened calmly.

{Witness responds by ramming-home her testimony of calmness.}


4. Ghirga tries to stop Knox’s conniption being described.

GCM: But she was ... Excuse me, Attorney. She was describing/portraying the behavior, such as it could be remarked/observed externally .This is what we’re at.

{GCM addresses Defendant’s Attorney LG, who seems to be arguing with Witness RF, to put LG back on track.}

RF: In the moment when she saw the message initially, it is as though she were astonished. Can I give my impression? Well, if I cannot give it, then we cannot continue. I [will] give my impression and you will understand…

{Witness RF responds to LG that her subjective impression was that Knox was astonished when   Patrick’s name was introduced [or by news that Sollecito had contradicted Knox’s alibi], but if LG argues against her testimony “we cannot continue.”}

LG: You cannot do that.

{Defendant’s Attorney repeats his illegitimate argument against Witness’s legitimate Testimony.}


5. Ghirga tries to stop it again (GCM is Judge Massei and FM is Maresca):

GCM: Excuse me Attorney, we’re there, the suspension/pause…

{GCM reminds LG that the current subject of Witness RF’s Testimony is RF’s reason for discontinuing RF’s questions addressed to Knox.}

LG: We have suspended/paused the questioning/report and Amanda was made available …

{LG interrupts GCM’s reminder.}

FM [sic – i.e. Maresca]: She was answering.

{Kercher Attorney, FM, interrupts LG’s interruption.}

GCM: She was answering, but she has already answered.

{GCM agrees with FM and amplifies fact, Witness having completed answer.}

LG: But now …

{LG continues to argue! posing no new Question.}

GCM: Attorney, Attorney, if there are other questions, please.

{GCM interrupts LG’s continuation, inviting further actual Questions.}

LG: Look! [Now] I’ve been interrupted, me.

{LG recontinues his arguing, posing no new Question.}

FM: Excuse me, she was answering.

{Kercher Attorney repeats his interjection.}

LG: Excuse me, it is I who have been interrupted, not me who interrupts. Certainly there are other questions.

{LG recontinues his arguing, posing no new Question.}


6. But Ghirga fails to stop the conniption being described - and moves on hurriedly to a couple of hours later.

RF: In the moment when she was [sic], she saw, the message from Patrick on the mobile phone, for a moment she stayed there looking at it, and then I can’t tell you my impression that she gave me in that moment, her manner, after which she burst out weeping and accused him of being the perpetrator of the murder and of having been, herself, there in the house of the crime that evening, together with him.

{Witness RF repeats her subjective impression of Knox’s reaction to Patrick’s name}

LG: We have reported everything. Very well.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, this, well, please. [sic]

LG: [several hours later] The Public Prosecutor arrives, what happens?


THAT should have been the moment when Ghirga descended like a ton of bricks on those meanie cops. Instead, we get in effect “let’s race on…”

Gee, thanks, Knox. Great job you did of setting your defense team up well…. No wonder being in Florence for the appeal seemed a bridge too far….

Okay, Steve Moore, etc, over to you… Tell us how your tag teams and deprivations of Knox over hours and hours and desperation of cops to frame Patrick fit into this?

[Orig posted by Peter Quennell on 05/15/14 at 08:08 PM | #]

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/16/14 at 05:28 PM | #

Ghirga doesn’t seem to realize that his proper role on cross-examination is not to argue, or to make non-question statements, but to Ask Questions designed to whittle-away witness’s Credibility, hoping to destroy her Credibility.

Instead, Ficarra destroys Ghirga’s credibility!

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/16/14 at 05:46 PM | #

...with Ghirga’s zealous assistance!

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/16/14 at 05:53 PM | #

On Cross-Examination I do favour Statements-in-the-form-of a-Question, as in: 

“Miss Knox, you helped clean-up after Meredith died, didn’t you?”

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/16/14 at 06:13 PM | #

AK is insane and drugged up. I guess meth also-cocaine would not do it but meth, alcohol and even combo tobacco hashish cigs (which is what AK claimed) produces hallucinations and AK has for decades preferred an imaginary world to the real one.

She takes drugs 24/7 to feel “normal” or see her hallucinatory environment as “normal”. She is schizophrenic - plain and simple. It onsets at puberty and young schizophrenics are seen as “quirky” “out of control” major partiers who self-medicate to make hallucinations seem real (why be in the Normal world when you can be at Hogwarts?)

AK is schizophrenic (watch I never promised you a rose garden or one flew over the cuckoos nest for reminders of this disease), has frequent hallucinations of who and where she is - unaware of all social cues or social messaging systems - and spent her younger years playing quiddih (soccer) and has left the muggle world to enter Hogswart when she came to Italy.

Her quirky behavior is bizarre and manifestations of the schizophrenia, her obsession with the Harry Potter books with which she views all life, took up with RS because he “looked like” was Harry Potter. The only consistent interest she had during the entire time at Italy, was getting volumes of the Harry Potter Books no matter what language - this is the source of her hallucinatory world - She sees Rudy Guide (and PL) as Dean Thomas, the young black wizard “she” dated before taking up with Harry Potter-RS, Each man that she hooks up with in some way is a character in the Harry Potter books.

She is schizophrenic to this day. Look at her in the interviews, you can tell. The Pupil shrinkage as she subconsciously tries to cut off “light” or reality that hits her - watch her and you will see. She did another symbolic hair cutting like the first time she was found guilty - after the announcement of the latest book - it is what happens to a nun when they take vows (and AK had a catholic upbringing) and the way you break with your past - the truth - so you become a different person and submerge the dominate personality-temporarily.

Look at her muscle tone - flat, animated - her jaw is set tight - she closes her eyes to shut out reality (an auditory response) and looks down and to the left to get her rehearsal of what happened as opposed to the truth - she cannot believe the truth only the hallucinations. When she gets the “conniptions” is the only time AK is letting the truth in - and the whole 9 yards of the fits are an auditory response.

Otherwise she is distracting and illogical (note she talks about logic and facts vs illogical and no scientific proof - again signs that her predominate learning system is auditory-digital)

Since MK was killed and probably sometime before AK has remained in a somnambulist state - equally controlled by left and right brain and equally effected by both - but there is no controlling portion of her brain to mitigate this because of her age. She is controlled by the hallucinations which is why she was offputting to everyone - again, her quirkiness is the behavior of adolescent schizophrenia.

The human brain grows from back to front and is not fully grown until age 25 - AK’s age now - so frightened - with good reason - for it is only now that she can actually understand, in terms of brain grown - again the reason for the fear now - only now can she understand and go full out auditory-digital in trying to get out of it.

Before age 25, the frontal cortex which contains moral development, most short-term memory (which is why most adults can’t remember much of the day to day activity of their childhood well), impulse control and executive decision making is not present until age 26.

So, essentially with AK you have a 7 year old mind that is prone to hallucinations and massive mental aberrations in an “adult” body-her past, the choices her quirkiness takes her, her total live impulsively and think only of this moment right in front of me and not the consequences - does not contain the capacity to develop an I-thou relationship with others-

Now, add on to the fact that you have a person who lives in a fantasy world and has not personal control or ability to interpret social cues and then put the drugs in there - It could be the hash/tobacco combination that caused her behavior - it is what the CIA found most effective in creating babbling zombies who are in a somnambulist or suggestible hypnotic state of mind, altho given her weigh loss and lack of affect, her b.o. the day after the murder (altho she did not smell of blood - she probably did take a shower that day and washed the smell of blood off but then did the drug of choice afterwards which caused the odor when it was time to face the police - RS use of cocaine and being the son of a doctor would focus him on how to do the cleanup and apply a scientific “sherlock holmes” approach to a clean up - AK was the suggestor of tricks she had tried before but RS is the detail man - a coke user thing)

I have to guess meth - has to be a speed derivative to produce those pin-point size pupils - had it been a hallucinatory like cannabis or a hashish/tobacco mixture the pupils would be saucer size-dilated. 

The other reasons for expecting meth - especially crystal - are as follows:

1. It breaks down and is not traceable by drug tests 48 hours even tho the effects are not gone by then and also easier to fool drug tests.

2. The impacts and behaviors last for days - hence the quirky behavior at the police station and jail and her retained inability to interpret social cues.

3. Meth is highly addictive and highly destructive - it effects the thymus in the brain where both serotonin and dopamene (sp) are distributed to the rest of the brain - dopa. (and I am sorry about the spelling) is the brain’s natural opium and the release of the dopa. into the brain happens when we experience moments of happiness and what gives us our simple thrills in the joys of life.

Meth destroys that. It dries up the release of the dopa. and kills the receptor cells that take in all the chemicals fired out from the thymus into the body.

What this means in the case of RS and AK is that someone who does meth is immediately addicted - note how old, emaciated AK looks and no affect nor any expression of delight in anything - she has destroyed the only process in her brain that can make her experience happiness. It takes greater and greater extremes to feel happiness.

Now, enter MK to a schizophrenic in full blown hallucination mode who thinks shes a heroine of the Harry Potter world and she sees MK - a slytherine - a bi-racial supporter of Lord Voldemort - whatever.

And then add that this proud Griffendor Female who doesn’t have a frontal cortex and acts totally on impulse with no morals, not much ability to remember and with no executive decision making ability is doing meth or even the hash/tobacco blend that is so loved by the CIA - and the tobacco is a speed derivative - either one in the mind of someone who has lost the ability to feel happiness accept by some extreme stimulus and taking the drug from hell that commands violence (and again I am talking chemical firing occurring in the brain that are the effects of the drug) - MK didn’t have a chance.

And by the by-it takes at least 5 years to get over the effects of meth. on your brain and as stated it is highly - almost instantaneously addictive - the most evil drug that exists - literally evil - no one is immune from its effects.

AK has aged so much not from guilt but from meth use. She is in a somnambulist state, is highly suggestible, completely narcissistic, unable to understand situations from the viewpoint of another, and goes in and out of a hallucinatory reality - living a double life - because of the meth use and schizophrenia.

AK remains a danger to herself and others. With the meth use, the only way she will experience any thrills in life for at least the next 15 years is to engage in violent acts or use heavy drugs - if she returns to Italy, the only way her story can end is in a suicide or some other folly as a martyr for the cause.

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 05/16/14 at 07:22 PM | #

Great work Cardiol.

Theres a line of good lawyers behind you that would also like to show the poor flailing Ghirga how it could have been done. And others here love knowing those tricks of the lawyerly trade.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/16/14 at 09:05 PM | #

Hi Friendofstfrank

So Curt Knox and the rabid band are running out the clock on AKs chances of any recovery. They need to hear this.

Crystal meth was not something I thought much about before the stark and amazing movie Winters Bone (with Jennifer Lawrence) where the terrible effects are indirectly shown.

In the IMDB reviews people from that area (south Missouri) said the movie got it just right and there are rich communities (who create it) and devastated ones (that use it) in the Ozarks.

I cruised wht I thought was the right area last year looking for such communities but no luck finding them; I will try again in July.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/16/14 at 09:09 PM | #

I am also very aware of the state of unrealism Knox presents, as well as the risk , potential or real, of suicidal action.

I believe she also has thought of these things, and is fully aware of their ‘martyrdom’ aspect. (“I am a victim”).

Let us hope Curt and Edda Knox/ Mellas, as well as her other advisors, demonstrate more maturity, sound judgement, and realism now than they have to date.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/17/14 at 05:01 AM | #

Hi SeekingUnderstanding

You yourself in a post showed that Knox found Capanne a relatively happy place. She could be less likely to do herself harm there than anywhere.

Its maybe either that or the fairly hard whacks of reality that Friendofstfrank inclines toward.

We dont know for sure who is the “responsible element” in the Knox-Mellas family mix that could persuade Knox to start to face up if time in Capanne itself does not have that effect.

Amanda Knox seems to be living on her own and turning up at UW campus now and then. Whether she has time for or daily links to the creepy FOA types is unclear.

We are told by the insiders that the entire Mellas family is rabid anonymously on the internet each night. Spot a really nasty tweeter or website and there is a good chance Chris Mellas is behid that.

Curt Knox now seems back to being highly detached. Ted Simon and Robert Barnett seem to be only hired guns whose roles here have been unethical and irresponsible or worse.

Leaving it to the Italians to make Knox as right in the mind as she’ll get really seems best. She could not be among a more caring national group in the world.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/17/14 at 05:47 AM | #

Yes, that’s so true, Pete - about Italians being caring and concerned emotionally.
We have seen through the transcripts how Rita Ficarra, Anna Donnino, and ‘the policeman who held AK’s hand’, all demonstrated this concern during the actual period of alleged mistreatment.
They all attempted, in their own ways, to lessen her high anxiety, and knew a calm cooperative atmosphere was desirable for everyone.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/17/14 at 08:50 AM | #

With AK’s make-up, happy place or sad place makes no difference. It is not that simple-not at all. She needs to be de-hypnotized, you can’t apply normality here because she is not operating in reality-she is operating off of a story-she sees herself as a character in a book, a play-that is what she measures reality by-everything is interpreted to fit in this play-what people say about her-she is not in this reality-I don’t know how I can make that clear. We are not dealing with neurosis here, we are dealing with psychosis, exacerbated by extensive very powerful chemical brain alternating behaviors and poisons-drugs, alcohol, etc. at a time when her brain was not fully grown-she didn’t have a frontal cortex and     it is very possibly permanent damage that would take a whole lot of work to be undone-if it can be. Has anyone looked at folks who have suffered brain damage related to a psychosis? The personality is permanently altered-never in reality again-everything is colored no matter how nice people are. People being kind will never rehab a Charlie Manson, or Ted Bundy-that is not their reality. In fact nice makes things worse. Has anyone worked with cults? Same thing-being nice doesn’t change the behaviors of cult members-you have to deprogram them.

All AK’s supporters are being “nice” to her-see how it exacerbates her symptomology-further and further-she knows what happened but blocks it and really believes a fantasy-she was best friends with MK and would never hurt her-there is no evidence therefore she is innocent-there is no evidence-there is no proof that would lead to a “logical” conclusion of “guilt”, there is no evidence, nothing changes that-there is no evidence.

AK doesn’t remember what happened that night-it is a blank-she doesn’t remember-oh, she remembers the clean up vaguely-she remembers her “odd” behaviors consistent with schizophrenia but the murder and immediate follow up are blacked out of her mind. So she only believes what she is told by those who pat her on the head and tell her she is just a child, not responsible for her actions and let the adults take care of everything for her. She doesn’t want to face the demon within her-the mental illness-the ugliness and violence-she is incapable of seeing what she truly is-totally.

Ariel Castro could not see himself as the monster he was-lead a totally double life for 12 years and no one knew the demon that possessed him. When the demons are exposed and people see him for what he is, he finds a way to kill himself even with being watched and checked on every 30 minutes. He wasn’t doing an erotic suicide as people claim-his pants were down when he hung himself as that was the part of the body that caused his internal demons so it must be exposed as he kills it. 

That is the thing with psychosis-it is neither rational, does not respond to the cue system that works with normal or even neurotics-it is much different. The word possessed is a much more accurate description-possessed by demons beyond your control-the evil possessed you-and until the demons are exorcised-nothing anyone does can get rid of them-psychosis, brain-damage are quite different-it is an alternate reality-very alternate-quite alien to the one most folks live in. The only time-I repeat, the only time, AK faces the reality of what happen is when she has her “fits”, the covering of ears, the hitting herself on the head (to drive out the horrors of what she has done), all of that-that is the only time she is facing the truth and she can’t handle it-she is incapable of accepting reality-that is why she views it as a fantasy.

She needs to be extradited back to Italy-no question-she is less dangerous in a controlled environment than an uncontrolled environment-but the moment she accepts the truth, that she has a psychosis, that she has destroyed the chemical process that creates normal happiness, that she is her behavior not her words-it is at that point that she is most likely to engage in self-harm. The only “cure” she can get is to stop the belief that everything that happens to her-everything she does-is because of forces beyond her control-she has to regain the ability and knowledge of free will-self-determination. Right now she has a weakness of will. No bonding to society as a whole and no internalized or even external moral structure of right or wrong.

Don’t know if that makes sense or not-Italy is not going to cure AK and I don’t think that is their job, either. Altho if you have a good Catholic Priest who is familiar with exorcism do this with her to free her of the demons of violence and evil that possess her-that might give her an out-might.

My point is AK is a very toxic-very toxic-young lady whose whole identity is wrapped up in being a celebrity identifying as being wrongly accused of a gruesome murder that she committed.  Take that story away and she is nothing-a nobody-she can’t handle that-she can’t be a nobody which is why she can’t keep her mouth shut and continues to exhibit what should be very disturbing behavior, illogical tautologies, seeing the actual victim MK and her family as the “true” aggressors, etc. Victims are aggressors and aggressors are victims in her world.

Besides an exorcism-done with all the dramaturgy you can imagine, she would also benefit from electric shock therapy. Electric shock disorganizes the brain’s chemical structure and acts as a reset. Again, without an fMRI, to see the actual functioning of AK’s brain-it is hard to guess. Moral recognizance therapy and a highly structuralized environment-where she has no free will but must do exactly as told-are her best bet. She acts for the audience-it would be nice if somehow the audience could be removed from her-to be totally ignored-again a nobody-remains her best bet.

She needs to be deprogrammed if it is possible-otherwise she will remain a Manchurian candidate and no one will ever be home-she will always remain a highly suggestible, hyper-somnambulism actress-always playing parts but never having any real human emotion or I-thou relationships with others.

Again, wouldn’t waste my time trying to rehab her-keep her in a contained setting where she can continue to live in la la land but is highly supervised and that is the best that can be done for her.

Keeping her the focal point and a “victim” will destroy what little hold on reality she still has-but maybe that is what her supporters want-easier to manipulate people when they are unaware of what is really going on.

And, why, for God’s sake, is she still an undergrad college student? She has been back in the states long enough to finish the degree if she was actually interested in getting one-I think she will be the perpetual student-always in college-never finishing due to one crises or another-and always acting a part but never truly living anything.

Random thoughts.

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 05/17/14 at 11:15 AM | #

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge concerning policing techniques knows that the best way to elicit a confession is the use of kindness. The era of the rubber hose has long (at least outside of Guantanamo Bay) been discouraged because if you use torture then eventually the victim will agree to almost anything. (Water Boarding etc: which was the American Military not the American Justice department)

Enter Steve Moore and company who play on the fears of people who see Knox as a victim against those nasty Italian police and prosecutors who obviously just hate all Americans.

So, Steve Moore has a history of nebulous FBI involvement.
That being so, then he must know that Knox is guilty since he cannot refute the evidence. Either that or is using Knox to further his own career such as it is, or he is simply a crook. Or something else is going on here. Take Bruce Fischer (please) who when presented with information such as the clean up (No fingerprints etc:) Can only respond by saying “That’s a lie”
Not much of a rejoinder I grant you, but it is indicative of how these peoples minds work.

They see Knox as a victim without knowing quite why so they make up stuff to bolster their argument. My best guess or (“The best truth I can come up with.”)(my little joke) Is that they intuitively clue in to the fact that Knox is sick and therefore not responsible for her actions and therefore needs to protected. This they extend to their argument without knowing why, so Knox herself becomes irrelevant since she has become the poster child of these folks with ‘Peter Pan Syndrome’

Upon her arrival back in the US she immediately moved out of her mothers house to live in a seedy part of Seattle where drugs are easier to obtain. The idea that she has been clean for all these years is one vast joke. I agree with Friendsofstfrank in this, Also Seekingunderstanding.

After all any normal person would not be able to stand up to the constant knowledge that she’s headed for jail no matter what, hence the drugs which let her escape from that and every other reality.

The clincher for me, is to remember who Steve Moore married. Now there’s someone rooted in reality and that’s both sides of that marriage equation.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/17/14 at 11:15 AM | #

I forgot something and that is the observation,
(not just mine of course) that racists don’t see themselves as racist.
Donald Sterling, the owners of the LA clippers does not see himself as a racist. He just thinks that all white people are somehow superior to black people and if asked (Which he has been) his response is couched in confusion.

“I’m not a racist! If it wasn’t for me those ‘boys’ would be out on the street.”

The Knox clan is the same. They don’t believe they are racist at all. In fact if you face them with that observation they get all huffy and defensive never able to imagine why anybody would believe that. It’s just that they believe black people to be inferior, and that (to them) is the way of the world. You could extend that to how many people in the USA see President Obama, but that’s not racist, it’s just how things are.

Patrick Lamumba, Guede, Meredith Kercher. Need I say more.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/17/14 at 11:33 AM | #

I think it’s a question of damage limitation, isn’t it? And appropriate behaviour.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/17/14 at 11:54 AM | #

What is it that is so intriguing about this case? I’d like to know because part of me (a big part)is getting tired with it yet I’m continually drawn back ...

Is it because of the absolutely overwhelming strength of the evidence against the accused, the involvement of a typically nutty PR outfit (“image is all”) engaged from the outset by nutty parents, the totally embarrassing contradictions ALL THE TIME from a plainly ill young woman. Are we attracted to this case because the guilt is so patently obvious that it shows up the bigger picture, i.e. the laziness/corruption in the US and UK media. Why isn’t this farce absolutely obvious to every sentient being? (I’ll give a clue - it’s down to the nutty PR outfit).

One of the reasons that many of us want to see this particular case settled, once and for all, is that we can then start looking at the role PR is allowed in our society. Defending the indefensible might be great business for greasy, bearded, clever(?) manipulators like Marriott et al but surely they shouldn’t be allowed to malign our justice systems in the interests of securing big pay days from psychopathic clients. It’s not really the way to go, surely?

Posted by Odysseus on 05/17/14 at 04:18 PM | #

@ Odysseus
‘Why isn’t this farce absolutely obvious to every sentient being?
I think the answer lies here.
Speaking for myself - which is all I can do - I find it daunting and saddening, perhaps a little disturbing…that it isn’t or hasn’t been obvious - to so many people, even now.

I cannot help but wonder about the psychology involved, both individual and collective, which has allowed so much wool to have been pulled across so many eyes.

I would like to see a massive ‘lessons will be learnt’ phase occurring,  when, as you say, at last the case is settled.
There really is something amiss in (some sections of) the collective unconscious where the untruth and the myth has had full sway.

Possibly, we need to look at both manipulators and manipulatees (new word?), and learn more about recognising manipulation, early, as well as dysfunctional states.

Perhaps too, the case is bringing our attention onto justice, and justice systems, and their importance for us. Just why we have laws,where they derive from, and why it matters so much that they up upheld.

I sometimes like watching ‘law and order’ films, about trials and law etc…though I tend to be disappointed in them. I found Cardiol’s comments above very interesting! would like to know more.

There is great skill in drawing people out so that they tell the truth. Or rather, reveal the truth -very often, with clients, they don’t always know themselves, and then surprise themselves with what emerges.
I know this isn’t necessarily applicable, say, in a witness interview to ascertain facts, but I’m sure the manner of approach still matters.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/17/14 at 05:27 PM | #

Odysseus-I agree with you-why the PR and why is AK allowed to have a book published in the U.S.-even O. J. Simpson didn’t do that.

Grahame-I have rather more than an ounce of experience investigating violence, murders, and the like-I will tell you that good cop, bad cop and intimidation remain common place with a lot of police and federal agents in the U.S.-remember, we are quite pro death penalty and incarceration as punishment- when they think you are guilty-they want to create fear to obtain the confession.

kindness is not how you are going to get a confession, not really. Only time the truth of confessions come out with any involved in this horrible murder is when they feel the others will snitch on them-the fear factor-that is the only time. RS hears that AK (who he admits doesn’t live in reality and lives purely for pleasure) might have been with someone else on Halloween and even the day of the murder-it is the revelation that she is not faithful to him that makes him question and admit he lied for her and that he doesn’t know where she was for sure at the time-he admits some truth when he thinks she has betrayed him. RG tells a lot of truth because he is very aware their plan is to blame it on the black guy-has RS even saying while they tussled after the murder (which he has the defensive wounds on his hands as seen by the German Police) “The black man did it. He is the guilty one” and because he is suspicious of a frame up-splits for Germany-even in the Skype call with his friend recorded by the police-he is saying that-they plan to blame it on the black guy.
AK only admits to being there (and in her book even supposes that RS may have killed Meredith) when he is not giving her an alibi and doesn’t trust her anymore-

Had this been in the U.S. I promise you AK would not have been treated nearly as kindly as in Italy nor would she have had such trivial complaints about her prison experience-We aren’t so nice in the U.S., no matter how sophisticated we pretend to be-not at all.

PR runs the circus around here and the televising of major trials contributes to the circus, reality tv, soap opera outcomes that are simply not based on the evidence-there are also the politically correct thought police that ignore those who are truly mistreated but take on their “token” cases of victims and aid and abet them in their “victimization” while ignoring the rather more innocent but dumb non-politically correct framed perpetrators-You don’t see anyone coming to the defense of RG here-nope, not the politically correct scenario-altho there and complicit, he is probably the “least guilty” of the 3 but needed because someone had to be framed for the whole thing. Why not the black man?

I think RS and AK are quite aware that they are racist-no doubt in their minds, so they use the hope of racist attitudes on the parts of others to blame it on the black guy-first with PL and then with RG.

You are not going to get a confession out of someone who is psychotic as you would someone who is normal and has some guilty feelings-AK has no guilt feelings-none-her only fear is that she might actually be punished for (I imagine the first time in her life) her misbehavior-never has faced consequences-never. Even RS in the brief time he knows her is aware AK is not grounded in reality, she is motivated only by pleasure-her “quirkiness” is schizophrenia-hallucinations-feelings of grandeur-so above others that her pleasure and only her pleasure matters. She has no ability to recognize social cues-none-she is only able to see reality in terms of her own pleasure, does reality please her or not-and MK confronting her does not please her.

Violence and the horror of the murder were very enjoyable by AK and the game of “getting away with it”. It is afterwards, only when she is thinking “it could have been me killed-what if I had been MK” that she has her odd behavioral episodes where she is quite aware of the truth.

She is “lucky” this wasn’t tried in the U.S.-she would have experienced the police intimidation and rather more in prison than she got in Italy-only here, it would have been real-she would have had the crap beat out of her in jail-unless (and what may have stopped it in prison there) people perceived she is completely wacko-out of reality as everyone says. Even hardened criminals don’t mess with wacko-you never know what wacko is going to do and never know if it is catching.

RG, was beat up in prison in Italy because he was black-documented and he is the only one fully convicted. RS, particularly, and AK by inference did their frame up well-blame it on the black guy-put up all the fake evidence. As for the clean-up and moving MK’s body-AK is the big picture, lets try this, but RS he is the detail man-shows in their handwriting. I could get into details on how, but that is a long story.

One thing that is consistent of all three-the narcissism and trying to push any evidence away from them-all three fail to use any kind of margin in their handwriting-altho other characteristics such as the heavy pressure of RG’s handwriting and the inconsistent slant of RS’s handwriting show rather different stories-all 3 fill the entire page-no margins-it would be interesting to see handwriting from before their falsify the truth writing-have they always been so self-consumed and pushed any other opinion that was not their own out?

The bruising on the thighs (I need to look at the actual photos of injuries which I haven’t) position would be interesting-I still believe that RG did not do his sexual behavior on MK because of an interest in her but because of an interest in AK-and AK isn’t about to go for a black guy-but she will use them for a frame up. Her racism towards blacks and others of very dark skin-not necessarily hispanics-is quite apparent in her book.

Another thing I find very odd. Why did Rudy flee to Germany? Why Germany when he felt they were more racist than another country? Why Germany? AK has relation in Germany-RG does not-did she suggest Germany to him? Did she see him and suggest that he flee-he is “protective” of AK at the very beginning-until he discovers she sold him out? He expects RS to sell him out-again makes the comment that RS says we have a black man to lay the guilt on which is why he fled Italy to begin with-but why to Germany? AK was not glued at the hip with RS until after the discovery of the murder by others-while she was still acting as a free agent, did she have a talk with RG? I just wonder, if, that morning while she was allegedly cleaning up at her home and noticed things if she did not actually meet with RG and tell him RS was going to frame him, but she would “protect him” and put the bug in his ear to go to Germany “if he must flee-pitting RG against RS would appeal to her pleasure principle life.

RG is the most likely to be “honest” in the end but the only one who is likely to get the truth from him would be Patrick L.-the one falsely accused by AK-more likely to trust a brother that was set up than any official government person or even a lawyer.

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 05/17/14 at 05:40 PM | #

There is quite a difference between ‘concern’ and ‘kindness’.

Also between a conscious confession, and letting truthful facts or details slip out, probably more likely in an open, not overly confrontational atmosphere.

I am impressed with Rita Ficarra, from the transcripts, although it’s not a world I have any experience of.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/17/14 at 07:20 PM | #

@ SeekingUnderstanding. My high impression of Rita Ficarra is based on having been in her same position as a witness hundred’s of times, in every one of which cross-examining attorneys were focused on attacking my own credibility, so I too have experienced that aspect of her world, hence my Comments above.

The translated transcripts seem quite faithful to a real court-world, with inept statements, inept questions and with repeated objections interrupting the flow.

She’s obviously been there many times too.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/17/14 at 11:11 PM | #

SeekingUnderstanding-I don’t mean to be pessimistic but I don’t think a lesson to be learned when AK is found finally guilty is going to happen in the U.S. We have become a nation of limited attention-span where truth doesn’t matter but only the entertainment value of our reality T.V. show. Americans find truth and things that should horrify them boring and just want to be where the action is.

What is obviously fake and where truth can be observed to anyone with a critical mind, I can’t say that the population of the U.S. as a whole is capable of critical thinking-everything is reality t.v.-everything is a show and “truth” or the status thereof is unimportant, most U.S. folk only listen to whoever happens to yell the loudest and gives the biggest bang for the buck. Then the emotions are whipped up and we are a country of group think.

We think we have “diversity” when there is no diversity of thought-only different flavors of group-think. Facts, logic, critical thinking are beyond the capacity of most Americans which is why the spin factor and who has the most money to put behind their “reality” show wins. And the U.S. just loves their “victims”. Americans as a whole are a rather narcissistic ethnocentric lot who think they are superior to others-at least the loud ones do. Always screaming about their “rights” and how mistreated they are by whoever is the current identified oppressor who we can just fabricate lies about and engage in name-calling and believe that is the extent of debate. Further, we blame others for everything-always the victims-and never accept responsibility for blame-attack, never defend-that is our “leadership” style.
And if you can’t say your argument in 15 second sound bites, Americans are not really interested in listening-all wrapped up in selfish misery-we love our spin and it must be in limited sound bites. Detailed piecing together of facts and evidence is excruciating, gossip is so much easier. It is not really gullibility, it is arrogance. We honestly believe we are the Queen Bee and every other country is middle-ages, or back woods, or third world, depending on the speaker. If you are American, you are always “superior” to others-“the best health care system in the world”; our president is “the most powerful person in the world”, we are the “leaders of the free world”, No one is as good, smart, sophisticated as Americans-we never even bother to learn other languages when we travel-oh, no, everyone must learn our language-never the other way around.

The U.S. will never learn-nope ran by the media entertainment complex. We are simply here to make lots of money and engage in conspicuous consumption. The only way you can teach most people is to put on a better, glitzier show than the other person-out manipulate them.

I mean, why would an American Publisher put out books that allow people to profit from their crimes? That is illegal. But we are all about money and arrogance-we don’t care who we slander, just how well it is done.

Most people haven’t the slightest idea or care who AK is. Of course, they don’t know MK actually existed or who Rudy Guede is. They have no idea these are minority members. Everyone is white and everyone hates Americans. End of story.

AK has up a paypal donation site for her defense on her blog. I am thinking about donating 50 cents-maybe that will send a message-several donations of 50 cents. You don’t just not leave a tip here if your wait staff was bad, you leave a penny. AK knows those that don’t “believe her” and that don’t donate to her are “haters” but bombard her with 25 cent or 50 cent donations and that sends a very clear message.

 

That is why the AK supporters love the Hellman (is that the “innocent” verdict?) It is short and simplistic, black and white, negating most information in favor of “emotions”-whereas the other judicial findings of guilt are incredibly detailed and can’t be digested in 15 second sound bites.

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 05/18/14 at 01:26 AM | #

@Friendofstfrank
Oh dear. Being English, one is of course aware of ‘the American way.’
One just hoped it wasn’t as bad as it seems. It doesn’t bode well for the future, does it? Inevitably, the USA will become more isolated, wrapped in its bubble.

However, thank goodness there are a few exceptions to every rule! I have found when Americans ARE thoughtful, self-critical, educated in the true sense, and self-aware - they really are admirable, and usually very good- mannered, too.

And too, we have the same element over here, gathering far too much credence. That’s why I put ‘lessons to be learnt’ in commas…far too often nowadays, this phrase is trotted out in a flurry of ripe insincerity, with no intention of learning anything at all (just altering the spin, as you say).
Our NHS is a case is point. It is dysfunctional, and just rolling down the hill, a juggernaut bound to crash.

But - dare I be optimistic? - there does remain here a good middle-class intelligentsia, for want of a better phrase, who do have active conscience, and learning, and are prepared to act on it, and speak out.
Something of the British nature, -the stiff upper lip-ness, the instinct for cynical realism, our individualism or eccentricity, the appreciation of satire…does tend to come through, and have a good affect.

I have been heartened by the way over the last year, or less, the public opinion has shifted in the Knox case, and the PR nonsense has been seen for exactly what it is.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/18/14 at 03:09 AM | #

@Cardiol
Thank you. I wondered also about your impression of Anna Donnino . Knox seems to be derogatory towards her in her book, which would seem to be a great mistake.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/18/14 at 04:25 AM | #

Hi SeekingUnderstanding and Cardiol

Interpreter Anna Donnino’s testimony comes next (Post #5).

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/18/14 at 04:44 AM | #

Odysseus wrote:

“What is it that is so intriguing about this case? I’d like to know because part of me (a big part)is getting tired with it yet I’m continually drawn back ...”

I’m weary of it too, in the same way as the Kercher family.  Just when will this thing end?

As for the current state of play, the verdict has come, the report has been tabled, the defences are preparing their last hurrahs, the Supreme Court will rule, the extradition will be prepared, she will return to Italy and RS will go inside too.

That’s enough for me - that will do just fine thanks.

As for Guede, how could he possibly eligible to come out?  Sixteen years is sixteen years, surely?

Posted by James Higham on 05/18/14 at 05:27 AM | #

James and Odysseus

Corrupting of the Hellmann court added three years to the process. This was no fault of the Italian system. And big bucks kept it going.

You can surely be proud of what you have done though. You stuck by a beleagured family with few resources of their own and the memory of someone who may have had an amazing career.

US and UK media have moved to the center with minor exceptions on CNN and in the Guardian. Italian media were always there.

And the number of those seeing guilt and legitimacy has increased multiple time. A vindication for what is really a gentle and civilized country.

******

James, it does seem disproportionate, especially as Guede might have saved Meredith’s life. He did offer to tell all at trial in 2009 in exchange for a beak though.

But the Hellmann/PR/media onslaught and thus a need for this was not foreseen.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/18/14 at 05:58 AM | #

@friendsofstfrank

That’s a grim picture you paint of the general US population and their short attention spans! It certainly makes scary sense to me.  Still as SeeklingUnderstanding points out, it is a generalisation - we all know and have American friends who aren’t like that, some of whom are in the UK (so maybe they got out when they could. Only joking! grin

James and Peter: Yes you’re right, things are moving forward in a positive way and even the US and UK media are getting the message slowly (with notable exceptions). And yes, I suppose it is rather self-indulgent to feel tired with the process at times, considering what the Kercher family must have been feeling for all these years.

I think it’s a shame that the less privileged in America only get to see the rest of the world when they are sent
by their government to kill “rag-heads” and other assorted evil foreigners. It’s no wonder this is broadly the tranche of the population that infest FOA web sites,  with their pathetic tirades agains the medieval “eye-talians”. In fact it must have been a massive culture shock for AK herself to find a level of sophistication she had never encountered at home. At least in the UK (though God knows we have our own xenophobic idiots) it is quite normal for average working people to take vacations in Europe, inevitably making them less insular.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/18/14 at 12:20 PM | #

Sadly it’s true. If you look at the latest CCTV clip then all the screaming is about that and the rest of the evidence (What’s That?) can go to hell.

Americans are not interested in the truth they just want to be entertained. Not everyone obviously, but those that scream the loudest. What’s the quote concerning empty vessels?

In all honesty I cannot fathom such people as Bruce Fischer who totally ignore the evidence and insist that it does not exist. Steve Moore is just a self serving carpet baggar who could care less for Knox since he just cares about making a name for himself.

The point is there are people of intelligence out there who still refute the evidence which is a puzzle, since it’s so very obvious and that there is so much of it.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/18/14 at 01:26 PM | #

Peter, why are you trawling the Ozarks in search of methheads? Please be careful!

Posted by mimi on 05/19/14 at 03:15 PM | #

Hi Mimi

Thank you for caring! Thats my comment at 05/16/14 at 09:09 PM way up there you are reading. I suppose it might need some explaining.

It was the affected communities I wanted to see, methheads themselves are (or were) not unknown in the NYC area.  Communities is my real work; or rather, growth is and I think best prospects are local.

Its very hard to get good growth practices working nationally in the US, it is just too big, but area by area a lot can be done. I didnt see enough of the Ozarks to spot anything special though the area if you know it is not un-pretty.

Professor Chami and I have touched on this here, now and then, because root causes interest us. Poor skill-sets and poor prospects could do a lot to explain the super-angry Bruce Fischers who bedevil the justice for Meredith process while not leaving Knox better off either in the third act.

Perhaps one could say the same about Knox herself? Head of a parade of the super-angry?  Vivianna’s next post is on this. 

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/19/14 at 04:02 PM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry The Knox Interrogation Hoax #4: More Hard Realities From Rita Ficcara, Nervousness From Defense

Or to previous entry The Knox Interrogation Hoax #2: Trial Testimony From Rita Ficcara On Realities 5-6 Nov