Correcting Netflix 24 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #3
Knox again failing to convince 18 months later in court
(Long post, click here to go straight to Comments.)
1. Status Of Things At The Time
This follows from Post 1 and Post 2.
Six weeks after Meredith had died - in Perugia’s first murder for many years - a lot of events had occurred. Guede had been caught and Patrick finally released, through no help from Knox. Many leads had been followed up. All evidence emerging pointed only to the three.
The Matteini and Riciarelli oversight courts had received and reviewed copious evidence directly from the investigators, and had decided that AK and RS could be a flight risk and risk to witnesses and should remain locked up. Contradictions in their statements were rife.
Stuck with massive evidence, the defenses increasingly narrowed to a two-pronged attack: (1) Blame Guede and (2) Blame the police. It was not really begun here, as you can see, but soon did and continued to crescendo for seven years.
This unusual interrogation invited by Knox could actually have helped to get her released, if it had helped to prove either of the above. But in this final hour it becomes blindingly obvious to all present that Knox has boxed herself in.
So this became in effect a dry run for her second interrogation at the 2009 trial. That also was initiated by Knox and beamed more narrowly to fight the charge that she had feloniously impugned Patrick for Meredith’s death.
That was a far more public fail. This interrogation in December 2007 was not really reported, because the court ruled to keep the media out, as it did many times (oh, you didn’t know that?!)
But in June 2009 Knox was widely watched in Italy on the video feed from the court, and for many or most open-minded Italians that was it, there was no going back, to them Knox simply permeated guilt.
Our report then from Florence in part.
I don’t believe her. It is interesting to see Amanda Knox being cool and self-confident, but testifying about how disturbed she became when the police became pushy during her interrogation. It doesn’t fit.
And it comes across as untrustworthy and contradictory that when asked about her drug use, she puts on a “schoolgirl”’ attitude: In effect “Sorry, daddy judge, I was bad, don’t punish me for being young”. This seems definitely out of order with the rest of her performance.
“Performance” is the impression I get from viewing the segments shown from the court - a well-rehearsed performance. I suppose that the jury will wonder how this cool person can forget whether she has replied to a sms-message, how she can get so confused that she names Patrick, afterwards “is too afraid to speak to anyone but her mother”, and so on.
Our report then from Milan in part.
As many of us were expecting, Amanda’s testimony has backfired. She came across not as confident but arrogant, not as sweet but testy, not as true but a fake who has memorized a script, an actress who is playing a part but not well enough to fool the public.
It is true that the Italian media and public opinion in general have not been very benign with Knox. But not for the reasons that the American media seem to want to push. Let’s make it clear, Amanda Knox is not on trial because Italians are unaccustomed to or even “jealous” of her freedom and lifestyle”¦ The first time we read these “explanations” we found them quite laughable.
But for many or most Italians the initial amusement has now given way to a profound irritation. Amanda Knox’s lifestyle is shared by hundreds of thousands of Italian girls, who like partying and sex as much as she does - or even more - and they live a happy carefree life with no fear of being perceived as “bad girls.” They behave no differently from any other girl of the same age in America or in any other Western country.
2. The 17 December Interrogation Knox Requested (Part 3 Of 3)
Note: This is the third hour of three hours. The excellent translation is by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. The original in Italian is in the Wiki Case File here; it has been accessed nearly 4,000 times.
Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of interview Of Ms Amanda Knox (cont)
[Ed note: start of overlap with Post #2]
PM Mignini: Well, but in the meanwhile, did two other young people arrive?
Knox: Yes after the police arrived, I led them into the house, because I thought they were those Raffaele had called, and I showed them that the door was locked and I showed them the window was broken and in the meanwhile Filomena and the boyfriend arrived”¦
Interpreter: Yes when the two police officers arrived, she thought they were those Raffaele had called and so she showed them”¦
Knox: And also two friends of hers [arrived]
Interpreter: “¦ Meredith’s locked room and Filomena’s room with the broken glass, with the broken window and then Filomena with her boyfriend arrived and also other two young people”¦
PM Mignini: Oh”¦ so you”¦ you entered, I ask you this once more, you didn’t enter Filomena’s room, did you enter the other rooms?
Knox: It’s not that I went to look around, but I opened Laura’s door, that was all ok, there the bed was done up. There was the computer, so it was all ok.
Interpreter: She opened Laura’s room and she saw it was all in order
PM Mignini: Did you enter the room?
Knox: Maybe one step but I didn’t go inside
Interpreter: Maybe she made a step but she didn’t go around much
PM Mignini: And in which other”¦ did you enter other rooms?
Knox: I entered my room, and I tried to open the door of Meredith’s room
[Ed note: end of overlap with Post #2]
[73]
Interpreter: She entered her room, and tried to enter Meredith’s room but it was locked
PM Mignini: And so what did you”¦ what happened at that point?
Knox: After Filomena arrived, she handled the talking with the police, and I stayed in the kitchen with Raffaele
Interpreter: After Filomena arrived, it was Filomena talking with the two officers and Amanda and Raffaele remained in the kitchen
PM Mignini: And so did you two see”¦ what happened next? You two, did you see?
Knox: I know the police opened Meredith’s room
Interpreter: She knows the police opened Meredith’s room
PM Mignini: You know that because they told you?
Knox: No, no, I was in the kitchen, and from there I could see they were beside Meredith’s room, but I was not there, I was in the kitchen
Interpreter: No, no, she saw that from the kitchen
PM Mignini: But you, what did you see of Meredith’s room?
Knox: I did not see inside the room
PM Mignini: You didn’t see anything”¦
Interpreter: She didn’t see down into the inside of the room
PM Mignini: So did you see the scene? Neither you nor Raffaele?
Interpreter: No
Knox: No we didn’t see
PM Mignini: Neither of you two, when they opened it, where were you?
Knox: In the kitchen
[74]
Interpreter: In the kitchen
PM Mignini: So you were a few meters away
Knox: Yes, yes
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: In what area of the kitchen were you staying?
Knox: more or less near the entrance
Interpreter: In the.. near the [outside] entrance of the kitchen”¦
PM Mignini: About the entrance, you mean the house entrance, just beyond”¦ so you were”¦
Knox: Yes we were inside
Interpreter: Yes
PM Mignini: When they entered, then was the door immediately closed again?
Interpreter: With the officers?
PM Mignini: Meredith’s [room].
Knox: I don’t know, they just told me to get out of the house
Interpreter: She doesn’t know, because they told her to get out of the house
PM Mignini: The Carabinieri, at what time did they arrive? Did [some people] wearing black uniforms come? Other police officers?
Knox: The Carabinieri came”¦ at that point I was very frightened”¦ I don’t remember when they arrived, I’m sure that was after, when I went out, and I sat on the ground and I couldn’t understand what was going on”¦
Interpreter: The Carabinieri arrived afterwards when I was outside
PM Mignini: How long after the arrival of the two plain-clothed police officers?
[75]
Knox: I’ve already said in these instances it’s too difficult to define the time, because I only remember Filomena saying “A foot! A foot!” We were pushed out, there were police officers outside and I sat on the ground, I couldn’t”¦ I was under shock and couldn’t understand what happened”¦
Interpreter: What Amande remembers is that after Meredith’s door was opened, Filomena was screaming “A foot! A foot!” and Amanda was told to get out of the house and it’s hard to explain at this point, to tell if she was frightened..
PM MIgnini: When did the Carabinieri come? When? After the body had been discovered?
Knox: I saw the Carabinieri when I went out, I don’t know when they came”¦
Interpreter: She saw the Carabinieri when she got out of the house, she doesn’t know when they came
PM MIgnini: But the Carabinieri did not enter? You did not see them inside the house.
Knox: No I don’t think so”¦
Interpreter: No
PM MIgnini: So you saw them when you went out, so was that after a long time since the arrival of the Postal Police? After”¦ ten minutes, fifteen minutes?
Knox: Yes, maybe after some ten minutes, I was still in shock and I was scared so it’s difficult to tell at what time the various things happened”¦
Interpreter: It’s difficult for her to say how much time had passed because she was in shock but something like ten minutes must have passed
PM MIgnini: Oh well, I wanted to know this: did Raffaele tell you about what was in the room?
[76]
Knox: Before, he didn’t know himself what was inside the room
Interpreter: Before, he didn’t even know himself
Knox: But after, when they were all talking”¦ he found out yes”¦ After the police was there and we were all outside together I don’t know who told him but it must have been Filomena or I don’t know who else”¦ but someone explained him that it was not just a foot in the room but the body”¦ but what they saw of it was the foot”¦ So he explained to me that the body was in the room, but you could only see the foot.
Interpreter: When she was outside with Raffaele, to [sic] him, he understood that it was not just a foot but it was the body that had been found
PM MIgnini: But he told you, did he tell you textually “there was a girl’s body inside the wardrobe covered with a sheet, and the only thing you could see was a foot”. This, did Raffaele tell it to you?
(the interpreter, at this point translates the question asked by PM MIgnini this way: “did Raffaele tell you that in the room there was the body covered by a cover?)
Knox: Yes
Lawyer: She [the interpreter] did not say: in the wardrobe?
PM MIgnini: These are your statements. You declared on December 2”¦. on November 2. “¦ On November 2. 2007 at the first questioning when you were heard, the very first one, a few hours after the discovery of the body, you told, you said Raffaele told you that “in the wardrobe, there was the body of a girl covered by a sheet and the only thing you could see was a foot”. Is this true, that Raffaele told you this?
Lawyer: Please judge, could you read it to us?
[77]
PM MIgnini: So “in the wardrobe..” Excuse me, please translate this word by word to her”¦ “in the wardrobe there was the body of a girl covered with a sheet and the only thing that you could see was a foot”
Knox: As Raffaele said
Interpreter: This is as Raffaele told it to Amanda”¦
PM MIgnini: Yes, she said this in the first [2 November] questioning.
Knox: Yes, apparently, it seemed to me, he told me the body was in the wardrobe”¦ it’s this that he told me”¦ obviously he did not see himself inside the room, it was things that were told to him by someone else”¦
Interpreter: Yes, on November 2. she said so because it’s what Raffaele told her. Because not even what he thought he understood [sic “neanche quello che secondo lui ha capito”]... Since he did not see”¦ he did not see inside the room”¦. Raffaele told her that way
PM MIgnini: These are textual, precise words so? “¦ I may read them again to you”¦ You confirmed”¦
Lawyer: She confirmed that Raffaele heard other people saying that maybe this was the version, and he referred this version, referring to something he heard
PM MIgnini: I read them again, I can read them again”¦.
Lawyer: We’ve read it, you explained to us
PM MIgnini: So on November 2. you say, that means the first questioning at 15: 30, this is the first one, the most aseptic one let’s say, so: “I learned in that moment from my boyfriend that inside Meredith’s room in the wardrobe there was the body of a girl covered with a sheet and the only thing you could see was a foot”.
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
[76]
PM MIgnini: You confirm that he spoke to you this way
Knox: Yes
Interpreter: Yes
Lawyer: She pointed out to the previous question, the source from which Raffaele had this information
Interpreter: Raffaele did not see, so it was what it seemed to him
Lawyer: Raffaele collected this information from other people
Interpreter: From the people around, Carabinieri and other young people
PM MIgnini: But excuse me, excuse me, did Raffaele tell you this, did he tell you “this one told me, that one told me”, or instead Raffaele limited himself to just telling you this? What did Raffaele tell you?
Knox: I think it was Filomena’s friends who told him
Interpreter: She thinks it was Filomena’s [male] friend who told Raffaele
PM MIgnini: You think”¦
Knox: I don’t know who told him
PM MIgnini: Excuse me”¦
Interpreter: Yes she thinks but doesn’t know
PM MIgnini: Excuse me, the question was as follows, here’s the question”¦ Are you ready? “¦ So, Raffaele comes to you”¦
Knox: Yes
PM MIgnini: And what does he say? “There is the body of a girl in the wardrobe, covered with a sheet, and you can only see a foot”? Or did he say “someone told me that there is the body of a girl” and said who [told him]?
[79]
Knox: I understand”¦ I understand”¦ He said precisely “Apparently there is a girl, there is the body of a girl, in the wardrobe”¦ But the only thing that you can see is her foot”
Interpreter: He did not say who told him, he just said “it seems like”¦” and “apparently”¦”
PM MIgnini: He said so: “It seems like”¦” ?
Interpreter: Yes
PM MIgnini: The body is in the wardrobe covered with a sheet, and you only see a foot
Interpreter: Yes it seems like they say apparently
PM MIgnini: Oh, then when did you know, you, how Meredith died?
Lawyer: How Meredith was dead?
PM MIgnini: That she was dead, and about how she died
Knox: The police told me
PM MIgnini: When did they tell you?
Knox: At the beginning they didn’t tell us if was Meredith or not, Filomena said “Oh no, Meredith!” so I imagined it was her but I didn’t know”¦ So at the Questura when they were already questioning they told me then that it was Meredith. I don’t remember the exact moment when they told me but it was at the Questura”¦
Interpreter: She actually learned this when she was at the Questura, later, before she learned about the body of a girl and then she heard Filomena saying “Oh my god, its Meredith!” and hence”¦
[80]
PM Mignini: And about the way she was killed, when did you come to know that? Excuse me, I’ll give you an example, she could have been shot with a gun, with a stab, poisoned”¦ I mean”¦
Knox: I didn’t know how she was killed”¦ I thought that there was this foot in the room but didn’t know anything else”¦ The police…
Interpreter: The police told her
PM : When? Who told you from the police?
Knox: I don’t remember
Interpreter: She doesn’t remember
Lawyer: No, but she also said that she doesn’t know how she was killed”¦
PM Mignini: This is important: therefore you don’t know how she was killed?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No, she didn’t know
PM Mignini: You didn’t know how she was killed, what was it the police telling you?
Knox: The police told me that her throat had been cut”¦ and from what they told me I had pictured something horrible”¦
Interpreter: The police told her that her throat had been cut
PM Mignini: Who told you from the police?
Knox: I don’t remember
Interpreter: Eh, she doesn’t know who
PM Mignini: Well, a man, a woman”¦?
Knox: I don’t remember
Interpreter: I don’t remember
[81]
PM Mignini : And when were you told?
Knox: When I was at the questura, but I don’t remember. When they interrogated me the first time I remember that they said “we don’t even know if it’s Meredith” I don’t remember when they told me, I only remember that the police told me when I was in the Questura because I didn’t know what had happened”¦
Interpreter: She only remembers that she was in the questura when she came to know how
PM Mignini: At what time?
Knox: I don’t remember”¦
Interpreter: I don’t remember.
PM Mignini: After having talked, after you were heard at the Questura, did you go away or did you wait?
Knox: The first day I was questioned I was there for hours”¦ maybe 14”¦
Interpreter: The first time it seems to her that she had been there a very long time, 14 hours
PM Mignini: But questioned
Knox: No, maybe they questioned me for 6 hours but I stayed at the Questura a very long time”¦
Interpreter: It must have been more or less 6 hours that Amanda was questioned but staying in the Questura must have been about”¦
PM Mignini: But was there”¦ were you in the waiting room?
Knox: Yes the whole time together with everyone else we were there in the waiting room”¦
Interpreter Yes, yes together with the other ones
PM Mignini: And who were the other people?
[82]
Knox: The housemates, and later others arrived”¦ After quite a long time our neighbors arrived, after a while some people Meredith knew arrived, her friends
Interpreter: Her housemates and then other people who arrived later, the neighbors after a while”¦ and after, Meredith’s friends arrived, the people Meredith knew”¦
PM Mignini: But did you speak to them? Did you exchange any confidences?
Knox: Yes we were all there and I said “it appears that Meredith’s body was found in a closet”
PM Mignini: Who said that?
Knox: I remember talking to her friends and I remember telling them that it appeared the body had been found inside a closet”¦
Interpreter: She remembers having said it to Meredith’s friends
PM Mignini: But friends, who? You must tell us the name”¦ a name even just the name”¦
Knox: I remember having talked to Sophie”¦ But I don’t know the name of the other friends
PM Mignini: A certain Natalie? From London
Knox: The name sounds familiar but I don’t think I could recognize her face
Interpreter: She can’t tie the name to her face but”¦
PM Mignini: And what were you saying? What kind of comments were you making?
[83]
Knox: I told them what I knew, I told them that I had arrived home and found the door open, and told them what I knew”¦
Interpreter: She told what she knew that she had arrived home and found the door open
PM Mignini: Did you ever see, did you see in those moments the wound on Meredith’s neck?
Interpreter: Up to the moment?
PM Mignini: In that moment.
Knox: I never saw Meredith dead, I never saw her dead body”¦
Interpreter: No, she never saw her dead
PM Mignini: Ok, but was there anyone that night who said, anyone who said that she had died quickly? Did someone else say that she must have suffered for a long time”¦ was there anyone who said this?
Knox: Nobody of the people I talked to knew what had happened”¦
Interpreter: No, none of the people she talked to said something”¦ knew what had happened
PM Mignini: Did you come to know, did you ever come to know, and if yes, when, in what moment, Meredith had died”¦ that is, if Meredith’s death was immediate or if it was prolonged, if there was a death agony”¦ if yes, when did you find that out?
Knox: The only time when I heard of this was when Luciano [Ghirga] was describing the wound and how deep it was”¦ What kind of wound it was and he said “maybe she died slowly because no big vein had been struck”
Interpreter: So, the first time you had heard talking about the wound and how she died”¦ when was it with Luciano?
Lawyer: The morning of the 8th
[84]
PM Mignini: So, after the 6th…
Lawyer: The morning of the 8th
PM Mignini: The morning of November 8th
Lawyer: After the arrest validation [hearing]
Interpreter: And there she found out that no vital vein was directly struck and therefore”¦
PM Mignini: You say that she came to know on the 8th from the lawyer.
Lawyer: From the lawyers.
PM Mignini: From the lawyers, sorry.
Lawyer: We always came all together
PM Mignini: Either one or the other [of you] could have told her”¦ so”¦ [talking to Knox] I formally notify [for the record, a contradiction] that an Erasmus student and a colleague of this student, they said, on this past December 10th that on the night of the second in the Questura, while having”¦ a girl called Natalie, I won’t tell you her last name but she”¦ she was a friend of Meredith, she had noticed that you were talking at length with Sollecito, and at a certain point, in response to a comment made by one of these girls that they hoped Meredith had died without suffering, you instead said ” with those kind of wounds the death would not have come fast and that therefore Meredith must have died after a certain period of time”. I’ll reread it to you if you’d like, ok?
Knox: The police told me that her throat was cut, and what I know about that topic, I mean when they cut your throat, it is terrible and I heard that it’s a horrible way to die”¦
Interpreter: Yes the police had told her that Meredith’s throat was cut and what Amanda knew is that it’s an agonizing way to die”¦
[85]
PM Mignini: But this is something we found out after, we too found it out only later”¦ not right away”¦
Knox: The police told me that her throat had been cut.
Interpreter: The police had told her that her throat had been cut.
PM Mignini: Who from the police? Excuse me I’d like to know”¦ cutting the neck, it can happen in many ways, vital veins can be struck and might also not be struck, therefore one thing is about cutting the throat, and another is about the way how to cut it and therefore make it so that the death occurs instantaneously, or cause a death with agony. On the evening of the second, if it’s true, according to these results, on the evening of the second you knew that, with those kind of wounds, she must have suffered an agony”¦ and the police didn’t know that”¦
Knox: I thought that a death by cutting the throat was always slow and terrible”¦
PM Mignini: The autopsy was made on the fourth, two days later
Interpreter: What she thought was that cutting the throat was always a slow death in general
PM Mignini: It’s not like that”¦not necessarily”¦ anyway, who from the police told you about the neck wound? Tell us.
Knox: It was probably the interpreter”¦the first interpreter was the person I talked to the most”¦ all information I had came more or less from him”¦
Interpreter: Probably the translator/interpreter
PM Mignini: Therefore, therefore he told you while you were being heard”¦
Lawyer: She was in there 12 hours
[86]
Knox: When I was in there I was talking to the police and they told me that her throat was cut”¦ the whole conversation was between me and the interpreter. It was him who must have told me, a long time has passed but I think it was like that”¦
Interpreter: Directly from the interpreter, indirectly from the police
PM Mignini: So [it was] when you were questioned. Not before.
Interpreter: No, before she was questioned she didn’t know how she was”¦
Knox: No, when I was home the way she died”¦
PM Mignini: Before being questioned”¦ you were questioned until 15:30, until what time have you been heard? You were being heard since 15:30, until what time were you being heard?
Knox: I don’t know it was a long questioning”¦
Lawyer: She had been heard in the presence of an interpreter, maybe the interpreter”¦
PM Mignini: It was D’Astolto”¦ Fabio D’Astolto
Lawyer: The interpreter was present from the beginning or only from the questioning onwards?
PM Mignini: Yes, well he was a policeman acting as an interpreter, translating. Fabio D’Astolto. Assistant D’Astolto. When and how, in what terms did D’Astolto express himself, this translator what did he tell you?
Lawyer: When?
PM Mignini: When and what did he tell you
Knox: I don’t remember when but I asked him how she died
Interpreter: She doesn’t remember when but she asked him how she was killed”¦
PM Mignini: And he pointed out to you the wound on the neck. The wound on the neck and that’s all. Fine. This translator.
[87]
Lawyer: [to the Prosecutor] You referred to an Erasmus student who had said that on December 10th. Ms. Natalie would have said this.
PM Mignini: Yes
Lawyer: And is the Erasmus student indicated [in the records]?
PM Mignini: It is indicated
Lawyer: Do we have a name?
PM Mignini: Capruzzi, Filippo and the other one is a certain, a colleague of his, Chiara, Maioli.
Lawyer: So it was two Erasmus students
PM Mignini: Two Erasmus students who confirmed this confidentiality from this English girl. Some”¦ this is the December 10th hearing report”¦ ok
Lawyer G. She clarified if she had talked with the interpreter, with someone before”¦
Lawyer C. We have clarified that the interpreter was not an interpreter but was a police officer who speaks English and that apparently was present from the beginning and therefore at this point…
PM Mignini: Wait.. one moment”¦ did you, did you”¦ did you see this person who was translating at the house?
Knox: No
Interpreter: No
PM Mignini: Perfect
Lawyer: She was approximately 12 hours in the Questura and at some time she heard the first… let’s call it questioning but it was a long time, and before the questioning she heard of this wound on the neck, is that right?
[88]
PM Mignini: During the questioning, you said before, during the questioning so much as this policeman translator was present, therefore”¦ no I’m very sorry, who did you hear this from? The translator? The policeman
Interpreter: About the wound? The first time?
PM Mignini: The wound
Knox: I think so
Knox: The first time?
PM Mignini: Yeah
Interpreter: I think the interpreter the first time
PM Mignini: And it would be this D’Astolto”¦ so this D’Astolto told you, please excuse me you told me this “it was D’Astolto” now”¦ therefore this D’Astolto told you this during the course of the questioning?
Knox: I think so”¦
Interpreter: Yes, she thinks so
PM Mignini: Ok, one more thing, so the”¦ you did, the morning of the”¦ actually no, the night between the fifth and the sixth of November, you did, let’s say partially modify your previous declarations, so then you modified your previous declarations and you made a specific accusation against Patrick Dia Lumumba known as Patrick. You said that you were supposed to meet with Patrick, that you met with Patrick at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana, that you went to Meredith’s house, to your house, and then he had sex with Meredith, then you heard a scream and you accused him even if in terms you say “confusedly” of killing Meredith. Isn’t that so? Why did you make this accusation? “¦ Now remember, I was hearing you, I was present, you were crying, you were
[89]
profoundly upset, and you were as if relieved when you made this statement.
Lawyer: Maybe she was stressed?
PM Mignini: Well, stressed or not, in any case she was very she made these declarations
Lawyer: You asked her a question “Why did you make these declarations”?
PM Mignini: Well I also have to”¦
Lawyer: Eh these are opinions
PM Mignini: I am saying that you made a declaration not in a detached way, in other words in a very involved manner, why did you make these statements?
Knox: I was scared, I was confused, it had been hours that the police that I thought were protecting me, and instead they were putting me under pressure and were threatening me.
Interpreter: She was scared, she was confused, it had been hours that the police were threatening and pressuring her.
PM Mignini: Yes, tell me, go on
Knox: The reason why I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick”¦ they kept saying about this message, that I had sent a message to Patrick”¦
Interpreter: The reason why she thought of Patrick was because the police was asking her who was this Patrick to whom she sent, with whom there was this exchange of messages, they were asking her insistently.
Knox: That was the worse experience of my life
Interpreter: The worse experience of her life
[90]
Knox: I had never been more confused than then
Interpreter: She had been so confused or scared
PM Mignini: But in the following memoriale [spontaneous statement around noon 6 November] that you wrote before going to prison, basically you don’t retract this accusation. Even if in terms, still in terms let’s say of uncertainty, between dream and reality, in other words in such a way “¦ still you didn’t “¦ I believe that in this memoriale you say “I still see this image in front of me” and then you see yourself while hearing it, you say that in that first memoriale you wrote “you hear Meredith’s screams and you put your hands over your ears”. Why do you have this image? Your ears”¦ the scream”¦ it’s not like it’s changing much after all isn’t that so?
Lawyer: No, but she says she was very confused”¦ she was under a lot of stress
PM Mignini: Yes, but why does it basically remain the same, this one”¦
Knox: Yes, I imagined these things”¦
Interpreter: Imagined this scene
Knox: I was so scared and confused
Interpreter: I was so scared and confused
Knox: that I tried to imagine what could have happened. The police told me that I was probably not remembering well. So I thought of what could be another answer and therefore I imagined it”¦
Interpreter: She tried to think of what could have happened since the police was saying that probably she didn’t remember well. And therefore she imagined this scene, trying to think how it could have happened
PM Mignini: Well, you, I just tell you, I tell you only that this Dia Lumumba, this Patrick, only comes up in your statements, he wasn’t, he has never been indicated previously in the slightest, I mean why did you, why did you almost feel…
[91]
...forced to, so you say, to give this name? While this name had never been, you had never mentioned him previously”¦ in the statements of the 2nd, the 3rd”¦. Why only at a certain point di this Patrick pop up? I’m telling you, do you realize”¦ excuse me, eh? “¦ excuse me”¦.
Knox: They were telling me “why did you send this message to Patrick, this message to Patrick!”
Interpreter: Because they were always insisting about this message to Patrick and because”¦
PM Mignini: Well because there’s the message so [it’s] the message but it’s just that, it’s not that there was an attitude, I mean it’s not like there was any reference to a message according to what emerges from the statements. In fact there was a message that you”¦ since there had been an exchange of messages right before the time of the murder between you and this person it’s normal that the police would want to know why, what this message meant, this”¦ therefore it’s not something”¦ why did you threw yourself in this kind of”¦ ? While you had, you had the possibility to”¦?
Knox: Because I thought that it could have been true
Interpreter: Because she thought it could have been true”¦
PM Mignini: It could have been true?
Lawyer: Why?
Knox: When I was there, I was confused”¦
PM Mignini: [to the lawyers, ed.] No, no, excuse me, at this point no, I’m sorry. Not the lawyers. The defense can intervene against me but against the person investigated…?
Lawyer Ghirga: But there was no question”¦ Prosecutor there was no question
PM Mignini: It could be true. What does it mean?
[92]
Lawyer Ghirga: There was no question
PM Mignini: What? I am asking the question.
Lawyer Ghirga: Then ask it.
PM Mignini: What does it mean, how “˜could it be true’? What?
Lawyer Ghirga: What could be true?
PM Mignini: Excuse me, lawyer
Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents
PM Mignini: What could be true
Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents
PM Mignini: “¦Lawyer Ghirga”¦ what”¦?
Lawyer Ghirga: [seems to Knox] What do you want to say then? Let’s ask her”¦
PM Mignini: Excuse me, I am asking the questions, I am asking them now
Lawyer Ghirga Yes of course
PM Mignini: Then after you can”¦ I am asking her”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: Yes of course, we will ask them too”¦
PM Mignini: Lawyer”¦ she is saying “it could have been true””¦
Lawyer: What?
PM Mignini: “it could have been true”. She was telling me why did she accuse Lumumba of this fact? “It could have been true” is what she answered. Gentlemen, here”¦
Knox: I said it because I imagined it and I thought that it could have been true”¦
Interpreter: She said because she had imagined it and therefore she thought it could have been true.
[93]
PM Mignini: Look, listen”¦ listen, why did you imagine it?
Knox Why?... Because I was stressed
PM Mignini: Why didn’t you imagine”¦
Lawyer: No she was answering
PM Mignini: Yes; what did you want to say?
Interpreter: Because she was under stress”¦
Knox: Knox: Why? I was stressed, I was scared, it was after long hours in the middle of the night, I was innocent and they were telling me that I was guilty
Interpreter: Because they were saying that she was guilty
PM Mignini: Who was saying it? Guilty who’”¦.
Interpreter: After hours”¦
Lawyer: Excuse me, prosecutor, if we can correctly compile this translation, these words that were said in English at the right moment
PM Mignini: She is crying, we acknowledge, I’m sorry, we acknowledge that the”¦ investigated is crying.
Interpreter: Because she was stressed, scared under pressure after many hours, she was”¦ in the middle of the night, they had reached the middle of the night and because they were saying that Amanda was guilty.
PM Mignini: Who was saying that she was guilty?
Interpreter: The police
Lawyer: The police was accusing her
Interpreter: The police was accusing Amanda
[94]
PM Mignini: Why”¦ why did you accuse Lumumba and not others? How many people did you know who could”¦
Knox: Because they were yelling Patrick’s name”¦
Interpreter: She accused Patrick and not others because they were always talking about Patrick, suggesting”¦
PM Mignini: The police, the police couldn’t suggest…
Interpreter: Yelling Patrick’s name
PM Mignini: Excuse me, what was the police saying?
Interpreter: What did the police tell you?
Knox: The police were telling me that “˜we know that you were at the house, we know that you left the house’, and the moment before I said Patrick’s name they put.. someone was showing me the message that I had sent on the phone
Interpreter: The police said that they knew that Amanda was inside the house, and when she went in, when she went out, that she was inside the house, and while they were asking her this someone showed her Patrick’s message on the phone.
PM Mignini: But this is”¦ But this is normal. You”¦ there was this message”¦ I’m sorry, I’m very sorry. There’s a murder here. There’s a girl whose throat is slit, there was a phone number, there was a call that had been made, you were being heard. There was a call that had been made to you on the night of the murder from this person, you replied to this call in a way that could have been interpreted, according to the meaning in Italian “will see you”. Eh, so what is more normal than to insist? The police are doing their job. They insist to know, what did that mean, what was the, what relationship was there between you and Lumumba. This is normal.
[95]
Knox: I didn’t understand why they were insisting that I was lying”¦ they kept telling me that I was lying”¦
Interpreter: She didn’t understand why they were insisting that she was lying.
PM Mignini: Why are you”¦?
Interpreter: The police was insisting that she was lying.
PM Mignini: But why did you accuse, then if it was like this…. Again you are, you are crying again, for a long while since you started, I put in the record, I put in the record that”¦ it’s been ten minutes that you have been crying. Why did you accuse a person that, today, you’re telling us he is innocent, but earlier you just told us “it could be true” what does “it could be true” mean? You have told me “it could be true”.
Lawyer: The subject is missing
PM Mignini: No the subject is there, because I asked the question. Why did you accuse Lumumba?
Lawyer: Can we suspend a moment please?
PM Mignini: What reason?
Knox: It means that in the moment when I told Patrick’s name, I thought that it could have been true.
Interpreter: In the moment in which she said Patrick’s name, in that moment, she thought it could have been true.
Lawyer Ghirga: We ask for a suspension”¦ she is calm, you say she is crying, and we think she’s not.
PM Mignini: I put that in the record it because I could see the tears, she was crying and I could hear her too.
[96]
Lawyer: It was not ten minutes long
PM Mignini: Well, even more, maybe
Lawyer: maybe, no less
PM Mignini: Let’s interrupt, break off.
Lawyer: You asked her six times”¦
PM Mignini: For Heaven’s sake, let’s interrupt, break off.
(interruption)
[from this point on Amanda declares her right to remain silent]
PM Mignini: So, at 15:12 lawyer Luciano Ghirga resumes the interrogation
Lawyer Ghirga: In the name of the defensive collegium we submit a reason to confer personally, privately, we mean alone together with our client, for a time not longer than ten minutes.
PM Mignini: So, the Public Prosecutor is pointing out that the interrogation had already been suspended and it’s 15: 13 now, pointing out that the interrogation was suspended several times, and the last time for, how long? Ten minutes on request of the defence, and the defence will be allowed to fully have counsel with the person under investigation at the end of the interrogation. [The Public Prosecutor] orders to proceed, orders to go forward with the investigation procedure. So now I would like”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: If you may, ask to the suspect, to the person under investigation, whether she intends to go on or to invoke her right not to answer”¦?
PM Mignini: This is a”¦ it’s a”¦ it’s a”¦ she decided to answer questions at the beginning. Now if she decides to make a statement where she says “I don’t want to answer any more” she’ll be the one who says it, and it’s not that I must ask now, that question was done at the beginning of the interrogation. If now she wants to say”¦
Knox: I prefer not to answer any more”¦
[97]
Lawyer Ghirga: What did she say?
Interpreter: She doesn’t want to answer anymore.
PM Mignini: So, at this point, at 15: 15, on a question asked by the defence lawyers, about whether the person under investigation intends to go on answering or not”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: To your questions
PM Mignini: To a question by lawyer Ghirga”¦ yes, well, Lawyer Ghirga asked her that
Lawyer: He didn’t first ask the question
Lawyer Ghirga: But what question did I ask?
Lawyer: We told you to ask her…
PM Mignini: Yes, you asked me, and I did follow the request. But”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: She made a declaration, and we took note, unfortunately, about forbidden suggestions”¦ but on what request”¦?
PM Mignini: Now at this point, at 15: 15 the defence lawyers… Let’s put like this, the defence lawyers ask this Prosecutor about whether he intends to ask the person under investigation if she intends to go on answering questions, but then, after my decision, Lawyer Ghirga said”¦
Lawyer Ghirga: Who said? You said
PM Mignini: You asked her, I put in the record what happened, it’s recorded anyway, this is what I perceived you asked her, and she answered “I do not intend to answer”, she said, and then the interpreter…
Lawyer Ghirga: I asked whether she intended to make a statement, and she made a statement
PM Mignini: You indicated that to her, it changes nothing, doesn’t change”¦ I must only put in the record what happened. The public prosecutor points out that…
[98]
...the warning about the right not to answer was explained to the person under investigation at the beginning of the interrogation, as provided by the Code, and that same [person under investigation] declared she wanted to answer. It is not possible now to invoke the duty to inform the suspect about her right, because such requirement has been already fulfilled. Anyway the person under investigation can, if she decides to, declare that she doesn’t want to answer any more. Such option has been shown to the person under investigation by lawyer Ghirga.
Lawyer: ...by the defence lawyers
PM Mignini: By the defence lawyers, to the person under investigation. What do you want to do?
Lawyer: What do you mean by “It was shown?”
PM Mignini: It was shown, because you said”¦ I need to put in the record what happened. The lawyer… Facing my warrant which I described, the notice was provided at the beginning of the interrogation as the code requires. She said “I want to answer, I do not intend to invoke my right not to answer”. That answer had been given already, I informed her, and she answered. Now to this, at this point, however, I said nothing prevents her from wanting, from declaring “at this point I do not intend to answer any more”. I put it in the record and I don’t ask why, at that point, at that point.
Lawyer: You should not put in the record “the defence lawyers have shown”¦”
PM Mignini: “at that point”
Lawyer: We did not show anything, we asked to be allowed to, well”¦ and you said no.
PM Mignini: So”¦ lawyer, lawyer?
Lawyer: And you said no, and we didn’t have the possibility to show her…
[99]
PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga”¦ Lawyer Ghirga”¦
Lawyer: that she might invoke her right to not answer. It’s not that it’s we who’ve shown this possibility this is what I want to explain”¦
PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga told her something, so…?
Lawyer Ghirga: No, no, I only said, if you could give us a ten minutes suspension
PM Mignini: You told her something, now come on”¦ I need to put that on record
Lawyer Ghirga: what did I say”¦
PM Mignini: You have shown, I don’t know if the other lawyer did too, you told, Lawyer Ghirga, you told the person under investigation about… You said, if you can, if I remember correctly, we’ll hear her again”¦
Lawyer Costa: It was me who told her, Mr. Prosecutor
PM Mignini: So I understood Lawyer Ghirga… Lawyer Giancarlo Costa declares he explained that, I didn’t say anything else
Lawyer Costa: ... To Ms. Amanda Knox to use her right to invoke her right not to answer
PM Mignini: ... And she herself declares so, she is supposed to declare what she wants
Lawyer: She has already said that
PM Mignini: Let’s repeat it since with this superimposition of voices”¦ the interpreter will translate faithfully word-by-word what you say.
Knox: At this point I don’t want to answer any more
Interpreter: At this point she doesn’t want to answer any more
PM Mignini: So “at this point I don’t want to answer any more”. We put on record that the current transcript was recorded entirely.
[100]
Lawyer Costa: Mr Public Prosecutor, we lawyers may renounce to our own time terms of deposit if Your Honour would give us a copy
PM Mignini: Yes, no problem”¦ at 15: 22. The parties demand a transcription, I mean the defence lawyers request the transcription of the recording.
Posted by Our Main Posters on 10/10/17 at 05:00 AM in Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
Chimera is cross-analyzing claims and contradictions by Knox on the stand in comparison with her book. She requested to add this in a comment as soon as the post went up.
************
Thank you for the translations of this (to all involved), and for posting these transcripts. In Waiting to be Heard Knox includes a much, MUCH abbreviated alternative “version” of this “five and a half hours” meeting. Here it is in full.
“Do you have any Spanish friends?” he asked—Rudy Guede said he hung out with Spanish friends on Halloween.
I was calm and assertive. “No,” I answered.
“What’s the meaning behind your name Foxy Knoxy?” “It’s just a nickname,” I said.
“But what is the meaning behind it?”
“There is no meaning behind it. It’s a play on my last name, Knox. My soccer teammates started calling me that as a teenager.”
“Why do you use it to identify yourself?”
“I don’t. I don’t introduce myself as ‘Foxy Knoxy.”’
“Did you have problems with Meredith?”
“No. We didn’t know each other long, but we were friends.” “Do you know Rudy Guede?”
“I met him,” I said, “but I didn’t remember his name until he was arrested.”
Mignini grilled me about my drug use, the people I knew in Perugia, the friends I’d invited over to the villa. He asked me when I’d found out that Meredith had been stabbed, hoping to prove that I knew the details of her death before an innocent person would have had the chance to.
It bothered me that as I answered him as fully as I could through an interpreter, Mignini would usually repeat the question. I was afraid I wasn’t making myself clear. At first, Carlo, acting as a second interpreter, spoke in measured tones. He would interrupt and say, “What she is really saying is or “She’s already answered that question!”
My lawyers listened intently to Mignini’s wording, to his repetitions, to the interpreter’s translation of his questions and my responses, and jumped up to object to suggestive phrasing and misinterpretations. They came prepared to protect me from what they’d warned me against: aggressive and insidious questioning by a prosecutor whose interest wasn’t to hear me out but to get me to say something incriminating. Luciano and Carlo grew less measured as the interrogation dragged on.
After five and a half hours of standing and fielding questions, I was tired, but I thought everything was going okay. During the short breaks, Luciano would put his hand on my shoulder, and Carlo would say, “You’re doing well.”
Then the conversation turned to my November 6, middle-of-the-night interrogation and how I could have said something without meaning to. I explained how much pressure the police put me under and how confused I was by their claims that I’d met up with someone, that I’d been to the villa that night. Mignini became defensive. “I was there,” he said, referring to the questura the night of my interrogation. “I heard you saying these things.”
I said, “You were telling me these things. I was saying, ‘I’m not sure. I’m confused.”’
This interrogation was becoming more and more like the one I’d meant to correct. It wasn’t a do-over at all. Mignini would ask a question, and when I answered, he would reject my response and ask again. He was trying to intimidate me, spewing words at me.
Luciano and Carlo were leaning forward in their seats. “Where did the name Patrick come up?” Mignini demanded. “From my cell phone,” I said. “Because I’d texted a message to
Patrick. I wrote, ‘See you later.”’
“What did you mean by your message?”
“In English, it means ‘Goodbye. See you later, as in sometime.’ It’s not like making an appointment to see someone. And I wrote, ‘Buona serata’—`Have a good evening.’ I had no plans to meet up with him.”
“Why did you erase Patrick’s message?”
“I sometimes erased the messages I received. I didn’t have enough memory in my cell phone to keep them.”
“Why did you say you didn’t remember writing that message?” “Because I didn’t remember.”
“Why did you name Patrick?”
“The police insisted I’d met the person I had sent the text message to.”
“No. Why did you name Patrick?”
“The police had been asking me about Patrick.”
“No! Why did you name Patrick?”
“The police insisted it was Patrick.”
He was more and more aggressive about it. “Why Patrick?” “Because of my message.”
“That doesn’t explain why Patrick.”
“Yes, it does.”
“Why did you say Patrick killed her?”
“Because I was confused. Because I was under pressure.” “NO!” he insisted. “Why did you say Patrick?”
I was more frustrated than I’d ever been. “Because I thought it could have been him!” I shouted, starting to cry.
I meant that I’d imagined Patrick’s face and so I had really, momentarily, thought it was him.
Mignini jumped up, bellowing, “Aha!
I was sobbing out of frustration, anger.
My lawyers were on their feet. “This interrogation is over!” Luciano shouted, swiping his arm at the air.
Carlo and Luciano sat me down and huddled around me, saying, “It’s okay, Amanda, it’s okay. You did a good job, and we’ll talk about it the next time we come.”
Then a guard walked me out. I was sobbing hysterically. I had done my best to explain everything, and I had failed completely.
As he left, Mignini apparently told waiting reporters that I hadn’t explained anything or said anything new. All I did, he said, was cry.
Seems a bit strange to me, that AK was supposedly grilled for 50+ hours with no recording, yet Mignini seems to give up rather easily when the recorder was actually on.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/10/17 at 08:50 PM | #
Comparing this transcript with the variation from her book, here are Knox’s problems.
(1) She was told at the first session on 5-6 Nov that Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi. She’d been building a list of names with Rita Ficarra, adding details and maps, and there was very little more time to go till she finished note #1.
All this yelling happened exactly when? She herself pushed across her phone, and then imploded when cops saw she was going to meet X. She said that THREE times, once in the text, and twice in notes #1 and #2. No “see you later” she quite definitely said she was headed out.
(My guess? She WAS headed for Patrick to chew him out for supposedly giving Meredith “her” job. At the park she met Guede, and decided to chew Meredith out instead.)
(2) At the second session Dr Mignini was presiding and his purpose was only to explain why she was being held and her right to a lawyer before she said anything more.
Heedless, without provocation, she fingered Patrick again, without any supposed yelling by cops. Note #2 she insisted on writing was little different from her first.
To fool the readers Knox leaves all of that out. But she didnt fool the courts, and because of the above served three years.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/10/17 at 10:13 PM | #
She claims ‘a policeman told [me] Meredith had her cut slit’, yet Raff’s story is that he told her in the car to the Questura, claiming it was a ‘cut throat’ gesture by Bastistelli.
Perhaps Battistelli also mimed a ‘body found in the closet covered by a sheet’, as well. :/
Or perhaps she ‘thought it could be true’ because she ‘imagined it’.
Interestingly, Ghirga advised her to shut up, and he wanted Mignini not to record the fact she was being advised by her lawyer not to say anything more [i.e., incriminating herself]. In fact he begs Mignini three/four times over not to record his advice to her.
So much for, ‘My lawyers were on their feet. “This interrogation is over!†Luciano shouted, swiping his arm at the air.’
LOL. As if they outrank the Public Prosecutor. Hilarious.
Posted by KrissyG on 10/11/17 at 02:23 AM | #
Hi KrissyG
Yes Costa did make a plaintive Ghirga look like a wimp when he suddenly said after what must have been 10 minutes that he counseled Knox to stop.
Costa was the most famous and respected criminal lawyer ever to come near the case. Those were his last words for Knox. Smart guy.
No mention of these in the transcript, as neither occurred.
“What’s the meaning behind your name Foxy Knoxy?†“It’s just a nickname,†I said.
“But what is the meaning behind it?â€
“There is no meaning behind it. It’s a play on my last name, Knox. My soccer teammates started calling me that as a teenager.â€
“Why do you use it to identify yourself?â€
“I don’t. I don’t introduce myself as ‘Foxy Knoxy.â€â€™
Mignini jumped up, bellowing, “Aha!”
What a piece of work.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/11/17 at 04:29 AM | #
No mention in any of this interview of Sollecito trying to force open Meredith’s door, or of any of the other panic she mentions in her e-mail.
However Knox does say that both she and Sollecito had discovered that her door was locked, presumably by one or both trying the handle. Indeed, she does say, at one point, that she had tried the door herself. When the decision was taken to force the door open neither of them were anywhere near the door. It beggars belief that Filomena would authorise damage to the door without her, or one of her friends first checking out that information. So at least one of them must have given the handle a good shake.
I mention this because of Professor Gill’s article, submitted as part of the appeal recourse to the Supreme Court, hypothesizing that Sollecito’s DNA could have been transferred from the handle to the hooks on the bra clasp by the forensic workers. However there were only two profiles on the hooks, Meredith’s and Sollecito’s.
It is highly unlikely, anyway, from an examination of all the evidence, that Sollecito’s DNA could have been transferred in this way.
That it was primary transfer is the only reasonable proposition.
Knox keeps telling Mignini that it was the police who told her that Meredith’s throat had been cut. Actually, to be fair, it was Altieri who told her and Sollecito this when giving them both a lift to the police station. See Altieri’s testimony including, he says, how uncomfortable he felt about being pumped for information by Sollecito, particularly about whether a knife had been used. However, nothing about the body being discovered in the closet, which Altieri, who was there because it was he who had broken open the door, would know was nonsense.
It is interesting, though, that Knox says that it was Raffaele who told her this, but without any clarification as to how he would come about this misinformation.
Finally, Knox has the police yelling Patrick’s name at her, which is rubbish which she herself conceded on questioning from the judge at her trial. Given that she was lying her head off at this point it is not surprising that she broke down and declined to answer any more questions.
Posted by James Raper on 10/11/17 at 01:49 PM | #
On the door James Raper posted this previously and a version appears in his book. Altieri the boyfriend of a friend of the Italian girls broke the door down.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_clean-up_and_the_locked_door_contribute/
With the possible exception of Kassin, Moore and Hampikian, Peter Gill was the most obtrusive expert in the army of hoaxers. Our posters nailed him repeatedly; hopefully one day he will stay nailed.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C946/
Dr Mignini points out that the police on 5-6 Nov had no idea who Patrick was, and Knox had made him seem really, really scary. Nobody ever believed the police somehow forced Knox to write this - especially as this was written at 5:45 after Knox was done babbling on to Dr Mignini.
I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic†located in Via Alessi where I work periodically. I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see youâ€. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana
(Oh, you didnt know Knox babbled?! Those present that night testified she was hard to calm down and stop talking. They sort of knocked her out with chamomile tea. judge Boninsegna who denied their calunnia complaint last year said they were too nice to her - to him, somehow that justified her defaming them.)
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/11/17 at 06:23 PM | #
Candace Dempsey in her book writes Knox parents were upset because with the trashed drives she lost pictures of the Euro chocolate Festival ‘proving she and Meredith were friends’. Yet somehow she managed to obtain the video shown in the Netflix documentary?
Posted by Ergon on 10/11/17 at 09:09 PM | #
Note posted here but just withdrawn to become our next top post on how unsatisfactory all the books are in describing what they still call the Knox interrogation.
Mignini was following a single narrative here, the one later testified to in court under oath over a full week by numerous witnesses with no axe to grind.
That put Knox at a disadvantage here. She was not driving the bus on this one occasion, and so she dropped into victim mode (is she ever out of it?) and ended up worse than before she started.
Whenever any aspect of the case is to be explored it really is better to FIRST get the narrative right from the statements made under oath in the translated transcripts. Then SECOND start measuring the sayings of Knox against that.
On the interrogation hoax, no book so far is strong on the official narrative.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/11/17 at 10:33 PM | #
James,
When you commented: “ Professor Gill’s article, .....hypothesizing that Sollecito’s DNA could have been transferred from the handle to the hooks on the bra clasp by the forensic workers. However there were only two profiles on the hooks, Meredith’s and Sollecito’s.â€
Did you mean that if Gill’s hypothesis was correct then the forensic workers profile should also have been on the bra clasp hooks in addition to Meredith’s and Sollecito’s?
Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/13/17 at 08:44 PM | #
Mignini had Knox squirming. He had seen through her lies and evasions and she was at a loss. When she saw her pre-rehearsed falsehoods were being whittled away by his questioning, she took the liar’s escape of histrionics and crying.
She broke down with the sobbing routine soon after Mignini had made Swiss cheese of her pretense that she knew nothing about cause of death.
Her lie was exposed by two Italian Erasmus students who had overheard Meredith’s English friend say how Knox told them Meredith had suffered awhile due to the form of cut made to her throat. Mignini realized that Knox knew too much, and too soon, even before the police were clear about facts.
Of course Knox tried to shift this by claiming she was generalizing or guessing.
Also odd, she could never admit from whom she had heard the exact fact that Meredith was dead, or how she was murdered or who told her that or when. That’s not something an uninformed and concerned innocent person would be likely to forget! But on these most important points Knox regressed into vagueness, as if everything about the death was being broadcast and talked about by Filomena’s friends at the cottage and housemates waiting at the Questura so that Knox somehow by osmosis or rumor picked up all her knowledge. Mignini knew that an important fact like a roommate’s death would not be a matter of forgetfulnes. Unless Knox had no need of information.
Knox lost confidence when Mignini ridiculed her innocent “imaginary images” of Patrick raping and killing Meredith, when facts proved Patrick was nowhere in the vicinity of the crime.
So why these evil images of him in her mind? Mignini pressed her.
Knox tried to blame her wild accusations of her boss on the innocent work messages police were questioning about on her phone. Mignini realized that her messages, had they been innocent, would have been no cause for Knox to be so alarmed at the police’s queries, nor for Knox to finger Patrick as a killer based on seeing his name in her phone. Ridiculous.
Mignini knew she had merely reached out and grabbed a convenient male to pin the crime to, she had no excuse.
The strange idiom of “See you later”, being misunderstood by the police, led them on a red herring that terrified Knox because despite their mistake that her phone message to Patrick did not mean she was planning a linkup with him of any kind, she secretly had guilty knowledge of her own preplanned linkup with Guede (another black man) and Raffaele for action at the cottage that night against Meredith. They planned an action in some form of scare or dare or worse. So when the police in their confusion insisted on the probability of a planned rendezvous with a man on the night of the murder, Knox knew they were getting too close to the truth and she panicked.
The rug was pulled out from under Knox in a major way when the police began hammering her over her plans for a rendezvous, even though police were focused on the wrong person.
Knox also went into the valley of self-pity right before her crying jag which was prompted after she was describing how the police were calling her guilty, and calling her a liar. This stress bomb touched a nerve with her because she was both: guilty and a liar.
When the Mignini interview gets hot and focused she relives the terror of the prior interview and the emotions bury her reason; her lies fail her due to cognitive meltdown in front of Mignini’s all too incisive mind and unamused attitude.
At that point she can’t see any way out. So she effectively halts the interrogation (with typical liar’s distrust she sees all her lawyers as helpless to protect her, although Ghirgha tried to intervene) but Knox won’t rely on Ghirgha or Costa but on floods of tears and finally her own statement that she refuses to answer any more questions.
So despite the presence of her lawyers in the room she had been defeated by Mignini’s superior intelligence which so quickly overturned her myriad illusions of her great capabilities as a liar.
Her deceptions were not working on him and she was further confused and frustrated by the language barrier.
Because of language variables and perhaps cultural differences, Knox was unable to understand the emphases that Mignini was putting on certain concepts or to what conclusions he was driving, so that she was not able to forestall him or obstruct his aim.
Oh yes, she was terrified when for once in her life her lies weren’t enough to protect her.
The honest Mignini, the experienced prosecutor saw right through her tripe and smoke.
Her only defense: the tears of a facile actress. A la Edda.
Posted by Hopeful on 10/15/17 at 01:58 AM | #
Hi Hopeful
Lawyers worst nightmare!! They had tried so hard to shut her up and shake that fatal arrogance, and were hard at it again and again through the coming months.
Then of course in mid 2009 she insisted in being questioned on the stand, to try to fend off the calunnia charge.
Roughly half the questioning then was by her own lawyers, trying the pull re out of the soup and endeavoring to make her seem more human.
But on the first half of the second day (a Saturday) Dr Mignini revisits the minefield that Knox again in victim mode scrambled away from here.
This is what we post on next.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/16/17 at 06:10 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Correcting Netflix 25 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #4
Or to previous entry Correcting Netflix 23 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #2