Thursday, September 25, 2014

Analysis #2 Of Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera, Organized Crime Section: Discounting Any Lone Wolf

Posted by Cardiol MD

Dr Chiacchiera (talking) with his team explaining reason for charges in another case

Overview Of This Series

In 2007 Dr Chiacchiera was the Director of the Organized Crime Section and the Deputy Director of the Flying Squad.

He was one of the most senior and experienced law enforcement officers to testify at the trial.  His testimony and his cross examination by the defenses occupied a lot of time of the court late in February 2009. He covered the following ground.

    (1) He found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions.

    (2) Saw evidence contradicting any lone burglar theory and indicating that the “break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

    (3) Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.

    (4) Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.

    (5) Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife.

All the translation is by the ever-dedicated main poster ZiaK. This series is highlighting some key portions. Here is the full 50-page transcript which will be posted in the trial testimony area of McCall’s great Wiki.

This post continues analysis of the evidence that the lone burglar/lone wolf theory was not credible to those that were first on the crime scene and that the “break-In” to Filomena Romanelli’s room was to them obviously faked.

(GCM=Giancarlo Massei; MC=Manuela Comodi; MaCh=Marco Chiacchiera; GB=Giulia Bongiorno; DD=Donatella Donati; CP=Carlo Pacelli; LG=Luciano Ghirga; CDV=Carlo Dalla Vedova; FM=Francesco Maresca)

Public Prosecutor Comodi [MC] Leads Testimony

Judge Massei [GCM}:  Excuse me a moment, just to give some guidelines, but of the evaluations that the witness is expressing, obviously it’s not that they can be taken account of, however we will acquire them [for the trial files] in order to understand the investigation activities, the appropriateness of the investigations that were carried out, directed in one way or in another, there you go. However, maybe, “¦ there you go, yes, maybe if we can manage to keep with the bare essentials this will help everybody.

{Court proceedings seem to have been diverted into a free-for-all colloquy, with multiple participants chiming-in, and creating confusion. Court-President, GCM, now politely intervenes, apparently trying to restore order, ruling that the professional evaluations made by the witness, testified-to by the witness, should be admitted for the trial files. The appropriateness of the witness's evaluations can be dealt with separately and later.}

Manuela Comodi [MC}:  Well, in short, they were called “¦ they are the only ones who can describe the whole progression of the investigations - Dr Profazio and Dr Chiacciera ““ because they are directors, they are the only ones who will come to describe for me, thus, what was the progression of the investigations. Clearly, in order to pass from one investigative act to another rather than “¦ and the choice of the subsequent investigative acts. It’s clear that they have to describe, in order to make a complete reasoning, even the lines of thought that, as Dr Chiacchiera said, it sometimes happens that they make. However, one point: apart from the break-in, apart from the broken window, there are “¦ did you acquire further elements that corroborated the idea that there had been a burglary? Nothing from Romanelli’s room had been carried off? Valuable things had been taken?

{Examiner acknowledges Court's admonition, argues importance of her witness's testimony, and segués into triple-Q addressed to witness re elements corroborating idea of burglary.}

Dr Chiacchiera [MaCh]:  This ... in fact, in the progress ...

{Witness begins to answer, but is interrupted by Examiner}

MC:  Was a declaration/complaint of theft made then, with a list of the things taken?

{Examiner interrupts witness with new double-Q}

MaCh:  In the logical progression, if I may in some way still, in summary, say what “¦.

{Witness begins narrative response but is interrupted by Court}

GCM:  Say the objective facts, if you have “¦.

{Court interrupts witness, beginning to admonish him to respond by testifying to objective facts, but is itself interrupted by witness}

MaCh:  Nothing disappeared, so a burglar would have had difficulty “¦

{Witness answers 3rd Q of Examiner's above triple Q, but then launches into a narrative beginning: "so…", but Court interrupts}

GCM:  Excuse me, nothing had disappeared? Before all else, what thing .... you knew what things were in that room that did not disappear?

{Court interrupts, questioning basis for witness's statement that "Nothing disappeared"}

MaCh:  Yes, because, shall we say, the investigation elements that then subsequently emerged, allowed us to deduce that from Romanelli’s room absolutely nothing disappeared. There was a complete mess/chaos, but nothing disappeared from Romanelli’s room. And this is another element to [lead us] to obviously deduce that the desired hypothesis of a burglar and of a theft was objectively “¦ But then the burglar does not [sic] close the door and throw away the key. The burglar does not cover the victim. The burglar “¦

{Witness answers Court's Q, with narrative explanation including reference to "the key", and Court interrupts}

GCM:  Excuse me. They key. What is this detail about the key? What is it?

{Court asks Q simple Q re "the key" - with apparent transcriptional error: "They key"}

MaCh:  There was no key.

{Witness answers Court's Q}

GCM:  There was no key where?

{Court asks simple Q}

MaCh:  Those who entered into the inside of the house first found the door closed. A closed door that then aroused the suspicions and that then gave concern and then it was decided to “¦ to break [it] down.

{Witness responds to Court's Q with narrative explanation}

GCM:  Excuse me, on [sic] Romanelli’s room there was no key?

{Court asks another simple Q}

MaCh:  No, I’m talking of Meredith’s room, Mr President; Meredith’s room was locked by key.
This is another “¦ how to say, the investigative deductions that we drew from these details that emerged, also from the declarations that we gathered.

{Witness responds to Court's Q, and informatively amplifies A}

MC:  Was it normal that Meredith closed herself [sic. i.e. her room] by key?

{Examiner asks witness a simple Q}

MaCh:  No.

{Witness gives simple A}

MC:  And did you find the key of Meredith’s room?

{Examiner asks witness a simple Q}

MaCh:  No.

{Witness gives simple A}

MC:  So it was closed by key, but there was no key inside?

{Examiner summarises witness's testimony re key and poses a simple Q}

MaCh:  But there was no key inside, so that it was necessary to break down the door in order to enter. Also the almost inexplicable detail of the presence of two cellphones in a garden of a house, doesn’t tend to favour the thesis of someone who enters and who accidentally, so to speak, finds a person and then kills them, because [he] is forced to kill them because they have seen [his] face.

{Witness responds to Q in form of confirming-repetition and amplifies A in expanded narrative-form}

MC:  But is via Sperandio far from via della Pergola?

{Examiner poses vague Q re proximity of 2 streets}

MaCh:  No. And there we tried to deduce. And via Sperandio, as I said earlier, Doctoressa, is not far from the house. We discussed [this] to understand why these telephones went and ended up there “¦

{Witness answers simply, and respectfully, introducing " the house" on one of the streets, seguéing into subject of the mobile telephones and is interrupted by the Court}

GCM:  Excuse me. When you say it is not far from the house, can you specify at what distance? How one reaches it?

{The Court's interruption is also vague, with double-Q, referring to an unspecified "it"}

MaCh:  Not far from the house means that, by following a route that any Perugian knows, Mr President, one passes through a park and one arrives, let’s say, near the gateway of Porta Sant’Angelo. So for this reason, as the crow flies, how much would it be, but less [sic] “¦ three hundred, four hundred metres. But to reach it by foot from via della Pergola to via Sperandio I think that it doesn’t take more than 5, [or] 7 minutes.

{Witness responds to Court in explanatory narrative form

MC: But do you have to pass by via Garibaldi?

{Examiner asks simple Q}

MaCh:  Yes. But you can also pass through the park ““ there’s a park that then comes out right in front.

{Witness answers Q, and amplifies his response}

MC:  Of the villa?

{Examiner seeks clarification of witness's response}

MaCh:  In front of the villa, at the entry to the villa. Looking from the street that crosses with the provincial [road], the one that, shall we say, borders the villa, whoever is looking at it, I repeat, I ““ who am 44 years old, am Perugian ““ I did not know that there was a garden behind there.

{Witness clarifies his response, amplifying further}

MC:  And how far away is via Sperandio from via Garibaldi, corso Garibaldi?

{Examiner asks apparently simple Q}

MaCh:  it’s parallel. It’s very close, very very close. It’s 200 metres away, as the crow flies. I think even much less, because they are almost parallel, let’s say. Even that is something that in some way made us understand that there was an interest in getting rid of those cellphones, clearly, by whoever did that thing there.

{Witness gives detailed response;
See: "Just seeing police could panic the killers into instant dumping of the telephones, without even needing to know why the police were where the police were (There is no need to invoke any awareness by the phone-dumper[s] of the reason the Police were near Mrs. Lana's place - the hoax-call.). So if the killers saw flashing police-lights, or any other sign of police near Mrs. Lana's place, that sign could be enough to explain panic phone-dumping - then and there (not considering whether the phones were switched-on or switched-off)." In TJMK: "Updating Our Scenarios And Timelines #2: An Integrated Comparison Of The Timing of the Phone-Events." 6/28/2013}

MC:  When you arrived for the first time in via della Pergola, did you enter the room of the crime?

{Examiner asks simple Q}

MaCh:  Immediately, no. I went in afterwards, when Dr Mignini also arrived; and later with Dr Lalli. Then I had, how to say, occasionally entered when the crime-scene inspection of the Forensic Police, of the colleagues arrived from Rome, was already begun, so late. I didn’t stop long inside the house, I say the truth, also because the measures/orders that I issued immediately were those, yes, of deducing, [of] drawing out all the investigative elements that might emerge in the immediate surroundings [and/or immediately after the facts] to seek to immediately direct the investigation activity, but also to “freeze” [sic. i.e. to solidify, or to make concrete] another aspect, which was that of hearing/questioning all the people who might tell us details on Meredith’s stay in Perugia, in general, but above all on her final hours, on her visits/visitors, everything about those who Meredith had known in some way and “¦ This was the thing that we considered logical to do precisely in relation to this, to these first investigative deductions that we drew from the [above]-described crime-scene.

{Witness gives detailed narrative reply}

MC:  And so that same day you were present when they began to hear/question…

{Examiner begins preamble to presumed Q, but is interrupted}

MaCh:  Yes.

{Witness interrupts Examiner with witness's answer to assumed Q}

MC:  “¦ the people [who were] acquainted with the facts.

{Examiner completes interrupted Q-in-the-form-of-a-statement, which omits Q-mark}

MaCh:  I was present. I did not participate personally in the examination [of witnesses], but I was present, in the sense that both with [my] colleague Profazio and with [my] other colleague from the central operative service”¦

{Witness responds with narrative description of circumstances, but is interrupted}

MC:  from Rome.

{Examiner interrupts with her assumed next part of witness's response}

MaCh:  from Rome. We began to put the pieces together, excuse my [use of] the expression; that is to say all the “¦ all the elements that emerged from the examination of witnesses, were checked, were gradually verified/cross-checked.  Both with cross-checks that enlarged the group of witnesses, of the people to be heard/questioned, and with the checking of the alibis of many people, [as well as] with a technical activity that was carried out.

{Witness confirms Examiner's assumption, and completes his narrative description of circumstances}

MC:  That is to say?

{Examiner enquires as to witness's reference to indefinite "technical activity"}

MaCh:  A technical activity. A bugging activity was carried out. There was also an activity carried out also for the cross-checking of the phone [activity] printouts. There was an activity to understand also the cross-checking of the [phone] cells. There was a very wide-range activity carried out. Without excluding, I repeat, all also [sic] ... shall we say, the minor hypotheses. For example, the news arrived of a Maghrebi who had been in a rush to wash his own clothes in a launderette, not too far from the scene of the crime. This piece of information was excluded for a very simple reason, because from the first results of the investigative inquiries, he had arrived there in the early afternoon, but instead, in the early afternoon of the day before her death, Meredith was still alive [sic]. Because from the witness examinations we had determined that the last person who had seen her alive, saw her in the late afternoon. After which, we also did another series of checks relative to the one [sic] that there was a strange telephone call that the people who found the cellphones in the famous villa, the beautiful one on via Sperandio, had received in the evening. However, we had, how to say, understood that it was a case of a boy who had made a call from Terni and of a strange coincidence, but absolutely irrelevant for the investigation activity. Indeed, we made checks on all the hospitals in order to evaluate, to check, whether maybe there were [patients] who had presented blade/cutting wounds that in some way might have been compatible with a wound, let’s say, or at any rate with a reaction by the victim. Only one had presented, it was a [person] from Foligno who, [while] cutting salami, had cut their hand during the trip back from an away-game with Foligno ““ he was a football fan. Nothing else. So no investigative hypothesis was rejected. It was, obviously, because this is how it is done, and thus I believe that it is logic, we began to discuss/think in a certain way, because we had deduced from all this scen, another series of further elements, that is to say that the person “¦.

{Witness responds with prolonged narrative re "technical activity" and seems to pause}

MC:  Speak. Don’t be afraid to say it.

{Examiner urges witness to continue}

MaCh:  No, no. I’m not afraid.

{Witness argues with Examiner}

MC:  That is, let’s say, when was it that the investigations turned to, [started] to focus on today’s defendants?

{Examiner asks simple Q}

MaCh:  When on the evening of “¦ they did not focus on today’s defendants, that is to say, progressively the analysis of the investigative elements made us “¦ made us start, even us, to suspect. Because going into a house, finding a [sic] door of Meredith’s room closed, a [sic] door of the apartment opened, faeces in the toilet [bowl], while I take a shower, a series of bloody prints”¦

{Witness responds in narrative form and is interrupted}

MC:  However the faeces were in which of the two bathrooms?

{Examiner interrupts witness with clarifying Q}

MaCh:  Of the bathrooms. Me, if I take a shower in a bathroom where there are faeces, instinctively I flush the toilet, in short.

{Witness makes non-responsive subjective statement and is interrupted}

MC:  Yes, but the faeces were in the other bathroom.

{Examiner engages witness in argument}

MaCh:  Yes, yes, I understood. However, in short, in some way it comes instinctively, no?, to flush the toilet? The fact is that “¦.

{Witness joins argument and is interrupted}

GCM:  Excuse me, do you know how many bathrooms there were in the house?

{Court interrupts argument with simple Q}

MaCh:  Two.

{Witness ignores actual Q and responds with answer to assumed follow-up Q}

GCM:  Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?

{Court asks another simple Q, using vernacular ref. to whether a person used the shower, rather than that the the shower device was taken away.}

MaCh:  Yes.

{Witness answers Court's actual Q}

GCM:  How do you know?

{Court asks simple follow-on Q}

MaCh:  I know because it is a thing that I cannot, I believe, report because it was “¦.

{Witness seems to answer in non-responsive, subjective narrative form, and is interrupted}

GCM:  But you checked”¦?

{Court seeks objective answer to his simple Q}

MaCh:  I am trying to be very very careful.

{Witness hints that he has reasons for apparent evasion}

Giulia Bongiorno [GB]:  Mr President, we are talking of nothing.

{Sollecito's lawyer chimes in with distracting comment}

GCM:  Excuse me, Attorney.

{Court appears to admonish GCM not to chime-in without specified legal-objection}

MaCh:  Well, the main point [is] that very slowly we began to understand that there were strong inconsistencies in the revelations that were made. And there were behaviours that on the part of above all, indeed exclusively, of Sollecito and Knox, appeared to us as [being], at the very least, particular. Behaviours both immediately after the event ““ a sort of impatience/irritability shown [with regard to] the investigation activity that we were carrying out, and obviously we could not but ask [NdT: i.e. “we had to ask”] those who were close to Meredith [about] elements that we considered useful, even necessary, in order to continue the investigation activity.

{Witness launches into apparent justification for his evasiveness}

MC:  Excuse me if I interrupt you. I’ll just make a few precise questions, thus: you checked, let’s say, let’s call them alibis, even if it’s a term that’s very so [sic] from American TV films, but in any case [it’s] understandable”¦ Did you check the alibis of the people closest, let’s say, to Meredith?

{Examiner, after preamble, asks relatively simple Q}

MaCh:  Yes.

{Witness answers Q as phrased}

MC:  In particular, did you check the alibis of the young men from the [apartment on] the floor below?

{Examiner asks simple Q}

MaCh:  Yes.

{Witness answers Q as phrased}

MC:  Results?

{Examiner poses Q in casual form}

MaCh:  Positive for them, in the sense that they were at home, in their own home, that is to say their respective houses, because they were here for reasons of study, so they were not present in Perugia during the days when “¦

{Witness responds with allusive casual A, begins to amplify, but is interrupted}

MC:  Because they had left for “¦

{Examiner interrupts with suggestion for next part of witness's response}

MaCh:  Yes, for the All Souls’ Day long-weekend, let’s call it that.

{Withess reacts to Examiner's suggestion by stating reason for upcoming week-end absence, but not stating week-end destination}

MC:  Did you check the alibi of Mezzetti and of Romanelli?

{Examiner asks double Q}

MaCh:  Yes.

{Witness answers for both Qs}

MC:  Results?

{Examiner poses Q in casual form}

MaCh:  The result in this case also [is that] Mezzetti and Romanelli were not there, so “¦

{Witness gives clear Answer, apparently begins explanation, but is interrupted}

GCM:  Excuse me, can you say what checks you did?

{Court interrupts witness's testimony to ask Q re witness's method}

MaCh:  We carried out a whole series of checks that brought us to evaluate, establish, that these persons were not present in the premises that evening.

{Witness ignores Court's Q as phrased and answers anticipated next Q}

MC:  Let’s say, I imagine that you heard/questioned them.

{Examiner makes statement-in-form-of-Q with ?-mark omitted}

MaCh:  Yes.

{Witness answers presumed Q}

MC:  Did they tell you where they were that evening, what they did that evening”¦?

{Examiner seems to interrupt and asks double-Q}

MaCh:  And in effect, we assessed/considered that “¦

{Witness ignores Q-as-phrased and is apparently interrupted}

MC:  And you ascertained that in effect “¦

{Examiner apparently interrupts A and continues his interrupted multiple Q}

MaCh:  That it was true what they had told us. I can report on the circumstance.

{Witness seems to continue his interrupted answer and offers to expand his narrative.
Q &A cycle is confused and confusing because of repeated multiple Qs, instead of orderly single Q & A}

MC:  Did you check the alibi of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele Sollecito? Was there a comparison between the declarations of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele Sollecito with regard to the night of the murder, and what you were able to compare, shall we say, objectively, through the other declarations, through the phone records?

{Examiner asks multiple Qs}

MaCh:  Through the phone records and through the checks [that were], shall we say, objective, it was found that what Sollecito had declared was not truthful because there was a phone call that was never received [i.e. answered] by Sollecito at 23:00 hours. Because it turned out that there was no interaction with the computer, but I believe that this “¦ as declared [sic]. But above all there was an absolute incongruity of the “¦.

{Witness summarizing findings wrt phone records, is interrupted}

GCM:  There now. Excuse me. Maybe we will not ask the question in these terms: following the declarations, on which you cannot report, that you got from and that were given by Amanda Knox and Sollecito Raffaele, what type of investigations you carried out”¦

{Court interrupts to restrict Qs but is interrupted}

MaCh:  We carried out ...

{Witness interrupts Court's interruption and is interrupted}

GCM:  ... and the outcome of these investigations. There now. This is where we’re at.

{Court completes it's interruption, seeming to believe he has made himself clear, but confusion still reigns}

MaCh:  Well, in summary ...

{Witness begins a summary, but is interrupted}

GCM:  Following the declarations given by them, you had “¦ With regard to Sollecito Raffaele, what did you do and what [information] emerged?

{Court interrupts witness with double-Q}

MaCh:  It emerged that, unlike “¦

{Witness begins to answer Court's 2nd Q, but Court interrupts}

GCM:  What did you do, first?

{Court repeats1st Q}

MaCh:  We did an analysis of the telephone traffic, and from the analysis of the telephone traffic it emerged that Sollecito had absolutely not received/answered the 23:00 hours phone call as he had declared. From the analysis of the telephone traffic, there then emerged a very strange detail, in the sense that the cellphones “¦

{Witness answers 1st Q, begins answering 2nd Q, and is interrupted by Sollecito's lawyer}

GB:  (overlapping voices) “¦ continue with the opinions/judgements, with all the opinions/judgements.

{Sollecito's lawyer seems to demand comprehensive testimony}

GCM:  That which emerged.

{Court makes seemingly cryptic statement which is probably a Q relating to witness's interrupted A to Court's 2nd Q above: "It emerged that, unlike "¦" }

MaCh:  A detail/particular emerged ... unlike what “¦. (overlapped voices).

{Witness resumes testimony but is interrupted, multiple voices are heard}

GCM:  Excuse me. What emerged?

{Court asks witness to clarify what witness was saying}

Here ends the Analysis of the Evidence #2, discussing that the lone burglar theory is not credible, and that “Break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

The next Post:  Analysis of the Evidence #3, will Analyse the Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.



Dr. Chiacchiera testified that Knox and Sollecito both showed a sort of “impatience and irritability” with the investigative activity of the police. What a far cry from Amanda’s claim that she wanted to remain in Perugia to help the police. The very presence of a policeman is enough to rattle the guilty.

Mignini used this in bringing Amanda to the cottage with them.
She quickly put on a mini-drama of a crying jag with trembling body shakes. It was an obvious bid to flee the scene of the knife drawer, the nearness to Meredith’s bedroom and the police.

Think of the half hour in advance of that crucial visit to the cottage. Amanda must have been in full stress meltdown on the drive over to the cottage, wondering what in the world the police would do with her there and what questions. She would be in near panic trying to visualize what was ahead, how she would remain cool and respond.

In the car she probably tried to practice for all eventualities while pretending to remain lighthearted and innocent around her police escorts. Then at the cottage Mignini surprised her completely with the knife drawer question.

She realized she was up against a much higher intelligence than her own and that things were going to end badly for her.

The cottage was real again. Her imaginary defenses of denial and self-justification for the death of Meredith collapsed.
No more oop-la jokes while putting on protective booties, making light of police work and fobbing off anxiety by wisecracks and jests. She was now under suspicion and no longer another Robin or Sophie. Raffaele was no longer with her to shield her using his love or imagined clout.

Dr. Chiacchiera recalls a false lead the police followed about a man who cut his hand with a knife while cutting salami as the man returned from a football game in Foligno. Ironic that Raffaele the cook and knife afficionado said he admired the monster of Foligno.

The key to Meredith’s door may still be around. Amanda might have hidden it in Perugia as a trophy hoping to return and dig it up one day. Or taped it inside her luggage or a bottle of makeup or a textbook, or secreted it in some place she felt the police would never search. Maybe in those rock-climbing boots Curt Knox later had to pack for her and remove from the cottage.

She could have mailed the key back home to “herself” inside an innocuous article which if Edda opened she would not examine closely.

Dr. Chiacchiera drew from the fact of the missing key that no burglar would have troubled to remove it from the door of a room he would never enter again, nor bother to cover the victim had she been a stranger if he was in a hurry to leave.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/25/14 at 06:00 PM | #

Thanks Hopeful. Reading the actual transcripts in English is so informative - and thought provoking as you demonstrate in your Comment.

I’ve learnt a lot, reading ZiaK’s professional Translation, and like you, had my thoughts much-provoked.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/25/14 at 07:59 PM | #

Knox should probably be brought to the house (and into Meredith’s room) over and over and over and over, to let her demons have their fun until something snaps big time. Nothing to fear if one is innocent, certainly not the case here.

Posted by Bjorn on 09/25/14 at 10:49 PM | #

This police testimony went on for hour after hour and in the court the effect was really remorseless. This is also the effect from reading it. It is very detailed and sounds very genuine.

And each witness came and went and did not sit in the court hearing the others or try to match what others had said. Defenses could do nothing to stop it and cross-examinations landed few if any blows.

On 28 February 2009 after some (but not yet all) of the testimony about what happened at the central police station on 5-6 November, both AK and RS cracked. They stood up in consternation and tried to contradict it.

Foolish moves, as they did terrible jobs of renouncing it, and (as the post below on Ficarra’s memo shows) there was rock-hard evidence that they simply ignored which the judges sure knew about.

And even if all the public testimony is ever translated, there is also the testimony (about 1/4 of the trial) which was held behind closed doors about the attack and the two attack recreations, plus relevant exhibits.

None of that was made public; we can connect some dots via the Massei report but the panel of judges connected many more of them. RS & AK apologists act totally unaware of all that damning closed-door testimony.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/25/14 at 10:57 PM | #

I had the occasion to get into personal emails with another rabid Knox supporter David J Christ

(Which by the way is his real name and another case of physiology having a field day, not unlike Michelle Sings Celestial Eastern Moore.)

Mister Christ pointed out that he had read the Massei report and was convinced after finding out that the British press had supported Meredith and called Knox a murderer that he changed his mind from guilty to innocent.

That is because he initially stated that 13 feet was not too high for Rude Guede to climb and was called on it. So therefore for reasons of complicity he went along it and climbed upon the innocent bandwagon.

He states that the Massei report said that Rude would not throw a rock then climb up to open the shutters then climb above to get into the window itself when it was obvious that the scene was staged since Rude would never burglarize a place so close to his own using his own MO.

Thereby confirming that he had swallowed the lies about Guede being a drifter and a burglar which has never been proven. Also totally ignoring that the soil under the window had not been disturbed with no footprints or anything else plus the contention that Guede was a police informer given by that much feared crime fighter Steve Moore just before he was laughed off CNN

This is how these people operate since the reasons for believing Knox are of paramount stupidity. They automatically swallow what they are fed without question.

I wrote back asking for one scintilla of evidence which concludes that Knox and Sollecito are innocent? Anything at all which has it’s basis in fact rather than opinion. Just one small piece of anything that is conclusive upon which he and the rest of the Knox brigade base their belief of innocence.

I pleaded with him to provide anything at all rather than the usual

“Well Prove They Are Guilty.“shtick and of course all I got back was complete silence…........Nothing!  Which was what I expected

This silence simply confirms that they can only answer a question with a question since all they have is the lies they have been fed by Gogarty and company. The reasons for their belief are rooted deeply in psychology. The old axiom applies here. “Evil will always triumph if good people do nothing.”

But then the Knox supporters have a singular commonality since they are too lazy and scared to read the above reports because if they did they would have to change their collective opinion from innocent to guilty. Instead they prefer to watch Nicki Minaj videos or for the deeper thinking Knox supporters ‘Here comes Honey Boo Boo.’

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/26/14 at 01:11 AM | #

Thank you, Grahame—they were proven guilty in a court of law, multiple times, period. If these effers have other hard, solid evidence, let’s see it, but Knox for one didn’t even show in court, so whatever “challenge” these moronic fans come up with now looks kinda stupid and so 10-months-ago.

It would be fun, though, to see Knox make Sollecito “lose everything he has”, like she said she could do not so long ago. Sollecito, on the other hand, seems a little more given to spilling the beans, but still hasn’t said much, in his mind, probably, prison is a rather remote possibility happening - like disease & death - only to other people, we’ll see how remote that is.

Posted by Bjorn on 09/26/14 at 04:19 PM | #


Just a line to say that I feel you are absolutely right about taking Amanda Knox back to the cottage, looking into Merdith’s room, the bathroom, the kitchen, and the room with the false ‘break-in’.

I think it would be good one-to-one, as well - for someone with a good grip on psychology to accompany her.

Some of her previous language indicates her re-living the trauma. In spite of all her protestations, I don’t think she is a strong person.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/26/14 at 04:59 PM | #

Hi Grahame

You are a formidable arguer of the hard facts and can probably argue all but the fully delusional nuts to a standstill, at least one by one

But you are trying to face down a Mr Christ?! That made me laugh. However, depending on who he is that could work.

We talked previously about the way to realign the compasses of thousands all at once which is to identify and work on the most skeptical of all of them and once they see the light they take over the hard work.

We have good people posting and some more reading who already arrived here by exactly that route.

As you also know, the scene will reshape itself a lot after the Cassation ruling comes down. Right now, things are like a pent-up dam.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/14 at 05:55 PM | #

Hi SeekingUnderstanding

Any thoughts on whether AK’s silence now is self-imposed? She is still being subjected to several turns of the screw, which has had many of the saner of her followers thinking “Whaaaa…?”

1) The story of her continued mixing with the Perugia drug kingpin right up to the day of her arrest; full picture not yet out.

2) The interrogation hoax story and the gigantic castle of lies about her informal session on 5-6 Nov 2007; full picture not yet out.

3) The threatening distancing by RS and his continued seething anger that she dragged him in, ended up with the really big bucks, and brushed off helping him to move to the US;  full picture not yet out.

4) The serious charges against RS for the felony defamations in his book, which will soon apply to her too - her defamations while smaller in number (the book is semi-expurgated) were worse;  full picture not yet out.

5) The increasing examination by prosecutors of the illegality of the world-record blood money scam run by Knox, Sforza, Fischer, Moore, and other scam artists;  full picture not yet out.

6) The increasing chance that she and her gang will face US and Italian charges for stalking and harassing the family of the victim; tough laws do not allow even one word to be addressed to them directly or indirectly while a legal process is going on.

7) The boredom and disbelief of a majority of the US media, and first signs (unless she turns, as you suggest she could) of being lumped forever with Scott Petersen and other ice-cold psychopaths, which I think we agree she is possibly not.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/14 at 06:14 PM | #


Yes…so the pressure is coming hard and fast from many directions, and is serious, not (just) a media swing.

I think she is sensitive, in a narcissistic kind of way - that is, to anything at all that impacts upon what she wants, which is all important to her. (In contrast to gross insensitivity to others’ feelings and positions).

So I think she is affected emotionally, and actually can no longer sustain this charade. She looks, in some photos, not just tired but drained. Her personality would be prone to not being held together, (to put it gently.) She just needs it all to stop - I believe she actually said so.

But I also think she has received legal counselling, - in one of her remarks she referred to herself in the third person : ’ not saying anything is what needs to be done now’ - or words to that effect.

So I do think some of the reality has dawned, in particular that when she talks, she has a habit of making things worse.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/26/14 at 06:56 PM | #

Thank you CadiolMD. Excellent analysis of Dr Chiacchiera’s testimony. Looking forward to #3.

Meanwhile over at .org Fly By Night posted this recent news story that U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan is now leaving her post after just two years in her five-year Obama-appointed position. Was she fired? Why did this just suddenly happen? Is the Obama administration clearing out any potential problems prior to the extradition of Knox? Maybe so.

Posted by Johnny Yen on 09/27/14 at 04:24 PM | #

@Bjorn Yep, I wish Knox had been escorted back to the cottage several times with police. No doubt she would have spilled the beans.

@SeekingUnderstanding, Point well taken that Knox isn’t really a strong person. She wants to appear strong, and that envy and conceit made her lose it completely with Meredith. I also agree with your comments on her sensitivity as in narcissism. She really didn’t know herself at all, that she has an artistic temperament with all of its baggage of extremes. On every plane Meredith bested her:

Mentally—Kercher the scholar, Erasmus, always studying hard, often reading on the porch or visiting bookstores, attending Perugia uni not simply a language course, her father leading the way for Meredith to write. Meredith had already written poems. She aspired to writing, teaching, or international studies. “Muscles in Brussels”

Emotionally—Kercher very strong, a good heart. A host of friends and close relatives, kind, compassionate, yet fun, lively and witty. No pushover, but very sensitive to human need and responsive. Well adjusted and loyal as shown in John Kercher’s book with friends who reciprocated and clung to her.

Physically—Maybe Knox could beat Kercher in this area. Knox had soccer, rock-climbing and outdoor activities for fitness. However, Kercher took dance and martial arts plus she had worked several jobs. Maybe she outshone Knox in the ability to go without sleep and still function. Roommates find out about who wakes up late and grumpy and skips classes or who paints on a smile and soldiers on. Maybe Knox felt bested physically by Meredith.

Knox was foolish to have forgotten her own gifts and skills. The distance from home seemed to diminish her. She must have seen competition with Kercher as her whole world. She let shame and envy ruin her time in Italy. Knox could have leveraged her abilities whether meager or great into a wonderful life, instead of getting all caught up in jealousy and strife.

She should even now return to her art and her crochet work and any other skills she can learn. Like everyone she should seek to increase the positive. It provides something to sow to give to the world and which multiplies back to meet her needs. The old pop song got it crazy but half right with a funky beat, “Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, gotta have something if you wanna be with me.” In other words put something positive out there for your own success as well as others. Meredith was doing that in spades, living large in the spirit and preparing herself for a giving career.

I taught my children the verse that helped me: “Despise not the day of small things.” Zero cannot be multiplied but even a 1 can be multiplied. It’s too easy to get discouraged and into greed and speed. Make haste slowly, the motto of the Madiera School.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/27/14 at 08:02 PM | #

Good words Hopeful.
Knox will have time to take those tentative steps towards the positive when she settles down in Capanne.

We remember Meredith, who has been denied any more steps at all.

I agree Knox was thrown on arriving in Italy, but sadly I think it was more than foolishness that made her go off keel into the negative. Her personality has such a fundamental flaw that such self control was beyond her.

Thank you to Cardiol for placing into the whole some more pieces of the jigsaw - so we can see more clearly.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/28/14 at 12:00 AM | #


“We remember Meredith, who has been denied any more steps at all.”

Very poignantly expressed. We must always remember poor Meredith in all this.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/28/14 at 12:37 PM | #

Yes. With regard to Amanda Knox.

Being positive in this negative world is a compassionate ideal indeed. However in this case I am a vindictive man because I will never forget how Meredith died choking in her own blood unable to call for help because her cell phones had been stolen by Knox and Sollecito.

I will never forget or forgive the blood money.

The destruction of Patrick Lamumba.

The nasty denigration of the Kercher family which added to their the sorrow of their loss.

The machinations of Curt Knox and Chris Mellas in order to make a profit.

The outright lies and slander by Steve and Michelle Moore plus a special place in hell is reserved for Bruce Fischer.

NO… I am a vindictive man who will never stop until these two are brought to the justice they so richly deserve.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/28/14 at 05:14 PM | #

Well-Said, Grahame.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/28/14 at 05:20 PM | #

@Hopeful,  I also feel that Americans are bought up to believe that their country is the greatest on Earth and that they are superior because of this.  Knox left the US full of confidence that she would rule the roost in Italy and when this didn’t materialise, she was angered. 

She sought parental freedom and the joy of spending her days partying and sleeping around.  Meredith represented responsibility and control, and the disdain she felt towards Knox, deservedly so, rankled Knox.  Add to this the fact that Lumumba was replacing Knox with Meredith and I think that this was the final straw.  Knox could envision her play-days coming to a forced end because her funds were running out and she blamed Meredith.

Posted by MHILL4 on 09/28/14 at 08:17 PM | #


I agree regarding the dynamic between AK and Meredith - makes sense.

I have good American friends and I love their optimism and open friendliness. They want to be liked and that’s very refreshing in the often dour UK but they can also (in general - not always) be woefully unaware of their own shadow, in Jungian terms.

The tendency is to believe that evil cannot and does not reside in themselves, it resides elsewhere - historically in the native Americans, the blacks, the commies, more recently the terrorists, or push comes to shove   “foreigners” in general. They are always the “good guys”. If this was an individual and not a nation you would have to say they should spend some time on the psychoanalytic couch.

The Puritans have a lot to answer for. Meanwhile it’s war without end it seems, until the whole thing gets played out (unlikely in our lifetimes, though these are interesting times as they say in China).

Posted by Odysseus on 09/28/14 at 10:19 PM | #

Poor Knox.
Rich Meredith!

Posted by mimi on 09/28/14 at 11:09 PM | #

Who’s the lucky guy?

Posted by pensky on 09/29/14 at 02:00 PM | #

@pensky, Knox couldn’t look more ropey if she tried!  I reckon the stress is getting to her - good!

Posted by MHILL4 on 09/29/14 at 04:45 PM | #

Thanks, Pensky for link to Knox in NYC with new guy. Maybe the job with editor in NYC announced a few months ago has her there. I knew Terrano was a fake cover for her. This musician who speaks French is a risk taker.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/29/14 at 06:31 PM | #

Yes agreed, Hopeful. A glutton for punishment. I wonder if Terrano will be bombarded with lucrative offers now.

Posted by pensky on 09/29/14 at 07:48 PM | #

News Update from Barbie Nadeau:

“#amandaknox high court will convene Mar 25, 2015 to decide whether to uphold murder conviction for murder of #meredithkercher or redo appeal”

Posted by Johnny Yen on 09/30/14 at 06:27 PM | #

So it’s March 2015. Clearly the Supreme Court joins with Italian justice in general in believing that more haste is less speed. That may be right as a rule but it’s frustrating for those of us who think the sooner this sick pair are back behind bars the better it will be for all concerned.

Anyway, on the positive side, the defendants must be frustrated as well - their PR/legal costs will keep on mounting and the coninuing uncertainty means they still can’t “get on with their lives”, poor dears.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/30/14 at 07:22 PM | #

News update from Andrea Vogt:

“Cassation court magistrate Paolo Antonio Bruno lead reviewer in #AmandaKnox & sollecito case, set to be heard March 25, 2015”

Posted by Johnny Yen on 09/30/14 at 07:34 PM | #

PMF Tweeted:

“25 March 2015 - Ominous sign for both #AmandaKnox and Sollecito, two years exactly to the day after the first Supreme Court hearing in 2013”


“#AmandaKnox - Final appeal at Italian High Court date issued: March 25, 2015, one day after #RaffaeleSollecito’s birthday”

Posted by Johnny Yen on 09/30/14 at 07:39 PM | #

From Andrea Vogt:

“Cassation judge who is reportedly lead reviewer on #amandaknox case made news earlier this year for upholding Lavitola conviction.”

Posted by Johnny Yen on 09/30/14 at 08:10 PM | #

Judge Bruno is very tough. Lavitola was a bagman for ex PM Berlusconi who sold a lot of people out in Italy and Panama when prosecutors put the screws on him, so he is maybe safer in jail.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/30/14 at 08:44 PM | #

I see now why Judge Bruno was so tough on Lavitola. Lavitola was appealing a plea bargain! He was wasting the Supreme Court’s time with frivolous arguing.

Lavitola has other investigations focussed on him including an alleged attempt to blackmail Berlusconi.

Bongiorno and the others have never won a case between them at Cassation, and Bongiorno’s frequently unsavory clients will be like a lead weight around the neck of Sollecito.

His book will, also, foolishly reeking as it does of contempt for the Italian courts.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/30/14 at 09:30 PM | #

Lavitola was the pimp who procured underage prostitutes for Berlusconi then tried to blackmail him over it. May find jail an unsafe place after all. But this is the political background to past interference in the trial. That, plus the Monster Of Florence trial.

Posted by Ergon on 10/01/14 at 08:50 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Negative Drumbeat Continues: Two New Developments Mitigating Against Breaks for Knox Or Sollecito

Or to previous entry Analysis #1 Of Testimony Of Marco Chiacchiera, Director, Organized Crime Section, Flying Squad