Sunday, July 26, 2015

Why The Count Of Discredited Prosecution Witnesses Even Now Remains Down Around Zero

Posted by James Raper

As with all images on TJMK this image above will expand if clicked on

Just sifting through the latest drivel on Injustice in Perugia today and I came across this statement from one of their main posters.

“It was physically impossible for Capezalli to have heard any sounds from Meredith’s residence”.

Note : not that she was mistaken or that her evidence was unreliable but the bald statement that it was physically impossible for her to have heard anything.

Was she profoundly deaf then? If not, then why this assertion? Without some basis for this assertion then it is simply a dismissive slur on the credibility of the witness.

This happens to be the same poster who wowed that board with his claim that the Prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence that would have cleared Knox and Sollecito.

Not that he supplied any proof. How could he?

It is axiomatic, of course, that if there was suppressed evidence then what it was would not be known. Nevertheless it was a ready springboard for calls from mindless idiots to have the Prosecution fully investigated and charged with perverting the course of justice!

Anyway, to move on, the purpose of this post is just to revisit (with pictorial assistance) Capezalli’s testimony (I shall call her Nara from now on) and see if there is even a scintilla of justification for the claim.

Now to be fair, Nara did say in her evidence that she had double glazing and maybe that is what he is referring to although for the life of me I don’t see why that would make it impossible for her to hear a scream outside.

But it’s worth investigating because it’s the sort of thing that does get repeated without further analysis and I have read others taking that remark at face value and doubting whether she did hear a scream and, perhaps more credibly, whether she would have heard the sound of someone running on the gravel of the cottage forecourt and up the metal steps from the car park.

Here is what she said -

“What happens is that getting up I’m going past the window of the dining room, because the bathroom is on that side, and as I am there I heard a scream, but a scream that wasn’t a normal scream. [A terrifying and agonising long scream as she describes it elsewhere] I got goose bumps to be truthful. At that moment I no longer knew what was happening, and then I went on to the bathroom. There is a little window with no shutters, none at all.”

Mignini then asks -

Q—Well, you go by the window and you hear this cry?
Ans ““ Yes.
Q ““ Then you continue to go towards the bathroom, you told me?
Ans ““ Yes.
Q ““ Do you open the bathroom window?
Ans ““ No.
Q ““ Explain what happened for us.
Ans ““ I haven’t any shutters on that window, I only have double-glazing so I can look straight out
Q ““ So you looked out of the bathroom window?
Ans”“ I didn’t open up because I had all the little succulent plants there for the light.

A little late in her testimony Mignini seeks to clarify her evidence -

Q”“ So you hear the scream, go to the bathroom, look out the window and you don’t see anything?
Ans ““ No.
Q ““ Then you go back to the bedroom?
Ans ““ Yes.
Q ““ When is it that you hear the noises you described, and then we will see what they are?
Ans ““ I hear the noises I described when I was closing the bathroom door, then I heard running, because that steel there [the metal stairs] makes a tremendous noise at night, then when you don’t hear cars going by or such like, I looked out but there was nobody there.
Q ““ From which way?
Ans ““ To the left and the right, and there was nobody there.
Q ““ Then you heard the scuffling?
Ans ““ The same, in the meantime I heard running on the stairs, from the other direction they were running in the driveway.

Much later Nara is helpfully (perhaps) cross examined by Dalla Vedova on her remark that she has double glazing, as follows -

CDV - How are your windows made?
Ans -  My windows are made of wood. They have double glazing and they have a shutter.
CDV - When you say “they have double glazing” do you mean that every single window has two panes, or are there two windows, one in front of the other?
Ans -  No, two panes in each side and opening in the middle.

Confused? What is she really describing?

Many moons ago Kermit put together a very helpful Powerpoint lambasting the behaviour and claims of Paul Ciolino, the American PI who appeared on CBS rubbishing the suggestion that Nara would have been able to hear anything. It is obviously Ciolino’s disreputable work that is the basis for the claim.

I am going to lift some stills from Kermit’s excellent Powerpoint and add to them some more from a (somewhat infamous) Channel 5 documentary, from which it will be clear that

(a) Nara doesn’t have double glazing, nor shutters, at least not at the back of her property overlooking the cottage. However there are shutters at the front and, for all I know, double glazing there but that is not of concern to us.

(b)  There is little reason to doubt that she would have been able to hear sounds outside quite well.

Let’s start.

Here’s a picture of the back of Nara’s property immediately above the car park.

Here it is again in relation to the cottage

In the first picture Nara’s first floor flat is shown circled. In the second, it is obvious that only the roof of the cottage would be visible from the first floor, as indeed she said in her testimony.

There are two further floors above. The top floor is the one to which Ciolino (and Pater Van Sant) gained access, having tried but failed to interest Nara. Nara in her evidence said that there was an apartment above which she rented out and I suspect that this was the top floor. The top floor undoubtedly had double glazing or double casements.

Below is one of the top floor windows. (We can see Ciolino’s reflection in the glass)

And here he is, standing in front of the same window whilst conducting his experiment with a couple of kids running along the road outside -

As we shall see it really was quite pointless conducting off-the-cuff sound experiments from there with the double casement shut tight

Nara said that her daughter also lived in the building so either the second floor was a separate conversion for her daughter or first and second were shared and the second was where their bedrooms were. That’s actually immaterial as it is the first floor that really interests us.

Here is a close up of the first floor. We can be sure because we can see Nara and the co-presenters of the Channel 5 documentary standing on the balcony.

We can see how large the windows are on either side of the balcony. As to the window on the right it is also apparent that this has been blocked up save as to four panes in the middle so that now there is only that smaller window there.

Let us now look at that window from the inside.

“One went up, one went over there” is Nara explaining to the Italian TV reporter the sounds she heard.

Clearly then she is standing inside her bathroom and the bathroom window looks over the car park. Indeed we can see her succulent plants on the inside window ledge as she stated in her evidence. Also, if we look closely, we can see that her wall is tiled or wall-papered with a tile design befitting a bathroom. Probably that wall is also made of little more than plasterboard.

One thing is quite certain though and that is that the window, which opens in the middle, is not double glazed.

Nara’s understanding however seems to be rather different. To her “double glazing” is (as she said to Dalla Vedova) “two panes in each side and opening in the middle”.

We can also infer that the large window to the left of the balcony belongs to her dining room. What she said, in effect, was that she was traversing the first floor (from left to right) from her dining room to her bathroom (being both on the same side, as she says). She heard the scream in her dining room.

The window there does not appear to be blocked off as it is to the right. Indeed I think we can see full length drapes or net curtains but certainly one would expect a larger window there and again, clearly, it is not double glazed.

So again, why would it be physically impossible for her to have heard a sound, particularly a scream, coming from the cottage?

It couldn’t be because it was too far away. We can see that from the pictures but also here is a handy GoogleMap calculation of the distance from her place to the far side of the cottage.

So that’s, say, 45 metres. Or 49 yards. Not far at all. Thanks to Yummi for bringing that up on

We should also remember that it was the 1st November which is a religious holiday in Italy in remembrance of the dead and therefore background noise was quieter than usual. It was also probably sometime around 11pm and the back of Nara’s property looks out on what is a natural amphitheatre in which noise will echo.

Nara Capezalli in fact came across as a compelling witness to what she heard that night and there is no way at all that it was physically impossible for her not to have heard that scream. Nor the metal stairs (”..makes a tremendous noise at night””¦.) just off to the right of her property and immediately below it.

On a personal note I was recently driven nuts by a manhole cover that had come loose in the road outside my bedroom window. Cars constantly drove over it and the noise kept me awake. The top floor of the car park would probably also act like a sounding board and the noise made by the stairs may also have come up through the stairwell we see immediately in front of her property. I am not so sure about the sound of gravel on the cottage forecourt being crunched underneath but already I am more than prepared to believe Nara on that score as well. Why not?

Finally, as we await the Cassation Motivation (whenever!) I seem to remember that at least one appeal point was the failure of the lower courts to accede to a defence request for audio tests to be conducted from Nara’s property.

Bearing in mind that Judge Marasca reportedly has stated that the ground for overturning the Nencini convictions was insufficient and contradictory evidence one wonders whether Cassation will say that a test was required, in the absence of which Nara’s testimony can be thrown into a pot along with other evidence somehow deemed “insufficient”?

If they do then watch out for them getting the double glazing issue quite wrong as well.


“Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting”

There are several points to be accounted for:

Young people can hear higher frequencies more clearly but with age our high frequency cutoff actually drops off.

Something is perhaps lost in translation. Double pane or double shutters is not the same as double glazing as understood in the US. Virtually no old houses (over there) has double glazed window (with the US meaning) and they usually come with aluminum frame. The two layers of glasses are sealed and cannot be independently moved. Such an arrangement reduces high frequency sound but not really lower frequencies. In fact, lower frequency sounds can climb the stairs and enter the room via closed doors.

In my opinion, the more relevant question is whether Amanda Knox did hear the scream. She was the first one to mention/ report the scream, right? Or, are all these comes from her fertile imagination?

As one gets older, we become more sensitive to noise at night, when we are trying to sleep. We would have ignored the same sound during the middle of the day but at night it would have spooked us. Many (young ones) would just ignore it though (even at night).

Posted by chami on 07/27/15 at 06:28 AM | #

There does seem to be an ambiguity in both the English and the Italian usages of the word “glaze”, as exemplified by expressions such as “his eyes glazed over”.

Dictionaries say that “glaze”, referring to the eyes, means that there was a loss of brightness and liveliness in the eyes. Is this a metaphor? (“The eyes”, often refers to the skin around the eyes)

Doesn’t it suggest that the transmission of light is less-clear? Less transparent? More towards frosted translucence?

James, when you write:

“One thing is quite certain though and that is that the window, which opens in the middle, is not double glazed.

Nara’s understanding however seems to be rather different. To her, “double glazing” is (as she said to Dalla Vedova) “two panes in each side and opening in the middle.” “

Are you saying that when Nara said (in translation) “double glazing” (doppi vetri in Italian) she did not mean what we understand that description to mean (a pair of transparent glass panes in a single frame with a space between them, which reduces heat and noise transmission through the window) but meant only that the double-framed window had single panes in single frames on each side of its middle-opening?

Could she have just meant that each window-pane was transparent on both of its interior and its exterior surfaces? As opposed to a toilet-window pane that is frosted and translucent on one or both sides ?

Is this an issue personal to Nara?  a language-translation issue,? or an ambiguity inherent in English and Italian language usage?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 07/27/15 at 09:32 AM | #

Good point Cardiol. She does say “I only have double glazing so I can look straight out” be it that she prefaces that with the remark that she has no shutters there.

Posted by James Raper on 07/27/15 at 10:06 AM | #

The mismatch between what the lawyers argued in court and the out-of-thin-air claims of those non-Italian-speakers on Fischer’s sites is indeed pervasive.

Double-glazing is as rare on windows especially of older places in Perugia and in Italy in general as is air-conditioning. In the mild climate, the cost is simply not justified. 

Were Signora Nara’s old windows double-glazed for temperature? Like James and Kermit, I have never thought so - and even if they were, noise would easily get through. Reason as follows, which fits with what Chami presented above:

Around NYC the hot and cold temperatures and the sounds from firetrucks and ambulances and helicopters are a lot more extreme than anything experienced in Perugia.

The triple-glazed windows in our place, on floor 33 of an exposed tower facing Manhattan from across the Hudson River are typical in high-rises in the area and quite common now in refurbished brownstone town-houses.

Two of the glass panes are very close together, about 1/4 inches (less than 1/2 centimeter) apart, and sealed in a single aluminum element for heat & cold protection (insulation) and nitrogen-filled to reduce corrosion.

Then there is a third single glass pane element on the inside of that above, about 2 inches (5 centimeters) from the first one.

Both elements can slide up and down. We can have either element alone closed or both of them.  Neither element ALONE does much to keep sounds out.

If we want sound-proofing we MUST have both of the elements closed. Either that or we will easily hear sounds from ground-level - which for us is actually about double the distance Yummi and James calculated for the house from Signora Nara’s window.

It is the 2-inch-wide trapped column of air that eliminates almost all outside sounds. Signora Nara clearly did not have that kind of sound-proofing.

Given the short distance James demonstrates, and the extreme quiet in that area at night, she could quite easily have heard screams or raised voices from the house with her window shut.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/27/15 at 01:25 PM | #

Capezzali’s testimony is also corroborated by Monacchia, Knox and Guede (supposedly the lone killer.) They all heard a scream, or claimed to hear a scream, so it’s foolish to try to discredit only Capezzali. She was not the only one to hear a scream.

Regarding double-glazing, or insulating glass, it is simply not true that sound doesn’t pass through insulating glass. Sound also passes through glass, cracks, joints and seals, of windows, doors and any other type of wall opening. Peter is correct to note that the 2” air space dampens sound much more. In fact, you generally need about an inch or more of dead air space to reduce sound transmission. The typical 1/2” gap of insulating glass does little to attenuate sound.

Capezzali’s testimony is also critical because it supports the other two ear witnesses, Monacchia and Dramis, who are all in relative agreement that the scream happened after 11 PM. Capezzali was taking a diuretic since the death of her husband two years prior, and from her testimony it is quite clear she had a routine of taking the diuretic before going to bed, going to bed around 9-9:30 PM and waking up two hours later due to the diuretic’s effect (and so 11-11:30 PM). And it was while she was going to the bathroom that she heard the scream.

Monacchia testified she went to bed around 10 PM but wasn’t able to quantify after how long she was awaken.

Dramis instead hear running past her window and she went to bed around 11:00 PM and estimated to have heard the running around 11:30 PM. This roughly matches Capezzali’s estimate. It is extremely likely that whoever ran up the metal stairs also ran past Dramis’ bedroom window.

The other thing to note is that both Monacchia and Capezzali looked out their windows and saw no activity, either in the car park or street. Capezzali claims to have seen 2-3 cars in the car park. This is also significant because the car park would indeed have been empty by then, whereas it would have been active with people leaving from 9-11 PM, especially people leaving from restaurants. This would have been eve more likely on the eve of a holiday.

Posted by Olleosnep on 07/27/15 at 02:33 PM | #

It should also be recalled that Massei and his fellow judges actually visited the cottage and had the opportunity to take in the surroundings.

It would seem unlikely that it was not pointed out to them where the witness to the scream lived. In the event they would have noticed, as can we, just how large her windows were.

Furthermore Hellmann doesn’t doubt it either -

“Nevertheless, this Court has no real [davvero] reason to doubt the credibility of the witness
concerning the scream and the sounds she heard at night”.

That doesn’t scotch the groupies though, as I’ve pointed out.

Of course Hellmann goes on to express doubts about timing and even (though this is sheer speculation by him) whether it was on the night of the murder or whether it was someone else screaming. Hmm

Thanks Olleosnep. In any event the 3 perps have no possible alibi from 9.20pm to midnight, which is why you get the sort of silly remark, the subject of my post. They need to detach Nara so as to hypothesize the murder outside this time frame.

Posted by James Raper on 07/27/15 at 03:14 PM | #

49 yards isn’t far. Think of the 50-yard line of an American football field. I think I could yell that far, the coaches try. James Raper points out the natural amphitheater beneath Nara’s window, easy for sound to rise upward and on a cold, damp November night with traffic quiet.

All sorts of sounds do carry. Nara recalls a noise quite out of the ordinary that even raised goosebumps on her skin. That’s a fear response. She sensed trouble so she looked out of her bathroom window to try to get a visual.

Even in broad daylight with cars rushing past you could probably stand in the front yard of the cottage and yell up to Nara’s balcony.

Neighbors yell from house to house across lawns sometimes, yelling for pets to return, yelling for kids to come home.

Posted by Hopeful on 07/27/15 at 04:24 PM | #

@chami: “The two layers of glasses are sealed and cannot be independently moved. Such an arrangement reduces high frequency sound but not really lower frequencies. In fact, lower frequency sounds can climb the stairs and enter the room via closed doors.”

Very true! The lower frequency limit for the human sensation of pressure waves as “Sound” is 16 cycles/sec, at sea-level.

This corresponds to a wavelength of just over 1000 feet.

At that length sound waves can very easily “climb the stairs and enter the room via closed doors.”

Posted by Cardiol MD on 07/27/15 at 04:25 PM | #

Nike footsounds on streets do include frequencies as low as 16 cycles/sec. (With wavelength greater than 333 yards)

Posted by Cardiol MD on 07/27/15 at 04:35 PM | #

Sound does travel slower the higher the altitude, and is affected by temperature, but even allowing for those in Perugia, the above values are close enough.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 07/27/15 at 05:17 PM | #

I also find that the Italian concept of time is very fluid: if they are not going to catch a flight, they won’t look at their watch- watch is nothing but a piece of jewellery for most Italians.

Please do not take otherwise, many Italians are simply puzzled by the Germans’ sense of time. No offence meant, but 11 PM simply means night time. Insisting clock time from an elderly lady is criminal, to say the least.

This is a cultural thing and I personally like the relaxed mood. Even the classes in the university are relaxed- for both the teachers and students. The day is made of breakfast, lunch and coffee times. Time is elastic (physics says so), if you can talk and talk and someone (includes no one) is willing to listen.

It is sheer nonsense to say that 10:30 is different from 11:30 at night. Nobody is slave to the time, not in Italy!

Written in a light mood- no offence meant.

Posted by chami on 07/27/15 at 07:38 PM | #

@ chami, I completely agree that time is quite relative in Italy, especially the further south you go(!!!)

But in Capezzali’s case, she volunteered the information repeatedly during her testimony. She never varies from her stating that she typically went to bed between 9-9:30 and that the diuretic typically woke her up 2 hours later roughly. Since this was a nightly occurrence for her, there’s no real reason to doubt her time frame, especially because it was the effect of the diuretic that awoke her (and not the scream).

It’s also notable since Capezalli herself admits during testimony that she didn’t ‘live by her watch’, but yet felt quite confident in indicating the approximate time duration of two hours before having to go to the bathroom (a time duration that I’ve heard my own parents indicate- they both took diuretics). And it’s an approximation reinforced by its daily (nightly) occurrence for Capezzali.

Finally, her timing is corroborated by Monacchia and above all by Dramis, and also by Lalli’s estimated TOD. The SC ruling that destroyed Hellmann mentions these points rather specifically.

If Capezzali had been the only ear witness, I’d agree that one would need to give her timings some latitude. But there are other pieces that help reinforce that timing.

Posted by Olleosnep on 07/27/15 at 08:39 PM | #

Hi Chami

No, your description of Italian attitudes to time actually rings no bell for me, and those who mean Italy harm might twist your words to hurt our purpose here.

I found exactly the opposite to what you describe [which is also said about India…! ] when running UN meetings and arranging study for experts from other countries there.  Everything always happened on time, and everybody went the extra mile.

In my experience [which is not unknown to scientists…! ] it always pays to relentlessly peel the onion to where one identifies the core system problem, and blaming people for this or that supposed quality invariably stops the effort dead and allows the real problem to fester.

The Europe-wide system itself is in my mind ill-conceived and exhausting and discouraging. But if north Italy had its own floating currency it would be doing as well as Germany and if south Italy had its own floating currency it would not be the economic and law-enforcement drain that it is.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/28/15 at 09:59 AM | #


My major contact in Italy was ICTP in Trieste and I spent about a year at Milan. My first stop outside my country was in Rome (about 40 years ago). ICTP runs like clockwork but you start losing the sense of time once you go down south. You could set your watch by the arrival and departure of German trains (not really true anymore today) but I have also missed flight due to late running of German trains.

Once you start getting older, the body functions no more runs like clockwork. I was just trying to say that the time mentioned should not be taken literally. Two hours just may mean sometime later.

About the economic issues you mention, I have a different opinion. The problems are multi-centric and in fact there are no real core problems. You can say that there are several interacting core problems. Part of this is cultural and some are organic in nature.

Europe enjoys far greater diversity than one sees in the US or in South Asia. External appearance are really not correct indicators. There is a north south divide within the Italy itself and people constantly refer to another by their regional origin (so-and-so is from here-or-there).

Anyway, I did not mean any offense.

Posted by chami on 07/28/15 at 11:27 AM | #

Hi Chami

Thanks very much for the mod on time. I know you love Italy and Italians a lot.

On “multi-centric problems” that is what we all thought in UN development a few years ago. Italy may seem like that - family ownership of firms, old concepts, lack of scale, lack of English, etc. Long lists. That old-mode thinking is the major cause of global growth slowing down - include China in that now.

Many of us thought “people problems” had to come first and many of us thought “systems problems” had to come first, but eventually everybody was worn out and discouraged and the funding slowed down.

The math on value migration (initiated here in NYC) revealed a real shocker to those few who knew how to do it and see the results: about 3/4 of any income-producing effort at any level (sub-firm, firm, industry, city or other area, nation) is either just treading water or shedding value, often fast and often on a very big scale.

To repeat: that problem besets 3/4 of the world, where vast amounts of capital are uselessly tied up and vast amounts of tax dollars go to waste. Meanwhile, the resource-starved other 1/4 is doing ALL the heavy lifting to create growth.

Most governmental subventions in fact go to try to reverse that 3/4 rather than to putting the useful 1/4 on steroids. So do most systems-enhancement efforts. So do most people-enhancement efforts. Recognising widely what the value equation is is the only way of pointing efforts at the right place. Governments dont do that yet, only stockmarkets and currency exchange rates, on a limited scale.

Universities could and should have a big role in this but so far just a few profs and no big schools have picked up the ball and most add little if anything of what we really need.

In the US almost all value is created on the coasts and hundreds of billions head inland via the Inland Revenue Service. In the NYC area we get back about 80% of what we pay in taxes whereas certain states in the interior get back 120% or more. Both we and they are hurt to the probable extent that the growth potential of the US is halved.

I dont believe much in magic tools (or in economists for that matter) but seeing and encouraging any real growth potential in value terms (aka economic profit) has to come first. That is only obvious when all the modern tools are shared (right now this is the highest paid consulting in the world so dont hold your breath) and when exchange rates and stockmarkets and management as a result work right.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/28/15 at 02:18 PM | #

PS: This above is why I think it so odd that elements on the two PMFs are being allowed to rant on in FOA mode that it is Italy that is screwed. Italy has more of the correct answer than most other countries, it just needs to “see” the above and get down to the real work.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/28/15 at 04:23 PM | #

James, to follow through on this subject, more explicitly:

Mignini asked Nara:

“Q—Well, you go by the window and you hear this cry?
Ans – Yes.
Q – Then you continue to go towards the bathroom, you told me?
Ans – Yes.
Q – Do you open the bathroom window?
Ans – No.
Q – Explain what happened for us.
Ans – I haven’t any shutters on that window, I only have double-glazing so I can look straight out
Q – So you looked out of the bathroom window?
Ans– I didn’t open up because I had all the little succulent plants there for the light.”

So, Nara agreed that as she was going towards her bathroom she heard “this cry”.

Then she indicates that she did not open her bathroom window.

Next Mignini asks Nara to “Explain what happened”, inviting a narrative Ans, but Nara responds by Explaining why she has only “double glazing”: “so I can look straight out”, implying that if she did not “only have double glazing” she could not look straight out.

Why would “double glazing” prevent Nara from looking “straight out” of her bathroom window?
Because In Nara’s mind “double glazing” in a bathroom window meant a glass pane transparent on both surfaces, and not frosted on either surface?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 07/28/15 at 11:04 PM | #

The original Italian is this:
GM: Quindi lei passa davanti alla vetrata e sente questo grido?
NC: Sì.
GM: Poi continua ad andare verso il bagno, mi ha detto?
NC: Sì.
GM: Lei apre la finestra del bagno?
NC: No.
GM: Ci spieghi allora com’è successo.
NC: Non ho le persiane su quella finestra, ho solo i vetri doppi e quindi io posso guardare e basta.
GM: Quindi ha guardato dalla finestra del bagno.
NC: Non ho aperto perché avevo tutte le piantine grasse lì per la luce.
GM: Però ha guardato attraverso la finestra?
NC: Sì.
GM: E dalla finestra lei ha detto che si vedevano anche le scale di ferro del parcheggio?

Capezzali is merely saying that because the bathroom window has no shutters, but only consists of ‘double glazing’ (she actually means two windowpanes side by side) that she can look out. There is that ‘e basta’ she which adds, which one might take could be for emphasis, but I think that’s a throw-away particle.

Later on under cross exam from Della Vedova, Capezzali says:

CDV: Signora tornando invece alla sera dove lei dice di avere sentito questo, mi può dire esattamente ... quella sera era freddo, era caldo?
NC: Era freddo e tirava il vento.
CDV: E le finestre com’erano, chiuse?
NC: Certo.
CDV: Le finestre sue come sono fatte?
NC:Le mie finestre sono di legno, hanno i doppi vetri e c’hanno la persiana.
CDV: Quando lei dice: “ci hanno i doppi vetri” vuol dire che ogni singola finestra hanno due metri o sono due finestre, una davanti all’altra?
NC: No, due vetri per una parte, si apre in mezzo.
CDV: E la finestra che dà sul balcone ha anche una finestra sul balcone?
NC: No.
CDV: Quindi c’è solo una finestra?
NC: Una finestra che va al balcone.

By ‘doppi vetri’ Capezzali actually means a casement window, a window with ‘glass for one side (she means each side), opening in the middle’. Vedova confuses the matter also because the ‘window’ leading to the balcony is actually a glass door, what in the US is called a pair of ‘french’ doors. The correct term in Italian would be ‘porta finestra’.

Posted by Olleosnep on 07/29/15 at 05:00 AM | #

Hello to everybody and thanks a lot for yours precious work. Just to remark on James Raper’s comment about Capezzali’ testimony.

John Follain in his book “Death in Perugia” writes:

“She (Nara) slept for 2 hours or a little more and walked towards the bathroom. As she passed the large window in the dining room wich gave out onto her terrace,she said later: I heard a scream…such a scream…an agonising scream which gave me gooseflesh. The scream went on for a long time and she heard it very clearly. (...) Two seconds, maybe a minute after the scream, she walked out of the bathroom and as she closed the door behind her, she heard the sound of someone running on the iron staircase. Almost at the same time, she heard a scurrying sound, as if someone was running along the cottage’s drive of stones and dry leaves, towards Piaxxa Girama.”


Thanks a lot for your precious explanation about double glazing/doppi vetri. I agree with you

Posted by Albi62 on 07/29/15 at 12:49 PM | #

Nara says ” I hear the noises I described when I was closing the bathroom door”. She could be entering or exiting. It’s not clear from that but maybe the answer can be gleaned from the rest of her testimony. However she could hardly be exiting the bathroom two seconds after the scream, so Follain is a bit off base there.

Posted by James Raper on 07/29/15 at 04:16 PM | #

Of course these unknown purveyors of lies and filth will try anything to discredit anything they perceive as damaging testimony.

On the Knox web site blog there is very little activity. She has posted a few photos of dogs. very nice, but again just another veil to cover her true self.

The few people who wish to protect her from herself will diminish as she will over time. I notice as well that the wedding is off and there is nothing mentioned about her next intended boy-toy flavor of the week, just like Sollecito and dozens of others.

Incidentally nothing is being said about both Guede and Sollecito. In that silence I detect people who are keeping a low profile, that is except Knox whose ego will not let her stay silent for very long.

In that there is the key, of course, because the more she (sic) ‘exposes her self’ the more her true lying nature will show through.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 07/29/15 at 04:20 PM | #

@James. In fact Follain is quoting Capezzali who says that not in her testimony, but in her November 27, 2007 deposition, recently posted on the Wiki.

In her testimony, Capezzali clarifies it a bit:

GM: Quindi lei sente l’urlo, va nel bagno, guarda sulla finestra e non vede niente?
NC: No.
GM: Poi ritorna in camera?
NC: Sì.
GM: Quando è che sente i rumori che ha descritto, che poi vedremo che cosa sono?
NC: Sento i rumori che ho descritto quando stavo chiudendo la porta del bagno, allora ho sentito correre, perché quel ferro lì fa un rumore tremendo durante la notte poi, quando non si sentono passare le macchine o cose del genere, ho guardato ma non c’era nessuno. Poi ho guardato dall’altra parte, ma non c’era nessuno.

Later Avv. Serena Perna gets her to clarify a bit better:

SP: Lei signora ha parlato del grido che ha sentito e dei rumori che generalmente sente e ha sentito negli anni da casa sua.
NC: Sì.
SP: Il grido che lei ha sentito è differente dai rumori soliti che è abituata a sentire o no?
NC: Troppo insolito!
GCM: Scusi?
NC: Differente, non lo so, c’era qualcosa che ho capito che era successo o qualche incidente, perché lì, le ho detto, succedono sempre, sotto quella strada, ma non mi aspettavo che era successa una cosa del genere.
SP: Lei prima ha raccontato di essere andata al bagno e di avere sentito il grido mentre andava al bagno.
NC: Sì, proprio davanti alla finestra della sala.
SP: Dopodiché va in bagno?
NC: Sì.
SP: E quando sente il rumore della corsa sulle scale e il rumore della gente che corre sulla ghiaia e sulle foglie?
NC: Veramente prima di andare al bagno io ho guardato dalla finestra, ma la finestra mia ispezione tutto l’arco del parcheggio praticamente, io vedo dove entrano le macchine, infatti io tante volte mi metto sulla terrazza quando rientra mia figlia per vederla rientrare e mettere giù la pasta, quindi entrare e poi vedo l’uscita del parcheggio però ci sono questi intermedi, queste scalette di ferro che vanno per uscire fuori in via Pinturicchio insomma.
SP: Ma lei è andata al bagno e il rumore della gente che correva l’ha sentito quando rispetto all’essere andata dal bagno?
NC: Madonna mia, quando mi sono alzata dal bagno, che le devo dire?!
SP: Quindi è passato qualche minuto o no fra che lei ha sentito il grido ed è uscito dal bagno?
NC: Un minuto sarà passato, però si sentiva correre, non è che si andava piano, ma correvano. Poi se erano ragazzi… i piedi loro erano più pesanti, c’hanno le scarpe, il passo più pesante di una donna, la donna ha sempre i tacchetti più oppure…
SP: Non ho altre domande.

Posted by Olleosnep on 07/29/15 at 06:30 PM | #

In other words, she heard the running sounds after she had gone to the bathroom, while she was closing the bathroom door. So at least a few minutes between the scream and the running.

What is notable here is that the running on the stairs happen at about the same time she heard running on the gravel. In fact Capezzali says she heard the running on the stair first. So whoever was running on the stairs had run out of the cottage earlier than whoever was running on the gravel. It is likely K and S ran out first, and G followed later, so that by the time G was in the driveway, K and S were already on the stairs.

Posted by Olleosnep on 07/29/15 at 06:35 PM | #

“It is likely K and S ran out first, and G followed later, so that by the time G was in the driveway, K and S were already on the stairs [the steel steps].”

Of course. And presumably all three themselves were rattled by the loud scream that they themselves knew would easily carry to neighboring areas.

That is an eerie area at night - not unsafe or threatening, merely extremely brightly lit (by both street lights and parking deck lights) and extremely quiet.  Both the gravel and the steel stairs do (or did) make considerable noise when walked upon.

As suggested by James in an email, below are images of the route Knox and Sollecito followed.

1. Shots below: runners ran up the ramp toward the steel stairs at the far (east) end



2. Shots below: Signora Nara’s apartment window is at center above tree and black car



3. Shots below: the steel stairs at the east end of the parking facility





4. Shot below: looking back toward the top of the steel stairs from Via Pinturicchio


5. Shot below: looking back down Via Pinturicchio, the arch is level with the walker


6. Shots below: the gelateria and chocolateria, with stone steps headed down to its left



7. Shot below: the top of the stone steps - the view Curatolo would have had


Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/29/15 at 07:38 PM | #
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 Knox Book Phenomenon: PR Reaction Way Too Strident & Only Grows Suspicion She DID Do It

Or to previous entry Amazon Reviews: Are Knox PR’s 1000 Dishonest Paid Reviews Losing Traction?