Sunday, May 08, 2011

Questions For Knox: 15 Questions That Drew Griffin On CNN Tonight SHOULD Have Asked

Posted by The Machine

Drew Griffin’s CNN report on Amanda Knox (replete with dozens of basic errors) can be read in transcript here.

Welcome to migrants from CNN. If you want to form a seriously fact-based opinion, please read this group of posts and especially the one by the very smart lawyer SomeAlbi at the top.

Amanda Knox’s family and friends are notorious for running a mile rather than ever facing any hard questioning. This is unique in crime reporting on American TV where strong suspects and convicted felons otherwise invariably get roasted - heard of CNN’s own Jane Velez Mitchell and Nancy Grace?

So it’s a pretty safe bet that we have got right in advance (see previous posts below) what Drew Griffin’s report for CNN will be like.

It will undoubtedly be very biased and one-sided, with the vast majority of the interviews featuring members of Amanda Knox’s family and supporters being tossed a number of soft ball questions.

The program will no doubt shamefully try to manipulate the emotions of the viewers, with the seemingly obligatory footage of Edda Mellas crying and numerous images of Amanda Knox as a baby and child. None of this has anything to do with the evidence that led to her unanimous conviction.

And it will babble on ignorantly about Mr Mignini without an ounce of impartial investigation..

Don’t expect to see any images of Amanda Knox that undermine her carefully crafted girl-next-door image. Such as the footage of her kissing Raffaele Sollecito outside the cottage whilst Meredith’s mutilated body was still inside, and such as the CCTV images of Knox laughing and kissing Sollecito in the boutique as if she didn’t have a care in the world.

I have listed below a number of tough questions that Drew Griffin should, but its a very safe bet won’t, ask Amanda Knox’s family. First, a couple of vital context facts.

1. The various alibis

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave at least three different alibis, all of which have turned out to be false. Nobody has ever provided a plausible innocent explanation for the numerous lies that Knox and Sollecito told before and after 5 November 2007.

Amanda Knox told Filomena that she had already phoned the police. Knox’s mobile phone records proved that this was untrue.

She told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked. Filomena strongly disagreed with her, and told the postal police the opposite was true.

And in her email to friends in on 4 November 2007, Amanda Knox says she called Meredith’s phones after speaking to Filomena. Knox’s mobile phone records prove that this was untrue and that she had called Meredith’s phones first.

Question for Knox: Why did Amanda Knox lie to Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007 and to her friends in her e-mail on 4 November 2007?

2. Sollecito’s alibi lies

On 5 November 2007, Raffaele Sollecito admitted to the police that he had lied to them and said that Amanda Knox had asked him to lie for her. He claimed that Amanda Knox had left his apartment at around 9.00pm and returned at about 1.00am on the night of the murder.

Question for Knox: Why did Sollecito stop providing Amanda Knox with an alibi and why does he still refuse to corroborate her alibi?

3. Sollecito’s further alibi lies

After admitting he had lied, Sollecito was given another opportunity to tell the police the truth. However, he decided to tell the police even more lies. These lies were exposed by his computer and mobile phone records.

Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

He claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. There was no human interaction on his computer between 9.10am and 5.32am.

He claimed that he had slept until after 10.00am on 2 November 2007. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and played music for about 30 minutes. He turned on his mobile phone at about 6.02am and received three phone calls at 9.24am (248 seconds long) and at 9.30am and at 9.29am (38 seconds long).

4. The DNA on the bra clasp

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

Question for Knox: Bearing in mind that DNA doesn’t fly, how would you account for the abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA being on Meredith’s bra clasp?

5. The DNA on the large knife

Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli - categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

Question for Knox: How would you account for Meredith’s DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

6. The traces of mixed blood

A number of criminal biologists testified at the trial that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood. Independent DNA expert Luciano Garofano stated that this was undoubtedly the case and even Amanda Knox’s lawyers conceded that her blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood.

Question for Knox: Why was Amanda Knox bleeding on the night of the murder and why was her blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in four different parts of the cottage?

7. Sollecito claims to cut Meredith

Sollecito claimed in his diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking.

Question for Knox: Why do you think Sollecito lied about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking?

8. Sollecito on Filomena’s room

Sollecito told the police that nothing had been stolen from Filomena’s room.

Question for Knox: How did Sollecito know nothing had been stolen from Filomena’s room?

9. Knox accuses Patrick

According to the corroborative testimony of multiple witnesses, including Knox’s interpreter, she voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith.

Question for Knox: Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily accuse an innocent man of murder?

10. Knox refusal to recant

She acknowledged that it was her fault that Diya Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007, but she didn’t retract her allegation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison.

Question for Knox: Why didn’t Amanda Knox recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba when he was in prison?

11. Knox at crime scene

Amanda Knox state on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed

Question for Knox: Why did Knox repeatedly claim to be there?

12. Knox’s Seattle call

Amanda Knox called her mother at 4.47am Seattle time before Meredith’s body had been discovered.

Question for Knox: Why did she phone her mother when it was in the middle of the night in Seattle and before anything had happened?

13. Knox forgets that call

Knox told her mother and the court that couldn’t remember making this phone call.

Question for Knox: Do you think Amanda Knox can’t genuinely remember phoning her mother at in the middle of the night?

14. Knox involvement

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted her involvement in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007.

Question for Knox: Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith’s murder?

15. Knox calls Meredith

Knox claimed that when she called Meredith’s Italian phone it “just kept ringing, no answer”. Her mobile phone records show this call lasted just three seconds.

Question for Knox:  Question for Knox: Do you think Amanda Knox made a genuine attempt to contact Meredith on 2 November 2007?

Tweet This Post


CNN if you choose to ignore the true facts and the real investigation why don’t you just call this Springer or Geraldo?

Posted by friar fudd on 05/09/11 at 01:12 AM | #

The CNN report just aired on the east coast. How truly absurd. What a naive lighweight Drew Griffin comes across as. Tries hard to taunt Mignini. Shrill claims on and on - and on - about how the tabloid press did AK in.

Apart from wall to wall bias, Griffin is absolutely at sea on the basic facts - the piece was riddled with errors. Doug Preston comes on shrill and self absorbed with the usual irrelevancies. Edda did the usual serial sobbing.

Almost not a word on Meredith, obviously no attempt to try to involve her family. Pathetic work through and through. We will have a copy for download later and some rebuttal and Mignini’s full remarks transcribed.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/09/11 at 04:58 AM | #

Sigh. I can see Huffington Post throwing out another article tomorrow based on the CNN report.
There used to be a lot of FOA there last year, but they seem to be somewhat reduced in number now.
RIP Meredith Kercher. I can’t imagine it must be for her mother today, on Mother’s Day.

Posted by Ergon on 05/09/11 at 06:19 AM | #

Drew Griffin’s CNN report is viewable or downloadable here:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/09/11 at 06:22 AM | #

Hi Ergon. Give us an overview of Huff Posts coverage? I come across occasional pieces but havent followed it too diligently.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/09/11 at 07:06 AM | #

Have watched the download, for which thanks Peter.

What a total joke!

Drew’s initial statement sets the scene. “For the next hour, forget all you know”! (I am going to hypnotize you and when you wake up you are only going to remember, and I mean only remember, what we want you to remember about the case!).

Why the X-files music?

Anyway just some observations on the absurd, the misleading and the downright lies :-

1. “The police arrested Patrick despite the fact that he had been in his crowded bar the night of the murder”. Crowded????????? No actually, pretty empty. Patrick was fortunate that one of the very few customers he had that night came all the way from Zurich to give him his alibi.

2. “Guede’s bloody handprint on the wall”. That was Meredith’s blood and there was no fingerprint found in it or Guede’s DNA.

3. Despite several shots of the cottage there was not one that showed the side with Filomena’s window. Indeed twice, if not more, drive past reels from a car approaching from the other side were stopped at exactly the point when her window would come into view. The staged break in and burglary were not even mentioned. It is that plus AK’s and RS’ behaviour that quite rightly made the police suspicious. This was not the harebrained musings of some mad prosecutor.

4.There was the blatantly misleading suggestion made that Guede’s sentence was reduced in return for him implicating AK and RS. Complete and utter bollocks!

5. I think we can safely deduce that the 40 day extension to the DNA review has nothing to do with Dr Hampikian of the Idaho Innocence Project judging from his contribution to this “documentary”.

Did I mishear or did he in fact say that the police did a good job on the scientific evidence? Perhaps he was being sarcastic? If so that was not very scientific. But then he was not being very scientific when he said that the non scientific evidence was non-existent! He should stay well away from that. He is just making a fool of himself.

6. In fact the whole approach of this “documentary” was to suggest that there was no evidence save what was currently under review by the independent DNA experts. That’s what a lot of the uninformed seem to think as well. There are none so conceited and foolish as those who know what they do not- and should know better!

7. Apparently Curatolo’s further testimony “the jury would find laughable”. Well let’s wait and see. No one was laughing in court.

This so called “documentary” was just basically PR spin written by Doug Preston and the FAOkers. And what has happened to CNN? I can remember the days when they were something, along with CBS comparable to the BBC- well maybe not.

Anyway spin is just spin. And science is science. And evidence is evidence. And there is no substitute for brains.

Clinton said, in response to the spin against his re-election,  “It’s the economy stupid!”.

Yep, and here it’s the evidence, stupid!

Posted by James Raper on 05/09/11 at 02:23 PM | #

Excellent first take James. Thanks a lot. I will be asking for your kind help on the masterlist of errors and lies and irrelevancies which may take several days.

Emails from anyone else who spots errors would really help us to speed up here.

We have the full CNN interview with Mignini (a 22 page document in normal text size) and will post it both in Italian and English. It sure differs markedly from what Drew Griffin and his translator allowed to come across. No surprise.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/09/11 at 02:34 PM | #

“Patrick was fortunate that one of the very few customers he had that night came all the way from Germany to give him his alibi.”

Was the Swiss professor Romano Mero working/living in Germany when he was called by the prosecution to Perugia to testify?  I can’t remember correctly, thought he was going from Zurich?

Posted by Teddie on 05/09/11 at 03:52 PM | #

By accident I channel surfed right into the CNN farce of a news show last night. A Mother’s Day treat and long drive home had erased all thoughts of the CNN special. So by chance I was thrilled to catch the show in the nick of time.

Nice way to wind down, pure comedy. Well, a comical hatchet job, absolutely obvious how the interview was aimed to put Magnificent Mignini in a bad light. Yet he stood the test of malicious questions loaded to imply his guilt. The unrelated gory Monster of Florence case was constantly woven into CNN’s poisonous tapestry of half-truths and slant.

Mignini shook them off like a chihuahua nipping at his ankle. He rode through like a Sultan. He was natural, powerful, convinced of his case and not nervously defensive as they hoped to present him. Unshaken.

Curt Knox with his now Edda-like pool of tears on command was the only ham actor. He should stick to the stoic, stiff upper lip role, suits him better. What a fake.

CNN’s laughable joust at the truth failed to unhorse the rider, its lance a thawed freezer pop.

The truth showed through all the useless flapping curtains CNN had hung by the dozen. They had them wafting wildly in their own hot air to obscure the sunny window of truth.

Mignini rides again!

Posted by Hopeful on 05/09/11 at 04:06 PM | #


Thanks for the correction. When I think of the Rhine I think of Germany. He was of course in Zurich on the Rhine in Switzerland. My knowledge of the geography of some parts of Europe can be appalling. [Correction made.]

Posted by James Raper on 05/09/11 at 04:16 PM | #

Hi, Peter. For the benefit of your readers Huffington Post is one of the top ranked websites in the world according to Alexa. Here’s a list of the many articles written there and you’ll see quite a lively debate among pro and con supporters.

Thankfully, many of the comments seem to be more sceptical of the FOA claims, and Huffington Post is trying to be more neutral now. They haven’t even listed the CNN show yet, perhaps because it was too biased? We were going at it quite a bit in December.

I’ve directed people to True Justice from there so they could get a better picture of the arguments than that presented by Amanda’s PR machine.

Posted by Ergon on 05/09/11 at 04:33 PM | #

Very biased and unfair against Mr. Mignini.  They went out of their way to imply that Mignini needed this conviction in order to alleviate his public image and that he acted completely on hunches, before there was any forensic evidence.  Not a word about cellphone records, cell tower ping records, changing stories, Sollecito denying Knox’s alibi, etc. 

This is a suggestion for other documentary producers: spend more time discussing the multi-layered evidence body and less time showing baby pictures of Amanda and shots of the Knox family crying.  I understand that this is a tragedy for them, but Amanda brought this on herself and, at least, she is still alive.  Meredith isn’t, and she did nothing to deserve what happened to her.

Posted by Vivianna on 05/09/11 at 05:55 PM | #

Hi Vivianna. You are right. The concerns of the Florence prosecutor were not even on the horizon when Meredith died and Mignini first became involved

Mignini was not present when Amanda Knox turned on a dime and blamed Patrick when she was told Sollecito had thrown her alibi under the bus. Mignini came in later and happened to witness her first written note but he asked her no questions at the time.

The case passed through the hands of judge after judge. Knox was psychologically evaluated in prison in 2008 and her release to house-arrest pending trial was denied based on that apparently scary result.

Mignini requested a co-prosecutor, Ms Commodi, who presented half the case at trial in 2009 and is herself nationally well known and very respected.

Mignini was marginally involved late in the Monster of Florence story and Preston was a complete fool to intrude. Mignini did interview him only the once, and then quite fleetingly, and forgot about him.

The “satanic sect” theory of the Monster of Florence case was around for years before Mignini was ever drawn in. Many books consider it the correct scenario, not the one Spezi and Preston tried so hard to sell (why, by the way?).

And neither Judge Micheli nor Judge Massei were lapdogs - both distanced themselves at places from the narrative Mignini offered them. Judge Massei maybe too much. 

Here are three key posts on all this:

And finally, Kermit already took down the CPJ’s absurd vilification the other day of Mignini (here below) and Kermit has more very soon to come.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/09/11 at 06:33 PM | #

Here’s where some anonymous FOA on Huffington Post named “CodeJoeBibby” mentions “allegations” against you personally, Peter.
My response to him was below that. I’ve already noted on that blog he seems like a PR firm plant.

Posted by Ergon on 05/09/11 at 06:47 PM | #

Hi Ergon. Thanks a lot. Your opponent claims the allegations were made by a named person who wrote a book?!!

Add this if you like. “Bruce Fisher” is a fake name for the specific purpose of libeling us here. As you remarked, the lawyers have it now. “Fisher” blew up a sound smart business deal into something it simply wasnt to try to slow us but there really is nothing there.

I already posted a brief comment here. Your PR plant remark made me laugh. That is what we think too.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/09/11 at 06:57 PM | #

There’s now a CNN transcript here.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/09/11 at 07:29 PM | #

As I said in my blog ( this could have been the worst, most bias reporting on the case yet. The list of inaccuracies and omissions is staggering!

Posted by willsavive on 05/09/11 at 08:53 PM | #

Will Savive shredded this piece of propaganda on his blogspot. Well done, Savive. You cited chapter and verse of errors in their bogus report. You write so clearly and impart your ideas seamlessly, you’re a pleasure to read. Also thanks for singeing the tails of CNN’s foxy disaster. They deserve to feel the burn with their LIES that nauseate those in the know, good for you.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/10/11 at 01:08 AM | #

Thank you, Hopeful!

Posted by willsavive on 05/10/11 at 01:27 AM | #

I am sick and tired of the Knoxphile shout of “Foxy Knoxy was a sports nickname from when Mandy was a kid!”

Even if it is true that the name originated from Knox’s skills on the soccer field, there is NO way on earth that a 20 year old would use it about herself, while remaining ignorant of the more “grown up” implication, unless she approved of it.

I had a friend who had a young child. Her first name began with “B” and her middle name began with “J”, so her nickname (used by my friend, who is a rather conservative Catholic lady) was “BJ”.

That is until my friend’s daughter was about 14, when she came home from school one day and firmly demanded that she was never to be called “BJ” again. She understood what people would make of the (very innocent) name and, understandably, was troubled by it.

Amanda Knox was not troubled by HER nickname, whatever the origin.

Posted by Janus on 05/10/11 at 02:22 AM | #

Hi Janus. Good point. Drew Griffin clearly implied that the “tabloid reporting” continued throughout the trial, and influenced the judges and jury at trial. That is also Micheal Heavey’s main rant.

It didnt. I have seen very few examples EVER in Italian or English of Amanda being vilified and those were all a year or more before the trial. Mignini is known to rarely leak anything (reporters complain).  Much of what did come out like AK’s list of sex partners was put out by the family or by Knox herself. 

Where in Micheli or Massei is there the slightest evidence that any particular image of Knox made a difference? If there are any (which I doubt) we could use practical examples.

Machine’s post talks about Jane Velez Mitchel and Nancy Grace. Both runs daily shows on CNN itself the sole purpose of which is to vilify suspects. Some of the tabloids sold by supermarket cash registers are just the same.

Knox was put through nothing even remotely like that.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/10/11 at 02:49 AM | #

Janus, I agree. Foxy was the moniker Amanda wanted to keep precisely because of its modern day connotations of sexy aggressiveness. The soccer days were long past, she could easily have picked any new name to update herself. Foxy she was and Foxy she would remain. The rabid press didn’t foist this on her, nor did the prosecution twist anything. The signs and portents of Amanda’s life were written in blazing colors by her own hand.

I think it was a Southern writer who justified her caricatures by saying, “If people are deaf, you shout loud. If people are blind, you write large.” Amanda emblazoned “Foxy” on herself and the blind FOA moles can’t bear to look and see what the world easily sees. Her lifestyle didn’t revoke the apt nickname.

“Foxy” is perfect with the emphasis of cunning strategist, demonstrated by her falsehoods and false scents along changing devious paths in interrogations, her tricky writings, and double-talk on the witness stand.

A predator. A sly fox. But the hounds closing in.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/10/11 at 03:02 AM | #

Her list of sexual conquests and her willingness to have no shame in telling people about them has always disturbed me and to me is a tell tale sign of having a father void in her upbringing. No keep your tears to yourself curt knox. In my opinion you hold much of the responsibility for how this murderer became dangerous.

Posted by friar fudd on 05/10/11 at 03:07 AM | #

@Janus, I agree with you about the “Foxy Knoxy” moniker myspace excuse - it’s like saying when my son was a little kid his name was “Big Balls” for soccer, but there is NO WAY he would use that as a name on a social website as a teen (or as a college student). It’s impossible that he would not know that, at his older age, it could mean some cheap double entendre. Why didn’t Griffin ask Edda Mellas about Knox’s “Baby Brother” story she penned and posted, and why would she want to write about rape and drugs/alcohol? Why was that on her mind?

Also the other plea: but Knox and Sollecito are “just kids!” Please, twenty-somethings doing drugs and getting it on like (some) adults is hardly kid behavior. The Knox/Mellas clan keep trying to brush the wild child Knox behavior under the carpet with tin, unconvincing statements.

It’s a sleight of hand maneuver to distract from the real issues, like why did Knox let her(who she accused of murder) black boss sit in jail for 2 when she knew her accusation was false, why won’t Raf corroborate your alibi the night of the murder, why didn’t your attorneys file a claim about police abuse, and so on.

Also, does anyone really believe Knox stayed because she “wanted to help” the investigation? She stayed because she was having a blast with Sollecito and also the police told her to stay. From the splits and cartwheels at the police station, Knox was still flying high.

I found the Drew Griffin piece on CNN like an FOA infomercial (quite boring in that respect), not balanced, with the onous of the crime on Mignini instead of the murderer(s). Strange. Embarrassing journalism.

Posted by giustizia on 05/10/11 at 05:34 AM | #

I’ve given my thoughts here.

Posted by Maundy Gregory on 05/10/11 at 05:52 AM | #

My understanding is that Ms. Knox used “Foxy Knoxy” as her handle on MySpace. In fact, I distinctly remember seeing screen-captures of a page where it is her handle. Assuming that is correct, then it’s totally untrue that this term originated in the tabloid media, as CNN “reports.” Shame on you, CNN.

Posted by Earthling on 05/10/11 at 08:31 AM | #

Thanks a lot Maundy and Will for the links to thoise great takes. Our own aggregated take will follow in a couple of days. Kermit needs to come back in first. His new post will be up today, Tuesday.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/10/11 at 12:48 PM | #

The Machine’s post is decisive.

Was it Maundy Gregory who referred us to the official document giving Amanda Knox’s own statement? Abbreviated, as follows:

“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”... I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007… at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. We went to my apartment in Via della Pergola n. 7. I do not clearly remember if Meredith was already at home or if she came later, what I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith’s room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen… I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my hears…”

She knew at the time & has later admitted that she was lying in thus, by implication, blaming “the African boy” for Meredith’s murder. Remarked on this to her mother (recorded message) well prior to Lumumba’s release, but neither Amanda nor her mother lifted a finger to exonerate Lumumba.

Of the three photos posted above, notice that Amanda’s face is blank except for a certain watchfulness, a hint of expectancy about the eyes.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 05/10/11 at 05:24 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 Open Letter To CNN Head Ken Jautz: Reports As Terrible As Drew Griffin’s Risks All CNN’s Credibility

Or to previous entry Explaining Why CNN Is So Desperate For A Hit And Quaint Niceties Like “Truth” Be Damned

    Follow On Twitter
    Click To Get There