Saturday, October 08, 2016

Netflixhoax 10: Omitted - How Amanda Knox Falsely Accused Dr Mignini Of A Felony

Posted by Peter Quennell

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.

1. The 2009 Trial Verdict Was Exactly Right

The 2009 prosecution phase was as perfect as any Italian prosecution heard in court. 

This phase from January to June was fast and implacable, about as forceful as a high-speed train. Amidst so much that damned, days of largely unchallenged police testimony for example proved that Knox framed Patrick only because Sollecito sold her out.

Nothing else. He said she had made him lie, and never wanted to see her again, and he and Knox never got back to one narrative theme.

Knox on the witness stand in June was a wince-making disaster - this tough sarcastic rather thuggish girl claiming “the cops were meanies to fragile little me” did not exactly ring true.

The defense lawyers never ever recovered from that and we expected at least two to simply walk off. Late in the trial Sollecito lawyer Maori sarcastically said Knox had been high on cocaine (we believe that is true) as barb after barb was exchanged.

Remember that the Massei court was the only one to see all of the massive evidence.  That included days and days of autopsy-related evidence in closed court with both the perps being closely observed throughout.

And that jury got the verdict and sentence exactly right. Knox and Sollecito should indeed be serving their time as in the US or UK they would. 

So. Why did the two ever get released? Simple. Gaming of the Italian justice system to produce two bent appeals.

The 2011 appeal court was bent when the defenses got the Umbria region’s top criminal judge blatantly forced aside in favor of a semi-senile business judge absolutely at sea on the law.  Additionally his “independent” DNA experts were cherry-picked for him.

The 2015 Supreme Court was bent by way of known mafia connections and of the blatant breaking of Italian appeal law. Italian law enforcement never talks about mafia investigations before some bad guys are locked up, but one day the whole story should be widely known. We know much of it now.

2. Thirty PR Hoaxes To Make You Ignore The Above

Check out the 30 PR Hoaxes in our right column, or better still, wait a few days, and we will open a new page summarizing each hoax. What the Netflix hoaxers have done is to pick up a few of those hoaxes, and run with them in a mocking, sneering tone.

Hence the mocking, sneering tone of many ill-researched movie reviews.

The best way to annihilate the Netflix slant is to fully comprehend each hoax they used. One major hoax is that the synthetic Knox you see now is the real-life Knox around the time of the crime and at trial through 2009.

We can show that back then Amanda Knox was a loose cannon - and widely seen as such.

Another major hoax Amanda Knox herself advances in the film is that she was yelled at and abused by cops on 5-6 November 2007 over a long time. And so, desperate, she fingered as the real killer Patrick Lumumba.

Believe her? We address this question to Knox herself about the “interrogation” as described in her book six years later. Let us see if her response (if any) makes her look like someone you can blindly trust.

We will also post more later to destroy the interrogation hoax.

3. Question For Knox About Her “Interrogation”

Here is how you describe in BOTH editions of your book (2013 and 2015) a supposed interrogation by Prosecutor Mignini at your first (witness) interview. Below the quote, we describe what everyone else present says took place.

[This is the voluntary witness interview.] Eventually they told me the pubblico ministero would be coming in.

I didn’t know this translated as prosecutor, or that this was the magistrate that Rita Ficarra had been referring to a few days earlier when she said they’d have to wait to see what he said, to see if I could go to Germany.

I thought the “public minister” was the mayor or someone in a similarly high “public” position in the town and that somehow he would help me.

They said, “You need to talk to the pubblico ministero about what you remember.”

I told them, “I don’t feel like this is remembering. I’m really confused right now.” I even told them, “I don’t remember this. I can imagine this happening, and I’m not sure if it’s a memory or if I’m making this up, but this is what’s coming to mind and I don’t know. I just don’t know.”

They said, “Your memories will come back. It’s the truth. Just wait and your memories will come back.”

The pubblico ministero came in.

Before he started questioning me, I said, “Look, I’m really confused, and I don’t know what I’m remembering, and it doesn’t seem right.”

One of the other police officers said, “We’ll work through it.”

Despite the emotional sieve I’d just been squeezed through, it occurred to me that I was a witness and this was official testimony, that maybe I should have a lawyer. “Do I need a lawyer?” I asked.

He said, “No, no, that will only make it worse. It will make it seem like you don’t want to help us.”

It was a much more solemn, official affair than my earlier questioning had been, though the pubblico ministero was asking me the same questions as before: “What happened? What did you see?”

    I said, “I didn’t see anything.”

    “What do you mean you didn’t see anything? When did you meet him?”

    “I don’t know,” I said.

    “Where did you meet him?”

    “I think by the basketball court.” I had imagined the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, just across the street from the University for Foreigners.

    “I have an image of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana near my house.”

    “What was he wearing?”

    “I don’t know.”

    “Was he wearing a jacket?”

    “I think so.”

    “What color was it?”

    “I think it was brown.”

    “What did he do?”

    “I don’t know.”

    “What do you mean you don’t know?”

    “I’m confused!”

    “Are you scared of him?”

    “I guess.”

I felt as if I were almost in a trance. The pubblico ministero led me through the scenario, and I meekly agreed to his suggestions.

    “This is what happened, right? You met him?”

    “I guess so.”

    “Where did you meet?”

    “I don’t know. I guess at the basketball court.”

    “You went to the house?”

    “I guess so.”

    “Was Meredith in the house?”

    “I don’t remember.”

    “Did Patrick go in there?”

    “I don’t know, I guess so.”

    “Where were you?”

    “I don’t know. I guess in the kitchen.”

    “Did you hear Meredith screaming?”

    “I don’t know.”

    “How could you not hear Meredith screaming?”

    “I don’t know. Maybe I covered my ears. I don’t know, I don’t know if I’m just imagining this. I’m trying to remember, and you’re telling me I need to remember, but I don’t know. This doesn’t feel right.”

    He said, “No, remember. Remember what happened.”

    “I don’t know.”

At that moment, with the pubblico ministero raining questions down on me, I covered my ears so I could drown him out.

    He said, “Did you hear her scream?”

    I said, “I think so.”

My account was written up in Italian and he said, “This is what we wrote down. Sign it.”

So you choose to portray yourself as reluctant to talk at all? While Dr Mignini relentlessly edges you more and more into saddling Patrick with the blame? While you have no lawyer there?

In fact, as you well know, every word of that dialogue is made up. You invented it. Dr Mignini was not even there. Right then, he was home in bed.

Now we contrast this malicious figment of your imagination with the account of that night by many others who were present at various times. Even you yourself essentially agreed to this narrative at trial, with the one exception that the slaps to your head that several observed were by you were actually by someone else.

Feel free to tell us where we have got this wrong:

1. You insist on being around in the central police station despite being grumpy and tired while Sollecito helps investigators to check a few claims.

2. After a while an investigator, Rita Ficarra, politely invites you to help build a list of names of men who might have known Meredith or the house. She is somewhat reluctant as it was late and no interpreter was on hand. You quite eagerly begin. An interpreter is called from home. You calmly produce seven names and draw maps.

3. Sollecito breaks suddenly and unexpectedly early in his own recap/summary session when confronted with phone records which showed he had lied. He quickly points the finger at you as the one having made him lie. You are briefly told he is saying you went out.

4. You break explosively soon after when an outgoing text shows up on your phone after you had claimed you sent none. You slap your head. You yell words to the effect that Patrick is the one, he killed Meredith. Police did not even know of the existence of Patrick before you identified the text as to him.

5. Thereafter you talk your head off, explaining how you had overheard Patrick attack Meredith at your house. The three ladies present and one man do what they can to calm you down. But you insist on a written statement, implicating him, and stating you went out from Sollecito’s alone.

6. This from about 2:00 am is the state of play. You are taken to the bar for refreshments and helped to sleep. You testify at trial that you were given refreshments, and everybody treated you well.

7. As you had admitted being at the scene of a crime you had not reported, you had in effect admitted to a crime, so a legal Miranda-type caution is required saying the signee understands they should not talk without a lawyer, and if they do talk that can be used as evidence in court.

8. Dr Mignini, the on-call duty judge for that night, is by multiple account, including your own at trial, not present at that list-building session with Rita Ficarra, and in fact knows nothing about it until Rita Ficarra closes it down. He comes from home.

9. Dr Mignini reads you your rights. You now sign acknowledging you know you should not talk unless your lawyer is there. Dr Mignini asks you no questions. He is anxious to get the session over so he can get on to the task of pulling Patrick in. You yourself shrug off a lawyer and repeat your accusation and insist on a new written statement. Though you are again warned, you see it done.

10. Under Italian law that second statement could and should have been used against you, but the Supreme Court denied its use except against Patrick. Dr Mignini has said he thinks that was wrong in law but did not appeal.

Really a very simple chain of events, which was attested to at trial by all of those who had been present on the night, even including yourself.

There are no signs at all in anyone else’s description that you were leaned on by anybody, and nobody at the central police station had the slightest vested interest in making you into a target that night.

So where precisely does this new claim in your book and the Netfllix film of an illegal interrogation by Dr Mignini fit in? Now would seem a very good time to simply admit it is a hoax. Remember all courts saw it as such.


Everything said about the efficiency of the Massei court also applies to the Micheli court as well though there’s no transcript, only the report, as it was full closed throughout.

The Netflix hoaxers mocked all the wrong things. Accept the opposite of what they mocked as being the real truths. Terrible research, if any at all.

Putting Hellmann the apple of their eye in charge of a murder appeal resulted in a circus on several days when he totally lost control. Read up about the Guede and Alessi and Aviello portions, they showed how desperate the defenses were even to engineering cross examinations that became surreal.

Mafioso Aviello (who was behind a curtain) did an astonishing u-turn and it was not clear why until his prison mates said Bongiorno had ratted on a bribe (really). She angrily denied this but tellingly never sued.

The money was for a sex-change operation. Here you go.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/08/16 at 06:05 PM | #

Slightly off topic but can I ask y’all a favor? Any time you get a chance, could you please visit Reddit and upvote any comments that are based on proof that Knox and Sollecito are guilty and downvote the others? As you can imagine the disinformation campaign is in full swing.

Often the most compelling arguments on our side are hidden at the bottom. You have to click “show more comments” because not enough of us have up-rated them.

For example, this thread:

Posted by devorah on 10/08/16 at 11:00 PM | #

P.S. Thank you!

Posted by devorah on 10/08/16 at 11:01 PM | #

Sure thing Devorah

Ugly that some posting there rant about the Kerchers, not knowing that the Kerchers had observed the perfect trial and along with even the perps’ families and defense lawyers saw the guilty verdict cast in stone.

Might you provide links to all the threads? Some of the posts are pretty good. When the 30 hoaxes are summarised on a new page here, that could help a lot.  Press releases will be going out soon that will correct things on a meta level; big media has been demanding those.

The most common wrong claim I read is that Knox’s DNA was not found in Meredith’s room, so not guilty, no more needs to be said. Except Guede’s DNA was found “all over the room”.

That’s part of the DNA Hoax. (Search here for the “CSI Effect” which affected the Hellmann court and Fifth Chambers in spades.)

THE ROOM ITSELF WAS NOT PROCESSED FOR DNA. The choice was made to dust it for fingerprints - none found, as throughout the entire house.

Gloves, anyone? Knox’s lamp behind Meredith’s door had no prints. Even Knox’s room had been wiped clean of prints.

Only the items inside the room were processed for DNA and very few traces of Rudy Guede were found on those items.

The DNA of Sollecito was found in the room, and the DNA of Knox mixed with that of Meredith was found in several locations in the corridor, small bathroom and Filomena’s bedroom.

Yes Filomena’s bedroom. Where zero trace of Guede’s DNA was found.

There are more samples processed of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA than there are of Guede’s.

Image there of some of the most modern facilities in Europe.

No DNA swab was ever proven to have been contaminated. With one exception the process was immensely careful. That the bra clasp was not collected for 2 months was a defense trick, they could never find the time to come and observe.

Defense experts also delayed observing the processing in the Rome labs. But they never raised even one doubt.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/09/16 at 12:06 AM | #

I looked at the comments and I wouldn’t waste my time with those sorts of people. To ask the question they have - they’re just stirring things up.
I suspect AK is loving all this attention.
Hello Amanda Knox. Are you proud of your followers saying such foul things?

Posted by DavidB on 10/09/16 at 04:37 AM | #

Hi Peter and DavidB,

Peter, to answer your question, it’s everything everywhere. I haven’t looked yet, but I’m sure the disinformation campaign is reflected in the Netflix reviews, as it was previously on reviews and is now on any Reddit threads where Amanda Knox is the topic. (It’s always necessary to click “show more comments” because some will be hidden…a clever trick of theirs if there are a lot of downvotes!)

For example,

I’m not sure what the most effective way to fight the disinformation campaign is. It has occurred to me that they have so much money and PR on their side…is there a team of people in India writing these comments? Amanda’s own family? Spambots? How can we most effectively get the right information out there? I only have so many hours in a day.

Can we really fight spambots, naive misinformed people, and a highly biased documentary?

I am just concerned that they have gotten control of the narrative with the documentary. Is another wiki (a rebuttal to the docu) necessary? Or asking every justice seeker to respond to comments and point people to the facts and source documents?

I’m frustrated…the Knox family and her apologists…they are the very definition of ugly American (and I am American).

DavidB, I know what you mean…I am so spent. I am sick of fighting the tide of disinformation. At the same time I am very tenacious. I won’t give up unless I am unable to continue but I am open to deciding what the best strategic approach is!

So folks, what do you think is the best strategic approach to fighting the Knox spin campaign?

Posted by devorah on 10/09/16 at 06:21 AM | #

Hi devorah and DavidB

There’ll be a tipping point. Things are ripening for main media to go against Netflix. They see Netflix as a commercial challenge and there was aggressive fact-checking of the Avery flick. Its stock is way down, it doesnt need controversy. Twitter is already pretty damning with the Machine etc etc, and we and the Wiki are getting there in terms of a full picture. When Netflix are made to tune into eg what is written in the post above they may well see the report as a hot potato - and it has not sold well.

We privately list say 100 media professionals who have had it wrong but are mostly easy to show up or turn, and say 50 who have had it right and are very open to new material. The bias of the production team is becoming known pervasively. On the forums and threads below reviews, many now know the Netflix team were biased from way back. That it came out shocked them, see PMF dot Net, theres a sign they are no longer asserting innocence.

You point out that Reddit can too easily be gamed and I’d never post there except to link to hard facts here and on the Wiki.  The PR has long cut and pasted but their arguments there are way outdated - I could see on Reddit the more “modern” information is all pro-justice, same used by those who already own Twitter. Remember most in Italy believe what we believe and are angry at the pair and at justice perverted. That is the majority.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/09/16 at 07:30 AM | #

I think for many making comments it’s nothing to do with the truth but a chance to be nasty.
There are so many good videos, articles etc and in the comments section you get the same vile comments.

Posted by DavidB on 10/09/16 at 08:13 AM | #

Dear Pete, ref: the Micheli court, trial not ‘closed’; some transcripts here:

and audio of other court days here:

See this for Micheli setting press directives:

Press could attend but no filming in room and other areas because lack of space.

Posted by azoza on 10/09/16 at 08:23 AM | #

Hi Azoza

Ah the ambush via new documents dodge. I like it!  Reconcile this?

Micheli was presiding over (1) a trial for Guede and (2) a remand to trial hearing for the other two. There were September sessions and October sessions. I believe 6 in total.

The trial was reported as closed at the time because that was the rule for short-form trial such as Guede’s team selected. For example this is what the Seattle Times reported.

A fast-track proceeding is closed to the public, unlike a full trial. It will be held before the same judge, who is expected to issue the verdict at the time he decides whether to indict Knox and Sollecito. The rulings are expected next month.

I remember the reporters who had traveled to Perugia and incurred costs being frustrated at not hearing all of it.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/09/16 at 08:39 AM | #

Dear Pete, from Wiki link above total Micheli trial days = 11.

Preliminare udienze are generally closed to public, not sure fast-track trial. Per doc link, press could attend and film in areas near to the hearing room, mostly because lack of space. Seems judge tried to accommodate as best possible.

In any case, audio and/or transcripts made, which are open to public. So info available.

Posted by azoza on 10/09/16 at 09:56 AM | #

Excellent. Obviously the more days the better as it all points to the extreme carefulness. We came on line only shortly before that and were relying totally on media reports till more and more living in Italy began helping us.

No English-language reporters live permanently in Perugia of course and some had to travel quite a distance. Frank Sforza the former blogger now on trial in Florence filled that vacuum, first honestly, then dishonestly after he switched to the hoaxers.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/09/16 at 06:16 PM | #

Hi Peter and David,

Thank you for your responses. I do not want her team to rewrite history!

I got worried because I saw a huge tide of “she’s innocent,” “she got railroaded” comments on Twitter the day the docu came out.

What drives me crazy is their tendency to twist the truth by weaseling out of logical arguments with distortions and untruths, and then repeating them ad nauseum. And it worries me that the documentary is so good in form even if the content is lacking.

I’m so glad to see that people still care about justice for Meredith. I will check back regularly to see the state of affairs. But I am peeved about this rotten docu. What a disservice to justice. I hope it backfires.


Posted by devorah on 10/10/16 at 12:57 AM | #

The DM have a piece up with comments from Stephanie Kercher:

Posted by Deathfish on 10/10/16 at 01:30 PM | #

“Stephanie can’t recall receiving an approach from documentary makers but said no one in the family would have agreed to do it anyway”.

Posted by Deathfish on 10/10/16 at 01:51 PM | #

Steph in a very classy, but straight to the point few sentences, handed Knox, Sollecito, and Netflix their heads.

Posted by Travis on 10/10/16 at 07:46 PM | #

My admiration for the Kerchers, and Stephanie in particular, grows every time they are sucked back into this nightmare to provide comment.

Despite them knowing exactly who destroyed their lovely daughter/sister, they refrain from stating so and go along with the “if not them, then who?” line. It must be incredibly difficult to continue doing this when all they yearn for is justice and to see the two media whores rotting in jail where they belong. I couldn’t do it, I’d have cracked long before now.

Is also beyond frustrating to see the mail online continue to perpetrate myths by stating clear falsehoods like “the prosecution’s case was blown apart by the independent DNA experts” (who were, as we all know, thoroughly discredited) and that there was no clear motive, time of death or murder weapon. Lazy journalism seems to be the norm in the world we live in.

Each year I light a small candle for Meredith on the anniversary of her slaughter (because that’s what it was), even though I never met her or know anything about her other than what I’ve read online. Her story touches everyone who has any humanity in a way that Knox or Sollecito could never hope to match if they lived to 1,000 years old. Hateful people like them are never missed or mourned, except by other hateful people.

This year I intend to light another candle as a very small mark of the enormous respect I have for Meredith’s family. It’s appropriate that she have company this year after that Netflix horror show.

Posted by davidmulhern on 10/11/16 at 06:55 AM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Netflixhoax 11: Omitted - How Italian Justice Is Misrepresented By Multiple Cherrypickings Of Facts

Or to previous entry Netflixhoax 9 Omitted - Numerous Facts The More Widely Viewed BBC Report Did Not Hide