Friday, June 07, 2024
Knox Lie-A-Thon #3: Nailing New Lies In Florence Court On June 5th #1
Posted by James Raper
Patrick Lumumba at Knox & Sollecito trial in 2009
Pesky Comparisons
“She told the Court on Wednesday that police had coerced her into implicating Mr Lumumba”.
That is a hoax that needs to be thoroughly dismantled, particularly as it has such fervent acceptance amongst Knox supporters online and in incurious official media outlets.
For a start it is not, to my knowledge, a claim that she has publicly made before. We will strive in vain to find, either in her trial testimony or in her book, where and how the alleged coercion to implicate Lumumba occurred.
This from her trial testimony -
GCM - “Now what happened next? You, confronted with the [text] message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?” [Note: So, it was not the police who suggested Lumumba to her, as she would have it, this having to be a critical element of the alleged coercion.]
AK - “Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn’t tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of Patrick I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea; images that didn’t agree. That maybe could give some kind of explanation of the scene.”
She suddenly [note the “suddenly”] started imagining a kind of scene? And “always using this idea”? What idea was that? She does not explain. Is “idea” a synonym for “flashback”, or for a flash of inspiration?
In her “memoriale” later that day, she talks of flashes of blurred images which can only be a reference to flashbacks.
“In my mind I saw Patrick in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming.”
Where is the element of coercion in all of this? Even if one were to give any credence to the inappropriate pressure she says she was under from the police, there is still no coercion, let alone to falsely accuse Lumumba of murder, in what she is saying.
Incidentally, it is reported that she told the Court that she had been slapped three times round the head - roundly denied by three police officers and the Interpreter - whereas it was only twice in her trial testimony. Another example of Knox playing up the original lie.
Who is to be believed? Make your choice. Even if the choice is to believe her then, in context, it only relates to her strange inability to remember with whom the exchange of texts had been, not to the coercion she is alleging.
Even in her book she does not actually say that the police coerced her to implicate Lumumba though that, through her description of her treatment at the hands of the police was what she wanted the reader to believe, and which so many, in their ignorance, do.
But it does not add up. None of it.
As to the pressure she says she was under, that does not add up either. What was so difficult that she was unable to remember with whom the exchange of texts had been or in explaining the somewhat unremarkable content (which she tried to do later but not at the time)?
Her subsequent explanation (the day after she was detained in prison) does not make sense either.
“I’m sorry I didn’t remember before and I’m sorry I said that I could have been at the house when it happened. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. I said these things because I was confused and scared. But now I remember that I can’t know who was the murderer because I didn’t return back to the house.”
The issue, for Knox, would therefore seem to have been that she had not been able to remember whether or not she had really met up with Lumumba at the cottage. So why say she had? Would being “confused” and “scared” really bring on a sudden bout of amnesia that was only to dissipate some time after, and as a credible eye witness, giving two statements, 4 hours apart, to the police, directly incriminating Lumumba?
Plenty of time there to reflect on what she had just done. That made no difference. She doubled down on it, both in her 5.45 am statement and in her Memorial.
One would think, would one not, that not being at the cottage at the time of the murder would, for her, and whatever the stressful circumstances, be a pivotal, and unshakable fact, ever present at the forefront of her mind? In her case so much so that she had already given statements to the police to that effect. This was never about her memory being affected by confusion, or by being scared, as she would have us believe, and there is simply no credible (but plenty of disprovable) evidence for the coercion she is alleging.
And finally, the 5th Chambers itself, the court which acquitted Knox and Sollecito of murder, and which referred the criminal defamation to Florence for this review in the light, apparently, of the ECHR ruling (though frankly I do not understand the reason for this, other than it was to enable Italian courts to demonstrate that in the final analysis they had indeed taken the Convention on Human Rights into account in any definitive verdict ), said the following -
“And also, a possible decision of the European Court in favour of Ms Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict, not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict, considering the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions, and confirmed by her before the Public Minister during the subsequent session, in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and also confirmed in her memorial, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence; and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.”
Posted by James Raper on 06/07/24 at 06:49 PM in Hoaxes Sollecito etc
Comments
Very smart catch by James. KrissyG has obtained for us Knox’s full statement and it really is seriously inane.
Her former lawyer Ghirga (a decent guy, a Mignini chum) tried to keep such things tethered, but he walked. All Perugia know that Knox is a killer and and damager of Perugia and Italian justice and he got no benefit from being chained to her.
The trouble making lawyer is Dalla Vedova, a pompous twit from Rome who has done some mafia defense and despises all cops. He made so many mistakes at the 2009 trial and 2011 appeal that even Sollecito’s defense were jeering behind his back. It was he who sent the dopey nonsense to ECHR and he seems to have over-promised to Knox on this.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/07/24 at 08:37 PM | #
An example from how Knox smears Patrick several times in her book.
Those who have seen her sometimes say they were surprised that she is rather short and dumpy. It is doubtful she was unaware of this - she never ever had a boyfriend out of the top drawer. In Perugia she merely attracted her coke dealer Martini, and Sollecito the virginal porn addict.
Startling-looking Meredith and most Italian girls apparently left her in the shade. Nevertheless… Patrick wanted to hire her only for her captivating looks??? From her book:
I was hired to work at the bar from 9 P.M. to 1 A.M., making €5.00—about $7.25—an hour. “Handing out flyers doesn’t count as work time,” Juve said.
“Okay,” I answered. “So, what’s next?”
“You need to meet Patrick. I will tell him I know you and will teach you how to do the job.”
I met Patrick at lunchtime the next day, at the university snack bar. He was originally Congolese and spoke Italian but no English. “Do you understand what I’m saying?” he asked.
“Pretty well,” I said.
Like Juve, Patrick wasn’t interested in my work experience. Looking back now, I’m sure they hired me because they thought I’d attract men to the bar. But I was too naive back then to get that. I still thought of myself as a quirky girl struggling to figure out who I’d be when I grew up. I now realize that the point of the job “interview” was to see if my looks were a draw or a liability.
Patrick said, “Sometimes the job is serving, sometimes cleaning, sometimes being friendly and welcoming.”
“I’m outgoing,” I said, still trying to sell myself as a hard worker. “I love talking to people.”
“Good. Juve will train you, and I will see you tonight!” Patrick stood up and kissed me on each cheek. Juve handed me a stack of flyers. “The students are leaving classes,” he said. “Hand these out. And congratulations!”
In the real world, it appears that Patrick was thinking of firing her, or at least moving her out of the bar - because she was hitting on the men!
Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/07/24 at 09:07 PM | #
More on this directly above in a long and very telling November 2007 interview, really a vital read. This was the first long interview published in English after Patrick was released (no thanks to Knox).
“I fired Foxy Knoxy for hitting on customers: Patrick Lumumba reveals why he was framed over Meredith’s murder”
For four weeks he had quietly tolerated her wild mood swings, crass sexual innuendo and complete unwillingness to do any work so terminating her employment was, on the face of it, a wise decision.
See much more. Near the end, Patrick says some things about the arrest team widely denied. He was pretty ticked. He later regretted being so harsh and walked that back. His vivid take on Knox never changed.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/09/24 at 12:16 AM | #
Sollecito wittingly or unwittingly asserted that Knox met Patrick on the night, which was a main reason the cops thought they had their man and were so reluctant to let him go.
Almost always over the years, Sollecito has NOT supported Knox. Even his book title (Honor Bound) was intended to imply she alone did the crime, or with someone else, and he came in at the cleanup stage or not at all. We’ve posted many instances of their beating one another’s brains out quite publicly.
Sollecito’s third alibi is the one he more or less sticks with today, uttered incessantly, though bizarrely not in “his” book. You can read The Machine’s excellent summary of it here.
And here is Sollecito destroying all of Knox’s alibis! This is from his signed statement to investigators Moscatelli and Napoleoni early on 6 November 2007. Knox was far away in another room in her pre-meltdown phase.
The first of November I woke up about 11.00, I had breakfast with Amanda, then she went out and I went back to bed. I then met up with her at her house around 13.00-14.00. In there was Meredith who left in a hurry about 16.00 without saying where she was going.
Amanda and I went to the [town] centre about 18.00 but I don’t remember what we did. We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.
I went to my house alone at 21.00, while Amanda said that she was going to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet with her friends.
At this point we said goodbye. I went home, I made a joint. Had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. About 23.00 my father called me on my house phone line.
I recall Amanda was not back yet.
So Sollecito did say to cops that Knox went out alone on the night - to Le Chic. To in effect meet Patrick.
Our general belief is that both went out. Patrick’s text message would have sent Knox’s anger and jealousy through the roof. Both attacked Meredith.
So Sollecito could have let Patrick off the hook right away. Not only did Knox let Patrick languish in prison for two weeks knowing he was not involved.
Sollecito did too.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/09/24 at 10:23 AM | #
See this puzzling remark from the statement of Sollecito’s above to Moscatelli and Napoleoni early on 6 November?
Meredith… left in a hurry about 16.00 without saying where she was going…. Amanda and I went to the [town] centre about 18.00 but I don’t remember what we did. We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.
Don’t remember? Four nights later? How about: the pair took a little walk down the hill from the smaller piazza, the one with the justice courts, to Patrick’s bar? To peek in, to see if Meredith was working there? See these images:
https://tinyurl.com/4jy53b7b
https://tinyurl.com/2s3enyyf
You can see the bar had floor-to-ceiling windows. Very easy to see in. They could then continue walking at about that level around to the park where they may later have peeked down at the house. The same route Meredith took a short time later. They might even have followed her.
And so to Sollecito’s or Meredith’s house, somehow acquiring Guede along the way. Ironically, good municipal CCTV to watch that route was put in mid 2008, it was happening when I was there.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/09/24 at 11:29 PM | #
We are moving along, to a repost of our most detailed and incisive post ever on Knox’s calunnia. Iy is by Finn MacCool. Below is the advisory that hovered over this post.
Hot tip for media: Ask Knox why she left Patrick Lumumba locked up for a full two weeks, though she was captured telling her mom Edda Mellas she’d lied about him. Despite Knox’s myriad false claims, police did NOT make her do that - or make her write the noon 6 Nov “memoriale” while alone which does not exculpate Patrick. Also see all of this (very long read).
Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/13/24 at 05:34 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Knox Lie-A-Thon #4: How Myriad Past Lies About “Forced Confession” Are Sinking Her Now
Or to previous entry Amanda Knox Again Found Guilty of Criminal Slander; Our Further Explanation Of Why