Monday, February 19, 2018

Knox v Knox 5: How She Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #35 To #38

Posted by Chimera



Publisher Jonathan Burnham paid up to $4M with zero due diligence???

Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.

Series Overview

As wide as the Grand Canyon…

That seems to be the gap between the truths Knox is mostly forced to tell on the stand as contrasted with the multitude of lies in her book. Seriously bizarre.

Clearly Knox and her shadow-writer Linda Kulman and PR team gambled that no-one would transcribe and translate the Knox testimony and contrast it with that of the investigators (our Interrogation Hoax series) and with that of Knox herself in her book (this series).

That gamble to lie flat-out in English about Italians has been quite central to the Knox PR. But every time we transcribe a tape or translate a document we expose some more of this despicable charade.

Now the book is in legal trouble for the third time, for myriad defamations - the first time publishing was cancelled in Italy and the UK and the second time OGGI was sued for publishing defamatory excerpts.

Knox’s Friday stint on the stand at trial was posted here and here and also here and here.

These final four posts cover her Saturday stint on the stand. Numbering of instances resumes from the previous post.

2 Telling Contradictions 35 to 38

35. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

GM:  On page 40 (I don’t know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation of December 17, you said, I’ll read it, that: “I turned off my phone to save my battery.” Do you remember that?
AK:  Well, if it’s written there, it must be okay.
GM:  Today you’re saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another. [Voice intervenes: can you be more precise about the page?] Page 40: I’ll read it. “But why did you turn off your phone?” Interrogation of Dec 17. “To save my battery.” “Do you usually keep it on at night?” [He stops, annoyed at some murmuring.]
GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me.
CP?:  We’re not interrupting, we’re finding the page.
GCM:  Please, please [because of noise]. 39, 40, but anyway, these were the words. 39 or 40 is the page. Please, go ahead, pubblico ministero…

GM:  I see. Now you’re saying this was the motive.
GCM:  I heard an objection. [Annoyed voices.] Please, please. Go ahead. [Voices arguing, dalla Vedova (I think it’s him) is standing up.]
GCM:  This is an analysis. Indeed, yesterday Amanda Knox stated that turning off the cell phone was to guarantee her a free evening without being… [interruption] Excuse me. But at the interrogation of Dec 17 she said that it was both to save battery and also for this reason [interruptions, arguing]. So, I thought I understood that she had two reasons. We’re not arguing about that.
[defense]: Also not to be called by Patrick.

December 17, 2007 Questioning

PM Mignini: But why did you switch off your phone?
Knox: To save the battery, usually I keep it on at night if the following morning I have things to do, but the morning after was the day that everyone was going to skip school and we were going to go to Gubbio the day after with Raffaele. So I switched off my phone because I didn’t want that maybe Patrick might call to tell me to go to work. That’s why I switched it off and saved the battery.
Interpreter: To not have the battery discharge
PM Mignini: But you could recharge it
Interpreter: Since she was out of the house she wanted to save the battery because the next day she would have gone to Gubbio with Raffaele and since the day… she leaves it on during the night when the following day she has to go to school, but the following day there was no school and so she switched it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would change his mind and would call her to go to work
PM Mignini: Because there was the risk, that is you weren’t sure that…
Knox: He had told me that I didn’t need to go to work but it was still early and I didn’t know if he might have called back to tell me “Yes, now I need you”…
Interpreter: No, when Patrick had called saying that she didn’t need to work it was still early enough and the situation could still change in the sense that more people could turn up and he couldn’t…

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 5, Page 61/62]  Around 8:30 P.M. I suddenly remembered that it was Thursday, one of my regular workdays.  Quickly checking my phone, I saw that Patrick had sent me a text telling me I didn’t have to come in.  Since it was a holiday, he thought it would be a slow night.  “Okay,” I texted back. “Ci vediamo piu tardi buona serata!“— “See you later. Have a good evening!”  Then I turned off my phone, just in case he changed his mind and wanted me to come in after all. I was so excited to have the night off that I jumped on top of Raffaele, cheering, “Woo-hoo! Woo-hoo!”

[Comments] in the trial testimony and December 17 questioning, AK cites both (a) saving the battery; and (b) not wanting to risk getting called back to work.  In the book she lists avoiding PL, but nothing about the battery.  Still, doesn’t exactly scream of dedication.

December 17, 2007 Questioning

PM Mignini: After having talked, after you were heard at the Questura, did you go away or did you wait?
Knox: The first day I was questioned I was there for hours… maybe 14…
Interpreter: The first time it seems to her that she had been there a very long time, 14 hours
PM Mignini: But questioned
Knox: No, maybe they questioned me for 6 hours but I stayed at the Questura a very long time…
[Comments] Off topic, but AK admits in interview that she wasn’t questioned for 14 hours.  At the police station yes, but not questioned.


36. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

GM:  Why did you speak about Patrick only in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45? Why didn’t you mention him before? You never mentioned him before.
AK:  Before when?
GM:  In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there’s Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn’t you ever mentioned him before?
AK:  Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick’s name to me.
GM:  All right, now is the time for you to make this precise and specific. At this point I will take…no, I’ll come back to it later. You need to explain this. You have stated: “The name of Patrick was suggested to me. I was hit, pressured.”
AK:  Yes.
GM:  Now you have to tell me in a completely detailed way, you have to remember for real, you have to explain step by step, who, how, when, was the name of Patrick suggested to you, and what had been done before that point. The name of Patrick didn’t just come up like a mushroom; there was a preceding situation. Who put pressure on you, what do you mean by the word “pressure”, who hit you? You said: “They hit me”, and at the request of the lawyer Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 107]  “I’m sure it’s going to be quick,” Rafael said.  I said, “I’ll just come with you.” Did the police know I’d show up, or were they purposefully separating Rafael and me? When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside, that I’d have to wait for Rafael in the car. I begged them to change their minds. I said, “I’m afraid to be by myself in the dark.”

[Comments] Yes, this was mentioned before, but just to repeat: AK claims this was a police sting, but she showed up: (a) uninvited; (b) unannounced; and (c) resisted Rita Ficarra’s instruction to go home.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 112]  “Why did you pause it?” “I don’t remember.” “Why? Why? What time?” “I don’t remember!” I said it forcefully, trying to shake them off, but it didn’t work. They were peppering me relentlessly. The questions seemed simple, but I didn’t have the answers. And the more they asked, the more I lost my bearings. I was getting hot, looking around for air.

[Comments] This supposed switch to ‘‘bad cop’’ is never explained in any way.  According to AK, she is being asked general questions (and again, she showed up unannounced to the police station), and all of a sudden the police are suddenly browbeating her.  Keep in mind, that Sollecito had been called in to answer discrepencies in his account—the phone records didn’t match his story.  But AK says they went after her BEFORE RS pulled her alibi. Check here.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 103]  November 5, 2007, Day Four.  Police officer Rita Ficarra slapped her palm against the back of my head, but the shock of the blow, even more than the force, left me dazed. I hadn’t expected to be slapped. I was turning around to yell, “Stop!“—my mouth halfway open—but before I even realized what had happened, I felt another whack, this one above my ear. She was right next to me, leaning over me, her voice as hard as her hand had been. “Stop lying, stop lying,” she insisted. Stunned, I cried out, “Why are you hitting me?”  “To get your attention,” she said.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 113/114]  Just then a cop - Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa - opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.”  My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded, devastated. What? I couldn’t believe that Raffaele, the one person in Italy whom I’d trusted completely, had turned against me. How could he say that when it wasn’t true? We’d been together all night. Now it was just me against the police, my word against theirs. I had nothing left. “Where did you go? Who did you text?” Ficarra asked, sneering at me. “I don’t remember texting anyone.” They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history. “You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” “My boss at Le Chic.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114/115]  “Stop lying! Who’s Patrick? What’s he like?” “He’s about this tall,” I said, gesturing, “with braids.” “Did he know Meredith?” “Yes, she came to the bar.”  “Did he like her?” “Yes, he liked Meredith. He was nice to her, and they got along.”  “Did he think Meredith was pretty?”  “Well, Meredith was pretty. I’m sure he thought she was pretty.”  “When did you leave to meet Patrick?”  “I didn’t meet Patrick. I stayed in.”  “No, you didn’t. This message says you were going to meet him.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  “Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?”

[Comments] So, if the book is correct, AK has told the police that PL is: (a) her boss; (b) at Le Chic; (c) a rough description, yet the police still want to know who he is.  Of course, the book omits the fact that AK had already named PL in her infamous ‘‘7 person list’’ for Rita Ficarra, and drawn a map, and given his cell #.  For original sources read posts 2, 3, 4, 5, 11,and 12.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  They pushed my cell phone, with the message to Patrick, in my face and screamed, “You’re lying. You sent a message to Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head. “Why are you hitting me?” I cried.  “To get your attention,” she said.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  People were shouting at me. “Maybe you just don’t remember what happened. Try to think. Try to think.  Who did you meet? Who did you meet? You need to help us. Tell us!”  A cop boomed, “You’re going to go to prison for thirty years if you don’t help us.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  The silver-haired police officer took both of my hands in his. He said, “I really want to help you. I want to save you, but you need to tell me who the murderer is. You need to tell me. You know who the murderer is. You know who killed Meredith.” In that instant, I snapped.

[Comments] So AK tells the police who PL is, yet they still smack her, getting her to say who she went to meet.  Really?

37. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

GCM:  And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
AK:  Thank you. So, here is…how I understood the question, I’m answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I’m sorry, I don’t know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH cont] The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I didn’t do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.” So I said okay and went with them, and they started asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening.

At least, they kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything about what I did. Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times and schedules, and time segments: “What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember.

And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.” And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn’t there? I was there! Maybe I can’t say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because I didn’t look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And she would say “No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the house.” And I said, no, that’s not how it was. I was always in Raffaele’s apartment.  I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me,

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 108] They gave me a chair outside the waiting room, by the elevator. I’d been doing drills in my grammar workbook for a few minutes when a silver-haired police officer—I never learned his name—came and sat next to me.

[Comments] So in the book it is “grammar drills”, but in Court it is “paragraphs of reading”

[WTBH cont]  So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 108] “Why don’t you keep talking about the people who’ve been in your house—especially men?” he suggested. I’d done this so many times in the questura I felt as if I could dial it in. And finally someone there seemed nice. “Okay,” I said, starting in. “There are the guys who live downstairs.”

[Comments] in both the trial testimony and in the book, AK leaves out the fact that she was giving names and numbers (and addresses) in her “list”

For original sources read posts 10, 11,and 12.

[WTBH cont]  “What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember. And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 113/114]  Just then a cop - Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa - opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.”  My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded, devastated. What? I couldn’t believe that Raffaele, the one person in Italy whom I’d trusted completely, had turned against me. How could he say that when it wasn’t true?  We’d been together all night. Now it was just me against the police, my word against theirs. I had nothing left.

[Comments] AK had been building her “list of 7” until she had been informed that she no longer had an alibi.  THEN she had to come up with someone—anyone—and she did.  The June 2009 testimony and book and surprisingly consistent (for Knox), yet it does not in any way reflect what actually happened.  Reread these posts

For original sources read posts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7,8 and 9.

[Comments] And again, to repeat from before, how exactly could this “sting” be planned for that night?  Knox showed up to the Questura: (a) unannounced; (b) uninvited; and (c) refused to leave when told to do so?

[WTBH cont] I was always in Raffaele’s apartment

[Comments] RS has repeatedly thrown AK under the bus on this.  To this day, he refuses to provide an alibi. For multiple examples see here.

38. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

GCM:  [taking advantage of a tiny pause to slip in without exactly interrupting] Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the cuffs, who gave them to you.
AK:  All right. What it was, was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started to little by little and then more and more these remarks about “We’re not convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not remember another thing. We don’t understand how you could take a shower without seeing…” And then, they kept on asking me “Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.” Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that I had gone out of the house. I said look, it’s impossible. I don’t know if he’s really saying that or not, but look, I didn’t go out of the house. And they said “No, you’re telling a lie. You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.” Sure, take it. “All right.” So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling “We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?” But I kept saying no, no, I didn’t go out, I’m not pro-pro-pro—-

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH cont]  “Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  People were shouting at me. “Maybe you just don’t remember what happened. Try to think. Try to think. Who did you meet? Who did you meet? You need to help us. Tell us!” A cop boomed, “You’re going to go to prison for thirty years if you don’t help us.” [Comments] Notwithstanding the fact that this browbeating was made up, it is told differently.  At trial, AK says she was threatened because she wasn’t sure of what she was saying, while in the book she claims it was due to not remembering at all.

[WTBH cont] “Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114] “Where did you go? Who did you text?” Ficarra asked, sneering at me. “I don’t remember texting anyone.”  They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history.  “You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”  “My boss at Le Chic.”

[Comments] Again, aside from the fact this “interrogation” didn’t happen, these events change as well.  In the Trial testimony, AK says she handed over her phone since the police wanted to verify that she had received such a message from Patrick.  In the book, the police seem to be searching for people AK may have talked to.

[Comments] And, as mentioned before, if this really was a sting, why wouldn’t the police have pulled AK/RS phone and text records beforehand?  Why would the police set up such a sting on the offchance AK would show up:  (a) unannounced; (b) uninvited; and (c) refuse to leave when told to do so?

[WTBH cont] “You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114]  “My boss at Le Chic.”  “What about his text message? What time did you receive that?”  “I don’t know. You have my phone,”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114] They said, “Why did you delete Patrick’s message? The text you have says you were going to meet Patrick.”  “What message?” I asked, bewildered. I didn’t remember texting Patrick a return message.  “This one!” said an officer, thrusting the phone in my face and withdrawing it before I could even look.  “Stop lying! Who’s Patrick? What’s he like?”  “He’s about this tall,” I said, gesturing, “with braids.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  “Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?” The questions wouldn’t stop. I couldn’t think. And even when it didn’t seem possible, the pressure kept building. I said, “Patrick is my boss.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  The interpreter offered a solution, “Once, when I had an accident, I didn’t remember it. I had a broken leg and it was traumatizing and I woke up afterward and didn’t remember it. Maybe you just don’t remember.  Maybe that’s why you can’t remember times really well.”  For a moment, she sounded almost kind.  But I said, “No, I’m not traumatized.”  Another cop picked up the same language. He said, “Maybe you’re traumatized by what you saw. Maybe you don’t remember.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head. “Why are you hitting me?” I cried. “To get your attention,” she said. “I’m trying to help,” I said. “I’m trying to help, I’m desperately trying to help.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  People were shouting at me. “Maybe you just don’t remember what happened. Try to think. Try to think. Who did you meet? Who did you meet? You need to help us. Tell us!”  A cop boomed, “You’re going to go to prison for thirty years if you don’t help us.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  The silver-haired police officer took both of my hands in his. He said, “I really want to help you. I want to save you, but you need to tell me who the murderer is. You need to tell me. You know who the murderer is. You know who killed Meredith.” In that instant, I snapped.

[Comments] So AK tells the police who PL is, yet they still smack her, getting her to say who she went to meet.  Why?


Posted by Chimera on 02/19/18 at 11:46 AM in


Comments

Italian media are reporting that Cassation will rule tomorrow evening on Guede’s final appeal to have his case reheard. The Florence court refused this a few months ago.

I think none of us are in favor of Guede getting off any more lightly (he got 16 + 3 years and has served just over 10; the 3 years was for possession of stolen property in Milan). And a retrial would be undeniably tough on the Kerchers.

But especially if this is the First Chambers it stands a chance as they rued definitively there were several attackers.

A retrial could still result in the same sentence for Guede; and (really helpful to us) it could reaffirm once and for all that THREE attackers were involved, and thus nail the Knox apologists and their “lone killer/forgotten killer” theory (which nobody in Italy believes anyway). 

http://velvetnews.it/2018/02/20/omicidio-meredith-rudy-guede-in-semiliberta-gia-nel-2018-ecco-perche/

Murder of Meredith Kercher: Rudy Guede perhaps in semi-liberty by the end of the year, and from Cassation a review of the case is possible.
20 February 2018, by Elisabetta Francinella

The [Rome] lawyers of Rudy Guede, sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for the murder of Meredith Kercher, return to appeal against the inadmissibility of a retrial established by the Court of Appeal of Florence. Thus a wound is reopened for the victim’s family, which has not been at peace over the girl’s death for more than ten years.

The appeal presented by the lawyers of Rudy Guede will be discussed tomorrow, February 21, 2018, in Cassation. In the courtroom the Supreme Court will decide on the inadmissibility of the request for review of the conviction of the accused, equal to 16 years of imprisonment, for having committed the murder of Meredith Kercher, the 22-year-old English student in Erasmus University of Perugia killed on the evening of November 1, 2007.

The young woman was found with her throat cut in her bedroom, inside the house she shared with other students, including Amanda Knox, who was engaged at the time of the events with Raffaele Sollecito: both were investigated, convicted and later acquitted.

The Court of Appeal of Florence decided that it was inadmissible. The sentence of the petition, presented by the lawyers Tommaso Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi, is scheduled for tomorrow evening.

The lawyers of Rudy Guede argue that there has been a failure to comply with the rules of procedure and also that there has been a failure to consider some fundamental elements by the Florentine judges.

Moreover, as ANSA reports, Guede could ask to be admitted to semi-liberty by the end of this year: the defendant is now in the prison of Viterbo where he is serving a sentence of 16 years imprisonment for the murder. Rudy Guede has already taken advantage of several paroles, thanks to which he has also returned to Perugia as a guest of his former elementary school teacher.

The lawyer of the family of the English student, the lawyer Francesco Maresca, has commented to ANSA on the decision of the lawyers of Rudy Guede: “Once again the wound is reopened for the family of Meredith Kercher who sees the media speak of a tragedy for them, the loss of a daughter and a sister “.

According to the lawyer, the application is groundless: “The Court of Florence has already considered that there is no conflict between the sentence that sentenced Rudy Guede and those that have definitively acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. And anyway his position remains involved even allowing there were three attackers., There is no contradiction regarding him “.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/20/18 at 02:14 PM | #

More on Guede. Here is the post 14 months ago that describes the possibilities in more detail.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/on_tuesday_behind_closed_doors_guedes_crack_team_from_rome/

They were not the first team, which was the legal help for the prison in Viterbo. Fabriuzio Ballerini is.one of that group.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/20/18 at 03:07 PM | #

Correction: both the Rome and Viterbo legal teams are named in some reports of which there are quite a few in Italy. (Viterbo is a few miles north-east of Rome.)

Unfortunately its the Fifth Chambers again, and some cover for Marasca and Bruno might occur.

The only English language report I am seeing is this on Blasting news - its also the only one to lay out past finding against Guede and the mysterious others.

https://uk.blastingnews.com/world/2018/02/rudy-guede-free-by-the-year-end-angry-backlash-by-meredith-kercher-lawyer-002380235.html

The facts found by Judge Paolo Micheli, at Guede’s trial include:

Guede did not wield the murder weapon,
He had had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith, as Guede had claimed in his testimony.
Therefore, he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact with her.
The burglary mise en scène was a second stage of the crime after the murder.
It, therefore, followed that Knox let in Guede to the murder cottage.
The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.
Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.
There were multiple assailants.
Guede was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop ‘as soon as the knives came out’.
There was complicity with others: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”.

Judges Paulo Antonio Bruno and Gennaro Marasca confirmed the burglary was faked, that the murder had not been committed by a random burglar, as the nature of the attack was more in keeping with ‘a serial killer’, as they put it. It also ruled that there were ‘multiple attackers’. In addition, it ruled that Knox ‘had covered up for Guede’ when she told police Patrick Lumumba was the culprit.

Good on the stark contradictions, which the Fifth Chambers maybe will try to resolve as it should.

The report mentions 2022 as the final release date making 16 years. But a Milan court awarded Guede another three years for possession of stolen property. We’ll see if that still stands.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/21/18 at 12:33 PM | #

Knox wrongly labeled “exchange student” again.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/37551919/amanda-knox-exchange-student-cleared-of-murder-to-speak-in-kansas-city

She wasnt - as the Universities of Washington & Perugia will both confirm. Had she been, Meredith would probably still be alive. Knox would have been well funded, actually busy, and supervised.

But Knox was strictly freelance - for the drugs? - and not even enrolled at the university - hence desperately needing that job Patrick kindly handed to her.

Post to more fully explain this is coming up.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/21/18 at 01:55 PM | #

So. The outcome of Guede’s appeal: the Fifth Committee passed. What a surprise…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/21/18 at 05:54 PM | #

That’s good then, right?  Keeping Guede where he is?!

Couldn’t see Bongiorno doing any ‘‘shopping’’ on his behalf

Posted by Chimera on 02/21/18 at 06:12 PM | #

OT but does anyone recall Sarzanini’s book, “Amanda and the Others” that the Knox crowd tried to suppress?

Posted by Hopeful on 02/22/18 at 12:21 AM | #

Hi Hopeful

We have numerous books and hundreds of video clips. Yes we have the “Amanda And The Others” book in Italian, and Catnip put it all English.

We communicated with Sarzanini too. Like us she found the outcome somewhat weird.

First, the Knox “diary” excerpts seem to have been written for publication, and her defense was spreading all or part of it around. See our report on the HIV scare.

This was back where Knox and her team were making Knox 1.0 to look as daffy as was possible. 

Second, the Corriere newspaper had to pay a fine, but the book was not ordered withdrawn. It is still available on Amazon Italy. We can quote it if we like.

https://www.amazon.it/Amanda-perdute-intorno-delitto-Perugia/dp/8845262189/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1519271916&sr=8-4&keywords=sarzanini

The fine made the defense look mean. The reason was it was not for libel or anything offensive by Knox or about Knox. The book simply contravened an Italian privacy law - one by corrupt politicians that many Italians dont like - which has had a chilling effect on many parties to the case.

It’s well known here that the mafias and the masons affected the course of the case. In many ways, corrupt politicians had thrown up roadblocks too.

It was from that book that we found out how much Knox despises Chris Mellas because he would taunt and tease her thus:

Obviously Chris is making me anxious because he is an arsehole and so I had to go away. After I had excused myself with Mom to go away while they were putting up the tent, but I don’t intend to stay and make myself listen that I am an obtuse mental retard…

Knox had major issues with her psycho dad as well, the one with anger issues who would not pay her support, and she made that public in her book - yes there was one non-lie at least.

Mignini and the others knew all of this and so you see him steering her in early days toward a manslaughter or accidental death plea. Her lawyers would have gone along - but psycho dad hit the roof and stopped them.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/22/18 at 01:09 AM | #

OT, but the blood money speeches continue apparently ....

http://www.kctv5.com/story/37551919/amanda-knox-exchange-student-cleared-of-murder-to-speak-in-kansas-city

A positive: she doesn’t speak until April

Anyone .... ?

Posted by Chimera on 02/22/18 at 01:41 AM | #

The exaggerated words, “I jumped on top of Raffaele shouting woo hoo, woo hoo”.
“a cop boomed”.

Hmm.

But again it’s the total and utter absence of help for Meredith; just “but they always kept wanting times and schedules, and time segments”.

Unreal.

Posted by DavidB on 02/22/18 at 07:31 AM | #

Hi Chimera

Yes we knew and have taken matters behind the scenes as I just explained in an email. The Innocence Project HQ is here in NYC in Tribeca.

40 Worth Street, Suite 701
New York, NY 10013

Best I think for anyone who wants to act is proving to be to send a letter. More powerful than emails or Twitter. Use of real names really helps here.

Greg Hampikian was one major apologist; his Idaho Innocence Project lost its funding and folded. Their previous whipping up of bigotry.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_buyer_beware_could_be_a_very_good_idea/

Major political moves coming up should end all of this permanently if other measures dont chill it beforehand.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/22/18 at 09:30 AM | #

On the Guede outcome this is a very helpful email from Machiavelli which he has agreed can be posted.

Actually, I think there is no legal basis for a trial review of Rudy Guede - I mean no merit, even though in theory it could be legally possible. And there is also no practical use for it.

I will try to explain. A trial review is accorded only when there is new evidence pointing at the fact that a new trial would have a different outcome, more favourable to the defendant.

Any other trial of Rudy Guede would lead to the same outcome: 16 years for concurring with others to a murder. And this is already the established truth.

The fact that Meredith was killed by multiple persons and Guede is only one of them is a finding established in all definitive verdicts, including the Marasca/Bruno verdict.

All definitive rulings have come to this conclusion. They are all in agreement on this particular point: multiple perpetrators, and Guede was acting together with somebody else.

Now the fact that this would be the outcome of any new trial, would seem rather obvious in advance to the court.

It sounds rather strange to expect that a trial review of Guede would be done to “confirm” something that is already established definitively and that no court has ever disputed!

There would be no need of a Guede trial in order to find out that there were other perpetrators, because that’s what was already found, as we all know.

Based on those assumptions, I rather expected the Supreme Court to drop Guede’s request for a trial review, because there is no chance that anything different could come out from a new trial.

The trial would only confirm that there were other perpetrators besides Guede, but that’s what the courts have already established!

This is why I don’t see a legal basis for a trial review and rather expected to see the Supreme Court rejecting Guede’s request, and issuing a motivations where they write that, basically, there is no reason to expect a different verdict, given that the evidence is the same.

There is no chance that Guede gets off either any lighter or any worse in my opinion: Guede seeks to be acquitted on reasonable doubt based on the same criteria that they used for Knox and Sollecito: he demands the same “doubt” criteria be applied to him as well.

In terms of relative justice, Guede’s request could even be right.

But it’s not legal, because those criteria declared in the Knox-Sollecito verdict are just intrinsically illegal and foolish in themselves.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/22/18 at 10:33 AM | #

What an absolute effront to decency that this practiced liar and murderer is given yet another platform to spout her lies in what will no doubt be another ham performance punctuated by liberal swallowing (when she’s trying to portray that the words are just too hard to get out but is really just doing it for effect), inappropriate laughing/grimacing (she can’t actually control this one, this is often her inner psychopath just bursting to rejoice and tell everyone the real truth that she got away with it and how clever she is) and a complete and utter lack of empathy for the real victim.

I’m on holiday this week, so will take up your suggestion Pete and send a letter from across the pond to the innocence project in NYC. I’ll happily append my name and address to my letter and if any meaningful reply is received, I will revert to this comments section.

As regards Chimera’s timely reminder of just how conflicted Knox’s various versions of events truly are, it is a labyrinthine mess that Knox has created and appears to be a decent strategy thus far in that the lies and obfuscation have certainly fooled enough people to gain her an audience going forward. The trouble is her infantile drivel is so easily picked apart that, some day, the dam will likely burst and Knox will be consumed by the raging tsunami of truth that will engulf her. A day that I personally will crack open the champagne on.

One thing I recall from the previous testimony that Knox gave at trial was that she agreed under questioning that the Police had not brought Patrick’s name up at all. They asked her about the text but she gave his name, nobody suggested it. This was a specific line of questioning and Knox absolutely agreed that it was her, herself who gave Patrick’s name first. “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” as Sir Walter Scott splendidly said in his poem “Marmion”.

I do wish some of the interviewers who have had Knox on their couches had actually sat with the trial testimony and her book in front of them and highlighted the myriad inconsistencies to her. Then watched her flounder. She would have been hoisted by her own petard for sure. Sadly, it is too much to expect an outbreak of real journalism to occur in an era of fake news and fake celebrity.

Posted by davidmulhern on 02/23/18 at 09:20 AM | #

Amanda Knox didn’t jump on top of Raffaele Sollecito, cheering “Woo-hoo! Woo-hoo!” because she wasn’t at his apartment when she received Diya Lumumba’s text message telling her not to come to Le Chic. The mobile evidence proved she was in the vicinity of Piazza Grimana.

Posted by The Machine on 02/23/18 at 09:22 AM | #

Machine,
Thank you, yes.

Posted by DavidB on 02/24/18 at 04:31 AM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Netflixhoax 25: Omitted - Epidemic Of Hazing Deaths In United States No Different From Meredith’s

Or to previous entry Knox v Knox 4: How She Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #27 To #34