Saturday, April 26, 2014

Knox’s Multiple Accounts Of Her Witness “Interrogations”: An Incriminating Behavior Pattern For Sure

Posted by James Raper




1. Today’s Context To This Post

In a day or two Judge Nencini’s sentencing report will be released. Are we all clear on precisely why the Nencini appeal court in Florence had to meet?

It did not meet at the request of the prosecution. They had nothing to appeal, subsequent to the convictions they won at the 2009 trial. This was certainly not a new trial.

In fact, the Nencini appeal court met only at the requests of Sollecito and Knox.  It met exclusively to hear their appeal.

Did you notice who the court did not hear from? Knox herself.  She did send from Seattle a misleading and somewhat insulting note to the judge, attempting to explain why she was choosing to stay away.

Judge Nencini might have issued an immediate arrest warrant for Knox. But instead he merely confined himself to some sardonic remarks, while dropping Knox’s note disdainfully on his bench.

Judge Nencini would know that Knox’s note may be a first in legal annals: a convicted perp chooses not to show up in court for their own appeal.

2. Knox’s Book: A Minefield For Her

Knox’s note in effect claimed she was full of fear. Fear of what? Purportedly fear that the prosecution would make too strong a case.

The prosecution would make too strong a case? But they had done that already, in 2009. At appeals it is the defense teams calling the shots. Those convicted show up and advise their teams how to overturn the prosecution’s case.

Most likely the real source of Knox’s fear was her feckless paper-trail over some 30 months.

Knox has a trail of multiple contradictory outpourings since her late-2011 release. To this day, Knox still continues to throw things at the wall, in the hope that maybe one day a few of them will stick.

Knox’s book Waiting To Be Heard of one year ago more than anything is Exhibit A here. It was surely her easy-to-fault book that sparked extreme reluctance to look the judges and prosecution and those many in Perugia she had reviled in the eyes.

This is the first of two posts on the formidable evidence that Knox’s behavior in the days prior to her arrest constitutes, and Knox’s erratic attempts in the past 30 months to convince us, hey folks, don’t believe your lying eyes: there’s really nothing here.   

My post here is about what actually happened on the 5th November 2007 when Amanda Knox was sort-of helping the police at the central police station.

3. Realities 1 And 2: Knox Book v Knox On Stand

The police had called her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in to the station for questioning and Knox had accompanied him because she did not want to be alone. They had already eaten at the house of a friend of Sollecito’s.  Knox’s interrogation was not tape recorded and in that sense we have no truly independent account of what transpired.

The several police involved, including the interpreter, gave evidence at her trial, see the transcripts here (Anna Donnino) and here (Rita Ficcara) and here (Monica Napoleoni).

Anna Donino’s testimony, which is like night and day when compared with Knox’s claims, is summarised below. Rita Ficcara was exclusively or almost exclusively the questioner. At most only four officials (Rita Ficcara, Lorena Zugarini, Ivano Raffo, and Anna Doninno the interpreter) were there.  Monica Napoleoni did not enter the room. Refreshments were brought in several times.

There are accounts in books that have been written about the case but these tend to differ in the detail. The police and the interpreter maintain that she was treated well. Conflicting with their evidence, which meshes neatly, is what Knox says happened, and our sources for this are transcripts of her trial evidence and what she wrote in her book.

I shall deal with the evidence of the interpreter representative of the four officials in “Reality 3” below.

I am going to compare what she said at trial with what she wrote in her book but also there was a letter she wrote on the 9th and a recording of a meeting with her mother on the 10th November which are also relevant.

What she wrote in her book is fairly extensive and contains much dialogue. She has a prodigious memory for detail now which was almost entirely lacking before.  I am going to tell you to treat what she says in her book with extreme caution because she has already been found out for, well let us say, her creative writing if not outright distortion of facts. I shall paraphrase rather than quote most of it but a few direct quotes are necessary.

Knox arrived with Sollecito at the police station at about 10.30 pm (according to John Follain). The police started to question Sollecito at 10.40 pm (Follain).

In her book Knox describes being taken from the waiting area to a formal interview room in which she had already spent some time earlier. It is unclear when that formal questioning began. Probably getting on for about 11.30pm because she also refers to some questions being asked of her in the waiting room following which she did some stretches and splits.

She then describes how she was questioned about the events over a period from about the time she and Sollecito left the cottage to about 9 pm on the 1st November.

Possibly there was a short break. She describes being exhausted and confused. The interpreter, Knox says, arrived at about 12.30 am. Until then Knox claims she had been conversing with the police in Italian.

Almost immediately, the questioning resuming -

“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.””

Knox describes how she was dumfounded and devastated by this news. She cannot believe that he would say that when they had been together all night. She feels all her reserves of energy draining away. Then -

“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.”

Stop right there.

First, the interpreter, Rita Ficcara and Monica Napoleoni herself testified she never even entered the room.

Second, how were the police able to name the recipient of the text? The text Patrick had sent her had already been deleted from Knox’s mobile phone by Knox herself and Knox hasn’t yet named Patrick. In fact she couldn’t remember texting anyone.

It is of course probable that the police already had a log of her calls and possibly had already traced and identified the owner of the receiving number for her text, though the last step would have been fast work.

In her trial testimony Knox did a lot of “the police suggested this and suggested that” though it is never crystal clear whether she is accusing the police of having suggested his name. But she is doing it here in her book and of course the Knox groupies have always maintained that it was the police who suggested his name to her.

The following extract from her trial testimony should clear things up. GCM is Judge Giancarlo Massei.

GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?

AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata.”

GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?

AK: Actually, I don’t know if that information is in the telephone…………………..

GCM : But they didn’t literally say it was him!

AK : No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him.”

GCM : Now what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?”

AK : Well, first I started to cry…....

And having implied that it was the police who suggested Patrick’s name to her, she adds….. that quote again -

“You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”

“My boss at Le Chic.”

Here she is telling the Perugian cops straight out exactly to whom the text was sent. “My boss at Le Chic”.

But that does not quite gel with her trial testimony -

And they told me that I knew, and that I didn’t want to tell. And that I didn’t want to tell because I didn’t remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying “Look what a stupid liar you are, you don’t even remember this!”

At first, I didn’t even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying “Maybe you don’t remember, maybe you don’t remember, but try,” and other people were saying “Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing “Remember, remember, remember…..

Doesn’t the above quote make it clear that the police were having considerable trouble getting Knox to tell them to whom her text message was sent? It would also explain their growing frustration with her.

But perhaps the above quote relates not to whom the text was sent but, that having been ascertained, whether Knox met up with that person later? Knox has a habit of conflating the two issues. However there is also the following quote from her trial testimony -

Well there were lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don’t know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?”

Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn’t see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman and she gave me another blow to the head.

The woman with the long hair, chestnut brown hair, Knox identifies in her book as Ficarra. Ficarra is the policewoman who started the questioning particularly, as Knox has confirmed, about the texted message. “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?” Again, surely this is to get Knox to identify the recipient of the text, not about whether she met up with him?






In the book though, it is all different.

In the book, the police having told her that the text is to someone called Patrick, Knox is a model of co-operation as, having already told them that he is her boss at Le Chic, she then gives a description of him and answers their questions as to whether he knew Meredith, whether he liked her etc. No reluctance to co-operate, no memory difficulties here.

Notwithstanding this, her book says the questions and insinuations keep raining down on her. The police insist that she had left Sollecito’s to meet up with - and again the police name him - Patrick.

“Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?”

Remember again, according to her trial testimony the police did not mention Patrick’s name and Knox still hasn’t mentioned his name. But wait, she does in the next line -

“I said “Patrick is my boss.””

So now, at any rate, the police have a positive ID from Knox regarding the text message and something to work with. Patrick - boss - Le Chic.

Knox then refers to the differing interpretations as to what “See you later” meant and denies that she had ever met up with Patrick that evening. She recalls the interpreter suggesting that she was traumatized and suffering from amnesia.

The police continue to try to draw an admission from Knox that she had met up with Patrick that evening - which again she repeatedly denies. And why shouldn’t she? After all, she denies that she’s suffering from amnesia, or that there is a problem with her memory. The only problem is that Sollecito had said she had gone out but that does not mean she had met with Patrick.

Knox then writes, oddly, as it is completely out of sequence considering the above -

“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.”

A couple of blows (more like cuffs) to the head (denied by the police) is mentioned in her trial testimony but more likely, if this incident ever happened, it would have been earlier when she was struggling to remember the text and to whom it had been sent. Indeed that’s clear from the context of the above quotes.

And this, from her trial testimony -

Remember, remember, remember, and then there was this person behind me who—it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me.”

In the CNN TV interview with Chris Cuomo, Knox was asked if there was anything she regretted.

Knox replied that she regretted the way this interrogation had gone, that she wished she had been aware of her rights and had stood up to the police questioning better.

Well actually, according to the account in her book, she appears to have stood up to the police questioning with a marked degree of resilience and self- certainty, and with no amnesia. There is little of her trademark “being confused”. 

So why the sudden collapse? And it was a sudden collapse.

Given the trial and book accounts Knox would have us think that she was frightened, that it was due to exhaustion and the persistent and bullying tone of the questioning, mixed with threats that she would spend time in prison for failing to co-operate. She also states that -

(a) she was having a bad period and was not being allowed to attend to this, and

(b) the police told her that they had “hard evidence” that she was involved in the murder.

Knox has given us a number of accounts as to what was actually happening when this occurred.

In a letter she wrote on the 9th November she says that suddenly all the police officers left the room but one, who told her she was in serious trouble and that she should name the murderer. At this point Knox says that she asked to see the texted message again and then an image of Patrick came to mind. All she could think about was Patrick and so she named him (as the murderer).

During a recorded meeting with her mother in Capanne Prison on the 10th November she relates essentially the same story.

In her book there is sort of the same story but significantly without mention of the other officers having left the room nor mention of her having asked to see the texted message again.

If the first two accounts are correct then at least the sense of oppression from the room being crowded and questions being fired at her had lifted.

Then this is from her book -

In that instant, I snapped. I truly thought I remembered having met somebody. I didn’t understand what was happening to me. I didn’t understand that I was about to implicate the wrong person. I didn’t understand what was at stake. I didn’t think I was making it up. My mind put together incoherent images. The image that came to me was Patrick’s face.  I gasped. I said his name. “Patrick—it’s Patrick.

It’s her account, of course, but this “Patrick - It’s Patrick” makes no sense at this stage of it unless it’s an admission not just that she had met up with Patrick but that he was at the cottage and involved in Meredith’s death.

And this is from her trial testimony -

GCM : Now what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?

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 situation.

There is a clear difference between these two quotes.

The one from her book suggests that she was trying hard but that the police had virtually brought her to the verge of a mental breakdown.

Her trial testimony says something else; that a scene and an idea was forming in her mind brought on by her naming of Patrick.

In her book she states that a statement, typed up in Italian, was shoved under her nose and she was told to sign it. The statement was timed at 1.45 am. The statement was not long but would probably have taken about twenty minutes to prepare and type.

The statement according to Knox -

... I met Patrick immediately at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana and we went to the house together. I do not remember if Meredith was there or came shortly afterward. I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her.

The fact that the statement was in Italian is not important. Knox could read Italian perfectly well. However she does insinuate in the book that the details in the statement were suggested to her and that she didn’t bother to read the statement before signing.

Apart from what has been mentioned above, there are some other points and inferences to be drawn from the above analysis.

    1.  Knox’s account destroys one of Sollecito’s main tenets in his book Honour Bound. Sollecito maintains that he did nothing to damage Knox’s alibi until he signed a statement, forced on him at 3:30 am and containing the damaging admission that Knox had gone out. But Knox makes it clear that she had heard from the Head of the Murder Squad that he had made that damaging admission, at or shortly after 12.30 am. Or is Knox is accusing Napoleoni of a bare-faced lie?

    2.  It is valid to ask why Knox would not want to remember to whom the text had been sent. Who can see into her mind? Perhaps Knox realized that discussion of it would confirm that if she had indeed gone out then it was not to Le Chic, where she was not required. However even if she thought that could put her in the frame it’s not what an innocent person would be too worried about. Perhaps she did just have difficulty remembering?

    3.  If there was no fuss and she did remember and tell the police that the text was to Patrick, and the questioning then moved on to whether she met up with Patrick later that evening, what was the problem with that? She knew the fact that she hadn’t met up with him could be verified by Patrick. She could have said that and stuck to it. The next move for the police would have been to question Patrick. They would not have had grounds to arrest him.

    4.  Knox stated in her memorial, and re-iterates it in her book, that during her interrogation the police told her that they had hard evidence that she was involved in Meredith’s murder. She does not expand on what this evidence is, perhaps because the police did not actually tell her. However, wasn’t she the least bit curious, particularly if she was innocent? What was she thinking it might be?

    5.  I can sympathise with any interviewee suffering a bad period, if that’s true. However the really testy period of the interview/interrogation starts with the arrival of the interpreter, notification of Sollecito’s withdrawal of her alibi and the questioning with regard to the text to Patrick, all occurring at around 12.30 am.  There has to be some critical point when she concedes, whether to the police or in her own mind,  that she’d met “Patrick”, after which there was the questioning as to what had happened next. Say that additional questioning took 20 minutes. Then there would be a break whilst the statement is prepared and typed up. So the difficult period for Knox, from about 12.30 am to that critical point, looks more like about 35 to, at the outside, 50 minutes.

    6.  Even if, for that period, it is true that she was subjected to repeated and bullying questions, and threats, then she held up remarkably well as I have noted from her own account. It does not explain any form of mental breakdown, let alone implicating Patrick in murder. In particular, if Knox’s letter of the 9th and the recording of her meeting with her mother on the 10th are to believed, that alleged barrage of questions had stopped when she implicated Patrick.  An explanation, for what it’s worth, might be that she had simply ceased to care any longer despite the consequences. But why?

    7.  A better and more credible explanation is that an idea had indeed formed suddenly in her mind. She would use the revelation about the text to Patrick and the consequent police line of questioning to bring the questioning to an end and divert suspicion from her true involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher. She envisaged that she would be seen by the police as a helpless witness/victim, not a suspect in a murder investigation. As indeed was the case initially.  She expected, I am sure, to be released, so that she could get Sollecito’s story straight once again. If that had happened there would of course remain the problem of her having involved Patrick, but I dare say she thought that she could simply smooth that over - that it would not be a big deal once he had confirmed that there had been no meeting and that he had not been at the cottage, as the evidence was bound to confirm.


Reality 3: The Interpreter Anna Donnino Speaks

Here is a link to the translation of the evidence of the interpreter, Anna Donnino. I will simply summarise the main points from her evidence but it will be apparent immediately that she contradicts much of what Knox and her supporters claim to have happened.

Donnino told the court that she had 22 years experience working as a translator for the police in Perugia. She was at home when she received a call from the police that her services were required and she arrived at the police station at just before 12.30 am, just as Knox said. She found Knox with Inspector Ficarra. There was also another police officer there whose first name was Ivano. At some stage Ficarra left the room and then returned and there was also another officer by the name of Zugarina who came in. Donnino remained with Knox at all times

The following points emerge from her testimony :-

    1. Three police officers do not amount to the “lots of people” referred to in Knox’s trial testimony, let alone the dozens and the “tag teams” of which her supporters speak.

    2. She makes no mention of Napoleoni and denied that anyone had entered the room to state that Sollecito had broken Knox’s alibi. (This is not to exclude that this may have happened before Donnino arrived)

    3. She states that Knox was perfectly calm but there came a point when Knox was being asked how come she had not gone to work that she was shown her own text message (to Patrick). Knox had an emotional   shock, put her hands to her ears and started rolling her head and saying “It’s him! It’s him! It’s him!”

    4. She denied that Knox had been maltreated or that she had been hit at all or called a liar. She stated that the officer called Ivano had been particularly comforting to Knox, holding her hand occasionally.

    5. The sole purpose of the “interrogation” was for Knox to list possible perps which she did in writing with maps; the meetin was not to say anything more about Knox herself;

    6. She stated that prior to the 1.45 am statement being drafted by Knox (her own idea) she was asked if she wanted a lawyer but Knox said no.

    7. She stated that she had read the statement over to Knox in english and Knox herself had checked the italian original having asked for clarification of specific wording.

    7. She confirmed that that she had told Knox about an accident which she’d had (a leg fracture) and that she had suffered amnesia about the accident itself. She had thought Knox was suffering something similar. She had also spoken to Knox about her own daughters because she thought it was necessary to establish a rapport and trust between the two of them.

The account in Knox’s book is in some ways quite compelling but only if it is not compared against her trial testimony, let alone the Interpreter’s testimony:  that is, up to the point when she implicates Patrick in murder. At that point no amount of whitewash works. The Italian Supreme Court also thought so, upholding Knox’s calunnia conviction, with the addition of aggravating circumstances.






Comments

James provides these links to the testimony on the Wki of Anna Donnino (now in English) and Rita Ficcara (translation coming). 

http://tinyurl.com/kfhugn9 and http://tinyurl.com/lfupwbs

Rita Ficcara (said to be a petite cool controlled person who never raises her voice) was pretty well the only officer who ever asked any questions that night at all, and the 2 or 3 others who were there on and off were being kind and polite to Knox who essentially took control.

The intention of the first “interrogation” was simply for Knox to produce a list of others who might be suspects; she produced maps and names all pointing away from herself. 

She had seemingly been told Sollecito was saying something new, though no details of what, and no strong sign to anyone that it was a threat or used to shake Knox up. No great overt reaction at all.

So much for the “tag teams” idea. Those present were seemingly all surprised when Knox had a conniption while making her list, and they couldnt really understand why.

Knox herself had pushed her phone across the table earlier and said “take a look” and so Rita Ficcara did take a look and asked who the text messages on the screen were from.

Knox quite placidly identified the record of Patrick’s “no need to come to work” text (itself deleted) as being from him.

When then asked if she had replied, she said no, but was was then shown what was in the reply: that they should rightaway meet. BAM!! “Its him! Its him! Its him!” Knox was wailing with her hands over her ears.

Amazingly, both of the statements Knox signed that night were her own idea.

Nobody pressed her, nobody asked her to dictate anything or write anything, nobody asked her to sign anything.  She wanted the statements done so she could get some good sleep.

No tag team here. No violation of human rights. Just a bunch of quite mild civil servants ending up sympathetic to the plight they thought poor Knox had been put through.

And with a list of suspects Knox herself named that wasn’t exactly of much use. 

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/26/14 at 01:04 PM | #

So Rita Ficarra emerges from the elevator on the third floor of the questura late in the evening of 5 November only to find her way blocked by Knox doing the famous cartwheels and splits.

She tells Knox this is not the right place. Knox responds that she is quite annoyed at the inconvenience of having been called to the questura several times and she is frankly very tired and has had enough.

So much for the myth of the meek eager-to-please girl being interrogated mercilessly for 43 hours. Where did THAT crap come from? I wish we could find the original source.

Anyway Rita Ficcara responds that it was her flatmate and “best friend” who died and she is one of the most important witnesses, and there are some major discrepancies in her account. To paraphrase: “However, why exactly are you here tonight if you are so tired? Please go home and grab some sleep.”

Knox digs in and hangs around.

She answers some quick questions, gets moved into an interview room, answers some more, and then Anna Donnino arrives. Then Knox’s tongue really moves into overdrive. Explanations by the dozen start to emerge. This is not the terse girl who is so ludicrously portrayed in her book, it is more like a wind-up parrot someone let loose.

Knox rattles off half a dozen names of people she appears only too eager to frame. This is what most of the conversation is about.

Soon everybody else wants to move on to pulling in Patrick, who she had extremely convincingly framed (Anna Donnino for one said she was quite convinced) but Knox insists to devote TWO long sessions with the group (the second with Dr Mignini) to getting down something that she could sign.

What brutes!

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/26/14 at 03:40 PM | #

Good points, well made, James. She was told over again to go home, she didn’t. She made voluntary statements. And now she complains to the European Court about being coerced? Her misfit fans will have a hard time coming down from the eventual denouement, won’t they?

Posted by Ergon on 04/26/14 at 10:10 PM | #

Thank you, James, for bringing further clarification and detail to this sorry episode.

To me, the inconsistencies, discrepancies, and contradictions all tally with a person who is projecting - a lot.

Wikipedia gives a reasonable definition of projection, in case anyone wants it :

“Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending yourself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in yourself, while attributing them to others.For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.  Although rooted in early developmental stages,.....(etc)”

(When training in psychology, one goes through a long process of recognizing when one might be projecting oneself, as without this, it would be difficult to discern the process in others, and thereby help them.)

Here are just a few examples from James’ text above (you can probably find many others) of what are very probably projections from Amanda:

“Shoving the telephone into my face, shouting….screaming at me”. Who pushed the telephone over and shouted?

“F___ asked, sneering at me…” Who was ‘sneering’ at who?

“She said, almost gleefully….” Who did? Napoleoni wasn’t even there. Was AK ‘gleeful’ when she thought of framing Patrick?

Then the whole issue of the blows to the head. It was witnessed that AK did this action to herself of ‘boxing’ her own head, covering her ears.

Her actual words: ” it’s not that ‘she’ actually physically hurt me, but she frightened me..” Had she frightened herself by her own out-of-control behaviour?

(Incidentally, covering one’s ears, in body language, is indicative of not wanting to hear what is being said, refusing to hear it.)

And some subtle ones:

“... Meredith, with whom ‘he’ was infatuated..” And “I can’t remember clearly whether ‘he’ threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that ‘he’ killed her..”

Then there is the insinuation that details were suggested to her in her voluntary statement, and that she hadn’t fully grasped what she was signing.

Also the insinuations that the police and Anna Donnino were lying. AD was quite clear (“absolutely”) that Amanda HAD understood, and had asked for detailed clarification.

Who was lying? And, importantly, who was suggesting details she wanted others to grasp as the truth?

Projections can only build a false edifice - try as people may to prop it up, it must, in the end, collapse in upon itself. I am reminded of Alice in Wonderland where the House built of Cards has to collapse to nothing.

Personally, I feel the ‘librarian look’, as recently noted, has come about because it is known - maybe subconsciously - that this is about to happen.

I look forward to Judge Nencini’s report.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 04/27/14 at 06:15 AM | #

As an American Piled Higher and Deeper +. I wish to make the following comments and will later get into each one in detail.

When this horrible tragedy first occurred and following it, I thought this was just another drug and alcohol addicted idiot (Amanda Knox) or Idiots (Raf) who just got carried away and the murder occurred rather by accident. But what convinced me that this was not the case was reading “Waiting to be Heard” by Ms. Knox. She should have hired a content editor-as the book is so inconsistent and contradictory it was difficult to get through it without wanting to contact her and slap the crap out of her. Lord to God, she is her own worse enemy. And talk about a drama queen.

At any rate, reading the book and then “Honor Bound” (which was so idiotic I couldn’t get thru it) convinced me it was intentional-very intentional. A couple of things that have been missed on your site:

1. Amanda Knox in her lily white world was/is a major racist and those she accused and set up were minorities. Also keep in mind that Meredith was also bi-racial and Amanda makes it rather clear that she can’t stand people who are not white. She is also incredibly ethnocentric and self-absorbed. Raf was never anything to her but a boy toy-the flavor of the minute who could keep her well-supplied in drugs. I could go on but will stop with that.

2. Something that hasn’t been commented on in the site is what we know from neuroscience-doesn’t matter who you are, your gender or your race-the brain grows and develops the same way in everyone. It grows from back to front and the frontal cortex is not even present/grown until age 26. The frontal cortex contains rather a lot of short-term memory, moral development, executive decision making, the ability to self-reflect and impulse-control. Ms. Knox, Rudy, and Raf were all under the age of 26 and therefore brainless. Totally run by impulse-7 year olds trapped in “adult” bodies. That is why there is a lot more violence and misbehavior in the under 25 yr olds that after that-they are brainless-literally.

3. Neurolinguistics and pupil dilation-this girl was not only drug-chugged when killing Meredith-she was drug-chugged when being interviewed by the Italian Police-note that she becomes very tired only after being at the police station for over an hour-coming down, down, down. and then it is tired and irritable-drug chugged as I said. Also, pupil dilation shows the drug chugged and her “feelings about things”-can’t control pupil size and when she dislikes something-watch them pupils shrink! She is also a somnabulist-equally affected by what happens on the outside and how she feels about it-equal right brain/left brain no dominate side. her use of language in her book auditory is her primary learning style-tells lots of stories to herself and method of coping is illogical and distraction

4. Graphology-handwriting analysis-uses the entire page-no room in her world for anyone but her-I mean margin to margin and top to bottom, the artsy appearance-inability to see the world from any body else’s view but her own-look how she does her i’s and t’s another major give away as is zones-(upper middle and lower). Also note the difference in pressure and size between her writing and her signature-definitely writes like a narcissist and on the side of a sociopath-at any rate, I could go thru all sorts of things with her handwriting.

So this is my initial reactions-wish to post on each point later. thank you.

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 04/27/14 at 01:11 PM | #

Friendsofstfrank

Cool. I just got the book ‘Sex Lies and Handwriting.’ There is much within the pages of the book which I find fascinating.

To begin with there is the pressure of the signature, plus writing below the line and above. I examined Knox handwriting (see within this site) and came to the same conclusion.

Looking forward to your further comments.Thank you

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/27/14 at 05:58 PM | #

Hi Friendofstfrank

Great comment. Very professionally informed.

On (1) the characters Knox was so eager to frame at the first “interrogation” she hijacked were predominantly not white. She may not be a duck;  but she does walk and quack like a duck.

On (2) our psychology postings have been heading in the direction you describe. We know that in her early “tot” days she lived in the middle of the Curt & Edda nuclear war zone, some psychologists think that could count, some not.

On (3) the police and prosecutors said at trial she was on amphetamines (cocaine or crystal meth). The test, unfortunately done a few days later, did not prove this, though those tests dont always give a result even when done right away. Her behavior for days after suggest meth; so did her incredible body odor when the cops arrived.

On (4) we’ve not had a full post on the graphology though the childish look of the writing seems a red flag. We believe what you say is right. Several including the excellent Peter Hyatt posted statement analysis of what she said and wrote.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C440/

Please write again.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/28/14 at 08:06 AM | #

Most here will already know this, but one small point in your excellent piece, James:

Re Reality2, point #5, the bad ’ period’ to about which the whingeing one complained was a mentrual period. She was bleeding, probably cramps and headachey, as well. Seeing that she was in a room with three females who would have sympathetically allowed her a quick trip to the Ladies, had she simply said so, I see this complaint as yet another cry for pity from her readers. Many women have difficulty staying clear-headed under stress at that time of the month. That last sentence of mine is the lone crumb of empathy I will extend to the Interogee.

Friendofstfrank: interesting stuff. Yes, the frontal lobe matures last, but this is all the more reason why no one should touch mind altering substances before the age of 25. And this generations super- charged and adulterated Pot ( along with so much of the Adderall, etc. now handed to primary schoolers) may figure into the rash of single and multiple- victim campus stabbing and shooting horrors turning up in the news on an alarmingly frequent basis.

BTW, at 23 I was left in charge of teaching a classroom of 28 second graders, My brain not having been addled by substances not inserted there by nature. We are considered old enough to drink at 21, drive at 16 or 17, vote at 18, and enlist to be dismembered by IEDs at 18. We are never old enough to legally murder.

Posted by mimi on 04/28/14 at 04:41 PM | #

Hi Mimi

Compassionaate statement in paras 1-2 just above, and we’ve faced this before, and everybody agrees interrogation combined with PMS would be no fun.

However, maybe hold your fire, or the opposite of, as it were.

All the witnesses except AK herself seemed to find her sharp and eager to press on. It was her show: basically listing seven possible perps, with maps (right; tell us that wasnt fun); and then insisting upon and drafting the statement she signed after 1:45, in which she says right there that she left RS’s house and headed off to see Patrick.

Last Thursday, November 1, a day on which I normally work, while I was at the house of my boyfriend Raffaele, at around 8:30 pm, I received a message on my cellular phone from Patrik, who told me that the premises would remain closed that evening, because there were no customers, and thus I would not need to go to work.

I responded to the message by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work.

I suggested on the next thread under James’s second post that seemingly this was to pick a bone with Patrick about her fear of her being replaced in the bar by Meredith.

Her conniption could have been sparked by Ficarra finding out via that message that AK maybe had really big anger issues both with Patrick and MK.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/28/14 at 10:02 PM | #

Hello, Pete,
Note I profferred only the tiniest of crumbs. Not suggesting any mitigating circumstances. I believe Knox was manic for days, running on adrenaline. Hence her exhaustion and resultant ability to push two chairs together and conk out, like a baby, the minute she had a break in her interrogation.

One I missed off my list of ages: based purely upon the onset of puberty, in some, as early as age 9, at least God seems to think that tweens are old enough to have kids.It is now being recommended that sex education begin in the third grade! (as a preventive measure, of course.) All of our artificial hormones (polyesters in the waste stream; dosed-up livestock) are causing young bodies to mature sooner, but the brains are still lagging behind.

Posted by mimi on 04/29/14 at 01:18 AM | #

Regarding menstruation difficulties ( which were brought to the fore by Knox herself in her complaints), many women find the crucial stressful time is PRE-menstruation. (At onset, there can sometimes be relief, albeit with tiredness.)
There has been a lot of work done on PMS; it can be related to copper imbalance, among other things, and adrenal activity/imbalance. There is a known link to increased violence at this time :
“Crimes of Violence and PMS
Crimes of violence committed by women under the influence of PMS are a well-documented fact. They are often directed against husbands and children and are due, in part, to an extreme degree of irritability.
A study conducted in New York showed that over 60 percent of crimes of violence committed by women occurred during the premenstrual phase of the cycle. A Paris survey conducted at the turn of the century showed that 84 percent of violent crimes committed by women are traceable to the time immediately before and during menstruation.” (ARL).

Anna Donnino mentions emphatically how concerned and comforting the police officer Ivano was - consistently.
Is it not more likely that AK’s stress was self-induced, not least because her brain was in over-drive, engaged in constructing, as rapidly as possible, the mother of all cover-ups?
She was certainly projecting (as Pete mentions, suggesting her 7 suspects etc, etc). Projection on this scale will derive from internal conflict, matters unresolved, which generate a stress from within.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 04/29/14 at 06:19 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 Knox & Sollecito Actions In The Week Prior To Arrest: An Incriminating Behavior Pattern For Sure

Or to previous entry How Saul Kassin Framed Many Fine Italian Justice Officials - And Then Played Victim When Corrected