Questions For Knox: Did You Undergo An Illegal Interrogation By Dr Mignini On The Night Of 5-6 Nov?

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Why exactly did you frame your kindly employer Patrick for the crime?

Even the hapless Judge Hellmann, who seemed to try so hard at his own cost (he is now forcibly retired) to have things break your way, didn’t believe anyone ever forced or tricked you into framing Patrick for the crime.

Accordingly you served three years in Capanne Prison, and in March the Supreme Court threw out your final appeal over that. You now have a felony record for life, as well as a proven tendency to lie which every Italian knows about. 

And yet you head off down the same slippery slope again in so many places in your book. This is the direct cause of its being placed under the microscope to see if new felony charges should apply.

Here is how you describe a supposed interrogation by Prosecutor Mignini at your first (witness) interview, and below, we describe what everyone else present says actually took place. This is from pages 90 to 92.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pubblico ministero came in.

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

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

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

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

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

    I said, “I didn’t see anything.”

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

    “I don’t know,” I said.

    “Where did you meet him?”

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

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

    “What was he wearing?”

    “I don’t know.”

    “Was he wearing a jacket?”

    “I think so.”

    “What color was it?”

    “I think it was brown.”

    “What did he do?”

    “I don’t know.”

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

    “I’m confused!”

    “Are you scared of him?”

    “I guess.”

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

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

    “I guess so.”

    “Where did you meet?”

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

    “You went to the house?”

    “I guess so.”

    “Was Meredith in the house?”

    “I don’t remember.”

    “Did Patrick go in there?”

    “I don’t know, I guess so.”

    “Where were you?”

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

    “Did you hear Meredith screaming?”

    “I don’t know.”

    “How could you not hear Meredith screaming?”

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

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

    “I don’t know.”

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

    He said, “Did you hear her scream?”

    I said, “I think so.”

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

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

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

Now we contrast this malicious figment of your imagination with the account of that night by many others who were present at various times. Even you yourself essentially agreed to this narrative at trial, with the one exception of an invented clip on the head.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And you risk more years in prison for every single false claim (and there are many) against officers of the court. Sollecito is in the same boat. You might even incur a life sentence.

So where precisely does this new claim in your book of an illegal interrogation by Dr Mignini fit in? Now would seem a very good time to admit you made it all up.


Amanda Knox only tightens the noose around her neck every time she speaks about what happened during the questura. I find it hard to believe because she is so detailed about the question and answer session with PM Mignini.

She has repeatedly said that she was under pressure, stressed, confused during the Q&A and yet she is so specific about how it unfolded. Compare that with her phone call to her mother, the one she can’t remember, when she wasn’t stressed, under pressure or confused when she made it.

She is just a liar. Judge Massei (2009) said it, Judge Hellmann (2011) said it, and the Supreme Court (2013) confirmed it. Three years in prison for Calunnia served, making her a justified Liar.

Posted by TheTruthNotLies on 06/14/13 at 06:48 PM | #

Very clear, cold and hard-hitting post addressed to Ms. Knox.  Shame she isn’t here to respond to the specific questions. We’d all like to see that.

Posted by thundering on 06/14/13 at 09:22 PM | #

About the same age, I was hauled before a judge in Albany for some traffic violation.

The judge asked me whether I have a lawyer or not. I replied in the negative. He made some gesture and one hefty man came forward and told me “I am your lawyer. You must plead guilty. We can bargain for some lesser fine because this is your first offence”.

I replied “Look man, I know, I know. This is the place we have to tell lies and lies, and you are a professional and I am not. I prefer to start with the truth, and tell lies only if it is absolutely needed. I forget so often and am confused about your system so much, that it may be really difficult to remember perfectly what lies I have to tell. I therefore reject your advice.”

The lawyer declined to represent me. The discussion was in an open room (downtown city hall where the court was) in the presence of the judge. He let me go, but warned me that if I am caught within the next six months, this case will be opened fresh.

One of the students in the university commented that I was just plain lucky.

My question is simple: Why were you so scared? Why?

Posted by chami on 06/14/13 at 11:40 PM | #

Go ahead Amanda dig deeper and please keep on digging all the way to a life sentence.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/15/13 at 04:32 AM | #

I don’t understand how it is that Amanda get confused/can’t remember at crucial points.
Then there seems to be her razor sharp memory about things that did not happen.
Oh well…

Posted by Bettina on 06/15/13 at 04:49 AM | #

Perhaps, in psychology, a new term could be coined…..the Amanda Complex…or the Knox Knot.

It would say a great deal very succinctly.

( it would combine various profiles, but also contain an over layer of freely applied employment of Creative Writing)

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/15/13 at 10:34 AM | #

Came across this recently (no reference was given for a source):

“The following are environmental factors, psychiatrists say, which create a sociopath:

1.Studies show that 60% of psychopathic individuals had lost a parent;
2.Child is deprived of love or nurturing; parents are detached or absent;
3.Inconsistent discipline: if father is stern and mother is soft, child learns to hate authority and manipulate mother;
4.Hypocritical parents who privately belittle the child while publicly presenting the image of a ‘happy family’.”


(1)might fall into the category of the abuse of statistics - it’s pretty meaningless without definition (lost a parent when?). I’ve lost two parents. Also of course what proportion of the general population have lost a parent at any time? However (2),(3) and (4) seem apposite with regard to A.K. Particularly (3) in my opinion, with Mignini standing in for Curt as the distrusted (and feared?) father figure.

The parents are certainly trying to present the image of a happy family,  sorely misused by Italian justice, while in a way actually belittling their daughter by insisting from the word go that for public consumption she reads from their script - even though she was apparently on the verge of unloading the truth at one time.

Posted by Odysseus on 06/15/13 at 05:52 PM | #

Posted by Miriam on 06/15/13 at 08:17 PM | #

chami’s fearless honesty is an inspiration. The police see so little of this that they truly respect it. Preston lied to police even about a driver’s license ID. Knox blames Mignini for coercing her into falsehoods, what a line. She has now conflated several different police interviews in all of which she lied. Her nod Yes to Diane Sawyer when asked if she killed Meredith shows more truth than empty words.

What is NOT there is more potent than what is there among her “trance” recollections. In squirming to get out of the hotseat an honest person would at least focus intensely on what shreds of true alibi they had, like describing details of the evening indoors at Raffaele’s apartment. Where are the continual referrals to this cozy evening, even details of the weed they smoked, the pillows on the bed, the light waning at the window, did they pull the curtains or shutters, tickle each other’s feet, throw aside the textbooks, talk about professors, talk about Raf’s upcoming graduation, the next morning’s trip to Gubbio. It seems her memory of that vital evening would become clear if it were her only ticket to freedom from prison.

I don’t believe Mignini would ever have withheld a lawyer from Amanda had she directly asked for one. She did eventually retain counsel and even her fine lawyers could make nothing of a defense for her because she was not at Raf’s apartment on the night of the murder, except afterward to clean up and dispose of evidence.

Could this be why SHE FELT SCARED TO SAY MUCH ABOUT BEING AT RAFFAELE’S APARTMENT AS AN ALIBI BECAUSE OF THE GUILTY MEMORIES OF THE APARTMENT WHEN THEY WERE LAST THERE for nefarious purposes DISPOSING OF EVIDENCE. That’s why Raf can’t remember if they made love or not, he was too busy squelching memories of knife scrubbing and the aftermath of murder. They were trembling and struggling with fear and apprehension of getting caught, they had destroyed the happy haven of his apartment. Their relationship began crumbling under the weight of fear and guilt. They probably began sniping at each other, arguing about how to get their stories straight. A sense of doom and loss of respect from their now appreciated families and friends hovered over them during the awful cleanup. Raf was almost in a trance state his first days in prison, he had lost all track of time and was a basket case.

By the time she was at the Questura for questioning a few days after the body was found, Amanda had nothing to lose by lying to the police about everything because her only other option was to say, “Yes, I killed Meredith.” At one point she wrote that “lies are all I have to be afraid of” (her own lies that she can barely remember for their complexity). Her book helps to organize them.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/15/13 at 08:34 PM | #

True is stronger than Fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. True isnt.  Mark Twain

Posted by shavournia on 06/15/13 at 09:00 PM | #

Should of course be truth !!

Posted by shavournia on 06/15/13 at 11:01 PM | #

The real problem, and I see it all the time, is that the vast majority view these murderers through the prism of their own experience. (ie how could they do something like that they must be innocent etc:) It’s almost impossible to get into the mind of a murderer using sane peoples code of ethics or morality or lack of guilt only another sociopath would understand. Even well meaning people can be taken in since well meaning people are usually gullible. I’m not talking about such filth as Knox’s three white knights since they are only in it for the money/fame anyway.

On another note don’t forget that Knox and Sollecito had almost eight hours to clean up the murder scene. Which they screwed up of course. These next weeks will be really interesting.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/15/13 at 11:28 PM | #


Thanks for the link to the imminent farce, sorry interview, with A.K.

It’s quite easy to pull a face like A.K. in the photo if you just bear in mind that your murdered room mate’s 15 minute(?) suffering is as nothing compared to the stress you’ve had to endure these past few years. In fact, if you’re absolutely psychotic, you can convince Seattle dimwits that the sorrow you’re showing is somehow a result of the nightmare injustice you’ve had to endure, not the nightmare drug - fuelled scenario you know deep down that you instigated, and for which you know - deep down - you will eventually be called to account.

What a total disgrace this child/woman is to her family and her birthplace. I agree with a previous poster, how was this recognised Seattle druggie ever allowed out of state, never mind allowed to visit a seat of learning and culture such as Perugia on the pretext of studying at a “college” for foreigners (ha!) while convincing herself and others she might be anywhere near a similar intellectual and moral level to serious students like Meredith at the University? Herein lies the root cause of her antagonism toward Meredith in my opinion.

Someone back home should have had due diligence over this totally screwed up wastrel before she left her uneducated, uncultured home-town milieu and visited absolute mayhem in Perugia. Was there no one that could tell this child she was going to be out of her depth? That she was bound to gravitate to low lifes?

I keep coming back to the family. There were alarm bells ringing before she left. Nobody cared to listen.

Posted by Odysseus on 06/16/13 at 04:31 AM | #

Hi Odysseus No! Nobody cared to listen because that is the Seattle status quo. Not just Seattle of course it’s the American education system who tell their students that they are the worlds best. When I was at Mount Allison University we had many American students who once they arrived were forced to work twice as hard just to bring themselves up to the standard of everyone else. It was either that or fail. In the US if you pay the money you are pretty sure of getting a degree.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/16/13 at 06:04 AM | #

Wow that’s pretty harsh and I think unjustified.  I’m American and have been to several universities.  Sorry but as far as your Mount Allison university, I have no idea where these American students came from, possibly from one of our lower level universities (there are those easier to get into, and more difficult to get into).  I have worked with plenty of smart, motivated students as well as less swift or unmotivated students.  We do NOT just pay money and then get a degree.  It totally depends on which university you are talking about.  Some of the anti-Americanism on this website is really going too far.  Europeans are not superior to Americans and likewise the other way around.  Let’s not get carried away here with far reaching judgements and prejudices based on the case of one American and one Italian. University of Washington is a fine institution and not easy to get into.  I don’t know exactly what happened that fateful night, or why it happened.  It’s a very strange story that people are trying to make sense of.  I have tried to read all the evidence and I’m waiting for the next round in the court to either prove or not prove its case based on the evidence.  I don’t bash British, French, German, or Italian people based on those I’ve met so far in my life.  People are individuals.

Posted by believing on 06/16/13 at 08:58 AM | #

I agree with you, believing!

In general we have a decent spectrum of students. Some are good and some are bad but most of the students are mostly in between. Whatever you may do, you will mostly end up with a scene something like that! I know you won’t believe, but just ask any teacher!

When I was young (and that was a very long time ago), we had a joke that both Oxfod and Cambridge has dropped silently the “l” from “learning”. No one noticed because it fitted nicely with the image of the “do the boys hall” public school painted by the master painter Charles Dickens.

But these day, I may agree with Grahame Rhodes that you need to rob a bank (or become a politician) if you want a decent college education for your kids. I know, I know, you will talk about the student loans and what not, but no lender today is happy with an arm and a leg. They want your soul.

Beleiving, please believe me, I am in this business and I can tell you that education makes you smart but not necessarily wise; perhaps an intellectual but not necessarily an activist. Today they are not there to change the world. Did I say change? Make it small chage.

I can tell you a modern joke. A candidate goes to a top university looking for a tenure position. He was asked: tell us one point why you think you should get this job?

He said: I shall write and get a big grant. 30% is yours and 30% is mine. And with the remaining 40%, I shall get couple of Chinese and Indians to do the work. Can you improve on this?

Posted by chami on 06/16/13 at 10:51 AM | #

Grahame Rhodes has been reprimanded for making a generalisation!
In Psychology, we were taught always to be very wary of ever making a generalization…

But he and Odysseus were making a serious point about AK ‘s possible inferiority/ superiority complex, that is, being out of her depth and then terribly serious consequences of actually not coping with that.

The inconsistent and foolish fictions that emerge from AK seem to me to be more evidence of this random reaction of not being able to cope with the situation she has gotten herself into.
One can tell what a foolish, and relatively uneducated child she was, when she arrived in Perugia, from the very early videos, with her sister, I believe.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/16/13 at 01:15 PM | #

“Why exactly did you frame your kindly employer Patrick for the crime?”

When Knox did this, I immediately thought of Susan Smith. 

I think most know the story, but for those who do not, in 1994, Susan Smith (South Carolina) tried to blame an African-American man for “carjacking” her car with her children in the car. There was NO African-American man, as Susan Smith rolled the car in the lake with her children in it. 

However, the difference is: Knox named a real person, Patrick, an African man, as the murderer while Knox KNEW Patrick was working at his bar and INNOCENT. 

Knox KNEW the African man who was there was Rudy.  Knox “substituted” one African man for another African man because she was not going to “rat out” the person who was there, Rudy, which would implicate HER and Raf.

Knox trying to frame Patrick was despicable, and in my opinion, she has not “paid the full price” for what she did to an innocent man.

Thank You all for your continued efforts in seeking True Justice for Meredith Kercher!

Posted by MissMarple on 06/16/13 at 04:49 PM | #

Unexpected Angels Who Helped Execute Justice for Meredith:

+ young Alessandra Formica, a young woman walking down the street on the night Meredith died. She saw a car stranded in front of the cottage. She saw a young black man (Guede) bump into her boyfriend at 10:30 or 10:40pm, he didn’t apologize, he just kept running.

+old Nara Capezzali, heard footsteps running upstairs from Via Pinturicchio

+old faithful Antonio (curatolo or Toto). He saw Knox and Sollecito come into his square, he recognized them. They kept looking towards the cottage, around 11pm. Was it safe to go back to the cottage, they needed to.

+strange Hekuran Kokomani, he confirmed the car that was broken down in front of the cottage, and he had seen Knox and Sollecito with Guede on two separate nights near the murder. A trio.

+the angel of Time. It was because Rudy ran out of the murder house and went dancing that Time allowed blood to pool on Meredith’s shoulder where she was lying dead. Time made the blood dry on her bra so that it was clear her bra was removed after death. Since Rudy had left first, and Time passed, then someone else besides him had to remove the bra and shift the body around, someone who didn’t have a lot of time, but had a few hours before daylight and who had perhaps a day later when people would be returning to the cottage from Rome, or Molly from her friend’s, people would be returning. In this smallish space of time someone decided to change the crime scene, someone who must have known about the death and wanted to change the look of the room, someone who could enter the cottage to do so, someone besides Rudy who had gone to a dance and back to his apt. then days later to Germany, but someone was standing in Perugia leaning over Grimana Square watching for a chance, watching and waiting near midnight, watching the cottage, wanting to go in, not calling the police.

+again the angel of Time. The timing of the crime proved only one roommate was left in the house to hurt Meredith.

Thank you, strange angels. Thank you Pasqualino Coletta, the tourist who was visiting Perugia in November 2007 whose car broke down in front of Meredith’s house. Everything happens for a reason. Thank you Mr. Tow Truck driver who came to the rescue and could confirm these things.

+the angel of the clothes: Filomena Romanelli’s pile of clothes thrown on the floor by someone caught the glass on top of them, glass that should have been underneath the clothes if a burglar had first broken a window.

+the angel of wisdom: Judge Micheli, who saw the entire structure of the crime and wrote about it

(from pp.150-154 of John Kercher book: Meredith)

Thank you, John Kercher, for your marvelous book about MEZ.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/16/13 at 05:38 PM | #

And Thankyou Hopeful.
I think there are still other angels, angel of compassion, and angels of honesty and justice who are at work yet, in mysterious ways.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/16/13 at 05:49 PM | #

Hi Odysseus,

I agree with you about the family, not only before but afterwords too. If you can stomach it here are some new photos of Knox. So much for her “I am no longer the sunny, happy Amanda.”

Posted by Miriam on 06/16/13 at 08:19 PM | #

Hi believing
In my own defense It’s not anti Americanism at all it’s far more to do with what is seen by other people from different countries.
If anything there are two main differences that we see. One is that American students/populous are spoon fed into believing they are the best in the world. (Read Amanda Knox here) This notion falls apart very rapidly when confronted by other cultures. 
And Two… While the view that people of different skin colour are inferior somehow, which to a lesser or a greater degree can be found world wide. It is endemic in the USA particularly the further South you go.
Example here is Susan Smith/George Zimmerman/Amanda Knox and a host of others. This is born out by your prison population which is about 80 to 90% black as opposed to white. In other words always blame the black guy because this is the general view in the US but not elsewhere in the world.
As to the American education system, of course there are smart people students and teachers in the US but I would suggest that percentage wise it is far more prevalent in the US where if little Tommy does not pass and graduate then his parents will and do sue the school. This is what we see and why Knox fingered Patrick Lamumba which was stupid and naive since it was in a country which is far more excepting of people from different races. Blame the black guy because it usually works in the US but not elsewhere.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/16/13 at 08:49 PM | #

Hi Miriam

Thanks. I braced myself and looked at the pictures.
She might as well enjoy sun and sea, if there’s any justice she won’t be seeing too much more of it!

Posted by Odysseus on 06/16/13 at 10:55 PM | #

Hi believing Last point. I honestly don’t see anything remotely like “Anti Americanism” here or “America bashing.” Please forgive me but it would appear as though you have bought into the propaganda which is so American. Nothing wrong with love of country, far from it but I see a sense of xenophobia here. Nobody has bashed the US herein in anyway. We have opinions, rightfully so and if those opinions clash with yours then so be it. It’s called having an interchange of viewpoint.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/17/13 at 12:07 AM | #

Make a comment

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


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Questions For Knox: Do You Think “False Memories Kassin” Framing Italians Yet Again Will Help?

Or to previous entry Questions For Sollecito: Can You Realistically Account For The Hard Evidence On The Bathroom Mat?