Sunday, May 18, 2014

The Knox Interrogation Hoax #4: More Hard Realities From Rita Ficcara, Nervousness From Defense

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




1. Overview of this hoax series

Knox turned up at the central police station unwanted late on 5-6 Nov 2007 and briefly helped police with a list of seven names. Her version of this has morphed into a gigantic hoax.

One highly consistent version of the brief chat was testified to by all those officials present, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.

And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. Knox has done so in numerous interviews, in her 2013 book, on her website, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights. And the PR shills have done so on websites, on TV, in books, and in attempts to lobby the US federal government.

This version was repudiated several times by her smart Italian lawyers (though not by her foolish American lawyers) and they did next to nothing to try to verify it when questioning those officials at trial.

See a longer summary in Post #1 here.

2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra

Below is the examination of Inspector Rita Ficarra by Carlo Pacelli, Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer. Very tough stuff. Chronologically, this preceded the defense cross-examinations in posts #2 and #3 and may well have dampened them.

Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.

This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki. 

Public Prosecutor Mignini

GM: Just one thing, Amanda, when you/she submitted the report/record, did the report/record in front of you, when she gave the spontaneous declarations, was she forced/compelled to give them, or was she, did she do it spontaneously?

RF: No, she did it spontaneously.

GM: Do you recall who was present at that moment?

RF: I was certainly together with her.

GM: Was there the interpreter?

RF: There was the interpreter, certainly, there was Donnino. Then there was present other staff who had reported/recorded [in writing] together with me the preceding oral evidence recaps/summaries, Zugarini and Ivano, only that maybe they were going in and out, then at a certain point they went out to give greater tranquility/calmness to the drawing up of the deed/case file, in short.

GM: I have no other questions.

Civil Party, Attorney Maresca

FM: Just one question, if I may show – it has already been acquired by the Court – the manuscript that was written/drawn up by Amanda Knox and handed over to the Inspector, if you are able to recognize it.

RF: Yes. It’s the one that I have, me. I don’t understand a word, but it is that one. Yes, because I have a copy of it, I made a photocopy.

GCM: So it is this?

RF: Yes yes.

FM: It is already acquired in the case/court files. This handing-over, did it happen spontaneously on the part of the accused to yourself?

RF: Yes.

FM: I have finished. Thank you.

Defence Attorney Bongiorno

GB: In the context/case of this note of 6 November 2007, did you also describe this cartwheel, these “oh-so-particular” behaviours?

RF: To whom?

GB: Since you were making a note in which you described these conversations that you had …

RF: Certainly. But we speak between ourselves and the others of the other squadrons, we speak. I described it, certainly.

GB: Then explain to me …

RF: No, you have to tell me to whom I should have described it.

GCM: No, excuse me, ask Attorney Bongiorno thus for the purposes of the transcription…

GB: I arouse a bit of hostility in effect…

RF: No, I don’t understand…

GB: There is a note in the context of which you describe this pre-recap/summary conversation with Amanda and give a series of details, behaviours, all that. Since it doesn’t seem to me that I see, it seems to me that this circumstance of the cartwheel - which we are now giving significance/importance to even from a procedural/trial point of view – is not noted therein, I was asking myself the reasons for this missing indication, that’s all.

RF: The reasons because it is a behaviour, she had already been quietly admonished for that behaviour, then in the end …

GB: That is to say, you did not consider it relevant for ... Since there is a series of indications of Amanda’s behaviour there …

RF: Yes, I understood what were the indications that were useful [for] the activity of the investigations. In a note, I report those that are the indications or the elements that are useful for advancing the inquiries: if I were to report about the cartwheel, what advancement to the inquiries would that have?

GCM: We have understood the meaning of the answer.

RF: I say, it might have a meaning today, when I say it for … But not yesterday, not in the note.

GCM: Excuse me, look, the questions that are posed are only in order to acquire information, even if to you they may seem perhaps …

RF: To me they seem a bit strange.

GCM: Useless, superfluous, however to us … So they are always useful.

LM: If the parties are all in agreement, I would like to request the acquisition of the note signed by Inspector Ficarra of 6 November 2007 at 2000 hours.

GM: It is already acquired for the case/trial file, Mr President.

GCM: Nonetheless, if there is no opposition, we can acquire it, yes. Its production has been requested and it has been acquired for the purposes of useability, on the consent of all parties. If there are [any] questions.

Defence – Attorney Del Grosso

MDG: I wanted to know only if Mr Patrick Lumumba, if you know, was arrested before or after the writing of the “memoriale”.

RF: By “arrested”, what do you mean? The notification of arrest, or that he had been physically taken first?

MDG: Both those circumstances.

GCM: If you know it.

RF: Since it was other colleagues who went to seek him, while I had … I don’t recall, honestly, I don’t know how to place it [in time] because I don’t recall. Maybe I had the door closed and I didn’t see the precise moment in which he came in.

MDG: You did not proceed with [deal with] the notification of arrest with regard to Lumumba?

RF: The notification, yes.

MDG: Then at least with reference to the notification you can tell us.

RF: In reference it was first the one for Amanda, if I don’t remember wrongly, but I don’t remember well.

GCM: The Attorney is asking [if it came] first with respect to the drawing-up of that writing [NdT: i.e. the “memoriale”] by Amanda Knox, or else after?

RF: If I don’t recall clearly the notification of arrest for Lumumba, how can I manage to remember whether it came first or afterwards?

GCM: She doesn’t remember it./You don’t remember it.

RF: I don’t remember it.

MDG: No other questions.

Judge Massei

GCM: I wanted just to ask you: earlier, you spoke of one of your investigation activities with regard to the route [taken by] Meredith the evening before.

RF: Yes.

GCM: If you could say what route, what it was you reconstructed.

RF: I, like others, we redid the same route several times, so we left from the house of the girls where Meredith had been to dinner during the evening before going back home, so we did the route to go down, now I can’t indicate the exact names of the roads, until we arrived at the little stairs, also to calculate also [sic] the time, in short, that it took and see if there were places/pubs open at that time, if there could be subjects, [and] where, [and to] seek to understand also the siting of any videocameras, and we arrived then at the end, in fact, near the little basketball court where, moreover, we sought, as I have already said, to identify subject that might give evidence of the presence, even in the past, of …

GCM: The travel time?

RF: What?

GCM: Travel time.

RF: About 10 minutes, it seemed to me.

GCM: There are no other questions, so …

FM: Mr President, the Inspector’s note was already acquired nonetheless with the “memoriale” of the 6th; it is a duplicate.

GCM: Ok, we will acquire it; in any case, we will only re-read it at the declarations given by the witness for … [Ficarra] is dismissed. It is 12 and three quarters. We could hear a witness before ending the morning, thus continue until one and three quarters, or 1400 hours, then we’ll have a break from 1400 hours to 1430 until 1500 hours, roughly. Thank you, good day. Unless there are different needs.

Lumumba Attorney Pacelli

CP: Listen, if I have understood properly, Miss Amanda came to the Questura [Police Station] the evening of the 5th without having been sent?

RF: Without having been called.

CP: Did she say to you the reason for which she had gone to the Questura?

RF: She had accompanied her boyfriend, because they never quit each other [i.e. they are always together], because it had already happened previously that she had been called on her own, and Sollecito – they called us from the guard house, saying that he was creating problems, they were not able to detain him/hold him back because he absolutely wanted to come up to be with her – and [then] when they were both above, they were always together clearly – bah, well, they’re boyfriend-and-girlfriend, [it’s] understandable.

CP: Thus, when you, following the investigative activity that you had carried out during the course of the day, came back to the Questura, you found her already in the Questura?

RF: Yes, I found her there in the little waiting room that is just before the offices of the Flying Squad.

CP: Do you recall more or less at what time you came back, Inspector?

RF: At 2300 hours. It was late.

CP: Listen, afterwards, then, you had this quiet conversation in the terms which you recalled for us? [For the prosecutor, see post #1]

RF: Yes.

CP: After which, you take on Miss Amanda for the recap/summary. In that circumstance, other than you, who was present in the room?

RF: Assistant Chief Zugarini and a colleague from the Rome SCO, Ivano - I don’t remember the surname of this [person], since we don’t always work together, I don’t remember well. Ivano Raffo, that’s it, and then there was the interpreter, Donnino.

CP: Anna Donnino?

RF: Yes.

CP: In this circumstance, and I am referring to the recap/summary of 0145 hours, was Amanda by any chance beaten/punched?

RF: Absolutely not. I’ve already answered [that] to the Public Prosecutor.

CP: Was she hit with punches and with slaps?

RF: No, absolutely not.

CP: Was she mistreated/manhandled?

RF: No.

CP: Was she threatened?

RF: No.

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, they have already made…

CP: No, it’s to say that the Perugia Questura is not Quantanamo, Mr President.

GB: Bah, well, let’s avoid ...

GCM: Excuse me, please.

CP: In the circumstance, Inspector, were the circumstances and the facts that were reported by Miss Amanda suggested by one of those present?

RF: Excuse me, who knew Mr Patrick Lumumba?

GCM: So the answer is no, you did not know him?

RF: We did not know him, we asked her who this Patrick was.

GCM: Please, Attorney.

CP: Thank you, Inspector. Listen, still [with regard to] this circumstance, had someone - and in particular for a par of factual circumstances - suggested to Amanda that Patrick had had sex, had had sexual relations with poor Meredith before killing her?

RF: Absolutely not. There are declarations, oral testimony,  that she gave spontaneously. No-one ...

CP: Still with regard to this factual verification, was there someone who had compelled, suggested to, Amanda to declare that she had heard Meredith scream, shriek?

GCM: If there were suggestions/prompting in the declarations.

RF: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

CP: Listen, Inspector, I am asking you ...

RF: Yes, you are being a Attorney, and rightly so.

CP: You certify/testify to me what happened. So all this that you reported/recounted as a point of fact and of circumstance, Amanda reported [them] to you spontaneously, on her own initiative?

RF: Yes.

CP: Listen, coming to the summaries/recaps, after which you said that you suspended [proceedings].

RF: I closed the hearing/questioning because there were indications…

CP: And you took steps to call whom?

RF: The judicial authority.

CP: Very well, to whom she made once again these ... 

RF: She again made the same spontaneous declarations in this case, in the presence of myself and of Dr Mignini.

CP: In the ways that you described above?

RF: Yes.

CP: Also in this circumstance, was she struck/beaten?

GCM: She has already said.

CP: In the manner [described] above, ok?

RF: As above, ok.

CP: These are elements of fact. I ask if at 0545 hours she was beaten, Mr President.

MDG: This is a tanquam non esset [NdT: “as if it did not exist”] act

CP: No, but what tanquam non esset? It is acquired as physical evidence.

GCM: We are only at [the stage of] questions.

CP: No, no, Mr President. Mine is a question, so I will repeat and reword it: was she struck with punches or slaps?

RF: Absolutely not.

CP: Thank you Inspector. Afterwards, in the appending of signatures by Miss Amanda with regard to the recaps/summaries both of 0145 hours and that of 0545 hours, was Miss Amanda struck with punches and slaps, I repeat when ...

RF:  Absolutely not.

CP: Was she compelled/forced ...

RF: She was not compelled/forced by anyone.

GCM: Attorney, this reiteration of questions ...

CP: No, but ...

GCM: Excuse me a moment. You recall also clause/provision 198, so she has already replied, and in any case we are at this, at the answers that she has given us, because otherwise it becomes ...

CP: Question [sic] in point of circumstance of fact for clarifications that were needed with regard also to the interrogation rendered by Miss Amanda, in short.

GCM: No, no. The questions. Let us turn to the premises/preliminary remarks.

CP: After which, on the factual level, shall we say, of actions/gestures, how did Amanda behave in these circumstances?

GCM: She has already reported something [on this].

RF: I have already reported, but in what circumstance?

CP: Immediately after ending the hearing of 0545 hours, the one given before the Public Prosecutor, just to ...

RF: No, she was calm, I told you that she asked me if she could rest because she felt a bit tired.

GCM: You already reported that.

CP: Coming to the afternoon, in effect, the arrest happens, and Miss Amanda is notified of the arrest warrant.

RF: Yes, around midday.

CP: And it seems to me, I want to make a specification/clarification because it seems to me that there was a slight confusion between the 5th and the 6th. In effect, the request for sheets [of paper], Amanda made that [request] to you on the afternoon of 6 November, the sheets for writing?

RF: Excuse me, the notification of the arrest warrant occurred on the 6th, it took place at midday?

CP: Yes.

RF: But midday and two minutes, I tell you that she asked me for the sheets, the interpreter was still there, Colantoni, who had replaced Donnino, who had been there during the night.

CP: Yes, I thank you, because it seemd to me that…

RF: It was in that moment when she had [been] read, in English, the reasons for the arrest, immediately after she said to me “please, give me a pen and some sheets, because I must write?” and we gave her a pen and sheets to write [with].

CP: It was for my historical record, in the sense that she made a note around 2000 hours on the day of the 6th, in this note she reports facts from a conversation of the evening ...

RF: I necessarily went [away] to sleep, indeed!, after two days.

CP: And this circumstance in the afternoon of the 6th.

RF: I returned in the evening and I did ...

GCM: Have we clarified, are there other questions, Attorney?

CP: Yes, I have one. I believe, however, that someone has preceeded/pre-empted me, I think [it was] the Public Prosecutor.

GCM: [Only] questions for the purpose of [obtaining] answers are of interest.

CP: It [the question] was referring, Inspector, to the ... There you go, look, I am showing you the print of the SMS sent by Amanda’s mobile phone to Lumumba on the date of 1 November 2007 at 2032 hours, if you recognize it, it was in a ...

GCM: But is the same, Attorney?

CP: I think so, I haven’t checked that, Mr President.

GCM: It is still the same.

RF: It’s only that one. There is only that one.

GCM: Is it this one, Attorney? The Public Prosecutor has already shown it, and the witness ...

CP: Thank you, I have not other questions.

Series to be continued up to the present day.





Comments

So Sollecito caused a minor riot at the police station gate when they said they didnt need his presence upstairs?!!  Both of the the pair really fought to get into that place.

For those “20/30/40 hours of illegal interrogation”? Or to keep very close tabs on the other? Your choice…. 

And Rita Ficarra: the so-far unsung hero. Hard working, careful, obviously very bright, in a stressful job, with a lot of knocks, and not so marvelously paid.

After years of not being able to “remember” who “hit” her Knox invented Rita Ficarra’s name. I wonder why…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/18/14 at 07:15 AM | #

Pacelli is Lumumba’s civil party lawyer, there is an oversight

Posted by Popper on 05/18/14 at 08:44 AM | #

Nice catch Popper. Appreciated. For a second there I could no see what you meant. The text was right but the sub header wrong. Corrected now.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/18/14 at 09:44 AM | #

Yes, another carefully crafted lie (amongst hundreds) from Amanda Knox.

She all of a sudden ‘remembered’ who had assaulted her at the police station when for years she had referred to a woman with “chestnut hair”, but didn’t know who it was.

Knox named Rita Ficarra in her “Hot Selling” novel. (thanks to the Cook for that tabloid style slogan, you REALLY showed your hand with that one).

Knox ‘remembered’ it was Rita Ficarra because her criminal mind figured that there was no escaping who had been questioning her at the time she falsely and maliciously accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher.

Thus sending the investigators on a merry dance, and quite literally ruining his and his family’s lives, in an effort to derail the investigation away from herself, because all this above and her questioning is on record.

She did this to embellish the initial lie she had been telling of being beaten into naming an innocent man and so called-friend. She was in too deep now - her friends, family and fans had taken the lie up, there was no going back on it.

I believe she thought about it very carefully, and deliberately decided to name Rita Ficarra, as it would be good copy for her novel.

However, who on earth would believe anyone who had accused their friend of murder and rape if they then accused another person of assaulting her?

Oh, wait..

Posted by DF2K on 05/18/14 at 09:52 AM | #

Hi DF2K

True words. Fire away, anybody.

Knox is actually making it easier. Her back is against the wall (made worse because she has to find reasons now not to pay her damages to Patrick) because of foolish early choices.

So as tends to happen with her and her entire group (see Saul Kassin >>> John Douglas, coming) she escalates, unchecked by anyone wise, into surreal dimensions.

Rita Ficarra via the four posts here of her testimony has provided us with a minute-to-minute narrative of the events on the night. More testimony is to come.

In light of absorbing that, see this absurdity from her book - we’ll be nailing others too:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/questions_for_knox_1_did_you_actually_undergo_an_illegal_interrogation/

And see this even bigger absurdity from her email of 15 Dec to Judge Nencini

My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “confession” that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime- The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “confession.” Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge.

My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer. I never thought or imagined that they would have used my openness and trust to fuel their suspicions. I did not hide myself or my feelings: when I needed comfort, Rafael embraced me; when I was sad and scared, I cried; when I was angry, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence; when I was trying to help, I answered questions, consoled Meredith’s friends and tried to keep a positive attitude.

Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position. Twenty—years old and alone in a foreign country, I was innocent and never expected to be suspected and subjugated to torture. I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew. I was denied legal counsel- The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it illegal. I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I was told I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I was told that if I didn’t succeed in remembering what happened to Meredith that night I would never see my family again. I was browbeaten into confusion and despair. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth.

The police coerced me into signing a false “confession” that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which the police wrongfully interpreted (‘Civediamo piu tardi. Buona serata’). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward—it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba’s defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable. I simply didn’t know what they were demanding me to know. After over 50 hours of questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.

This coerced and illegitimate statement was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship. This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander. The prosecution and civil parties would have you believe that this coerced and illegitimate statement is proof of my involvement in the murder. They are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.

Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false"confession” because of torture.

This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false “confessions.” Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone. And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party—just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guide.

FinnMacCool already nailed various lies; there will be more posts on the email in thi series.

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

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/18/14 at 10:40 AM | #

This statement is so incredibly and evidently false and malicious that you can hardly believe she had been finally convicted to prison for calumny BEFORE this ... who advised her to write such cr@@, basically another calumny in various points?

There is no illegal interrogation. The first was the writing up of a few names until she started to put hands on her head ... absolutely legal ... everything was stopped once she placed herself in the flat, it would have been legal even if they had not stopped btw ... (police did not identify a murderer ... she clearly indicated it, adding he was bad and she was afraid of him, a scena madre)

The second was a spontaneous statement as written in clear words in the report not an interrogation ... but even if it had been a formal interrogation ... the PM could have done it for reasons of urgency to catch a murderer ... usability is a different point.

Her sending this note was useless and a mistake, she insulted the court and, in strict law, she would deserve another conviction only for these words.

Posted by Popper on 05/18/14 at 02:35 PM | #

I think the young lady finds herself trapped. For years her handlers and family have tried to say one thing in court in Italy and something very different to the US media to gain sympathy.

The endless and elaborate excuses peddled to the media has revolved around coercion, all-night interrogations, beatings, out of control prosecutor, blah blah blah. It’s the only narrative they have had. To drop it now would provoke two questions:

1. Why have her family and media helpers been lying to the public for seven years and making money off the back of the spin?

2. If the coercion myth is not the reason for her behaviour then what is?

Ask the first question and the wheels fall off the entire media driven money spinner.

Without the mantle of victimhood she has nothing to protect her from awkward questions. Waiting to be heard but having nothing to say. Campaign over.  They thought they could win by PR. There’s no plan B. Finished.

Ask the second and she has no good answer. Finished.

So she and they have to carry on peddling the nonsense. In typical Knox fashion she responds to scepticism and questions with increased aggressiveness. She embraces and ramps up the story that does not seem to have been hers originally. She has to please all those devotees whose public advocacy she desperately needs to fight a last hope extradition battle.

She and they need those revenues from sensationalist and self serving books, interviews, media talking head posts etc. They’re stuck with each other and even the slowest knows by now that they are peddling lies. But their support comes at a price and she cannot kill the golden goose even if it’s in her best interests. They are stuck with each other until the bitter end.

Posted by Faustus on 05/18/14 at 04:23 PM | #

last point, AK proves she is a liar with that statement as it contradicts previous ones

Posted by Popper on 05/18/14 at 04:23 PM | #

Hi Faustus
As we say in this country “God Love Yaz fu Dat.”

The point being that I read the FOA website just to see how stupid and desperate they are, and it’s getting worse. To me it’s a mystery how they can keep on insisting that Knox is (A) a victim and (B) innocent. It’s a very sad verdict upon the intelligence of the posters since obviously most of them are just children who believe anything they are told. As to the rest I can’t for the life of me see how they can keep on sailing in a sinking ship. Of course, sooner or later they will all run away as all rats do when the ship sinks.

I expect a vast silence except for the usual rabid few who are in it for the money and or endorsements. Fischer and Moore for example etc, are just con artists no matter how loudly they scream that they are just looking out for the victims of justice gone wrong.

Fischer himself says “He advocates for the wrongly convicted.” Good for him. Of course to have Knox in his stable does him nothing but good since he can point to her as an example of his good works which of course is so much baloney.

Anyone else he has ever gone to bat for remains among the great unknown.

Steve Moore’s modus-oporandi speaks for itself since he has never refused the opportunity to make a fool of himself on any news program and thereby get paid for doing so.

Therefore you are right and it’s becoming more obvious that Knox is in a no win situation.
It would not surprise me if some clown or clowns try to spirit her away one of these nights. We can only hope since that will hurry the final chapter.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/18/14 at 09:04 PM | #

Thanks for above comment Graham.  Rest assured, if AK dreams she can conceal herself after marketing her image to the world, power to her. She will be tracked by bounty hunters who are themselves, in it for the money and fame. Amanda will be returned to the authorities.
Now, that Team Amanda has angered the Sollecito’s she is further isolated…the walls are closing in.
Used to be, I had compassion for AK. But she denigrates the true victim Meredith Kercher and allows her paid trolls to do it. AK had many opportunities to do the right thing, and has chosen not to…every time.

Posted by Bettina on 05/18/14 at 11:59 PM | #

Where is Chami?  I have been away for a few days and am catching up.  Everyone has been so very pointedly and awesomely busy!

Posted by zinnia on 05/19/14 at 02:09 AM | #

I find this series quite interesting as almost all the articles are. The issue is, how do you change it? Facts don’t matter-In the U.S. it is only the spin that matters. People just yell louder when you try to point out facts and they name call because that makes them “superior”. Can you really change any of these people?

AK responds exactly as her handlers tell her to and she is her own worse enemy. Every time she opens her mouth, the foot is inserted deeper.

Her prime motive tho is not to avoid prison in Italy - that is what people have wrong. Her prime motivation is her 15 minutes of fame - having the whole world on her side and feeling sorry for her - she is addicted to it.

Keeping this trial going on and on for as long as possible and then being “on the lam” from cruel unjust punishment is a wet dream for AK - the ultimate “reality show”. She is the world-famous Amanda Knox - isn’t it grand? If she was found innocent - people would tire of her story, and then what would she do with her life? Be normal? 

But AK doesn’t have this huge support group in the U.S. as she would like people to believe.

Her change.org petition didn’t even gather 2500 signatures despite all the efforts, nor did her white house petition gather 2500 signatures (100,000 is the threshold at which the White House will respond). RS put a petition out actually also to be granted asylum in the U.S. as a refugee to avoid the unjust verdict of murder in Italy - I don’t think he even got 100 signatures. They have no big support group. Pay no attention to mainstream media - note their ratings are dismal - people are tired of spin, by anyone.

When the recent verdict and the report were released, it was not widely covered. She didn’t even make yahoo’s top 10 searches in the U.S. A story here and there, but she doesn’t show up on main pages, you have to search for her. So she is not of much consequence.

The big problem is AK is not liked, and nor does she present well as likable in her writing or her interviews. Even her supporters concede that AK is not a likable person.

Their argument now is that just because she in not likable doesn’t mean she committed the murder. Where are all her hanging buddies at college? Nowhere. Where were all her girl friends and people she met in class in Italy? Nowhere. She says in her book that people all thru high school didn’t like her - she couldn’t even make friends in prison - no one likes her, and this is will cause everyone to walk away in the end.

See, there are real victims in the U.S.and elsewhere -,the 3 women who were held captive by Ariel Castro for over a decade, the poor girls taken in Nigeria, victims of shootings - AK can’t hold a candle to them-just comes off as very immature and pathetic. And all her claims come off bogus whenever some true survivor or horrible circumstances comes up.

My concern with the latest judgement is this wasn’t a chance argument that escalated, this was pre-meditated.

How often had the two italian roommates both been gone before? I am betting never. I am betting this is the first opportunity AK had to get MK alone - first chance. Why would you bring a huge knife from RS’s home? To bring a knife means it is premeditated and to do it when the young men downstairs were gone and the Italian roommates were gone - first opportunity - no one to hear. The timing was perfect. And MK hadn’t invited her along on Halloween. Do you think AK was really that oblivious to what MK thought of her? I doubt it. And I firmly believe if this situation (no one home in the entire house upstairs or downstairs) was already known, the big knife was brought over - this was pre-meditated.

A.K. needed a patsy - a black person to blame it on. That is why she mentioned Patrick - she knew he was innocent, but he was black, and then if she had decided to stick to the story of “I was there and heard it but could do nothing to prevent it” well, all blacks look alike anyway.

And her statement was meant to turn the police towards looking for a black suspect. If what RG said is true, that RS said when leaving “The black man did it. He’s guilty of murder.” There needed to be someone to blame the “break in” and “rape” and “murder on” - has to be the black man - he was there, he participated, but he was set up. It is interesting, in AK’s book, RG is the only one - the only one - that she always refers to by his last name.
 
RG’s handwriting - the pressure used to write - he is angry - angry because he is serving time in prison while the main perpetrators go free. It was not MK he was interested in - it was AK. He even asked MK’s boyfriend if Amanda was available - at the time she was - hadn’t taken up with RS yet. But on the night of the murder, he was the potential rapist - but focusing on AK while he rapes MK. And when he runs, he runs to Germany where AK has relatives.

It was a set-up, premeditated from the beginning. Why did they need Rudy Guede? Why take a butcher knife from your boyfriend’s house. Why do this on a night when no one downstairs or upstairs are present but your victim? Maybe not planned much before that evening-I don’t know. But this was pre-meditated - sad to say.

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 05/19/14 at 02:37 AM | #

The Hellmann debacle, I would call that ‘Italian’.
Two perps walking free at this moment, I would call that ‘Italian’.

Posted by Helder Licht on 05/19/14 at 06:06 AM | #

Like Italian design, there measurement is highly elegant, but not for the road.

Posted by Helder Licht on 05/19/14 at 11:19 AM | #

Amplifications of Hoax Transcript Post #4 as I apply my experience as under the other posts.

The translated text has the ring of veracity IMO:

“2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra:

Lumumba Attorney Pacelli

CP: Listen, if I have understood properly, Miss Amanda came the evening of the 5th without having been sent?

RF: Without having been called.

{Witness, listening carefully to Q, politely, but perceptively, corrects “sent” to “called”}

CP: Did she say to you the reason for which she had gone to the Questura?

{Apt Question, signaling next Q}

RF: She had accompanied her boyfriend, because they never quit each other [i.e. they are always together], because it had already happened previously that she had been called on her own, and Sollecito – they called us from the guard house, saying that he was creating problems, they were not able to detain him/hold him back because he absolutely wanted to come up to be with her – and [then] when they were both above, they were always together clearly – bah, well, they’re boyfriend-and-girlfriend, [it’s] understandable.

{Witness recognizes signal, jumps past actual Q and answers Q she assumes to be next Q}

CP: Thus, when you, following the investigative activity that you had carried out during the course of the day, came back to the Questura, you found her already in the Questura?

{Apt Statement in form of Q}

RF: Yes, I found her there in the little waiting room that is just before the offices of the Flying Squad.

{Witness response answers Q, with amplification anticipating next Q}

CP: Do you recall more or less at what time you came back, Inspector?

{Apt Q signaling next Q}

RF: At 2300 hours. It was late.

{Witness recognizes signal, jumps past actual Q, specifically answers Q she assumes to be next, but then reduces specificity to “more or less”}

CP: Listen, afterwards, then, you had this quiet conversation in the terms which you recalled for us?

{Statement in form of a Question}

RF: Yes.

{Simple witness response to Q}

CP: After which, you take on Miss Amanda for the recap/summary. In that circumstance, other than you, who was present in the room?

{Statement in form of a Question}

RF: Assistant Chief Zugarini and a colleague from the Rome SCO, Ivano - I don’t remember the surname of this [person], since we don’t always work together, I don’t remember well. Ivano Raffo, that’s it, and then there was the interpreter, Donnino.

{Witness responds to Q using convincing narrative form}

CP: Anna Donnino?

{Questioner seeks more specificity}

RF: Yes.

{Witness confirms Questioner’s suggestion}

CP: In this circumstance, and I am referring to the recap/summary of 0145 hours, was Amanda by any chance beaten/punched?

{Statement in form of a Question}

RF: Absolutely not. I’ve already answered [that] to the Public Prosecutor.

{Witness responds emphatically, directing Questioner to where her answer to same Q is already in Record}

CP: Was she hit with punches and with slaps?

{Questioner rephrases Q}

RF: No, absolutely not.

{Witness responds emphatically to rephrased Q}

CP: Was she mistreated/manhandled?

{Questioner rephrases Q}

RF: No.

{Witness responds to rephrased Q}

CP: Was she threatened?

{Questioner poses new Q}

RF: No.

{Simple witness response to Q}

GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, they have already made…

{Court begins interjection addressed to CP}

CP: No, it’s to say that the Perugia Questura is not Quantanamo, Mr President.

{CP interrupts Court with smart-ass explanation}

GB: Bah, well, let’s avoid ...

{Sollecito’s Attorney, Giulia Buongiorno, also interrupts Court}

GCM:, please.

{Court seems to be admonishing Interruptors; probably should have Exclamation mark}

CP: In the circumstance, Inspector, were the circumstances and the facts that were reported by Miss Amanda suggested by one of those present?

{A confused, and confusing, compound Question, possibly mistranscribed}

RF: Excuse me, who knew Mr Patrick Lumumba?

{Witness is confused by Q, or misheard and asks CP a Q}

GCM: So the answer is no, you did not know him?

{Court, apparently also confused, addressing Witness, asks if Witness is saying she did not know Patrick}

CP: We did not know him, we asked her who this Patrick was.

{CP, addressing Court, adds to confusion, injects “we”, but clarifies intended Q he addressed to Witness}

GCM: Please, Attorney.

{Court seems to scold CP for creating confusion; probably should have Exclamation mark}

CP: Thank you, Inspector. Listen, still [with regard to] this circumstance, had someone - and in particular for a par of factual circumstances - suggested to Amanda that Patrick had had sex, had had sexual relations with poor Meredith before killing her?

{CP, seeming to acknowledge that Witness had stated that She, or They, did not know who Patrick was, goes-on to ask if “someone” had suggested to Amanda that Patrick had sexual relations with Meredith - before killing her}

RF: Absolutely not. There are declarations, oral testimony,  that she gave spontaneously. No-one ...

{Witness, undistracted by poorly worded Q, with it’s confused, confusing, and unnecessary qualifications, cuts to presumed bottom-line with emphatic succinct denial.
Witness then starts to amplify but is cut-off by CP}
     

CP: Still with regard to this factual verification, was there someone who had compelled, suggested to, Amanda to declare that she had heard Meredith scream, shriek?

{CP asks new confused, confusing compound Q}

GCM: If there were suggestions/prompting in the declarations.

{Court intercedes with compound clarification}

RF: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

{Witness emphatically responds, presumably to both Qs}

CP: Listen, Inspector, I am asking you ...

{CP seems to “amble” towards Actual Q}

RF: Yes, you are being a Attorney, and rightly so.

{Witness cuts-off CP with smart-ass reminder to get to the point}

CP: You certify/testify to me what happened. So all this that you reported/recounted as a point of fact and of circumstance, Amanda reported [them] to you spontaneously, on her own initiative?

{CP seeks summarizing repeat of Witness’s testimony that Knox was not coerced}

RF: Yes.

{Witness simply confirms}

CP: Listen, coming to the summaries/recaps, after which you said that you suspended [proceedings].

{CP ambles toward actual Q}

RF: I closed the hearing/questioning because there were indications…

{Witness interrupts, correcting preamble word-choice from “suspended” to “closed”}

CP: And you took steps to call whom?

{CP, jumps to logical next Q}

RF: The judicial authority.

{Witness gives appropriate response}

CP: Very well, to whom she made once again these ...

{CP again ambles}

RF: She again made the same spontaneous declarations in this case, in the presence of myself and of Dr Mignini.

{Witness interrupts, anticipating Q}

CP: In the ways that you described above?

{CP, jumps to logical next Q}

RF: Yes

{Witness simply responds to Q}

CP: Also in this circumstance, was she struck/beaten?

{CP poses intelligible Q}

GCM: She has already said.

{Court interjects, implying “asked and answered”}

CP: In the manner [described] above, ok?

{CP gets Court’s message and continues logically}

RF: As above, ok.

{Witness responds, mimicking informal language of Q}

CP: These are elements of fact. I ask if at 0545 hours she was beaten, Mr President.

{CP’s description to the Court of his intended Question uses very thoughtless wording, which results in Chaos,  The wording seems to assume that Knox was beaten at some time and focuses on a specific time. The Answer “No” would exclude only that specific time, and would not exclude the allegation that she was beaten. In retrospect, it becomes clear that CP was referring to whether the Document that Knox Signed at 0545 hours stated that she had been beaten! }

MDG: This is a tanquam non esset [NdT: “as if it did not exist”] act

{Maria del Grosso, a Knox Attorney! Interjects that Q refers to non existent event! Which favors Prosecution. Confusion reigns}

CP: No, but what tanquam non esset? It is acquired as physical evidence.

{Confusion continues to reign. Are they afraid of reference to the lack of any evidence on Knox’s body that she had been beaten?}

GCM: We are only at [the stage of] questions.

{Court interjects; isn’t the pending issue the wording of Questions CP intends to pose? (Not what his Questions and Answers may lead to)}

CP: No, no, Mr President. Mine is a question, so I will repeat and reword it: was she struck with punches or splaps?

{CP rephrases and poses now intelligible, if mis-spelt-in-translation Q to Witness}

RF: Absolutely not.

{Witness emphatically states that Knox was not struck with punches or slaps}

CP: Thank you Inspector. Afterwards, in the appending of signatures by Miss Amanda with regard to the recaps/summaries both of 0145 hours and that of 0545 hours, was Miss Amanda struck with punches and slaps, I repeat when ...

RF:  Absolutely not.

{Witness responds emphatically to now more intelligibly worded Qs}

CP: Was she compelled/forced ...

RF: She was not compelled/forced by anyone.

{Witness interrupts, Answering anticipated Qs}

GCM: Attorney, this reiteration of questions ...

{Court seems beginning to Admonish CP}

CP: No, but ...

{CP interrupts Court}

GCM: Excuse me a moment. You recall also clause/provision 198, so she has already replied, and in any case we are at this, at the answers that she has given us, because otherwise it becomes ...

{Court interrupts CP’s Interruption to quote legal chapter-and-verse}

CP: Question [sic] in point of circumstance of fact for clarifications that were needed with regard also to the interrogation rendered by Miss Amanda, in short.

{CP keeps Interrupting}

GCM: No, no. The questions. Let us turn to the premises/preliminary remarks.

{Court interjects}

CP: After which, on the factual level, shall we say, of actions/gestures, how did Amanda behave in these circumstances?

{CP continues with a Q}

GCM: She has already reported something [on this].

{Court engages CP}

RF: I have already reported, but in what circumstance?

{Witness interjects with a Statement and a Question}

CP: Immediately after ending the hearing of 0545 hours, the one given before the Public Prosecutor, just to ...

{CP begins to Answer Witness’s Q}

RF: No, she was calm, I told you that she asked me if she could rest because she felt a bit tired.

{Witness interrupts CP, responding to expected Q and comments on what she had previously told CP}

GCM: You already reported that.

{Court agrees with Witness}

CP: Coming to the afternoon, in effect, the arrest happens, and Miss Amanda is notified of the arrest warrant.

{CP makes Statement}

RF: Yes, around midday.

{Witness agrees with CP’s Statement, and Amplifies timing of Knox’s Notification-of-her-Arrest-Warrant}

CP: And it seems to me, I want to make a specification/clarification because it seems to me that there was a slight confusion between the 5th and the 6th. In effect, the request for sheets [of paper], Amanda made that [request] to you on the afternoon of 6 November, the sheets for writing?

{CP alleges existence of “slight confusion” re Dates, and asks Q}

RF: Excuse me, the notification of the arrest warrant occurred on the 6th, it took place at midday?

{Witness tries to resolve alleged confusion re Date and suggests time-of-day}

CP: Yes.

{CP agrees with Witness’s suggested time-of-day}

RF: But midday and two minutes, I tell you that she asked me for the sheets, the interpreter was still there, Colantoni, who had replaced Donnino, who had been there during the night.

{Witness corrects time-of-day, and Amplifies with relevant events}

CP: Yes, I thank you, because it seemd to me that…

{CP agrees with Witness, thanks her, ambling towards his reasons…}

RF: It was in that moment when she had [been] read, in English, the reasons for the arrest, immediately after she said to me “please, give me a pen and some sheets, becauwrite?” and we gave her a pen and sheets to write [with].

{Witness interrupts CP with circumstantial recall}

CP: It was for my historical record, in the sense that she made a note around 2000 hours on the day of the 6th, in this note she reports facts from a conversation of the evening ..

{CP engages Witness exchanging his own circumstantial recall}

RF: I necessarily went [away] to sleep, indeed!, after two days.

{Witness continues conversation with CP}

CP: And this circumstance in the afternoon of the 6th.

{Conversation continues}

RF: I returned in the evening and I did ...

{Conversation continues}

GCM: Have we clarified, are there other questions, Attorney?

{Court interjects with polite enquiry re other Questions}

CP: Yes, I have one. I believe, however, that someone has preceeded/pre-empted me, I think [it was] the Public Prosecutor.

{CP states he has a Question, but defers to preceding Questioners}

GCM: [Only] questions for the purpose of [obtaining] answers are of interest.

{Court seems to pointedly limit Questions to those seeking Answers (he could have meant answers-of-interest)}

CP: It [the question] was referring, Inspector, to the ... There you go, look, I am showing you the print of the SMS sent by Amanda’s mobile phone to Lumumba on the date of 1 November 2007 at 2032 hours, if you recognize it, it was in a ...

{CP seems to start pre-amble to possible Q for RS….}

GCM: But is the same, Attorney?

{Court interjects with query re sameness of possible Q to previous Qs}

CP: I think so, I haven’t checked that, Mr President.

{CP admits to not having checked sameness}

GCM: It is still the same.

{Court asserts sameness of possible Q}

RF: It’s only that one. There is only that one.

{Witness interjects her perception of as yet unspecified Q}

GCM: Is it this one, Attorney? The Public Prosecutor has already shown it, and the witness ...

{Court interjects, beginning a Q, apparently to CP…}

CP: Thank you, I have not other questions.

{CP interrupts Court with a no-other-Qs announcement}

End-of-Comment

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/19/14 at 12:11 PM | #

Thank you, Cardiol

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/19/14 at 12:28 PM | #

Amazingly interesting and revealing analysis by Carrdiol. Alan Dershowitz would be proud.

It shores up Rita Ficarra as a real super-witness, and makes Patrick’s lawyer look very sharp and the defense lawyers a bit weak which, given their clients from hell, they were.

It also highlights again Judge Massei’s micromanaging over-concern and excess of caution. As Popper in effect observed under the previous post, the cops had more latitude in what was a crises situation for Perugia than Massei and the defense forces let on though they stuck well within the law.

Massei opened the door to the notion that Guede was the prime initiator of the attack, which allowed Hellmann to go all the way and give RS and AK no role at all.

Then the PR shills leapt on this in turn, and we ended up with another of the giant hoaxes based on a conspiracy theory with which this case is uniquely plagued: Guede the “career criminal” and “real murderer” got all manner of breaks.

Gee, thanks, Judge Massei. Judge Nencini is cut from different cloth.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/19/14 at 01:51 PM | #

Hi Friendofstfrank

I trust your “nose” from a lifetime of dealing with young perps and the courts.

Going way back up to SeekingUnderstanding’s posts it has been uncontroversial here to suggest that Knox has an extreme case of tin ear and sharp elbows and simply will not try to learn.

And that fantasies of sadistic attacks were something RS nor AK doted on and neither tried to hide.

As I suggested in a comment just above, some pussyfooting by the Massei court sure opened up a can of worms. Micheli and Nencini were more unwavering and “firm” seems the best way forward here for Knox and Italy and Meredith’s family all. 

So does this fine pro-victim campaigner here who follows us and wishes that we keep on:

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

Barabara doesnt have much English but if anyone would like to be in touch with her in Italian please email.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/19/14 at 02:54 PM | #

Peter, I take the point on Massei but not sure how overcritical we can be in the context of the time.  It was a bizarre thing and they were trying to come to grips with it in those days.

Sure there are things, in hindsight, that it might have been better he hadn’t opened the door to but it seems to have eventually worked itself out.

Also, if you take away the murder, take away all the FOAKers, take away all the evidence, we’re still left with the absolutely appalling treatment of the Kerchers by Knox.  That is simply unforgivable.

Posted by James Higham on 05/20/14 at 04:26 AM | #

Yikes!!! I see I should have revised my translation before I sent it to Pete, or at the very least, run a spell check through it! I was in a hurry to finish the job off, partly because Pete wanted it quickly, partly because the Nencini report had arrived and I’m helping with that, and also because I have other work deadlines to meet.

I’m sorry for the typos and any confusion they may cause: if someone has a query about whether something is one of my typos, or whether it actually exists in the Italian text, please feel free to contact me via Pete for clarification.

My apologies again to all!

ZiaK/katsgalore

Posted by Ziak. on 05/20/14 at 09:18 AM | #

Hi ZiaK.

No problemo. It all reads very authentic (the Italian transcripts themselves have some confusions, as you showed, thank you) as Cardiol in a comment above praised it.

As I emailed to you I didnt myself know how tough and comprehensive and damning Rita Ficarra had been and in that light our posting (in which others have input) just had to follow.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/20/14 at 09:37 AM | #

Back to the new CCTV images of a possible Amanda Knox entering the parking facility.

I began by being skeptical but after looking at media processing for now I incline toward it possibly or probably being her.

Andrea Vogt suggested that the most interesting question is “who released it”?

The Sollecitos and Giulia Bongiorno would have the most advantage, and may have long known about it. This explanation I just posted on PMF dot Org explains why.

*******

This CCTV factoid MAY have been hiding in broad daylight for these past 6-plus years. Defenses probably knew about it for all those years and it strongly looked to me like it was the RS forces whoi leaked it - it fits with the present RS thrust generally.

Police and prosecution are more-or-less forbidden from making their case directly to the public and I’ve yet to find a single example of their overstepping those bounds. How the case gradually emerged in the media in 2007 and 2008 was legitimately via the Matteini hearings and illegitimately via prolific false leaks by the defenses and a possible rogue cop claimed by Frank Sforza.

Also prosecution presented a tight winning case at court in 2009 but only by the way of court testimony and they presented far less than all they knew. The reason is that the full body of evidence is in those 10,000-plus pages which the judges all saw. Judge Micheli and the Massei court (but not the Hellmann court) devoted a lot of time to reading.

Non-parties to the trial can only access the 10,000-plus pages by paying a big fee. The Sollecito & Knox people got those 10,000 pages free according to the rules and their forces have used them selectively. For example the Sollecito leak of an evidence tape to Telenorba.

(Stilicho here recently taunted them that they should release the image they can acesses in the evidence of Knox’s message to Patrick on Knox’s cellphone. It may or not have Patrick’s name visible. So far they have not released it, which may prove Knox had to have given the cops Patrick’s name.)

We and and the rest of the public never did access the 10,000-plus pages because nobody paid that big fee. Most of what is in the books and good reporting and on our websites is based only on what was publicly presented. Even so we see the case as extremely strong and there is no shortage of data.

Even if we only had all the public trial testimonies translated which are on McCall’s invaluable Wiki we would certainly find a number of surprises. All of the Ficarra testimony just posted on TJMK is interesting and much is surprising. Here are three examples.

1) The Knox sessions of 5-6 November did not have the status of witness or suspect interrogations. Even defenses conceded they are correctly called a “recap/summary”.

2) Knox herself insisted on getting both the 1:45 and 5:45 statements on paper; they were not needed and nobody else was very interested.

3) Knox divulged the name of her drug dealer.

My guess is the RS forces aint done leaking yet. Remember that in both her 1:45 and 5:45 am statements Knox said she went out without Sollecito.

There was zero pressure on her to say that. And the RS forces have a pesky habit of believing it.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/20/14 at 09:58 AM | #

Hi, Peter,

Re: the Quarto Grado CCTV captures, We asked the same question that Andrea Vogt did.

Discussion on ORG/JREF how the “Amanda Knox” parking garage CCTV is “square” (4:3) aspect ratio but on widescreen television she would look ‘short and fat’ smile

Some now say the adjusted figure looks more like Knox. I dunno, still too blurry to determine.

I doubt it’s her, because of the time it would take for her to get there, the fast clock in the garage, that she’s moving away from the cottage, and the person looks taller than the 5’4” Knox, not shorter, as the above theory would indicate.

But here’s another objection I was trying to articulate, that stuck with me from the beginning.

We’ve seen the CCTV captures before, and Knox always looked blurry.

Now someone’s releasing cleaned up, clearer pictures that look more like her?

It stinks, and I don’t like it.

I smell the Sollecito defense team, playing tricks.

There’s enough evidence to confirm conviction for both of them, without introducing wild cards.

Posted by Ergon on 05/20/14 at 04:04 PM | #

Surely this brings a new meaning to ‘clutching at straws.’ What is not surprising is that the pro Knox faction would grab into this at the exclusion of all the other evidence. The howls emanating from the pro Knox sites (See Ground Report) are really stupid and is yet another confirmation of the phrase “The Dumbing Down of America” Sad that anyone at all would be taken in by such an amateurish misdirection play. Still, it only reinforces the view that desperation reigns. Sadly the chosen few, Fischer,Moore and associated acolytes are totally blind and remind me of George Barlow who is convinced that Jodi Arias in innocent. Steve Moore in particular is of the opinion that the entire Italian Court Proceedings is one vast Machiavellian conspiracy designed to entrap Knox. Sad but true.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/20/14 at 08:18 PM | #

One has to be wondering what Ted Simon and Bob Barnett make of this.  They must surely realize that for enabling serious new felonies by Knox, their legal licenses could be on the line.

SeekingUnderstanding today praised two comments by Popper on the Innocence Project thread down below which Ted & Bob should print out, and use for badly-overdue absorbing of hard truths.

Popper’s comments sure capture all the neccessary reality in a few words. Here is Popper once again. .

Her participation to this conference is an insult to innocent people accused by witnesses who lied maliciously. She, as a witness, lied and ruined an innocent man’s life.

Those who say she gave a false confession disregard entirely her words against Patrick “I am scared of Patrick, it is him, it is him who did it” a “scena madre” that incriminates her much beyond any reasonable doubt and that was repeated twice that night, first and second show.

Then, just to muddy the waters, she put the same concept in writing pretending it was a dream but she stood by her statements. A few hours later she coldly admitted to her mother she knew Patrick was innocent.

Posted by Popper on 04/17/14 at 10:53 AM | #

later, not happy of the calumny against Patrick, she committed the crime of calumny against the people who were interrogating her when she accused Patrick.  She said they committed the crime of touching violently a witness.

The testimony of the interpreter Anna Donnino proves inequivocably this statement was false.  Her mistifications and tendency to lie have been proven beyond doubt in Court. It is proven she lied on her whereabouts, on the time she woke up, it is proven she was at Quintavalle shop, she was in Piazza Grimana, seen by Curatolo, it is proven she organised a staged break-in, she cleaned up the scene and left many traces of her crime, footprints, mixed blood and mixed DNA.

  She cannot avoid her additional 25 years in jail.  Her case will remain in history as a case of mass brainwashing operated by public relations in a murder case and of the worst example of amateurish behavior of the press of an entire nation blinded by prejudice.

Those who cannot see the truth are fundamentally prejudiced, ill informed and at times became her accomplices in the above crime of calumny, which extended to the Supreme judges, to the prosecutor of first instance, an average man crucified by a criminal, and sometimes, this is completely unacceptable, to the family of the girl she atrociously murdered.

Posted by Popper on 04/17/14 at 11:19 AM | #

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/21/14 at 12:23 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 The Cuomo Interview: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Tries To Argue Innocence On TV

Or to previous entry The Knox Interrogation Hoax #3: More Defense Pussyfooting Toward Rita Ficcara, Key Witness