Monday, June 23, 2014

The Knox Interrogation Hoax #7: Testimony Of Witness Lorena Zugarini To Knox Conniption 5-6 Nov

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

[Perugia cental police station: Meredith’s house is several miles away directly behind]

1. Place In Series Arc Of This Post

This translated transcript continues the testimony of Inspector Lorena Zugarini quoted in the post directly below.

It is a further description from the fourth of about eight police staff who testified to Knox agreeing to help out with a list of possible perps and then melting down at the central police station on 5-6 Nov.

We’ll have one more eyewitness post and after that what the oversight judges made of this in 2008. Thereafter, Knox’s disbelieved claims on the stand at her trial in 2009 when she tried to deny framing Patrick, and accused the police of crimes, and the reasons why all the trial and appeal judges from 2009 to 2014 concluded she had lied, and all the many witnesses had told the truth .

Then we enter an alternative universe, that of Amanda Knox herself (really) and the many Knox addicts mainly in the US who amazingly have shrugged off all of this rock-solid arc, and have pushed the interrogation hoax to its present ludicrous shape and size.

Those alternative-universe posts should put the shrill conspiracists on the put-up-or-shut-up spot and determine whether Knox continues on the same futile, damaging tack.

6. Testimony of Inspector Lorena Zugarini At Trial

To the co-prosecutor at trial Dr Mignini Inspector Zugarini describes her role in the summary/recap session in which Amanda Knox built her list of seven possible perps.

Yet again the main thrust is that Knox was being treated pretty nice, and that if anyone dropped her in it, it was Sollecito and Knox herself. 

Inspector Lorena Zugarini was there along with with Rita Ficarra (see posts 1-4) and Anna Donnino (see posts 5 and 6) and Ivano Raffo from Rome who, Rita Ficarra testified, held Knox’s hand to calm her down.

This also is new translation by the professional translator ZiaK. “GCM” who often seeks clarifications is Judge Massei.

Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini

Dr Mignini:  Did you question Amanda by any chance?

Lorena Zugarini:  Yes.

GM:  Therefore? [sic: typo “quindi” instead of “quando” = “when”]

LZ:  The 5th.

GM:  Did you do anything particular from the 2nd to the 5th other than these routine investigations, crime-scene investigation, I don’t know ...

LZ:  No. Granted, one couldn’t go inside the house because there was the Forensic Police, so we, as the Flying Squad, we are not supposed to enter until the Forensics have finished, always because of the question of contamination of evidence.

GM:  The Forensics, when [did] they finish the initial operations?

LZ:  Initial - if I’m not wrong - the 6th; either the 5th or the 6th.

GM:  So on the 5th, you heard Amanda?

LZ:  I was there, in the Questura [Police station] because very few hours of the night, not days, but very few hours of the night, and like me also other colleagues - especially those who were from the Section that was more or less, shall we say quote unquote, in charge of the murder issue - we almost stayed overnight in the Questura, except for two or three hours at night, when we’d go home.

GM:  Do you recall when Amanda arrived?

LZ:  So on Amanda, I remember that Raffaele Sollecito was called and invited to come and be heard/questioned. They told me that Raffaele was out to dinner, that he’d been given the possibility of finishing dinner, of eating, etc. etc., and to then come to the Questura. And I remember that along with Raffaele there was also Amanda, and honestly, I said to myself: “But how on earth is it that these two are always together?”  Because we, on that evening ... that is to say, we, our staff, we had called only and exclusively Sollecito.

GM:  So you were together with Rita Ficarra that evening?

LZ:  I was there in the Questura - when Raffaele was called, Rita Ficarra wasn’t there [yet].

GM:  So you were present when Amanda arrived?

LZ:  Yes, I was present when Amanda arrived, and Raffaele Sollecito. Raffaele Sollecito was taken up to a room that was ..., he was to be heard/questioned by other colleagues if I’m not mistaken, also by Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni. After which, Amanda was made to leave the room, and I personally accompanied her to the outside of the Flying Squad [offices], to where there were seats, and she was made to sit [NdT: also “made comfortable”] there. Then after [doing] that thing, I instead returned back inside the Flying Squad [offices].

GM:  And so you carried out, you heard/questioned various people that evening, no?

LZ:  I heard/questioned more than one person. Raffaele Sollecito, I didn’t hear/question him, me, because there were already colleagues who were hearing/questioning him. I was there inside the Flying Squad [offices], [where] maybe I was reading the recaps/summary informations of the others, or else I was looking for a moment at the case files.

GM:  Do you remember when… When Inspector Ficarra started to hear/question Amanda, you were - shall we say - in the Flying Squad [offices]?

LZ:  I was there, in the offices of the Flying Squad. I was going out of the Flying Squad [offices], together with the Deputy Commissioner, in order to go down[stairs] to the little machine that we have; a drinks and snacks machine. We wanted to go down[stairs] to get something, and I saw that Amanda was talking with some colleagues from the SCO. What she was saying, I have no idea. And in the meantime, I saw Inspector Ficarra come out of the lift on the third floor, that gives access to the Flying Squad [offices].

GM:  So you went down[stairs]. And then?

LZ:  I went down[stairs]. In the meantime, however, I noted that Amanda, while she was there, was an extremely relaxed person, and I even felt very upset/ill because at a certain point she suddenly did the splits there in the corridor. She did the splits and did a cartwheel, saying “I’m doing a sport”. She said it in English, but in English I don’t know it, me. Translated into Italian, like I know it, it’s a sport that she climbs on rocks with bare hands and no ropes, without anything. In order to show what level of training/preparedness she had. Then I went down[stairs] and I went to get something to drink, in fact, and then we came back up and [Amanda was] together with Rita Ficarra, because Amanda was stating the [names of] people who probably would have visited the house on Via della Pergola, whom she and whom Meredith ... [in short, those] who might have known her…

GM:  So, excuse me, let me understand; so you were coming and going in the various rooms?

LZ:  Yes, I was coming and going because in that moment Raffaele Sollecito was inside one room with [some] colleagues, and I didn’t think it was expedient/advisable to enter.

GM:  Did you stop [in] then, at a certain point, while Amanda was being heard/questioned?

LZ:  I went down[stairs], as I’m coming back, to reconfirm, having got the drink, I went back up and I noticed that Amanda was talking with Inspector Ficarra outside [the offices], and that she was saying to her “I’ll tell you the people”. And right there and then, she wrote them down herself in a notebook, on a sheet [of paper] that she had with her. Afterwards, together with Rita, with Inspector Ficarra, then, when we saw the facts/information, we said “Ok”, we said [agreed we needed] an office where we [could] go to hear/question Amanda for a moment, and take her recap/summary information, since in any case she had to wait for Raffaele.

GM:  Without telling us the content of the declarations, obviously, [can you] if checks were carried out on the cellphones?

LZ:  Well, so, Amanda, she had her cellphone with her still, because there was no reason to need to take it from her, and Amanda handed over her cellphone to a colleague from the SCO, after Amanda said “I’ll write down the names with the telephone [numbers] of the people who probably could have known Meredith too”.

GM:  So she handed over the cellphone to the individual from the SCO. Who was that [individual]? Do you remember?

LZ:  I don’t remember because there were various colleagues [around] from the SCO.

GM:  So this [individual] belonging to the SCO, what did he do?

LZ:  He took the cellphone and went out for a moment. I don’t know where he went because I remained inside the room. Shortly afterwards, he came back, and together with Amanda they started to scroll – Inspector Rita Ficarra and the colleague from SCO – they started to scroll through the messages and they asked her “This one, who is it? This other one, who is it?” and Amanda was answering.

GM:  [And] then?

LZ:  After, at a certain point, this [officer was] still taking [down] the report/minutes, since the message was reached that, if I’m not mistaken, was from Patrick, that there was written Patrick above it, she was asked who is Patrick, and there [at that point] Amanda …

GM:  If I can just show [her] the … [shows cellphone screen image].

LZ:  Yes, that one there.

GCM:  She was shown the copy of the message taken from the cellphone.


LZ:  [The] SMS on Amanda’s cellphone.

GM:  And then?

LZ:  Yes, she was asked for explanations regarding [the] “Certainly, see you later, good evening” [“Certo, ci vediamo più tardi, buona serata”]. We asked her who Patrick is, and in that moment Amanda shed tears – whether she was crying sincerely [in earnest] I don’t know – however she shed tears.

GM:  Did she make any gestures/movements?

LZ:  Yes. She put, I remember that she hiked up/drew up her legs, she crouched on her chair, put her hands around her head, on her ears, and started to say “He’s bad/mean, he’s bad/mean”, to shake her head, she said: “I remember hearing Meredith who was screaming, and Patrick who was hurting her”.

GCM:  One cannot report on the declarations made unless… Please.

LZ:  I beg your pardon.

GM:  What thing…

GCM:  So she had this behaviour?

LZ:  Yes.

GM:  You saw this behaviour?

LZ:  Yes.

GM:  So then what happened? What did you [all] do?

LZ:  At that point, Inspector Rita Ficarra decided to suspend the minutes/written record because the position had changed a bit, because she said to us “I was …” – Ah! I cannot…

GCM:  Yes, you cannot. So she was changed, and you suspended the minutes/written record, and …

LZ:  Yes, we interrupt [sic] the …

GM:  They were in accordance with Article 63.

LZ:  We interrupt [sic] the minutes/written record. I personally said to her if she wanted ...

GM:  Because indications of guilt had emerged?

LZ:  Yes, exactly. I said [sic] to her if she wanted the presence of a Lawyer, [to] which she said “No, I don’t need one”.

GM:  Can you describe for us what you did after, that is to say, what happened afterwards? Did she continue to cry? What did she do?

LZ:  I repeat, I can’t say whether [she was] crying: she was shedding tears: a behaviour that was still strange. She had a moment of, if I may say this, of crisis, seeing this type of message and [us] asking who this person was, after which I left the room …

GM:  Bu you, excuse me, did you ask “But why does he frighten you? Why are you crying?” Did you ask her that?

LZ:  Yes, certainly that was asked of her. She, [in answer to] such a question, said to me: “I remember that inside, that I was inside the kitchen”.

GCM:  Enough. On this, obviously, you cannot report, unless it is necessary/helpful. So you asked explanations about the behaviour…

LZ:  Yes, for me it is helpful/necessary because I didn’t understand such a type of behaviour on [NdT: i.e. “in response to”] a completely normal message.

GCM:  And you asked for an explanation.

LZ:  Yes. I said to her: “What on earth? What is happening? Who is [NdT: my emphasis] this person?”

GCM:  In the scope of the interrogation?

LZ:  Yes. Because until 5 minutes earlier, she was a completely normal person.

GCM:  So you asked for explanations of this behaviour. Ok.

LZ:  [Until] 5 minutes earlier she was completely normal, [and] then when she saw this message, and at the question “Who is this Patrick” she flew off the handle [NdT: “escandescenza” is actually a fit of rage, with violent words and menacing gestures”, I don’t know if the witness used the word in the sense of “fit of rage”, but this is the meaning of the word she chose.]

GCM:  These fits of rage, what did they consist of? [Did] she shed tears and shake her head?

LZ:  Yes. She drew her legs up, [and] put her hands on her head.

GCM:  Hands on the ears?

LZ:  She put her hands on her head, [and] started to do like this.

GCM:  She was shaking her head.

LZ:  She was shaking her head, and said to me “To me, this person …”

GCM:  You cannot. That is to say, you can report the declarations made only if they were useful, and to give us an indication about the subsequent investigative activity.

LZ:  For me, personally, I repeat, it was a moment in which I see this message, that is I ask [what] the presence of this message [means], and I see a reaction of this type, I ask myself “What on earth What has just happened?” [sic: NdT: Zugarini also speaks often in the present tense.]

GCM:  And she gave the answer that she [NdT: also “you”] gave.

GM:  Had you Did you, in the investigations that you carried out, had you conjectured [the occurrence] of a sexual assault?

LZ:  I personally, yes, because she [NdT: i.e. Meredith] was naked.

GM:  Because she was naked. But what are the elements that made you think of sexual assault? On what basis did you carry out investigations…? You said that one element was the fact that the young woman was naked.

LZ:  Yes.

GM:  What other elements? I mean, these declarations, shall we say, were they the cause for carrying out investigations on a sexual assault?

LZ:  I’ll go back to reassert that, from the moment when she was shown a message and a reaction of a person to the question “But for what reason are you doing these things? Why are you reacting in this way to this message?, she says to me “I see this person who is doing evil, and I hear my friend Meredith who’s screaming”; in all honesty, we also had a doubt, in short.

Maria Del Grosso [Knox lawyer]:  President, I am trying to reiterate the objection, because here there’s a continuous… it’s a continuous violation.

GM:  However it is impossible…

GCM:  Because the Prosecutor’s question concerned at a certain point [whether] the investigations also turned towards a hypothesis of sexual assault, and she gave him a positive answer saying that yes, because the body was naked, [so] there are other elements too…

LZ:  Other elements of people who knew – especially Meredith’s English friends, who Meredith visited in a regular way, who said to us that Meredith, from what they told us, was a very serious person, who did not give absolute familiarity/intimacy, that is to say, she did not give much familiarity/intimacy… naturally being a girl, and being also a [burdened/serious] type of girl, the young men who gave recaps/summary information said that… that they also, if one can say this, tried it on with her, to which she absolutely never gave them any encouragement…

GCM:  So on the basis of these [pieces of] information the investigations were directed towards …

LZ:  Yes, also the recaps/summary information of people, of people who were heard for recaps/summary information.

GM:  After this, to when the minutes/written record was interrupted, between the interruption of the minutes/written record and the presentation… to the spontaneous declarations: how much time passed?

LZ:  I didn’t understand [you], excuse me.

GM:  Between the moment when the minutes/written record was halted by Inspector Ficarra to the moment when I heard her [give her] spontaneous declarations, how much time passed?

LZ:  That, honestly, I can’t tell you, because from the moment when Patrick Lumumba’s name came out, and we knew that he was in fact the owner of a pub located on Via Alessi, etc. etc., I personally went together with other colleagues …

GM:  So you left …

LZ:  I left Amanda. Also because, to be honest, I didn’t really discuss it earlier, but I had, shall we say, a bit of an exchange of ideas with Inspector Rita Ficarra, because Inspector Rita Ficarra went down[stairs] several times with Amanda to get drinks from down there, from that same little [drinks-and-snacks] machine in the Questura.

GM:  Listen: can you recall for me whether she was subjected to aggressions, to pressure, to blows?

LZ:  Absolutely not! Even if I remember perfectly that, still with Inspector Rita Ficarra, I said to her “We’re talking about a girl [who’s had her] throat slit”, and the owner [NdT: in the feminine] of the actual/current bar that is located within the Questura [premises] was made to come up with a hot drink and little baked goods that were brought to Amanda, and I made a joke that not even in 20 years of [being in the] Police had any colleagues ever brought me these kinds of things like that, in the [same] way as Amanda was being treated.

GM:  So therefore you were present then for the [written] spontaneous declarations?

LZ:  Of Amanda?

GM:  Of Amanda.

LZ:  No. The minutes/written record was interrupted…

GM:  Was there an interpreter?

LZ:  Yes, the interpreter. In fact, Amanda’s recaps/summary information were even taken with a bit of delay because, if I’m not mistaken, Inspector Rita Ficarra came back to the Questura, or at any rate she came out of the lift of the Questura, at around about 23:00 hours, and if I’m not mistaken the minutes/written record began around 01:00 a.m.: around about 01:00 the minutes/written record was taken in the waiting for an interpreter of the local Questura, Anna Donnino, to come from her house to the Questura to be able to take Amanda[‘s declaration], even though she [Amanda] spoke in a fairly passable Italian.

GM:  So you, in effect, lose contact with Amanda, and you deal with ...

LZ:  From the moment when the minutes/written record was interrupted…

GM:  [So when] the minutes/written record is suspended, you begin, you participate in the search for Patrick.

LZ:  I participate in the search for Patrick.

GM:  And then what other activity did you carry out?… [continues on other subjects]

Patrick Lumumba Attorney Pacelli

CP:  Just a few clarifications on the questioning by the Public Prosecutor, to follow up on a question that Dr Mignini made a short while ago, with regard to how your investigations turned to the, shall we say, sexual aspect, or as if to the sexual backdrop of the crime, because in fact, in answering the Prosecutor, you said “I had formed my own personal opinion of a sexual backdrop, seeing the body of the poor victim semi-naked, or at any rate, naked.

Inspector Lorena Zugarini:  Naked.

CP:  So, to follow up in what was perhaps the Prosecutor’s intentions, I wanted to understand: was it also because of the content of the declarations made by Knox on the night of 5 November that your investigations turned towards the sexual backdrop? That is, was it also because of what Knox said to you that night?

LZ:  I’ll return to reconfirm, Attorney, that from the moment when Amanda – who previously had been [one of the] most calm people in the world, because after we had given her hot drinks, water, she had kept her cellphone with her, and all that – from the moment in which a colleague, together with Inspector Rita Ficarra, showed her the message and from the tone of the message – it is a very normal message as far as I’m concerned, it’s an extremely normal message – [so], not understanding Amanda’s reaction, if until three minutes before she was [one of the] most calm people in this world, not understanding Amanda’s reaction in relation to the message, logically questions were asked of her: “but why do you have this behaviour as soon as you read this message?”

CP:  So after her answers, also because of her answers, you turned towards …

LZ:  When a person says to you: I see, I hear Meredith’s screams…

CP:  Yes, but you were perfectly clear. A final clarification: at a certain point, you go away. However, before leaving, [did] you witness/were you present at Amanda’s declarations of accusation, what Amanda declared with respect to Patrick Lumumba?

LZ:  Absolutely, yes, because I turn again to reassert that if you read the message…

GCM:  Yes, absolutely, yes. Please, Attorney. The question?

CP:  In making these affirmations, before making these affirmations, or while she was making these affirmations, was Amanda struck with kicks or punches or slaps?

LZ:  In the most absolute way [No].

CP:  Was she in any way, by any one of you, forced to make declarations, or … the declarations that she made, some of the declarations, or all of the declarations that she made in that moment?

LZ:  Attorney, I tell you again that what we are doing, it is not an interrogation, [but] what we are asking …

GCM:  Yes, yes. Excuse me, but it’s enough to simply say no.

LZ:  When we ask things of a person, we ask them [sic], it’s logical. Maybe tiredness might take over…

CP:  Were any of the subjects that Amanda made declarations about suggested to her in any way, or were they all carried out on her own completely spontaneous will? There was no suggestion of names, of ways, of circumstances?

LZ:  Me, I never saw Amanda before, before 2 November.

CP:  No, but I’m saying 5 November. Was something of what she had [NdT: “had” as in “posssessed” not as in “was made to”. I.e. it is the Past Simple of the verb “to have] to declare that evening suggested to her?

LZ:  Absolutely not.

CP:  So you can confirm to us that, at any rate, even in those circumstances and for the whole period from 2 to 5, until all her declarations, even until the arrest, she was always treated with respect, with humanity, and with absolute…

LZ:  I repeat again, I made that joke with Inspector Rita Ficarra, even the current owner at that time of the bar inside the Questura, brought her I don’t remember if it was a camomile tea or a black tea, with little pastries and a croissant.

CP:  I have no further questions.

Sollecito Defence Attorney Bongiorno

GB:  You participated in the preliminary hearing, you were present?

LZ:  Yes.

GB:  All the preliminary hearings, some?

LZ:  Almost all.

GB:  Even the one when Stefanoni was heard/questioned?

LZ:  No.

GB:  In the one when Kocomani was heard/questioned?

LZ:  No.

GB:  When we did the pleadings/summation and the prosecutor’s final statement?

LZ:  Some, yes.

Knox Defense Attorney Luciano Ghirga

LG:  ... Listen, now let’s turn to the evening of the 6th when you participated with Inspector Ficarra in the recaps/summary information of Amanda Knox.

LZ:  Of the 5th.

LG:  No, of the 6th, because it is after midnight, [it is] one-forty-five. The night between 5 and 6, that is the beginning of the minutes/written record, and 01:45 hours, so we understand each other, and they are called summary informations/recaps.

LZ:  Thank you.

LG:  No, I didn’t mean anything. You said the 5th, for me it is the 6th, that’s all: it’s not contentious/a contradiction.

GCM:  Please Attorney.

LG:  And then, it’s not actually necessary.

LZ:  No, no.

LG:  Do you recall whether, having begun these interrogation activities, one or other of your colleagues who was participating in Sollecito’s interrogation came in to inform you in some way of the progress of Sollecito’s interrogation?

LZ:  Yes, there was Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni who every so often came there to see how it was going, and the thing that she then told us that Sollecito was not longer giving the big [sic] alibi as far as Amanda was concerned.

LG:  And the operation regarding the SMS message of which you spoke, [that] came about after this information, shall we say, let’s call it information, communication.

LZ:  I believe so, yes.

GCM:  Excuse me on this; did you communicate this immediately to Amanda Knox? This is what the Attorney was asking.

LG:  I have said, this quote-unquote interrogation began …

LZ:  Yes. I beg your pardon, Attorney.

LG:  And a colleague comes, you say that a colleague comes, I don’t know whether it’s Napoleoni, at any rate someone comes …

LZ:  No.

GCM:  Please. Continue, Attorney.

LG:  I am referring to this thing that you precisely reported: Sollecito returned [sic] the alibi to Amanda.

LZ:  Yes.

LG:  Something of the sort. He no longer gives a big [sic] alibi; he removes the alibi, I don’t know: the operations concerning the little message found in Amanda’s telephone, did these occur after this communication?

LZ:  Anyhow I tell you that when the Deputy Commissioner, or whoever entered inside that room on her behalf, it’s not that they spoke in front of Amanda, so Amanda could not hear the content of our discussions. After which, I honestly, I believe that the message was shown to Amanda after the presence of Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni or someone on her behalf.

LG:  Last question, Mr President: these courtesy activities – a hot drink, a croissant, or whatever – did they happen after the conclusion of the two interrogations of Amanda, shall we say?

LZ:  Absolutely not.

LG:  So when did they take place then?

LZ:  Well, they took place either before taking [sic] Amanda for the first time, also because we had to wait for the interpreter, if I’m not mistaken, Anna Donnino, who had to come from home because they had called her from the Questura to bring herself [sic] to our offices because we had, in fact, to hear a girl, in the English language, even though she spoke Italian fairly well: for reasons of our own peace [of mind] and for reasons of Amanda’s ease/peace of mind, the interpreter was called. So during the wait for Anna Donnino to arrive, Amanda was provided with both hot drinks and water, and whatnot.

LG:  And later you don’t recall whether there was another… You said it first, yourself.

LZ:  No, also later.

LG:  Also later?

LZ:  Also later.

LG:  That’s what it seemed to us. Thank you.

LZ:  No no, I have said [that] the lady from the bar – the bar is closed at night in our place; if I’m not mistaken [it closes] around 5, 5-thirty – the bar must have been open already, I already said that the owner of the bar came to bring her chamomile or tea, in short.

LG:  Thank you.

Judge Massei

GCM:  And a last thing: when the circumstance about the alibi came to light, that Raffaele Sollecito thus did not seem, no longer confirmed the alibi, [when] this fact came to light, did you bring it to the knowledge of Amanda Knox, this fact?

LZ:  No, no, absolutely no. Absolutely, not, because ...

GCM:  How was it brought to [your] awareness.

LZ:  I remember that the Deputy Commissioner came there and said to us: “Listen carefully to/Question carefully Amanda, because there are discrepancies on what Raffaele has said, even during the previous days”.

GCM:  As far as you know, [this] was not brought to Amanda Knox’s awareness?

LZ:  As far as I am concerned, no.

GCM:  Very well.


Ooops! Luciano Ghirga obviously again flying blind there.

He accidentally manages to get out of Zugharini the damaging-for-Knox statement that Knox seemingly knew nothing of Sollecito off in another wing busily destroying her alibi and saying she went out alone and made him lie.

We then see Judge Massei in his own questions jump onto that like a dog on a bone. 

Sollecito in his book was also flying blind. He comes out with his own take of what took place. He said he could hear Knox screaming in the next room as she was abused.

In fact, he was a long away off, in another wing. And although he claims he held out under “interrogation” for hours, multiple witnesses testified that he very rapidly had his own conniption over there.

The central police station was Conniption City that night. Knowing the truth, maybe Knox is contemptuous now of how dumb and craven all her supporters are.

That sure is some weird lemmings parade, led by the clients from hell.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/23/14 at 01:28 PM | #

Incredible really, isn’t it?

Perhaps all of Knox and Sollecitos friends, family and fans can see them in flashes of blurred images being beaten and tortured and screaming out in pain as tag teams of over a dozen thugs brutalise them into headbanging submission?

The routine questioning was so brutal that all Sollecito complained about at the time was that they took his shoes from him for testing - and he has never to this day stopped whinging about that.

Maybe you was a tad worried about your footprints Raffie?

Posted by DF2K on 06/23/14 at 04:06 PM | #

LZ:  “[During] the wait for Anna Donnino to arrive, Amanda was provided with both hot drinks and water, and whatnot.”

Knox (“memoir”):  “Around 2 P.M. on Tuesday…Ficarra took me to the cafeteria. I was starving. After the interrogation was over they brought me a cup of tea, but this was the first food or drink I’d been offered since Raffaele and I had arrived at the questura around 10:30 P.M. Monday.”

Somebody’s lying.  We know that Knox was turning cartwheels, pestering the police, drawing maps, and generally making a nuisance of herself until she dramatically accused Patrick of murder.

But even on as minor a point about what kind of refreshments she was provided and when, Knox invents a scenario to make herself appear to be a victim.

Posted by Stilicho on 06/24/14 at 02:50 PM | #

One thing that has always struck me, and that I have never seen mentioned in any comments (although I could have missed it ...) is the fact that, as all the testimonies indicate, many of the young students, and certainly RS and AK, were quite used to staying up till dawn day after day, partying or whatever.

And yet when it comes to the “interrogation”(not actually an Italian legal term per the previous post!) hoax, all those on the defense side use lack of sleep as a point of argument.

But AK was accustomed to staying up all night, and certainly was fully awake and aware during all the recap/summary sessions, enough so to craft wily lies, fake tears, and generally throw conniption fits left and right. Lack of sleep was never, ever, an issue at the time.

Interesting that the target audience for whom these lies are intended probably does get to bed relatively early and probably never stayed up all night for the last twenty or thirty years. If they themselves had to stay up all night they would probably feel the way AK “claims” to have felt, and thus they identify with and reinforce the lies and hoaxes.

But AK? I bet at the time she could have stayed up for days in a row, without blinking. She may be doing that to this very day, contemplating further horrible hoaxes to hide her horrific crime ...

Posted by Patrizio on 06/24/14 at 04:07 PM | #

@Peter Quennell

Raffaele Sollecito has announced on Twitter that he will hold a press conference to ‘clarify his appeal’. This will take place on July 1, 2014, 10:30 am in Rome.

My educated guess is that this press conference will address his new separation strategy. I suspect he will do some damage control to calm down Amanda Knox and her hysterical supporters.

Posted by Nell on 06/24/14 at 05:25 PM | #

Raffaele orders a press conference! scheduled for July 1 in Rome.

Raffaele should shout out to the world the truth about Amanda Knox, from the steps of St. Peter’s in Rome. It’s not too late to come clean and tell all.

Tell who offered 100,000 euros for the name of the Albanian who had seen Amanda and Raffaele and Guede acting crazy in the streets the night of Halloween, and why Kokomani was threatened by Albanians and Italians not to testify.

Guede had offered Koko 250 euros to borrow his car to “move some furniture” which Guede said was to be done the following night. Koko threw a Nokia cell phone at Amanda and some olives he had in a container. He claimed he slapped Raf in the face and knocked off his glasses because he didn’t like his attitude, and that Amanda had two hands around a big knife holding it over her head, which Raffaele pooh-poohed the danger of, telling Koko she was just a girl, don’t let her scare you.

Then Raf can tell the press conference in Rome what he and Amanda were talking about in that agitated way which Curatolo saw.

Toto said he saw them four or five times hanging around in his piazza, and Raf was leaning over the rail looking down at the cottage.

Were the two lovers having a spat about something? Were they breaking up? Was Knox taunting Raf for his lack of guts to get with the program, man up? Was it a dare? Was Raf trying to restrain Amanda from doing something kooky to her roommate?

Toto saw them first at about 9:30pm, or sometime from 9:30 to 10pm. His last sighting of them was roughly 11 to 11:30pm. Were they coming and going out of Toto’s view? Had Raffaele returned in a huff to his own apartment unable to persuade the manic Knox, who went ahead with her dark plans and then ran back to the apartment of lover boy begging him to come “aiuto” help her, help her clean up or dispose of a body? Had she implied that things got out of hand because he wasn’t there to help her with the prank, and so she had to use Guede instead?

Amanda at Questura said “it could have been me” meaning the culprit who killed Meredith would have been watching the cottage to make sure Meredith was alone. Probably Amanda said that because it was what she and Raf had done. They reconnoitered the cottage to make sure Meredith was alone after the murder if not before, while unbeknownst to them the little bird Toto watched them. Now he has flown away on two wings.

This is speculation of my own perhaps much of it in error, based on information found in “The Murder of Meredith Kercher” wiki. Alas for poor Curatolo. He was only 53 years old when he was caught up in the Knox nightmare to testify. He had lived on the streets for 9 years, smoking and reading his Espresso newspaper. He was a bird finding crumbs in the park and doing favors for friends. Two or three years after Meredith was killed, he died also.

Raffaele’s mother died on June 20, 2005 according to the wiki. Two years later Raf went off the rails. Now in 2014 Knox gambols in a June 21st summer solstice photo of her and Mad Pax each holding out a leg for a shadow photo (gauche and horrid forming a monster silhouette). To each his own taste.

Oh, well, Raf may give Knox a very bad birthday present more than a shadow for July 9th if he spills the truth on July 1st at his press conference which he claims he and his lawyer will attend jointly to “clarify” his sudden desire for a separate defense. Maybe a separate peace?

Maybe rockclimber hands like Knox who stick knives into studious civilized women like Meredith, have an increased chance of having the same thing done to them in press conferences.

Is it knife in the back time (metaphorically) or rather justice time for Knox with Sollecito setting the calendar for the final unveiling. Better late than never to tell the truth. How long will Raffaele let Knox muzzle him for her benefit.

Maybe his new long blonde haired girlfriend is urging him to cut the chains and set himself free (farewell to yesterday), to face facts about a long prison sentence that she thinks he may not fully deserve and what it will do to their relationship (in her opinion, Greta’s opinion). She may have more influence on him than his own loving father.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/24/14 at 09:19 PM | #

Hi Hopeful,

It’s important for everyone to be realistic. Sollecito is not going to shout out to the world the truth about Amanda Knox. Please don’t get your hopes up because you will just be disappointed. Some posters have done this in the past and hoped that Guede would come clean. It’s just not going to happen.

Posted by The Machine on 06/25/14 at 05:34 AM | #

I agree with Hopeful that each is digging the other in deeper and I agree with the Machine that they will try hard probably for their lifetimes not to dig themselves in deeper as well - they each have entourages and their self-images to attempt to preserve.

There have been dozens of instances of this disloyalty trend, going right back to 2007. Usually it is 2 steps forward in this direction, and then 1 step back, but dont be fooled by that, there IS a trend. For the legitimacy of Italian justice any step forward is fine, and justice authorities have seen this phenomenon among paranoid gang members so many times.

Exhibit A in this trend is the night described in this Interrogation Hoax series and right after, Exhibit B is what happened between them throughout trial, Exhibit C is their weird to-ing and fro-ing after Hellmann provisionally set them free, Exhibit D is their two self-serving books (properly read); and Exhibit E is the weird to-ing and fro-ing we are observing now.

Their respective lawyers and families have long been on this trendline too. For example, see here:

And Sollecito is very clearly headed for prison with no way out and he knows that in his bones, and he’ll be darned if Knox as the instigator of the attack and wielder of the knife that delivered the fatal blow is not locked up too.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/25/14 at 08:58 AM | #

Re the “clarity conference”, you have to understand Raffaele Sollecito. What to him may seem ‘clarity’ looks to the rest of us, like fog.

Posted by Ergon on 06/25/14 at 09:37 AM | #

@Peter Quennell, @The Machine, you’re both right. Realistically, the truth will most likely NOT be shouted out clearly by Raffaele. We’ll be lucky to get a kernel of it from his announced press conference. Sentimentality over the dear departed Toto who for all his faults did honor the truth, authored the wild hope that Raffaele might try the only tack he has never used before: the simple truth.

As Ergon says, Raffaele’s way is more like fog. Yes, and he has his entourage to consider and a self-image to preserve. His will is not his own.

Raffaele is weighed down by the labyrinth he created of FOA false friends which once served as support and protection. Now they stand in the prison door blocking him in.

Minor compared to his freedom, but he may also be afraid to lose the financial support from online donations or sales of his books however minimal.

It’s true that the trend of his is one step forward, two steps back in a halting method which is like watching an iceberg melt. The positive thing is that the trend despite its snail pace is always in that direction. The berg is melting a little.

Recently commenters spoke of a legal case not being a “closed system”, that unforeseen outside events could impact it which is why Knox and Raffaele had their alibis busted and couldn’t plan for everything. The unseen forces of life that could at any moment come forward to provide more proof against these slippery defendants, is perhaps a more realistic hope than that a liar will start to love the truth or a leopard change its spots.

Sollecito is so tied in knots from his own personality and his odd past and his meds as well as his new lying support system, that I wonder what are the main dynamics of his psychology in their unstressed state. He seems way more complicated than the brutish Knox, which makes me eager to read an analysis of his psyche from experts like SeekingUnderstanding and others.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/25/14 at 10:57 AM | #

Talking of meds, I wonder if Mimo has cranked up her intake since her hero’s public distancing from the Saint Amanda.
She must be positively clung to the ceiling by now.
Already internet stalking and harassing a family member of the said hero, I think it won’t be long before she releases her bile on him too.
Quite unusual, for someone who has stated that she regards the Sollecito family as part of her own family.

Posted by DF2K on 06/25/14 at 12:30 PM | #

Hello Hopeful
It does seem so very sad and frustrating that Raphaele did not open the window of opportunity, as Judge Nencini tried to nudge him to do, just before Christmas.

He is less easy to read than Ms. Knox , for a number of reasons - more introverted, less articulate (certainly in English; but he also doesn’t seem expressive in his own language), and because of the psychology itself.

You may remember I suggested AK finds it unbearable to acknowledge her darker side, to own her projections; unbearable to be thought of as ‘a monster’, to be unlovable, or indeed hated by people. This may be a strong component in her lying.

I believe Raphaele also finds things unbearable, but whereas Amanda appears to turn this unbearable feeling into lashing out to others, - I think in Raphaele, he finds himself and ‘what has happened to him’ (passive aggression) unbearable. His judgement has not only been poor, but catastrophically poor, - and he must know this. One wonders why the self-destruct.
He knows his life is ruined, and he knows his appalling judgement was instrumental. He truly doesn’t have confidence in himself, but bluffs anyway. His ‘ex’, by contrast,has too much. If only she could have self-doubt, and feel shame.

He is not unintelligent, by no means, yet his choices and decisions at times have seemed near idiotically stupid. So there must be something else going on, something deep in his psyche that causes such confusion in his mental and emotional universe.
He seems unable to organize his emotions. He appears to want or expect or need a woman to ‘sort them out’ (sort him out). His relationship with his mother would probably reveal the source of this. How did she manage her emotions? Or did they rule her? . These are the sort of questions I might be asking. He seems overwhelmed, swallowed up by the juggernaut that AK set in motion. Was his mother easily overwhelmed by life’s problems? Something has gone wrong (drastically) with a healthy model for his ‘anima’.
Where Amanda is the arch manipulator, he is highly manipulable. He seems to copy. Like her, his self-identity is weak, but for different reasons. Drug use, I would suggest, has been both crucial and disastrous for his mind. From this point of view, prison will be a constructive environment for him, (as AK too). Perhaps without the distorting and illusory aspects of drugs he might begin, over many years, to experience true spiritual (and therefore moral) issues.
I always think drugs give a delusion of spiritual experience (‘the highs’),  - wanting them can be (for an introvert) indicative of longing for something more spiritual, but using them will actually prevent such an experience, emphatically.
So then there is bitterness and emptiness, as well as despair and, still, confusion. Thus the addiction which starts as a cycle in the mind.
I knew a psychologist who worked with highly motivated and successful people in the Arts - people who would have burn out, creativity, and performance issues. He was extremely clever. But he was adamant that there had to be a hierarchy for dealing with problems. That is to say, if someone was using drugs and/or alcohol to the point of misuse (extremely common in the performing arts), - this problem had to be mastered and dealt with FIRST, before anything else could even be addressed. This may seem irrelevant (as Sollecito hasn’t shown he is creative), - but I would say the signs are that his past (and current?) drug use needs to be sorted before anything else can possibly be.
Such a destructive shame that this has all dragged on for 7years.

I don’t think he has any idea as to how to give a ‘press conference’ - even supposing , by a miracle, he was going to tell the unadulterated truth. He is way out of his depth. I doubt he has sufficient communication skills in his own language, let alone In English for the American media.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/25/14 at 07:15 PM | #


This is an amazing series of transcriptions that in their consistency put the lie to the “false confession” of Knox. Thank you so much for doing this.

I have thought for some time that the interesting “wild card” in all of this is Sollecito. How long will he stay tethered to Knox and now it looks like he’s really breaking from her. Of course, from the beginning he did when he didn’t back her alibi. It seems to me that, first of all, by asking to be judged separately, he is implying that, look she was there, she did it, but I wasn’t there. But isn’t it a dangerous game in that with the “lone killer” theory he could effectively argue that his DNA was all contaminated, blah, blah, as we know. However, reading Nadeau today, she speculates he could get a separate hearing and Knox could be definitively convicted. But if this happens, the court must go on the premise that Knox did it and Sollecito was joined at the hip, hence it makes the physical evidence more powerful than ever. For, who else’s footprint could that be if Knox did the murder and Sollecito was with her, who else’s DNA could that be on the bra clip if Knox did it and wouldn’t that put Sollecito in her vicinity? Given that the Supreme Court has confirmed there were multiple attackers, it’s easier now to assume it had to be Sollecito there. It’s actually quite fascinating because I do believe she has given him an alibi in the trial when she testified (someone correct me if I’m wrong). It was always my hope that Sollecito would at the very least confess and say, I wasn’t there but I did help with the cleanup. But I agree with Machine, don’t have such high expectations!

I would like to ask Popper and Peter and Machine if there is no plea bargain in Italy, otherwise, could he not have bargained to be a witness to get his sentence down? Is this how it works in Italy? Anyway, this is getting interesting now with the family speaking out. So much for “honour bound”!

Despite all this, it is my sincere hope that the Supreme Court of Italy will take one look at this new appeal, and say, you had seven years to try to separate yourself out from Knox but you didn’t until 2 minutes to midnight!

I so want to see these two pay the price for what they did to that beautiful girl and after 7 years, the Kerchers must have some closure. But I was disturbed by Nadeau’s piece that claims this could go on. Keeping my fingers crossed and always following your great reporting and commentary on PMF.

Dora Maar

Posted by Dora Maar on 06/25/14 at 07:33 PM | #

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 The Knox Interrogation Hoax #8: Testimony Of Interpreter Donnino And Central Police Officer Giobbi

Or to previous entry The Knox Interrogation Hoax #6: Sollecito Transcript & Actions Further Damage Knox Version