The Knox Interrogation Hoax #9: Officer Moscatelli’s Recap/Summary Session With Sollecito 5-6 Nov

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



[Sollecito at trial on the day when Inspector Moscatelli testified]

1. What Really Happened on 5-6 November

The introduction to Hoax Post #1 explains what really happened at Knox’s recap/summary session on 5-6 November 2007.

In a sentence: Knox was there unwanted and grumpy, was advised to go and sleep, refused, agreed to build a list of possible perps (she listed seven, including Rudy Guede), spontaneously broke into a wailing conniption over a message she sent to Patrick, was semi-calmed-down and repeatedly provided with refreshments, and insisted on writing three statements without a lawyer, all of which said she went out on the night of the attack, all framing Patrick, one even pointing at Sollecito.

Posts #1 to #8 included all the testimony from three police staff (Ficcara, Zugarini, Donnino) who sat with Knox, and then some of the testimony from Napoleoni (who was mainly with Sollecito) and Giobbi (an officer from Rome who was elsewhere in the questura and overheard Knox’s conniption). 

Inspector Daniele Moscatelli was also from the national police in Rome. He had previously questioned the boys who lived downstairs, and on 5-6 November he led the discussion with Sollecito, who was in a room some distance from Knox. On this night, the subject was to be some discrepancies in Sollecito’s phone records. Expectations were low, and many others were still being similarly questioned.

There was some limited interaction with Rita Ficcara’s recap/summary session with Amanda Knox, so the claims made here and their timing will become very important.

At the end of the session Sollecito’s signed statement for Inspectors Moscatelli and Napoleoni included this about Knox :

I know Amanda for two weeks. From the evening I first met her she started sleeping at my house.

The first of November I woke up about 11.00, I had breakfast with Amanda, then she went out and I went back to bed. I then met up with her at her house around 13.00-14.00. In there was Meredith who left in a hurry about 16.00 without saying where she was going.

Amanda and I went to the [town] centre about 18.00 but I don’t remember what we did. We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.

I went to my house alone at 21.00, while Amanda said that she was going to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet with her friends.

At this point we said goodbye. I went home, I made a joint. Had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. About 23.00 my father called me on my house phone line.

I recall Amanda was not back yet.

I web surfed on the computer for two more hours after my father’s phone call and I only stopped when Amanda came back in, presumably about 01.00…

In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies.

This will already be a long post, and the last for now on testimony from the police. So we’ll highlight all the devils in the details of all this police testimony in our next post. This translation is by Catnip and is also posted on the excellent wiki.

Prosecutor Mignini

Prosecutor Mignini:  You have carried out investigations on the death of Meredith Kercher?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Do you remember when you had arrived in Perugia and what activity you’d carried out?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I’d arrived in Perugia on the 2nd of November, in the late afternoon, from Rome, together with Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Giobbi, Doctor Edgardo Giobbi , in the late afternoon. We arrive in Perugia and we proceed to Via della Pergola, where on the outside of the house we find already present on site the Prosecutor, the Perugia Flying Squad and the Scientific Police. I was asked, almost immediately, to the offices of the Flying Squad to carry out SIs of potential witnesses who, one by one, were asked to the offices of the Flying Squad. This had happened on the 2nd.

Prosecutor Mignini:  You’d entered into the apartment at Via della Pergola?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, absolutely not, I immediately was asked… then other colleagues from Rome also arrived and were assigned to this type of activity.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Then?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I personally was asked to go to the Marches, to Port Saint George, if I’m not mistaken, to verify the depositions, the testimonies given by the neighbors who were below the apartment where the murder had occurred, on the 3rd.

Prosecutor Mignini:  The following day you carried out normal office activity, witness statements and so on, up until the 5th, specifically the evening of the 5th, when we heard Mr Sollecito’s SI.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Can you say… at what time you had heard him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The evening around half past ten, ten forty in the evening, 22:30-22:40, also because I remember I was called on the phone, I don’t remember by whom, and he said that he was having dinner because he was given the time to dine and then to come into the Perugia Flying Squad’s offices.

Prosecutor Mignini:  At what time had you completed the statement?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The statement, at 3:30-3:40 am.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Sollecito had asked you to have a lawyer available, to interrupt the statement?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Absolutely not.

Prosecutor Mignini:  So you had closed the statement normally, without any worry, and he had not asked anything about all of this?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, everything that he was asking for, water and things, was placed at his complete ease, he had everything at his disposal.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Do you remember how he was behaving?

Daniele Moscatelli:  His behavior was basically confused also because… the statement lasted a while also because of this reason, I repeat, he was placed at complete ease thus with very long pauses, in a manner very, as was relating us, in a very calm manner. In effect he had a basically nervous behavior.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Once the statement concluded on the basis of his declarations, what did you do?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Look, personally finishing with the statement I was asked by my superiors, I was asked along together with the Perugia Flying Squad to look for Mr Lumumba inasmuch the position of Mr Lumumba had emerged from the declarations of Miss Knox. So then when I re-entered the office it was morning, I was made aware of Mr Sollecito’s arrest and I seized a pair of shoes and a knife he had with him.

Prosecutor Mignini:  What knife?

Daniele Moscatelli:  A knife…

Prosecutor Mignini:  A flick-knife?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t remember if it was a flick-knife, however it was a long enough knife, I don’t remember now the technical particulars of the knife.

Prosecutor Mignini:  He was carrying it?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, yes, he was carrying it. He had it in his pocket and in the light of exactly because of this behaviour that he was displaying, even after the interview, I remember that Deputy Inspector Monica Napoleoni had asked him if he were armed or suchlike and he hands us this knife.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Did you ask him for what reason he was carrying it?

Daniele Moscatelli:  He was saying that he was a lover of weapons, of knives.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Then what did you do? What do you remember? Did you see Amanda that morning?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I saw her after because I personally busied myself with activity concerning Sollecito, I saw her in the morning when she was already in a state of arrest.

Prosecutor Mignini:  Do you remember how she was behaving?

Daniele Moscatelli:  She was very confused, very exhausted I believe, but she was worn-out above all about the fact of her declarations, although she didn’t have a relevant behavior with respect to who knows what.

Prosecutor Mignini:  I have no further questions.

Judge Massei:  The Civil Parties have no questions; the defense.

Defense Counsel Maori

RS Counsel Maori:  Advocate Maori, Sollecito Defense. You, Superintendent, said earlier, in response to the Prosecutor, that you had effected the seizure of the knife and the shoes.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

RS Counsel Maori:  For what reasons were the shoes seized? Was there something about these shoes that were leading you back to the crime? Were they bloodstained, was there some other element?

Daniele Moscatelli:  They were absolutely not bloodstained, although the shoes were seized in that they were seen, in a position that Sollecito assumed, seated with his legs crossed, in a quite natural position, and concentric circles were noticed on the soles of his shoes which, at the investigative level, could have led somewhere. In the evidence the Scientific Police had recovered a print with these concentric circles, so they were seized for this reason.

RS Counsel Maori:  At what time were these shoes seized?

Daniele Moscatelli:  In the morning.

RS Counsel Maori:  Superintendent, you on the 7th November participated in the seizure of Meredith’s computer and of the clothing that was found in the washing machine?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, of the clothing that was in the washing machine.

RS Counsel Maori:  On that occasion was a search also done or only…

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no, I on instruction went to the bathroom, the first bathroom on the right of the house, always wearing gloves and shoe-covers, I went there and took the clothing indicated by Ms Filomena Romanelli, inside the washing machine and I brought them to the office.

RS Counsel Maori:  Can you describe the course of events, who were you with and what you did?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I entered into the house, I put on the gloves and the shoe-covers…

RS Counsel Maori:  First of all you had removed the seals?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I didn’t remove them personally, with me there was Deputy Commissioner Profazio and Deputy Commissioner Giobbi.

RS Counsel Maori:  So there were three of you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There were four of us, if I’m not mistaken, there was also Superintendent Gentili from my office.

RS Counsel Maori:  Go on.

Daniele Moscatelli:  We entered, I went to the first bathroom on the right with gloves and shoe-covers on, we opened the washing machine, I picked up the clothing with my gloves, put them inside a bag and we took them to the Flying Squad offices.

RS Counsel Maori:  You said “I went and we opened”, you mean ‘we went’?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I and Superintendent Gentili went into the bathroom.

RS Counsel Maori:  And these clothes, where were they put?

Daniele Moscatelli:  In a bag, a big bag.

RS Counsel Maori:  And this bag, where was it taken from?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The bag?

RS Counsel Maori:  This bag, where did it come from?

Daniele Moscatelli:  From the Flying Squad offices.

RS Counsel Maori:  What type of bag was it?

Daniele Moscatelli:  A black bag, so that then the clothing amongst other things had been centrifuged and washed, so we put all precautions in place. Then I remember that in the Flying Squad offices they were subdivided according to whether Miss Romanelli recognized them as hers or as belonging to the victim or other occupants of the house.

RS Counsel Maori:  This black bag is a rubbish bag so to speak?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, like a rubbish bag.

RS Counsel Maori:  That you had found…

Daniele Moscatelli:  No.

RS Counsel Maori:  You had gone into the murder house carrying this bag with you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  We’d had the bag.

RS Counsel Maori:  That you found where?

Daniele Moscatelli:  In the Flying Squad offices.

RS Counsel Maori:  In a drawer? There was a bag ready for this type of operation or else you had found it there and had thought that…

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, we didn’t find it there, it was a bag that had never been used, like everything else that was supplied, and where the clothing centrifuged and washed in the washing machine was put.

RS Counsel Maori:  You, before that date, the 7th of November, had never entered into Via della Pergola?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no.

RS Counsel Maori:  You were present at the execution of the provisional arrest warrant naturally?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

RS Counsel Maori:  Was this record signed by 36 members of the Perugia Police?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

RS Counsel Maori:  Was everyone present?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes. How were we all present, Counsel?

RS Counsel Maori:  Everyone belonging to the Perugia Police, from the Deputy Commissioner right down to the Assistant, so there were 36 people who signed the detention record, were they all present?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I didn’t count them, but definitely everyone was present, not that I set myself the task of counting if there were 36 people.

RS Counsel Maori:  Also because they couldn’t all fit in the room. Thank you.

Defense Counsel Bongiorno

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Raffaele Sollecito, when was he arrested?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The morning of the 6th of November, at 8 am, I believe, the Public Prosecutor disposed the arrest and then the following noon I believe that he was notified.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  From the moment in which the statement was concluded to the moment in which he was arrested, were other investigative activities carried out?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Counsel, as regards myself I have already explained to the Court, I, once the statement was concluded, was asked to look for the other suspect.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  While however…

Daniele Moscatelli:  Therefore physically I was not there.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Then I will ask you questions about when you were present. When you were present, did it happen that amongst you police officers you were exchanging information about what was happening in the room in which Knox was being heard and about what was happening in the room in which Sollecito was being heard?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Personally no.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Without the “personally”, I was saying, did it happen that anyone said something, exchanging information from one room to another?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Well, maybe when Miss Knox made her final declarations I don’t remember if someone came out of the room, for this I’m saying personally because I’m speaking for myself.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  No, in fact I am asking if these two records were made in such a way that people were shut in in two rooms or whether there was an exchange of information amongst you, someone was saying: “it’s going like this with Sollecito, is it going like that with Knox”?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There will also have been, but no…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  If you know, tell me yes, if not no.

Judge Massei:  If you recall with precision.

Daniele Moscatelli:  With precision, no, I don’t recall.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Do you remember if someone said: “contradictions are starting to emerge”?

Daniele Moscatelli:  With respect to what, sorry?

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  These declarations that were being made.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I don’t recall, I don’t think so.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Not if you recall, not… what do you mean?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I mean that I don’t recall in that I was focused on the activity I was carrying out at the moment.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  The activity that you were carrying out was taking the Sollecito SI, it wasn’t extraneous to the activity if someone was saying: “there’s a contrast with what’s happening in the other room”, that’s why I’m asking you it.

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t recall.

Judge Massei:  You don’t recall if during this activity that you were carrying out with regard to Raffaele Sollecito someone came and said, “but they’re..”?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I remember towards the end, when there were the declarations of Ms Knox, someone came but didn’t tell me this thing because I continued to take the Sollecito SI.

Judge Massei:  But you heard them?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I didn’t hear them because in the room we were only…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  I haven’t understood well here then, this person comes in, says this thing and who does he say it to?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, nobody came in, if anything someone went out, Counsel. Maybe Deputy Inspector Napoleoni had gone out, I don’t remember now.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  In the ambit of the whole statement by Sollecito, were contested questions put to Sollecito?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Contested in what sense?

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Of incongruities, of something that didn’t add up.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, but it was him who was telling us…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Were contested questions put or not?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Was it said: “Look, this isn’t so”?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, “Look, this isn’t so” was never said, absolutely. It was him who was saying to us: “No, I made a mistake, I said this, I said it another way”.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  When he said something like that during the statement, you considered interrupting the statement?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no, never.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  There was no grounds to call a lawyer?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There was at that moment no ground to call a lawyer.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  When and of what did the details against Sollecito occur?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The details against Sollecito had been produced by the totality of the investigative activity, it’s not that they emerged only from the SI statement, it’s true that the SI statement was opened and closed according to procedure.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  No, in fact that it was opened and closed normally is patently clear. I was asking you because in the course of the statement you were not interrupted, seeing that you then made the arrest.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Because evidently at that moment at the closure of the statement no elements had emerged to be able to communicate…

Judge Massei:  He has already answered this.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  OK.

Defense Counsel Dalla Vedova

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I wanted to ask when you had arrived at Via della Pergola, had you noticed the front door of the house?

Daniele Moscatelli:  On the 2nd November, you mean?

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Yes.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I didn’t notice, we met there outside with the Public Prosecutor and with officers and colleagues from the Flying Squad, there was a brief meeting, I then was asked straight afterwards to the Flying Squad office, I didn’t remain there onsite and I didn’t notice it.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Afterwards you said you went to Port Saint George?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, to Port Saint George the day after.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Can you expand a bit more on this investigation?

Daniele Moscatelli:  That is? On the activity at Port Saint George?

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Yes, what investigative activity was carried out?

Daniele Moscatelli:  We went to verify the alibis that had been given during the witness information given by the neighbors of the house below who were saying that they were present that evening, the night of the homicide, in Port Saint George, and these alibis were checked against other witnesses.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  So you had verified the alibis of the boys who were living underneath?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  By means of investigative activity always to do with witnesses?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Always with witnesses, statements of SI.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Checks of phone logs?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I personally had not carried out activity on logs.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Do you know if activity of this sort had been carried out in regard to the boys?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Everyone there had their different tasks, I was doing mine considering that there were two officers, among which one from the Central Operations Service, one from the Flying Squad, other colleagues.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Who was it who was coordinating the investigations at that moment?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The investigations were being coordinated by the officers, by Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Profazio, by Deputy Commissioner Giobbi and by Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Chiacchiera, the officers logically with the Prosecutor.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Are you aware whether examinations of the phone logs of the boys from the floor below had been carried out?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Counsel, you’re asking me the same question.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  No, the question is whether you are aware if they had been carried out.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I am not aware.

Judge Massei:  You have already responded, you did not carry them out.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No I didn’t carry them out.

Judge Massei:  Though Counsel was asking if to your knowledge…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I had asked if anyone else had done them.

Daniele Moscatelli:  I am not aware of that, I limited myself only to the tasks that were given to me.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Obviously the investigation at Port Saint George, what had you confirmed regarding the alibis of these boys?

Daniele Moscatelli:  That the boys were present during the night, between the 1st and the 2nd, at Port Saint George.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Can you be more precise? What had been the element that had guaranteed this presence to you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Witness information and investigative activity.

Judge Massei:  Witness information is one thing, investigative activity is the same thing or something else?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, witness information in the sense that there were, once persons totally extraneous to the matter had been heard, they confirmed the presence of the boys at Port…

Judge Massei:  So this investigation?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, the investigative activity I had led to this logically, to this type of activity.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  For this activity, you made a statement, it’s in the papers?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There are the SI statements.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Because they are not in the papers, therefore I was asking ...

Prosecutor Mignini:  The statements of the boys’ declarations, how come they’re not there?

Judge Massei:  No, sorry, Counsel was asking about the SIs of the people who would have confirmed…

MC:  These are also in the papers.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I take notice that the Prosecutor says that they are in the papers. I wanted to ask instead a clarification on the evening of the 5th, you have said that at around 3:30 am of the 6th the examination of Sollecito had by then been interrupted and you carried out other investigative activity.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I did not interrupt the Sollecito activity, once the statement was closed I was then sent off, at the disposition of my superiors.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I was interested in the activity immediately afterwards, what did you do as investigative activity?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I am telling you, Counsel.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I ask you to answer.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, we had gone in search of the other personage who had emerged from the declarations.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  The other personage is Patrick Lumumba?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Exactly what activity had you performed?

Daniele Moscatelli:  We looked for him with colleagues from Perugia, we gave support to our colleagues from Perugia.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  And you found him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, we found him.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Around what time?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t remember exactly, but there had passed…

Judge Massei:  How much time later? How long did it take you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  A bit of time had passed, definitely two hours, a good two and a half hours.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  So from half past three, about two and a half hours later you had found Patrick Lumumba?

Daniele Moscatelli:  At home.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Excuse me, Mr President excuse me, I’m loathe to interrupt, but unfortunately it’s happening in court, and it’s not the first time, that prompts are coming from there in back, to the witness, honestly I don’t like this!

Judge Massei:  Excuse me…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  I had not noticed and I find it very grave!

Judge Massei:  We must however grasp the opportunity to invite, truly I was looking at the witness…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Also because I ask them then if there is the possibility they will be reheard?

Judge Massei:  All the parties, all the individuals… let’s give a general indication that can always be…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Maybe, Mr President, for practical purposes, if we could move the stand and the seat on the other side so the witness …

Judge Massei:  Excuse me, everyone is asked to avoid any comment, either by voice or by gesture, in dealings with the witness, who must remain absolutely immunized against any input that could come from outside, it is said now but remains always valid, for the whole debate. If maybe there are these perplexities, the witness and also subsequent witnesses will be invited to look only at the Court.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Mr President, I only respectfully look at you.

Judge Massei:  In fact, I am continually looking at the witness, although if the parties have noticed something that might have escaped the one now speaking.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  We can change the position of the witness.

Judge Massei:  Yes, we can change the position of the witness, if you turn yourself with your chair and the parties are likewise asked, independent of the positioning…

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  I wasn’t meaning the Prosecutor.

Judge Massei:  No, but everyone is the same.

CP:  Then let Counsellor Bongiorno tell who it is.

MC:  (incomprehensible – overlap of voices)

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Seeing that Napoleoni has been named, it seems to me very possible that it’s a visual intersection.

Judge Massei:  Excuse me, let’s avoid any more and let’s stay on only what is necessary. We may proceed, look at me all the time, the parties will not care if while they speak they are not being looked at, you will continue to look towards here.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  So Superintendent Moscatelli, I would like to return to my questions. I would like to better understand, specifically the moment after half past three, you had gone searching for Patrick Lumumba and you had found him.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Exactly where did you find him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Inside his house.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  What was he doing?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I believe he was sleeping because he was wearing…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Pyjamas?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I don’t remember if he was in pyjamas or not, however he was definitely in clothes that were not for early evening.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Who else was there in the house with him that morning?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There was the wife and the little girl [sic].

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  You had carried out investigative examinations on Patrick Lumumba before turning up at his house, on his phone or other types of examination?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Personally no.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Do you know if anyone else had done this type of examination?

Judge Massei:  Counsel is asking, other examinations, then if you know whether they were carried out…

Daniele Moscatelli:  I believe that someone had done them.

Judge Massei:  What type of other examinations had been done?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I believe examinations on the phone number or something of the sort, although, Mr President, in an investigation as complex as this it’s very divided up, so I can answer with precision only on what I did.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Superintendent Moscatelli, who else was present with you in the moment in which you had turned up at Patrick Lumumba’s house?

Daniele Moscatelli:  There were present with me, I recall, my office colleagues, but there were present other colleagues from the Perugia Flying Squad, but don’t ask me their names because I don’t remember.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  What happened afterwards? You took Patrick Lumumba and what happened next? From his house, where did you go?

Daniele Moscatelli:  To the Flying Squad offices.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  And you then notified his arrest?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, the arrest was notified much later, there was the Prosecutor on site, so all the activity was then coordinated and decided by the Prosecutor.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  We are speaking of the morning of the 6th?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes, the morning of the 6th.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  You were present at the arrest of Amanda Knox?

Daniele Moscatelli:  At the arrest…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  At the notification of the arrest?

Daniele Moscatelli:  At the notification of the arrest, I had signed the arrest in a room, we were all these people, so I was present at the notification because I was there in the Flying Squad office.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Do you remember at what time? Vaguely, if you recall?

Judge Massei:  You may consult the documents, the record, seeing as you participated in it.

Daniele Moscatelli:  I ask if I may consult the documents.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  The record was at midday, it had been made at midday…

Daniele Moscatelli:  Before midday.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  This is a question still in relation to Patrick Lumumba; did you give him reasons when you had planned to take him away from the house?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no, absolutely.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  What type of reaction did he have?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Normal.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Normal for a person who has been arrested?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Normal for a person who has been arrested… that is, normal in that he wasn’t happy.

Judge Massei:  He was sleeping you were saying.

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, he opened the door and logically it could be seen that he had been sleeping, then he was told that he had to follow us to the police station, he dressed and came with us to the police station.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  In conclusion, what was the piece of evidence that led you to Lumumba’s house and to look for Lumumba based on what you had, and if there were more than one, what were they?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Definitely the declarations of Ms Knox.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  And then?

Daniele Moscatelli:  That in sum, then I don’t know if there had been…

Judge Massei:  If you know, Counsel is asking, if you know whether there were also other elements.

Daniele Moscatelli:  As regards myself, I attended to the instructions received and to the fact that Miss Knox had supplied elements useful to the identification of Lumumba.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  And this element, had it been mentioned to Lumumba immediately after when you had arrested him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Me, no. I had not mentioned it to him.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Do you remember if someone had mentioned it to him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t remember, Counsel.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  None of your colleagues, you don’t remember anyone of the persons present?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t know, Counsel, I as regards… I no, but I repeat I can only answer for the action I effected myself.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  So you don’t remember if anyone put it to him?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, I don’t remember because there were various people, surely there was…

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  In your experience, when an arrest is made, is formal notice given to them?

INT:  Objection, Mr President! Let him ask questions on the facts!

Judge Massei:  Excuse me, please… Let’s allow the question to be put.

MC:  Not with mistaken assumptions!

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  No, there are no mistaken assumptions!

Judge Massei:  Please, Counsel.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  There’s a willingness to answer in a very vague manner so I am constrained to investigate, it’s clear that everything is in the documents, but the question was precise, it seems strange to me that a person is arrested without anyone telling him the reason why.

INT:  He answered!

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Seeing that I asked the witness if this information had been brought to the attention of the arrestee.

Judge Massei:  Don’t speak all at the same time but let’s also avoid using opinions, “it seems strange to me”, edit out this “strange”, we’re asking questions plain and simple.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  Well, the question was if he remembered if anyone had put the reason to him for which they had gone to arrest him.

Daniele Moscatelli:  The answer is: I didn’t do it, someone must have done it, surely.

AK Counsel Dalla Vedova:  No other questions.

Judge Massei

Judge Massei:  I wanted to ask you, at a certain point you in your answers had said that Raffaele Sollecito’s shoes were removed from him..

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

Judge Massei:  I ask you, the shoes he was wearing?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Certainly.

Judge Massei:  So he remained… how did he remain? Were other shoes placed at his disposal? Did he remain shoeless?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Immediately afterwards he was shoeless, but I believe that then shoes were given to him.

Judge Massei:  Do you know that shoes were given to him at what time, for how long did he remain without?

Daniele Moscatelli:  If he remained without he remained without for a short while because amongst other things the seizure was done in the morning, then he was accompanied for the successive acts and so if he remained shoeless he remained shoeless for a short while.

Judge Massei:  Short means?

Daniele Moscatelli:  The time then needed to go and get a pair of shoes.

Judge Massei:  You questioned Sollecito alone or was there someone else with you?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, no, there were other colleagues present, my superiors and Saturday crew.

Judge Massei:  It’s in the relevant record?

Daniele Moscatelli:  Certainly, it’s in the relevant record.

Judge Massei:  OK.

Defense Counsel Bongiorno

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Superintendent, so you took your own shoes, some external shoes or in any case you had waited for a search at Sollecito’s house and then had given him his shoes taken from his house?

Daniele Moscatelli:  No, not so, I didn’t wait for any search, I went back to seizing his shoes.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Pardon me, I didn’t explain myself clearly. You had removed Sollecito’s shoes, so he was there without shoes, the President had asked “did you procure other shoes, did you wait, what did you do?” and you said “I believe, I don’t know how long afterwards, however we procured other shoes for him”.

Daniele Moscatelli:  Yes.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  I ask you, these other shoes, you found them because they were in the police station, you bought them etc., or in reality he remained shoeless until the search at his house had completed?

Daniele Moscatelli:  This I don’t remember.

RS Counsel Bongiorno:  Thank you.

Judge Massei

Judge Massei:  You are aware of the seizure of the knife that was effected, that is of the two knives, in the house that Raffaele Sollecito was living in in Perugia in early November. If you know, on that occasion Raffaele Sollecito accompanied the officers who went to effect it, the officers being Dr Chiacchiera and Finzia?

Daniele Moscatelli:  I don’t know, Mr President.

Judge Massei:  Very well, you may go.




Comments

It was Amanda Knox who was convicted of calunnia for the component of this hoax that framed Patrick. She served three years.

it will be Knox again and Edda Mellas and Curt Knox who will face trials for falsely claiming Knox was beaten and otherwise maltreated.

Lately Knox has been calling it torture. Steve Moore compares it to waterboading. Why? Merely for a list of seven names of possible perps Knox was eager to work on because none of them were hers?!

But I see it put about on the PMF forums that it was seemingly Chris Mellas above all who was driving this hoax. I guess there must be some evidence, statements he made. Pity if he gets off scott-free. We should post those statements.

Amanda Knox could understand all this testimony. On 28 February 2009 (far from when it was all over - Danielle Moscatelli testified in the middle of March, and Giobbl later) she and Sollecito both stood up and suggested minor changes in several details.

That was it. Boxed in by their own words. No mention of torture. No tag teams, no 44 hours, no starvation.  Neither ever took the stand for full cross-examinations - Knox was cross-examined just on this, but protections imposed for her were enormous.

The Knoxes and Mellases dont speak Italian. They patiently alternated in the courtroom for months, but presumably had no idea of what was being testified to right in front of them until the lawyers told them later.

In particular, did they understand what the mainplayer on 5-6 November, Rita Ficcara, had testified to?  There wasnt ANYTHING in her very detailed testimony (it needed three posts here) they will be able to hang a defense on.

However! It appears that in interviews (can anyone spot them out there?)  they may have said they were merely repeating what Knox had told them. If so, nice peeple, hanging Knox out to dry.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/11/14 at 09:32 PM | #

Crime writer Chelsea Hoffman announced she will be debating the case live with Lisa Marie Basile at this link

http://www.chelseahoffman.com/2014/07/dont-miss-this-amanda-knox-debate.html

“On Sunday, July 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. (PST) I will be debating one-on-one with poet and Huffington Post blogger Lisa Marie Basile. This will be the first episode in my new Case to Case series titled [Debates] which will be held exclusively on Youtube via Google Hangouts.”

If you have any questions you’d like asked please comment on the link there. Amanda Knox’s supporters have been invited to participate as well. Those who can’t watch will be able to catch later on YouTube but I plan to watch it live.

Posted by Ergon on 07/11/14 at 10:22 PM | #

Thanks to all the people who have retweeted my tweets to Charles Mudede and Nancy Grace. You are making a difference. Charles is going to write an article. If you haven’t retweeted yet, please do so. It only takes a couple of seconds.

Posted by The Machine on 07/11/14 at 10:40 PM | #

Daniele is a he not a she (in Italian a she would be Daniela)

Posted by Popper on 07/12/14 at 02:49 AM | #

Hi Popper

Thanks. Corrected. We would have put “he” without thinking, except that in the intro the reliable wiki refers to Moscatelli as a “she”.

“Moscatelli replied that she herself was not aware of the contradictions.” and “Moscatelli also seized Sollecito’s shoes. On cross-examination she was asked why” and “She along with three other officers went to the cottage”

Will mention to the good people who work tirelessly on the wiki. Although his role turns out to be key here, he’s not mentioned by name in the various books.

Thanks also to Catnip for translating, he first posted it on PMF.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/12/14 at 05:21 AM | #

Hi Ergon

Thanks for the headsup on Chelsea Hoffman’s interview. Basile is totally at sea on the facts and has way too much attitude - well, attitudes; first macho, then whiny victim herself, a familiar arc for the FOA.

This was the most xenophobic and most racist and most defamatory PR campaign for a perp ever and Basile has no criticism or excuses for those - in fact, she joins in.

And the feminism angle was already tired way back. There were several previous to Basile who tried to jumpstart their careers using that angle, but it just did not pass the no-giggles test.

Women much more than men have (rightly) piled on AK as a phony. Its men, like Fischer, Heavey and Moore, who tend to get led around by their tongues, with just a very few women (Bremner, Dempsey, Burleigh, Basile).

And nothing was said in the media about Knox that is not said many times daily about women perps in the US. See Nancy Grace, who really goes up against them. Italian media were not unkind, and Basile cannot quote any of them as outside of the norm.

Knox herself was often acting outrageous in 2009 as if the trial was a theater of the absurd for herself. Bids for media attention were incessant 2008-2014. Her pervasively rosy media image is not the one anyone who encountered her in Perugia describes.

Neither this nor the media had the slightest effect on Mignini or Massei.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/12/14 at 05:50 AM | #

If anybody hasn’t retweeted the tweets about the media blackout in Seattle concerning any negative news about Amanda Knox, you can do so here:

https://twitter.com/harryrag/status/487756506784600064

https://twitter.com/harryrag/status/487760933188796416

https://twitter.com/harryrag/status/487756797919649793

https://twitter.com/harryrag/status/487761146796331008

I know some people couldn’t find the tweets in my timeline. Charles Mudede says he’s going to write about the latest developments.

Posted by The Machine on 07/12/14 at 08:02 AM | #

I also sent a tweet to radio presenter John Carlson asking him to cover the media blackout in Seattle concerning any negative news about Amanda Knox on his show:

https://twitter.com/harryrag/status/488006961972379648

John now believes that Knox was involved in Meredith’s murder. Reddit Seattle favourited the tweet.

Posted by The Machine on 07/12/14 at 02:46 PM | #

The Ted Thompson article has been removed again. 3000+ comments later, it is now being substituted with more ‘trending’ pro-Amanda Knox articles by ‘anonymous’ authors with all sorts of ‘unsubstantiated’ allegations, ho hum. I guess Ground Report got another phone call from an angry fur ball bearing tire irons or something smile

Posted by Ergon on 07/14/14 at 11:33 AM | #

Beat me to it Ergon just noticed the Knox article removed again now.

Nice to see the interrogation hoax latest btw.

Posted by Corpusvile on 07/14/14 at 02:27 PM | #

No worries Ergon the damage is done. I think there will be other such articles and as time goes by and as the press smell blood in the water they will go after Knox and further expose her lies

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 07/14/14 at 02:28 PM | #

Some are suspecting the claims and scenario of the attack on Meredith which Ted Thomson conveyed were not only genuine, but they did originate from within the inner circle.

That his post was demanded to be taken down by the hoards might simply indicate that they were not in the know. Or that the inner circle had no choice once Ted Thomson blew it wide open and rattled their cage.

Read several of the posts near the bottom of this page by Ergon, Michael and myself:  http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?style=6&f=1&t=454&start=7000

As Michael points out, the scenario of the attack makes some sense from their angle - that it was a weird kind of self defence. In that interpretation, Knox is not attacking RS, she is hinting at a supposed new way out for them both.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/14/14 at 03:26 PM | #

The encounter between Bongiorno and Moscatelli is key to understanding how separating the pair induced Knox to move on to Plan B.  Not only is it apparent that nobody was running back and forth when contradictions appeared but Sollecito rather coolly advises the police that he was wrong in his previous statements:

“No, I made a mistake, I said this, I said it another way.”

Pete, you’re right.  The Melloxes and the vast majority of the American media had no idea what was being said in open court because they didn’t understand the language.  It’s from Moscatelli’s testimony (or, more precisely, Bongiorno’s questions) that the seed of the “control room interrogation” fantasy took root.

On the contrary, it’s the police who are taken almost completely by surprise after Sollecito voluntarily changes his story and Knox admits falsely to have witnessed another man commit the crime.

Each one of these segments cements my opinion that they knew upon arrival at the station that they’d need to supply the police with a convincing alternate explanation.

It also helps explain why they kept changing their stories, in writing, well after they were under arrest.  They really thought they could keep on doing that without anyone holding them responsible.

Posted by Stilicho on 07/14/14 at 04:33 PM | #

Hi Peter, I was having so much fun at Ground Report and they took that away. I posted one last comment this morning, it was accepted. When I refreshed the page, it was gone, boohoo.

Posted by Ergon on 07/14/14 at 08:54 PM | #

And of course we all know by now the debate with Chelsea Hoffman and Lisa Marie Basile was a dud.

First, a portentous announcement. The debate’s been cancelled, for ‘really valid reasons’. What, her cat died? Some one sent death threats. Oh really? Report it to the police. Want to withdraw from the debate? Fine, withdraw.

But no, there was sixty minutes of sisterly whingeing about social media and how anonymous people do stuff blah blah and people on both sides take this too seriously etc.

And for a non debate, it was sixty minutes of piffle, with a slur about Mignini being discredited and a for a site called True Justice, people getting too involved (if I heard correctly, I was pissed off by the time ) in the case.

I am not going to accuse any one of dishonesty or anything else without proof.. Maybe some anonymous persons sent something, I do not know.

But I do know this: a lot of pressure was put on Chelsea and Lisa Marie Basile. Tweets and all. And when I put some very polite corrections to her on her Huffington Post article last week Lisa Basile did not bother to reply or defend her views then either.

I know people were disappointed, angry even which is natural when you feel you’ve been misled. But in my opinion going on about it only gives cheap points to those who shout about abuse and victimhood. The real, known, abusers are those who threaten Sollecito’s family and friends, and those, as was pointed out on Twitter, who have abused the Kercher family for seven years..

I was really sad to see this glib generalization of a group of people whom I have come to know and respect in the last few years, but, we move on, and should not be providing more publicity to bloggers. The work we do here on both PMF’s, TJMK, and the Meredith Kercher Wiki stands for itself. We do not have to excuse or explain why True Justice For Meredith Kercher is a cause people can feel passionately about or advocate for, like the West Memphis Three, or Central Park jogger arrestees.

Basta!

Posted by Ergon on 07/14/14 at 09:46 PM | #

At one point in her article LMB mentions that she may have fallen down the rabbit hole. Not surprising really as there are more rabbit holes in the article than can be found on Salisbury Plain!

The article, and agreeing to the debate, was a monumental blunder, as monumental and ruinous as Stonehenge. No wonder that she didn’t really want to talk about it.

When she first hove into view LMB looked like a rabbit caught in a car’s headlights and my first thought was that it would have been a kindness to have run her over.

She relaxed when she realised that Hoffman, having previously taken pity on her, was keeping to her side of the bargain but they might just as well have discussed the weather.

“Valid reasons” was a gaping rabbit hole and never explained but I think we can guess.

Posted by James Raper on 07/15/14 at 05:54 AM | #

On Ground Report there is an editors’ note to the final removal of the article by Ted Thompson. They say that the article was first taken down because of complaints but when Thompson supplied sources these were deemed credible so the article was restored. But it was then taken down again when Ground Report checked with the sources themselves. The sources denied parting with any such information.

The editors say that the information in the article is therefore false and they are taking steps to remove all of Mr Thompson’s articles on Ground report.

We can all draw our own conclusions from this affair.

Posted by James Raper on 07/15/14 at 07:15 AM | #

Hi James

Sure. This is my conclusion. The anonymous editors of Ground Report are a tricky bunch at best. I have dealt with them.

If they ever do “check with sources” and those sources actually dont feel constrained from speaking truth to them, they would find Ground Report has well over 100 highly inaccurate, largely fictional and often defamatory and xenophobic posts on its site.

It got that way after the same group of posters was pushed off several other smarter and more successful news websites for legal reasons.

For balance, Ted Thomson’s previous two posts were the only two suggesting there really is evidence. So the count now is 100+ plus posts with dishonest bias to zero explaining the evidence.

Of course no source is going to admit to those editors that Ted Thomson was told things.  There is no public proof that he was or he wasnt.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/15/14 at 07:46 AM | #

Hi Stilicho

Important comment. The police were under pressure almost never seen elsewhere. Perugia has 25,000 college students, a student had been killed in a barbaric way, a killer or killers were still on the loose, and students were fleeing the town in droves.

Perugia was being brought to its knees. This in a country with remarkably few murders. The murder rate is only 1/7 that of the US’s rate.

And yet the police kept trying to cover all bases and follow all leads. On the night when it is claimed Knox was being threatened to 30 years and never seeing her parents again, she was actually rather eagerly listing seven names of possible perps, and she even drew maps to how to find them.

The cops then checked out all seven leads, well, except for Guede, who Knox helpfully pointed to as the “South African” basketball player at Piazza Grimana, because he was long gone.

But the Guede lead remained active and it eventually helped police to figure out Knox had framed Patrick.

Concerning your remark about the pair’s narcissistic chutzpah. Knox has tried to put it about that others were driving the bus at her interview and she was the one thrown under it.

Actually, it was the exact opposite. Knox was driving the bus. The three cops were all sitting there rather passively while she made out her list of perps and later dictated her statements, and it was they that she tried to throw under the bus.

Refusing to have a lawyer there meant she could do that. Later Ghirga and Dalla Vedova had immense trouble stopping her from incessantly weaving tales.

For this series, Yummi and Catnip have a translation in the works that may have your eyes popping out. It is the 17 December 2007 questioning of Knox by Mignini. Amazing.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/15/14 at 08:15 AM | #

Speaking of translations, Peter, Kristeva of PMF found that one of the translations posted on Amanda Knox’s site had been almost 100% plagiarized from Catnip and our Wiki’s translation, then falsely attributed to a Knox supporter, who lied all over Twitter when we called her out.

Yet a side by side comparison chart showed thousands of identical words, sentences, and phrases in the exact same order, which anyone who does translations knows, no two translators working independently can come up with identical documents, especially one that involves complex legal documents.

I’m sorry, but plagiarization and the theft of ideas, especially, irks me.

Posted by Ergon on 07/15/14 at 12:53 PM | #

Speaking of the Ground Report article, it’s back again, sorta, here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-is-planning-to-accuse-raffaele-of-murder-anytime/#comment-1484057783

manfromatlan • a few seconds ago Ground Report

Even though the original Ground Report by Ted Thomson was taken down, under pressure and false reassurances by partisan pro-Amanda Knox editors they had contacted his sources:

You will note that even though the article has been taken down, the comments are hosted independently on Discus, so anyone accessing the Ground Report through webcache can access and reply to comments, even perhaps, add new ones smile

Posted by Ergon on 07/15/14 at 02:40 PM | #

Liz Houle has written an excellent article for The Examiner which includes the image of David Marriott as the puppet master and Linda Byron as his puppet.

http://www.examiner.com/article/amanda-knox-s-ex-boyfriend-receives-a-masters-degree

Please retweet. Thanks.

Posted by The Machine on 07/15/14 at 04:35 PM | #

The PR fluff piece on the ABC website about Sollecito finding himself innocent has backfired. First we take Seattle, then we take Manhattan.

Posted by The Machine on 07/15/14 at 05:51 PM | #

Seriously, he gets 80% on a thesis that finds him innocent?

A simple Google search “Raffaele Sollecito Guilty” gets twice as many hits as Raffaele Sollecito Innocent”.

That’s the nature of the media, sonny. If every news report says you’ve been convicted, people tend to believe you are guilty, regardless of what the PR machine says.

Posted by Ergon on 07/15/14 at 06:30 PM | #

Of course this is going to go on with move and counter move but I have this belief that for the FOA it will all come crashing down. I just wonder what contingency plan they have in place when the court of final appeal finds them guilty. The posters on Ground Report for example and for the most part, are just juvenile rehashing old arguments and questions in the hope that it will do some good. After all the only hope they have is public opinion and that can change very quickly.  Point though the posters on Ground report are always the same four or five so they must be working there, or at least in close proximity

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 07/15/14 at 09:22 PM | #

Great Examiner piece. I find the protestations about the PR firm by FOA shills in the comments section highly annoying.

The hiring of the PR firm is a factual event that David Marriott crowed about in the Puget Sound Business Journal. There’s no debate to be had on that topic.

And instead of denying it, it would be more effective to say “of course they were hired” and state why its a good thing. But when do Knox supporters ever make a coherent and effective argument?

Posted by Jeff Friend on 07/15/14 at 10:00 PM | #

On Sollecito’s masters degree. If I’m to err on the kind side, the professors probably just wanted to be done with him because his association with the department had disruptive consequences for both faculty and students.  There is, of course, the chance that his advisers were persuaded in a different manner, but that’s a pretty grave accusation which shouldn’t be made without evidence.

What struck me was that the thesis topic seemed rather “fluffy” for an MSc in Computer Engineering.  Maybe it was more technical than it sounded. Knowing how dandies of his ilk operate, I expect that he got some help with it (probably with the research part), although he’s a little too arrogant to have not contributed at least some parts. 

However, the fact that he managed to finish his undergrad in jail and his master’s afterwards speaks volumes about his father’s patience, dedication, and willingness to stay on his case.  That’s more than Knox’ family has managed to accomplish, but maybe Raffaele is more pliable and more aware of the debt he owes his family.  I don’t think Dr. Sollecito is a model of ethical behavior, but I think he’s always been a caring father who tried to make the best of a disappointing son. 

And you know what, I think that if he’d managed to get Raffaele through his schooling without incident, he could have probably set him up with a cushy job and a strong-willed girl who could have kept a tight leash on him in exchange for material comfort once Dr. Sollecito was too old to do it himself.  And everything might have been right in Raffaele’s world, as long as he wasn’t given the opportunity to come in contact with the wrong kind of catalyst.

I’m not saying all the blame should be placed on Knox, but I think it was her who galvanized him into something he might have only fantasized about, but never dared to do on his own.  I think he’s definitely dangerous on his own, maybe more so now that he’s done it once and almost got away with it, but I also think that the Raffaele from a few years ago could have been steered away from that sort of temptation with enough help and supervision.

Knox, on the other hand, has struck me as a lot stronger and more self-assured from the beginning, so I don’t think she needed the right circumstances: rather, she created them for herself and would have probably done so no matter where she would have had gone.

***

On Ted Thomson and the post dropped twice by Ground Report. I’m glad that I had the chance to read Thomson’s piece, even though I have no way of knowing whether his information was legit or if it’s something he invented for publicity.  Could be either, and since I don’t have the information, I can’t pass judgment.

But what struck me was that the version Knox was allegedly preparing to release was remarkably similar to the scenarios we’d been imagining, aside from a few details.

For example, the idea of Meredith being violent and attacking someone with a knife is absurd.  She was probably upset and might have raised her voice, but she had no history of aggressive behavior.  I also don’t think Sollecito would have killed her, since she was a tiny girl and they could have easily subdued her and taken her (imaginary) knife. Plus, Meredith’s injuries indicate that she was held and attacked by three assailants.

Lastly, Knox has been completely done with Sollecito for years, so if things had really happened that way, she would have thrown him under the bus a long time ago.  It’s one thing to live as a witness to a murder who may have been too scared or paralyzed to intervene, and who has served her sentence and moved on, and quite another to live as a murderer and murder instigator who will spend much of her life in jail.

However, the parts about Knox buying drugs from Guede or being confronted by Meredith about the stolen money ring true.  The clean-up and attempt to pin the murder on Guede (initially replaced by Lumumba) are also true.

Of course, releasing this version would give Sollecito the opportunity to retaliate by telling his own “truth,” in which Knox and Guede attacked Meredith and he was only there for the clean-up.

It’s interesting to see them scramble now that the noose is tightening, even if we ignore Thomson’s accusations and only look at Sollecito’s press conference.  What some predicted a long time ago is finally coming to pass, although I think another few years may elapse before the truth finally emerges.

At this pace, Meredith’s family will have endured the uncertainty for a decade, in addition to dealing with the grief of her loss.

Posted by Vivianna on 07/16/14 at 11:09 PM | #

Thank you for the above, Vivianna.

I agree with you about the Sollecito family. Knox, unfortunately, has the ability to poison all that she touches. She needs a massive warning sign on her:  Beware.

I found it quite interesting, with regard to the Ted Thomson piece, to make a substitute of names, as one does in distinguishing projections. Try substituting ‘Meredith’ and then ‘Raphaele’ for ‘Amanda’. It just about fits.

That is ‘Amanda got furious and lost it’. ‘Amanda seized the knife and killed her’... Etc. (I didn’t keep a copy of the ludicrous statement, but I remember how the projections could fit).

It was also quite interesting, as it shows that deep underneath there is a desire to explain what really happened. You know how (when you’re a truthful person), somehow starts telling a story, and they get some important details wrong…one just bursts out, interrupting with the correct details : ’ no, it was Amanda who then turned around and went over to her…..’ Etc etc, it happens all the time, normally - we just correct each other.

I think it shows Nencini was getting near the truth, about motive and so on, and somewhere there is an urge to join in and say,...‘no, it wasn’t quite like that - this happened’...

From Sollecito more probably.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 07/17/14 at 03:16 AM | #

Hi Vivianna

Great comments on Raffaele’s degree and his loyal if hard-pressed father (which like SeekingUnderstanding I agree with) and on the attack scenario channeled by Ted Thomson.

We dont know who Ted Thomson is so I would be inclined to discount that he posted for his own advantage. Now that you and SeekingUnderstanding reverse-engineer the scenario, yes, it does read like it could have come from Knox herself pretty directly.

If so, no wonder there was a mad scramble. As SeekingUnderstanding said, it poked slightly in the direction of truthiness. More of that and there will be mass conniptions. Maybe we need an Amanda Knox version of Kermit’s graphic.



 

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/17/14 at 06:26 AM | #

@ Vivianna:: “....I’m not saying all the blame should be placed on Knox….”

Sets-off a philosophic train of thought.

Are the participants in Meredith’s murder members of a folie-a-trois, each punishable for her murder to the full extent the Law provides? Or, if there were 3 participants, should each be sentenced to 1/3rd of the term Italian Law provides for 1 murder?

Is “blame” divisible?  Should the sentence be proportional to the relative amount of “blame”?

I think not. Even if “blame” is divisible, doesn’t each deserve enough to get the full amount available for murder, plus the amount justified by their other offenses ?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 07/17/14 at 08:46 AM | #

Cardiol, the part you quoted is a good example of why I shouldn’t type when I’m tired.  I understand how it came across and why it got you thinking, but I didn’t mean it in that particular way.

It sounded like I meant that blame for the murder could be divided and that none of them deserved to shoulder 100% of the blame.  That’s not what I believe at all.  In this particular case, if one person decided to not participate or to stop the others, the murder would have likely not taken place.  Since it did take place, then each deserves 100% of the blame, regardless of the role they played during the murder.

However, some of them may deserve 110% or 120% of the blame, depending on whether their role was particularly instrumental or unusually heinous.  I would say that Knox, as the likely instigator, qualifies for additional blame.  The others would too, for things like sexual assault (Guede) or the many small cuts which demonstrate intent to torture (unknown).

With that out of the way, let me clarify what I meant.  I wasn’t talking about blame for the murder itself, but for setting Sollecito off. 

In the preceding paragraph, I had been talking about how I believed that Sollecito might have never decided to murder someone if he hadn’t met the right catalyst.  That sounded like I was absolving him of blame for his decision to take part in the murder, and I wanted to clarify that it wasn’t the case.  In all fairness, Knox never held a gun to his head and made him choose between his life and Meredith’s.  However, she did provide the encouragement and the circumstances in which the desire could be acted upon.  This means that she is also to blame for Sollecito’s decision because she likely found the monster sleeping and thought it would be amusing and suitable to her purposes if she woke it up.

I’m not sure how we could calculate the exact percentage of blame in this situation.  It’s probably fair if we say that Sollecito is 100% responsible for his decision, since he was acting out of his own free will, but that Knox is also close to 100% responsible for providing the encouragement and the setting.

I don’t know if I’m explaining this right or if it even makes any sense.  I’m still very tired, so that said, I think I’ll be taking a nap and checking back when I can concentrate better.

Posted by Vivianna on 07/17/14 at 10:40 AM | #

Hi Cardiol:

Vivianna’s “….I’m not saying all the blame should be placed on Knox….”

As Vivianna now explains that can be taken two ways: (1) that Knox should be accredited with less blame (and thus a lowered sentence); (2) that others should receive proportionally more blame (and thus added sentences).

Increasingly many like Vivianna incline toward the second option to even the punishment out at US levels.

Meredith lost a likely 60-plus years of a full lifetime. Due to the highly depraved nature of the torture/murder all three perps could have expected a life sentence in the US.

Nencini confirms Knox deserves the most time inside, as the lead attacker, and framer of Patrick. Guede gets what he gets under the formula. Sollecito gets what he gets for introducing knives and drugs into the situation.

That seems lenient to Americans but Italy does try to rehabiltate and the Kerchers are very far from vengeful - here in the US we get families of murder victims on TV arguing for the death sentence.

Increasingly many would like to see some of the main others in what is now quite a crimewave paying something for their part in it as well.

Curt Knox and Chris Mellas set up the hostile preconditions at home for Knox fleeing to the University of Washington and University of Perugia, and so into their drug scenes; at minimum their full nasty stories should be out there. Plus as they drive the destructive PR which itself commits crimes under Italian law they deserve some penalty for that.

Even-ing the punishment out at US levels, we might see Curt Knox and Chris Mellas in cells either side of AK for a year or two (if that is not cruel and unusual punishment for Amanda).

Even-ing the punishment out at US levels, the core group of money-grubbers that surround Knox who harass many Italians and Americans and even the ailing parents of a murder victim (when before has THAT ever happened in history?) should loose all of their bloodmoney gains under Son-of-Sam prosecutions.

And even-ing the punishment out at US levels, several of the worst defamers originated much of the poison pumped into the RS and AK books and most of the poison on the Internet. Maybe nice Italian cells for several of them also?

However! If any of the above brake and reverse and seek penitence, well, the hardline/softline Italian system aims to encourage that. and it waves at them not only sticks but carrots.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/17/14 at 10:47 AM | #

I believe there have been some prosecutions in the UK fairly recently for murder under ‘Joint Enterprise’ - which covers murder from a gang, where, if members of that gang knew the leader had a knife which he/she might use, they are held to be liable even if they didn’t wield or even have the knife themselves.

I also out of interest looked up a more exact definition of murder, and found this interesting - especially about malice.

The elements of common law murder are:

‘Unlawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought.[3]


....with malice aforethought – All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes “malice.”

The four states of mind recognized as constituting “malice” are:

Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the “felony-murder” doctrine).’

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 07/17/14 at 11:42 AM | #

La Nazione is reporting that Amanda Knox is getting a job with a publishing house in New York in August

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/laurea-amanda-knox-1.53722

If true, most likely she’s been offered an internship at Harper Collins. Wanna bet there’s a novel in the works?

Obviously aimed at an Italian audience, to spoil Raffaele’s recent announcement. Also in anticipation of a date for Cassazione’s hearing of their appeals to be announced.

Roberto Conticelli is regional editor of La Nazione Umbria, based in Perugia. As such he could well have received a tip from his contact in the Knox camp (Frank Sfarzo comes to mind) about AK’s job, but the rest reads tongue in cheek, I think smile

(Translated by Google)

———-

Amanda got a job, as a writer
In the coming days, her graduation. Then a place in a publishing house in New York

DEGREE SOON / CONVICTION FOR AMANDA AND RAFFAELE IN THE PROCESS OF APPEAL BIS / THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE PROCESS OF APPEAL BIS / THE APPEAL TO CASSAZIONE

Roberto Conticelli

Perugia, July 17, 2014 - IT LOOKS LIKE A MOVIE, but is a kind of indefinable somewhere between noir and romantic comedy. We are indeed seeing push & pushback: the very recent graduate in Computer Raffaele Sollecito, his degree awarded in Verona in front of family and new girlfriend Greta, is immediately responded to by to Amanda Knox, majoring in “writing” in a university in Seattle, in the U.S., the city of origin of the now twenty-seven student involved in the case of a crime more complicated than in recent decades.

DISCUSSION of her thesis has already been scheduled for the next few days and no later than the end of July. This is why from August Amanda will start working in a major publishing house in New York, in which one can take advantage of a fresh degree that ensures accurate academic preparation in the field of composition of a newspaper article, an essay or a novel, whatever you want.

In the case of Knox there is already a previous literature effort which is not insignificant: the book called “Waiting To Be Heard,” released only in the United States (the guaranteed compensation makes her a millionaire) where she has written her personal story . Destinies are separated, then,. Raphael has got another girl he took some time ago to Perugia and embraced in a picture which was taken a stone’s throw from the house in Via della Pergola. But also destinations that almost mysteriously returned to to interbreed, as the degrees of the two young people involved in delittaccio at a distance of a few days apart.

On balance they would like to somehow separate along other paths of life, but they are struggling to forget what has happened: in his dissertation, in fact, Mr. Sollecito also analyzes the views expressed in the “global village” of the Web by innocentisti and colpevolisti with respect to the murder of poor Meredith, while the craft pursued by Amanda, communication through writing, seems to derive directly from the sensational media effect that her story has had and continues to have in the landscape of world news.

SEEMS TO BE, in short, a thin thread which continues to join Amanda and Raffaele, although the Italian has recently changed his defensive strategy, in fact, at least procedurally somewhat moving away from the former girlfriend. So much so that the relationship between the two which had remained standing after their release now seem to have cooled considerably.

——-

Roberto Conticelli will be at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia, 15-19 April 2015

http://www.festivaldelgiornalismo.com/speaker/roberto-conticelli

Posted by Ergon on 07/17/14 at 01:36 PM | #

Whether it’s Harper Collins or someone else, I have trouble understanding their reasoning.  Do they hope that by hiring her they will increase their sales among her supporters or people sympathetic to her?  It’s such a tiny minority to cater to, that it’s not worth the backlash should national media run an unfavorable take on this story.

Considering the dire lack of opportunities for both fresh graduates and mid-career professionals who have lost their jobs during the depression, it’s outrageous and absolutely terrible PR to hire a convicted murderer who doesn’t have any qualifications or any relevant work experience.

She will have a degree which took her 10 years to complete instead of the normal 4, despite the fact that she could have finished it in 5-6 years while in prison, just like Sollecito did.  The fact that she went to prison because she killed someone is somehow not on a par with taking time off to care for a child or an elderly relative or to support one’s family.

She did not publish anything of value in any respectable magazine and she did not write her own book.  She simply put her name on a book written entirely by a ghost-writer whose existence and contributions have been acknowledged by the publisher from the beginning (so it’s not even a dirty secret).

What exactly does Amanda Knox have over someone who just finished a BA within the expected time frame, or who, by her age, already has 1-2 master’s degrees? What about the people who have had their work published in various magazines, or who have written articles for well-known blogs, or who’ve been running their own successful blogs?

There are probably more elegant ways to describe the situation, but I’m not sure they’re warranted.  It’s gross to spoil and overindulge a murderer.  It’s gross to continue giving her a platform from which she can spew her egregious, shameless lies.  It’s gross to take away opportunities from normal people just to capitalize on a murderer’s popularity among a small group of degenerates. 

If this turns out to be true rather than a bunch of hastily-produced propaganda aimed at the Italian public in particular, I think that bringing this to the attention of prominent journalists and of any well-known writers signed to the publisher in question would be in order.  Killing someone while female and mildly attractive should not be a ticket to life of privilege and unearned celebrity.

Posted by Vivianna on 07/17/14 at 05:06 PM | #

@Vivianna, very good opinions about Amanda’s sudden job at a New York publishing house. It may be another Marriott trick, to keep her relevant. Nothing succeeds like success.

They’ve paid somebody to create a job for her, Marriott may be signing her checks himself. Or Douglas Preston who has had many books published, may have pulled strings with a friend of his in publishing. She’ll be closer to the tv news studios, and her debut on Broadway, or taking acting classes for her part in Clooney’s Monster of Florence movie (sarcasm).

New York is as far from Seattle as she can get and still be in the United States.

This sketchy elevation to a position in NYC bothers me for the reasons Vivianna describes. It also may greatly anger the Kerchers to see “That Girl” take off on a promising career, a career Meredith would have been excellent at but was denied. Mr. Kercher is a writer himself.

NYC is like the London of the U.S.A. This job announcement is some trick, you can’t trust Knox or her PR.

Posted by Hopeful on 07/17/14 at 05:56 PM | #

While everything you say is true, Vivianna, nevertheless it is good if we don’t let it get to us, and remember, as Hopeful says, it is about a trick or manipulation of some sort or other.

What is for sure is that - as most manipulative gestures do - it will backfire and worsen the position of Knox, eventually.  It’s probably a question of how long that will take, - for things to unravel. They will. In fact, we are seeing the beginning of it.

Sometimes people cannot resist crowing and boasting when they feel they are riding the wave, and getting away with things as calculated. But if we look into history we see how often and how far the (so-called) mighty have always fallen.

History will see the shamefulness, the disgrace, the callousness. Amanda Knox will go down in history as a very notorious American - who has done the USA no favours.
If I could convey the impressions of what most people here (UK) feel and have expressed about Knox, it would be far from pretty.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 07/17/14 at 08:37 PM | #

No matter how many degrees or promising careers Knox and Sollecito obtain, they are still murderers with really awful personalities, nothing will ever alter that.

Posted by aethelred23 on 07/18/14 at 08:19 AM | #

SeekingUnderstanding is right about anticipating a drama in three acts, and Vivianna is right about the overkill of Act Two.

All the signs are that Robert Barnett and the staff at HarperCollins were duped and still remain duped. They wouldnt be the first.

They missed the decisive trial, dont speak Italian, talked to no-one on the prosecution side, sat only with the shadow writer and Knox for many hours, got input only from the conspiracy nuts, believed all those myths, and could see the RS book out there largely unscathed.

That the American arm then did zero due diligence is a very telling sign. It hurts them that the UK and Italian arms did theirs - and refused to release the book.

Act Three is now headed their way and for them it will be a perfect storm. Florence Prosecutors have moved on Sollecito for his book; but the Bergamo prosecutors and those who inspired the Knox investigation are proceeding softly-softly for now.

They are well within the statute of limitations (they have to 2017) and want Cassation to declare closure to the final act of the main case and its legitimising first.

From that point on, all of the Knox book people will be highly vulnerable for (1) the blood money under US Son-of-Sam laws and the Italian equivalent; (2) the multiple personal defamations in the book; (3) the multiple assaults on the case and the Italian system in the book, a sort of contempt of court.

At that point, look to see Knox frogmarched out the door, as everyone scrambles to cover their own backs.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/18/14 at 09:50 AM | #

Re the rumored job offer. Amanda Knox is a ‘celebrity’. As such, she’s a ‘property’ and Rupert Murdoch would like to get his $4 million (guaranteed) advance back. He just made an offer to purchase Time Warner which would make him even more of a media octopus, which means more Knox coverage on CNN, People Magazine covers, etc.

Movies will be made for years to come.

Controversy, sadly, sells.

The mistake we make is expecting normal human actions from people who are on the sociopathic/psychopathic scale, they certainly make ‘logical’ decisions. Murdoch gave a six million pound book advance to Blair, and over $10 million to Bush Jr (Represented by Bob Barnett too, don’t forget)

Murdoch’s karma will be his karma, but anyone attached to Knox seems to have interesting lives. Whether his company Harper Collins announces a Knox novel this fall or she actually goes to work there I don’t know. She’s too emotionally fragile to survive New York, not while the Supreme Court decision awaits.

But Knox announcements till then? She gets a job, becomes pregnant, marries?

All PR, on the back of a murder.

Posted by Ergon on 07/18/14 at 10:40 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 Overkill Of Knox/Marriott PR Causes Sollecito-Camp Reaction And Seeming Hurt To Knox Herself

Or to previous entry Are The Rank-Amateurs With Their Hooks In Knox Dividing Into Two Flocks Of Sheep?