Friday, October 09, 2015
The Marasca/Bruno Report, A Dissection In Four Parts: #2 The Strange Two Unrelated Tracks Approach
Posted by catnip
Initial impressions of the legal reasoning
A closer reading, or later pages, may reveal a change in opinion might be required. If so, those changes in the post will be noted. Based on experience, the likelihood is that, how a thing starts, is how it will tend to continue. Changing horses in mid-stream, though theoretically possible, is not an everyday occurrence.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: A European Court of Human Rights decision in Amanda’s favour won’t affect the calunnia conviction, since the accusations were repeated to the Prosecutor (such interviews are institutionally immune to psychological pressure), and she confirmed them again when writing in her note, signed by her, in a moment when she was alone with herself and her conscience. (2.2)
COMMENT: To the defence allegation that it was police pressure that caused Amanda to falsely claim that Patrick was the murderer, the obvious and common sense response that the claim was repeated in situations where no pressure was possible, deflates the allegation.
However, note Bruno’s implicit assumption, that Amanda was behaving rationally, that is, not affected by drugs, impaired mental states, or delusional or incorrect beliefs, is not raised, let alone examined and a factual finding made. (Not that it is in the Court of Cassation’s general remit to make findings of fact, but that is another matter.
And Bruno specifically addresses that point later, so he is not unaware of it.) This way of treating assumptions forms a characteristic pattern, and has implications later. Note that while the murder charges were dismissed, the calunnia conviction was confirmed. This would not be a matter that any PR push for Raffaele would need to be concerned about, as we indeed find.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: The request is refused to have the Grand Chamber consider the probative value of evidence collected in breach of international forensic standards; witness statements made under a strong media spotlight; and the admissibility of accusatory statements made in the judgment of another court and received into evidence. (2.3)
COMMENT: Bruno can handle the forensics methodology question, Alessi’s bag-of-hot-air statements, and the legal implications of the explicit accusations made in the judgment reasons confirming Rudy’s conviction.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: The appeal court did not follow Cassation’s ruling on the principles of law involved, namely that the court is not to rely on the original (annulled) reasoning, the court must not trespass into the merits of the case, the court retains the original scope of enquiry, all the facts must be looked at, and the action to take depends upon the type of annulment because there can be errors of law, and errors of logic. (3)
COMMENT: The Florence Court of Appeal did not follow the instructions set down for it by Cassation. This aspect of the rules of law and procedure will take some detail to examine fully, but suffice to say here that Bruno’s own methodology is not automatically immune from the same defects he is accusing Florence of having, merely because it is him saying so. How well does Bruno himself follow the rules?, in other words. Verbal gymnastics and semantic yoga poses are presaged.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: There were glaring errors. (3.1)
COMMENT: This becomes his leitmotiv, and he actually uses that word when talking of others.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: There is only one irrefutable certainty in this case: Amanda’s guilt as regards her criminal calumny (calunnia) against Patrick Lumumba; the investigator’s glaring errors and omissions – the intrinsically contradictory complex of evidence is anything but beyond a reasonable doubt (4)
COMMENT: Amanda’s crime against Patrick remains; the evidence is intricate and, due to errors, incomplete, therefore the standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ has not been met. How it is that the investigator’s actions were in actual error is not established: the implication is that the defence appeal claims are simply being taken on copy-paste trust.
A fair assessment would entail examining the basis of claims that there was forensic error, hearing any counter-arguments, weighing the significance and importance of any such error if it were found to exist, and deciding if it has a bearing and impact on the legal question to be decided – this is all trial-court matter.
People being driven by the media spotlight is another leitmotiv of Bruno’s. It’s almost as if he is embodying what he is saying that others have done.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: The absurd and incomprehensible death of Meredith Kercher in mysterious circumstances and the international media spotlight forced an increase in the pace of the investigation and a knee-jerk search for someone guilty to display to the international media, and lack of regard for international protocols about possible contamination, led to hurried, incomplete and incorrect investigative activity. The lack of repeatability, breaking one of the most fundamental requirements of the scientific method as established by Galileo, was a flaw. (4.1)
COMMENT: Here is the first clue that the search for a rational motive is not going to be successful: the murder was senseless. The media spotlight provides the logical underpinning, the motive if you will, of why the police made errors: they needed a quick result, and so therefore cut corners. The ‘international standards’ (which are never named explicitly) provide the yardstick against which these cut corners can be measured.
(Which leads to a circular-logic paradox scenario: At the scriptwriters’ workshop for Detectives 101: Writer A: “I’ve got them on the scene now, ready to decide what to do. So how do I get them to cut corners? What are the corners, the international standards?” Writer B: “I don’t know. Make ‘em up. Or download something official-looking off the Internet.” Writer A: “What are their guidelines in real life, though? Surely they don’t go about breaching guidelines on every callout. How did they know about putting on gloves, for instance?” Writer B: “.”)
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: The media and its associated “noise” (in it computer science sense) induced a mythomane seeking to break the long grey day of an incarceration regime, at least for a day; and Rudy the half-truth teller is key: definite traces of him were found in the room and on the victim. (4.2)
COMMENT: Alessi, believed to be a full-truth teller, wanted some fresh air for a couple of hours, so a trip to the courtroom was organised. The media’s fault. Rudy, the known half-truth teller, knows more, because actual traces of him were found in what can be referred to as the ‘murder zone’. Notwithstanding that a person’s traces can be found on a victim, and the person is not a murderer. Bruno is also performing some literary yoga poses in this passage.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Rudy’s finalised, definitive, judgment, and his statements, attract questions of admissibility. (4.3)
COMMENT: This is the crux of the legal use of the inferences available in terms of Bruno’s reasoning. Rudy’s trial and conviction are being treated by Bruno as separate and distinct from the trial of Amanda and Raffaele, rather than logically interlinked: if the forensics against Amanda and Raffaele are flawed, then those against Rudy are not, because his conviction has become definitive. That is an artificial way of looking at it. Inferences can go both ways: if Raffaele’s DNA is the result of contamination, then so could Rudy’s be, for exactly the same reasons; if a person has the victim’s blood on their hands, then that does not make them the (or a) murderer.
Indeed, Rudy explicitly stated he got blood on him while trying to help Meredith (implicitly, this must be the untrue part of one of Rudy’s half-truths). So then Rudy’s conviction becomes a legal fiction, not a representation of what actually happened, and Rudy’s definitive judgment voids itself into nothingness. Bruno avoids discussing this line of thought, for some reason. He also, conveniently, has somehow forgotten about the phrase “acting in company with” in the Criminal Code, again, for some reason (presumably).
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Rudy’s judgment: The search for a motive for the murder has yielded nothing, in proportion to what has been conjectured: mere disagreement among flatmates, sexual desires (an at least initial consensual act cannot be excluded); and even less for an unknown burglar who graduates from theft, to uncontrollable sexual assault, to gratuitous homicide with such brutal ferocity, unless there was a serial killer in action, which there is no evidence of in the documents that in Perugia, at that time, other homicides of other young women in identical circumstances were being committed. (4.3.1)
COMMENT: This counts as a straw man within a straw man. The Perugian Serial Killer angle almost qualifies as a laughable joke. And what are the chances of finding a traditional rational motive for an irrational (“senseless and absurd”) act? Close to zero, would be the statistician’s answer. The key word is “gratuitous”. Although, the lone-burglar scenario defence gambit gets a drubbing.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Rudy’s statements—made in the absence of the people whose rights are affected (a denial of rights), not always coherent and constant (a denial of logic), and somehow involving Amanda (but never Raffaele explicitly), while continuing to maintain his innocence notwithstanding his forensic presence at the scene and on the victim – can only be rejected as inadmissible, and in breach of the requirements for a fair trial. In fact, Rudy as a witness violates his right not to testify after finalisation of his sentence or undergo cross-examination. (4.3.2)
COMMENT: There’s legal yoga posing in this section. The interlinked nature of the trials works both ways: accusations made by the Amanda and Raffaele defence against Rudy in his absence can’t be responded to and cross-examined by him. The bit about ‘not always coherent and constant’ also applies to Amanda and Raffaele. And the bit about Rudy never mentioning Raffaele being on site and present does not sound like it came from Amanda’s defence. On the plus side, Bruno, as editor, did manage to condense the 600-and-more pages of the (Bongiorno) defence appeal down to a couple of dozen paragraphs.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: The procedural rules were violated when the defence request to re-open argument was refused. The term “relevant”, as in relevant evidence as mentioned in the Code, is mere linguistic decoration (4.4)
COMMENT: There might be some merit in the idea that witnesses are recalled and argument re-opened only when it’s relevant, and not otherwise. The assertion of procedural violation remains just that, though, an assertion. In any case, opposing views are not examined. So how did Bruno reach his decision? A set of reasons without the actual reasons being given – is that what we are looking at?
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: The charge relating to unlawful transport of a knife has exceeded the time limit set by the statute of limitations. (5)
COMMENT: The limitations period expiry gambit is a widely-used defence strategy. Lots of people, including very many in the media spotlight, have taken advantage of it and benefitted from it.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: The judgment appealed from, the subject of multiple censures by the parties, exhibits mistakes, incongruities and errors of law. (6)
COMMENT: The prosecution are strangely absent from all of this. Did Bruno only have the transcript of the second day’s hearing, after misplacing the prosecution’s or leaving it at the bus stop? In any case, he does not give any indication that he has read it.
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: In first place, the affirmation that determining the motive is substantively irrelevant is an error. Automatically transferring Rudy’s sexual motive to the others doesn’t hold up; the erotic game scenario finds no corroboration; extending a shared and definite set of interpersonal relationships amongst the co-participants is also a species of transfer.
The love-story between Amanda and Raffaele is obvious and even if it appears certain that she somehow, somewhen, knew Rudy, there is no evidence that Raffaele knew him or ever visited him. If Laura and Filomena didn’t know Rudy and are ruled out as murderers, not to do the same with Raffaele is illogical and irrational. (6.1)
COMMENT: The other judges got it wrong about the importance of motive. If motive is essential, then no motive means no crime. And if one person had motive, it doesn’t mean the others must have had the same motive. The love-story appears obvious, but appearing so doesn’t make it so. Calling it a love-story is an interpretation, in any case. How was the conclusion reached and alternative hypotheses rejected? And how does not knowing Rudy socially (beforehand) have a bearing on anything (even motives)? A straw straw-man being invoked?
Cassation (Bruno) – gist: Holding that the exact time of death was irrelevant was also an error. From the phone records, it emerges that the time of death can be set between 21:30 and 22:13. (6.2)
COMMENT: The exact time is needed for a fair trial so the accused can supply an alibi. The prosecution method of picking the middle of the estimated time range is ‘mere’ arithmetic, not science (including gastric). Perhaps Bruno read along the line underneath by mistake on the phone call log printout (if he actually read anything)? Perhaps he just accepted the defence claim at their word? Who can tell?
Pause here and re-energize, before we continue in another post. Bruno’s pattern seems to be shaping up as:
Make assertions as if they are conclusions; show no reasoning for them; exhibit a predilection and fondness for posing (of which more, when we get to the detail); and embody what he alleges the prosecution (and Alessi) have done, namely hastening under pressure and influence of the media spotlight and not following international standards, in this case, of legal reasoning and fairness (plus the implicit backhanders to all those who “got it wrong”).
It’s almost as if this case has provided him with the opportunity of at least a small break from long grey days of unproductive solitude. If so, it’s no wonder his sympathy with Raffaele’s situation of watching mould growing on his cell wall shines through so brightly.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (5)
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #3 Of 7: Dismissal Of Appeal Claims, Nencini Scope
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
Overview Of The Post and the Series
The purpose of the series was summarised in Post #1.
With this post we are about 3/4 of the way through the judgment and here Marasca and Bruno push aside both some of Knox’s and Sollecito’s grounds of appeal and also Judge Nencini’s chosen scope.
This is done in a manner remarked on by Catnip as curiously pedantic and dogmatic. It is based largely on innuendo and a noticeably weak grasp of the real facts - for example the jailbirds Alessi and Aviello were DEFENSE witnesses and hardly a weakness of the prosecution case.
The evidence discussed is cherrypicked and the bar for “beyond a reasonable doubt” is set way higher than judges who normally handle murder cases (as the Fifth Chambers and these particular judges do not) would ever espouse. The exhaustive six-step review process prior to the 2009 trial is totally ignored.
Translation was by a professional translator with extensive finalization by Machiavelli with some help from the Wiki team of the judicial terms used and the accuracy of the English relative to what is in the report.
Our further critiques will be posted separately in Comments and other posts. Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final.
1. Logical and exposition reasons call for an immediate examination of the preliminary matters advanced by the defenses.
In fact, these are issues of prejudicial relevance, since they are potentially capable of influencing the subsequent developments of decisions which, even if devoid of substantial definitiveness, could nevertheless have a decisive effect, at least in relation to the remand back to the lower court and postponement of the present consideration.
First of all, we will address the issue of constitutional legitimacy of the combined provisions of articles 627 par. 3, and 628 par. 2 of the code of criminal procedure, for supposed violation of the principle of reasonable length of the judicial process in light of article 111 of the Constitution; also the request to delay judgment until the decision of the European Court for Human Rights, subjected to an appeal submitted by the defense of Amanda Knox complaining about coercive treatment to which the aforementioned was supposed to have been exposed by the investigators during the preliminary investigations; also to the multiple requests of Raffaele Sollecito’s defense to refer examinations to the United Sections of this Supreme Court [a panel of all Chambers] about matters of particular relevance to their capability to generate interpretative alternatives in the case law of this Court.
2. All the requests are clearly unfounded.
2.1. Unfounded, first of all, is the restated issue of constitutional legitimacy of the laws that rule judgment by the courts after Supreme Court remand. And in fact, the motivating report of the previous [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.], who, with the preliminary court order dated 30 September 2013, has considered the matter as clearly unfounded, is irreproachable. To the arguments brought forward [by the judge] in relation to the first matter – an illustration of how the dynamics of the relationship between a judgment of annulment on legitimacy grounds, and a replacement judgment by the lower judge after remand, are guided by a progressive narrowing of the thema decidendum [matter], which, serves to preclude an extension ad infinitum of the trial process – this can be added: the effect of the progressive delimitation of the res iudicanda is followed by the judiciary as a possible result not only of the rescinding [annulling] judgment, but also of the requirements of article 628, par. 2, of the procedural code, according to which in all cases the sentence of the appellate judge can be challenged only in relation to reasons not concerning points already decided the Court of Cassation, or for failure to abide with the requirements of article 627, chapter 4 , of the code of criminal procedure, according to which “the appellate judgment by the court following Supreme Court remand cannot reopen the issue of nullity, even absolute, or inadmissibility, decided during previous trials or during preliminary investigations.”
Thus legitimacy jurisprudence is prohibited to extend as far as non-usability, since it is considered as an expression of a general principle of the decree which tends to confer definitive status to the decisions of the Court of Cassation (Section 5, n. 10624 dated on 12 February 2009, Barbara, Rv. 242980; Section 5, n. 36769 dated on 03 September 2006, Caruso, Rv 235015; Section 1, n. 22023 of the 18 April 2006, Marine, Rv. 235274; and, about preliminary judicial review, Section 6, n. 47564 of the 14 November 2013, Tuccillo, Rv. 257470; contra, Section 3, n. 15828 of the 26 November 2014, Rv. 263343).
It is thus perfectly acceptable to affirm that the legislative [parliament] has designed a procedural module with a progressive foundation (principle of so-called “progressive ruling”), which can be viewed – in a slice of time – as “concentric circles”.
Furthermore, the previous court – in the instances described in the appeal document signed by the lawyers Ghirga and Della Vedova – had already had the opportunity to take care of this matter, declaring it inadmissible on the basis of argumentations that the current defensive explanations doesn’t seem capable of rebutting, since they do not proffer arguments that could possibly promote a different deciding conclusion.
It cannot be ignored that the criminal trial is, constitutionally, aimed at the acknowledgement of the material truth by means of a cognitive progression, excluding possible errors in procedendo or in iudicando, medio tempore occurring, to reach its final purpose, in terms of approximation as close as possible to that objective,  rendering back to the community a result commonly intended as “judicial truth”, that means truth found procedurally (rectius, the one which has been possible to verify by means of the ordinary gnostic and inferential instruments at disposal of the judge). All of this, within the ineluctible contexts of the procedural formalities, which represent, obviously, the maximum expression of juridical civility and the prestigious spirit of a centuries old process of advancement of procedural knowledge typical of the Italian juridical culture.
And when one deals with, as in this case, matters of particular evidence in absence of direct proof, or of reliable technical-scientific contribution, or of pertinent and usable declarative contributions – the judicial truth, detached from factual reality, ends up being a mere fictio iuris, considering the limits and the ordinary subjectivity of the instruments of human knowledge, commonly depending on a reconstructive and re-elaborative process a posteriori.
So, it is precisely in this circumstances that the respect of standards is most necessary, representing an unswerving parameter – objective and privileged – for the verification of correctness and adequacy of the cognitive process of the judge during the pragmatic approach to the material truth.
And the Judge of the legitimacy is, in fact, called to attend to the aforementioned verification with cognitive powers only ab extrinseco, meaning that they are limited to a mere external check of the formal correctness, congruency and logical coherence of the set of explanations justifying that cognitive progression, without any possibility to observe the real demonstrative importance of the evidential elements used in it.
And furthermore, such pursue of finalization will have to comply with the constitutional principle under article 111 of the Constitution about reasonable length of a trial process intended to develop through phases and predetermined sequenced articulations.
The pursue of that ultimate purpose (seeking of the material truth) – particularly in trials of particular delicacy like the one examined here, of such difficulty in carrying out of procedural activities, and technical investigations of particular complexity – has therefore to be related to the necessity of a judicial reply of a length as short as possible, for the obvious necessity of respect for the value of the subjects involved and of the ineluctible claim for justice both of the victims and the community.
2.2. The request of Amanda Knox’s defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia, now protected as a partial final status, against a denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation of article 188 of penal procedure code. 
And also, a possible decision of the European Court in favor of Ms. Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict, not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict, considering the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions, and confirmed by her before the Public Prosecutor during the subsequent session, in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and also confirmed in her memoriale, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence; and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.
2.3. Finally, denied also is the request from Sollecito’s defense seeking to obtain referral to the United Sections of this Court of matters related to the evidential value of scientific results acquired in violation of international protocols which contain specific prescriptions meant to assure the genuineness of the sampling and the analysis; also related to the standards of evaluation of expert testimony during the trial process under strong media exposure; also related to the usability of accusative declarations reported in the verdict that had been acquired according to article 238–bis of the procedure code.
These are, clearly, matters of particular weight, of some agreed relevance for purposes of defining the present judgment, but of dubious capacity to generate potential jurisprudential contrasts. Anyway, interpretative tangles are checked out here which this Court could not ignore, with the pertinent conclusion having binding effectiveness within the purpose of defining the present proceeding.
3. Having thus stated, the main topic of the present proceeding can now be approached, the leitmotiv of the claims of the contestants, revolving around a prejudicial claim of inobservance, on the part of the [Florence] appeal judge, of the dictum of the  annulment ruling by this Court and the principle of law established within it.
The investigation requested to this Court is only apparently simple, considered that the ratio decidendi of the annulment ruling is founded on the finding of a manifest illogicality of the rationale supporting the appealed judgement; a finding which consists – and specifies itself – in the observation of a violation of the principles of completeness and of non-contradiction.
It is an established jurisprudential rule that, in presence of such reasoning for an annulment, derived from a deficit in the reasoning, the new appeal judge [giudice di rinvio] is tasked with the comprehension of the whole body of evidence, which he is expected to revisit  in full freedom of conviction, without any bound, being only supposed to produce, as a result, a reasoning deprived of those flaws of manifest illogicality or manifest contradiction which caused the annulment of the first appeal verdict. In the case law of this Court of Cassation there is, in fact, the recurrent statement “following an annulment for incorrect reasoning, the new appeal judge is prohibited from basing the new decision on the same arguments considered illogic or inconsistent by the Court of Cassation, but he is however free to reach, on the basis of different argumentations from the ones claimed in the Supreme Court therefore integrating and completing the ones already issued, the same judicial result of the annulled ruling. This because it is an exclusive task of the courts of merit to reconstruct the resulting facts from the trial findings, and to assess the signification and value of the relative sources of evidence”. (among others, Sect 4, n. 30422 of 21 June 2005, Poggi, Rv. 232019; Section 4, n. 48352 of 29 April 2009, Savoretti, Rv 245775).
A problem – suggested with appreciable discretion within the new reasons [of appeal] in favor of Knox – appears when, as in this case, the Court of Cassation has entered in the merits, going beyond the institutional limits assigned to it, such as when for example it offers a range of causal alternatives for the murder and assigns to the judge the task of picking, within that predetermined numerous clausus, the one most appropriate to the case at bar. There’s no doubt, in the opinion of this panel, that in such peculiar event the new appellate court cannot consider itself either bound or influenced, because of the aforementioned clear problem of this institutional kind, that, for what was stated before, exists between cognizance of legitimacy and cognizance of the fact, the latter being the exclusive prerogative of the judge of merit. In this regard the Supreme Court has already given its contribution, stating that the new appellate judge cannot be influenced “by evaluations possibly over-stated by the Court of Cassation in its argumentations, since the spheres within which the respective evaluation are carried out are different, and it is not the task of the Court of Cassation to put its conviction before the judge of merits in regards to those matters. After all, in those cases where the Supreme Court possibly focus its attention over some specific aspects from which the lack or the contradiction of reasoning emerges, this doesn’t mean that the new appellate judge would be tasked with a new judgment only on the specified points, because the judge retains the same powers which originally belonged to him as a judge of merits in relation to the identification and evaluation of the trial data, regarding the point of the verdict affected by annulment” (Section 4 n.30422/2005 cit.). In the same sense it was stated that “… possible factual elements and assessments contained in the annulment ruling are not binding for the new appellate judge, but are considered exclusively as a reference point in order to position the complained-about error or errors,  and therefore not as data imposed for the decision requested of him; moreover, there’s no doubt that, after the ruling of annulment for incorrect reasoning through the indication of specific points of deficiency or contradiction, the powers of the new appellate judge cannot be restrained to the examination of the single specified points, as if they were isolated from the rest of the evidential material, but he must also carry out other acts of evidence-finding on which results his decision has to be based, providing the reason for this within the judgment report” (Section 4, n. 44644 of 18 October 2011, defendant F., Rv. 251660; Section 5, n. 41085 of 3 July 2009, defendant L., Rv. 245389; Section 1, n. 1397 of 10 December 1997 dep. 1998, Pace, Rv. 209692).
All of this is the background to a reiterated doctrine of this Court of Cassation, consolidated to the point of constituting a ius receptum, according to which “the powers of the new appeals judge are different depending on if the annulment has been ruled for violation or erroneous application of the criminal code, or for absence of manifested illogicality of reasoning, since, while, in the first hypothesis, the judge is bound to the law principle expressed by the Court, without changing the evaluation of the facts as they were found by the appealed verdict, in the second hypothesis, a new examination of the evidential compendium can be carried out, without repeating the same incorrect reasoning of the annulled order. (among the others, Section 3, n. 7882 of 10 January 2012, Montali, Rv. 252333).
3.1. As we will see, the appeals judge [Nencini] was influenced on many points by the suppositions of factual aspects emerging within the annulment judgment, as if the convincing and analytic evaluations of the Supreme Court were unavoidably converging in the direction of affirmation of guilt of the two defendants. Being misled by this error, the same judge encounters clear logic inconsistencies and obvious errors in iudicando, which need to be challenged here.
4. Meanwhile, it can’t be ignored, on a first summary overview, that the history of these proceedings is characterized by a troubled and intrinsically contradictory path, with the only fact of irrefutable certainty being the guilt of Amanda Knox regarding the slanderous accusations against Patrick Lumumba. On the concern of the murder of Kercher, the declaration of guilt of Knox and Sollecito, in first instance, was followed by a ruling of acquittal from the appeal Court of Assizes of Perugia, consequent to an articulated evidential integration [the Conti-Vecchiotti report, ed.]; the annulment by this Supreme Court, First Criminal Section; and finally the judgment, on appeal, of the Court of assizes of Florence, today considered under a new Cassation appeal.
An objectively wavering process, the oscillations of which are the result of glaring failures or investigative “amnesias” and of culpable omissions in  investigating activities, which, had they been carried out, would have, probably, allowed from the start the outline a framework, if not of certainty, at least of reassuring reliability, in direction of either the guilt or the non-involvement of the current appellants. Such scenario, intrinsically contradictory, constitutes a first, eloquent, representation of an evidential set of anything but “beyond reasonable doubt”.
4.1. Surely, an unusual media fuss about the crime, caused not just by the dramatic modalities of the death of a 22-year old woman, so absurd and incomprehensible in its genesis, but also by the nationality of the persons involved (a USA citizen, Knox, accused of participating in the murder of her housemate who was sharing a foreign study experience with her; an English citizen, Meredith Kercher, killed in mysterious circumstances in the place where she likely used to feel most safe, her home, and additionally the international implications of the case itself, prompted the investigation to suffer from a sudden acceleration, which, in the spasmodic search for one or more culprits to be delivered to international public opinion, surely didn’t help the search for substantial truth, which, in complex murder cases like the one examined here, has an ineluctible requirement both for accurate timing, and also the completeness and accuracy of the investigation activity. Not only that, but also, when – as in this case – the result of the search is greatly based on the results of scientific examinations, the antiseptic sampling of all the elements useful to the investigation – in an environment provided of the appropriate sterilization, so to shield it from possible contaminations – constitutes, normally, the first cautionary strategy, itself the vital prelude to a correct analysis and “reading” of the retrieved samples. And if the key part of the activity of technical-scientific research consists in specific genetic investigations, whose contribution in the investigative activity emerges as more and more relevant, the reliable parameter of correctness can only be the respect of standards imposed by the international protocols which outline the fundamental rules of procedure of the scientific community, on the basis of statistic and epistemological observation.
The rigorous respect for such methodological standards provides a reliability, conventionally acceptable, in the assembled results, firstly related to their repeatability – that is the possibility that those findings, and those alone, would be reproduced by an identical investigative procedure 0in identical conditions, according to the fundamental laws of the empiric method and, more generally, of experimental science, that since Galileo has been based on the application of a “scientific method” (typical procedure meant to obtain knowledge of “objective” reality, reliable, verifiable and sharable; by common knowledge this consists, on one hand, in the collection of empiric data in relation to the hypothesis and theories to be confirmed; on the other hand, in the mathematical and rigorous analysis of such data, that is associating – as stated for the first time by aforementioned Galileo – “sensible experiences” with “necessary demonstrations” that is the experimentation with mathematics.
4.2. As we will see, all of this is basically missing in the current judgment.
Not only that but, the media attention, besides not helping the search for the truth, has produced further prejudicial feedback in terms of “procedural diseconomy”, generating undue “noise” (in the IT meaning) , not so much from the delay of the availability of witness testimony from certain persons (considering that from this point of view it is anyway just a matter of verifying the reliability of the corresponding declarative contributions), but because of the introduction into the trial of extemporary declarations by certain detained subjects, of solid criminal caliber [defense witnesses Alessi and Aviello], surely intent on self-serving mythomania and judicial attention-seeking behavior capable of assuring them a media stage, including on TV, so breaking at least for one day the grayness of their prison regime. And by the way this was a common instance of claims from “fetchers” of truths collecting within the prison environment unworthy confidences between co-inmates during the routine yard time. Clearly not commendable situations, which, also, had had the outcome of assuring – for the first time during the appeal – the active participation in this case of Rudy Guede (when he was summoned during the first instance judgment, he invoked his right to not respond; p. 3): [he’s] a key element in this case, even if unshakably reticent (and has never confessed), a bringer of half-truths differing from time to time.
Rudy Guede is the Ivorian citizen who was also himself involved in the Kercher case. Tried separately with a separate judgment, as a co-participant to the murder, he was sentenced, at the end of an abbreviated trial, to the penalty of thirty years imprisonment, reduced on appeal to sixteen years.
Our mention of him is to make it worth introducing the second, irrefutable, certainty of this trial (after the one concerning the responsibility of Knox for the crime of calunnia), that is the guilt now under irrevocable ruling, of the Ivorian as the author – participating with others – of the murder of the young English woman.
The finding of guilt of the aforementioned was reached on the basis of genetic traces, definitely attributable to him, collected in the house in via della Pergola, on the victim’s body and inside the room where the murder was committed.
4.3. The same reference [to Guede] also raises two relevant points of law, highlighted by the defense: one concerning the usability and the value of the aforementioned irrevocable verdict in this proceeding; the other related to the usability of the declarations - in terms less than coherent and constant – produced by Guede within his own trial, which may involve the current appellants in some way.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (16)
Sunday, October 04, 2015
The Third Book In Our Series On The Case “Under Suspicion” Has Been Released
Posted by Nick van der Leek
Our third book on the case Under Suspicion has been published and we are pleased that interest in the series remains high. We’d like to post an excerpt and two excerpts from a True Crime review.
Excerpt from Under Suspicion
When Knox implicated Patrick, investigators were immediately suspicious because of Amanda’s ‘selective recall’. One might also refer to it as ‘selective amnesia’; just as she could remember specific things, she could also not remember specific things. Juxtapose this very specific memory with very specific blanks, and what you have is a kind of chessboard memory, except nowhere near as symmetrical
The most glaring memory-on/memory-off ruse is the one she concocted about hearing Meredith scream; then she goes blank and wakes up in her boyfriend’s bed.
Think about it. One minute she’s at the villa and Meredith is being killed [not by her, by someone else], the next she wakes up in her boyfriend of barely-a-week’s bed. We’re not told anything more. Did Patrick hug and kiss afterward, or go out for drinks, did they high-five each other, did Amanda wash dishes at the villa whilst in the kitchen, did Patrick take a shit, did Amanda walk home or did Raffaele come and fetch her in his car?
Amanda waking up late in Raffaele’s bed is also suspicious. In Raffaele’s memoir he writes that Amanda typically got up early, at 05:00. Getting up early as a habit would explain why Amanda was standing outside Marco Quintavalle’s shop before it opened on Friday November 2nd, otherwise it wouldn’t make sense. But if Amanda typically woke up early, and if they were going to Gubbio, why did both of them sleep till 10:00? After having a quiet night watching a movie and talking, and not doing much else [they can’t even remember making love] why didn’t Amanda get up early, as she usually did?
Now remember, Amanda was actually two-timing her American boyfriend David Johnsrud [DJ] with Raffaele, and flirting and sleeping with different guys, yet in her memoir and in Raffaele’s there’s this mischievous ruse of ‘the days melting into one another’ and each day being a repeat of the last, some or other combination of ‘reading Harry Potter, making dinner, making love etc.’. Which is why…..
And here are two excerpts from a positive review on the True Crimes website
Excerpt from True Crime Review
From Amanda Knox claiming that she could barely speak Italian at the time of the murder, a suspicious advert posted on a university door, excerpts of the memoirs contradicting documented recordings and much more are included in this book.
One example, ” . . .on November 10th, Amanda finally gets to see her mom. In her memoir, Amanda claims among the first words she says to her mom are that she’s ‘so sorry’ and she ‘didn’t mean for any of this to happen.’ Except, when you read the prison visit intercept, those words don’t exist. . .
Prison Visit Intercept . . .
Edda: ‘Are you sure you’re ok? Are they being okay to you?’
Amanda: ‘It was the police who were being mean; that’s why I said those things about Patrick ‘cause like… When I was with the police, the last time, I was with the police on Monday… …‘”
Van der Leek describes Knox and Sollecito’s modi operandi with the police investigation. In one incident Knox is, “asked about a text message, denies receiving one and asks to see it. Why does she ask to see it? Because there’s a conditioning thing going on. If they already know something for certain she’ll give an explanation, if they don’t, she won’t.”
UNDER SUSPICION also delves into the invisible evidence which has been all but ignored in the majority of discussions about the case – the fingerprints (or lack thereof) at the crime scene As van der Leek points out, lack of evidence is also evidence, and goes on to describe how and why.
UNDER SUSPICION unearths minutiae and scenarios, many of which are often overlooked in the overwhelming pile of evidence that compose this case. “The devil’s in the details.” A thorough combing of this case is required to pick out the nits of manipulative and deceitful behavior of “the wand-wielding rape-obsessed Valkyrie [Amanda] and her partner, the sword-wielding assassin [Raffaele].” Van der Leek also makes a case for the pop-culture occult influence surrounding this attack.
Excerpt from True Crime Review
It was refreshing that van der Leek and Wilson included a closer look at Patrick Lumumba’s experience. The former bar owner appears to be the lynch pin to the explosive end of the beautiful young woman named Meredith Kercher. It seems that Lumumba was truly the only innocent person who had been accused of this murder.
The authors also hold a magnifying glass over the seemingly ‘silent partner’ of this criminal enterprise, Rudy Guede. The second black man arrested for the murder who wrote his own prison diary. Interestingly, he is the only one left of the three culprits who has not written a book. . . yet.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (13)
Thursday, October 01, 2015
The Marasca/Bruno Report, A Dissection In Four Parts: #1 The Strange “Dogmatic Assertions” Approach
Posted by catnip
1. Overview Of This Post
These analyses will be interspersed with the final posts of the Marasca/Bruno report.
A person holding themselves out to be a ‘creation scientist’ may easily make a statement (in the form of a short sentence in an article or of a soundbite on TV).
At which point, it may take a whole book of effort, to examine the background and field(s) of scientific learning and expertise that are involved and to follow the lines of reasoning used (if any), in order to come to a satisfactory assessment of the accuracy and reliability of that statement.
Likewise with the Fifth Criminal Chamber Cassation judgment penned by Bruno. It seems to be full of assertions. And that’s it.
Take, as one example, the international standards that the forensics personnel are supposed to have breached.
2. Example: ‘International standards’
Much has been made of what have been called ‘international forensic standards’, and whether they have been met and what significance the evidence would have had if they hadn’t.
There is also a subtext of what forensic procedure the Italian Scientific Police were actually following and why a breach of those guidelines did not ground a submission by the defence that there had been contamination and therefore that the evidence was unusable.
(Plus also, disposable gloves are called ‘monouso’, that is “single use”, in Italian, and that name seems to have sown some confusion in the minds of the defence lawyers about how such gloves are to be used in actual cases.)
In Italian, there’s a recent textbook, with international contributors:
Donatella Curtotti and Luigi Saravo (eds), Manuale delle investigazioni sulla scena del crimine: Norme, techniche, scienze, (2013) [Giappichelli, 2013] (Crime Scene Investigation Manual: Guidelines, techniques, science)
A perusal of the contents shows that its coverage is extensive in terms of subject matter, and not superficial, at over a thousand pages:
D Curtotti, BAJ Fisher, MM Houck and G Spangher, “Diritto e sceinza: Un rapporto in continua evoluzione”, pp 1-36 (Law and Science: A relationship in continuous evolution)
The legal picture
D Curtotti, “I rilievi e gli accertamenti sul locus commissi delicti nelle evoluzioni del codice di procedura penale”, pp 37-118 (Collection and tests at the scene of the crime in the developments of the Criminal Procedure Code)
D Curtotti, “L’inadeguatezza delle norme al cospetto della nuova realta’ investigativa e le soluzioni giuridiche percorribili”, pp 119-146 (Legal inadequacy in the face of the new investigative reality and feasible judicial solutions)
F Giunchedi, “Le consulenze techniche tra accertamenti irripetibili e incidente probatorio”, pp 147-176 (Technical consultants between unrepeatable tests and preliminary hearing)
A Procaccino, “Le selezione del consulenti technici e la tracciabilita’ dell’expertise: Profili interni e comparatistici”, pp 177-218 (The selection of technical consultants and the audit trail of expertise: Internal and comparative profiles)
D Curtotti, “Il sopralluogo della difesa”, pp 219-234 (The defence crime scene search)
D Curtotti and L Saravo, “L’errore technico-scientifico sulla scena del crimine”, pp 235-253 (Technical and scientific error at the scene of the crime)
E Cataldi, M Vaira and A Iasillo, “La scena del crimine vist dai protagonisti del processo”, pp 255-300 (The scene of the crime as seen by the protagonists in the trial)
The technical-scientific picture: the new investigative paradigm
L Saravo, “Il nuovo paradigma investigativo sulla scena del crimine”, pp 301-312 (The new investigative paradigm at the crime scene)
L Rockwell and L Saravo, “L’analisi logica della tracce”, pp 313-342 (The logical analysis of traces)
L Garofano and L Saravo, “Il primo intervento”, pp 343-364 (First intervention)
L Saravo, “CSI: Il metodo di ricerca e valutazione delle tracce”, pp 365-414 (CSI: Trace search and evaluation method)
The technical-scientific picture: technique, technology and science on the traces of crime
R Gennari and L Saravo, “Le tracce”, pp 415-466 (Traces)
A Galassi, D Gaudio, P Martini, L Saravo, M Sgrenaroli and G Vassena, “La rappresentazione della scena del crimine: Dalla descrizione narrative ai rilievi tridimenionali”, pp 467-558 (Representation of the crime scene: From narrative to 3D)
R Gennari and L Saravo, “Rilievi edaccertamenti sulle tracce: Dalle impronte al DNA”, pp 559-644 (Collection and tests on traces: From prints to DNA)
G Arcudi and GL Marella, “Il cadavere e la scena del crimine: Un binomio inscindibile”, pp 645-671 (The body and the crime scene: An inseparable pairing)
The technical-scientific picture: new techniques
TP Sutton, “L’analisi della macchie di sangue (BPA)”, pp 672-706 (Blood pattern analysis)
M Mattiucci, “Le indagini sui repertiinvisibili: High Tech Crime”, pp 707-718 (Analysis of invisible evidence: High Tech Crime)
P Magni and E Di Luise, “Gli insetti nelle scienze forensi”, pp 719-742 (Insects in the forensic sciences)
P Magni and E Di Luise, “Le tracce orfane: Botanica, micologia, zoologia, microbiologica, e geoscience nel mondo forense”, pp 743-791 (Orphan traces: Botany, mycology, zoology, microbiology and geoscience in the world of forensics)
B F Carillo, U Fornari, G L Giovanni and L P Luini, “La scena del crimine vista con gli occhi della criminologia”, pp 791-872 (Looking at the crime scene through the eyes of the criminologist)
The technical-scientific picture: complex investigations
D Gaudio, D Salsarola, P Poppa, A Galassi, R Sala, D Gibelli and C Cattaneo, “L’archeologia forense: Il corretti recupero dei resti umani”, pp 873-896 (Forensic archaeology: The correct recovery of human remains)
S Scolaro, P Magni and E Di Luise, “La scena criminis in ambiente acquatico”, pp 897-926 (The crime scene in aquatic environments)
B Cristini and F Notaro, “Lo scenario incendiario”, pp 927-982 (The incendiary scenario)
A Boncio, Ecataldi, R Mugavero, G Peluso and L Saravo, “Lo scenario terroristico”, pp 983-1062 (The terrorist scenario)
D O’Loughlin and L Saravo, “I disastri di massa”, pp 1063-1086 (Mass disasters)
In all the above, the name of Garofano can be seen (a well-known and highly regarded forensics expert), and the Australian contribution (the last chapter) relates to learnings from the Black Saturday bushfires.
“fictional events can gain currency in the real world” — Jim Fraser, Forensic Science: A Very Short Introduction, (2010) [Oxford University Press, 2010], p 25 (talking about movie scenes showing the effect of an injection of adrenalin into a person’s heart). [ISBN 9780199558056]
The defence aim was to reduce the significance of Raffaele’s DNA being found on the torn-off or cut-off clasp of Meredith’s bra, which clasp was collected on a second, later, occasion from a different location in Meredith’s room a pace or so distant from that in which it had been found originally (beneath a pillow under her body).
The video of the scene showed the clasp being handled by various gloved personnel before being bagged.
One strand of the defence attacked the gloves, arguing that they should have been changed.
What are the actual recommendations on gloves?
Disposable gloves should be ‘changed frequently’:
“The evidence collector must handle all body fluids and biologically stained materials with a minimum amount of personal contact. All body fluids must be assumed to be infectious; hence, wearing disposable latex gloves while handling the evidence is required. Latex gloves also significantly reduce the possibility that the evidence collector will contaminate the evidence. These gloves should be changed frequently during the evidence-collection phase of the investigation. Safety considerations and avoidance of contamination also call for the wearing of face masks, shoe covers, and possibly coveralls.” — Richard Saferstein, Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, 10th edition, (2011) [Pearson, 2011], p 286, Collection of biological evidence. ISBN 9780132545792
Gloves should be changed for each new item of evidence:
“One key concern during the collection of a DNA-containing specimen is contamination. Contamination can occur by introducing foreign DNA through coughing or sneezing onto a stain during the collection process, or there can be a transfer of DNA when items of evidence are incorrectly placed in contact with each other during packaging. Fortunately, an examination of DNA band patterns in the laboratory readily reveals the presence of contamination. … Crime-scene investigators can take some relatively simple steps to minimize contamination of biological evidence: 1. Change gloves before handling each new piece of evidence. 2. … 3. … 4. …” — Richard Saferstein, p 288.
Myths about contamination
“There are many myths and misunderstandings about contamination… The first is that all scenes are examined using the highest standard of anti-contamination precautions (suits, overshoes, mob caps, gloves, etc.), which is not the case. … Secondly, the belief that contamination can be completely prevented by wearing the kinds of protection described above and by controlling a scene is unfounded. If you accept Locard’s principle, then you have to accept that any examination of a scene is likely to disturb it and to ‘contaminate’ it in some way. Finally, the assumption that because someone has failed (for whatever reason) to follow recommended operating procedures with regard to contamination does not mean that contamination will necessarily result and have an impact.” — Jim Fraser, Forensic Science: A Very Short Introduction, (2010) [Oxford University Press, 2010], pp 19-20.
What does the Italian crime scene manual say?
Personal protective gear and single-use equipment mitigates the risk of contamination. — R Gennari and L Saravo, “Rilievi edaccertamenti sulle tracce: Dalle impronte al DNA”, pp 559-644 (Collection and tests on traces: From prints to DNA), p 626.
The main references to contamination are in R Gennari and L Saravo, “Le tracce”, pp 415-466 (Traces), where they say:
“In the strictest sense, the term ‘contamination’ refers to the introduction into the scene (and even onto an item of evidence originating there) of spurious information corrupting its original nature or state.” (p 449).
“It must be noted, though, that the contaminated item of evidence is not necessarily unusable [emphasis in original]. It is only an item of evidence which has lost its original state: its own characteristics have undergone modification and it has been enriched with other, indeterminate, information. It is necessary to know how to evaluate the impact that this could have had in the question posed or on the information that will be needed to be revealed to reconstruct the crime.” (p 450).
“It is not enough just to wear the personal protection gear to reduce the risk of contamination; it is necessary that this gear be employed in the correct manner [emphasis in the original].
Not changing gloves before touching a new surface is, for example, a source of contamination: DNA, once touched a first time, transfers itself to all the various surfaces touched successively by the same gloves.” (p 451).
And, not to forget, protective gear is worn for the protection of forensic personnel against infection and chemicals (p 452).
So, in summary:
Gloves reduce and minimise the risk of contamination - they do not remove it altogether; contamination cannot be completely prevented. Searching a scene changes it from its original state.
Changing gloves “frequently”, or “each time” a new piece of evidence, or a new surface, is touched.
After putting on the gloves, what counts as a new piece of evidence or new surface in this list?:
bedcover, victim, pillow, bra-clasp, carpet/floor
Coughing or sneezing on the evidence: means the forensic officer’s DNA contaminates the item, not the accused’s DNA.
Following the procedure does not guarantee that the evidence is uncontaminated; following procedure just reduces the potential risk of contamination.
Likewise, not following procedure does not mean the evidence is automatically contaminated.
And even if the item were contaminated, that does not make it unusable.
In Raffaele’s case, if his DNA were transferred via the latex forensic gloves, how did his DNA get there on the glove when it was found definitively nowhere else in the room? Did he spit on his hand and then shake hands with the forensic officer? Now, that would indeed be a breach of protocols, anywhere in the world.
To say that, because it’s the accused’s DNA, therefore it’s contamination, is circular reasoning.
All of the above should have been (and was) examined at trial, and double-checked on appeal (eventually).
So why is Bruno taking up the invitation to rehash it all again?
3. Further Reading On DNA
See our previous 50 or so previous posts on DNA.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (6)
Monday, September 28, 2015
TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #2 Of 7: Summaries Five And Six
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
“Justice and Peace” by Corrado Giaquinto 1762. Click here to go straight to Comments.
Overview Of The Post and the Series
The purpose of the series was summarised in Post #1.
With this post we are 2/5 of the way through the judgment and summaries of the appeal grounds still continue. These are new grounds by Knox’s and Sollecito’s teams.
As previously, Sollecito’s team throw in everything but the kitchen sink. Knox’s new grounds are about 1/4 of that length, and mainly request that Knox’s appeal to ECHR Strasbourg be awaited before this verdict comes down.
Translation was by a professional translator with extensive finalization by Machiavelli with some help from the Wiki team of the judicial terms used and the accuracy of the English relative to what is in the report. Our own critiques will be posted separately in Comments and other posts.
Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final.
1. Further Knox Appeal Grounds
4.1. In favor of Knox, two further reasons were submitted.
In the first one, objected to is the violation of article 606 lett. a), b) e) of the code of criminal procedure, criticizing the entire reasoning process of the appealed verdict, which exceeded the fixed standard of the - already exorbitant - annulment ruling , with violation of articles 627 par. 3, and 623 of the code of procedure. Criticized, particularly, is the anomalous examination of the merits within the annulment ruling.
In the second reason, objected to is the contradiction and manifest illogicality in the rationale according to article 533 of the code of criminal procedure.
And at the end, a delay of the judgment is proposed while waiting for the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, following the presentation to the international judicial body on the appeal of 11.22.2013, for alleged violation of the right to an equal trial, according to the article 6 par. 3 lett. a/c ECHR; for alleged violation of defense rights, according to the article 48 par. 2 of the Chart of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and for the violation of the prohibition on torturing, according to the articles 3 ECHR and 4 of the Chart of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2. Further Sollecito Appeal Grounds
4.2 Also Sollecito’s defense proposed new reasons, listed as follows.
The first new reason challenges the incorrect reasoning on the time of Kercher’s death. As defense has stated a careful examination of objective elements would have allowed the setting the time of death in a period of time between 9-9:29 and 10:13 PM.
The exact determination of the time of death [exitus] was fundamental to proving the actual presence of the accused at the crime scene, at the time of the aggression.
In particularl the examination carried out on the victim’s cell phone revealed subsequent contacts between 9 and 9:13 PM, as reported in the Pellero report on the SMS and the aforementioned cellular phone. This would have allowed acquiring – if not the certainty of the young English woman being alive until 10:13 PM, considering the possibility of accidental phone connections – at least useful information in this regard.
More precisely, the following contacts took place during the considered period of time:
1) a first call, at 8:56, to her home number, in England, remained unanswered and not followed by a new call, strange considered the habits of the girl, who was used to calling her family every day;
2) another contact, maybe accidental, at 9:50 PM, on a voice mail, lasted a few seconds, without waiting for an answer;
3) a contact, at 10PM, with the English bank Abbey, which failed obviously because it was not preceded by the international prefix;
4) at 10:13, an SMS was received by the cellular phone, in the place where it was abandoned, in via Sperandio.
On the other hand, the examination carried out on Sollecito’s computer registered an interaction at 9:20 PM and a subsequent one at 9:26 PM, not found by the postal police, but discovered by the defense expert D’Ambrosio by means of a different operative system application (MAC), for the watching of an animated cartoon (Naruto) of the length of 20 minutes, demonstrating that Sollecito was at home until 9:46.
This helps to demonstrates the non-involvement of the accused, also evident from the Skype contact occurred between Guede and his friend Benedetti.
To be sure, a new IT analysis by judge-appointed experts would have been necessary, as requested in vain by the defense.
The previous [a quo] judge, then, also committed an obvious misrepresentation in the evaluation of Curatolo’s testimony, not realizing that the declarations of the witness were, actually, in favor of the accused, especially in the part where he states to have seen the couple in piazza Grimana at 21:30 PM until 12:00 AM. Therefore, there was an internal contradiction of the judging: it wasn’t true what was stated at p. 50 concerning the supposed absence of extrinsic elements confirming that the two accused, from 9:30 PM to 12:30 PM of the next day, would have been in a different place than the one where the homicide took place.
Within the reconstruction of the crime, then, it was not taken in account that witnesses Capezzalie and Monachia located the harrowing scream that they heard at a time around 11 – 11.30 PM. However, Ms. Capezzali was contradicted by other witnesses, residents of the area, who declared they didn’t hear anything.
Furthermore, not examined was the video clip captured by the camera placed near the parking lot which had filmed the passing by of a person similar, in features and clothes, to Guede. The time of filming was 7:41 PM, though 7:39 PM effectively because of a clock error of 12 or 13 minutes.
Also the autopsy, in observing the gastric situation, allowed the fixation of the hour of death between 9:30 and 10 PM. Furthermore, during the cross-examination hearing, the forensic pathologist Dr. Lalli rectified an error contained in his technical report, pointing out that the time of death would have had to be set not at “not less than 2-3 hours from the last meal (that took place around 6 PM, with the English friends)” but at “not more than 2-3 hours from the last meal”.
Considered this uncertain conclusion, a new analysis by judge-appointed experts [perizia] was requested in vain, in the new reasons for appeal, dated 29 July 2013.
So, in the light of the trial data, as stated by the defense, the time of death of the young English woman would have had to be approximately set between 9 and 10:13 PM.
The second new reason challenges the failure to order a judge appointed experts review [perizia] in order to verify or otherwise the possibility of a selective cleaning of the crime scene which would have removed only the traces referable to the two accused, leaving only Guede’s ones. In fact, in Kercher’s room multiple traces of Guede were found but none of Sollecito.
Incorrect reasoning is also suggested on the supposed alteration of the crime scene by the accused. It was not, however, considered that Sollecito had no interest in polluting [the scene].
The third reason challenges a flaw in rationale regarding the plantar imprints presumed as female footprints (size 37 EU) demonstrating a participation of more than one person in the crime.
With reference to the imprints, there was an obvious error in the judgment, also present in the judgment of annullment of Cassation (p. 21), considering that the only imprint retrieved in Kercher’s room belonged to Guede.
The fourth reason again claims violation of the law, with reference to the article 606 lett. c) and e) regarding the evidence on the participation to the crime and the violation of the articles 111 Const, 238, 513 and 526 of the code of penal procedure on the usability of the interrogation of Guede and the observance of the evaluation standards on a charge of complicity.
The fifth reason claims misrepresentation of the evidence and manifest illogicality, related to the results of the genetic investigation on the knife (item 36) and also on the supposed “non-incompatibility” of the instrument with the most serious wound observed on the victim’s neck. Claimed further is the violation of the evaluation standards of evidence according to article 192 of the code of criminal procedure.
The sixth reason claims lack of rationale, because there was no consideration of the violation of the international recommendations on the sampling and examination of traces of small entity and the interpretation of the results. Also claimed is misrepresentation of the evidence and manifest illogicality of reasoning on the results of the genetic examinations carried out on the kitchen knife and also violation of the proof evaluation standards, according to the article 192 of the code of procedure.
The seventh reason claims incorrect reasoning with reference to the violation of the international recommendations on the sampling and analysis related to the genetic examinations carried out on the brassiere hook (item 165 B) and the objected-to contamination of the item, after the inspections carried out by the Criminal Investigation Department.
The eighth reason challenges the violation of articles 192 and 533 of the code of criminal procedure on the interpretation of the genetic examination on the item 165 B and lack of rationale on the objected violation of the international recommendations in matter of interpretation of mixed DNA.
The ninth reason challenges a violation of article 192 of the code of criminal procedure and manifest illogicality of evidence for misrepresentation of the scientific investigation, considering the failure of the DNA proof in this case.
The tenth reason challenges a manifest illogicality in the motivation in the luminol evidence related to the supposed presence of blood imprints in areas of the house of via della Pergola and also on the bathmat, and manifest illogicality of rationale related to the mixed traces of Knox and Kercher and the evaluation of the circumstantial evidence in relation to the participation of more than one person to the crime.
The eleventh reason challenges a manifest illogicality or contradictory nature in the motivations related to the evaluation of the motive of the murder.
The twelfth reason argues the same incorrect reasoning and misrepresentation of the evidence related to the time of the 112 call.
The thirteenth reason argues the same incorrect reasoning in relation with the alibi and the supposed tentative of Sollecito to cover for the supposed co-perpetrator Amanda Knox.
The fourteenth reason challenges the violation of the law principles stated by Cassation and the violation of the judicial standards of “beyond reasonable doubt” according to article 533 of the code of criminal procedure.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (15)
Saturday, September 26, 2015
TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #1 Of 7: The Four Opening Summaries
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
More judicial artwork in the Supreme Court. Click to go straight to Comments.
1. Overview Of The Post And Series
This is about one-quarter of the report. These sections summarize the crime against Meredith, the legal process, and the appeals Knox and Sollecito filed with Cassation in 2014.
They were in fact confirmed as being at the scene of the crime, as were Guede and a presumed two others, and lying about it, though for supposed reasons not even the defenses had ever argued.
Translation was by a professional translator with extensive finalization by Machiavelli with some help from the Wiki team of the judicial terms used and the accuracy of the English relative to what is in the report. Resisted was any attempt to employ more fluent English because the Italian itself is far from fluent or coherent.
We’ll post critiques separately in Comments and other posts except for this one.
Notable for its absence is any attempt to explain why the Fifth Chambers pushed aside the First Chambers to handle this murder case, and why in that process at least two laws (bedrock articles of the judicial code) seem to have been broken.
They seem to have been tasked only to assess whether the appeal should be handled by a joint arrangement of all Supreme Court Chambers because of claims by defenses that the unusual amount of publicity and supposed legal complexity required that.
Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final.
2. The Four Opening Summaries
1. Summary Of The Crimes Against Meredith
This is the original language of Marasca and Bruno. It is their take on the prosecution.
1. Raffaele Sollecito and the United States citizen Amanda Marie Knox were called to account, before the Perugia Court of assize, for the following crimes:
A) within the meaning of Articles 110, 575, 576, first clause , number 5, in relation to the crime sub C) and 577, first clause number 4, in relation to article 61 n. 1 and 5 of the penal code, to have, in conjunction between them and with Guede Rudi Hermann, killed Kercher Meredith, by means of choking and subsequent breaking of the hyoid bone and profound lesion on the left anterolateral and right lateral neck region, caused by a piercing and cutting weapon mentioned in section B), and meta-hemorrhagic shock with observable asphyxical subsequent to the bleeding (caused by the puncture and cutting wounds present on the left anterolateral and right lateral region of the neck and the contextual aspiration of hematic material), and taking advantage of the nocturnal hour and the isolated location of the apartment inhabited by Kercher and the same Knox, as well by two other Italian girls (Romanelli Filomena and Mezzetti Laura), an apartment located in Perugia, in via della Pergola number 7, committing the act for futile reasons, while Guede, with the conjunction of the others, committed the crime of sexual violence;
B) within the meaning of Article 110 of the penal code and 4 law number 110/1975 to have, in conjunction between themselves, brought out of the house of Sollecito, without a justified reason, a big puncture and cutting knife with a total length of 31 cm (seized from Sollecito the 6th of November 2007, exhibit 36);
C) within the meaning of Article 110, 609 bis and ter no. 2 of the penal code to have, in conjunction between themselves and with Guede Rudi Hermann (Guede as material executioner, in conjunction with the co-accused) forced Kercher Meredith to endure sexual acts, with manual and/or genital penetration, by means of violence and threast, resulting in constraining maneuvers which produced lesions, particularly on the upper and lower limbs and on the vulvar region (ecchymotic suffusions on the fore side of the left thigh, lesions on the vestibular-vulvar area and ecchymotic areas on the fore side of the medial third of the right leg) as well as the use of the knife described in point B;
D) within the meaning of Article 110, 624 of the penal code, acting together, acquiring an unjust profit, in the circumstances of time and place described in point A) and C), took possession of the sum of approximately € 300.00, two credit cards, of Abbey Bank and Nationwide, both from United Kingdom, and two cellular phones owned by Kercher Meredith, stolen from the aforementioned; fact to be qualified within the meaning of article 624 bis of the penal code, the place of execution of the crime cited in point A) referred to here.;
E) within the meaning of article 110, 367 and 61 n. 2 of the penal code to have, acting together, simulated the attempted burglary and entering of the room of the apartment in via della Pergola, inhabited by Romanelli Filomena, breaking the window glass with a stone found in the vicinity of the house and subsequently dropped in the room, near the window, all of this to obtain impunity from the crimes of homicide and sexual violence, trying to ascribe them to unknown persons who broke in, for this purpose, into the apartment;
All this took place in Perugia, during the night between the 1st and 2nd of November 2007.
Knox only, furthermore, regarding the crime mentioned in point F), within the meaning of article 81 cpv, 368, clause 2, and 61 n. 2 of the penal code, because, with multiple actions within the same criminal plan, knowing that he was innocent, with statements filed during declaration to the Flying Squad and the Police of Perugia on the 6th of November 2007, she falsely blamed Diya Lumumba called “Patrick” for the murder of the young Meredith Kercher, all of this to obtain impunity for everyone and particularly for Guede Rudi Hermann, colored as is Lumumba; in Perugia, during the night between the 5th and the 6th of November 2007.
2. Summary of The Legal Process 2009-2014
This is the original language of Marasca and Bruno. It is their take on the 2009 trial, the 2011 Hellmann appeal, the 2013 Supreme Court appeal, and the 2013 Nencini appeal.
By judgment of 4-5 December 2009, the Court of assize declared Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty for the crimes mentioned in point A) – this including the crime mentioned in point C) – also in B) and D), regarding the cellular phones, and E) and, for what concerns Knox, also the crime mentioned in F); crimes which fulfill the prerequisite of continuity and, excluding the aggravating factor mentioned in article 577 and 61 n.5 of the penal code, conceded to both extenuating circumstances equivalent to the remaining aggravation circumstances, condemned them to the sentence of twenty-six years of prison for Knox and twenty-five years of prison for Sollecito, plus other consequential terms;
condemned, also, the same accused, jointly, to pay compensation for damages to the civil parties John Leslie Kercher, Arline Carol Lara Kercher, Lyle Kercher, John Ashley Kercher and Stephanie Arline Lara Kercher, damages to be compensated at a separate session, with the immediate payment of the amount of 1,000,000.00 € each in favor of John Leslie Kercher and Arline Carol Lara Kercher and 800,000.00 € each in favor of Lyle Kercher John, Ashley Kercher and Stephanie Arline Lara Kercher;
condemned, also, Amanda Marie Knox to pay compensation for damages to the civil party Patrik Lumumba, to be compensated at a separate session, with the immediate payment of the amount of 10,000.00 €, plus other consequential terms.
condemned, finally, the aforementioned Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to pay compensation for damages to the civil party Aldalia Tattanelli (owner of the apartment in via della Pergola), to be compensated at a separate session, and for Lyle Kercher, John Ashley Kercher and Stepanie Arline Lara Kercher, with immediate payment.
Regarding the appeals proposed by the accused, the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia, by judgment of 3 October 2011, declared Knox Amanda Marie guilty for the crimes referenced in point F), excluding the aggravating factor mentioned in article 61 n.2 of the penal code and excluded the general extenuating circumstances equivalent to the aggravating factors within the means of article 368 of the penal code – condemned her to the sentence of three years of prison; confirming strictly for this sentence the civil damages.
absolved the accused from the crimes previously accredited to them on point A), B) and D), to have not committed the act, and from the crime described in point E) because there is no case to answer, rejecting the damages proposed against them by the civil party Aldalia Tattanelli.
regarding the appeals proposed by the Perugia prosecutor-general, by the accused Amanda Marie Knox and the civil parties, this Court of Cassation, First Criminal Division, with sentence of 25 March 2013, cancelled the disputed sentence referring to the crimes mentioned in point A) – incorporated in point C) – B), D) and E) and the aggravating factor within article 61 n.2 of the penal code concerning point F) and referred the appeals to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence for new examination.; denying Knox’s appeal, with subsequent circumstances.
During the review the Court of Assizes of Florence, with the trial sentence indicated above, confirming the exisistence of the aggravating factor within the meaning of article 61 n.2 of the penal code, with reference to the crime within the meaning of article 368, second paragraph of the penal code, point F), revises the sentence against Amanda Marie Knox to be twenty-eight years and six months of prison; confirming the trial sentence, with the consequential damages in favor of the constituted civil parties.
Against the aforementioned ruling, the accused’s defendants had proposed different Court of Cassation appeals, each one subject to the following critical reasons.
3. Summary of Amanda Knox appeal
This is Marasca and Bruno summarising the submission of Knox lawyers Dalla Vedova and Ghirga.
The appeal in favor of Amanda Marie Knox, before the presentation of the multiple reasons of which it was constituted, was preceded by a long premise which, on the one hand, anticipated the direction of the entire appeal and, on the other hand, proposed once again the same set of problems already discussed in the original grounds for appeal, such as the constitutional legitimacy issue of the conjunction of articles 627 chapter 3 and 628 chapter 2, regarding the application of a possible “indefinite repetitiveness” of an order of remand by the Cassation and corresponding options of indefinitely appealing a rescission order.
In first arguments the basis for contesting of the entire appeal was presented, represented by the pretentious avoidance of the dictum of the rescission order of this legitimacy Court and the divergent interpretation of the same probative material by two different courts of assizes, Perugia and Firenze, the last, however , based on mere paperwork exam.
Then, it continued into the analytical analysis of the procedural factual circumstances or evidences, which wouldn’t have been validly examined or, illegitimately, perceived in a partitioned way and not from a global and unitary perspective.
Taking into account this, various reasons for the appeal were deduced and reasons summarily presented, according to the terms of article 173, chapter 1, disp. att. code of penal procedure, that is in the terms strictly necessary to the decision.
The first reason challenged the violation and inobservance of the criminal law, according to article 606 lett. b) and c) of the code of criminal procedure and also the incorrect reasoning, according to the same article let. e), about the decisive matter of the asserted reason, of Knox for the commitment of the crime, in violation of article 110 of the penal code.
Contested, in this regard, was what previously assumed in the judgments as to the merits, regarding some claimed disagreements between the aforementioned Knox and Kercher, despite the occurred absolution, with definitive decision, of the finding for theft of the sum of three hundred euros and the collected depositions, including the one provided by Marco Zaroli, regarding the “idyllic” relationship between the two girls. From the records of proceedings there had not emerged any reason that could have induced Knox to mindfully concur in the murder act and, contrarily to the assumption of the judge, the verification of motive during the evidentiary process was absolutely necessary. In this regard, no indications have been offered by the [First Chambers] review judge, despite the specific indication of the rescission order, which had notified a triple possibility: 1) genetic acknowledgement on the death option; 2) changing of an initial program which only included the involvement of the English girl in a not shared sexual game; 3) mere forcing of an erotic group game.
Also, in a scenario of absolute uncertainty the review judges had elaborated an abnormal type of collusion in a crime, the fruit of a singular mixture of different impulses and reasons of the participants: Mr. Guede driven by a sexual motive; Ms. Knox by resentment towards the English woman; Mr. Sollecito by unknown intent.
The second reason highlights a problem of great relevance in the circumstance of the present judgment, that is the right interpretation of the scientific examination results from a perspective of respect of the evaluation standards according to article 192 of the criminal procedural code and the relevance of the genetic evaluation in the absence of repeatable amplification, as a consequence of the minimal amount of the sample and, more generally, the reliability coefficient of investigations carried out without following the regulations dictated by the international protocols, both during the collecting phase and the analysis.
Particularly, anomalies were challenged in the retrieval of the knife (item 36) and the victim’s brassiere hook, which do not exclude the possibility of contamination, as correctly outlined in the Conti-Vecchiotti report, ordered by the Perugian Court of assizes, which also notified the unreliability of the scientific data, precisely because it was not subject to a further examination.
It was also denied that the retrieved knife would have been the crime weapon.
The third reason challenged the law violation and incorrect reasoning, according to article 606 lett. b) and e), regarding the teleological nexus between the crime of calunnia and the homicide. In this regard, the psychological conditions of the accused during the issue of the calumnious declarations dated 11.06.2007 are outlined, her declarations were considered unusable by this Court (with ruling number 990/80); also challenged was a violation of article 188 of the code of criminal procedure, for infringement of the declarer’s moral freedom during the assumption of evidence.
The fourth reason challenged incorrect reasoning regarding the relevant circumstances of the happening, with reference to, firstly, the asserted simulation of theft in Romanelli’s room, without considering that Guede, at the moment of his arrest, presented wounds on his right hand compatible with the hypothesis of a previous breaking of the window’s glass and subsequent climb in order to enter the room, with shards of glass on the windowsill, also in the same way not considered was the criminal record of Guede, who wasn’t new to stealing in apartments, with identical modalities. Moreover, not considered was that not a single genetic imprint of the accused had being retrieved in the room of the murder, while fourteen imprints referable to Guede were retrieved in the same room.
The argument was totally illogical of a purported selective cleaning of the environment carried out by the accused, being almost impossible to remove specific genetic traces, leaving others intact.
The fifth reason denounces the incorrect reasoning in the evaluation of the Curatolo’s and Quintavalle’s declarations, non-adequately interpreted during the examination of the evidence. Also the illogical relevance given to the SMS received by Patrik Lumumba, due to uncertain of the site of the reception, and considering the well-known unreliability of localizations based on the triangulation of telephone cells.
The sixth reason challenged the law violation, in relation to the use of statements considered unusable by this Court, with particular reference to the declarations of the accused contra se at 5:45 AM of 11.6.2007.
Also, it was not considered that the defense report submitted by Knox suffered from the unstable psychological conditions in which she found herself, also from the stress consequent to the violation of her defense rights.
The seventh reason denounces the violation of articles 111 Cost., chapter 2 and 238 of the criminal procedure code, with reference to the irrevocable sentence issued against Guede and the inappropriate interpretation of the declarations produced by the aforementioned, via Skype, to his friend Giacomo Benedetti.
The eighth reason denounces the lack of assumption of decisive evidence, according to article 606 lett. d) of the criminal procedure code and in relation to articles 111 chapter 2 and 238 bis of the criminal procedure code, for failure to re-open court hearing evidentiary phase, denied with order of 09.30.2013, in order to examine Guede, after his accusations against the indicted woman.
The ninth reason signals inconsistency and contradictory nature of motivation and also great inaccuracy, such as the declaration at page 321 about the presence of genetic traces of Sollecito and Kercher on the retrieved knife.
It is argued, also, that the place where the cellular phones of the victim had been retrieved was compatible with Guede’s itinerary towards his house, situated in via del Canerino n. 26.
Inadequate, moreover, was the evaluation of the results of the report provided by Massimo Bernaschi about the computer damage, by suspected electric shock.
The tenth reason denounces the inobservance or erroneous application of articles 627 and 603 of the criminal procedure code referring to the preliminary order of 09.30.13 and 04.17.14.
Requested, also, is the correction of the material error presented in the order dated 04.17.13, referring to the erroneous indication of the place of birth of the accused, who was born in Seattle and not in Washington.
The eleventh reason denounces the violation and inobservance of article 606 lett b), in relation to the quantification of the punishment in point of aggravating circumstance according to article 61 n.2 of the penal code for the crime of calunnia placed on the accused assuming a teleological nexus.
The remand judge [Nencini] had considered the generic mitigating circumstances of minor value, previously considered equivalent, despite the final status of judgment [giudicato] on the point.
4. Summary of Raffaele Sollecito appeal
This is Marasca and Bruno summarising the submission of Sollecito lawyers Bongiorno and Maori.
3. The appeal on behalf of Raffaele Sollecito is explained in terms of twenty-two reasons, which will be also systematically summarised according to the requirements of article 173, chapter 1, of the code of penal procedure.
To this summary explanation has to be added the reference to the introductory part, containing specific requests.
The first concerns the ruling for referral to a United Sections of Cassation panel [Sezioni Unite] on matters asserted of being of maximum relevance and, potentially, capable of generating interpretative contrast:
a) Probative or evidential value of the results of the scientific evidence in case of violation of scientific community international protocols regarding the collection and reading of the data;
b) Usability of declarations produced by Guede during the appeal process. In relation to this, it is inappropriate to relate the review of this appealed sentence to what he has stated during interrogation, reported in the appealed sentence according to article 238 bis; if those declarations were usable, it would be a consent to include in the trial, in violation of the same procedural disposition, declarations produced in absence of cross-examination.
c) Range of explanation of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt, which, from what is stated by the current defense, would be violated in this specific case by the erroneous statement by the remand judge, according to which the lack of procedural collaboration of the accused has exempted the judge from analyzing the alternative hypothesis emerged from the trial papers or the defense perspectives.
d) Reliability limits in witnesses’ declarations (such as the ones from Dramis, Monacchia, Quintavalle and Curatolo), produced some time after the facts, after being solicited by journalists. The question is about the verification of the reliability of witnesses during the procedures who created strong media impact, with particular reference to Gioffredi and Kokomani claims and to the declaration of the former offender Luciano Aviello, who did not hesitate to produce slanderous declarations towards the prosecutor, the defence attorney, and Raffaele Sollecito’s father.
The intervention of the supreme jurisdictional assembly was necessary in order to fix the evaluation standards of oral evidence during trials with strong media exposure, aiming to preserve the credibility of the trial, protecting it from mythomaniac or judicial attention-seeking behavior.
In the introductive part also thoroughly examined is the position of Amanda Knox regarding the erroneous evaluation of the evidence against her, which had reflected negative effects also on the position of Sollecito, with the distorted conviction that the two substantial positions would be linked by an indissoluble bond, almost like a unique communication vessels system or an abnormal “mutual” extension of responsibility. All of this in order to denounce the erroneous methodological position consisting in the lack of an “identifying” evaluation of the appellant’s role in the tragic happening subject to judgment. And the aforementioned assumption gave headway to a further denouncement of legitimacy, consisting in the remand judge avoiding the dictum of the cancellation judgment, which gave to the remand judge the task of “highlight the subjective position of Guede’s contestants in the light of all the supposable circumstances”, all specifically enunciated.
It is also pointed out that Ms. Knox had never placed, even in her noon report (erroneously considered of confessional nature), Sollecito at the crime scene. On the contrary, from the aforementioned report, it was possible to deduce that the foretold was not present in the house of via della Pergola.
In fact, no trace of Sollecito was found in the room of the murder. The only element of proof against him was represented by the DNA trace retrieved on the brassiere hook of the victim; trace of which relation with the indicted was actually denied by the Vecchiotti-Conti report, which, in this regard, had accepted the observations of the defense advisor Professor Tagliabracci, world-renowned geneticist.
Once this is considered, it is possible to proceed with a brief listing of the reasons for the appeal.
1) The first articulated reason challenged the violation of articles 627, chapter 3 and 628 of the code of criminal procedure for the nonobservance of the principles enounced in those articles, particularly referring to the necessity: a) to ascertain the presence of the suspects on the crime scene; 2) to outline the subjective positions of the Rudy Guede’s assumed co-attackers; 3) to establish the motive of Raffaele Sollecito in relation to the one asserted for Guede.
In strict connection with the aforementioned appeal, also, further reasons of complaint are advanced, specifically contexted within the logic of incorrect reasoning, with regard to the meaning of article 606 lett e) of the code of criminal procedure, connected with the challenged avoidance.
- The first concerns the appealed denial of the evidentiary phase re-opening, also expressed in the order dated on 30th September 2013, also appealed. The request procedurally proposed by the defense (based on the new reasons of the 29th June 2013 and the minutes of the hearing dated 30th September 2013) was aimed to acknowledge the actual presence of the accused on the crime scene and the role carried out by each one of them on the occasion. It is advanced also:
- the omitted evaluation of decisive elements regarding Sollecito’s alibi, with particular reference to the results of the integrative report submitted by the technical expert for one of the parties, D’Ambrosio, which demonstrates the interaction of the indicted with his computer;
- manifest illogicality of the reason in relation to what is expressed by article 522 of the code of criminal procedure; in the absence of motivations capable to exceed the limit of beyond reasonable doubt with regards to supposed participation of Sollecito to the criminal act of murder and to the role he carried out in the crime;
- lack of reasoning in the motivations report, in relation with articles 192 and 238 bis, with regards to the content of the irrevocable sentence against Guede in order to identify a reason for the murder.
The requested re-opening of the evidentiary phase, aimed to demonstrate the absence of the indicted on the crime scene and the inexistence of any reason, was illogically denied, especially since the appealed sentence had already asserted an autonomous reason, of sexual nature, against Guede.
Furthermore, the denial of the re-opening of evidentiary phase also includes a law violation in regard to article 627, second paragraph, in accordance to which “if the appeal sentence is annulled and the parties issue a request, the judge orders the re-activation of the evidentiary phase in relation to the assumption of evidence found relevant for the decision”
Even if is not intended to follow the case law orientation in line with the renewing of the appealed preliminary hearing, as for the right to evidence, the appeal judge was, however, obliged to give reason for the denial of the request of re-opening of evidentiary discussion in a rational manner and consistent with the evidentiary framework.
It was, among other things, requested a genetic perizia [examination/investigation by judge-appointed experts] in relation to the stain (apparently of spermatic nature) present on the victim’s pillowcase, in order to verify its nature and possible attribution to an unknown third party; a perizia aimed to acknowledge the effective possibility to carry out a selective cleaning in order to remove only the traces connectable with the current appellants, inside the victim’s room, without removing the ones retrieved and correctly attributed to Mr. Guede; the carrying out of exams on the item 165 B, with previous acquisition from the criminal laboratory department, of the residual DNA sample extracted from the brassiere hook and further genetic exams on the same item, ordering for such purpose a supplementary investigation in order to cancel every reason of doubt on the matter;  exams on the stone retrieved inside Ms. Romanelli’s room, in order to identify the presence of DNA on the stone surface; audiometric test [perizia] aimed to acknowledge the possibility of hearing the supposed heart-rending scream coming from the house in via della Pergola and the footsteps with the windows closed, of the witness Capezzali; IT investigation [perizia] on Sollecito’s computer, in order to verify the existence of human interactions during the night between the 1st and 2nd November 2007; anthropometric perizia in relation to the build, height, gait and somatic features of the subject filmed by the parking facility camera, to be compared with the physical features of Guede and his clothes at the moment of the arrest; examination according to the ex-article 197 bis of Guede in regards to the facts happened the night of the murder.
The rejection of the aforementioned evidentiary discussion requests has been motivated by the appeal judge by illogical and off-topic reasoning.
2) Violation of article 606 lett. e), with reference to the wrong reading and interpretation of the content of Knox’s report.
3) Another incorrect reasoning has been deduced with reference to the considered irrelevance of the exact determination of the hour of death of Meredith Kercher (which according to the defense should have been placed between 9 and 10 PM, 10:15 PM at most), with special reference to the exam carried out on Ms. Kercher’s phone records.
4) The same flaw has been challenged regarding the supposed incompatibility of Mr. Curatolo’s declarations with the time of the scream, and the asserted irrelevance of [scientific] exams on the precise hour of death of the young English woman.
5) Also distorted was the interpretation of Capezzali’s declarations, of which has been attached the relative transcription.
6) In regards to flawed reasoning, interpreted according to the new wording of article 606 lett. e) of the code of criminal proceeding, the erroneous interpretation of Mr. Curatolo’s witness declarations is challenged.
7) The same for Mr. Quintavalle’s testimony and the omitted examination of the evidential contribution of inspector Volturno, who submitted the service note according to which the aforementioned Quintavalle had told of having seen Mr. Sollecito and Amanda always together.
8) With reference to the combined provisions of articles 606 lett. e) and 192 of the procedure code it is, then, challenged the erroneous evaluation of the proof in relation to the supposed participation of persons in the crime, with particular reference to the contested examination of the footprints and traces highlighted by luminol.
9) Also challenged is the misrepresentation of the evidence related to the time of the 112 call, also based on the supposed error of the timer of the camera situated near the parking lot.
10) Identical violation is challenged with reference to the supposed alteration of the crime scene carried out by the two suspects.
11) Other case of motivational deficit, a sub-type of evidence misrepresentation, and also contradiction or manifest motivational illogicality, is challenged, according to article 192 of the code of criminal procedure, regarding the supposed falsehood of the provided alibi and the related violation of the principle nemo tenetur se detegere.
Moreover, it should have been considered as a “failed” alibi, not “false”, and as such not suitable to sustain an “evidential conclusion”, otherwise it would be subject to inadmissible inversion of the burden of proof.
12) Also erroneous was the interpretation of the results of the genetic evidence on item 36) and on the supposed compatibility of the seized weapon with the most serious wound observed on the victim’s neck. With regards to this, it was clear the misrepresentation in which the judge was involved, given that on the knife’s blade was not observed any mixed Kercher-Sollecito DNA. On the same instrument had been retrieved traces of starch, proof that it was not true that it had been properly washed in order to remove incriminating traces. Furthermore, the starch, found in plants, has a well-known absorbing capability, so it should have absorbed the blood in case it was used for the commitment of the crime.
Hence, the motivated request to refer the trial papers to a United Sections of Cassation panel.
Furthermore the assumption that the most serious wound on the left side of the victim’s neck would have been inflicted with a single strike was denied by unambiguous emerging proofs, such as the results of the examination submitted by pathologist Cingolani, and also the conclusions of the party’s expert Introna.
13) The motivation of the appealed sentenced was objectionable also in relation to the asserted availability of the kitchen knife for Amanda Knox at the time of the aggression. In this regard, it was illogical to state that the kitchen knife, used for the homicide, wouldn’t have been hidden, considering that the furniture and instruments of the apartment rented by Sollecito were listed in inventory, so that the lack of the knife would have generated suspecion, and according to this it was replaced in its place subsequent to cleaning.
Also clearly illogical was the motivation related to the carrying of the knife on the part of Ms. Knox, with asserted use of the capacious purse in her possession, for supposed reasons of personal defense, for this purpose induced by Sollecito who was familiar with knives. It was not considered that to be true this explanation would exclude the hypothesis of joint concurrence, since it would admit that the suspect woman was alone  and not able to take advantage of, in case of aggression by strangers, the supposed defense by her boyfriend.
However, there was no evidence on the supposed concurrence of the appellant in [a charge of] unjustified carrying of thee knife.
14) Obvious also was the flawed reasoning on the results of the genetic investigations on the bra hook, for which a referral to a United Sections of Cassation panel is requested.
With regard to the possible contamination of the item, the appeal judges overlooked the photographic material placed before the court, which clearly demonstrated the possible contamination, regarding the way the hook was treated, with a “hand to hand” passage carried out by persons who wore dirty latex gloves.
Furthermore, a second amplification was not carried out on the hook despite the fact that half of the sample was still available, and remained unused.
Also, the hook, though observed during the first inspection carried out by the scientific police, was left on the ground, on the floor, and there it remained for some time. It wasn’t true, also, that between the first access and the one during which the hook was finally collected, only two inspections by the investigators took place, in reality there were more and in such occasions everything was put in disarray.
With regard to this, the objections by the defense and the contrary conclusions of the defense adviser professor Tagliabracci, were not considered.
15) A misrepresentation of the evidence also took place in relation to the actual delivery of the progress reports [SAL] on the examinations carried out by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, of the scientific police.
16) Another reason for complaint with regard to the judge’s motivations context is related to the supposed theft simulation in Romanelli’s room and the absence of motivation in the new reasoning presented in the report of 29th July 2013.
In this regard, it is argued that it was Sollecito who notified the postal police, their having arrived in via della Pergola for other reasons (the retrieval of Kercher’s cellular phones, one of them with the sim card in the name of Romanelli), about the strangeness of the fact that from the room of the housemate of Kercher and Knox, the computer and valuable items were not missing; that the testimony declaration of lawyer Paolo Brocchi and of Matteo Palazzoli, presented in the new submiessions, regarding acts of thievery carried out by Guede with modalities similar to the ones that were supposed to be used for the breaking-into the apartment in via della Pergola, were not considered; nor were properly considered the defense reports about the wounds on the palm of the hand palm of Guede at time of his arrest in Germany; nor that the evidence had been misrepresented with reference to the collocation of the glass shards, given that from the collected testimony declarations  it resulted that the shards of glass were placed both under and over the objects present in Romanelli’s room; that, also, a glass fragment was retrieved in Meredith’s room, indicating that whoever unlawfully entered the room had brought that fragment with him. Therefore, it was clear that the sentence under appeal was based on mere speculations, totally detached from the trial’s reality.
17) Challenged also is the violation of article 238 bis of code of criminal procedure, on the fact that through the acquisition [in the trial against Knox and Sollecito] of the irrevocable sentences issued against Guede, it was intended to make use of declarations released contra alios in a different procedural context, although those declarations were issued in absence of the blamed persons. Beyond this point, for which a referral to United Sections of Cassation was solicited, Guede’s declarations were erroneously evaluated, in violation of the standards dictated by article 192 of the code of criminal procedure and the indications of this Court (p. 57). It was true that those declarations were adopted as a mere confirmation element, but they were still unusable declarations. The sentences about him, after all, also the Supreme Court ones, demonstrated the absolute unreliability of Mr. Guede.
18) Another violation of the article 238 bis of the code of criminal procedure was challenged with reference to the supposed binding effectiveness of external final verdicts [giudicato esterno].
19) Also related to the declarations of Guede, their use constituted a violation of articles 111 Const., 526 chapter 1 bis of the code of criminal procedure, and 6 of the European Convention. And also on this matter, referral to a United Sections of Cassation panel was requested.’
20) In the event that such legal approach is not shared [by the Supreme Court], a question of constitutional illegitimacy was advanced of those laws which allowed bypassing the regulatory prohibitions in regards to the usability of declarations incriminating third parties in the absence of the accused persons, by means of the mere acquisition of irrevocable judgments against the declarant and containing the relative propagations contra alios.
21) Incorrect reasoning was also challenged in relation to the supposed possibility of contamination of the evidence during the appeal, independently from the doubting of sufficient quantity expressed on the point.
22) There was also a lack of rationale also related to the aggravating circumstance of sexual violence.
23) The same also applies with regard to the supposed theft of the victim’s cellular phones.
24) Clear also is the violation of the principle of the beyond reasonable doubt, because of the omission of the examination of alternative solutions.
Finally, a rationale was omitted on a possible downgrading of the charge from voluntary murder to the less serious charges of aiding a crime or manslaughter, and also the application of mitigating circumstances.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (33)
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Supreme Court Confirms All Three Were There And Lied, Knox Apologists Desperate To Downplay That
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Overview Of Several Coming Series
The language, logic and law of the Marasca/Bruno Report are about as odd as Rome courtwatchers have ever seen.
We have more or less signed off on a translation (posting it by weeks-end) which tries hard to preserve these oddities intact, so that impartial minds can arrive at a correct assessment of what it is worth.
The Fifth Chambers normally handles appeals of verdicts for fraud, defamation, and other fairly mundane non-violent personal injuries. Their reports are almost invariably 1-3 pages long.
If this appeal by Knox and Sollecito against the Nencini court findings and guilty sentences had been handled without chicanery, it is the First Chambers which deals with murder cases and which annulled most of the Hellmann appeal outcome in 2013 which would have got this appeal.
But if the bizarre Marasca/Bruno report was intended as a whitewash, it should get very poor marks. Knox’s and Sollecito’s legal teams seem to realise that. Hence the lack of noise.
The report does nothing to help Knox and Sollecito to get beyond their calunnia, villiipendio and diffamazione trials, it makes a win against either or both in a wrongful-death suit more or less an assured thing, and it whacks the frivolous and dishonest ECHR appeal by Amanda Knox on the head.
2. Passages Noting Knox And Sollecito Were There
The report also makes Rome lawyers question why Knox and Sollecito were not at minimum found guilty of being accessories after the fact.
In chapters 4, 9 and 10 the report makes very clear that Knox and Sollecito were BOTH at the house on the night. The proof of that stands up. Key excerpts from our final translation below.
Among many others, passages shown in bold have been deliberately garbled in an amateur translation done for Knox. See some of the corrections by Machiavelli underneath.
From Chapter 4
4.3.1 As for the first question, the use of the [Guede’s] definitive verdict in the current judgement, for any possible implication, is unexceptionable , since it abides with the provision of art. 238 bis of Penal Code [sic]. Based on such provision “(…) the verdicts [p. 26] that have become irrevocable can be accepted [acquired] by courts as pieces of evidence of facts that were ascertained within them and evaluated based on articles 187 and 192 par 3”.
Well, so the “fact” that was ascertained within that verdict, indisputably, is Guede’s participation in the murder “concurring with other people, who remain unknown”. The invoking of the procedural norms indicated means that the usability of such fact-finding is subordinate to [depends on] the double conditions [possibility] to reconcile such fact within the scope of the “object of proof” which is relevant to the current judgement, and on the existence of further pieces of evidence to confirm its reliability.
Such double verification, in the current case, has an abundantly positive outcome. In fact it is manifestly evident that such fact, which was ascertained elsewhere [aliunde], relates to the object of cognition of the current judgement. The [court’s] assessment of it, in accord with other trial findings which are valuable to confirm its reliability, is equally correct. We refer to the multiple elements, linked to the overall reconstruction of events, which rule out that Guede could have acted alone. Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds (actually three) observed on the victim’s neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons. And also, the lack of signs of resistance by the young woman, since no traces of the assailant were found under her nails, and there is no evidence elsewhere [aliunde] of any desperate attempt to oppose the aggressor; the bruises on her upper limbs and those on mandibular area and lips (likely the result of forcible hand action of constraint meant to keep the victim’s mouth shut) found during the cadaver examination, and above all, the appalling modalities of the murder, which were not adequately pointed out in the appealed ruling.
And in fact, the same ruling (p. 323 and 325) reports of abundant blood spatters found on the right door of the wardrobe located inside Kercher’s room, about 50 cm above the floor. Such occurrence, given the location and direction of the drops, could probably lead to the conclusion that the young woman had her throat literally “slashed” likely as she was kneeling, while her head was being forcibly held [hold] tilted towards the floor, at a close distance from the wardrobe, when she was hit by multiple stab wounds at her neck, one of which – the one inflicted on the left side of her neck – caused her death, due to asphyxia following [to] the massive bleeding, which also filled the breathing ways preventing breathing activity, a situation aggravated by the rupture of the hyoid bone – this also linkable to the blade action – with consequent dyspnoea” (p. 48).
Such a mechanical action is hardly attributable to the conduct of one person alone.
On the other hand such factual finding, when adequately valued, could have been not devoid of meaning as for researching the motive, given that  the extreme violence of the criminal action could have been seen – because of its abnormal disproportion – not compatible with any of the explanations given in the verdict, such as mere simple grudges with Ms. Knox (also denied by testimonies presented, [even] by the victim’s mother); with sexual urges of any of the participants, or maybe even with the theory of a sex game gone wrong, of which, by the way, no mark was found on the victim’s body, besides the violation of her sexuality by a hand action of Mr. Guede, because of the DNA that could be linked to him found inside the vagina of Ms. Kercher, the consent of whom, however, during a preliminary phase of physical approach possibly consensual at the beginning, could not be ruled out.
Such finding is even less compatible with the theory of the intrusion of an unknown thief inside the house, if we consider that, within the course of ordinary events, while it is possible that a thief is taken by an uncontrollable sexual urge leading him to assail a young woman when he sees her, it’s rather unlikely that after a physical and sexual aggression he would also commit a gratuitous murder, especially not with the fierce brutality of this case, rather than running away quickly instead. Unless, obviously, we think about the disturbed personality of a serial killer, but there is no trace of that in the trial findings, since there are no records that any other killings of young women with the same modus operandi were committed in Perugia at that time.
From Chapter 9
9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it. About this, the judgment of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time  a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor the witnesses’ information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to. We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato], [they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time – except obviously the other people present inside the house – could have known (quote p. 96).
According to the slanderous statements of Ms. Knox, she had returned home in the company of Lumumba, who she had met by chance in Piazza Grimana, and when Ms. Kercher arrived in the house, Knox’s companion directed sexual attentions toward the young English woman, then he went together with her in her room, from which the harrowing scream came. So, it was Lumumba who killed Meredith and she could affirm this since she was on the scene of crime herself, albeit in another room.
Another element against her is the mixed DNA traces, her and the victim’s one, in the “small bathroom”, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing).
The fact is very suspicious, but it’s not decisive, besides the known considerations about the sure nature and attribution of the traces in question.
Nonetheless, even if we deem the attribution certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal, since it may show also a posthumous touching of that blood, during the probable attempt of removing the most visible traces of what had happened, maybe to help cover up for someone or to steer away suspicion from herself, but not contributing to full certainty about her direct involvement in the murderous action. Any further and more pertaining interpretation in fact would be anyway resisted by the circumstance – this is decisive indeed – that no trace linkable to her was found on the scene of crime or on the victim’s body, so it follows – if we concede everything – that her contact with the victim’s blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house.
Another element against her is certainly constituted by the false accusations [calunnia] against Mr. Lumumba, afore-mentioned above.
It is not understandable, in fact, what reason could have driven the young woman to produce such serious accusations. The theory that she did so in order to escape psychological pressure from detectives seems extremely fragile, given that the woman  could not fail to realize that such accusations directed against her boss would turn out to be false very soon, given that, as she knew very well, Mr. Lumumba had no relationship with Ms. Kercher nor with the Via della Pergola house. Furthermore, the ability to present an ironclad alibi would have allowed Lumumba to obtain release and subsequently the dropping of charges.
However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her. This is confirmed by the fact that Mr. Lumumba, like Mr. Guede, is a man of colour, hence the indication of the first one would be safe in the event that the latter could have been seen by someone while entering or exiting the apartment.
And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards – apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside – on top of, but also under clothes and furniture), a staging, which can be linked to someone who – as an author of the murder and a flatmate [titolare] with a formal [“qualified”] connection to the dwelling – had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself, while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the apartment as quickly as possible. But also this element is substantially ambiguous, especially if we consider the fact that when the postal police arrived – they arrived in Via della Pergola for another reason: to search for Ms. Romanelli, the owner of the telephone SIM card found inside one of the phones retrieved in via Sperandio – the current appellants themselves, Sollecito specifically, were the ones who pointed out the anomalous situation to the officers, as nothing appeared to be stolen from Ms. Romanelli’s room.
Elements of strong suspicion are also in the inconsistencies and lies which the suspect woman committed over the statements she released on various occasions, especially in the places where her narrative was contradicted by the telephone records showing different incoming SMS messages; by the testimonies of Antonio Curatolo about the presence of [the same] Amanda Knox in piazza Grimana in the company of Sollecito, and of Mario Quintavalle about her presence inside the supermarket the morning of the day after the murder, maybe to buy detergents. Despite this, the features of intrinsic inconsistency and poor reliability of the witnesses, which were objected to many times during the trial, do not allow to attribute unconditional trust to their versions, in order to prove with reassuring certainty the failure, and so the falsehood, of the alibi presented by the suspect woman, who claimed to have been at her boyfriend’s home since the late afternoon of November 1st until the morning of the following day. Mr. Curatolo (an enigmatic character: a clochard, drug addicted and dealer)  besides the fact that his declarations were late and the fact that he was not foreign to judiciary showing-off in judicial cases with a strong media impact, he was also contradicted about his reference to young people waiting for public buses to leave in the direction of disco clubs in the area, since it was asserted that the night of the murder the bus service was not operational; and also the reference to masks and jokes, which he says he witnessed that evening, would lead to believe that it was on Halloween night, on October 31., and not on Nov. 1. instead. The latter point apparently balances – still within a context of uncertainty and ambiguousness – the witness’ reference to (regarding the context where he reportedly noticed the two suspects together) the day before the one when he noticed (at an afternoon hour) an unusual movement of Police and Carabinieri, and in particular people wearing white suites and head covers (as if they were extra-terrestrials) entering the house in Via della Pergola (obviously on November 2., after the discovery of the body).
Mr. Quintavalle – apart from the lateness of his statements, initially reticent and generic – did not offer any contribute of certainty, not even about the goods bought by the young woman noticed on the morning subsequent to the murder, when he opened his store, while his recognizing Knox in the courtroom is not relevant, since her image had appeared on all newspapers and tv news.
Regarding the biological traces, signed with letters A and I (the latter analysed by the RIS) sampled from the knife seized in Sollecito’s house and yielding Knox’s genetic profile, they constitute a neutral element, given that the same suspect lived together with Mr. Sollecito in the same home in via Garibaldi, although she alternated with the via della Pergola home, and – as for what was said – the same instrument did not have blood traces from Ms. Kercher, a negative circumstance that contrasted the accusation hypotheses that it was the murder weapon.
On that point, it must be pointed out that – again following a disputable strategic choice by the scientific police genetic experts – it was decided that the investigation aimed at identifying the genetic profile should be privileged, rather than finding its biological nature, given that the quantity of the samples did not allow a double test: the quality test would in fact would have “used up” the sample or made it unusable for further tests. A very disputable option, since the detecting of blood traces, referable to Ms. Kercher, would have provided the trial with a datum of a formidable probative relevance, incontrovertibly certifying the use of the weapon for the committing of the crime. The verified presence of the same weapon inside Sollecito’s house, where Ms. Knox was living together with him, would have allowed then any possible deduction in this respect. Instead, the verified identification of the traces with genetic profiles of Ms. Knox resolves itself in a not unequivocal and rather indifferent datum, given that the young American woman was living together with Mr. Sollecito, sharing time between his dwelling and  the Via della Pergola one. Not only that, but even if it was possible to attribute with certainty trace B to the genetic profile of Ms. Kercher, the trial datum would have been not decisive (since it’s not a blood trace), given the promiscuity or commonality of inter-personal relations typical of out-of-town students, which make it plausible that a kitchen knife or any other tool could be transported from one house to the other and thus, the seized knife could have been brought by Ms. Knox in Via della Pergola for domestic use, in occasion of convivial meetings or other events, and therefore be used by Ms. Kercher.
What is certain is, that on the knife no blood traces were found, a lack which cannot be referred to an accurate cleaning. As was accurately pointed out by the defence attorneys, the knife had traces of starch, a sign of ordinary home use and of a washing anything but accurate. Not only, but starch is, notoriously, a substance with remarkable absorbing property, thus it is very likely that in the event of a stabbing, blood elements would be retained by it.
It is completely implausible the accusative assumption on the point, that the young woman would be used to carrying the bulky item with her for a self-defence purpose, using – it is said – the large bag she had for that purpose. It wouldn’t be actually understandable why the woman, if warned by her boyfriend to pay attention during her night time movements, was not in possession of one of the small pocket knives surely owned by Sollecito, who apparently had the hobby of that kind of weapon and was a collector of a number of them.
Finally, the matching with the current appellant woman of the footprints found in the place location of the murder is far from being certain.
9.4.2 Also the evidential picture about Mr. Sollecito, emerging from the impugned verdict, appears marked by intrinsic and irreducible contradictions.
His presence on the murder scene, and specifically inside the room where the murder was committed, is linked to only the biological trace found on the bra fastener hook (item 165/b), the attribution of which, however, cannot have any certainty, since such trace is insusceptible of a second amplification, given its scarce amount, for that it is – as we said – an element lacking of circumstantial evidentiary value.
It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine.
On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.
And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file. Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house. Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action.
The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.
An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2. But as it was previously noted, such witness statements appeared to have strong margins of ambiguity and approximation, so that could not reasonably constitute the foundation of any certainty, besides the problematic judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge.
An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.
Finally, no certainty could be reached [was acquired] about the attribution to Mr. Sollecito of the footprints found in the via della Pergola house, about which the technical reports carried out have not gone beyond a judgement of “probable identity”, and not of certainty (p. 260/1).
9.4.3. It is just the case to observe, that the declaration of the lacking of a probative framework, coherent and sufficient to support the accusatory hypothesis regarding the more serious case of the homicide, reverberates on the residual, accessory charges referred in point d) (theft of the phones) and e) (simulation of crime).
From Chapter 10
10. The intrinsic contradiction of probative elements emerging from the text of the appealed sentence, undermines in nuce the connecting tissue of the same sentence, causing the annulment of it.
And in fact, when facing a picture marked by such contradiction, the appeal judge was not supposed to issue a conviction but rather – as we observed above – they were compelled to issue a ruling of acquittal with reference to art. 530 paragraph 2 of penal procedure code.
At this point the last question remains, about the annulment formula – that is, whether it should be annulled with remand or without remand. The solving of such question is obviously related to the objective possibility of further tests, which could resolve the aspects of uncertainty, maybe through new technical investigations.
The answer is certainly negative, because the biological traces on the items relevant to the investigation are of scarce entity, as such they can’t undergo amplification, and thus they won’t render answers of absolute reliability, neither in terms of identity nor in terms of compatibility.
The computers belonging to Amanda Knox and to Ms. Kercher, which maybe could have provided information useful to the investigation, were, incredibly, burned by hazardous operations by investigators, which caused electric shock following a probable error of power source; and they can’t render any further information anymore, since it’s an irreversible damage.
The set of court testimonies is exhaustive, given the accuracy and completeness of the evidentiary trial phase, which had re-openings both times in the instances of appeal [rinvio; sic].
Mr. Guede, who was sure a co-participant to the murder, has always refused to cooperate, and for the already stated reasons he can’t be compelled to testify.
The technical tests requested by the defence cannot grant any contribution of clarity, not only because a long time has passed, but also because they regard aspects of problematic examination (such as the possibility of selective cleaning) or of manifest irrelevance (technical analysis on Sollecito’s computer) given that is was possible, as said, for him to go to Kercher’s house whatever the length of his interaction with the computer (even if one concedes that such interaction exists), or they are manifestly unnecessary, given that some unexceptionable technical analysis carried out are exhaustive (such are for example the cadaver inspection and the following medico-legal examinations).
Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.
[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, by the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgements during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a not-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court’s decision.]
The annulment of the verdict of conviction of Ms. Knox as for the crime written at letter A), implies the ruling out of the aggravation of teleological nexus as for the art. 61 par. 2 Penal Code. The ruling out of such aggravating circumstance makes it necessary to re-determine the penalty, which is to be quantified in the same length established by the Court of Appeals of Perugia, about the adequacy of which large and sufficient justification was given, based on determination parameters which are to be subscribed to entirely.
It is just worth to note that the outcome of the judgement allows to deem as absorbed, or implicitly ruled out, any other objection, deduction or request by the defences, while any other argumentative aspect among those not examined, should be deemed manifestly inadmissible since it obviously belongs to the merit.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (26)
Friday, September 18, 2015
Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #7
Posted by Chimera
The Dark Force: evil for evil’s sake? This is a long post, click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Overview Of This Post
My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone she ever encountered, while falsely making the notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed Knox look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.
Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith. And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.
I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here. Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition. Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207. Post #5 dissected pages 207 to 243. Post #6 dissected pages 243 to 291.
2. Dissection Of Pages 291 to 327.
[Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... Some evidence, including my 5:45 A.M. “confession,” when I confusedly described Patrick as the murderer, wasn’t allowed to be introduced in the criminal case. At that moment I had already officially became a suspect and had a right to a lawyer. The same evidence could be, and was, discussed in front of the jury in the civil cases….’‘
- It was not a confession. You claimed to witness Patrick, and it was a false accusation. Big difference.
- You weren’t confused. You were stressed that Raffaele took your alibi, and this accusation was your ‘‘solution’‘.
- Your 1:45am statement was also thrown out, but you neglected to list that.
- Your line about becoming a suspect is the correct reasoning (for once). However, it is undermined by your claims that you were mistreated. You were not abused, and the only reason the first 2 statements were suppressed was because your status changed from ‘‘witness’’ to ‘‘suspect’‘.
[Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... The way the Italian justice system works is that during deliberations, each of the judges and jurors gets to say what he or she believes the sentence should be—from nothing to life imprisonment. Unlike in the United States, where the decision has to be unanimous, what’s required in Italy is a majority consensus—the maximum sentence supported by at least five jurors….’‘
- You say this in an insulting way. A 5 juror minimum is still a significant burden to meet.
[Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... It took hearing only a few sentences for me to know that the interpreter was giving me the condensed version. The one plus to prison was that my Italian had improved so much that I could think in the language. I decided not to use her anymore. My lawyers could explain what I didn’t understand….’‘
- This is touching, but you spoke Italian quite well before ever being arrested.
- Now you are getting cocky, and saying you think in the language?
- You didn’t use her anymore? There was an interpreter when you testified. She was in the photo ‘YOU’ provided (page 200)
- Your lawyers could explain what you didn’t understand? Like the prosecution having a strong case?
[Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... The first thing discussed was the motive. The prosecution’s simple story was absolutely false, but it apparently rang true for the authorities. They added flourishes in the course of the trial—Meredith was smarter, prettier, more popular, neater, and less into drugs and sex than I was. For some of or all these reasons, she was a better person, and I, unable to compete, had hated her for it. I had cut her throat in rage and revenge. It was idiotic….’‘
- Meredith wasn’t into drugs at all. You are lying on this point.
- Less into sex than you? Well, Meredith didn’t seem to need to write and talk about it all the time.
- People have killed out of jealousy before.
- Their theories are not idiotic, but it was idiotic to kill her in the first place.
[Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... Mignini relied heavily on the testimony of Meredith’s British girlfriends. Robyn Butterworth testified that my unconventional behavior had made Meredith uneasy. The others agreed—they said I brought male friends over, didn’t know to use the toilet brush, and was too out in the open about sex. Small details built up to become towering walls that my defense team couldn’t scale. I was done in by a prank gift and my unfamiliarity with Italian plumbing….’‘
- You are being disingenuous here. These issues may have been brought up, but they are not what convicted you. There is plenty of actual evidence.
[Chapter 25, Page 293] ‘’ ... My frustration doubled when Robyn talked about the bunny vibrator. I had to clarify this. When Brett gave it to me, TV shows like Friends and Sex and the City were an American obsession, with characters using vibrators as gags. The prosecution put the emphasis on sex—and me. The vibrator was proof that I was sex-obsessed—and proof that my behavior had bothered Meredith….’‘
- You frustration doubled? Being wrongly accused isn’t too bad, but misrepresenting the situation with your vibrator is?
- The prosecutor’s emphasis is on sex? Did you read chapters 2, 3, 4 of your own book?
- Did you write about your strip search, and include questions about Meredith liking anal in your emails?
- The vibrator isn’t proof you are sex-obsessed, but this book might be.
[Chapter 25, Page 294] ‘’ ... I stood. “Good morning, Judge,” I began. I was suddenly burning up, even on that cold February day. “I want to briefly clarify this question of the beauty case that should still be in my bathroom. This vibrator exists. It was a joke, a gift from a girlfriend before I arrived in Italy. It’s a little pink bunny about this long . . .”
I held up my thumb and index finger to demonstrate.
“About this long?” Judge Giancarlo Massei said, holding up two fingers to clarify.
“Yes,” I said, turning red with embarrassment.
“Ten centimeters [four inches],” he said for the court record.
“I also want to say that I’m innocent, and I trust that everything will come out, that everything will work out. Thank you.”
I remember thinking while I was speaking, Oh my God, I hope I don’t sound as stupid as I think I do. I sat down fast….’‘
- Funny, I can actually picture Knox saying something like this.
- The vibrator’s a joke. Hope it all works out? Okay ....
[Chapter 25, Page 295] ‘’ ... It did seem I’d won a small victory when Mignini questioned my former housemate Filomena. She insisted that Meredith and I got along fine and hadn’t had a falling-out —only that we’d “developed different personal interests.” She didn’t make a big deal over the friends I brought home…. Other parts of Filomena’s testimony irked me. When Mignini asked how we divided up chores in the villa, she said that we took turns. “Turns were not always respected,” she added….’‘
- So, you are okay with Filomena implying you are a slut, but offended when she says you neglected your housework?
[Chapter 25, Page 296] ‘’ ... Smoking pot was one of the ways we socialized together. But when Raffaele’s lawyer Luca Maori cross-examined her about her drug use, Filomena rewrote our shared history. “To tell you the truth, I sinned once,” she said, looking down at her lap. “I sinned.”
- Knox is trying to minimize her own drugs problems and smearing others in the process.
[Chapter 25, Page 296] ‘’ ... During her testimony a week later, Laura also avoided eye contact—and it was every bit as hurtful. But I was pleased that, at least under questioning, she didn’t make it seem that my behavior had been out of step with the rest of the house. When Mignini brought up names of guys who’d come over, Laura replied, “Those are my friends.” When he asked if anyone in the villa smoked marijuana, she said, “Everyone.”
- Your behaviour WAS out of step with the others. Meredith was on a serious student exchange, and Laura and Filomena were working in their careers. You just wanted to sleep around and do drugs.
[Chapter 25, Page 297] ‘’ ... Then the prosecutor mentioned the hickey Raffaele had given me when we were fooling around the night of November 1. “Did you see if Amanda had an injury, a scratch, some wound?” he asked her. “I noticed that Amanda had a wound on her neck when we were in the questura,” Laura answered, “precisely because Meredith had been killed with a cut to her neck. I was afraid that Amanda, too, might have been wounded.”
- Photos of the ‘‘hickey’’ are widely available, and it doesn’t look like a hickey—AT ALL.
[Chapter 25, Page 297] ‘’ ... I liked Laura and had looked up to her. She’d lent me her guitar and thought it was cool that I practiced yoga. There was only one reason why she would turn a love bite into a sign of my involvement in the murder. My stomach plunged to my knees. I can’t believe Laura, of all people, thinks I’m guilty…’‘
- Lending you her guitar and practicing yoga doesn’t make someone blind to what is staring them in the face.
- You looked up to Laura? Perhaps if you were a better person, she would look up to you as well.
- Again, it was not a hickey. It doesn’t not look like a hickey at all.
[Chapter 25, Page 298] ‘’ ... Still, I wished I’d pushed my lawyers to let me speak more often. Luciano and Carlo’s intentions were good, but I believe they underestimated the power of my voice and the damaging effect of my silence. Even with my clumsy efforts to defend myself—and with other people describing me as the girl with a vibrator, a slob, a girl with a “scratch” on her neck—what did the most damage in those early weeks was a simple T-shirt, and that was my own fault…’‘
- When are we going to hear the good stuff, like false alibis, and bloody footprints, or the double DNA knife?
- You have that all wrong. Your lawyers (and Patrick) understand full well the power, and damage caused by your voice. If only you had kept silent.
- Clumsy efforts to defend yourself? Like writing accusatory statements that could easily be disproved?
- The Beatles T-Shirt is not what did the most damage. You are trying to deflect the hard evidence.
[Chapter 25, Page 298] ‘’ ... I’m glad I didn’t wear a cross, but in hindsight I do wish someone had told me that my clothes should reflect the seriousness of the setting and my situation—that they were another way to convey my respect to the court. So when I wore the “All You Need Is Love” T-shirt, the press dwelled on what I meant by it. Is Amanda trying to say all she needs is love from the jury? One British newspaper headlined its story about that day’s hearing, “Obnoxious: Murder Trial Girl’s Love-Slogan T-Shirt. “Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality,” the article said….’‘
- You really didn’t know that clothes reflect the seriousness of the setting and situation? Wow.
- Attention grabbing + Nonchalance = Psychopath? Maybe.
[Chapter 25, Page 299] ‘’ ... The press wrote that I had to be the center of attention. In reality, prison had taught me I was nothing. Nothing revolved around me. Nothing I said mattered. I had no power. I was just occupying space. I wanted to disappear. I didn’t want to be me anymore….’‘
- Well, you definitely want to be the center of this book.
- Nothing revolves around you? You mean it revolved around that young woman who got her f***ing throat cut?
- You didn’t want to be you anymore? As in, facing a possible life sentence?
[Chapter 25, Page 303] ‘’ ... I expected the prosecution to call police officers who’d been at the villa and those who were in the interrogation room, but initially I didn’t recognize Officer Monica Napoleoni. I’d never seen her dressed to suit her title—head of the Division for Homicide Investigation. Usually she wore skin-tight jeans, form-fitting shirts, and flashy sunglasses. Wearing a dark blue jacket adorned with medals the size of silver dollars, she now looked so unlike herself that it seemed she was playing dress-up to convince people of her authority. Everything she did and said—her choice of words, the content, and the emphasis—was to impress the judges and jury with her professionalism. She defended the shoddy work of her investigators. She was repellent. She was in control of herself, sitting in a court of law and lying without a second’s hesitation. When she answered Prosecutor Mignini’s questions, she was clear, straightforward, and self-serving. She was smarter than her fellow officers. She knew the court was looking for police slipups. “We did our jobs perfectly, all the time,” she testified. “We didn’t hit Amanda.” “We’re the good guys.”
- Impress the judges with her professionalism? Do I detect some jealousy here? Please don’t kill her.
- Lying without a second’s hesitation? You are accusing her of perjury? You already falsely accused Patrick of murder, falsely accused Rita Ficarra of assault…. your track record is not encouraging. Be careful, you have enough calunnia charges already.
[Chapter 25, Page 304] ‘’ ... When the defense questioned her, Napoleoni’s manner switched from professional —albeit dishonest—to exasperated, incredulous, and condescending. For instance, when Raffaele’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno asked if the gloves police used at the crime scene were sterilized or one-use gloves, Napoleoni took a snarky tone, saying, “It’s the same thing.”
- Funny, even with the best lawyers, you were never able to prove or even demonstrate contamination.
[Chapter 25, Page 305] ‘’ ... I knew it was the police’s job to analyze the scene of a crime, gather clues, and determine who did it. But here in Perugia the police and the prosecutor seemed to be coming at Meredith’s murder from the opposite direction. The investigation was sospettocentrico—“suspect-oriented”: they decided almost instantly that Raffaele and I were guilty and then made the clues fit their theory. Instead of impartiality, the prosecution’s forensic experts were relentless in their drive to incriminate us. Their campaign was astonishing for its brashness and its singleness of purpose….’‘
- This is contradicted in your own book. Chapter 7, you write that EVERYONE from your house was detained until 3am: Yourself, Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, Marco, and the other 2 men downstairs. They did not focus on you.
- You were not even supposed to be at the police station. Raffaele was called to come —alone—to clear up inconsistencies with his alibi. You say, in this book, you had to beg them to let you into the police station, as you were afraid.
- Their ‘‘drive’’ is to find out the truth, and to let the forensic clues lead them to it.
[Chapter 25, Page 305] ‘’ ... Napoleoni added that, later, at the questura, we “were absolutely indifferent to everyone. They sprawled in the waiting room, sprawled on the seats, kissed each other, made faces at each other the entire time . . . They talked to each other under their breath. I noted their behavior because it seemed impossible that these two kids thought to kiss each other when the body of their friend had been found in those conditions.” My housemates and their friends reacted more appropriately, Napoleoni said. They “were all crying,” she told the court. “Some despaired.” To Napoleoni, Raffaele and I were self-centered narcissists. We lacked basic compassion. And we were liars through and through….’‘
- Meredith’s British friends, and the other housemates, including Giacomo, all corroborated this. Were they all lying?
- You are a liar through and through .... ironically, a very true statement.
[Chapter 25, Page 306] ‘’ ... I was surprised but didn’t doubt her. Realizing that someone had broken in, I’d been afraid when I went back in the villa with Raffaele. I looked at the toilet from a distance and, not seeing anything in the bowl, assumed someone had flushed it. Clearly, I was wrong. Apparently the feces had slid down farther into the bowl. But Napoleoni acted as if, in discovering the unflushed toilet, she’d caught us in a lie and that we’d ineptly scrambled to come up with a cover…’‘
- A cover? As in why not just flush day old poop?
[Chapter 25, Page 306] ‘’ ... Napoleoni went on, twisting each aspect of the case. “I immediately noted that the house couldn’t have been broken into from the outside. It seemed to have been done after the room was made a mess. I immediately noted that there was glass on the windowsill, and if a stone came from the outside, the glass should have fallen below.” She also said that when the Postal Police came to the villa with the phones Meredith had been using, “they asked Amanda if it was normal that Meredith locked her door. Amanda said Meredith always locked her door, even when taking a shower.”
- Yes, the police saw signs the break in had been staged.
- That is what you told the police. The ‘‘clarifications’’ you try to add later in this book are deceptive.
[Chapter 25, Page 307] ‘’ ... The homicide chief added that by checking telephone activity tables, the police discovered that both my cell phone and Raffaele’s had been inactive the night before Meredith was found. “Amanda from 8:35 P.M. and Sollecito from 8:42 P.M.” That fact meant nothing, but Napoleoni presented it as if, in turning off our phones, we had had an ulterior motive. That we’d wanted to watch a movie without being interrupted did not come up. “We looked for contradictions,” Napoleoni told the court, “and the contradictions always came from Amanda and Raffaele, because the account they gave us was too strange. It was improbable.”
- Knox says this in a defiant way, but police did wonder why the phones were turned off, as they never had been before.
- When the police have suspects, they do look for contradictions, and improbabilities. It is called ‘‘DOING THEIR JOBS’‘.
[Chapter 25, Page 308] ‘’ ... On the stand, my chief interrogator, Rita Ficarra, seemed much smaller than she had at the police station. Middle-aged, with dull, shoulder-length brown hair, she came across as reasonable. Who would believe that she’d been ruthless, questioning me for hours, refusing to believe that I didn’t know who’d murdered Meredith? I wondered how this woman, who now struck me as average in every way, had instilled such fear in me. Like Napoleoni, Ficarra insisted, “No one hit her.” She was serene and straight-faced as she testified. Ficarra elaborated. “Everyone treated her nicely. We gave her tea. I myself brought her down to get something to eat in the morning,” she said, as if she were the host at a B&B. Then she added, “She was the one who came in and started acting weird, accusing people.”
- Ficarra can say things straight faced. Amanda, are you jealous you can’t lie like that?
- We don’t believe that she was ruthless and grilled you for hours .... because it never happened
- Yes, falsely accusing an innocent person is a bit weird.
[Chapter 25, Page 309] ‘’ ... She told the jury that when she had returned to the questura at around 11 P.M., she and her colleague came through the door and into the hall. “I found Amanda . . . My astonishment was that I found her demonstrating her gymnastic abilities. She did a cartwheel, a bridge, she did splits,” Ficarra said. “It honestly seemed out of place to me.”
- On her May 1, 2013 interview with Diane Sawyer, Knox clarified that she only did the splits.
[Chapter 25, Page 309] ‘’ ... The longer Ficarra testified, the more she made it seem that the pressure the police exerted on me to confess was all in my head, that I’d blown the interrogation out of proportion. “In the end it was a calm dialogue, because I tried to make her understand that our intent was to seek collaboration,” she said…’‘
- They weren’t pressuring you to confess. Since you insisted on being there, they asked if you could think of anyone else who might have visited the house. You made a list of 7 men (including Patrick, Rudy, Spyros and Juve), and drew maps. However, this ‘‘list’’ is not mentioned in your book
[Chapter 25, Page 310] ‘’ ... Judge Massei asked Ficarra if I spoke to her in English or Italian.
“In Italian,” Ficarra answered. “I repeat that she speaks Italian. She spoke only Italian with me. I don’t understand a word of English.”
I remembered my interrogation, when they yelled that if I didn’t stop lying and tell them who had killed Meredith they would lock me up for thirty years. That was still their goal. I was terrified now that I was the only one who saw through them….’
- You did speak Italian, even in 2007. Read the December 2007 transcript with Mignini. You understood most of his questions.
[Chapter 25, Page 310] ‘’ ... The gossip at Capanne was that Guede had found God in prison, and when he walked to the witness stand, looking less cocky and more disheveled than during the pretrial, my hope surged. Maybe he’d been seized by his conscience. I imagined that he’d face Raffaele and me and say straight out that neither of us had participated in the murder. But after Guede was sworn in, he uttered just six words: “Riservo il diritto di non rispondere”—“I reserve the right not to respond.”
Then he stepped down. He didn’t look at me or anyone else as he was led through the double metal doors in the back of the courtroom, flanked by guards just as Raffaele and I always were. He wore an expression of blank indifference. Guede knew his silence could cost us our freedom. But there was no way to make him tell the truth. People have the right not to incriminate themselves—and in protecting himself, he helped to damn us…’‘
- You only testified in the 2009 trial because the scope of questioning was limited.
- You refused to testify at the 2011 Hellmann appeal
- You refused to even attend the 2013/2014 Nencini appeal
- You refused to even attend the 2015 Cassation appeal
- Sollecito refused to testify at the 2009 Massei trial
- Sollecito refused to testify at the 2011 Hellmann appeal
- Sollecito refused to testify at the 2013/2014 Nencini appeal
- Yet, it is Guede’s silence that damned you?
[Chapter 26, Page 313] ‘’ .... After I was accused of murder, people read new meaning into everything about me. A hickey on my neck became a scratch from Meredith in her last, desperate moments. An awkward encounter about a dirty toilet became a murder motive. Male friends I brought home became mysterious lovers of questionable character. Rudy Guede’s aside to the guys downstairs about my being cute became proof that he would do anything to earn my attention and approval….’‘
- Turn these things around, and they do explain your PR attempts somewhat.
- A scratch, a wound from Meredith was explained away as a ‘‘hickey’‘.
- A motive for wanting to kill Meredith, could be explained away as a ‘‘dirty toilet encounter’‘.
- Lovers of questionable character, could be explained away as ‘‘just friends’‘.
- A jealous male wanting your attention and approval, could be explained as ‘‘just thinking that you’re cute’‘.
- Okay what did Sollecito use to give you that hickey? His mouth? Fingernails? Knife?
- So who were these ‘’ male friends’’ if they weren’t lovers? What were you doing? Do you even know their names?
- Disingenuous on the dirty toilet, the toilet was just one thing in many of you being messy?
- Guede thought you were cute. Did you know this ‘‘before’’ Meredith’s murder?
[Chapter 26, Page 314] ‘’ ... It wasn’t necessary for any of these people to be right. It was enough for them to raise doubts, to make it seem that I was lying. They had to be only marginally convincing…’‘
- So, are you accusing the prosecution of suborning perjury?
- If there is no evidence, as you repeatedly claim, what exactly were they all testifying about?
[Chapter 26, Page 314] ‘’ ... Marco Quintavalle, a storekeeper who lived near Raffaele’s apartment, told the court that he saw a girl waiting for the shop to open at a quarter to eight on the morning of Friday, November 2. “She had a hat and scarf obscuring much of her face but what struck me was how pale she looked and the color of her blue eyes . . . she went to the section at the back of the supermarket on the left, where there are the cleaning products. I can’t remember if she bought anything.”
- You imply that Quintavalle is lying. Any thoughts as to why that may be?
- His description is quite detailed, but then again, your ‘‘interrogation with Mignini’’ November 6th, was quite detailed too.
- Silly question, you didn’t just shoplift some bleach, did you?
[Chapter 26, Page 314] But when he saw my picture in the paper a few days later, his memory was precise. “I recognized her as the same girl,” he said. When asked if the girl was in the courtroom, Quintavalle pointed at me. “It’s her,” he said. “I’m sure of it.” I’d gone to the little store once to pick up milk and cereal. Once. I’d never been in the back, where the cleaning products are apparently shelved.
- You have such a poor memory about the time of Meredith’s murder, yet you are absolutely certain you only went there once—for cereal?
- And you are absolutely certain that you only went to ‘‘certain parts’’ of the store?
- Little store? Is this an insult, or were you there enough to remember what it looks like.
- Apparently stored? A pretty weak denial.
[Chapter 26, Page 314] He [Quintavalle] hadn’t wanted to get involved in the murder case and had come forward only at the urging of a journalist friend in August 2008. I relaxed a little. The jury would see what was true and what wasn’t. The media purposely did not. “A New Hole Appears in Amanda Knox’s Alibi” and “Witness Contradicts Amanda Knox’s Account.” News stories like this infuriated my family and friends. But strangers, no doubt, would think, There goes Amanda, lying again.
- That is not true at all, it was not a journalist friend that urged him to get involved?
- Stories like this infuriated family and friends? How? Do any of them speak Italian? Although present in court, could your family understand what was said?
- Strangers would think you were lying? Your own lawyers thought you were lying about being hit by police.
- If people might think you are lying, was that the reason to hire a PR firm? To set things straight?
[Chapter 26, Page 315] ‘’ ... Nara Capezzali was a widow in her late sixties who lived in an apartment building behind the parking lot across the street from our villa. She testified that she heard a scream between 11 and 11:30 P.M. “It made my skin crawl, to be honest,” she said. She was certain of the time because she took a nightly diuretic and always woke up around 11 P.M. to use the bathroom…’‘
- Interesting that you try to discredit her, but you and Guede (2 co-accused) had both confirmed Meredith screaming.
- In your own (false accusation) statements, you include this detail about Meredith screaming. Oops.
[Chapter 26, Page 315] Before falling back asleep, she said she heard footsteps running up the metal stairs by the parking lot. “At almost the same moment,” she heard the crunching of feet on gravel and leaves coming from the direction of our driveway. Never mind that our driveway wasn’t gravel; it was mostly dirt. Meredith’s room was on the back of our house, as far as possible from Capezzali’s. The defense doubted that anyone could have heard these noises across a busy road and behind closed windows with double panes. But the prosecution clung to Capezzali’s account, which was a linchpin used to approximate Meredith’s time of death.
- Yes, because after hearing a ‘‘skin-crawling’’ scream, most people would just head off to bed.
- You say Meredith’s room was ‘‘at the back, as far as possible from Capezzali’s’‘. Yet, you also say that she was ‘‘across the road’‘, so your qualifier doesn’t do much to discredit her.
- Really? The road was busy at 11PM on a holiday? Interesting.
- Of course the ‘‘defense doubted’‘. It is their job to doubt things.
- The scream was ‘‘the linchpin’‘? I guess hearing screams that ‘‘make your skin crawl’’ are common there.
[Chapter 26, Page 316] ‘’ ... One of the few points on which the prosecution and defense agreed was that the police had made an inexcusable blunder shortly after the body was found. They prevented the coroner from taking Meredith’s temperature for hours, squandering the best chance to gauge her time of death. The second option—analyzing the contents of Meredith’s stomach—was far less reliable. The third—Capezzali’s memory—wasn’t reliable at all…’‘
- The prosecution agreed that there was a blunder made? Show us a transcript that says that.
- Body temperature can give a rough estimate of T.O.D., based on the ‘‘1 degree an hour’’ guideline. Meredith had been dead at least 14 hours at that point. Even if the police had waited a few hours more, they still could have gotten an approximate T.O.D. Body temperature (of living people) has a very small range, and you can still work backwards to get it.
- Stomach contents, and analysing digestion, can give an estimate on how long since a person last ate until death. A guideline, once again.
- Stomach content analysing is far less reliable? It is used in the U.S. as well. However, in the next page you say that it is far more reliable than the scream Nara heard.
- No medical examiner with any integrity, would ever give an exact T.O.D., but rather a range, or an estimate. Scientists are not supposed to make claims they do not know for certain.
- Capezzali’s memory is not reliable? Read any of your own statements or emails?
- So, she frequently hears screams that make her skin crawl and forgot the date? Or she could not have heard a scream from across the street that you and Guede both confirm happened?
- And, did Capezzali testify to ‘‘things her mind made up?’’ Wait, you yourself make exactly those types of claims.
- So you say that stomach digestion should have been the determining factor, even though you acknowledge that body temperature was taken, and you yourself say it is reliable.
- You say that stomach digestion should be used, but it the last page you say it is far less reliable that body temperature.
- They weren’t hanging Meredith’s T.O.D. on Nara’s bathroom habits, but on when she heard Meredith scream
- So you are able to keep up with a medical examiner’s testimony (in Italian)? Impressive.
- You think you know more than the actual professionals? Okay….
- Not true. She was sure when she heard the scream.
- Put their faith in someone who doesn’t remember? Like someone whose mind makes things up? Hypocrite.
- You tried shooting hoops at the piazza before? Another time you met Rudy? You say he was known to play there.
- The most direct route between your route and your boyfriend’s, but you’d only been through once?
- You are being disingenuous. There was not an ‘‘exact’’ T.O.D., but rather the range of a few hours. Whether Curatolo saw you before or after the murder does not give you an alibi.
- It gnawed on you that you never apologized? Did it ever gnaw on you for doing it in the first place?
- Mignini didn’t twist anything you said in December 2007. He did ask for clarification many times.
- Yes, you need to show what kind of person you are. How did that work out for you?
- Really, Raffaele is ‘‘falsely’’ accused of a gruesome sex killing, and he doesn’t want to clear things up?
- He doesn’t want to at the Hellmann appeal either?
- Or at the Nencini appeal?
- Where to begin with this one? You found ‘‘smears’’ in the sink, not droplets.
- You also found ‘‘an orange shaped lump’’ of blood on the bathmat.
- You then do the bathmat shuffle to your room.
- Open door? Totally normal.
- Right, and that rank smelling toilet you still never flushed.
- You are going for a trip to Gubbio, but you never do pack, and just forget about it.
- Inexperienced people ... in what context? First time killers?
- You are facing civil and criminal charges for calunnia (making false accusations), and you are annoyed about being asked it directly?
- The interpreter hired to translate your English into Italian? Wait, you said you didn’t have an interpreter. (Photo on page 200).
- Useless woman? Was she not good at spinning your B.S. the way you wanted her to?
- Why not answer in Italian? You said your language improved so much ...
- Even in English, you are not clear and precise.
- Pacelli didn’t insinuate you came up with Patrick’s name on your own. The police all said you did
- You didn’t understand that a simple, common expression from English means something different in Italian? Some language student.
- You have spent the better part of 2 years preparing for this, but your memories are muddled by time?
- Aren’t you harshly critical of Capezzali and Quintavalle for having ‘‘muddled memories’‘?
- The phone records contradict your account. Which is more reliable?
- Again, you were not hit, not even once. You still have outstanding calunnia charges for this.
- Tea, coffee, pastries? So much for being starved.
- You made these declarations freely, and then were hungry afterwards.
- You made these declarations .... and corroborated the ‘‘scream’’ detail.
- You were advised of your right to a lawyer, after you admitted witnessing a crime you didn’t report.
- You had previously collaborated, drawing up maps of ‘‘other suspects’‘, to divert attention.
- Silly Mignini, mentioning that you have no evidence to back up your accusations.
- Left a good impression? Okay ....
- When asked if you still thought about Meredith, you said you only knew her a month, and wanted to get on with your life.
- You actually came across as cold, callous, insincere, and deceptive. You seemed to find this amusing.
- You hadn’t felt this good since Meredith was murdered? Ummm…. not going to try to answer that one.
- The break was 6 weeks, not 2 months. Rounding error i guess.
- You look for the saving graces in everyone, yet you assume everyone thinks you are a monster?
- People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T tell someone that their friend had ‘‘their throat fucking slit’‘?
- People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T say that ‘‘shit happens’’ regarding a murdered friend’?
- People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T claim someone is a friend, then that you want to get on with your life?
- Why would being good have anything to do as to whether you are believed or not? Murder cases hinge on evidence, not feelings.
- Some will do something wrong to achieve what they think is right? So, falsely accusing PL, because getting away was right?
- Which alibi was Mignini intent on undermining? The one that Raffaele refused, the party that he made up, or the one that he was alone on his computer while you went out? Or was it your alibi (statements), that you were a witness to PL killing Meredith? Or the one where you and Raffy were at his apartment?
- 2nd interrogation? It was his first ‘‘interrogation’‘. To recap:
- Mignini was not present at your 1:45 statement. Chapter 10 in your book is 100% fiction.
- Mignini was present (he was called from home), at your 5:45 statement, but asked you no questions.
- You seem to remember your number of interrogations the way you remember how many times you met Guede
- How far Mignini would go? You mean, present your lies, false statements, phone records, DNA evidence .... that is what prosecutors DO. There are these things (both in Italy and in America), called TRIALS. You will learn more.
- Well, the shoes might not implicate Raffy, but those bare feet, and that ‘‘hammer toe’’ will
- Euphoric, at another strike against Guede? Hmmm…. were you trying to frame him or something?
- Well, this is true, but in a manipulative way. Yes, Raffaele would have as much chance, namely both incidents would only happen, if Raffaele were involved in the killings.
- Victim’s DNA on suspect’s knife, and suspect’s DNA on victim’s bra? Why would the prosecution see that as evidence?
- Yes, they do tie you to the crime. No need to be sarcastic.
- You are being disingenuous again. While the DNA conclusively links Raffaele to the scene, you are implying that the police would leap to conclusions to connect you as well.
- While you present these as fantasies, they are quite reasonable. Raffaele’s connection to the house was you, his ‘‘girlfriend’‘. You claimed you were with him, yes, you were each other’s alibis. Yes, disproving the alibi of one would cast suspicion on the other.
- Separating you from your real life? What, you just want to get on with your life?
- Did you see the crime scene photos? There was a lot of blood in Meredith’s room. Yes, you could have stepped in some.
- It wasn’t investigative instinct. It was those damn false accusation statements you insisted on writing.
- Well, innocent people don’t write such things, and they tend to have just one (1) alibi.
- The foolproof tests you were expecting to clear me ... and implicate Guede?
- You are unhappy and surprised that TV and CSI lied to you? Okay ....
- Human error and bias can upend results. So can falsely claiming to witness someone doing the crime.
- You are unhappy because the lawyers only bring bad news?
- Mixed DNA in the bathroom? What about the mixed DNA in Filomena’s room—you omit that.
- You know, for all your TV interviews, you claim ‘‘no evidence’‘, but your own book lists quite a lot of it.
- You were the last person to wash up there? Finally, another truthful statement.
- You sure didn’t ‘‘shower’’ in that blood soaked bathroom the morning after, did you?
- You are trying to be flippant and sarcastic here, but most people would draw the same conclusions.
- Using the media to your disadvantage? Did the prosecution hire a PR firm or something?
- The PR didn’t convict you, the evidence, which you have been listing so well in your book, does.
- You are your only friend? What about the bisexual Cera, or Lupa, who believes in you?
- Retreating into your head is okay, just please don’t sign any more statements.
- Why include any of this? It doesn’t help clear anything up.
- You are falsely imprisoned, and you are complaining about having to clean?
- So, you proudly announce (and publish) that you are a random slut, but being a lesbian puts you off?
- Even if any of this is true, why include it? Are you just trying to humiliate Cera, they way you publish personal details about Meredith?
- This portion is somewhat accurate. This is when Knox appealed to Cassation for house arrest.
- If Knox wanted a full record, she would include what happened at the hearing. No surprise that she doesn’t. Here is the link.
- Knox is distorting things once again. Yes, accomplices turning on each other is powerful, but prosecutors usually suspect that the one is minimizing his own involvement for a reduced sentence.
- And it is not Guede that got house arrest denied. There was PLENTY of other evidence.
- There was also those psychiatric evaluations, which were a large factor, yet you don’t publish them
- No evidence of you in Meredith’s room? What about that size 37 shoeprint, which was NOT Meredith’s? Or Raffy’s DNA (which you describe), or the bra clasp?
- This is a twist of what the prosecutors believe. They thought you tried to selectively clean up, but that there was still evidence there.
- This is once again twisting things. Five (5) spots of mixed DNA Amanda/Meredith were found, including in Filomena’s room. Guede’s DNA was NEVER found in Filomena’s room, even though it is where he ‘‘supposedly’’ broke in.
- Just because these 5 mixed spots were not in the bedroom, does not mean they must be ruled out.
- And what about your shoeprint in Meredith’s room? Wait, that is not on Meredith’s body.
- Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the bathroom mat, should that be excluded simply because it was not in the ‘‘murder room’‘?
- Should that bathroom in general be excluded, simply because Meredith was not killed in the bedroom?
- Should Filomena’s bedroom be excluded, despite the (alleged) burglary point of entry, simply because Meredith wasn’t killed there?
- Should the other bathroom, where Guede left his poop be excluded, since Meredith was not killed there? Wait, that is evidence against Guede ....
- Should the hallway, where the luminol revealed bloody footprints be excluded, just because Meredith was not killed in the hall?
- Should Sollecito’s kitchen, where the murder weapon was found, be excluded, simply because Meredith was not killed there?
- So, there may be no evidence here… but only if you redefine what the crime scene is.
- Judge Matteini send the decision about house arrest on May 16th? That long? Matteini is the Judge who you saw back in November 2007, and it was the Ricciarelli court in Noivember 2007 and the Italian Supreme Court (Cassation) in April 2008 who heard the appeal and denied house arrest. You are mixing these up, either accidently, or on purpose.
- The police planned to arrest you? Okay, so when they called Raffaele about his alibi, they knew you would show up? They knew you would beg to be let in (after they told you to go home)? They knew you would bring your homework, and start doing guymnastics? They knew that after some questioning, your mind would suddenly imagine an innocent man committing the crime? They knew you had such communication problems, that your statements would only get more confusing? Wow, these cops are diabolical.
- If they knew your Mother was coming, wouldn’t they have ‘‘set the trap’’ sooner, to make sure you were locked up in case Mom came early?
- You could help the police find Meredith’s killer? Well, you did, you just layered it in total B.S.
- After days of claiming to know nothing, you had a vision, or conniption, that you witnessed someone else do it.
- In your later statement, you said that Raffaele ‘‘might’’ be there.
- In the statement after that, you say you don’t know what is true, and you made things up
- You helped, in that you left some of Rudy’s forensic traces behind.
- You’d been tricked? You mean CSI and TV lied to you?
- You will not lie? Wow, that is a first.
- You’re not scared of Guede? More likely he is scared of you.
- You’re not scared of the prosecutor? You found out he’s not the Mayor?
- You don’t know anything about the murder? Ummm…. those statements you signed….
- Not who you are? That is irrelevant, it is what you did on one day. Why do you seem so concerned with how you appear?
- No, I think they have it pretty right.
- Police did owe Meredith an investigation, and it overwhelmingly concluded that you, Sollecito, and Guede were involved.
- They arrested the wrong people? Well, Lumumba was innocent, but who was it who got him locked up?
- Yes, you could combat the misinformation leaked to the media. You still have Marriott’s number?
- You could ‘‘explain’’ the knife never left the kitchen, but you aren’t actually saying here that it never did.
- You could ‘‘describe’’ how the prosecution came up with the bloody footprints?
- You would ‘‘explain’’ Meredith’s blood mixed with your DNA, how your blood got on the faucet?
- The prosecution never claimed it was a sex game gone wrong. It was a ‘‘misinformation leaked’’ by your own people
- Objecting to the prosecutor calling you a whore might be difficult, as he never did that.
- Objecting to the prosecutor calling you a murderer… well, that is what trials are for.
- Your lawyers would get to see the prosecution’s documents. It is called ‘‘discovery’’ and is standard in Western courts.
- For all your ‘‘no evidence’’ claims, you oddly seem to be listing a lot of evidence here. I am confused.
- Like much of the book, this makes little sense.
- If you were being kept separate, it would be for your protection, or because you were deemed to be a threat to other inmates. The state of your investigation would be irrelevant.
- Once you entered Capanne, you were the responsibility of the prison. The judge is responsible for reviewing the legal case, but the prison monitors your welfare. Are you being deliberately deceptive? (And am I being rhetorical)?
- As soon as I walked outside, the gaggle of prisoners started hooting and hollering, “She’s out! She’s with us! Way to go!”
- You were in danger of being beaten up? Did you report this when you had representatives from the state department visiting?
- Really? You got a cheering for being out with other women? Ego tripping here?
- Most are manipulative and like to stir up drama? It’s a shame you didn’t fit in better here.
- People can see through her actions? Too bad you didn’t realize that people can see through yours.
- You feel betrayed by Raffaele’s ‘‘distancing’’ comments? But isn’t he serving time rather than throw you under the bus? Hell that was the whole premise of ‘‘Honor Bound’‘. Wait, it was all a crock.
- So, you acknowledge Raffaele ‘‘did’’ say you asked him to lie. So you are admitting evidence of a false alibi exists?
- He realizes ‘‘now’’ that abandoning you was a mistake?
- He submitted to police pressures? You told Oggi that you broke up with Sollecito after he withdrew your alibi, yet considering you were ‘‘pressured’’ as well, you think you would be a bit more understanding. Wait, the ‘‘pressures’’ never happened.
- Raffaele is in this mess largely due to Amanda. He likely DOES think about her a lot.
- You are fine with not seeing Raffaele and yourself as a couple? Guess you moved on with your life.
- You were linked by your innocence, or in the hollow claims of your ‘‘innocence’‘?
- If you wanted the best for Raffy BEFORE Meredith’s death, you would not have involved him in your scheme.
- If you wanted the best for Raffy AFTER Meredith’s death, you wouldn’t have dragged this court case for 7+ years.
- You were in the fight together? Good to know Raffaele would corroborate your alibi at trial, and wouldn’t ask to sever the Florence appeals, or say on American TV that he has questions about your behaviour, or hold a press conference to denounce you, or go on Porta a Porta to denounce you….
- You are omitting a lot here. Forensic evidence is not the only thing the defence needs to ‘‘break down’‘. There is also those false accusation statements you insisted on writing, your false alibis, you and Raffaele turning off your phones, the details you knew (such as Meredith screaming and having her throat cut). These things have not been successfully challenged EVER.
- Actually, the knife imprint WAS quite clear, so the police knew exactly what kind of knife they were looking for.
- And the impression doesn’t have to be for the ENTIRE knife, if it is fairly distinctive.
- Common sense is telling me that it is odd, you keep saying you had no history of violence, rather than just saying you didn’t do it.
- You had barely met Guede ... but the details on that are very ... flexible.
- Raffaele and Guede lived 100m apart, yet never met.
- Speaking of motive: Raffaele is your ‘‘boyfriend’‘, and from this book, Guede has the hots for you. Coincidence?
- Speaking of motive: While it is useful to be able to explain a crime, motive is not required to prove in any country.
- So, your lawyer is telling you that the justice system is being leaned on to prosecute you? If someone called Carlo Dalla Vedova, would he confirm this?
- True, Knox and Sollecito were not handcuffed going into court, but there is speculation this was a visual in order to seem ‘‘less harsh’‘
- This seems a bit illogical, if all inmates were like you, we wouldn’t need prisons? Yet you need to go to prison to be an inmate.
- Yes, Knox was polite. The guards also called her controlled and manipulative.
- Well you are charged with their daughter/sister’s killing. They probably do think you are a murderer.
- You finally get to meet them? Surely, they would delighted to get to know you.
- You anticipated meeting them for a long time? Killing Meredith is an odd way to expand your circle of friends.
- A sympathy letter? Saying sorry for your loss?
- Your grief for Meredith? Didn’t you say at trial that you only knew her for a month, and you were trying to move on with your life?
- They hate you? Well, they might hate you less if you told the truth about what happened, and showed actual remorse.
- Guede requested the abbreviated trial because he feared you and Sollecito would pin it all on him, yet you omit that part.
- Of course witnesses are called. Who do you think has to testify about the evidence? However, all least some facts have to be agreed upon to go short-form.
- If he is guilty, his sentence is cut by 1/3. Absolutely right. THAT is why Guede got those deductions, not from any deal, or testifying against you.
- Out of curiosity, why didn’t you or Raffaele opt for the short form trial?
- In your book, your lawyers say there is no evidence against you.
- No evidence against you? Did you read your own book?
- In your book, you reference the missing sweater (Filomena saw you wear that day), but it still was never found.
- In your book, you mentioned the writings (you said you would kill for a pizza)
- In your book, you claim the blood on the faucet was from your pierced ears. (According to Barbia Badeau, your mother said the blood was from your period).
- In your book, you acknowledge Raffaele took away your alibi.
- In your book, you claim that Guede backs your alibi, but refutes Sollecito, which doesn’t make sense if you were together.
- In your book, you say you were there. (You claim it meant RS apartment), yet you let PL remain in prison.
- In your book, you admit writing a letter (you claim it was misinterpreted), claiming that Raffaele killed Meredith and planted your fingerprints.
- In your book, you sarcastically admit you were the last person to wash up in a bloody bathroom.
- In your book, (the Matteini decision) you say that the prosecution had stacked so much evidence Guede’s testimony wouldn’t have mattered.
- In your book, you mention the police arresting the wrong people, but hypocritically, omit your false accusation of PL
- In your book, you reference Meredith’s DNA on the knife (which RS claimed was during a cooking accident)
- In your book, you reference your bloody footprints
- In your book, you reference the bra clasp having Raffaele’s DNA
- In your book, you acknowledge claims of a partial crime scene cleanup.
- And we still haven’t gotten to those pesky statements you wrote and signed.
- No evidence against you?
- Why would you feel angry? You said in court you only knew her for a month.
- He didn’t look like a murderer? Don’t you keep repeating that you are not the type of person to do this.
- It is difficult to imagine he cut Meredith’s throat? Right, because you knew before the police did that her throat was cut.
- There were traces of Guede’s DNA, but it was not everywhere. And you omit your own DNA mixed with Meredith’s
- He wouldn’t have lied about you? Well, you lied to Judge Nencini in your email, and claimed you never met Guede.
- Again, prosecutors never said it was a sex game.
- Who thinks like that? Well, who stages a break in on her Seattle roomies for fun?
- Hearing Mignini say you told Guede to rape Meredith was upsetting? Didn’t you publish a rape story on MySpace?
- You were the ringleader? Well, you arranged the ‘‘break-in’’ in Seattle. You have leadership skills
- Her response was “No. We can’t give you these documents you continue to ask for, because the ones you have will have to suffice.”
- If this were actually true, it would be grounds to open up the case. Did you actually appeal on these grounds?
- Interestingly, lawyers for you, Sollecito, and Guede all refused to attend the testings, but later claimed contamination.
- You only testified at trial with strict protections as to what topics would be covered. Your lawyers constantly interrupted.
- Raffaele never took the witness stand at trial.
- You never took the stand at the 2011 Hellmann appeal
- Raffaele never took the witness stand at the 2011 Hellmann appeal.
- You refused to attend the 2013/2014 Florence appeal.
- Raffaele refused to take the witness stand at the 2013/2014 Florence appeal.
- You were refusing to attend the 2015 Cassation appeal.
- Yet… Guede let his lawyers do all the talking? Pot, meet kettle.
- It’s too bad Guede didn’t have the money and PR to proclaim his innocence the way you did.
- What is the prosecution withholding? It seems they released very powerful evidence.
- Accusing prosecutors of withholding evidence, if false, is calunnia. Don’t you ever learn?
- It was so clear Guede was lying? Well, you would know better than anyone, except maybe Raffy.
- Your lawyers argued exhaustively you and Meredith were friends? Why wouldn’t you just testify to that? Oh, right, cross examination.
- Also, why wouldn’t any of Meredith’s other friends testify to how things were between you? Oh, right, they did.
- Murder cases often do hinge on DNA, and not lawyerly logic. Good point.
- His nonchalance? Were you not the one flirting with people in court?
- Were you not the one wearing the ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt to court?
- Rested their case? Listening to ABC or CNN, I thought there was no evidence against you.
- Just to be clear on this: Guede’s 30 year sentence was the MAXIMUM the judge could hand down in a short-form trial.
- Was your chest clenched, because you weren’t sure how merciful the judge(s) might be in this case?
- Maybe if you had actually testified, you might be believed a bit more.
- The confusion you caused? Getting an innocent man locked up is more than just confusion.
- It surprised you that the judge didn’t believe you? You listed so much evidence against you just in this book.
- Yes, Amanda Knox, who has written a book on her prison experience (well it sure wasn’t to clear up where she was when Meredith was murdered), and has given 20+ interviews on TV, radio and magazines ‘‘DOESN’T GIVE INTERVIEWS’‘.
- For the full list: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_revenge_of_the_knox_how_the_lies_phase_built/
- Really? You claim you are innocent, yet you have been in jail a year, have just had Judge Micheli (at pretrial), send you off to trial, and you’re hopefulness is flagging? Why is that? You thought you’d be able to lie your way out of it?
- Innocent people wrongfully in jail would be pissed off. You aren’t. Why?
- Father Saulo, normally that is good advice, but what happens if the person doesn’t have a conscience?
- The law on your side? The law isn’t supposed to be on anyone’s side. It is supposed to apply to all.
- The prosecution didn’t twist anything. They gave you every chance to explain things.
- There would never be enough evidence? Did you read any of the earlier chapters in your book?
- (Chapter 13) you mention a LONG list of what you and Raffaele talked about, but don’t remember if you read or had sex?
- (Chapter 17) you reference the missing sweater (Filomena saw you wear that day), but it still was never found.
- (Chapter 17) you mentioned the writings (you said you would kill for a pizza).
- (Chapter 18) you claim the blood on the faucet was from your pierced ears. (According to Barbie Nadeau, your mother said the blood was from your period).
- (Chapter 18) you acknowledge Raffaele took away your alibi.
- (Chapter 19) you claim that Guede backs your alibi, but refutes Sollecito, which doesn’t make sense if you were together.
- (Chapter 19) you acknowledge the knife with your DNA on the handle, Meredith’s on the blade—the infamous double DNA knife.
- (Chapter 20) you say you were there. (You claim it meant RS apartment), yet you let PL remain in prison.
- (Chapter 20) you admit writing a letter (you claim it was misinterpreted), claiming that Raffaele killed Meredith and planted your fingerprints.
- (Chapter 21) you reference RS DNA on the bra clasp but saying it does not implicate you directly.
- (Chapter 21) you admit (and I believe this), that much of your knowledge comes from crime TV.
- (Chapter 21) you sarcastically admit you were the last person to wash up in a bloody bathroom.
- (Chapter 21)—the Matteini decision—you say that the prosecution had stacked so much evidence Guede’s testimony wouldn’t have mattered.
- (Chapter 22) you mention the police arresting the wrong people, but hypocritically, omit your false accusation of PL.
- (Chapter 22) you reference Meredith’s DNA on the knife (which RS claimed was during a cooking accident).
- (Chapter 22) you reference your bloody footprints, and mentioned Raffaele’s
- (Chapter 23) you reference the bra clasp having Raffaele’s DNA
- (Chapter 23) you acknowledge claims of a partial crime scene cleanup.
- (Chapter 25) you acknowledge Filomena testifies you brought other ‘‘friends’’ to the house.
- (Chapter 25) you acknowledge the cut on your neck, which you claim was a hickey.
- (Chapter 25) you acknowledge telling the police Meredith always locked her door, though you try to spin it.
- (Chapter 25) you acknowledge your cellphone and Raffaele’s were turned off, though you give different reasons why.
- How much evidence does the prosecution need? These notes all came from YOUR book. THIS BOOK.
- You developed a sense of independence? By relying on your family to clean up your mess?
- You could find more peace if you would own up to what you did to Meredith.
- I hope you are being sarcastic here. The pretrial was like the first reading of a play? This is a murder case, not some theatre production.
- Really? None of the police officers (whom you accused of police brutality), testified here?
- Really? None of the CSI’s from the home, only the DNA guy, testified?
- You still could have testified on your own behalf, if this was a misunderstanding. Why didn’t you?
- Again, this is a murder case, not a theatre.
- Although, if you are this detached from reality, is that why you wore the ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt?
- The police didn’t interrogate you. You were giving a witness summary, until you were informed Raffaele removed your alibi. You then proceeded (without provocation), to try to frame Patrick, and it backfired.
- 14 months ago, and now you are at trial? Wow, that seems a bit faster than the U.S. and Canadian systems.
- They don’t want you to suffer, they want to know exactly what happened to Meredith.
- Really? You were reported as flirting with court officers. What should people think?
- Was this taken out of context too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApiM3hU4VQw
- You are insulting, but there is a logic to it. In the U.S., if someone were found guilty in a criminal case, often a civil one would follow. Of course, not being convicted would make the civil case harder.
- Jurors are screened for bias. You are being blatantly dishonest—again.
- You are being sued by the family of the woman you murdered, the man you tried to frame, and the homeowner whose property you damaged, and had turned into a crime scene. Makes sense.
- You post this stuff online, and HOW EXACTLY is it taken out of context?
- Yes, posing on a piano bench. Good impression
- You are charged with sexual assault, and previously published a rape story? Go figure.
- You posted a video of yourself drunk? Great idea.
- Supposed obsessive promiscuity? You published accounts of 4 random sexual encounters IN THIS BOOK.
- Supposed obsessive promiscuity? You were known for random and casual sex BEFORE leaving for Italy.
- Prosecutors never claimed it was a sex game gone wrong, that was something your PR people fed the press.
- Yes, boning your boyfriend is an odd way of showing grief over your dead ‘‘friend’‘.
- Funny, you don’t seem to detail all the actual evidence that would be listed at trial.
- People who thought you were innocent? Good job, Dave Marriott.
- All these people write to you by mistake? Care to explain?
- Their pornographic scribbling? What about the book I am reading now?
- You never imagined such perverted attention? You flirted with people in court. You wore a ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt.
- Agreed, you are not drop dead sexy, but in your prison writings you compare yourself to Helen of Troy.
- Do you feel bad for the Kerchers? Or for Meredith?
- Do you feel bad for Patrick and his family?
- It wasn’t just an idea. Meredith’s friend’s testified that she was growing to dislike you.
- Why take out fresh earrings? That is how the holes close up.
- Really, that amount of blood from ear piercings isn’t normal? Why were there no visible signs of infection?
- You scratch the porcelain and realize they are dry ... why not just remove the blood?
- Well, the blood could have come from the scratch on your neck, I mean hickey.
- And the ‘‘orange shaped’’ lump of blood on the bathmat, you thought that was Meredith ‘‘dripping’‘?
- Makes sense in a way, you see day old poop in the toilet and don’f flush it.
- Give it up. Meredith was not your friend.
- The media was not ‘‘rewriting’’ anything.
- You were not alike. Meredith was a serious student, and a kind, caring person to be around. You were a loud, unfocused, slob who did drugs, and brought random strangers home for sex. You took 1 simple language course.
- Meredith did not have any casual encounters. This was completely made up.
- You didn’t know what to think about Raffaele? Because you couldn’t control him
- Why was it baffling that he destroyed your alibi? After all, if you were ‘‘beaten’‘, wouldn’t it make sense that he was? Wait….
- Yeah, dragging him into a murder tends to be ...(murder) on relationships. Pardon the pun.
- He needs an Italian girl? More likely he needs a stable girl, regardless of nationality.
- Forgiving, you don’t seem to be the type.
- Yet another entertaining tale of sexual harassment ... that you did not report.
- Okay, this ‘‘list’‘, while amusing on some level is quite irrelevant to a murder case.
- 4 guys in Seattle, 3 in Italy? In THIS BOOK, you list Cristiano/Frederico, Mirko, Bobby and Raffaele. That is 4 just in Italy. Can’t you count?
- Your roommates complained you brought MANY men home. So it was more than 3 in Italy.
- You have random sex with drug dealers, but it’s okay because you used protection?
- Wow, you think this was all a ploy to scare you? That is paranoid. Are you sure you’re not doing coke anymore?
- You tried to be logical? Then why do this at all?
- You knew they wouldn’t find anything incriminating? Wow.
- You felt almost smug? Probably.
- Were you feeling smug because you knew they found Guede’s handprint, DNA, shoeprint and shit? The stuff you left behind .....
- You might convince them? Well, you initially convinced the police….
- You are accusing the prison staff of violating medical confidentiality? Did you report this?
- Or, was this a ‘‘sympathy’’ leak from your own lawyers?
- Whether you slept with 7 men in Perugia, or 7 men overall, that is the least of your worries.
- Stunned because you expected him to be caught SOONER, or LATER?
- Fit into the murder scenario THEY imagined? Your statements include all sorts of things ‘‘your mind made up.’‘
- Great idea, to leave that handprint. They got your accomplice.
- Just because the police see through your B.S., doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to see the truth.
- Or, more likely consumed with the question of whether he would talk.
- In your email to Judge Nencini (December 2013), you said you had no contact with Guede
- In that same email, you said that you crossed paths with Guede exactly once.
- In this passage, you describe meeting Rudy at your apartment, and at Patrick’s bar. That is TWICE.
- Even though, you never met Rudy, you remember him joking with the guys (and finding out), he was into you.
- Even though Guede is into you, the only words you exchange is when he orders a drink?
- Is Guede some kind of love-sick stalker, that you never had contact with, and never spoke to?
- So, how many times exactly did you meet Rudy Guede?
- His parent abandoned him? I thought he was an orphan, at least that’s what FOA says.
- Over time he’d been more inclined to loaf than work? You seem to know a lot about his work status, despite not knowing him.
- He lost his job? You seem to portray him as a drifter and drug dealer. Most drug dealers are not employed.
- So, did you find out about these break ins when you met him the ‘‘one-time’’ at your apartment?
- So, Guede has a history of break ins, you stage break ins as a prank, he has the hots for you, and this never came up?
It didn’t make sense to me that they had let him go but had leapt to arrest me. I’d met but didn’t know Rudy Guede. I didn’t know if he was capable of murder. I couldn’t imagine why he might do something so brutal. But I believed that he was guilty, that the evidence could only be interpreted one way. Finally the police could stop using me as the scapegoat for some phantom killer whom no one could name—a phantom whose place I’d been filling…’‘
- The same could be said if Seattle police had locked you up for that stone throwing riot. Oh wait, you have no record.
- They didn’t leap to arrest you. You wrote multiple statements saying you were at the scene, and witnessed (but did not report,), PL murder Meredith.
- You believed he was guilty? How do you know? You ‘‘met him once’‘, and didn’t know much about him. It is almost as if you intimately knew what evidence was at the crime scene.
- The evidence can only be interpreted one way? Evidence like phone records, or lying to police?
- They weren’t ‘‘scapegoating’’ you for some phantom killer. You gave statements saying you witnessed PL doing it.
- The two times you met him? Again, you emailed Judge Nencini you never met him, but crossed paths exactly once.
- Perugia men are confident and arrogant? How many exactly did you sleep with? Never mind, not relevant.
- You know him vaguely? Once again, you emailed the judge at YOUR Florence appeal, saying you didn’t know him
- You know him vaguely, but he doesn’t know you? So, is knowing someone a one-way affair now?
- Guede won’t have anything to say about you? Hmm… almost like you have something on him.
- When his friend asked if it was Raffaele, “the one from TV,” Guede said, “I think so, but I’m not sure.”
- And this is the PROOF you are innocent?
- So, Guede weakly identifies Raffaele, but is sure you are not there? Okay.
- Carlo and Luciano? Hmmm…. so when does Rome lawyer Giancarlos Costa join your team?
- Guede tried to establish an alibi? Seems he is not the only one.
- Guede was in the middle of robbing the place, when Meredith came home, but he doesn’t take anything, just murders her, takes a dump and leaves?
- And how did he break in? The police thought the break in was staged.
- How do you know what happened to his bloody clothes and shoes?
- Guede backs your alibi, but fingers you alibi witness?
- How is this a momentary problem?
- Patrick was arrested due to the accusatory statements that YOU wrote.
- Give you insight into how they worked? Yes, they investigated his alibi, and released him once it was corroborated.
- Yes, no evidence of him at the home would surely speed up his release.
- The police did admit they were wrong. They released Patrick.
- You seriously think they kept Patrick was held until they had someone else?
- You dreamed about the “interrogation”? You seemed to be dreaming during it too.
- Primal fear? Is tea and chocolate that chilling to you?
- How could you name Patrick? Better question would have been ‘‘why’‘.
- You accuse someone of murder, who is totally innocent. How are people supposed to view it?
- Yes, people probably did think you were a liar.
- Yes, it would seem to strange to be happy for someone you said you were afraid of, and who you falsely accused.
- Well, it might be less inappropriate, except for the fact you caused this dilemma.
- Manipulative? Reasonable conclusion. Depraved? Not my place to say.
- You just said you didn’t want people to see you as manipulative, but you are now saying you put up a front.
- You tried to convince the police Patrick was not involved? Then why all the ‘‘stuff my mid made up’’ crap?
- You went from clear and accusatory to confusing and contradictory. Hardly truth telling.
- You were with Raffaele? Didn’t he recently say that you asked him to lie for you?
- So, when faced with the loss of your alibi, you pictured a scene that wasn’t true—to divert suspicion?
- Your lawyers can prove the double DNA knife is a mistake? Why didn’t they attend the testing? Right, to use as an excuse later.
- Why would Guede’s arrest make people believe in you? People can commit crimes with accomplices.
- You seem obsessed to be seen in a positive light.
- They did redeem themselves. They now had the right people in custody, in spite of your lies.
- The prosecution held onto you as suspects, only psycho killers take trophies.
- Naming Patrick to cover for Guede? Reasonable suspicion.
- You ‘‘DID’’ manipulate the police until your lies caught up to you.
- Patrick was taken away at YOUR instigation. Get this straight.
- Sided with the prosecutors? Would he side with the defendant who framed him?
- He wouldn’t forgive you for this humiliation in front of his family? Who would?
- Fired you for not doing your job? What an evil man. Wait, that is just what you told police.
- You have casual sex with random men, and are not enough of a flirt?
- You quit because of fear of being alone? So, why would Patrick still be expecting you to work?
- You understand why he was angry with you? Well, you seemed to be justifying it by saying he wanted you to flirt more.
- Yes, he does deserve an explanation and apology.
- Well, if you want to clear something up, why not put it in writing? Not that it has ever backfired on you before. Wait….
- You flirt with people in court, and are anxious about a letter ending up in the press?
- Yes, written statements by defendants tend to be scutinized.
- An explanation would be nice. Something without any references to drugs, or stress, or visions.
- Yes, those pesky police-abuse accusations (if false) tend to leave a bad impression.
- You wouldn’t be seen as crazy, just a B.S. artist.
- Was it not Luciano Ghirga and Giancarlo Costa who were with you in this questioning? We haven’t even started and you are already lying.
- Set the record straight? You are going to confess?
- You can show Mignini you are sincere? Didn’t you say in chapter 10 how he bullied a false statement from you? Right, he wasn’t there.
- Present your ‘‘real-self’‘? This is a murder investigation, not a job interview.
- Trick you? Or expose your lies and inconsistencies?
- Did you actually read the memoriali you wrote? Who wouldn’t conclude you were lying?
- You have to explain yourself? Do you want to make things worse?
- Yes, how did you know that Meredith screamed? Guede, and neighbour Nina Capellazi both confirmed this ‘‘wee’’ detail.
- You want to meet with the man who tried to pin things on you?
- Yet, you think that this will clear everything up?
- You think Mignini is the mayor? Do city officials typically get involved in murder investigations?
- Wow, the ‘‘Mayor’’ is a douche, spending all this time at court, police stations and crime scenes. No wonder those potholes aren’t getting filled.
- You were ready? So you had time to rehearse?
- Your mind was clear? So, no more ‘‘best truths’‘, let’s hope.
- You did answer in English, but in the transcript, you were able to understand Mignini’s questions quite well in Italian.
- How would giving a clear understanding help you? Unless it is a straightforward alibi?
- What ‘‘evidence’’ would be coming forward, proving your innocence? Did you stage something?
- Right, you aren’t good at censoring yourself: Meredith’s friends all complained about just that problem
- How would sharing the day-to-day help prove you are innocent? You were arrested AFTER the murder, correct?
- Mignini didn’t try to twist anything. He wanted to clear up many unanswered questions
- Yes, you talk about your innocence, and the details (from the transcript), are even MORE confusing.
- If you were saying the same thing over and over, we wouldn’t be here.
- And this book (even with publishing help), changes considerably. Everything you say has new versions.
- Even your lawyers come in new versions. This book omits Giancarlo Costa.
- The police don’t need to intimidate you. And this might get you a new calunnia charge.
- They have plenty on you. False alibi, false accusation, DNA, incriminating statements….
- So, has Dad shared his new ‘‘secret weapon’‘? A PR firm, with David Marriott… ? No?
- Well, your explanation seems reasonable, but would be far more believable except that your alibi witness withdrew his alibi, and signed a statement saying you asked him to lie for you.
- You can’t say anything but the truth? I bet Patrick would beg to differ.
- You didn’t implicate yourself. You claimed to be a witness to someone else doing it, (and placed yourself there).
- Meredith was murdered, and it was a ‘‘misunderstanding’‘?
- Or rather, lies, false accusations, DNA evidence, and incriminating statements are ‘‘misunderstandings’‘?
- You were denied house arrest? Go figure.
- You were also psychologically tested, and the results were alarming. Yet you omit that as a major reason to keep you.
- It wasn’t until my pretrial, the following September, that a different judge agreed with my defense that it was obvious I was talking about Raffaele’s apartment, not the villa, and removed this “evidence” from the record….’‘
- Well, your false accusation of Lumumba was crafty and cunning. Wait, that was ‘‘under pressure’‘.
- Unattached to reality? Have you seen the stuff you write?
- Actually, the ‘‘evidence’’ was never removed. In fact, Judge Paolo Micheli found enough cause to send you to trial.
- I’m sure your lawyers don’t understand your journal writings.
- What is the purpose of these writings? Were they deliberate, did you assume they would be read?
- It sounds like a silly passage from ‘‘Honor Bound’’—Amanda’s DNA on Meredith’s bra, because Amanda wore it too.
- Or this excuse from Raffaele—Meredith’s DNA was on his knife because Meredith pricked her hand while cooking. (Despite Meredith was never there).
- How would you know exactly what it said? The writing was confiscated, and according to your 2013 interview with Amazon editor Neal Thompson, (available online), you didn’t get anything back that was confiscated.
- Actually, (marijuana aside) there are the same elements, Raffaele killing Meredith, then putting your fingerprints on the knife.
- You could always have taken the stand (without restricted questioning), to explain it.
- Luciano and Carlo? Again, no Giancarlo Costa? See this.
- Don’t say anything if you don’t remember perfectly Is this advice to withhold?
- She isn’t God, but according to her writings, Amanda is Helen of Troy.
- Actually, the ‘‘interrogation’’ was nothing like what Amanda describes. Here are the transcripts: one, two, three, and four.
- And it is Giancarlo Costa, not Dalla Carlo Vedova, who is with Luciano Ghirga.
- Read the transcripts above. Knox stopped the questioning, not Luciano.
- You had a weekly guitar class? Wow, can you name one American prison that does that? Probably not.
- There is movie time? Wow, such a hard place to be in.
- You were secluded because you were a young first timer? Really, or secluded until they determined if the accused sex killer was a danger?
- So, how long exactly were you in ‘‘seclusion’‘? You are very vague on this.
- Prison is not the most socially progressive place, and you wish to publish that your cellie is bisexual? Some friend.
- Yes, almost everyone in prison is fake. Amanda, care to comment on this link?
- So, is this conversation in English, or is your Italian fluent by now?
- Why would the guards make this assumption? They watch over all kinds of people.
- You have been formally charged with murder, and a judge has said there is cause to hold you. People might think you are a killer.
- Hate to break it to you, but this isn’t like getting detention in high school.
- So, were you talking face to face, or was it over a telephone?
- Funny, in the book you don’t mention how you told your Mom ‘‘I was there’’ and that Patrick was innocent. Oops.
- She couldn’t make it all go away? Are you a child? No doubt you wanted her to.
- Four days of being ordered around and ignored? Didn’t you say you wanted to stay in Perugia to help the police? Didn’t you go to class Monday morning, and spent the evening with Raffaele and a friend?
- Didn’t the police ask only for Raffaele that night—and that you had to beg them to let you in. Didn’t you say that in that first time at the Questura, they kept EVERYONE from the house: You, Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, the other men downstairs?
- Tell the police everything? Like how Meredith had her f***ing throat cut? She f***ing bled to death? That she screamed? That she was moved? Is that what you mean by telling the police everything?
- Yeah, you probably DID need Mom to believe you. She likely wouldn’t mortgage your house if you said you did it?
- Really, did you include the account (like in Chapter 10, about (Mayor) Mignini ‘‘interrogating’’ you, even when he was not there?
- Out of curiosity, you claim that you barely spoke Italian (though you evidently learn VERY quickly). You also said there was no interpreter, (even though Anna Donnino testified that she did act as an interpreter for you). So, how do you know they were threatening you?
- These ‘‘slaps’’ ... were you ‘‘beaten’’ by the police, or did it ‘‘only frighten’’ you? It can’t really be both.
- And as for being hit, your own lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, said publicly you were not hit. Was he lying?
- Why did Dalla Vedova ‘‘omit’’ your ‘‘beatings’’ by police in your ECHR complaint?
- Actually, you said (over the telephone, this was recorded) ‘‘I cannot lie. I was there.’’ What did you mean by that?
- Actually, they wanted to know Raffaele removed his alibi for you, as any police officer would wonder.
- They didn’t wonder who Patrick was. You gave them his name.
- A touching mother/daughter moment. But you still leave you the part where you tell your mom Patick is innocent, and she does nothing.
- Seriously? Did you actually read those witness statements?
- The first time you are quite clear you left Raffaele to meet Patrick, and he killed her. (but you omit it from your book)
- The second one you say you you were there when Patrick killed Meredith, Raffaele might be there (but you omit it from your book)
- The third one you say that your mind is making things up, but that you might have been there with Patrick
- You also didn’t include your November 4th ‘‘mass email’‘, which contradicts most of what the other statements say.
- And of course, these ‘‘written statements’’ contradict everything you said in all your other police statements.
- So, how does you writing statements do anything but muddy the waters? Unless that is your goal…
- Umm… did you forget this passage from chapter 13, page 122?
- So is Agente Lupa the first person who ‘‘knew’’ you were innocent, or was it your Mom?
- And for someone ‘‘keeping notes’’ in prison, how did you miss something like this?
- No, the jails would likely be empty if ‘‘Mamma-Bearing’’ could get people out.
- Stay until the prosecutor figures out there isn’t any evidence? You gave false alibis, had your alibi pulled, make a Susan Smith style false accusation, let slip several personal details of the crime, and wrote statements saying you were there. There is evidence against you.
- And ‘‘wait until the prosecutor figures out’‘, as in what, identifies Guede from the traces you left?
- Yes, Amanda did try to ‘‘fix things’‘. Patrick was hauled out in handcuffs because of it.
- Carlo (Vedova) and Luciano (Ghirga)? Wasn’t there someone named Giancarlo Costa who represented you for a while? Is he still left out? You remember the topics you and Raffaele discussed the night Meredith was murdered, but not who your lawyers were at the time?
- ’‘It will get fixed’‘? Uh… are you looking through the ‘‘business Judge’’ directory?
- Still no Giancarlo Costa?
- Well, you have screwed up your family’s life, but at least you gave them some purpose. Kudos.
- No affection? What, you’d think they are divorced or something.
- So, when are we going to hear about dad hiring Marriott Gogerty?
- So, the claims that you got special privileges .... you are already getting extra visiting time.
- Yes, visiting generally is a lot less time than the rest of the day. That is why it is called visiting time.
- According to claims from ex-prisoners, and guards, you survived quite well, never cried, never needed medication, were never depressed
- Also, according to the same sources, you avoided making friends, preferring to enjoy your reading. Comments?
- Did you make any complaints when the U.S. State Department visited you?
- Wrong? You summarized the Matteini Report fairly well, and there is a lot to keep you there.
- So, if someone is ‘‘incapable of murder’‘, do we let her go, all evidence to the contrary?
- Now you say ‘‘surely they would see there is no evidence’‘?
- This is very ‘‘Ted Simon-like’’ Your Honour, there is no evidence, but if there was, she is incapable of murder.
- Faith? More like delusion, or things you mind makes up.
- Going home meant defeat? How, as in fleeing rather than fooling the police?
- Okay, so since fooling them didn’t work,. now you want to go back to your old life?
- How to rebuild yourself? Well, you’ll probably qualify for social security by the time you get out.
- How to reunite? Here’s a tip: Don’t stab them.
- Yes, you did have a lot of money on you. Coincidently, Meredith was missing a lot of money.
- Gufa badgered you? Hmm… does she speak English, or are you fluent in Italian yet?
- Still no Giancarlo? Hmmmm.
- So, the media attention influences how courts rule? Seems you tried that in the U.S.
- You are charged with sexual assault and murder, and the judge will ‘‘probably put you under house arrest’‘?
- So, you still think that the prosecution is based on nothing? Surely you would scream out to be heard, even in Capanne. Funny, inmates said that you refused to ever talk about Meredith and your case.
- Your ‘‘friend’’ was murdered? Do you ever mention Meredith by name?
- ’‘She was beautiful, smart, fun, caring’‘? Are you rehashing your November 4th, 2007 mass email?
- “everyone is devastated for her, but we are also at odds? We want justice. But against who?” Probably whoever murdered her.
- “We all want to know, but we all don’t…’’ Well, the murderer(s) probably don’t want that, but everyone else sure does
- Yes, people wailing can be so annoying. Can’t they just get on with their lives?
- You know, there are many kinds of non-forensic evidence, and they don’t clear you.
- The evidence would clear you? You mean Rudy’s handprint?
- You failed Meredith by betraying her trust as a roommate, then killing her and robbing her.
- You failed Patrick by falsely accusing someone decent enough to give you a job, even without a work visa.
- You failed Raffaele by dragging him into your mess with Meredith, and having him help you out
- You failed yourself by going on a self destructive path of alcohol, drugs and sex, finally murder.
- The police didn’t fail you. All they did was pick up the pieces.
- This makes for an entertaining read, but did you report it formally? Even after you left prison?
- You know, I might be inclined to believe that this happened, making you uncomfortable ....
- If you didn’t write in graphic detail about your ‘‘campaign for casual sex’‘
- If you didn’t write about Meredith’s sex life, and questions about whether she liked anal.
- If you didn’t write in graphic detail about strip searches.
- If you didn’t write about how you thought everyone was coming onto you.
- If you didn’t post your rape story ‘‘Baby Brother’‘.
- It seems you really enjoy writing and taking about sex. Makes me doubt this whole section.
- Really? Amanda, let me introduce you to a book called ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘. This woman publishes a memoir about her supposed wrongful imprisonment and conviction in Italy. Rather than provide a clear account of what happened to her roomate, she describes in great detail random encounters with Cristiano (or was it a drug dealer named Frederico)? Mirko, Bobby, and later Raffaele. She also writes (publishes), speculation about the sex lives of the women she lives with. She also goes on about a bunny vibrator she keeps. She also writes in detail about being strip searched.
- And this guy is the creepy perv?
- Seriously? This type of treatment of a prisoner is illegal (male or female), and regardless of the country.
- Your lawyers, if they knew this was going on, would be legally obligated to report it. Why didn’t they?
- Ghirga and Vedova ‘‘know’’ that you are being preyed on, but don’t make a formal complaint? Or is this like the ‘‘beating’’ from Rita Ficarra, which Ghirga denies ever happened?
- Are we sure the roles are not reversed here?
- If this were actually true, it would be (yet another) sexual assault, and abuse of power. Did you report it? No? Even tell your lawyers? No?
- Wow, you ‘‘barely speak the language’‘, yet you are reading newspaper articles, and answering questions in Italian?
- Um… language was NEVER the barrier, only your lack of humanity.
- Still waiting for Giancarlo Costa (who was at Knox’s December 17th questioning) to make his entrance.
- Okay, last time I will ask, what language were you and Luciano, and ‘‘Carlo’’ speaking in?
- Misinterpreting evidence? You have always said there was no evidence. Which is it?
- So, the prosecutors have this silly notion that a woman might show compassion by covering Meredith? Guess you’ll show them.
- Improbable or not, the police have to go on the evidence, not what bias and ‘‘statistics’’ say. Women do harm other women.
- You don’t have to fit the ‘‘profile’’ to be found guilty if there is evidence.
- You don’t have to be a gangbanger to kill.
- Rock throwing riot aside, you don’t have to have a violent past to kill once.
- Why are you so obsessed with how you appear, and what kind of ‘‘profile’’ you have?
- Well, most killers WOULD get rid of blood stained clothing.
- Hmm…. you don’t remember details of that night, but you are certain of the shirt you were wearing?
- Actually, it wasn’t found. The prosecution contends that to this day, the top was never found.
- Carlo and Luciano let it stand in the media? Seems they let it stand in court too.
- You are deliberately misconstruing what was said.
- Being found in a lie doesn’t mean you are a depraved, deceitful person capable of murder, but it does throw into question other things you have said and lead the police to at least question why you are lying.
- Why do you insist that everyone is trying to portray you as a monster or as depraved? No one did that but you.
- Okay, humour me, what reason did the police say you did this for? Unless you were emailing murder plans to each other, it could not possibly be related.
- So, you suspect the police destroyed exculpatory evidence? Okay.
- Your computer wouldn’t give you an alibi, but Raffaele’s would have. Remember? He told police that you asked him to lie, and he spent time on the computer while you went out.
- And while it wouldn’t give YOU an alibi, would it have given Raffaele?
- Pictures of you and Meredith? Yet, in the photo section you include a press photo of her. You aren’t in any photo with Meredith.
- Seriously? You claim that ‘‘bleach receipts’‘, without any listing of bleach were used as evidence?
- Yet, Raffaele told a story about Meredith coming to his house and cutting her hand while cooking. He later admitted it was made up.
- Raffaele also said (in Honor Bound), that he still had visions of Meredith cutting her hand while cooking at his flat.
- Impossible, why? Bleach does a better job than that?
- They weren’t taken from his kitchen? Was Meredith murdered at Raffaele’s apartment?
- Raffaele originally said you two were at a friend’s party.
- Raffaele said you left his apartment in his November 5, 2007 statement
- Raffaele claimed he was on his computer (alone), while you were out.
- Raffaele refused to confirm you alibi at your 2009 trial.
- Raffaele said you left his apartment in his July 2014 press conference
- Raffaele said on Porta a Porta, February 2015, that you were not with him that night.
- You said that you left Raffaele’s went to meet Patrick, and he killed Meredith.
- You later said that you were at your apartment, Patrick killed Meredith, and Raffaele might be there.
- You later said your mind was making things up, but you think Patrick might have killed Meredith.
- You might have talked in a fight, but what if she caught you stealing her rent money?
- Can’t understand why no one seems to believe you.
- You are again being disingenuous. The knife from the crime (while soaked in blood), made a very distinctive impression on the bed. Police were looking for a knife that could have left that stain. They knew what they were looking for.
- You think the police are framing you? Pot, meet kettle.
- The knife was the first inkling the investigation was not going as you expected? You mean, they should have arrested Rudy by now?
- And the first inkling? Wasn’t being taken to Capanne in handcuffs an earlier inkling?
- The police were not biased against you. You and Raffaele told many lies. You falsely accused an innocent person to divert attention. Forensic evidence is piling up. There is no bias here.
- Police would figure out it wasn’t the murder weapon? Funny, in your May 2014 with Chris Cuomo, you disputed that knife as being the murder weapon. How do you know so much more than the police and the courts? Right, you know which knife you used.
- Yes, after my ‘‘friend’’ is murdered, I feel like writing how I would kill for a pizza too.
- You received a fine after you were convicted, not the same thing.
- You seem to think that everyone has a nasty impression of you. Why exactly?
- Why do you think he made the assumption about you being remorseless?
- The police had nothing better? So they framed you to make their lives easier?
- False alibis, false accusation, inside knowledge of the crime, statements placing you at the scene, DNA evidence ... in a weird way you are right, Amanda, they don’t have anything better on anyone else.
- Your Italian was still elementary enough? Wow, you seem to unlearn it faster than you learn it
- You felt violated? I wonder what Meredith felt, or was she already dead?
- You are charged with calunnia, for making false accusations, and you claim the media can say anything? Pot, meet kettle.
- No, they used your actions as a symbol of evil.
- You write a lurid account of your random sex, and you feel violated by the media? Bull$h1t.
- Your nickname is not what convicted you. Mountains of evidence (which you deny exist), are what convicted you.
- Woman, half naked, stabbed to death? Rape and murder is a reasonable suspicion.
- Did you elaborate on WHY the police thought the break in was staged? Nothing taken, no glass outside, no evidence of a climb, glass ON TOP of the ransacked items…
- They don’t have to portray you as anything. They simply presented evidence.
- The prosecution did not try to demonstrate you were amoral and psychopathic, just that you were involved in certain crimes
- They called you ‘‘Foxy Knoxy’‘? That was your MySpace name.
- You get a text telling you there is a vigil for your murdered ‘‘friend’‘, and you aren’t sure what you should do?
- Yes, people might ask about the case, but you had no problem refusing to talk to your classmates about it, correct?
- Did Raffaele really have somewhere to be? Why couldn’t you go alone? You could go with the Polish student who texted you.
- Or did you simply not want to be confronted by anyone with what really happened, or not respect the victim?
- ”The logic here is a bit convoluted. Raffaele is called to clear up discrepancies in his alibi, and you assume it is an elaborate plot to lure YOU in?
- You claim the police thought you were a suspect, yet you had to beg them to let you in, and to stay when you were told to go home to bed?
- Who was the “silver haired officer”? Did he even exist? There was trial testimony proving this untrue, that Rita Ficarra kept an eye on you and eventually suggest you list possible perps.
- If you had just been eating very late, and you were brought refreshments, then why complain later about not having been given anything to eat?
- You admit, once again, that you knew who Rudy Guede was. Again, why did you say in your December 2013 email to Judge Nencini, that you had never met him?
- You can see why lying to a judge about not ever meeting your co-accused might be suspicious?
- You later claim that Guede is a drug dealer. With what proof? If Guede was a drug dealer, why would he not break into the bottom floor (where the drugs were)?
- Why did you bring your college homework to the police station? Did you know Raffaele could be a long time in there?
- You definitely worked on a list of men who came by the apartment. In fact you produced a list of 7 names that included: Rudy Guede, Patrick, Shaky, Spyros and Jude. You drew maps to where they lived.
- Why did that never appear in your book? How long did this list take to make? Didn’t you only stop because Raffaele withdrew his alibi for you?
- Did you ever name Rudy, Patrick, Shaky, Spyros or Jude before? Or as the next hours unfolded?
- How long was it exactly before Raffaele ‘‘took away your alibi’‘? Just shortly before you finished your first statement at 1:45, right?
- “spontaneous declaration” ? There is no obvious reason for the quotation marks. It WAS spontaneous made at your own request. Granted Cassation gave you the benefit of the doubt in excluding it form the main trial, it was completely your own decision to write it.
- Putting the chairs together for you to rest was actually Rita Ficarra’s idea. She and other investigators were trying to calm you down. She never brushed you off as you claim.
- Prior to this Dr Mignini chaired a hearing specifically to inform you that you were being held and charged and you should say no more without a lawyer - though you did talk and did write statements at 5:45 and noon.
- The evidence he listed against you was very substantial and was summarised at length in the reports of the Matteini and Ricciarelli hearings and the sharp refusal of the Supreme Court to allow house arrest.
- What language were you speaking in? You say that you are alone except for Rita Ficarra and she speaks no English, and you ‘‘virtually have no’’ Italian, and she testified she called for a translator as no progress was made.
- You are trying to ‘‘frame’’ it as doubt, but you did send the police on a wild goose chase naming numerous new suspects, and you did help your accomplice, Rudy Guede, escape.
- Just so we are clear: Did you speak with Dr Mignini prior to your second spontaneous declaration only, or prior to the first as well, though he is conclusively proven to have not been there?
- Your ‘‘account’’ of the fictional questioning by Dr Mignini is so detailed. How is it you have such ‘‘vague’’ recollections about everything else?
- You fell asleep? Was it exhaustion, or knowing the anticipation was over? Ask any American or Canadian police officer. Guilty perps who are arrested have no trouble falling asleep. But the innocent ones can’t.
- You are right in one sense. They were not memories. Various courts all concluded that they were lies.
- ’‘I imagined him’‘? Really, when you are faced with the loss of your alibi you start imagining people?
- Memories ... of Meredith screaming… You were the first to claim this and it was then was corroborated by several others, strong proof that you were there.
- So you have memories of Meredith screaming, you walked by the basketball court [where Rudy plays] everyday, and you imagine Patrick’s face?
- This is all made up. There is no proof this exchange took place. No call came through. Nobody took your phone, you yourself passed it across several times. You waved ii before the cops.
- Again, what language are you and Rita Ficarra talking in? Was the translator now there?
- There is no proof this exchange took place. You were not hit ever by the police. Even your own lawyers confirmed this. The police had no need, and no time after you did the list and maps.
- Minute to minute it is known what happened, this came out at trial. In fact, you currently face more calunnia charges for this false accusation among others.
- This was the first food you had had since last night? In the 2009 trial, the police testified you were fed and brought drinks several times. You admitted this at trial.
- That reads very evasive and deceptive. If you were so confused then, and at trial, how is it you have such perfect recall now?
- This is not how anyone in Perugia saw you. It reads like you are a lawyer trying to pitch for leniency at a trial. “Your Honor, really Ms. Knox is a good person. She does well in school, loves her family, and her only prior is for making noise. Please ignore the evidence about the sexual assault and stabbing.”
- Whether you love your parents is irrelevant. Whether you got good grades or not is irrelevant. Whether you respected authority is irrelevant. The ticket may have been your only police involvement, but you left out the rock throwing which was part of the offense.
- As they testified, the police thought no such thing. At most several of them thought you might be withholding vital information, based on what they overheard, but they were still pursuing numerous other leads.
- You three statements smacked of desperation given you were really treated well. It doesn’t help that you said you went out alone, or deliberately vague about Raffaele possibly also being there.
- In previous days the police merely asked you for some routine background about yourself and Meredith. They also asked where you were at the time, which is standard procedure. You would only have to do that ‘‘as long as they wanted’’ if you were either lying or being uncooperative. Remember, you complained (and in this book) that the questioning was excessive, though others were questioned too.
- This is a complete fabrication. There is no proof this exchange took place. You knew full well you were being arrested, and signed a statement saying you understood why.
- By your own admission, they were still just looking for possible suspects. And if Sollecito had withdrawn your alibi, they wouldn’t need a name—they would suspect him and you. This makes no sense.
- Dr Mignini had just spelled out your status with great care. Why would Ficarra diifer from that? Custody? What does that mean?
- You claim the mysterious silver-haired cop who no-one else saw had told you during his “interrogation” that they would protect me if I cooperated, if I told them who the murderer was. Really?
- According to Cassation, you did deliberately mislead the police, and you did it to divert suspicion from yourself. Many present testified that no-one screamed at you. The only screaming was yours, when you had several head-thumping fits.
- When you talked to your mother, why didn’t you then tell the police Patrick was innocent? Why didn’t Edda (your mother), tell anyone Patrick was innocent? You told her he was.
- Wow, either Rita Ficarra is learning English really fast .... or you speak Italian quite well. Really, Officer Ficarra is taking you to be confined and she isnt remotely interested in having you write another incriminating statement having had less sleep than you.
- You quote the noon statement in full. Answer the numerous points proving you piled lie upon lie made by Peter Hyatt here.
- There is no proof the exchange took place as described. Rita Ficarra is not known for even being sarcastic, she is regarded as firm but kind and had kindly looked after you all night.
- For days you deny knowing anything about Meredith’s murder. After Raffaele removes your alibi, you write that you left him to meet Patrick, and he murdered Meredith.
- You then write you met Patrick, he murdered Meredith, and Raffaele may or not be there. You then write this completely vague, contradictory, and convoluted letter to police.
- You tell Officer Ficarra you are giving her a ‘‘gift’‘, or was it an un-explanation? You now think it was just a misunderstanding, and you cleared the record???? Wow ....
- Three statements proves you did know you had dropped yourself in it and every copy would regard three statemenst as overkill. Lying and obstructing justice would hardly put you ‘‘on the police’s side’‘?
- Why would they see you as a brutal murderer? How do you know how brutal the murder was? You inisisted to write all of these ‘‘confessions’’ and were not being interrogated, so how can any be ‘‘hard won’‘?
- What big crowd of cops? There is no proof this event took place. You knew Dr Mignini’s full name and title, but not what his job is? He himself had told you three times - on the morning of the crime at the house, when the knives were shown to you at the house, and when you were arraigned and read your rights.
- There is no slightest hint that Dr Mignini was the mayor. Do politicians typically investigate homicides in America? The claim reeks of self-importance so typical of you.
- You seriously thought after writing that letter, you were going to be released? By the way, again, what language were your ‘‘declarations’’ in? If Italian, did you have a translator?
- Yes, police stations and prisons typically double as hotels in Italy…. More blatant lies. Dr Mignini fully explained your status with an interpreter there and you signed a statement that you fully understood.
- So Mom could be there in prison with you? Well, maybe, for not reporting her knowledge of your false accusation.
- Did you tell this to any Judge? Matteini, Micheli, Massei, Hellmann, Nencini? No. If any of this were actually true, it would be sexual assault. Did your lawyers file a complaint? No, of course not, they knew it was made up.
- This was simply a routine frisk and testified to at trial, and in earlier descriptions you left all of this out. This farfetched claim is completely undermined by you elsewhere writing about your ‘‘medical check’’ as fairly routine.
- Well you did have a scratch on your neck, I mean hickey. There were bare bloody footprints at the crime scene.
- While checking for other injuries is quite routine you are trying to make it sound like an alien probe.
- Do you really need to include the story about going to the bathroom? Being watched is untrue, in fact prior to 5:45 Knox was at any time free to go. And your Italian is progressing nicely since your ‘‘interrogation’‘.
- This is probably about the only true statement in the book. After causing chaos in so many other lives, Knox just wants to get on with her own life.
- You claim you are consumed with worry, but still let him languish desperate and depressed in jail while his business tanked. You name someone as a sex-killer, and several officers rush out, and they only want to question him?
- They pushed you to tell them where he lived? But did you not eagerly draw a map previously?
- You want them to see you as a terrified 20 year old girl? Why, so they won’t think of you as a murderer? Do you know what most people call 20 year old girls? Women.
- You tried to catch his eye? Was he cute? He saw right through you? So have most people in Italy.
- This is absurd. Who gave such a hug? Mothers dropping their kids off at school give hugs. Police generally don’t hug accused killers as they leave them at the jail or say to them that all will be okay.
- This is gross. Why the heck is Knox adding these easy-to-disprove inventions in?
- Oddly, she is more precise, and certain about these details, than what she was doing before, during and after Meredith’s death, with fewer contradictions.
- You wonder if he hated you? As in, he doesn’t love you enough to cover for you? His own statement to Judge Matteini did say he never wanted to see you again, it was all your fault.
- When exactly were you hit and why? What anonymous guard would say that? Italian police are well known in fact for being too nice. You claim that the prison officials were now aware you were ‘‘assaulted’’ by police, yet do not report it?
- Do these anonymous prison officials speak English? You did make such a huge deal about not understanding the language. And remember, you were interrogated in a ‘‘language you barely knew’’ just 24 hours ago.
- You were repeatedly advised to get a lawyer and meanwhile say no more and confirmed thgis in writing in fact. The interrogators themselves confirmed they did not want you watching news or hearing what Sollecito had claimed.
- In no US prison would you have been allowed to watch TV. And to keep asking this: Did Argiro say this in English or Italian? Remember, you barely speak any Italian….
- Why would they be pushing you further to reveal why or how Meredith died? Didn’t you just sign multiple statements saying how and why it happened, which Judge Matteini found more than enough?
- Actually, your third signed statement (the one you included in this book), gave many confusing and contradictory details and facts. In fact, you claimed that you are confused and ‘‘unsure about what the truth is.’’ Perhaps you can be the one to tell them what was fact, and what was total fiction.
- Didn’t stop the November chill? You said in your January 2014 interview with Simon Hattenstone that you and Meredith went sunbathing on your terrace—regularly. Wow, in Italy temperature drops are abrupt.
- According to accounts from the prison staff and other prisoners, you never ever cried.
- Really? You are accused of sexual assault and murder, and her response is to hug you, and say ‘‘everything will be figured out’‘? There is no proof this exchange took place.
- Either you are REALLY bad at math, or this is disturbing. The ‘‘date’’ November 7th, and 6 days earlier would be November 1st while Meredith was still alive. So, you can cope with Meredith’s murder by yourself? Does this mean you will kill her by yourself, or you won’t need any comforting afterwards?
- Why would you not have felt trapped if your Mom was there? Would she not have let you write those incriminating and accusatory statements? Were you not thinking clearly?
- Why would you be home by now? Would you have fled Italy before the forensic testings were done?
- Well that clears it up. I assume you would agree to be questioned immediately.
- And if it ever goes to trial, I assume you will testify fully, without any restricted questionings.
- If your memories are now clear, there shouldn’t be any doubt.
- You have dug yourself a deep hole already by ‘‘expressing yourself’‘
- But, okay, let’s clear things up
- I’m freaking out a bit now because I talked to a nun, and I finally remember? Talking in English or Italian?
- You remember what you were doing with Raffaele at the time of the murder of my friend? Your friend? Meredith I am assuming? How do you know exactly when she was murdered?
- We are both innocent! This is why: After dinner Raffaele began washing the dishes in the kitchen and I was giving him a back massage. Okay .... you are innocent, not because you say you didn’t do it, but because you were giving Raffaele a back massage?
- I remember now it was after dinner we smoke marijuana? Umm, who cares?
- The sink was new? I thought the plumber had been there for prior problems. In fact, you claimed it, so that your ‘‘leaky pipe’’ story wouldn’t seem so convenient. But still not sure why you didn’t have towels or a mop handy….
- Stabbing Meredith…. where does that fit on the ‘‘spectrum’’ of bad thing?
- So, you remember all of these topics being discussed, but at the police station, you are so vague about what you were doing? Interesting
- You remember all of this, but not when you woke up, or why you turned your phone off?
- So, stabbing Meredith, was that a good/bad choice, or a best/not best choice?
- 5:00pm is not the evening. It is the afternoon. Anyway, didn’t you both claim at other times you were out, but that you didn’t remember what you did?
- So, you read a little Harry Potter to Raffaele (in German), and this was BEFORE watching Amelie, cooking dinner and doing dishes, having the pipe FLOOD the floor… However, remember this quote (Page 44/45), you claim to be reading Harry Potter to him AFTER the flood. REMEMBER???
- You are weird like Amelie? Does she publish lurid sexual details and rape stories?
- You remember a lengthy list of topics you talked about BUT NOT whether you had sex? You seemed to remember all the others….
- Kitchen floor flooded with water? To heck with it, let’s smoke a joint.
- So, how much water was it, approximately? You are (not surprisingly), vague about this.
- You claimed the pipe had leaked before, (page 44 of WTBH…. did you not have an extra towel handy?
- Raffaele cleaned the dishes? Did you notice the ‘‘fish blood’’ on his hand you claimed earlier to have seen?
- You had sex? You said just 2 paragraphs ago you didn’t remember if you had sex. You woke up Friday morning? Okay, care to specify WHEN exactly?
- So you get a message from Patrick (not to come to work), and in your letter to the police, it comes AFTER your dinner, washing the dishes, and the pipe bursting. However see your account on page 62 of the book.
- By the way in court that text was proven to have reached you away from the house.
- You are talking about what ‘‘could’’ have happened, and you can’t understand police frustration?
- But it’s the truth? You just said you COULD swear by it, not that you actually ARE swearing to it
- What doesn’t Raffaele remember? The truth? Or the ‘‘truth’’ you came up with?
- So you write you ‘‘apologies’’ to Mom, and give them to her? Out of curiosity, are those also completely full of B.S.?
- Yes, childhood discipline with Mom…. just like police questioning for a murder….
- You feel more articulate writing than speaking? That is scary, you are a university junior, and your writing is awful.
- You say things that don’t always seem to make sense? Either they make sense, or they don’t.
- Either you are completely delusional, or just pretending to be. The police have charged you with sexual assault and murder, and you are just ‘‘trying to help them’‘?
- You think you will just walk out of here, into your mother’s arms? Wow ... and you thought you were mature?
- You couldn’t stand by your interrogation? So, I assumed you made all efforts to get Lumumba released immediately? No….
- So, you being here is just a ‘‘paperwork’’ issue?
- You have a duty to observe and collect information—just like a tourist ...? Guess you need something for material, should you ever get out and need to cash in on it.
- So, you just ‘‘get used to’’ having people watching you ‘‘pee and shower’‘. Odd, you aren’t immediately okay with it. You…
- Published a rape story
- Have sex with random strangers
- Published lurid details about random sexual encounters
- Published about Grandma helping you get medicine for your STD.
- Published details about your strip search
- Flirt with people in court
- Just a thought: Even if you WERE watched in the shower, or on the toilet, you would probably enjoy it.
- Of course there was self doubt. Rudy hadn’t been identified yet, had he?
- You were furious for putting yourself in that situation, but not for putting Patrick there? Classic narcissist.
- You didn’t ‘‘panic’’ for steering the investigation off course. It probably released the tension.
- Hmm… so only 2 full days as a prisoner, and you already have 2 lawyers ready for you? Guess this isn’t Guantanamo Bay after all.
- Ghirga and Vedova? Funny, wasn’t there someone named Giancarlo Costa representing you for a while?
- Judge Matteini? Wasn’t she the one who would determine if you could be released, or had to be detained? Sounds a bit like a ‘‘bail hearing’‘. Wait, bail does not exist in Italy.
- You ‘‘still thought Mignini was the Mayor’‘? Are you that dense? He told you who he was both at the house on the morning after the murder and when presiding over the 5:45 am warning of charges.
- Why exactly do you think Napoleoni was enjoying this? There is no sign in her extensive testimony that she did.
- Just for reference, was this hearing done in all English, all Italian, or did you have an interpreter?
- You had at least six opportunities before trial to argue the same thing - and failed at them all. The evidence list was long and you failed a psychological test to establish whether you could do more harm.
- And besides lawyers ALWAYS can get delays by saying they need to consult with their clients.
- Mignini barred Raffaele from seeing his lawyers? Really, in Honor Bound, Sollecito says no such thing. He told his father he saw his lawyers the very next day.
- You are in prison, you ARE cut off from the outside world. Why do you assume you have the right to a TV?
- Your silence harmed you? No, your mouth, and your ‘‘creative writing’’ harmed you.
- Well, considering November 5th you barely spoke the language, and November 7th you can converse with the guards, you may be the world’s fastest learner of the Italian language. Keep up the good work.
- Patrick wanted to have sex with Meredith? Who gave the police and judge THAT idea?
- The Judge thought you, Raffaele, and Patrick were involved? Did someone sign a statement or something?
- You can’t believe anyone would think that of you? This is a murder case, no one cares who YOU are.
- Interesting summary, except is WASN’T proven to be false. Your call to the police DID come after the Postal Police arrived
- Actually, Raffaele said that you left his apartment. He didn’t say you both left home, and that he went back later. You misconstrue Sollecito’s ‘‘amended’’ statement.
- Yes, the sneaker did look similiar to Raffaele’s shoe
- In ‘‘Honor Bound’‘, Raffaele claims he told the Judge that someone stole his shoes. Any comment on this?
- In ‘‘Honor Bound’‘, Raffaele first claimed to never meet Patrick, then says he’s been to the bar. Any comment?
- Yes, the knife Raffaele had was confirmed at trial (and confirmed on appeal), to be used in the attack. Comments?
- First and foremost: You do not CONFESS that someone else did something. You ACCUSE them of something.
- Well, you did say that you were with Raffaele at his apartment when Meredith was killed.
- You later wrote that you left Raffaele to go meet Patrick, and that he killed her (you were a witness).
- You later wrote that you witnessed Patrick killing Meredith, and you weren’t sure if Raffaele was there.
- You later wrote that you can’t remember for sure what happened.
- Sollecito first claimed he was at a party.
- Sollecito later said you two were at his apartment
- Sollecito later said you left, and that you asked him to lie for you
- Sollecito claimed his ‘‘matching shoes’’ were stolen, and he ‘‘wasn’t sure’’ if he ever met Patrick.
- Yes, you left Raffaele, met up with Patrick, heard him kill Meredith, and woke up the next morning with Raffaele. Makes sense.
- Gee, any wonder Judge Matteini has reasons to doubt you all? Well, Patrick, maybe not.
- Let’s see here:
- False accusation of innocent person (Susan Smith, Casey Anthony…), to divert attention.
- Multiple false alibis
- Statements saying you were at crime scene (contradicting earlier statements)
- Your alibi witness (Sollecito), removes his alibi for you, says you asked him to lie.
- Sollecito brings knife—and possible murder weapon—to police station, and says his ‘‘matching shoes’’ were stolen, then presumably returned.
- The prosecution did not make any of this up. You did.
- This is being disingenuous. In America, you would have been indicted on this evidence.
- You were given the opportunity to speak up. Why didn’t you? You are not a timid person. Hell, people can’t shut you up.
- You do all of the ‘‘suspicious behaviour’’ listed above, it is your fault ... because you’d given in to their suggestions?
- Vedova and Ghirga didn’t do too well for you? What about the disbelieving Giancarlo Costa? Why do you never mention him?
- So you called the police to report the break-in BEFORE the postal police arrived? Didn’t phone records show that the call was made afterwards?
- You mention one call to your mother, in which you tell her there has been a break in, and Mom tells you to call the police. Yet in Court, Edda Mellas testifies to many things being talked about (in 88 seconds). Can you please share your conversation more definitively with us?
- Police reported that you looked completely exhausted, and smelled repulsive. Are these facts correct, and if so, why were you in this condition? Did you not spend a nice night at Raffaele’s place, and then just shower?
- You showered at your place just recently. Okay, where are the clothes you changed out of, or did you just put your old clothes back on?
- Filomena, when asked, mentioned a top you were wearing the night before, that has never been found. What happened to that shirt, or did she make that claim up?
- Both you and Raffaele (in Honor Bound) mention that you turned off your cell phones—Perhaps because the courts wondered about this. Yet, you don’t mention when exactly you turned your phone back on. Care to share?
- If this is the case, why? Did Raffaele slip away to make the call? Did you suspect the Postal Police would search the house anyway, and this being an attempt to cover yourselves?
- You were very worried about Meredith, but your calls only lasted a few seconds. Did you let it ring? Did you call Laura, or any of Meredith’s English friends? Anyone who would possibly know more than you?
- There were people crowded around the door? At trial, the police said everyone was kept away? Which version is correct?
- The police allege that you originally said Meredith always locks her door. Filomena says no, that wasn’t the case. Are they lying?
- Did you mention the frantic efforts you made a few pages earlier trying to see into her room?
- You claim that Meredith locks when she changes or goes away. Was this an attempt to deflect what you originally said about Meredith always locking her door? A way to minimize the incongruency?
- You claim that you made the call about the break in, and then waited outside, at which time the postal police showed up. Then Marco Z. and Luca arrive, followed shortly by Filomena and Paola. After a brief time the police kick down the door. Could you be a bit more precise as to how and at what times this all unfolded? It seems like it all happened in the span of about 10 minutes. Given how the prosecutors used this against you at trial, your exact version would help.
- This whole business about the postal police: they came because Meredith’s phones had been found. Why do you think those phones were ditched? Was it the burglar/killer/rapist dumping stolen property, or were those phones dumped to create a diversion and confusion?
- You found a rock in Filomena’s room and concluded it had been used to break the window. Yet you walked right by the window when you first came home. A rock that size really left no glass outside? Someone climbing that wall left no dirt or scrape marks?
- Nothing was stolen? How diligent had you been prior to making thoseclaims? How diligent was Raffaele when he called the police? How thoroughly had you looked before making this claim?
- The Carabinieri is more professional than the Perugian Police? Is that why you wanted them involved? Or did Raffaele’s sister, Vanessa, have something to do with it?
- You are in shock? But aren’t you and Raffaele buying lingerie and joking shortly after about the ‘‘hot sex’’ you two are going to have? Guess you get over shock quickly.
- You had no idea what was happening, yet you want into Meredith’s room precisely because you are worried about her? Did you not have any clue what was happening?
- You said you wanted Meredith’s family to read your book. Why, then, would you include very graphic details about how their sister/daughter was murdered? Are you trying to ‘‘shock’’ them?
- Moreover, the details read ALMOST LIKE A CONFESSION. How do you know, or better yet, how do you remember the precise details of Meredith’s death, when so many other details are foggy and contradictory to you?
- ’‘Nothing you could say about what her body was like in it’s devastation’‘? What does that mean exactly?
- Previously, you had added unnecessary and irrelevant details about Meredith’s sex life. Again, this is what you want her family to read?
- You seem to vividly remember Filomena’s ‘‘wild, animal-like’’ screams? Did it bother you that she was so upset over Meredith’s death?
- Luca told Raffaele that Meredith’s throat had been cut? But at trial, you had no idea who said it. At what point did you learn?
- Even if the story about Luca were true, why would you use it later on Meredith’s English friends? Trying to shock them?
- Well, this by itself seems plausible enough. It is how your behaviour changed in the days following that raised a lot of red flags. Yes, you and Raffaele kissed. Why do we need the details in the above section?
- Were you and Raffaele seen doing more graphic displays of public affection even in the police station?Giaccomo testified in court that you were totally relaxed at the police station. Was he wrong?
- Were you (as police allege), still trading sex for drugs with Cristiano, or Federico?You state that you were in shock. Was any of that morning ‘‘drug related’‘?
- Were you not making cold blooded remarks, like ‘‘she had her fucking throat cut’‘?
- You said you willed Meredith to be with her English girlfriends? Funny, how you never tried to contact them when Meredith was missing….
- ‘You seem surprised that the police would spend a significant amount of time questioning the occupants of the home? Why is that?
- The poop must have belonged to the killer? While true, how did you know that? Wouldn’t most people assume it was either someone from the home, or a visitor?
- So, you drew attention to the mop, or were you asked about it? Did you add that detail to cover yourselves? Officer Napoleoni said she will check it for blood? Did she really say that?
- Did Officer Napoleoni ever ask the obvious question: Why didn’t you just flush?
- You accuse your roommate Filomena of sneaking in to get her laptop. Did you ever say that in Court, or to the police?
- Really, you were questioned for 6 hours straight? Let me guess, no videotape of this either?
- You spoke virtually no Italian? Odd, Rita Ficarra testified at trial that you spoke Italian quite well.
- Asking for background information on your ‘‘roommate’’ and ‘‘friend’’ seems pretty normal. Why did you think it wasn’t?
- These are the questions you listed in your book. Which one(s) were they asking which were excessive?
- Didn’t you say in your Nov 4th email to Judge Nencini that police asked you all kinds of personal questions (like Meredith liking anal)? The questions you list seem pretty normal and routine.
- You didn’t know the police thought it might be an inside job? Did you not reiterate that you thought nothing was stolen?
- Did the Postal Police not come by with Meredith’s ‘‘abandoned’’ cell phones?
- Did you not walk past Filomena’s window without noticing it was broken?
- There was no glass outside Filomena’s window? The whole time you were there, you didn’t notice?
- A burglary ... through the front window on the second floor?
- Did you not shower in a bloody bathroom? Or at least claim you did?
- The police bugged several people’s phones. Why do you omit this detail?
- How is giving background information about the victim a cat-and-mouse game?
- This is extremely unlikely, few police officers would be callous enough to do something like that. I suppose he also said that Meredith ‘‘fucking bleed to death’’ or that ‘’ shit happens.’‘
- Finger across the neck can be interpreted as death—in any form. Why did you take it to mean literal throat cutting?
- Trying to be helpful, I shared the information I had? Funny, the police never claimed you said Meredith was in the armoire. Laura says that Meredith was Amanda’s friend? Odd that the British girls say the exact opposite.
- So, you promise not to tell the police about marijuana ... and you put it in your book?
- Really, Laura and Filomena are so cold they are calling lawyers to get their stuff out of the house? It didn’t occur to you to call a lawyer? Why, to get your stuff, or to get you released later?
- This is a bit unclear, but were you all at the police station since that afternoon?
- No one fingerprinted you then? Really, they kept you up until the wee hours of the next morning?
- Given how vague you are about times, how do you know this was 3am, or is it a detail made up for sympathy?
- That is the reason for the fingerprinting. If the police know who is there, they can focus on unknown prints?
- As someone who (you admitted at trial), watches CSI, why don’t you believe this explanation?
- Suddenly you are angry? You weren’t before?
- Again, why are you still going on about the poop? Wouldn’t most normal people (ie. everyone), flush it?
- Why happened your room or Laura’s room been touched? That is a good question. Better question: Did you notice your lamp missing yet?
- Why was Filomena’s computer still there? Also a good question
- Did Meredith know her attacker? Great question as well.
- And you cannot see why the police may be wondering if this was an inside job?
- This is exact opposite of what was reported. Giacomo, in particular, mentioned later how calm and unemotional you were, while everyone else was in shock and traumatized. Was he lying, or is this passage fiction?
- She got her fucking throat cut? Again how did you know that? When questioned at different times, you were unable to say how exactly you knew this.
- Meredith’s body had not yet been autopsied, so the police wouldn’t know either at this point.
- And saying this to Meredith’s friend doesn’t come off as cold to you?
- Muttering and swearing, is this grief, or impatience and frustration?
- Really, you have to do this now? And what was reported about odd behaviour… aren’t you just confirming it?
- You tell Natalie that Meredith ‘‘had her fucking throat cut’‘, which even the police didn’t know
- You are acting impatient with having to be at the police station
- You are kissing, joking, making faces with Raffaele
- Writing jokes about killing for a pizza
- Interesting ... you claim you were singled out, yet Giacomo, Laura, Filomena, and ‘‘the other guys from downstairs’‘, were all kept until 5:30am
- And you aren’t clear how long you are actually questioned for. You said 6 hours earlier, although you seem to be notoriously bad with numbers. Were you questioned again later?
- So much for the cat-and-mouse game.
- In your November 4th email, you said you wanted to leave, but couldn’t because you ‘‘were an important part of the investigation’‘. Which is it?
- In fact, you complained in that email about needing underwear since you wouldn’t be able to get into your house for a while.
- You did consider going back home. Again, reread your November 4th email.
- Running away would be looked at as a failure as an adult? Umm ... people MIGHT view it as running from a murder charge.
- Your close friend is murdered, and you are thinking about redo’s?
- Were you paranoid about Raffaele leaving because you didn’t want to be alone, or because he might talk?
- His arm around you: Is this protection, or affection?
- Why are you alive and she dead? Good question.
- Why would the UW foreign exchange office be checking in? You weren’t on any formal exchange program.
- You had to demonstrate that you were in control? So why did Dad end up hiring a PR firm?
- Why keep calling your Mother, if you were in control?
- So, what exactly was the ‘‘mature, responsible way’‘, you dealt with things?
- You are comparing casual sex with the aftermath of your roommate’s murder? Disingenuous to say the least.
- You just had to suck it up? Wow. Well, shit happens, but let’s move on with life.
- You and your roommates were looking for a new place? Both Laura and Filomena stated they had no interest in continuing to live with you.
- Raffaele is taking care of you? You mean with the ooh-la-la, or washing the blood out of your ears?
- Again with the poop? Again, you supposedly don’t even know it has anything to do with the crime scene. Or do you?
- However, from accounts told later, Amanda frequently complained about being tired, and hungry, and cold
- Seriously, you were treated this way? What proof?
- Police tend to ask details such as locking doors, open windows, access to keys, visitors. Why include this?
- Your ‘‘ta-dah’’ is just weird. Why pretend this was normal? Are you five?
- So, they bring you back to your home. What precisely, besides marijuana, were they ‘‘looking for’‘?
- Recalibrate your answers? What exactly do you mean by that?
- What I can’t understand is why you would add this in your book. You said you wanted Meredith’s family to read it.
- Seriously, you want Meredith’s parents to know she was hitting you up for condoms?
- Seriously, a homicide investigation, police would be asking about what sex positions Meredith liked?
- While they likely did ask how long Meredith and Giacomo were together, anal and vaseline probably never came up.
- Even if these questions did happen, couldn’t you have just left it as ‘‘personal questions’’ in your book? This is very distasteful.
- You had to repeat everything for the record, yet you don’t say how long. I ask, simply because I am trying to figure out how you were ‘‘questioned for over 50 hours’’ as you claimed in your December 2013 email to Judge Nencini.
- Not at all sure what the point of this is. Is Knox trying to drive suspicion between the men?
- I thought Knox wasn’t supposed to talk about the case. Isn’t that what she told her classmates?
- According to bank records, they cost $60, or was it 60 Euros? And this was just for necessity?
- According to the surveillance video, it was more than just a few hugs and kisses.
- Why bring this up? How does it help clarify where you were, or what happened to Meredith?
- You remember the underwear store well, but not what you were doing when Meredith was killed?
- According to you, they kept you, Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, and the other men downstairs into the wee hours of the morning. How were they focusing on you?
- And you think they ‘‘grilled’’ you because you knew Meredith so much better?
- You seriously think Laura and Filomena were asking their lawyers about the ‘‘alleged drugs’’ the police didn’t seem to care about?
- They wanted to keep living with you? Both testified that you were loud, messy, lazy, and brought home strange men.
- This was your November 4th ‘‘alibi email’‘, right? Why did you really send it?
- Why did you send it to people, some of whom, were hearing for the first time Meredith was dead?
- Why did you include the personal details about Meredith? Was it to cause embarrassment?
- These people back home are not interrogating you. Why add every single detail?
- If you wanted to show a complete record, why did you not include the email (a full copy), in your book? After all, the police tried to use it against you. Certainly you could disclose it and set the record straight.
- Interesting claim. The police are asking you for background info on Meredith, and you take ‘‘questioning’’ to be suspicions.
- I have not seen this ‘‘news item’‘. By any chance do you have a copy?
- Really, the police were looking for a woman? Any thoughts as to why that may be?
- ’‘Your thoughts went straight to Meredith and the torture she’d been put through’‘???? Ummm… Is this a confession?
- Why are you trying imagine over and over how she died? Do you like that sort of thing?
- ’‘... or worse, irrationally committed by a psychopath who had targeted our villa’‘? Could be.
- Could you have saved Meredith? You mean instead of stabbing her? Sure.
- Well, this is the second time you’ve brought up kissing and cuddling in the police station. You also mentioned what went on in the shop Bubble. So, while you claim that the police made up stories about your behaviour, you seem to be confirming their version of events.
- Out of curiosity, and for the record, when Rita Ficarra scolded you, what language was it in? She testified at trial that she spoke no English and only talked to you in Italian. You, on the other hand, claim to know only minimal Italian. And this passage doesn’t say there was any translator. So, English or Italian? Or some third language perhaps?
- Seriously? You were nowhere near the crime scene, never looked in Meredith’s room, and the police ask you to pick out a possible murder weapon?
- Why did panic engulf you? You don’t really elaborate on that point.
- You didn’t have to see the blood, the body, and the naked foot to fully imagine the horror? Why, did you have a front row seat?
- Unless her mind is completely disjointed, am not sure how she makes these connections.
- You have an innate stubborn tendency to see only what you wanted? Is this narcissism or just not being observant?
- Why would throwing the bunny vibrator in the clear case cause problems ... unless it grossed Meredith out? And why do you keep talking and writing about it?
- How would the ‘‘casual sex campaign’’ have led to Meredith’s death? Did it annoy her, or did one of your ‘‘male friends’’ kill her?
- You and Raffaele are immature how? For acting this way after a murder? Before the murder? Thinking murder would solve your problems?
- If you had flown home to Seattle, would you not be in much the same position as Rudy Guede afterwards? As in a lower sentence?
- Why do you need a lawyer for what seems to be routine questioning? Do you have something to hide? It sure isn’t shame…
- You were in discussion with Rita Ficarra, primarily correct? You seem to understand her, but she testified she spoke no English, and you claim you barely understand any Italian. So what language were you ‘‘interrogated’’ in?
- An interpreter, Anna Donnino, was called from home when you were at the police station. She was present during the bulk of your ‘‘interview’‘. Is this true or false?
- You allege Rita Ficarra hit you. Why did you not name her until after you were released? You said only a ‘‘chestnut haired woman’‘.
- Why did your lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, deny publicly that you were ever hit? Why did you not mention this ‘‘assault’’ in your ECHR complaint?
- Police claim that you were not supposed to be at the police station, only Raffaele. When you complained of being tired they told you to go home.
- Police allege since you came anyway, they asked if you would be willing to help put together some names. Is that true?
- You claim it was teams and teams, yet there was considerable testimony that there were only 3 officers including two women and the interpreter Anna Donnino. Is that true?
- It seems very farfetched that police would go out of their way to leak embarrassing details about the victim. You, on the other hand, have shown again and again, that you have no qualms about posting embarrassing, and often false information.
- Meredith’s autopsy was splashed across the British tabloids? Really, can you name ONE precise newspaper?
- Really? The police compromised their own investigations by releasing half-finished findings?
- You weren’t paying attention to the news? Were any of your classmates? Did you hear from them?
- So, it was your first time being alone? How much of it was the police, and how much with Raffaele? You are not at all clear on the numbers. And remember, you did email Judge Nencini, telling him you were interrogated for 50 hours over 4 days.
- If this is true, then why were you expecting to work later? Remember that message Patrick sent, saying it is slow? Remember your reply, See you later? Why wouldn’t Patrick have taken you off the staff list, at least for the time being?
- The version Patrick tells, is that you didn’t keep silent out of respect, that you turned around and walked out at the attention Meredith was going to receive. How accurate is his version?
- You told him you don’t think you can come anymore? Patrick told the police he was going to replace you—with Meredith—for being lazy? Is that true?
[Chapter 26,Page 317] ‘’ ... Instead they glossed over these facts and used Capezzali’s testimony to determine what time Meredith had died. Based on the scream, they decided that she died at 11:30 P.M. Even though Meredith’s digestion indicated an earlier time of death, they were fixated on that scream. Meredith had been murdered by 10 P.M., based on her stomach contents, but the prosecutors invented a scenario in which Meredith was home alone between 9:30 P.M. and 11:30 P.M. According to their argument, the sphincter between the stomach and the small intestine tightens at the moment of trauma, and digestion temporarily stops. Left unanswered was what trauma in that two-hour space interrupted her digestion—the same two hours when the prosecution said she was relaxing on her bed with her shoes off, writing an essay due the next morning. They were ignoring basic human physiology and hanging Meredith’s time of death on an older woman’s urination habits….’‘
[Chapter 26, Page 317] ‘’ ... The problem: Meredith’s body wasn’t discovered until after 1 P.M. on November 2. When Mignini asked Capezzali if she might have heard the scream on Halloween and not on November 1, she snapped, “I don’t remember these things, these hours, these things. I don’t remember them anymore.”
I was sure there was no way the jury would put their faith in someone who said she didn’t remember….’‘
[Chapter 26, Page 318] ‘’ ... The basketball court was made to order for the prosecution. The most direct walk from Raffaele’s apartment to my villa was through Piazza Grimana. It was also the place where Rudy Guede was known to play pick-up games and hang out. It was where I’d once tried to shoot hoops with the guys from downstairs and ended up watching from the sidelines. I hadn’t argued with anyone there, and I’d never been back, but what if the jury bought this guy’s story? And why was the prosecution bringing it up? If the story was true, we would have had an alibi. If Curatolo had seen us in the piazza that early, we couldn’t have committed the murder between 9:30 P.M. and 10 P.M., when the defense believed Meredith died. And if he’d seen us as late as midnight, we couldn’t have made Meredith scream at 11:30 P.M., as Nara Capezzali had reported. His account undermined the prosecution’s theory….’‘
[Chapter 26, Page 320] ‘’ ... I dreaded Patrick Lumumba’s testimony for his civil trial. It still gnawed at me that I’d never apologized to him. I was sure the man I’d wrongly named would rail against me. He had told the media that he would never forgive me, he’d lied about firing me, and he had called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.” His lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, had called me “Luciferina” and said I had “an angel’s face with a demon’s soul.”
[Chapter 26, Page 321] ‘’ ... At first my lawyers said letting me testify was a risk. I could be provoked. They worried the prosecution would push me to unwittingly say something incriminating. I’d fallen for Mignini’s word-twisting when he interrogated me in December of 2007. I’d dissolved into tears at my pretrial.
But I was adamant. “I’m the only one who knows what I went through during the interrogation,” I told Luciano and Carlo. “Having you defend me isn’t the same as defending myself. I need to show the court what kind of person I am.”
[Chapter 26, Page 321] ‘’ ... Raffaele didn’t testify. That may have been the right choice for him. Most of the media attention had landed on me—Raffaele was seen as someone who had gone along with his evil girlfriend…’‘
[Chapter 26, Page 322] ‘’ ... In testifying, I wanted to make a point: You guys make me sound like I was crazy that I found three droplets of blood in the bathroom sink and didn’t call the police immediately. But I was a twenty-year-old who handled the situation the same way a lot of inexperienced people would have. It’s easy to look back and criticize my response, but when I went home that day I didn’t know there had been a break-in or a murder. To me, it was a regular day. Yes. The door was open. But I’d known since I moved in that the lock was broken. Maybe it was a cause for concern, but I just figured one of my roommates was taking out the trash or had run to the corner store. I was focused on getting ready for our romantic weekend in Gubbio. My thoughts were mundane. I’ll grab a shower. I’ll pack. I’ll get back to Raffaele’s, and we’ll go…’‘
[Chapter 26, Page 323] ‘’ ... The first person to question me was Carlo Pacelli, Patrick’s lawyer. Lawyers technically aren’t allowed to add their own commentary at this point, only to ask questions. But he made his opinions known through pointed questions like “Did you or did you not accuse Patrick Lumumba of a murder he didn’t commit?” and “Didn’t the police officers treat you well during your interrogation? The lawyer looked disgusted with me. I sat as straight as I could in my chair and pushed my shoulders back—my I-will-not-be-bullied stance.
Within a few minutes I realized that the interpreter hired to translate my English into Italian—the same useless woman I was assigned earlier in the trial—wasn’t saying precisely what I was saying…’‘
[Chapter 26, Page 324] ‘’ ... Pacelli tried to insinuate that I’d come up with Patrick’s name on my own in my interrogation. “No,” I said. “They put my cell phone in front of me, and said, ‘Look, look at the messages. You were going to meet someone.’ And when I denied it they called me a ‘stupid liar.’ From then on I was so scared. They were treating me badly, and I didn’t know why. “It was because the police misunderstood the words ‘see you later.’ In English, it’s not taken literally. It’s just another way of saying ‘good-bye.’ But the police kept asking why I’d made an appointment to meet Patrick. ‘Are you covering for Patrick?’ they demanded. ‘Who’s Patrick?’ ”
[Chapter 26, Page 324] ‘’ ... I’d purposely tried to forget the emotional pain of the slap to my head. Other memories had become muddled by time. For instance, I remembered calling my mom only once after Meredith’s body was found, but cell phone records indicated that I’d made three calls while Raffaele and I were standing in my driveway….’‘
[Chapter 26, Page 325] ‘’ ... “One time, two times?” Luciano asked. “Two times,” I said. “The first time I did this.” I dropped my head down as if I’d been struck and opened my mouth wide in surprise. “Then I turned around toward her and she gave me another.” “So you said what you said, and then you had a crisis of weeping. Then they brought you tea, some coffee, some pastries? When did this happen? If you can be precise,” Luciano asked. “They brought me things only after I made declarations”—depositions—“that Patrick had raped and murdered Meredith, and I had been at the house covering my ears….’‘
[Chapter 26, Page 325] ‘’ ... “Before they asked me to make other declarations—I can’t say what time it was—but at a certain point I asked, ‘Shouldn’t I have a lawyer or not?’ because I didn’t honestly know, because I had seen shows on television that usually when you do these things you have a lawyer, but okay, so should I have one? And at least one of them told me it would be worse for me, because it showed that I didn’t want to collaborate with the police. So I said no.”
[Chapter 26, Page 326] ‘’ ... When Mignini told me I still hadn’t proved that the police had suggested Patrick’s name, my lawyers jumped up. The exchange was so heated that Judge Massei asked if I wanted to stop….’‘
[Chapter 26, Page 327] ‘’ ... Carlo said, “Amanda, you nailed it. You came across as a nice, intelligent, sincere girl. You left a good impression.” I took this to mean that I didn’t come across as “Foxy Knoxy.” For a while during the trial, the guards would let my parents say hello and good-bye to me in the stairwell just before I left the courthouse for the day. My mom, my dad, Deanna, Aunt Christina, and Uncle Kevin were waiting for me there that day. They hugged me tightly. “We’re so proud of you,” they said. I hadn’t felt this good since before Meredith was murdered. After another few days in court, the judge called a two-month summer break.
Archived in The former defendants, Amanda Knox, Other legal processes, Knox calunnia, Family + defense hoaxers, Knox-Mellas team, Lies in Knox book
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (30)
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #6
Posted by Chimera
The Dark Force: evil for evil’s sake? This is a long post, click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Overview Of This Post
My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone she ever encountered, while falsely making the notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed Knox look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.
Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith. And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.
I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here. Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition. Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207 and Post #6 dissected pages 243 to 289.
2. Dissection Of Pages 243 to 291.
[Chapter 21, Page 244] ‘’ ... At twenty, I still had a childlike view of people. I looked for the saving graces in everyone. I thought people were naturally empathetic, that they felt ashamed and guilty when they mistreated someone else. That faith in humanity was being picked away, but I held to the belief that people were basically good. And that good people would believe me and set me free….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 244] ‘’ ... Part of the growing up I did in prison was learning that people are complicated, and that some will do something wrong to achieve what they think is right. Since my second interrogation with Mignini, I knew the prosecution was intent on undermining my alibi. Over the coming weeks and months, I would learn just how far they would go to try to prove me guilty….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 245] ‘’ ... The prints couldn’t have been made by Raffaele’s newer Nike Air Force 1s, he said. “They had just seven concentric circles.” By show’s end he had removed the possibility that Raffaele had been at the murder scene and put another strike against Guede. Raffaele’s family must have felt euphoric….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 245] ‘’ ... I knew this “evidence” could hurt us. I also knew that Raffaele had as much chance of coming into contact with Meredith’s bra as Meredith had meeting up with a knife from Raffaele’s apartment. Neither could be true, but the prosecution would use both these findings to tie us to the crime….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 246] ‘’ ... I wasn’t implicated by the clasp, but I knew that the prosecution would never believe that Raffaele had acted without me. They’d say I gave him access to the villa. I was the reason he’d met Meredith. We were each other’s alibis. If they could show that Raffaele was directly connected to the crime, I would, at the very least, be charged as his accomplice…’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 248] ‘’ ... This new claim was another barricade separating me from my real life—one more accusation on a growing list. Too many impossible things were being served up as “truth”—Meredith’s DNA on Raffaele’s kitchen knife, Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, and now Meredith’s blood on the soles of my feet….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 248] ‘’ ... It was crazy enough to be told that “investigative instinct” had convinced the police I was involved in Meredith’s murder—that I was dangerous and evil. Now forensic science—the supposedly foolproof tests I was counting on to clear me—was turning up findings I knew were wrong. I, like most people who get their information from TV crime shows, was unaware that forensic evidence has to be interpreted, that human error and bias can, and do, upend results…’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 249] ‘’ ... I always liked seeing my lawyers, but now I had to brace myself for each visit. I didn’t have to wait long before they brought more devastating news. Less than a week later, investigators reported that they’d found my DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood ringing the drain of the bidet in our shared bathroom. The implication was that I’d rinsed my hands and feet in the bidet after slashing her throat. They said that my skin cells had shown up—not Raffaele’s or Rudy Guede’s—because I was the last person to wash up in that bathroom…’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 250] ‘’ ... The pictures of the chemical-stained bathroom did what, I have to assume, the police wanted. The public reaction proved that a picture—especially a “bloody” picture from a crime scene—is worth a hundred thousand words. At least. I knew what people were thinking. Who but a knife-wielding killer would take a shower in a “blood-streaked” bathroom? Who but a liar would say there had been only a few flecks of blood? The answer? Foxy Knoxy….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 250] ‘’ ... My lawyers complained to the judges that the prosecution was using the media to our disadvantage, but the judge said that whatever was reported in the press wouldn’t be held against us. The flow of information between the prosecution and the media was an accepted but unacknowledged fact….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 251] ‘’ ... The denial, fear, and bafflement I felt in the beginning of this nightmare had turned into quiet indignation and defiance. I finally accepted that I was my only friend inside Capanne. I clung to my dad at every visit. The rest of the time, I used the only coping tool I knew: I retreated into my own head….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 251] ‘’ ... Cera’s sense of control came from cleaning. When I moved in I liked that her cell was spotless. I didn’t understand that it was her obsession, until she demanded that I dry off the walls of the shower before I dried myself; place the shampoo and lotion bottles in a perfect line on the counter, equally spaced apart; tuck in my bedsheets with military precision; arrange the apples in the fruit bowl stem up; and avoid using the kitchen sink. I tried hard to get along with Cera. I helped her with her schoolwork and either cleaned alongside her or stayed out of the way. My job, after she was done mopping and drying the floor, was to take a panno spugna—a spongelike cloth—and clean the baseboards on my hands and knees. I complained bitterly to Mom about these things when she came to Italy over her spring break…’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 252] ‘’ ... One morning, when I was walking into the bathroom to put something away, I bumped into Cera, and she kissed me on the lips. I just stood there staring at her, too surprised to know what to say. “Your face is telling me that was not okay,” she said quickly. “I’m really sorry.” She never made physical advances after that, but she did once ask if I was curious what it was like to have sex with a woman, like her. My stock answer—an emphatic no —made her feel bad…’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 253] ‘’ .... My only hope and constant thought during that winter and spring was that the judge might allow me to live with my family in an apartment, under house arrest. My first plea had been rejected, but my lawyers had another hearing scheduled for April 1. Even though Carlo and Luciano weren’t confident about the outcome, I was sure it would happen. I was counting the days….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... Luciano and Carlo came to see me the next day. They reassured me that no one, not even the prosecution, believed Guede. “He ran away, he’s a liar, a thief, a rapist, a murderer,” Carlo said. “No one could ever consider him a reliable witness, because he has everything to gain from blaming you. The prosecution is making a big deal about it because it incriminates you.” “Please, Amanda,” Luciano said. “This is not what you need to worry about. You need to stay strong.” Still, I couldn’t be consoled. With Guede’s testimony against me, there was absolutely no chance a judge would free me from prison….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... In early April, Carlo came to Capanne. His face gave away his worry. “Amanda,” he said, “the prosecution now says there’s evidence of a cleanup. They contend that’s why there’s no evidence that you and Raffaele were in Meredith’s bedroom—that you scrubbed the crime scene of your traces.”
[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... “Amanda, the investigators are in a conundrum,” Carlo said. “They found so much of Guede’s DNA in Meredith’s room and on and inside her body. But the only forensic evidence they have of you is outside her bedroom. Raffaele’s DNA evidence is only on the bra hook. If you and Raffaele participated in the murder, as the prosecution believes, your DNA should be as easy to find as Guede’s.” “But Carlo, no evidence doesn’t mean we cleaned up. It means we weren’t there!” “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede. I know it doesn’t make sense. They’re just adding another link to the story. It’s the only way the prosecution can involve you and Raffaele when the evidence points to a break-in and murder by Guede.”
[Chapter 21, Page 255] ‘’ ... Judge Matteini sent me her decision about house arrest on May 16: “Denied.” By then the prosecution had stacked so much against me that Guede’s testimony hadn’t even figured in her decision. Even though I hadn’t left the country before my arrest, the judge was certain that Mom would have helped me leave when she was to have arrived in Perugia on November 6. That, she said, is why the police planned to arrest me before Mom could get to me. It turned out that they’d gotten her itinerary the same time I did—by bugging my phone….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 256] ‘’ ... This new setback conjured up all the desperation, the nauseating helplessness, I’d felt that morning. I could hardly breathe thinking about it. I remembered how relieved I’d been that my mom was flying over, how much I needed her. As soon as she said she was coming to Italy, I realized I’d been stubbornly, stupidly insistent that I could help the police find Meredith’s killer on my own. I’d been tricked…’
[Chapter 21, Page 256] ‘’ ... Cera started trying to prepare me for the chance of another fifteen years in prison. “I think you should say you’re guilty,” she advised me one day, “because it will take years off your sentence.” “I will not lie!” I yelled, spitting out one word at a time. “I’m not scared of Guede or the prosecutor! I’m ready to fight! I don’t know anything about this murder, and I will go free!”
[Chapter 22, Page 261] ‘’ ... Oh my God. I’ve been formally charged with murder. I wanted to scream, “This is not who I am! You’ve made a huge mistake! You’ve got me all wrong!” I was now fluent enough in Italian to see how ludicrous the charges were. Along with murder, I was charged with illegally carrying around Raffaele’s kitchen knife. It was galling. Real crimes had been committed against Meredith; the police owed her a real investigation. Instead, they were spinning stories to avoid admitting they’d arrested the wrong people…’‘
[Chapter 22, Page 262] ‘’ ... Finally we could combat all the misinformation leaked to the media. We could explain that the knife had never left the kitchen, the striped sweater had never gone missing, the receipts weren’t for bleach, the underwear I bought wasn’t sexy. We could describe how the prosecution had come up with the bloody footprints. We’d explain why Meredith’s blood had mixed with my DNA in our shared bathroom, how my blood got on the faucet, and correct the notion that the crime was a sex game gone wrong. We could object to the prosecutor painting me as a whore and a murderer. My lawyers would finally get to see the prosecution’s documents. No more surprises….’‘
[Chapter 22, Page 263] ‘’ ... “We’re taking you off your restricted status.” Just like that. While I was being investigated, I was under judge’s orders to be kept separate for my own safety. But now, as an accused criminal, I passed from the judge’s responsibility to the prison’s…’‘
[Chapter 22, Page 263] ‘’ ... Prison officials had always claimed I was kept separate—I had cellmates but, with the exception of a few prescribed events, couldn’t interact with the broad population —because other inmates would probably beat me. Now, with only the mildest caution —“Be careful of the other girls!”—Argirò opened a second door. Instead of having passeggio by myself, I was in the company of fifteen sweaty women.
[Chapter 22, Page 265] ‘’ ... Wilma’s behavior wasn’t that different from that of other prisoners—most were manipulative and liked to stir up drama—but she wasn’t smart enough to recognize this and to fake loyalty to the other women. People were able to see through her actions….’‘
[Chapter 22, Page 266] ‘’ ... As soon as I read the letter, I realized it was real. I was shocked that he was writing me. I’d felt betrayed by the months of silence and by his comments in the press distancing himself from me. And of course there was the issue of his previous claim that I had left his apartment the night of the murder and asked him to lie for me. He wrote that he’d been aching to contact me, and that it was his lawyers and family who hadn’t permitted him to get in touch. He said everyone had been afraid when we were first arrested, but that now he realized it had been a mistake to abandon me and wrong to submit to police pressure and acquiesce to their theory. “I’m sorry,” he said. “I still care about you. I still think about you all the time.”
[Chapter 22, Page 266] ‘’ ... I felt completely reassured by his letter. It wasn’t lovey-dovey, and that suited me fine. I no longer thought of us as a couple. Now we were linked by our innocence. It was a relief to know we were in this fight together. It was only much later that I learned how his interrogation had been as devastating as mine. I wrote him back the next morning. I was explicit about not wanting a romantic relationship anymore but added that I wanted the best for him and hoped he was okay. I knew I shouldn’t write about the case, so I only said I was optimistic that our lawyers would prove the prosecution wrong….’‘
[Chapter 22, Page 269] ‘’ ... All this happened while Luciano and Carlo were preparing the defense for my pretrial. They didn’t have everything they needed to break down the case completely —Meredith’s DNA on the knife and my “bloody” footprints were going unanswered. Two days before the pretrial started, we got news that was both heartening and unnerving. Police investigators revealed that they’d found an imprint of the murder weapon in blood on Meredith’s bedsheets, making it clear the weapon wasn’t in fact the knife with the six-and-a-half-inch blade the prosecution was claiming. The imprint was too short to have been made by Raffaele’s kitchen knife….’‘
[Chapter 22, Page 269] ‘’ ... I reminded myself that we also had common sense on our side. There was no motive. I had no history of violence. I’d barely met Rudy Guede. Raffaele had not met him at all…’‘
[Chapter 22, Page 270] ‘’ ... Carlo, the pessimist, said, “Don’t get your hopes up, Amanda. I’m not sure we’ll win. There’s been too much attention on your case, too much pressure on the Italian legal system to think that you won’t be sent to trial.”
[Chapter 23, Page 272] ‘’ ... “You’re going to be a good girl so we don’t have to handcuff you, right?” another guard said. I had always been so polite and docile that a guard had once said to me, “If all the inmates were like you, we wouldn’t need prisons.”
[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... My first thought wasn’t They think I’m a murderer. It was Meredith’s parents? I finally get to meet them…’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... I was devastated. I’d anticipated meeting them for a long time. I’d written and rewritten a sympathy letter in my head but had never managed to put it on paper. Now I felt stupid. How had I not anticipated their reaction? Why are you so surprised? What do you think this has been about all along? My grief for Meredith and my sadness for her family had kept me from thinking further. Of course they hate you, Amanda. They believe you’re guilty. Everyone has been telling them that for months….’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third…’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... Guede’s lawyers must have realized that he was better off in a separate trial, since the prosecution was intent on pinning the murder on us. The evidence gathered during the investigation pointed toward his guilt. His DNA was all over Meredith’s room and her body, on her intimate clothing and her purse. He had left his handprint in her blood on her pillowcase. He had fled the country. The prosecution called Guede’s story of how he “happened” to be at the villa and yet had not participated in the murder “absurd”—though they readily believed his claims against Raffaele and me. One of the big hopes for us was that with so much evidence against Guede, the prosecution would have to realize Raffaele and I hadn’t been involved….’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... I felt the way about Guede that Meredith’s family felt about me. As soon as I saw him, in a subsequent hearing, I thought angrily, You! You killed Meredith! He didn’t look like a murderer. He was wearing jeans and a sweater. It was almost impossible to imagine that he had cut Meredith’s throat. But if he hadn’t, his DNA wouldn’t have been everywhere in Meredith’s room. And he wouldn’t have lied about Raffaele and me. The other thing I noticed: he wouldn’t look at me….’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 275] ‘’ ... The prosecution spun this assumption further. According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that? In their scenario, I hated Meredith because we’d argued about money. Hearing Mignini say that I told Guede to rape Meredith was upsetting. He added that I was the ringleader, telling Raffaele to hold her down. When he said that I threatened Meredith with a knife, I felt as if I’d been kicked. Even worse was hearing him say that when Meredith refused to have sex, I killed her…’
[Chapter 23, Page 276] ‘’ ... Starting right after we were indicted, Raffaele’s and my lawyers had requested the raw data for all Stefanoni’s forensic tests. How were the samples collected? How many cotton pads had her team used to swab the bathroom sink and the bidet? How often had they changed gloves? What tests had they done—and when? Which machines had they used, at what times, and on which days? What were the original unedited results of the DNA tests?
[Chapter 23, Page 279] ‘’ ... I was morbidly curious about Guede and simultaneously completely repulsed. Mostly I was disappointed. I had thought we’d have the chance to confront him. But he let his lawyers do all the talking…’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 279] ‘’ ... “Isn’t that possible?” Biscotti asked. “Isn’t that what the evidence shows? It shows him being there, and he’s admitted to that. He says he left because he was scared. Of course he was scared! He’s a young black man, living the best he could, abandoned by his parents. He stole sometimes, but out of necessity. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say that he killed. The knife has Amanda’s DNA, and the bra clasp has Raffaele’s. Rudy admits that he was there, he tells what happened, and I believe him.” No witnesses were called for Guede. His lawyers could only interpret the evidence the prosecution had provided. They argued that his DNA had been found at the crime scene because he was scrambling to help Meredith and that he left because he was afraid. I remember his lawyer saying Guede didn’t go to the disco to give himself an alibi but to let off steam. He escaped to Germany because he was worried that he’d be wrongly accused….’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 280] ‘’ ... Still, there were reasons to be worried. Because the prosecution was withholding information, there was evidence I couldn’t refute: the knife, my “bloody” footprints, Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp. And how would we fight the prosecution’s claim that we’d cleaned up the crime scene? I went to sleep every night telling myself that it would work out because we were innocent—and because it was so clear that Guede was guilty and lying. My lawyers argued exhaustively that Meredith and I had been friends—that there was no animosity between us. They argued that we had no connection to Guede, that Kokomani was a lunatic. But the case hinged on DNA, not on logic…’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 281] ‘’ ... When the prosecution rested their case, Mignini demanded a life sentence for Guede and a full trial for Raffaele and me. After the judge retired to his chambers, we were each taken to a different empty office in the courthouse to wait for his decision. Raffaele folded a page from that day’s newspaper into a flower, which the guards brought to me. But I was focused on Guede, who was being held in the room next to mine. I could hear him talking with the guards, cracking jokes, and chuckling. I was fuming! I wanted to beat on the wall and tell him to shut up. His nonchalance incensed me. I thought, Does no one else feel this?...’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 282] ‘’ ... I entered the courtroom. I could barely walk. Judge Micheli read Guede’s verdict first: Guilty for the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher, with a sentence of thirty years. The verdict didn’t surprise me at all—for a second, I was enormously relieved. I thought, He’s the one who did it. The judge’s delivery was so flat he could have been reading the ingredients off a box of bran flakes. Still, my chest clenched when I heard “thirty years.” Not because I pitied Guede. I’d been so focused on whether he would be found guilty or innocent, I hadn’t thought about the length of his sentence. I was twenty-one; thirty years was more time than I’d been alive—by a lot. I breathed in. “The court orders that Knox, Amanda, and Sollecito, Raffaele, be sent to trial.” I broke down in huge, gulping sobs. I’d made a heartfelt plea—“I’m telling you I’m innocent! I’m sorry for any of the confusion I’ve contributed.” The judge hadn’t believed me….’‘
[Chapter 24, Page 286] ‘’ ... “Spiegare che cosa?” I asked, baffled. “Explain what?” I could see that the headline said something about me. “It’s an interview,” she said. “It talks about Cera.” “You know I don’t give interviews!” I said. The inspector turned the paper around so I could read the article. The reporter claimed to have interviewed my mother, who talked about things I’d said. “You need to tell your mother to refrain from speaking about the inner workings of the prison,” the ispettore said sternly. “My mom would never do that!” I screeched. “She only gives interviews to talk about my innocence. She would never reveal our private conversations.” But the article was full of insider information. They’d gotten Cera’s name and certain details right. They said she kissed me once and that I feared further sexual harassment. They knew she was a cleaning fanatic and that she wouldn’t let me make coffee because it would leave water spots on the sink….’‘
[Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... Cera had been the one to tell me how mean, how crazy, how awful, prisoners could be to one another. I hadn’t wanted to believe her, and I’d promised myself that I’d never become bitter like she was. But I was getting closer. I refused to become so cynical and angry that I felt spite, but my natural hopefulness was flagging….’ The only place I found peace was inside my own head. I started expecting nothing. The one thing that surprised me was the occasional time another prisoner, like Fanta, treated me kindly. As excruciating as this was, it forced me to develop a sense of independence, a faith in myself.
[Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... Don Saulo was the one person who cared about any of us. In spite of the awful way the other prisoners treated me, he restored some of my faith in humankind. “It doesn’t matter what people think you did,” he told me. “What matters is what you did do. Don’t worry if people can’t see your goodness. The only important thing is your conscience. You have to take heart and strength in that.”
[Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... We held onto the belief that the law would be on my side when my trial started. I was innocent. No matter how the prosecution misconstrued things, there would never be evidence enough to convict me. And I had the great consolation of knowing that prison wasn’t my world. In time, I’d be set free. I could survive this as long as it took. But I never thought it would take years….’‘
[Chapter 24, Page 288] ‘’ ... The only place I found peace was inside my own head. I started expecting nothing. The one thing that surprised me was the occasional time another prisoner, like Fanta, treated me kindly. As excruciating as this was, it forced me to develop a sense of independence, a faith in myself….’‘
[Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... The pretrial had been like the first reading of a play. No costumes, no audience, no reporters, and very few players. It was held in chambers and closed to the press. The lawyers wore suits. Only two witnesses—the prosecution’s DNA analyst and a man who claimed to have seen Rudy Guede, Raffaele, and me together—testified….’‘
[Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... The full trial for Raffaele and me was like opening night. I wasn’t prepared for the spectacle…’‘
[Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... Three no-nonsense guards—one in front of me and one on either side—led me in through the door in the back of the packed courtroom. Police officers, including some who had interrogated me fourteen months before, were lined up against the back wall. I knew that almost every observer thought I was guilty and wanted me to suffer….’‘
[Chapter 25, Page 290] ‘’ ... I knew I wasn’t alone. I gave them a little wave and a big smile to let them know how glad I was they were there. I never anticipated that that smile would be reported as “Amanda Knox beamed as she was led into an Italian court.” And the Daily Mail amped up my regular walk: “She made her entrance like a Hollywood diva sashaying along the red carpet.” I don’t know if the reporting was skewed to sell papers or if the presumption of my guilt colored the way the reporters saw me. Anyone reading or watching the TV reports would have come away believing the girl called Foxy Knoxy was amoral, psychotic, and depraved…’‘
[Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... In the United States, civil and criminal trials are held separately; in Italy, they’re combined. The Italians clearly believe their jurors can compartmentalize—the same eight people decide all the verdicts. Moreover, jury members are not screened for bias, nor guarded from outside influence. The government was trying Raffaele and me for five crimes: murder, illegally carrying a knife, rape, theft, simulating a robbery, and a sixth just for me: slander. The Kerchers, believing Raffaele and I had killed their daughter, were suing both of us for €5 million—about $6.4 million—€1 million for each of Meredith’s five family members, to compensate for their loss and emotional anguish. Patrick Lumumba was suing me for slander for a yet to be determined amount. The owner of the villa was suing me for €10,000 for damages and lost rent….’‘
Archived in The former defendants, Amanda Knox, Other legal processes, Knox calunnia, Family + defense hoaxers, Knox-Mellas team, Lies in Knox book
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (36)
Tuesday, September 08, 2015
Court Filing Suggesting 5th Chambers Encroached Illegally On 1st Chambers & Florence Court Powers
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
This opinion was drafted by several of Italy’s most experienced lawyers and it was filed with the Florence court several months ago.
These passages quoted below raise issues of what the Fifth Chambers under the Penal Code legally can and can not do, with respect to prior rulings of (1) the Supreme Court (the First Chambers which mostly overturned Hellmann in 2013) and (2) the Florence appeal court.
According to this opinion, the Fifth Chambers has significantly overstepped its legal boundaries in brushing aside previous rulings and trying to fulfill the role of an appeal court, or a first-level trial court (the same stretch the First Chambers considered the Hellmann appeal court to have been indulging in).
This is uncharted territory. Judges of the First Chambers and Florence court and the Council of Magistrates all seem likely to side with this seemingly watertight opinion, and so reactions could ripple on for years.
The Fifth Chambers judges might find themselves increasingly beleaguered. And their rulings on evidence items and the investigators and prosecutors and foreign media would all seem to be moot, if the perception grows that the Fifth Chambers should not even have gone there.
the judgment of the [Florence] court remitted to would have been impugnable only for reasons not regarding the points already decided by the Court of Cassation, according to the very clear disposition of Article 628, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code. From this it follows that the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, called on to decide the merits of the appeals brought by the accused against the decision of the court remitted to, would have had to consider as inadmissible the appeals presented in violation of the second paragraph of Article 628 Criminal Procedure Code and, in any case, would have had to rigorously conform with the points already decided by the First Chamber and with all the questions of law decided by the same…
the Court of Cassation cannot, therefore, ever adopt decisions on the merits and issue orders of acquittal under Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.
...two chambers of the same Court of Cassation, the First (the one competent for proceedings in homicide matters, whose decision of annulment is definitive and who had identified and decided questions of law in a definitive and un-retractable manner) and the Fifth (who would have had to decide the appeals presented only on grounds of legitimacy of the defendants’, constrained by what had already been definitively decided by the First) have handed down two absolutely divergent decisions and the second had annulled the Florentine decision, positively excluding any remitting to another court and acquitting the defendants pursuant to Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.
the judgment of the [Florence] court remitted to would have been impugnable only for reasons not regarding the points already decided by the Court of Cassation, according to the very clear disposition of Article 628, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code. From this it follows that the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court, called on to decide the merits of the appeals brought by the accused against the decision of the court remitted to, would have had to consider as inadmissible the appeals presented in violation of the second paragraph of Article 628 Criminal Procedure Code and, in any case, would have had to rigorously conform with the points already decided by the First Chamber and with all the questions of law decided by the same…
the Court of Cassation cannot, therefore, ever adopt decisions on the merits and issue orders of acquittal under Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.
...two chambers of the same Court of Cassation, the First (the one competent for proceedings in homicide matters, whose decision of annulment is definitive and who had identified and decided questions of law in a definitive and un-retractable manner) and the Fifth (who would have had to decide the appeals presented only on grounds of legitimacy of the defendants’, constrained by what had already been definitively decided by the First) have handed down two absolutely divergent decisions and the second had annulled the Florentine decision, positively excluding any remitting to another court and acquitting the defendants pursuant to Article 530, second paragraph, Criminal Procedure Code.
from these starting points in fact and in law which are absolutely undeniable, it emerges that the course of proceedings in this case have been absolutely linear and respectful of the substance of the procedural rules up to and including the Florentine decision.
the Court of Cassation, on the appeal of the Prosecutor-General of [the Perugia] district Court, had in a radical and definitive manner annulled the acquitting pronouncement and had remitted it to the Florentine district court because the same would adopt the consequent decisions of merit in the line of reasoning of the principles of law laid down by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court and of the points decided by it.
These principles of law are by now unmodifiable and unarguable: the [Fifth Chambers] , called on to decide the matter, as a “second opinion”, concerning the appeal of the defendants from the [Florence] judgment below, would have had to hand down a judgment fully within the “railway tracks” of the law, as fixed by the First Chamber, like the Florentine district court did, principles from among which we may cite:
[Umodifiable principle] the principle, in fact the unfailing legal prerequisite of a Supreme Court decision, namely the fact that the Court is precluded from “trespassing into a re-evaluation of the compendium of evidence” (see the judgment of the First Chamber at page 40);
[Unmodifiable principle] the principle of law of the total and holistic evaluation of the probative material, as opposed to the “parcelled-up and atomistic evaluation of the pieces of circumstantial evidence, taking them into consideration one at a time and discarded in terms of their demonstrative potentiality”, which characterised instead, in the negative, the decision of the Court presided by Pratillo Hellmann (see the decision of the same First Chamber at pp. 40 and 41… ). The ancient brocard “Quae singula non probant, simul unita probant” [‘Those which alone do not prove, together do prove’], quoted on p 41 of the First Chamber’s judgment, consecrates in a definitive and unmodifiable manner this requirement of a global and holistic approach in which each individual piece of the jigsaw puzzle of reconstruction of the facts is considered together with all the others in their demonstrative synergy;
[Unmodifiable principle] the principle by which the [Hellmann] court had run afoul of grave shortcomings and contradictory lines of reasoning and in glaring misrepresentations of the outcome, even in the attempted decoupling of the calunnia, by now definitively attributed to Ms Knox, with the result of masking from view the responsibility of the same in the homicide;
[Unmodifiable principle] the principle according to which the testimony of the homeless person Mr Curatolo ought to have been evaluated on the basis of corroboration between his statements and the objective and unarguable circumstances emerging from the trial (such as the fact that the witness had with absolute decisiveness anchored the fact of having seen the two accused in the precincts of the basketball courts of Piazza Grimana, nowadays Piazza Fortebraccio, the evening before the arrival, the following day, at the Via della Pergola house of the men from Forensics in their white coveralls), rather than on the basis of Mr Curatolo’s social conditions and lifestyle (see the cited judgment of the First Chamber at page 50);
[Unmodifiable principle] the principle according to which the definitive conviction of accomplice Rudy Hermann Guede ought to have been taken into account (no. 7195/11, published on 16.12.2010, it also from the First Criminal Chamber of Cassation), Guede having been held to have been extraneous to the simulation of burglary of a house. [A] habitation that, on the night of the murder, was solely at the availability of the victim and of Amanda Knox and from the statements made by the same Rudy before the Perugian district court, according to which Meredith was killed by the two co-accused (see the judgment at pages 55 and 56).
[Unmodifiable principle] The principle by which contamination of the evidence is to be proved by the party invoking it and which, on the facts of the case, no evidence in support had been offered and which the [Hellmann} Court had seriously confused the abstract possibility of the fact with the averment of the fact (see the judgment at page 69).Umodifiable principle] The principle according to which it was a matter of a homicide committed by multiple persons, in concourse amongst themselves (see page 73 of the cited judgment).
Here is a translation of Article 530:
1. If the act does not subsist [541 2, 542], if the defendant has not commited it [541 2, 542], if the act is not an offence or it is not envisaged by law as an offence, that is, if the offence has been committed by a non-indictable person [c.p. 85] or by a not punishable person for other reasons, the judge issues a judgement of acquittal, stating the reason.
2.The judge issues a judgement of acquittal also when there is lack of evidence or it is not sufficient, or there is contradictory evidence that the act subsists, that the defendant has comitted it, that the act constitutes an offence or that the offence has been committed by an indictable person.(1).
3. If there is evidence that the act has been committed in circumstances of a legal excuse or exemption from criminal liability, that is, there is doubt about them, the judge issues a judgement of acquittal pursuant to clause 1.
4. In the event of an acquittal the judge applies security measures, in the cases provided for by law.
And here is a translation of Article 628:
Impugnability of a ruling issued by a judge after remand
1. A verdict that had been issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand, may be impugned through a recourse at Supreme Court of Cassation if the ruling was issued on an appeal instance, and through the mean provided by law if was issued on a first instance level.
2. In any case a verdict issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand may be appealed only on the reasons that do not concern those that had already been decided by Cassation on the order of remand, or for not abiding to disposition of art. 627 paragraph 2.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (30)
Monday, September 07, 2015
Knox Calunnia Trial #2: Testimony In Florence Court Today By Some Accused By Amanda Knox Of Crimes
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Machiavelli On Calunnia Trial
Tweets from the Florence court:
16. Zugarini was present throughout the interrogation and described when #amandaknox started to cry, remembered her peculiar hand-ear gestures.
15. Napoleoni testified #amandaknox was brought a chamomille when she started crying at 01:45, the interrogation was immediately stopped.
14. Napoleoni and Zugarini said they “cuddled” Knox because she was a 20-year old girl.
13. Both Mignini and Zugarini described having had impression that #amandaknox was feeling “relieved of a burden” after accusing Lumumba.
12. Mignini said Knox was not clearly a suspect to him by the 05:45 interrogation.
11. Witnesses had inaccurate memory on some details, but were convergent on some peculiar details.
10. Napoleoni said she did not enter interrogation room, she called Rita Ficarra out to talk to her.
9. Zugarini said, as for her knowledge, Knox was not told that Sollecito withdrew her alibi.
8. Zugarini said called interpreter only to ask #amandaknox more precise questions about people in her phone contact list.
7. Zugarini said #amandaknox was able to explain herself in Italian. They called an interpreter to translate what police had to say.
6. Testimony of Mignini was descriptive and framed thing in law. Mostly talked at length explaining alone, prosecutor listened.
5. In today’s hearing, Mignini talked 2 hours, confirmed arrived at 3am, police interview was over, he asked no questions of AK.
4. Napoleoni was precise and synthetic. Zugarini longer and IMO more interesting on many details.
3. Mignini and Judge Boninsegna appeared irritated by Dalla Vedova’s remarks.
2. Long hearing of Mignini at trial against Amanda Knox for calunnia. Napoleoni & Gubbiotti followed, then Zugarini
1. Testimony of some of the investigators accused by Knox and the lead prosecutor Dr Mignini [image above] is being taken in court.
[Reporting from the Florence court sometimes requires a wait to get to a place where mobile phones can connect to the outside.]
2. Machiavelli On Sentencing Report
4. The Cassazione sentence on the #meredithkercher case about #amandaknox and #raffaelesollecito is an offence to intelligence.
3. Cassazione repeats several times “strong suspicion” remains about #amandaknox and #raffaelesollecito
2. Cassazione says #amandaknox was in the apartment when murder was convicted, and it is “incontrovertible” that she committed calunnia.
1. INCREDIBLE: SC says *proven* fact that #amandaknox was in house when murder was committed. Agrees with court on this
3. Background To Calunnia Trial
This trial focuses on the claims of Amanda Knox at trial in 2009. Charges for malicious claims in her book will fall to another court, probably also in Florence. Oggi is already on trial for republishing some of them.
There seems no parallel in US or UK legal history to this - to a defendant testifying prolifically for two days to crimes by investigators, in spite of even more days of prior testimony which all pointed the other way.
Seemingly under strong pressure from her own family Knox willingly took a huge legal risk which her own lawyers had warned her about again and again, sometimes publicly, over nearly two years.
They never ever lodged even one complaint. Nor did the US Embassy in Rome, which monitored all sessions in court, and often checked her out (as did Italian MP Rocco Girlanda) in prison at Capanne.
The Massei court and the watching audience in Italy (read here and here) bought none of it. Knox still served three years for framing Patrick. Not even Judge Hellmann bought into her claims. Certainly not the Supreme Court.
The current trial in Florence was preceded by an investigation by Florence prosecutors, who bring the charges and argue them because Knox impugned officers of the justice system in their official roles.
Prior to today the prosecutors’ investigation report had only been released to Knox’s defense. So we don’t yet know if the charges extend beyond Knox’s claims of having been abused into a false “confession” on 5-6 November 2007.
Post #1 of our ongoing Interrogation Hoax series points toward what investigators testified to at trial.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (25)
Friday, September 04, 2015
Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #5
Posted by Chimera
The Dark Force: evil for evil’s sake? This is a long post, click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Overview Of This Post
My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone she ever encountered, while falsely making the notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed Knox look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.
Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith. And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.
I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here. Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition. Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. And Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207.
2. Dissection Of Pages 207 to 243.
[Chapter 18, Page 207] ‘’ ... “Foxy Knoxy” also helped sell newspapers. The tabloids mined my Myspace profile and drew the most salacious conclusions. I resented that they took my posts and pictures out of context, emphasizing only the negative. A photo of me dressed in black and reclining provocatively on a piano bench, a shot my sister Deanna had taken for a high school photography class, circulated. They published parts of a short story I’d written for a UW creative writing class, about an older brother angrily confronting his younger brother for raping a woman. The media read a lot into that. There were pictures of me at parties and in the company of male friends, and a video showing me drunk. These were snippets of my teenage and college years. Not shown were the pictures of me riding my bike, opening Christmas presents, playing soccer, performing onstage in my high school’s production of The Sound of Music. Looked at together, these latter images would have portrayed a typical American girl, not as tame as some, not as experimental as many, but typical among my age group—a group that had the bad judgment to put our lives online. Now, at twenty, all I could think was, Who’s writing these articles? Is no one being fair? ...’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 208] ‘’ ... My supposedly obsessive promiscuity generated countless articles in three countries, much of it based on information the police fed to the press. It seemed that the prosecutor’s office released whatever they could to bolster their theory of a sex game gone wrong. They provided descriptions of Raffaele’s and my public displays of affection at the questura and witness statements that portrayed me as a girl who brought home strange men. Whatever the sources, the details made for a juicy story: attractive college students, sex, violence, mystery…’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 209] ‘’ ... Soon after I got to Capanne, I started getting fan mail—some from people who thought I was innocent, and some from strangers who said they were in love with me. I appreciated the encouraging letters and was shocked, and baffled, by the others. It seemed to me that these men—often prisoners themselves—had written me by mistake. Their passionate, sometimes pornographic scribbling had nothing to do with me and everything to do with the media’s creepy, hypersexual creation. I’d never imagined that I would be bombarded with such perverted attention. And if I was drop-dead sexy, it was news to me….’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 209] ‘’ ... I felt terrible that my mom and dad had abandoned their regular lives to come to Italy, and that their spouses back home were being hounded by journalists and paparazzi, who staked out their houses, waiting for them to come or go, knocking on the door and phoning them incessantly…’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 211] ‘’ ... The idea that Meredith and I had been at odds ramped up quickly in the press. A couple of weeks after Robyn’s statement came out, investigators announced they’d found my blood on the faucet in the bathroom that Meredith and I had shared. Prosecutor Mignini hypothesized that the two of us had gotten into a fistfight and I’d wound up with a bloody nose. The truth was far less dramatic—and less interesting. I’d just gotten multiple piercings in both ears, and I took out all eleven earrings so that I could wipe my ears each morning while the shower water heated up. When I noticed the tiny droplets of blood in the sink the day Meredith’s body was discovered, I thought the blood had come from my ears, as it had on another day, until I scratched the porcelain and realized the blood was dry. That must have been what was on the faucet….’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 212] ‘’ ... Meredith had been dead for just three weeks. I still could barely process the loss of my friend. It infuriated me that the media were rewriting our relationship to fit their storyline. I was a monster. Meredith was a saint. The truth was that we were very much alike. She was more contained than I was, but we were both young girls who studied seriously and wanted to do well, who wanted to make friends, and who’d had a few casual sexual relationships…’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 212] ‘’ ... I didn’t know what to think about Raffaele. Hearing that he’d destroyed my alibi was as baffling as it was incensing. Saying I’d put him up to lying was inexcusable and painful. And now this, I thought. Did I misjudge him? I didn’t think so, but I wasn’t at all sure what to make of him. One day we were really close, and the next he announced that he’d dropped me. Had this come from him? His lawyers? Journalists? I rationalized that I wasn’t the Italian girl he needed. I tried to be forgiving. If Raffaele doesn’t want to talk to me again, I’ll understand. This has been traumatic for everyone…’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 213] ‘’ ... Argirò was standing a foot behind me when I got the news. “Maybe you should have thought about that before you slept with lots of people,” he chided. I spun around. “I didn’t have sex with anyone who had AIDS,” I snapped, though it was possible that one of the men I’d hooked up with, or even Raffaele, was HIV-positive.
“You should think about who you slept with and who you got it from.” Maybe he was trying to comfort me or to make a joke, or maybe he saw an opening he thought he could use to his advantage. Whatever the reason, as we were walking back upstairs to my cell, Argirò said, “Don’t worry. I’d still have sex with you right now.
Promise me you’ll have sex with me.” But sometimes I was just angry….’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 215] ‘’ ... I got out my diary to think this over rationally, imagining who could have infected me, replaying my sexual experiences in my mind to see where I could have slipped up. I wondered if a condom had broken, and if so, whose. If it had, did he know? I’d had sex with seven guys—four in Seattle and three in Italy. I tried to be logical, writing down the name of each person I’d slept with and the protection we’d used. Writing made me feel a little better. I knew I needed to get out of prison and get checked by someone I trusted before I started thinking and acting as if my life were over. I forced myself not to anticipate the worst.
That Saturday, I told my parents what the doctor had said. My mom started crying immediately. “But I haven’t had unprotected sex,” I said, trying to reassure her. “I’m sure it’s going to be fine.” My dad was skeptical. He asked, “Do you even think they’re telling you the truth?” That possibility hadn’t occurred to me. But when I told them, Luciano and Carlo seconded that idea. “It could be a ploy by the prosecution to scare you into an even more vulnerable emotional state so they can take advantage of you,” Carlo said. “You need to stay alert, Amanda, and don’t let anyone bully you.”
[Chapter 18, Page 216] ‘’ ... I wondered what they were hoping to find. Did they want to search my clothing for traces of Meredith’s blood? I felt almost smug, because I knew they wouldn’t find anything incriminating, and I hoped it might convince them that I truly had nothing to hide….’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 217] ‘’ ... A few months after that, they released my prison journal to the media, where instead of reporting that I’d had seven lovers altogether, some newspapers wrote that Foxy Knoxy had slept with seven men in her six weeks in Perugia….’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 219] ‘’ ... I was stunned one morning when I looked up at the TV and noticed a breaking news report. There was now a fourth suspect, and an international manhunt for him had been launched. The police didn’t say who the suspect was or how this person fit into the murder scenario they’d imagined, only that they’d found a bloody handprint on Meredith’s pillowcase that wasn’t mine, Patrick’s, or Raffaele’s. The news rattled me, but it also gave me hope. Maybe this meant the police hadn’t completely given up trying to find the truth. For the next twenty-four hours I was consumed by the question Who is this unnamed person? ...’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 219] ‘’ ... The name didn’t click until I saw his mug shot. Oh my God, it’s him. I thought back to November 5, when I was sitting in the hall at the questura, assuming I was just waiting for Raffaele, and talking to the silver-haired cop. As I’d been doing for days, I was trying to recall all the men who had ever visited our villa, when I suddenly remembered one of Giacomo and Marco’s friends. It had annoyed me that I couldn’t remember his name. “I think he’s South African,” I told the detective. “All I know is that he played basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced him to Meredith and me in Piazza IV Novembre in mid-October. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.” I’d seen Guede just one time after that. He’d shown up at Le Chic, and I had taken his drink order. Those few words were the only ones we ever exchanged…’‘
Chapter 19, Page 220] ‘’ ... I learned that Guede was twenty and originally from Ivory Coast. He’d been abandoned by his parents and taken in by a rich Perugian family who treated him like a son. He was a talented basketball player who’d made a lot of friends on the court. But over time, he’d been more inclined to loaf than to work, and his surrogate family disowned him. He’d lost his job in the fall of 2007, before Meredith and I met him. Guede had been caught breaking into offices and homes and stealing electronics and cash…’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 221] ‘’ ... All I could think was that if he’d been put behind bars then, Meredith would still be alive.
[Chapter 10, Page 222] ‘’ ... Still, I was surprised it was Guede who had been named, because the two times I’d met him were under such ordinary circumstances. There was nothing distinguishable about him. He’d seemed interchangeable with almost every guy I’d met in Perugia —confident, bordering on arrogant. Not threatening. Not like a down-and-out thief. Not even odd…’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 222] ‘’ ... “Rudy?” I asked, repeating his name to make sure I’d heard correctly. “You mean the guy who police are calling ‘the fourth person’?”
“Yes, Rudy. You know him?” “Vaguely,” I answered, shrugging. “Vaguely, huh? We’ll see what he says about that,” the cop said.
I didn’t respond but tried to act confident so he wouldn’t think he was getting to me. I was thinking, Guede won’t have anything to say about me. He doesn’t know me. ...’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 222] ‘’ ... Within hours, I learned that, before his arrest, he told a friend over Skype, as Perugian detectives listened in, that he’d been at the villa the night of the murder. “I was in the bathroom when it happened,” he said. “I tried to intervene, but I wasn’t able. Amanda has nothing to do with this . . . I fought with a male, and she wasn’t there.” Neither was Patrick, he said. “The guy was Italian, because we insulted each other and he didn’t have a foreign accent.”
[Chapter 19, Page 223] ‘’ ... Guede apparently tried to establish an alibi by changing clothes and heading to a downtown dance club hours after the murder. His lawyers later said he’d been so frightened by the murder that he’d gone there to calm himself down. He went to Domus again the next night—attracting attention when he continued dancing during a moment of silence for Meredith. He left town the following day. Carlo and Luciano told me he probably got spooked by the media’s attention to the case and decided it was best to leave and take his bloody clothes and shoes with him. They guessed that Guede had probably been in the middle of robbing the villa when Meredith came home, and he had attacked her. As soon as they suggested this scenario, it made perfect sense to me. I hadn’t been able to put all those pieces together before. Meredith’s murder had been so horrific, and my arrest too absurd, it had been impossible for me to think logically about it…’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ ... I saw it as a momentary problem that Guede was fingering Raffaele, but this was huge! Guede had backed up my alibi: I hadn’t been at the villa. And since I hadn’t been there, since I’d been at Raffaele’s apartment, Raffaele would be cleared, too. We would both be freed….’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ .... Seeing how the prosecution treated Patrick in the two weeks since his arrest should have given me insight into how they worked. My lawyers told me it had been widely reported the week before that Patrick had cash register receipts and multiple witnesses vouching for his whereabouts on the night of November 1. A Swiss professor had testified that he’d been at Le Chic with Patrick that night from 8 P.M. to 10 P.M. But even though Patrick had an ironclad alibi and there was no evidence to prove that he’d been at the villa, much less in Meredith’s bedroom at the time of the murder, the police couldn’t bear to admit they were wrong….’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ ... Patrick went free the day Guede was arrested. Timing his release to coincide with Guede’s arrest, the prosecution diverted attention from their mistake. They let him go only when they had Guede to take his place…’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... I dreamed about the interrogation almost every night during these early days in prison. I would be back in the crowded, close interrogation room, feeling the tension, hearing the officers yelling, reliving the primal panic. I’d wake up sweating, my heart banging. Nothing in my life up to then had compared to that experience. What had happened to me that night? How I could I ever have named Patrick? ...’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... Then I immediately felt embarrassed, self-conscious that, in one way or another, the few prisoners and guards who happened to see this would misread my actions as selfish. I didn’t know whether the guards were reporting directly to the prosecution, but I knew that everyone thought I was a liar and that anything I said and did would be viewed from that angle—that I was trying to make people think I was innocent by acting happy for Patrick. The police would almost certainly think this was one more instance of Amanda Knox behaving inappropriately—one more example of me as a manipulative, depraved person ....’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... Even if my cellmates didn’t see my reaction as putting on an act, I didn’t want anyone to know what I was actually thinking and feeling. I was protective of myself in that environment. I felt vulnerable and scared, and I didn’t want anyone to see that, even if that’s how I really felt….’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... In truth, I did see Patrick’s release as my vindication. By writing my two postinterrogation statements—my memoriali—I had tried to convince the police that Patrick was not Meredith’s murderer. And now the prosecution knew that when I retracted my declarations from that night, I was telling the truth: Patrick was innocent. Raffaele and I had been together at his apartment the whole time…’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 226] ‘’ ... The prosecution would understand how, under pressure during my interrogation, I had pictured a scene that wasn’t true. I had faith that my lawyers could prove the knife with Meredith’s and my DNA was a mistake. My confidence was bolstered by Guede’s arrest. I didn’t know him. If he was Meredith’s murderer, I was sure people would see that Raffaele and I had had nothing to do with it. Soon I’d be cleared as a suspect….’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 226] ‘’ ... The prosecution could have redeemed themselves. Instead, they held on to Raffaele and me as their trophies.
I learned that when he signed the warrant for Patrick’s release, Giuliano Mignini said that I’d named Patrick to cover up for Guede. It was his way of saying that the police had been justified in their arrest of three people and that any confusion over which three people was my fault. I was made out to be a psychotic killer capable of manipulating the police until my lies, and the law, had caught up with me….’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... Patrick gave only one interview condemning the police for his unfounded arrest before his lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, advised him to side with the prosecution, who had taken him away in handcuffs, humiliating him in front of his family, in the intimate hours of the morning. After that, he announced that he would never forgive me for what I had done, that I’d ruined him financially and emotionally. He talked about my behavior in his bar, saying that he’d fired me for flirting with his customers. He called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.”
[Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... The truth is that he had hired me not just to serve cocktails but to bring in customers. He had cut back on my days because I was a mediocre waitress and not enough of a flirt to add to his bottom line. Then, after Meredith’s murder, I quit because I was afraid to be out alone at night…’‘
[Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... I absolutely understood why he was angry with me. I’d put his reputation, his livelihood, and possibly even his life at risk. I felt sick with guilt. I thought he deserved an explanation and an apology from me. When I asked my lawyers if it would be okay for me to write him, they shook their heads no. “I’m afraid it’s not as simple as that anymore,” Carlo explained. “Patrick’s lawyer will hand over anything you send Patrick to the press.”
[Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... Any communication with Patrick would be publicized and scrutinized and played to my disadvantage, especially if I explained why I’d said his name during my interrogation. I’d have to go into how the police had pressured me, which would only complicate my already poor standing with the prosecution. If I said I’d imagined things during the interrogation, I’d be called crazy. If I said I’d been abused, it would be seen as further proof that I was a liar….’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... When I first told Carlo and Luciano I wanted to talk to Prosecutor Mignini, I didn’t think of it as a rematch between opposing sides. I saw it as a chance to set the record straight. Finally….’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... “I’m sure if I talk to him in person, I can show him I’m sincere,” I told my lawyers. “I can convince him he’s been wrong about me. It bothers me that everyone—the prosecutor, the police, the press, the public—thinks I’m a murderer. If I just had the chance to present my real self to Mignini I’m sure I could change that perception. People could no longer say I’m a killer.”
Carlo and Luciano looked at me doubtfully. “I’m not sure it’s the best idea,” Carlo said. “Mignini is cagey. He’ll do everything he can to trick you.”
[Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... “I feel like it’s my only hope,” I said. “My memoriali didn’t change anyone’s mind —they just made the prosecution and the media portray me as a liar. I didn’t get to tell the judge what happened before she confirmed my arrest. I think I have to explain face-to-face why I named Patrick. I’ve got to make Mignini understand why I said I’d met Patrick at the basketball court, why I said I’d heard Meredith scream.”
[Chapter 20, Page 230] ‘’ ... “It’s risky,” Carlo said. “Mignini will try to pin things on you.” “He already has,” I told them. The first time I met Mignini at the questura, I hadn’t understood who he was, what was going on, what was wrong, why people were yelling at me, why I couldn’t remember anything. I thought he was someone who could help me (the mayor), not the person who would sign my arrest warrant and put me behind bars…’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 230] ‘’ ... This time I was ready. This time my lawyers would be there. I’d be rested. My mind was clear. I was going in knowing what I was getting into. I’d take my time and answer all his questions in English. I didn’t think I’d be released immediately, but I hoped that giving the prosecutor a clear understanding of what had happened would help me. Then, as new evidence came forward proving my innocence, Mignini would have to let me go….’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 231] ‘’ ... But I wasn’t good at censoring myself. I had only two hours a week with my mom and dad, and they were the only people I could open up to. It made me feel better to vent, and my parents needed to know what I was thinking. I couldn’t see the danger in discussing with them my day-to-day prison life, my interactions with my cellmates and guards, or my case. Since I hadn’t been involved in the murder, I figured that anything I said would only help prove my innocence…’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 231] ‘’ ... I hadn’t considered that the prosecution would twist my words. I didn’t think they would be capable of taking anything I said and turning it into something incriminating, because everything I said was about my innocence and how I wanted to go home. I was saying the same thing again and again…’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 232] ‘’ ... On their first visit after the knife story came out, Dad and Mom were telling me my lawyers’ theory—that the police could be using the knife as a scare tactic to get me to incriminate myself. “The police have nothing at all on you,” Mom said. “So they are trying . . . to see if you[’ll] say something more.”
[Chapter 20, Page 232] ‘’ ... “It’s stupid,” I said. “I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there. I mean, I can’t lie about this, there is no reason to do it.”
What I meant by “I was there” was that I was at Raffaele’s apartment the night of Meredith’s murder, that I couldn’t possibly implicate myself. I hadn’t been at the villa. I wasn’t going to slip up, because I wasn’t hiding anything….’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 233] ‘’ ... Being more careful in the future wouldn’t immediately resolve this serious misunderstanding. A few days later the judge considered those words when deciding if I could be moved to house arrest. In another crushing blow that characterized my early months in prison, my request was denied. I was stuck alone behind bars….’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 233] ‘’ ... Calling the intercepted conversation a “clue,” the judge wrote, “it can certainly be read as a confirmation of the girl’s presence in her home at the moment of the crime.” He went on to describe me as “crafty and cunning,” saying that I was “a multifaced personality, unattached to reality with an elevated . . . fatal, capacity to kill again.”
[Chapter 20, Page 234] ‘’ ... Not even my lawyers understood my journal musings on Raffaele and the knife that made their way into the newspapers. I’d written a hyperbolic explanation about him taking the knife from his apartment behind my back. I had to explain to Carlo and Luciano that I’d concocted it because the possibility of a knife with Meredith’s DNA coming out of Raffaele’s apartment had struck me as so preposterous: ‘’ Unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned it off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that…’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 234] ‘’ ... But I didn’t have the luxury of explaining what I’d written to everyone who read it. After my passage was translated into Italian and then retranslated back into English, it bore little resemblance to the original—and a great resemblance to the prosecution’s theories about what had happened the night of November 1:
‘‘That night I smoked a lot of marijuana and I fell asleep at my boyfriend’s house. I don’t remember anything. But I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed her. And then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he put my fingerprints on the knife. But I don’t understand why Raffaele would do that…’‘
[Chapter 20, Page 235] ‘’ ... As the date for the interrogation approached, Luciano and Carlo offered me a few pointers. “Don’t let him get to you. Don’t say anything if you don’t remember it perfectly. It’s okay to say, ‘I don’t remember.’ You don’t have to be God and know everything. It’s better to say, ‘I don’t know,’ and move on.”
[Chapter 20, Page 237] ‘’ ... It bothered me that as I answered him as fully as I could through an interpreter, Mignini would usually repeat the question. I was afraid I wasn’t making myself clear. At first, Carlo, acting as a second interpreter, spoke in measured tones. He would interrupt and say, “What she is really saying is . . .” or “She’s already answered that question!”
[Chapter 20, Page 239] ‘’ ... I was more frustrated than I’d ever been. “Because I thought it could have been him!”
I shouted, starting to cry. I meant that I’d imagined Patrick’s face and so I had really, momentarily, thought it was him. Mignini jumped up, bellowing, “Aha!” I was sobbing out of frustration, anger.
My lawyers were on their feet. “This interrogation is over!” Luciano shouted, swiping his arm at the air….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 241] ‘’ ... Now I was moving in with Cera. Young, with the tall, lean looks of a model, she worked as a portavito, delivering meals from a rolling cart. She was also in my weekly guitar class, another prison “rehabilitation” activity like movie time. But I was still secluded from the main prison population—a special status to protect young, first-time suspects. The downside was that it prevented me from participating in group activities or talking to anyone but my cellmates. Thankfully, Don Saulo convinced prison officials to let me attend the guitar lessons, just as he had weekly Mass….’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 242] ‘’ ... Cera had managed to make her cell homey, clean, and organized. There were bright colored sheets on the beds, postcards taped to the walls, and a colorful curtain tied to the bars at the window. We had a heart-to-heart talk while I unpacked. She was sitting cross-legged on the bed closest to the window. “I should probably tell you right off, I’m bisexual,” she said.
“That’s cool,” I replied. “I’m not, but I’m definitely live-and-let-live.”
“You’re not my type, anyway,” she said. “I thought you might be gay when you asked to live with me, but I decided you weren’t.” She hesitated. “You know, your former cellmates said you’re spoiled.”
Wow. Why hadn’t I realized they would trash me behind my back? They gossiped about everyone else. Cera read my disappointment. “They’re fake. Almost everyone in prison is fake. You’ll see.’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 243] ‘’ ... Cera scoffed. “You don’t know what they say about you when you’re outside—‘Who does Kuh-nox think she is? She’s saving worms from the rain but killing people.’ Even Lupa says you’re guilty.” I knew the prosecution didn’t believe me, but I’d assumed the people I interacted with every day would see me for who I was and not imagine the worst. As soon as Cera said this, it seemed obvious—of course the guards would assume I was a murderer. Everyone did….’‘
Archived in The former defendants, Amanda Knox, Other legal processes, Knox calunnia, Family + defense hoaxers, Lies in Knox book
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (8)
Monday, August 31, 2015
The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About #2
Posted by Peter Quennell
Above: Florence Prosecutor Dr Angela Pietroiusti. Quick route to Comments here.
1. Most Bungling Team In Legal History?
There is NO WAY Knox and Sollecito would be out on the streets if the playing field had been level.
Knox’s lawyers and family and PR effort and publishers all bungled enormously and suffered an overwhelming loss at both Knox’s trials (murder and calunnia) when pre-trial concessions could have served them well.
To make up for this, they tilted the playing field.
Manipulation of the media and thus American (but not Italian) opinion and manipulation of the evidence and manipulation of judges and manipulation of court-appointed DNA experts and manipulation to prevent Italy from finding out what was in Knox’s and Sollecito’s horrific books.
You want to see manipulation in spades?
You want to see bungling in spades?
No better example than this one which could possibly cost Sollecito lawyer Luca Maori his career and has stopped the Fifth Chambers of Cassation dead in their tracks.
Also Knox’s and Sollecito’s foolish books involving dozens of others are coming back to haunt them in court. Also look here at how Chris Mellas dropped Knox in it.
Helping Sollecito cost his sister Vanessa her Carbinieri job. Sollecito’s father admitted to Panorama he tried political manipulation and was charged. Knox’s parents parroted Amanda Knox and were charged. “Helpful” investigator Paul Ciolino framed an innocent man in another case and was charged. Doug Preston ally Mario Spezi smeared investigators after the two tried framing an innocent man and blocking an investigation getting too near the truth and Spezi was charged.
Judge Heavey lied to national presidents everywhere and was reprimanded and soon retired. The defense arranged for Judge Hellmann to preside over the 2011 appeal; he was overturned and pushed out. Pepperdine University pushed out the besotted security guard Steve Moore. Frank Sforza, facing felony charges, took off like a rabbit out of America. Defense witness Aviello was charged.
The defenses’ attempt to climb in Filomena’s window came up short. This bungled frame-up went nowhere. The pathetic Bruce Fischer team has gone nowhere.
2. Bungling In Knox’s Calunnia Case
Keeping Knox quiet for her own good was always a mighty struggle and the defense lawyers openly complained. It was an open secret in Perugia from 2007 to 2009 that Knox’s defense lawyers were struggling with Knox herself and with her family and her PR.
At least one defense lawyer was fired or walked off the job (as with the Sollecito team). This struggle broke out into the open at various times, for example see here.
Still. Knox’s defense team also did at least five things to help make matters worse for her in her calunnia trial now.
- 1) They allowed Knox to interrupt prosecution witness Anna Donnino, the interpreter, during her testimony in March 2009 to claim she was hit, having repeatedly said previously that that was untrue. That set the legal reaction in motion.
2) They put Knox on the stand seemingly unbriefed and allowed her to contradict both days and days of prosecution testimony and also prior declarations by herself.
3) They put a presumably privileged letter from Knox to themselves in evidence (see previous post) knowing that it contained false claims.
4) They applied to a Perugia judge for the transfer of the calunnia case from Perugia to Florence, thinking the Florence court was gunning for Dr Mignini when the truth is opposite.
5) They applied to the same Perugia judge for the attachment of Dr Mignini’s name to the complaint though they knew he was not at the “interrogation” as even Knox said on the stand.
Due to failed defense efforts Knox has already served three years and is a felon for life, and she now could face another six plus more penalties for her book. She is still not off the hook for murder as Fifth Chambers judges broke two laws and had fishy friends in their pasts.
So, good luck, Amanda Knox. GREAT TEAM!
3. Day Two Of Knox’s Testimony
These are excerpts related to the “interrogation” of 5-6 Nov. Important: we dont yet know what else the prosecutors will include in their charges as much of Knox’s testimony was on other things about which she also lied.
Excerpts in both posts are from the full transcript on the Case Wiki, and all transcription and translation into English (a massive task) was by the PMF Team.
Cross Examination By Prosecutor Mignini
GM: In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there’s Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn’t you ever mentioned him before?
AK: Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick’s name to me.
GM: All right, now is the time for you to make this precise and specific. At this point I will take…no, I’ll come back to it later. You need to explain this. You have stated: “The name of Patrick was suggested to me. I was hit, pressured.”
GM: Now you have to tell me in a completely detailed way, you have to remember for real, you have to explain step by step, who, how, when, was the name of Patrick suggested to you, and what had been done before that point. The name of Patrick didn’t just come up like a mushroom; there was a preceding situation. Who put pressure on you, what do you mean by the word “pressure”, who hit you? You said: “They hit me”, and at the request of the lawyer Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.
GM: So that would be what you meant by being hit?
GM: Or something else? Tell me if there was something else. You can tell us.
GCM: So, you are—[Interruptions] The question is—[Interruptions] Escuse me. Excuse me. The question is quite clear. He is repeating this in order to give the accused a chance to add something to these events that were explained by the accused yesterday. The pubblico ministero is asking to return to these events mentioned yesterday in order to obtain more detail about exactly what happened and who did it. Please be as precise as possible.
GM: So you were in front of—
GCM: The question is clear.
GM: All right, so tell us.
GCM: Yes, it’s clear.
AK: All right. Okay.
GCM: If you could give more detail, be more precise, exactly what was suggested to you, about the cuffs, all that.
GCM: And who did all this, if you can.
AK: Okay. Fine. So, when I got to the Questura, they placed me to the side, near the elevator, where I was waiting for Raffaele. I had taken my homework, and was starting to do my homework, but a policeman came in, in fact there were I don’t know, three of them or something, and they wanted to go on talking to me. They asked me again—
GM: Excuse me, excuse me—
AK: [coldly] Can I tell the story?
GM: Excuse me for interrupting you otherwise we’ll forget—
CDV: Presidente, I object to this way of doing things. The question was asked—[Yelling, interruptions]—we should wait for the answer.
GM: It’s impossible to go on like this, no, no.
CDV: If a question is asked, she has to be able to answer.
GCM: Please, please. That’s correct. There is a rule that was introduced, which says that we should absolutely avoid interruptions from anyone.
CDV: I want to ask that she be allowed to finish her answer. She has the right, no?
GCM: Please, please, pubblico ministero. It’s impossible to go on this way.
GM: I would like to, I can—
GCM: No no no, no one can. We have to make sure that while someone is speaking, there are never any superimposed voices. And since the accused is undergoing examination, she has the right to be allowed to answer in the calmest possible way. Interruptions and talking at the same time don’t help her, and they can’t be written down in the minutes, which obliges the courts to suspend the audience and start it again at a calmer and more tranquil moment.
GCM: No, no, no! Interruptions are absolutely not allowed! Not between the parties, nor when the Court, the President is speaking. So, interruptions are not allowed. Now, the accused is speaking, and when she is finished, we can return to her answers—
GCM: Excuse me, please! But at the moment she is speaking, we have to avoid interrupting her. But—I don’t know if this is what was wanted—but while you are speaking, if you could tell us when. For instance, you say you were doing homework, but you didn’t tell us when. We need to know when, on what day, the 2nd of November, the 3rd, what time it was. While you are talking, you need to be more detailed, as detailed as you can with respect to the date and the time.
GCM: And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
AK: Thank you. So, here is…how I understood the question, I’m answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I’m sorry, I don’t know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation. The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I didn’t do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.” So I said okay and went with them, and they started asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening. At least, they kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything about what I did. Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times and schedules, and time segments: “What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember. And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.” And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn’t there? I was there! Maybe I can’t say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because I didn’t look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And she would say “No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the house.” And I said, no, that’s not how it was. I was always in Raffaele’s apartment.
GCM: [taking advantage of a tiny pause to slip in without exactly interrupting] Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the cuffs, who gave them to you.
AK: All right. What it was, was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started to little by little and then more and more these remarks about “We’re not convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not remember another thing. We don’t understand how you could take a shower without seeing…” And then, they kept on asking me “Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.” Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that I had gone out of the house. I said look, it’s impossible. I don’t know if he’s really saying that or not, but look, I didn’t go out of the house. And they said “No, you’re telling a lie. You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.” Sure, take it. “All right.” So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling “We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?” But I kept saying no, no, I didn’t go out, I’m not pro-pro-pro—-
GCM: [taking advantage of her stammer] Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous crescendo.
GCM: As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as continuously as possible…
AK: Okay, I’m sorry.
GCM: So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who… these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me…
AK: Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said “Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick”, and I said I don’t think I did, and they yelled “Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here’s your message saying you wanted to meet him!” And I didn’t even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was telling me “Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you’re not able to remember anything you’ve done.” So I said, how could that be? And she said, “Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can’t remember it. Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg…”
GCM: The interpreter said this to you?
AK: The interpreter, yes.
GCM: I also wanted to ask you because it isn’t clear to me: only the interpreter spoke to you, or the others also?
AK: All the others also.
GCM: Everyone was talking to you, all the others, but were they speaking in English?
AK: No, in Italian.
GCM: In Italian. And you answered in Italian?
AK: In Italian, in English…
GCM: And what was said to you in Italian, did it get translated to you in English?
AK: A bit yes, a bit no, there was so much confusion, there were so many people all talking at the same time, one saying “Maybe it was like this, maybe you don’t remember,” another saying “No, she’s a stupid liar,” like that…
GCM: But everything was eventually translated, or you understood some of it and answered right away?
AK: It wasn’t like an interrogation, like what we’re doing now, where one person asks me a question and I answer. No. There were so many people talking, asking, waiting, and I answered a bit here and there.
GCM: All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about something that had happened to her. [Interruption by Mignini.] But you need to get back to the questions asked by the pubblico ministero. This isn’t a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we still haven’t really heard the answer to it.
AK: Yes, sorry.
GCM: Right, so you were saying that there was this continuous crescendo.
AK: It’s difficult for me to say that one specific person said one specific thing. It was the fact that there were all these little suggestions, and someone was saying that there was the telephone, then there was the fact that… then more than anything what made me try to imagine something was someone saying to me “Maybe you’re confused, maybe you’re confused and you should try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking, what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting “Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember,” and boom! on my head. [Amanda slaps herself on the back of the head: End of video segment] “Remember!” And I was like—Mamma Mia! and then boom! [slaps head again] “Remember!”
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me, please, excuse me…
AK: Those were the cuffs.
GCM: So, the pubblico ministero asked you, and is still asking you, who is the person that gave you these two blows that you just showed us on yourself?
AK: It was a policewoman, but I didn’t know their names.
GM: Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM: So, now, I asked you a question, and I did not get an answer. You ... [interruptions]!
LG or CDV: I object to that remark! That is a personal evaluation! Presidente! That is very suggestive. He is making an unacceptable conclusion. He can ask a question, but this is a personal opinion. It seems to me that she did answer. She answered for a good five minutes.
GCM: Sorry, but I said that we were supposed to avoid interruptions, that we weren’t supposed to interrupt when someone was speaking—
LG or CDV: But—
GCM: Wait—avvocato, excuse me, please, let’s try to avoid these moments which don’t help anybody and probably harm the person undergoing the examination because they create tension in the court—
GM: When I am doing the cross-examination I would like—
GCM: Please, pubblico ministero. This is another recommendation: let’s avoid analyses. Let’s take the answers as they come, later the right moment will come to say that from this examination, you did not obtain the answer that you expected, that the accused did not answer the questions. That is a later phase. At this moment, let’s stay with the answers that we have, even if they are not exhaustive, and return to the question, but avoiding personal evaluations of their value. Go ahead, publicco ministero, go ahead.
GM: I would like to—
GCM: Yes, yes, go ahead, return to your question. And then you can come back to it with more details.
GM: The central point of that interrogation was the moment when the name of Patrick emerged. You spoke of suggestions, you spoke of pressure, you spoke of being hit, I asked you to give me a precise description of who gave you the blows, you need to describe this person. Was it a woman or a man? Who asked you the questions? Who was asking you the questions? There was the interpreter, who was the person who was translating. But the exam, the interrogation, who was doing it? Apart from the people who were going in and out. You must have understood that there was a murder, and this was a police station, and the investigation was hot, and what I am asking you is, who was actually conducting the interrogation?
GCM: The pubblico ministero is asking you, you said that the two blows were given to me by someone whose name I don’t know. The pubblico ministero is asking you firstly if you can give a description of the person who hit you, if you saw her, and if you can give us a description. The second question—
AK: So, when I—the person who was conducting the interrogation—
GCM: That was the second question! You’re starting with the second question, that’s fine, go ahead, go ahead.
AK: Oh, sorry…
GCM: Go on, go on. The person who was conducting the interrogation…
AK: Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don’t know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?” Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn’t see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.
GCM: This was the same woman with the long hair?
AK: Yes, the same one.
GCM: All right. Are you finished? Tell me if you have something to add.
AK: Well, I already answered.
GCM: Fine, fine, all right. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM: I’ll go on with the questions. In the minutes it mentions three people, plus the interpreter. Now, you first said that they suggested things to you. What exactly do you mean by the word “suggestion”, because from your description, I don’t see any suggestion. I mean, what is meant by the Italian word “suggerimento”, I don’t find it.
GCM: [quelling them] Excuse me, excuse me, please, please, excuse me, excuse me! Listen, the pubblico ministero is asking you: “suggestions”, you also mentioned words that were “put in your mouth”, versions, things to say, circumstances to describe.
The pubblico ministero is asking two things: who made the suggestions, and what exactly were you told to say? }}
AK: All right. It seems to me that the thoughts of the people standing around me, there were so many people, and they suggested things to me in the sense that they would ask questions like: “Okay, you met someone!” No, I didn’t. They would say “Yes you did, because we have this telephone here, that says that you wanted to meet someone. You wanted to meet him.” No, I don’t remember that. “Well, you’d better remember, because if not we’ll put you in prison for 30 years.” But I don’t remember! “Maybe it was him that you met? Or him? You can’t remember?” It was this kind of suggestion.
GCM: When you say they said “Maybe you met him?”, did they specify names?
AK: Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him—
GCM: Please, please!
[Interruptions, multiple voices]
CDV: It’s not possible to go on this way! [Mignini yells something at dalla Vedova]
GCM: Please, please, excuse me, excuse me!
??: I’m going to ask to suspend the audience! I demand a suspension of five minutes!
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me! Please!
CDV: Viva Dio, Presidente!
GM: Presidente, I’m trying to do a cross-examination, and I must have the conditions that allow me to do it! The defense keeps interrupting.
??: That’s true!
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me, please—
GM: We’re asking for a suspension!
GCM: Just a moment, excuse me. I’ve heard all the demands and suggestions, now the Court will decide. So.
[Several moments of silence, during which Amanda murmurs in a very tiny voice: “Scusa.”]
GCM: I want to point out that the accused offers answers to every question. She could always refuse to respond. She is answering, and that doesn’t mean she has to be asked about the same circumstances again and again. She is not a witness. The accused goes under different rules. We have to accept the answers—
GCM: Please, please! We have to accept the answers given by the accused. She can stop answering at any time. At some point we simply have to move on to different questions. One circumstance is being asked again, the accused answered. The regularly, the tranquillity, the rituality of the court, of the process, has to be respected. The pubblico ministero was asking about suggestions. [To Amanda] If you want a suspension we can do it right away.
AK: No, I’m fine.
GCM: So the pubblico ministero was asking about the suggestions. All right?
GCM: So, you were the one who gave the first indication, introducing this generic pronoun “him”? This “him”, did they say who it could be?
AK: It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying “Are you sure you don’t remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote this message.”
GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?
AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata.”
GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?
AK: Actually, I don’t know if that information is in the telephone. But I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn’t find it, but they found the one I sent to him.
GCM: I also wanted to ask you for the pubblico ministero, you wrote this message in Italian. I wanted to ask you, since you are an English speaker, what do you do when you wrote in Italian? Do you first think in English, and then translate into Italian, or do you manage to think directly in Italian?
AK: No, at that time, I first thought in English, then I would translate, and then write.
GCM: So that clarifies that phrase. Go ahead, pubblico ministero, but I think we’ve exhausted the question.
GM: Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language, “suggerire” means “indicate”, someone who “suggests” a name actually says the name and the other person adopts it. That is what “suggerimento” is, and I…so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?
??: Objection! Objection!
GM: On page 95, I read—
CDV: Before the objection, what was the question?
GM: The question was: the question that was objected was about the term “suggerimento”. Because I interpret that word this way: the police say “Was it Patrick?” and she confirms that it was Patrick. This is suggestion in the Italian language.
GCM: Excuse me, please, excuse me. Let’s return to the accused. What was the suggestion, because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had been identified, they talked about “him, him, him”. In what terms exactly did they talk about this “him”? What did they say to you?
AK: So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message—
GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?
AK: To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew, and that I didn’t want to tell. And that I didn’t want to tell because I didn’t remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying “Look what a stupid liar you are, you don’t even remember this!” At first, I didn’t even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying “Maybe you don’t remember, maybe you don’t remember, but try,” and other people were saying “Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing “Remember, remember, remember,” and then there was this person behind me who—it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me…
GCM: “Remember!” is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather…
AK: But it was always “Remember” following this same idea, that…
GCM: But they didn’t literally say that it was him!
AK: No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him.”
GCM: So, these were the suggestions.
GCM: Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM: I object here on the dynamics, because here there’s a contrast…well… per carita—[Brief interruption from GCM]—From Amanda’s answer, it emerges that there was this cell phone and this message and this “Answer, answer,” whereas in the minutes of the Dec 17 interrogation, page 95, we find: The police could not have suggested—[Arguing, everyone speaking, Maresca, Pacelli etc., some saying that they need to know the exact page, it’s different in their version. ]
GCM: While the pubblico ministero is talking, let’s avoid interrupting him. It’s true that the pages are different, but still, if you can’t find the page, ask for a moment’s pause, don’t interrupt the reading.
GM: So, on line number one, two, three, four…
GCM: Pubblico ministero, don’t worry about the lines, please read.
GM: [reading] She said: “I accused Patrick and no one else because they were continually talking about Patrick.” Suggesting, to use Amanda’s words. I asked: “The police, the police could not suggest? And the interpreter, was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police saying?” Knox: “The police were saying, ‘We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.’ And one moment before I said Patrick’s name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him.” This is the objection. There is a precise moment. The police were showing her the message, they didn’t know who it was—
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me pubblico ministero [talking at the same time] excuse me, excuse me, the objection consists in the following: [to Amanda], when there are contrasts or a lack of coincidence with previous statements, be careful to explain them.
GCM: Do you confirm the declarations that the pubblico ministero read out?
AK: I explained it better now.
GCM: You explained it better now. All right pubblico ministero. Go ahead.
GM: So, let’s move forward.
GM: Now, what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?
AK: Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn’t tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of “Patrick”, I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn’t agree, that maybe could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick’s face, then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted to know everything I had done. But I didn’t know how to say. So they started talking to me, saying, “Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?” I don’t know, maybe in Piazza Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. “Okay, fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the door?” Well, with my key. “So you opened the house”. Okay, yes. “And what did you do then?” I don’t know. “But was she already there?” I don’t know. “Did she arrive or was she already there?” Okay. “Who was there with you?” I don’t know. “Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?” I don’t know. It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me: “Excuse me, I don’t understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?” No. “But how could you not have heard the scream?”. I don’t know, maybe my ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don’t know, maybe, imagining…
GCM: [Stopping her gently] Okay, okay. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
CDV?: I’d like to ask a question, I’d like to make an objection about—
GCM?: All right, so—
GM: Is it a question or an objection? [crossing, arguing voices]
GCM: Please, no interruptions.
CDV?: [stronger] I said, I am asking a question and making an objection—
GCM: But, excuse me, let’s stay with essentials. Let’s hear what the pubblico ministero has to say, and then we’ll see. That’s a premise.
GM: I appeal to the court that this is making the examination impossible.
GCM: Please, please, sorry. Go ahead.
GM: I am trying to understand. In the interro—[he breaks off in mid-word, I think dalla Vedova must have stood up again.]
GCM: But it’s not possible to hinder things this way, avvocato. Excuse me. Why?
CDV?: [hard to hear because he’s speaking at the same time as GCM] The defense would like to formally ask for a break [?]
GCM: We haven’t even heard what he is trying to say yet. You can’t make preventive objections! I’m sorry, avvocato.
CDV?: I’m not making an objection—
GCM: [really trying to stop him but not succeeding, CDV goes on talking at the same time] Please, please avvocato, no no no no, the pubblico ministero is speaking. [GM also says some words] Excuse me, excuse me.
CDV?: The suggestions of the PM before asking the question are inopportune, because he is suggesting and making suggestive…
GCM: Please, please, excuse me, excuse me! [He really, really needs a gavel to bang!]
GM: [some words]
GCM: Please, pubblico ministero! We are creating useless moments—
GM: [some words]
GCM: [much louder] Please, pubblico ministero! Please! Now, excuse me.
GM or CDV: Please explain this concept to me.
GCM: Please, please! [He finally obtains silence] I understand that when these interruption happens, the tone gets a bit louder, but that is not helpful. [Interruption] Please, please—but we are getting the impression that the objections are preventive. So while the pubblico ministero is speaking, which he has every right to do in this phase, and the defense already had their chance to do it, and they weren’t interrupted yesterday, so we ask for equal treatment today, at the present moment of the examination of the accused. And the tone should always remain cordial without giving the impression of a—
CDV: Yes, yes, no, no. But it’s just that, I am asking that—
GCM: Please, avvocato. There’s no reason. We are trying to reconcile the interests of all parties, we are gathering circumstances on which the different parties are called to make analyses and the Court to decide. This will be helpful for everyone. Go ahead.
GM: The question is this: You say, you just told me a little while ago, that… the police—I’m trying to—well, I have to give a little introduction so she understands my question. You said “they found this message and they asked me whom it was to, if it was true or not true.” And you answered. Then the police obviously goes forward with their questions. “So, tell us”. And you…you just told me, I can’t read it, obviously I don’t have the transcription right here, but, I might be making a mistake, I don’t know, but you were saying that you remembered Piazza Grimana. Did you really say that?
GCM: Please, please, excuse me, there, now what the accused is saying is: “On the basis of these elements, I tried to reconstruct a scene that could be verified.” In these terms, not because she… She mentally elaborated, with her imagination: this is what I understood, how the scene could be realized, containing those elements that had come up.
GCM: But she wasn’t speaking of an effective memory of circumstances that had effectively occurred in her perception. That is the meaning of the response of the accused.
GM: But you said that you remembered Piazza Grimana.
AK: I had an image of Piazza Grimana.
GM: An image of Piazza Grimana, that’s right. Now listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary…
[Start of 6:54 minute video segment] ...I asked this question: Why did you throw out an accusation of this type? In the confrontations with Mr. Lumumba (I was continuing and you answered right away): “I was trying, I had the possibility of explaining the message in my phone. He had told me not to come to work.” Perfectly normal things. So, faced with a perfectly normal circumstance, “My boss texted me to tell me not to come to work and I answered him,” you could have just stated that. End of response. Instead, faced with the message, and the questions of the police, you threw out this accusation. So I am asking you, why start accusing him when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why did you think those things could be true? }}
AK: I was confused.
GM: You have repeated that many times. But what does it mean? Either something is true, or it isn’t true. Right now, for instance, you’re here at the audience, you couldn’t be somewhere else. You couldn’t say “I am at the station.” You are right here, right now.
AK: Certainly. [Some noise]
GCM: The question is clear.
AK: Can I answer?
GCM: [quelling noise] Excuse me, excuse me! Please, go ahead.
AK: My confusion was because firstly, I couldn’t understand why the police was treating me this way, and then because when I explained that I had spent the whole time with Raffaele, they said “No, you’re a liar”. It was always this thing that either I didn’t remember or I was lying. The fact that I kept on and on repeating my story and they kept saying “No, you’re going to prison right now if you don’t tell the truth,” and I said “But I’ve told the truth,” “No, you’re a liar, now you’re going to prison for 30 years because either you’re a stupid liar or you forgot. And if it’s because you forgot, then you’d better remember what happened for real, right now.” This is why I was confused. Because I didn’t understand. I didn’t understand why. I didn’t understand anything any more. I was so scared and impressed by all this that at some point I thought What the heck, maybe they’re right, maybe I forgot.
GM: So, and then, you accused Lumumba of murder. This is the conclusion.
GM: I wanted to spend a moment on one last question, maybe the last but I don’t know, about the morning of the 6th.
GM: There’s another thing I didn’t understand. You said pressure was put on you, and there were suggestions, you explained today exactly what those consisted in, to say the name of Patrick and to accuse Patrick. Then you wrote a memorandum in which you confirm everything. And you weren’t under pressure right then. Why didn’t you just say: “I falsely accused someone.” Someone who was in prison, who was put in prison, maybe for a long time. Can you explain this to me?
CDV?: Can I make an objection? Very, very calmly and without animosity?
GCM: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you [for the calm, no doubt]. Thank you.
CDV?: It seems to me that the pubblico ministero, in presenting his questions, always makes references which go as far as actually suggesting the answers, and also—
GM: Well it is a cross-examination.
GCM: Please, please let’s avoid interruptions and let each person express what he has to say. Go ahead, avvocato.
CDV?: In the question he just asked, he mentions the memorandum and says it confirms. Now, this might be a specific question, but it should not be an assertion on the part of the pubblico ministero, followed by another question. If we look in the minutes, we find a series of unilateral declarations which all go to show what interests the pubblico ministero. To my mind, this mentality goes against our way of examining the accused. I just want to make this clear.
GCM: All right, taking into account these remarks, the pubblico ministero’s question remains. It could be rephrased like this: during the 5th and the 6th, you said there were pressures, and the name of Patrick Lumumba emerged as also being involved in these events. But as the pubblico ministero notes, you then you wrote the memorandum spontaneously. We heard that you yourself asked for paper to be able to write it.
GCM: And writing with this liberty, you even referred to it as a gift, these elements which had already emerged, you reasserted them, and this involvement of Patrick Lumumba. What the pubblico ministero is asking is: how did you—this question was already asked yesterday—in these different circumstances, you weren’t in the room any more, there wasn’t any pressure, why didn’t the truth somehow get stabilized?
AK: Yes, yes. In fact, what happened is that I had literally been led to believe that somehow, I had forgotten something real, and so with this idea that I must have forgotten, I was practically convinced myself that I really had forgotten. And these images, that I was actually forcing myself to imagine, were really lost memories. So, I wasn’t sure if those images were reality or not, but explaining this to the police, they didn’t want to listen to the fact that I wasn’t sure. They treated me as though I had now remembered everything and everything was fine and I could now make a declaration in the tribunal against someone, to accuse someone. I didn’t feel sure about that. I didn’t feel—
GCM: Excuse me, but in the memorandum, do you remember what you wrote about Patrick? Because maybe it wasn’t precise…
GM: [Interrupting] I want—I want—I want to contest this point. Two points in the memorandum. If I’m not mistaken, you weren’t a witness right then. You had been the object of an arrest warrant. You had been arrested. You know the difference between a suspect and a witness. You weren’t a witness. Not any longer. So in the memorandum—
CDV?: One moment—[hard to hear] Does she know the difference?
GM: Can I continue? Sorry, avvocato, but I’m asking questions! Can I continue? He’s continually—
GCM: Sorry, sorry, go ahead.
GM: This is impossible!
GCM: Please, pubblico ministero, go ahead, go ahead.
GM: I am interrogating. I am interrogating. Now I’m distracted. Now, the difference between a suspect and a witness—a person informed of the facts. You said: “I made these declarations so that I could leave, so I could be—” but instead, you were arrested. And you wrote the memorandum after you had been arrested. And you wrote two sentences: I’ll read them. “I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick.” [In Italian: “I confirm…”] Do you know what the word “confirm” means in Italian? “In the flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer.” There wasn’t any policeman with you when you wrote that. No one. You wrote that in complete liberty. Do you know how to explain to me why? And this is even more decisive than what you said some hours earlier. Can you explain this?
AK: I couldn’t even explain to myself why I had these images in my head, because I didn’t know if they were memories or not. And I want to say that if I made these declarations, that they asked me to sign and everything, I did it, but I wanted in the memorandum to explain my doubt, this fact that I wasn’t sure about it, because no one ever wanted to listen when I said listen, I don’t know.
GCM?: Effectively the memorandum was correcting what had been said, and these doubts arose.
GM: Do you have lapses of memory? At that time did you ever have lapses of memory?
AK: Did I have what?
GM: Lapses of memory.
AK: Oh, lapses of memory.
GM: Lapses of memory. Moments where you couldn’t remember things that you had done. “What did I do yesterday? I don’t know.”
AK: [Laughing] I’ve had that problem all my life.
AK: I’ve had that problem all my life. I can’t remember where I put my keys.
GM: So it happened to you at other times? Explain it to me. You previously mixed up things, didn’t know whether you had dreamed things or they were real?
AK: No, not that part about the imagination! I would forget for example what I ate yesterday for dinner, yes, that happened to me, but not to actually imagine things.
GM: To imagine something that hadn’t really happened, that never happened to you.
AK: No. I never had that problem, but then, I had never been interrogated like that before.
GM: Okay, so when you had this flashback, you saw Patrick as the murderer. What was this flashback?
AK: The flashback consisted in this image of Patrick’s actual face, not that I imagined an actual act, I imagined his face. Then I had this image of Piazza Grimana, then an image of Patrick’s face, then I always had this idea that they wanted to say: these images explain the fact that you met him, and you brought him home, and maybe you heard something and covered your ears, and it was always like this, not that I actually imagined having seen Meredith’s death. It was these images that came by themselves, to explain…
GM: I see. All right. I take note of what you’re saying. Now, let’s talk about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: “I didn’t lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick.” Then you add “But now I know that I can’t know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn’t go home.” Can you explain these concept to me?
AK: Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in that moment, I—
GM: So what you had said might have actually been true?
AK: Yes, it could have been true, but at that moment. But then, when I was able to rethink the facts, it became clearer and clearer that it didn’t make sense, that it was absolutely ridiculous that I could have thought that or imagined it.
GM: But didn’t you feel the need to intervene to get an innocent person out of prison? You didn’t feel the need?
AK: But the police had already called me a liar, and I didn’t feel they were listening to me. Also because in the Questura—
GM: But you were in prison!
AK: But in the Questura, I had already told them: Look, I’m not sure about this, and they didn’t want to hear that. They didn’t want to listen, because they said to me “No, you’ll remember it later. You just need a little time to really remember these facts.” I told them no, I don’t think it’s like that, but they didn’t want to listen.
GM: They didn’t believe you. But you, once you said that you remembered, [snaps fingers?] you could have just made a declaration or sent me another memorandum saying “No, I didn’t say the truth. Patrick is innocent.”
GCM: Excuse me, we already had explanations about this.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (26)
The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About #1
Posted by Peter Quennell
Above: Florence Prosecutor Dr Leopoldo Di Girolamo. Quick route to Comments here.
1. Arrangements For Knox Trial In Florence
Knox’s second trial for aggravated calunnia will take place later this week and early next week in Florence.
For the record the sentence for a repeat calunnia offense can be six years and the statute of limitations cuts in at 11 year and three months which in this case will be late in AD 2020.
The real drama if any will be next week, when witnesses are to be called starting on Monday. We should have some court reporting from Main Poster Machiavelli. There is the possibility of a closed court and a verdict on Tuesday.
We believe the judge will be Dr Giampaolo Boninsegna. We presume that Knox will not attend (perhaps a weak move, perhaps not).
Two prosecutors have developed the case which was sparked by complaints from investigators in the Perugia central police station. They are Dr Leopoldo Di Girolamo (image above) and Dr Angela Pietroiusti. We could see either or both of them in action.
It appears now that knox’s lawyers will again be Ghirga and Dalla Vedova, who some lawyers criticise for dropping her in it at trial with an ill-judged stint on the stand after 20 months of trying to stop Knox dropping herself in it.
2. Why Knox Was On The Stand in 2009
Knox’s team primarily primarily intended that Knox’s two days on the stand should serve to explain why she framed Patrick and then allowed him to languish in prison.
Both publicly to the media and at the Micheli hearings in late 2008 Knox’s lawyers had denied she was ill-treated or forced into a “confession”. So why was Knox put on the stand?
Probably in part because Knox absolutely insisted on it, given her considerable track record of written and spoken explanations and her interrogation in December 2007 by Dr Mignini. Each time a fail, but perhaps she had in mind the movie Groundhog Day.
And probably in part because the prosecution portion of the trial had been pretty damning. There had been stacks of evidence and numerous witnesses whose testimony fitted together pretty seamlessly.
Contrast this with the defense portion of the trial, from late summer onward, which was often awkward and hesitant, often did not fill complete court days, and really gained no ground back.
3. The Knox Defense Team’s Uphill Task Here
Bizarrely, Knox AND her lawyers AND her family had already sat through days and days of testimony earlier in the trial from various investigators who were present on 5-6 November when Knox explosively fingered Patrick.
Knox’s testimony was like night and day compared to that, as if none of that previous testimony had even happened. This was probably unique in Italian legal history and quite possibly in US legal history also.
Our ongoing Interrogation Hoax series, still far from complete, which has included a lot of new translation, showed what a very consistent picture of events on 5-6 Nov all these witnesses testified to.
Testimony led by Knox’s team (see below) was quite extensive but it tellingly wandered far from the main point and was very pussyfooting about 5-6 Nov even though Knox was not under oath and prosecutor cross-examination was circumscribed. It really won no points for Knox at all and didnt avoid her serving three years.
To consider the target testimony below against the picture the court had already developed, please read at least Part One of the series.
Look below as you read for all the numerous claims by Knox of illegal pressure and illegal abuse and illegal insistence of scenarios and names given to her by the cops.
According to the prior testimony of all those officers Knox is impugning, none of these claims of illegality seemingly designed to hurt careers had any truth at all to them.
4. Day One of Knox’s Testimony
Day two’s testimony will follow in our next post. Excerpts in both posts are from the full transcript on the Case Wiki, and all transcription and translation into English (a massive task) was by the PMF Team.
Relevant Questions By Lumumba Lawyer Pacelli
Here AK is Knox, CP is Pacelli, and GCM is Judge Massei.
CP: Listen, let’s get to the evening of November 1. On the evening of November 1, 2007, did you have an appointment with Patrick near the basketball court?
GCM: [Interrupting the interpreter who is putting this question into English for Amanda] Excuse me, excuse me. Also for the interpreter, also the English translation, everything is for everyone, this is not a dialogue between two people.
CP: I’ll ask a simpler question, Presidente.
GCM: No no, we heard it. Please, go ahead. [The interpreter translates the question]
AK: No, I didn’t.
CP: So, on the evening of November 1, you didn’t meet Patrick?
CP: You didn’t meet him at the basketball court?
CP: Then why did you say you met him at the basketball court during your interrogation of November 6, 2007, at 1:45 in the morning in front of the judicial police?
AK: It was a complicated situation. I can explain it if you want me to go into it.
CP: Yes, yes, later.
CP: You had the keys of the apartment in via della Pergola?
GCM: Excuse me, avvocato, she was saying something.
CP: Sorry. Please, go ahead.
GCM: She was adding something. Please go ahead. You can answer…
GCM: ...with all the time and the precision that you need.
GCM: [addressing the interpreter] Tell her that if she wants to add something, as it seemed she did, she can do it, and we will listen. [Interpreter puts this into English]
AK: Yes. Um, the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving in the police office, I didn’t expect to be interrogated at all. When I got there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that they had been asking me days…all these days ever since it happened. For instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and I said I still didn’t know, and so what they did is, they brought me into another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn’t remember doing. That’s when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone. [Sigh] So I was there, and they told me that I was trying to protect someone, but I wasn’t trying to protect anyone, and so I didn’t know how to respond to them. They said that I had left Raffaele’s house, which wasn’t true, which I denied, but they continued to call me a stupid liar. They were putting this telephone in front of my face going “Look, look, your message, you were going to meet someone”. And when I denied that, they continued to call me a stupid liar. And then, from that point on, I was very very scared, because they were treating me so badly and I didn’t understand why. [Sigh] While I was there, there was an interpreter who explained to me an experience of hers, where she had gone through a traumatic experience that she could not remember at all, and she suggested that I was traumatized, and that I couldn’t remember the truth. This at first seemed ridiculous to me, because I remembered being at Raffaele’s house. For sure. I remembered doing things at Raffaele’s house. I checked my e-mails before, then we watched a movie. We had eaten dinner together, we had talked together, and during that time I hadn’t left his apartment. But they were insisting upon putting everything into hourly segments, and since I never look at the clock, I wasn’t able to tell them what time exactly I did everything. They insisted that I had left the apartment for a certain period of time to meet somebody, which for me I didn’t remember, but the interpreter said I probably had forgotten. [Sigh]...
AK: So what ended up happening was, that they told me to try to remember what I apparently, according to them, had forgotten. Under the amount of pressure of everyone yelling at me, and having them tell me that they were going to put me in prison for protecting somebody, that I wasn’t protecting, that I couldn’t remember, I tried to imagine that in some way they must have had…it was very difficult, because when I was there, at a certain point, I just…I couldn’t understand [Start of 15:19 minute video segment] why they were so sure that I was the one who knew everything. And so, in my confusion, I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said. They continued to say that I had met somebody, and they continued to put so much emphasis on this message that I had received from Patrick, and so I almost was convinced that I had met him. But I was confused.
CP: But—did you really meet him at the basketball court?
CP: Then how could you be convinced that you had met him?
AK: I was confused.
CP: When you said this, how many police inspectors were present?
AK: I don’t know how many were police officers or inspectors, but there were lots.
CP: Listen, but you were accompanied to the bar, they offered you a cappuccino over the night? They assisted you through the night?
AK: I was offered tea after I had made declarations.
CP: So they treated you well.
On November 6, 2007, at 1:45, you said that you went to the house in via della Pergola with Patrick. Did you go?
AK: The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were suggested by the public minister.
CP: Excuse me, but at 1:45, the pubblico ministero was not there, there was only the judicial police.
AK: Ha. They also were pressuring me.
CP: I understand, but were they telling you to say that, too, or did you say it of your own free will.
AK: They were suggesting paths of thought. They were suggesting the path of thought. They suggested the journey. So the first thing I said, “Okay, Patrick”. And then they said “Okay, where did you meet him? Did you meet him at your house? Did you meet him near your house?” “Euh, near my house, I don’t know.” Then my memories got mixed up. From other days, I remembered having met Patrick, at Piazza Grimana, so I said “Okay, Piazza Grimana.” It wasn’t as if I said “Oh, this is how it went.”
GCM: Please go ahead, avvocato.
CP: —which is the object of both declarations, the one at 1:45 and the one at 5:45. [Crossing voices.]
GCM: It was about facts, though?
CP: All right, I’ll reformulate the question. Meredith, before she was killed, did she have sex?
AK: I don’t know.
CP: Then why, in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45, did you say that Meredith had sex before she died?
AK: Under pressure, I imagined lots of different things, also because during the days that I was being questioned by the police, they suggested to me that she had been raped.
CP: And the police suggested to you to say this?
CP: And to make you say this, did they hit you?
CP: When you wrote the memorandum, were you hit by police?
CP: When you wrote the memorandum. Were you hit by police?
CP: Did the police suggest the contents?
CP: You gave it to them freely?
CP: Listen, in this memorandum, you say that you confirm the declarations you made the night before about what might have happened at your house with Patrick. Why did you freely and spontaneously confirm these declarations?
AK: Because I was no longer sure what was my imagination and what was real. So I wanted to say that I was confused, and that I couldn’t know. But at the same time, I knew I had signed those declarations. So I wanted to say that I knew I had made those declarations, but I was confused and not sure.
CP: But in fact, you were sure that Patrick was innocent?
AK: No, I wasn’t sure.
AK: Because I was confused! I imagined that it might have happened. I was confused.
CP: Did you see Patrick on November 1, yes or no?
CP: Did you meet him?
CP: Then why did you say that you saw him, met him, and walked home with him?
AK: Because the police and the interpreter told me that maybe I just wasn’t remembering these things, but I had to try to remember. It didn’t matter if I thought I was imagining it. I would remember it with time. So, the fact that I actually remembered something else was confusing to me. Because I remembered one thing, but under the pressure of the police, I forced myself to imagine another. I was confused. I was trying to explain this confusion, because they were making me accuse someone I didn’t want to accuse.
Relevant Questions By Knox Lawyer Ghirga
CP: I’ll repeat my question. On the 10th, you said to your mother: “It’s my fault that he’s here. I feel terrible.” Why didn’t you say this to the pubblico ministero?
LG?: I object! He’s already asked this question. And it was answered.
GCM: Yes. It was already asked.
CP: Yes, but she hasn’t answered!
LG?: Yes, she HAS answered!
CP: Can she answer? I didn’t understand.
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me. Please.
CP: I didn’t understand her answer, President. Can you explain?
GCM: So, the question was asked and has been asked again because—
CP: [speaking over him] Because I didn’t understand the answer!
GCM: —the defense lawyer has not understood why—in what regards the police, the accused has said that when they came to bring her paper, they said “Oh, another truth,” so her relations with them were such that she did not feel that she could tell them this circumstance. It remains to ask why she did not tell the pubblico ministero. This is what the lawyer is asking. For what concerns the police, we have heard her position and her answer. We’re talking about the period after the 10th of November, when this conversation with the mother was recorded. In what concerns the pubblico ministero, the lawyer is asking you why you didn’t feel the necessity, like with your mother, of telling him that Patrick Lumumba, as far as you were concerned, had nothing to do with all this.
AK: We are talking about when I was in front of the judge?
GCM: After the 10th of November.
AK: Frankly, I didn’t have good relations with the police after that period, nor with the pubblico ministero, because he also had suggested declarations that got written down in the declarations. I didn’t know where to turn. I felt better talking to my defense than to the police.
LG: All right, I’ve exhausted this topic. Now, I said we were just coming to the evening when you were called in, or rather when Raffaele was called in to the Questura on Nov 5. Where did you come from? Were you having dinner somewhere? Do you remember?
AK: We were at the apartment of a friend of his, who lived near his house, and we were having dinner with them, trying, I don’t know, to feel a bit of normality, when Raffaele was called by the police.
LG: Okay. So you went with him in the car, and you came in and they settled you somewhere, and later you were heard.
AK: Yes. What happened is that they weren’t expecting me to come. I went somewhere a bit outside near the elevator, and I had taken my homework with me, so I started to do my homework, and then I needed to do some “stretching”, so I did some “stretching”, and that’s when one policeman said something about my flexibility. A comment.
LG: Okay. Then you were interrogated, let’s say interrogated, it was just for information. So you were interrogated.
LG: During the interrogation, there were several people in the room, did someone come who was involved in Raffaele Sollecito’s interrogation? He was being interrogated in one place, you in another.
AK: So, there were lots and lots of people who came in and went out, and after one had come in and gone out, another policewoman told me that Raffaele said that I went out of the apartment—at least, Raffaele apparently said that I [stammering] had gone out of his house.
LG: Okay. And the episode of the text message came later? After this person came in and said that? You don’t remember?
AK: Yes, yes. I think it happened after they told me that.
LG: Now what interests me is that you should be precise about the term “hit”, because being hit is something…was it a cuff on the head, two cuffs on the head? How precise can you be about this “hitting”?
AK: So, during the interrogation, people were standing all around me, in front of me, behind me, one person was screaming at me from here, another person was shouting “No no no, maybe you just don’t remember” from over there, other people were yelling other things, and a policewoman behind me did this to me [you hear the sound of her giving two very little whacks].
LG: Once, twice?
AK: Twice. The first time I did this, I turned around to her, and she did it again.
LG: I wanted to know this precise detail.
LG: After all that, that whole conversation, that you told us about, and you had a crying crisis, did they bring you some tea, coffee, some cakes, something? When was that exactly?
AK: They brought me things only after I had made some declarations. So, I was there, they were all screaming at me, I only wanted to leave because I was thinking that my mother was arriving, and I said look, can I have my telephone, because I want to call my mom. They said no, and there was this big mess with them shouting at me, threatening me, and it was only after I made declarations that they started saying “No, no, don’t worry, we’ll protect you,” and that’s how it happened.
LG: Then you stayed in the Questura?
LG: Then, at midday, or one o’clock, we don’t know exactly, they brought you a paper called an arrest warrant. When they served you this warrant, it must have been around twelve, one o’clock. Do you remember?
AK: So, all papers they brought me to sign, at that point, they were all the same to me, so I can’t even say what I had to sign, arrest warrant, declarations, whatever, because at a certain point, I just wanted to sign and go home.
LG: Right. But instead?
AK: Instead, no. After a while they told me I had to stay in the Questura, so I had to stay, and I rolled up in a fetal position to try to sleep, on a chair, and I fell asleep, then I woke up, and I was there thinking and some people were going in and out, and during this period of time, I was telling them: “Look, I am really confused, these things don’t seem like what I remember, I remember something else.” And they said “No no no no no, you just stay quiet, you will remember it all later. So just stay quiet and wait, wait, wait, because we have to check some things.” And at that point I just didn’t understand anything. I even lost my sense of time.
LG: And I wanted to ask you after how long they took you to prison. At some point there was a car, a police wagon that took you to prison. After how much time was that? You don’t know?
AK: Well, I can’t say, but what I can say is that I stayed a while in the Questura, and during that time I kept trying to explain to the police that what I had said was not certain, and they took my shoes during that time and they took some pictures, they undressed me to take the pictures, and so it seemed like a long time.
LG: So it was between this time and the time you went to prison that you wrote the memorial?
AK: Yes. I wrote it there because, I asked to do it because I was telling them “Listen, you’re not hearing me, give me a piece of paper, and I’ll write this down in English to be sure you understand what I’m saying.” But I couldn’t really say that. I just said “Look, I’ll give you a present.” [Laughs.] It was because I wasn’t really able to speak or understand then. So I wrote that, but after I wrote the first pages, I was in the middle of writing this memorandum, they suddenly said “Hurry up, hurry up, finish because we have to take you to prison.” I stayed there like…I didn’t expect to go to prison, I thought maybe I hadn’t understood. I asked the policemen, the people who were around me, there, “But Why? I haven’t done anything.” And they said “No, it’s just bureaucracy. At least that’s what I understood.
LG: All right Amanda, okay. Thank you. So you went to prison and spent the night. When did you write the second memorial?
AK: So in prison I again asked for paper, because that’s how I’m used to expressing myself, the way I succeed best, also to organize my thoughts, I needed to write them down. I needed to reorganize all my thoughts, because at that point I was still confused, I still had these images in my memory that finally I understood were a mixture of real images in my memory from other days mixed with imagination. So I needed those pieces of paper, so I could take everything and put it in order.
LG: All right, I’ve finished the subject of the night in the Questura. When you made your first declaration, it was without the pubblico ministero. Then he came. Can you tell us if there was some discussion about a lawyer? If you remember, and whatever you remember.
AK: So, before they asked me to make further declarations—I really can’t tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing—but at one point I asked if I shouldn’t have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn’t know, but I’ve seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn’t want to collaborate with the police. So they told me no.
Amanda Knox’s first letter of Nov 9, 2007
This letter was entered in testimony by Knox’s lawyers on the first day. It was written by Knox to her lawyers around noon on Friday, Nov., 9, three days after her arrest and one day after the Matteini Hearing. Words that are missing from the scan are shown in square brackets.
Presumably intended to help Knox, it has now become part of her problem.
Per I Miei Avvocati
- Amanda Knox (Friday, Nov. 9, 2007)
Buon giorno Signore Ghirga e Signore Vedova. I’m sorry, but I must write in english to make sure I express myself [cl]early. Please excuse my handicap. I trust you are well, though probably very busy with my case and for this I thank you. What [I] want to provide for you now is help, because I know my position [is] a little confusing. I want to write for you everything I know as best I can and I especially want to tell you about this so-called “confession” that the police received from me. I want to begin with this “confession” because I know it is the most confusing, and so I will begin with that night.
The night of Monday, November 5th, 2007, and the following early morning of Tuesday, November 6th, 2007, was one of the worst experiences of my life, perhaps the worst. Around 10:30pm or 11pm Raffaele and I arrived at the police station after eating dinner at the apartment of one of Raffaele’s friends. It was Raffaele who the police called, not me, but I came with him to the Questura anyway while he was to be questioned for support, as he had done for me many times. When we arrived he was taken inside and I waited by the elevator and looked through my books while I waited. Not long aftwerward one of the police came and sat by me, wanting to talk with me, supposedly to pass the time. He didn’t tell me he was a police officer. In fact, he said I could tell him whatever I wanted because it wouldn’t matter. At the time I was frustrated and told him so. I thought it was ridiculaous that the police called us in at ridiculous hours of the night and kept us at the police station for hours on end with only vending maschine [sic] food to sustain us, especially since we [wer]e all doing our best to help the police. I had been asked twice to reenter the home of my neighbors and mine, first to witness the blood in the neighbors’ apartment and then to look through [k]nives in mine. I really feared the place. Inside my own home I broke down crying because I couldn’t stand to be inside. These were the reasons for my frustration and I told him so.
He then wanted to discuss who I thought the murderer could be, but as I had already told them before, since I wasn’t there at my home, I couldn’t have any idea, but [deleted words] he wasn’t satisfied with my answer. Who did I think it was? How would I know? I didn’t know anyone dangerous. Soon I was joined by other police people who only wanted to “talk” but who interrogated me again with the same questions. What males had ever been in my house? Who knew Meredith? Did I have any phone numbers? I gave them all the information I could. Names, phone numbers, descriptions. But it was all giving me a headache. I had already answered these questions before and I was confused as to why the police wanted so much to talk to me. Why me? Why did they keep asking me who I thought the murderer was when I already told them I had no idea?
And then they brought me inside, because it was “warmer”. I [asked] where Raffaele was and they told me he would be done soon [but] in the meantime they wanted to talk to me. The interrogation process started rather quickley [sic]. One minute I was just [tal?]king and the next they were asking me where I was between [?]:30pm and 1:30am between November [1st] and 2nd. I told them I was with my boyfriend, like I had already said. They asked me what I had done during this time period and I found that I couldn’t remember a lot. I told them [we] watched the movie Amelie together, that we ate dinner [tog]ether, that after dinner Raffaele washed the dishes and spilled water on the floor when the pipes came loose. I told them that [we] smoked hash somewhere in that time but I couldn’t remember [mo]re. They told me I was lying. They told me they knew I had [not] been with Raffaele. They told me they knew I met someone that night. They told me they had proof I was at my house that night. This really confused me. I told them I wasn’t lying and [the]y began to get angry. Stop telling lies, they told me. We know [you] were there! But this didn’t make sense. I was frightened, because I couldn’t for the life of me remember what I did during the time [the]y were asking me. What were you doing?! Where did you go?! We [kno]w you were at your house!! Who did you meet?! But this all [did]n’t make any sense. How could they have proof that I was at my [hou]se when I wasn’t? Why did they think these things? Why me? They told me Raffaele had finally told the truth and that he had no [rea]son to lie. They told me that they knew I had told Raffaele to [lie?] and I told them this wasn’t true. I had never told him any [suc]h thing. We talked about the message I received from Patrik [and] I told them yes, I received a message from Patrik, he told me [not] to go into work that night because there was no one there. I [did]n’t remember if I had sent a message back, so I said no, but they [had] taken my phone and showed me the message I forgot I sent: [ending?] with the words, “Ci vediamo. Buona serata.” They called me a [stu]pid lier. They said I was protecting someone, who was it?! [The]y stuck pieces of paper in front of me, to write down the name [of] the murder, but I didn’t know. And I still couldn’t remember [wha]t me and Raffaele had been doing at his house. I had nothing to [say?] to answer their questions and it was terrifying me. Why couldn’t [I r]emember. The interpretor told me that one time she experienced [a ho]rrible car accident and couldn’t remember what had happened [unt]il a year later. She told me perhaps I had seen something [horr]ible and I couldn’t remember. Since I couldn’t remember [wha]t I had been doing at Raffaele’s house I started to think what [...?] was true? What if I had seen something and I didn’t [rem]ember? But it didn’t make sense. I remembered being [at] Raffaele’s the whole night. But in the meantime the police were [...?] or they were going to put me in jail for [...?] [p]rotecting the killer. They told me they had already caught the killer [a]nd they just wanted me to say his name, but I knew nothing. My [m]ind was a blank slate. Now, now, now!!! They were yelling at me. One [p]olice officer hit me on the back of my head twice. My head was [s]earching for any answer. I was really confused. I thought I was at my boyfriend’s house, but what if it wasn’t true? What if I couldn’t remember? I tried and tried and tried, but I couldn’t remember anything until all of the police officers left the room except one. He [to]ld me he was the only one who could save me from spending the [n]ext 30 years in jail and I told him I couldn’t remember. I asked to see the message on my phone to see if I remembered sending that [an]d when I saw the message my mind thought of Patrik. It was all I could think of, Patrik. I imagined meeting him by the basketball [cou]rts, I imagined him in front of my house, I imagined covering my ears to stop the sound of Meredith’s screaming, and so I said [Pa]trik. I said Patrik and I regret every second of it because now I [k]now that what I have said has done someone harm that I have no idea whether he was involved or not.
After I said his name I was hysterical. I was weeping, [s]cared of what could have happened to me. I honestly thought [t]his could have been the answer. I was so confused. They told me that they had to write all of this down but I told them I wasn’t [s]ure. So they told me just to say what I had said, that I had seen [Pat]rik. That I had heard Meredith screaming. I told them I was [c]onfused, unsure, but they weren’t interested. While they were writing my so-called “confession”, which the didn’t call it [t]o me, they asked me to say if it was okay to write certain things. I [d]dn’t explain, but just said yes or no according to what these [im]ages of Patrik were showing me, but I always told them I wasn’t [su]re, these things didn’t seem real. They asked me why he had done [thi]s and I didn’t know why. Why would anyone kill another person? [I] told them he must be crazy. They asked me if I feared him and I [sa]id yes. I was so confused and the idea that he would kill someone [fr]ightened me. But I had never been frightened of him before, he has [al]ways been kind to me. After all of this I was allowed to sleep, [fi]nally. The whole thing was going through my head and I felt [aw]ful, to even think I could have been involved. But the more [confu]sed I became, the more sure I was that these ideas about Patrik [w]eren’t true, but I still couldn’t remember what I had been [do]ing at my boyfriend’s house after dinner.
I seriously started to doubt when the police told me what my boyfriend had said. (1) First, that when I received the message from [Pat]rik, that I had told him I had to leave to go to work. This I [k]new, even then, wasn’t true. I remembered and still do specifically [th]at I had told him I _didn’t_ have to work and I kissed him and [...]
[...] said, “Yay!” (2) I also never told him to lie for me. Why would he lie? Could he have lied about me not being there too? I was especially troubled by this because even though I had thought of Patrik, I still remembered being at Raffaele’s house. I told the police of my doubts but they said not to worry, little by little, I would remember. So I waited.
I tried writing what I could remember for the police, because I’ve always been better at thinking when I was writing. They gave me time to do this. In this message I wrote about my doubts, my questions, and what I knew to be true.
[Deleted words] During this time I was checked out by medics [and?] had my picture taken as well as more copies of my fingerprints. They took my shoes and my phone. I wanted to go home but they told me to wait and then eventually that I was to be arrested. Then I was taken here, to the prison, in the last car of three who carried Patrik, then Raffaele, and then me to prison.
I hope this clears up some confusion for you and I’m sorry again that it is in English. I hope you are in contact with my mother and if you are, could you please tell her I love her, that I miss her, that I’m okay, and that I hope to see her soon.
I also just received the order of arrest and it says I must remain here in prison for one year. I’m assuming this means only if they can prove I did it or not. So I’m not sad, I just have to wait until they prove I’m not guilty, and that I wasn’t there.
I want to write another message for you which describes my version of events that at this time I remember very well. This I will do on a different piece of paper and a little later because I’m very tired.
Good luck and thanks,
Venerdi, Novembre 9, 2007
Part 2 (Day Two) in our next post.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (15)
Friday, August 28, 2015
Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #4
Posted by Chimera
The Dark Force: evil for evil’s sake? This is a long post, click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Overview Of This Post
I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here. Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition. Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. And Post #3 disected pages 108 to 172.
2. Dissection Of Pages 173 to 207.
[Chapter 15, Page 173] ‘’ ... Her empathy and advice always made me feel on safe ground. I didn’t really get into trouble in high school, but I knew that if I did, she would support me through the situation. When I was at odds with myself, she’d reassure me that I was worthy of a happy life….’‘
[Chapter 15, Page 173] ‘’ ... Now my no-questions-asked, I’ll-come-help-you-wherever-you-are mother sat across from me in an empty room in Capanne Prison. This time she couldn’t just make it all go away. She couldn’t do anything but comfort me….’‘
[Chapter 15, Page 174] ‘’ ... “I’m so sorry, Mom. I’m so sorry,” I moaned. “I didn’t mean for any of this to happen.”
I had so much to explain. After four days of being ordered around and ignored, I was finally in front of the one person who had always listened. But I worried that the overwhelming need I’d felt to tell the police what they wanted to hear wouldn’t make sense to anyone who had never been pushed so far. How could I explain it to her when I didn’t even understand it myself? More than anything, I needed my mother to believe me….’‘
[Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... I went through my interrogation with her step by step—the repeated questions, the yelling, the threats, the slaps. I explained to her how terrified I’d felt…’‘
[Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... “I didn’t come up with those things on my own,” I said. “I told them I’d been with Raffaele all night at his apartment. But they demanded to know whom I’d left to meet, who Patrick was, if I had let him into the villa. They insisted I knew who the murderer was, that I’d be put in jail for thirty years if I didn’t cooperate.”
[Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... I told her that I had signed the witness statements out of confusion and exhaustion, that as soon as I had a few minutes by myself, I realized that what I’d said under pressure might be wrong. “I thought I could fix my mistake by explaining it in writing,” I said. “Instead, they arrested me.”
[Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... The immense burden I’d been carrying by myself lifted. I felt light-headed with relief. It was the first time since before my arrest that I’d talked to someone who knew I was innocent, who believed in me. I had longed to hear that for days—from anyone! Of course it came from the most important person in my life….’‘
‘’ I tried to answer, to say, “I’m okay,” but I couldn’t stop the surge of tears. Lupa asked her colleague to unlock the door and came inside. She squatted in front of me and took my cold hands in her large ones and rubbed them. “You have to stay strong,” she said. “Everything will be figured out soon.”
[Chapter 15, Page 176] ‘’ ... Since the hearing, I’d realized that she couldn’t mamma-bear me out of prison. “Now I’ll have to stay here until the prosecutor figures out there isn’t any evidence against me—that I wasn’t at the scene of Meredith’s murder.”
Mom squeezed my hands reassuringly. “I promise everything’s going to be okay, Amanda. It’s not your fault that the police scared you—you tried to fix things.”
[Chapter 15, Page 177] ‘’ ... “I’ll be back in a few days—as soon as they let me,” Mom said. “Carlo and Luciano will come talk to you again, and your dad is flying over. This is all a big misunderstanding, and it will get fixed. We’ll be here with you for as long as it takes. We’ll get through this together. I love you so much.”
[Chapter 15, Page 177] ‘’ ... My imprisonment didn’t change the dynamic between Mom and Dad. They didn’t suddenly seem like close friends. They didn’t show affection for each other. They both focused on me. But it made me swell with love for my parents to see that even though they were marked by their failed marriage, they were able to create a united front.
They’d arranged this visit together. They were talking to Luciano and Carlo together…’‘
[Chapter 15, Page 178] ‘’ ... Capanne made eight hours available for visitors each month—on Tuesdays and Saturdays—but the prison allowed each prisoner only six visits. This infuriated my parents, who wanted to be there each time the prison was open to outsiders. It made me crazy, too. Eventually Carlo and Luciano were able to arrange eight colloqui a month, and sometimes nine, by pleading with the prison authorities that my family had to come so far to see me. Even with the bumped-up hours, the amount of time I was able to spend with the people I loved was such a tiny fraction of the thousands of hours I was locked up, trapped among strangers…’‘
[Chapter 15, Page 179] ‘’ ... Without them, I think I would have had a complete breakdown. I would not have been able to survive my imprisonment.
Before my parents left together that first time, Mom grasped my hands again, leaned toward me, and, tears brimming, said urgently, “Amanda, I’d do anything to take your place. Your job now is to take care of yourself. I’m worried for you being here.”
Her words underscored what we all knew: that while my parents had my back, they couldn’t take care of me from day to day. I had to navigate prison alone. For other prisoners, the key to survival was to find someone to bond with, and that person would protect you and guide you through. But there was no one like me, no one I could confide in, no one whom I could trust to take me under her wing…’‘
[Chapter 16, Page 181] ‘’ ... In spite of all that had happened, I believed that the police, the prosecutor, a judge —some official—would look at the facts and realize how wrong they’d been. They’d be jolted by the obvious: that I was incapable of murder. Surely someone would see that there was no evidence. My belief that my imprisonment was temporary was all that kept me from being overwhelmed. I guess my faith in eventual justice is what psychologists call a coping mechanism…’‘
[Chapter 16, Page 182] ‘’ ... In the days after Meredith’s death I’d insisted on staying in Perugia. Back then, going home meant defeat. But my wants flipped with my arrest. Now the only thing that mattered was to reclaim my life in Seattle. I considered what I would do once my ordeal was over—how I’d rebuild myself, whether I’d live with Mom or find a place of my own, whether I’d go back to school or get a job, how much I wanted to reunite with the people I loved…’‘
[Chapter 16, Page 182] ‘’ ... A guard gave me an order form for groceries and other basics—ranging from salt to sewing needles—and a libretto, an eight-and-a-half-by-eleven-inch piece of paper folded in half with a handwritten spreadsheet inside to track what I spent. I had two hundred euros—about three hundred dollars—in my prison account from the purse/book bag they’d impounded upon my arrival. The order form was divided into three columns for the name of the item, the code number, and the quantity. Gufa badgered me to buy her a camp stove and a coffeemaker, but I refused to order so much as a carton of milk. I’d be gone before it reached its expiration date…’‘
[Chapter 16, Page 183] ‘’ ... Getting me out of jail was the first priority whenever I talked to Carlo and Luciano. Their take was that when the media frenzy died down in a couple of weeks, a judge would probably put me under house arrest, either with my family or in a religious community. Then, when the prosecution saw they had no evidence against me, they would let me go…’‘
[Chapter 16, Page 186] ‘’ ... Early on, I started keeping a journal, which I titled “Il mio diario del prigione”—“My Prison Diary”—on the cover:
My friend was murdered. My roommate, my friend. She was beautiful, smart, fun, and caring and she was murdered. Everyone I know is devastated for her, but we are also all at odds. We are angry. We want justice. But against who? We all want to know, but we all don’t . . .
Now there’s the sound of women wailing through bars and the sounds of wheels of the medicine carts rolling down the hard floors of the echoing halls.’‘
[Chapter 16, Page 186] ‘’ ... But I spent most of my time sitting on my bed wondering what was happening beyond the sixty-foot-high walls topped with coiled razor wire. What were my parents and family and friends doing and thinking? What was happening with the investigation? How long would it take to examine the forensic evidence that would clear me? ...’‘
[Chapter 16, Page 186] ‘’ ... Underneath every thought there was a bigger, louder one looping through my head. How could I have been so weak when I was interrogated? How did I lose my grip on the truth? Why didn’t I stand up to the police? I’d failed myself, Meredith, Patrick, Raffaele…’‘
[Chapter 16, Page 192] ‘’ ... But sometimes what I thought was a kind overture would take an ugly turn. I was required to meet with Vice-Comandante Argirò every night at 8 P.M. in his office—the last order before lights out at 9 P.M. I thought he wanted to help me and to understand what had happened at the questura, but almost immediately I saw that he didn’t care.
When I ran into him in the hallway he’d hover over me, his face inches from mine, staring, sneering. “It’s a shame you’re here,” he’d say, “because you are such a pretty girl,” and “Be careful what you eat—you have a nice, hourglass figure, and you don’t want to ruin it like the other people here.”
[Chapter 16, Page 193] ‘’ ... At first when he brought up sex I pretended I didn’t understand. “I’m sorry—Mi dispiace,” I’d say, shaking my head. But every night after dinner, I felt a knot in the pit of my stomach. I had no choice but to meet with him. After about a week of this behavior, I told my parents what Argirò was saying. My dad said, “Amanda, he shouldn’t be doing that! You’ve got to tell someone!”
[Chapter 16, Page 194] ‘’ ... Silently, I rehearsed what I would say to him: “These conversations repulse me.” But when we were face-to-face, I balked, settling on something more diplomatic—“Your questions make me uncomfortable,” I said.
“Why?” he asked.
I thought, Because you’re an old perv. Instead I said, “I’m not ashamed of my sexuality, but it’s my own business, and I don’t like to talk about it.”
[Chapter 16, Page 194] ‘’ ... Luciano looked revolted, and Carlo urged me, “Anytime Argirò calls you alone into an office, tell him you don’t want to speak with him. He could be talking about sex because Meredith was supposedly the victim of a sexual crime and he wants to see what you’ll say. It could be a trap.”
[Chapter 16, Page 195] ‘’ ... One night, Argirò asked me if I dreamed about sex, if I fantasized about it.
Finally I got up my courage. I took a deep breath. “For the last time,” I said, my voice pitched, “No! Why are you constantly asking me about sex?”
[Chapter 17, Page 197] ‘’ ... Vice-Comandante Argirò broke the news. Instead of his usual greeting—a lecherous smile and a kiss on both cheeks—he stayed seated behind his desk. His cigarette was trailing smoke. His face was somber. Something was wrong….’
[Chapter 17, Page 197] ‘’ ... He pushed a printout of an Italian news article toward me. It took me a minute to translate the headline: “Murder Weapon Found—With DNA of Victim and Arrested Suspect Knox.” Beneath was a fuzzy photograph of a kitchen knife and the words “A knife has been found in Sollecito’s apartment with Knox’s DNA on the handle and the victim’s DNA on the blade. Investigators believe it to be the murder weapon.” That doesn’t make sense. I must have read it wrong.
I made myself start over, slowly rereading the story, checking each word as I went. By the end I knew language wasn’t the barrier.
Argirò glared at me cruelly. “Do you have anything to say?” he asked. “It’s impossible!” I blurted. “I didn’t kill Meredith! I’m innocent! I don’t care what the article says! It’s wrong!”
“It’s proof,” Argirò said, smirking. “Your fingerprints. Her DNA.” “I don’t know anything about a knife,” I said. “You can’t prove that I’m guilty when I’m innocent.”
The short conversation ended in a stalemate. I glowered at him. “Why don’t you go back to your cell and think about what you want to say,” Argirò said….’‘
[Chapter 17, Page 198] ‘’ ... Investigators were claiming that I’d been responsible for holding Meredith down while either Patrick or Raffaele cut her throat, that I’d pressed so hard on Meredith’s face during the attack I’d left an imprint of my fingers on her chin. The police said that because the bruises were small, they’d come from a woman’s fingers, even though that’s not how it works. “It isn’t like a fingerprint,” Carlo explained. “You can’t tell the size of the hand by the size of the bruise. It depends on the circumstances and the pressure.”
[Chapter 17, Page 198] ‘’ ... This was another example of the prosecution misinterpreting evidence so it would put me at the murder scene and discounting the things that didn’t fit into their explanation. They had done the same thing a few days before, when they circulated the idea that only a woman would have covered Meredith’s ravaged body with a blanket. A few years later I learned that this is something first-time killers also often do. The detectives didn’t mention how improbable it is for a woman to commit a violent crime, especially against another woman. Nor did they acknowledge that I didn’t fit the profile of a violent woman. I’d never been in a gang; I had no history of violence…’‘
[Chapter 17, Page 199] ‘’ ... In mid-November the press announced that the striped sweater I’d worn the night of the murder was missing, implying I’d gotten rid of it to hide bloodstains. In truth I’d left it on top of my bed when I came home to change on the morning of November 2. The investigators found it in January 2008—in the same spot where I’d taken it off. It was captured in photos taken of my room, which my lawyers saw among the official court documents deposited as the investigation progressed. The prosecution quietly dropped the “missing sweater” as an element in the investigation without correcting the information publicly. Convinced that arguing the case in the media would dilute our credibility in the courtroom, Carlo and Luciano let the original story stand…’‘
[Chapter 17, Page 199] ‘’ ... The police leaked this to the local press, and it rippled out from there. If true, it would have contradicted my alibi: I hadn’t left Raffaele’s apartment that night. The local headlines in those days often read “Amanda Smentita”—“Amanda Found in a Lie.” It bolstered the prosecution’s characterization of me as a depraved, deceitful person capable of murder…’‘
[Chapter 17, Page 200] ‘’ ... The press reported police claims that Raffaele and I had destroyed the hard drives on four computers—his, mine, Filomena’s, and Meredith’s. False…’‘
[Chapter 17, Page 200] ‘’ ... Later, when a computer expert examined the computers, he discovered that the police had fried the hard drives. Whether it was on purpose or out of extraordinary incompetence, I never learned. But it’s hard to see how they could inadvertently have wiped out four computers, one after the other. My computer wouldn’t have given me an alibi. All investigators would have found was evidence of Meredith’s and my friendship—pictures from the Eurochocolate festival and of our hanging out at home.
Journalists reported that the police had confiscated “incriminating” receipts for bleach, supposedly from the morning of November 2. False…’‘
[Chapter 17, Page 201] ‘’ ... A knife from Raffaele’s kitchen with DNA from both Meredith and me wasn’t possible. In the week I’d known him, I’d used Raffaele’s chef’s knives to cook with, but we had never taken them out of his kitchen…’‘
[Chapter 17, Page 202] ‘’ ... I couldn’t believe what they were asking me. “No! It’s impossible!” I shrieked, my body starting to shake. “The police have made a mistake. I never left Raffaele’s that night, I never took a knife from his apartment, and Meredith never visited me there. I didn’t have any reason to be angry with Meredith. And even if we’d had a fight I would have talked to her, not killed her!”
[Chapter 17, Page 202] ‘’ ... Investigators apparently had confiscated the knife—a chef’s knife with a black plastic handle and a six-and-a-half-inch blade—when they searched Raffaele’s apartment after our arrest. It was the only knife they considered out of every location they’d impounded, the top knife in a stack of other knives in a drawer that housed the carrot peeler and the salad tongs. I’d probably used it to slice tomatoes when Raffaele and I made dinner the night Meredith was killed.
The officer who confiscated the knife claimed that he’d been drawn to it by “investigative intuition.” It had struck him as suspiciously clean, as though we’d scrubbed it. When he chose it, he didn’t even know the dimensions of Meredith’s stab wounds….’‘
[Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... The knife was a game changer for my lawyers, who now feared that the prosecution was mishandling evidence and building an unsubstantiated case against me. Carlo and Luciano went from saying that the lack of evidence would prove my innocence to warning me that the prosecution was out to get me, and steeling me for a fight. “There’s no counting on them anymore,” Carlo said. “We’re up against a witch hunt. But it’s going to be okay.”
[Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... I was choked with fear. The knife was my first inkling that the investigation was not going as I’d expected. I didn’t accept the possibility that the police were biased against me. I believed that the prosecution would eventually figure out that it wasn’t the murder weapon and that I wasn’t the murderer. In retrospect I understand that the police were determined to make the evidence fit their theory of the crime, rather than the other way around, and that theory hinged on my involvement. But something in me refused to see this then…’
[Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... My journal must have been what they were looking for, because Meredith’s British girlfriends testified after my arrest that I’d been writing in it in the waiting room at the questura. I had done so to calm myself, but soon the contents were leaked to the press. In it, they found, among other things, my comments about wanting to compose a song in tribute to Meredith. (Ironically, I would later get a bill for the translation of the journal into Italian.) ...’‘
[Chapter 17, Page 204] ‘’ ... The officer shook his head and laughed derisively. “Another story? Another lie?” he scoffed. He looked at me as if I were the most vile, worthless thing he’d ever laid eyes on. No one had ever stared at me with so much hatred. To him, I was a lying, remorseless murderer. I heaved back great waves of anger but waited to get back to my cell before I broke down at the ugliness of it all—my friend being dead, my being in prison, the police following a cold and irrational trail because they had nothing better…’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 205] ‘’ ... My Italian was still elementary enough that if I wasn’t paying close attention, I couldn’t grasp much of what was being said. I embraced my new routine—do as many sit-ups as I could manage, write, read, repeat—as if ignoring the reports would make me immune to them, that they couldn’t hurt me. I convinced myself that whatever awful things the media were saying about me were irrelevant to the case. It doesn’t matter, I told myself. But in my heart I knew it did…’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 206] ‘’ ... I felt violated, indignant that journalists could say or imply anything they wanted, that they could use my photo as a symbol of evil. I now understood the belief in some tribal cultures that having your picture taken robs you of your soul….’‘
[Chapter 18, Page 207] ‘’ ... Overnight my old nickname became my new persona. I was now known to the world as Foxy Knoxy or, in Italian, Volpe Cattiva—literally, “Wicked Fox.” “Foxy Knoxy” was necessary to the prosecution’s case. A regular, friendly, quirky schoolgirl couldn’t have committed these crimes. A wicked fox would be easier to convict.
They were convinced that Meredith had been raped—they’d found her lying on the floor half undressed, a pillow beneath her hips—and that the sexual violence had escalated to homicidal violence.
They theorized that the break-in was faked. To make me someone whom a jury would see as capable of orchestrating the rape and murder of my friend, they had to portray me as a sexually deviant, volatile, hate-filled, amoral, psychopathic killer. So they called me Foxy Knoxy. That innocent nickname summed up all their ideas about me…’‘
Archived in The former defendants, Amanda Knox, Other legal processes, Knox calunnia, Family + defense hoaxers, Knox-Mellas team, Lies in Knox book
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (19)
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #3
Posted by Chimera
The Dark Force: evil for evil’s sake? This is a long post, click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Overview Of This Post
Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith. And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does it muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.
2. Dissection Of Pages 107 to 168
[Chapter 10 Page 107] ‘’ ... That afternoon at Raffaele’s, I got a text from one of Meredith’s friends—a student from Poland—telling me about a candlelight memorial service for Meredith that night. Everyone was supposed to meet downtown, on Corso Vannucci, at 8 P.M. and walk in a procession to the Duomo. I kept wondering about what I should do. I wanted to be there but couldn’t decide if it was a good idea for me to go to such a public event. I was sure the people I ran into would ask me what I knew about the murder. In the end my decision was made for me—Raffaele had somewhere else to be, and I wouldn’t have considered going alone. It didn’t occur to me that people would later read my absence as another indication of guilt.
At around 9 P.M. Raffaele and I went to a neighbor’s apartment for a late dinner. Miserable and unable to sit still, I plucked absentmindedly at his friend’s ukulele, propped on a shelf in the living room. At about ten o’clock, while we were eating,Raffaele’s phone rang. “Pronto,” Raffaele said, picking up…’‘
[Chapter 10, Page17] ‘’... Raffaele said, “We’re just eating dinner. Would you mind if I finished first?” That was a bad idea, too.
While we cleared the table, Raffaele and I chatted quickly about what I should do while he was at the police station. I was terrified to be alone, even at his place, and uneasy about hanging out with someone I didn’t know. I could quickly organize myself to stay overnight with Laura or Filomena, but that seemed so complicated—and unnecessary. Tomorrow, when my mom arrived, this wouldn’t be a question we’d have to discuss.
“I’m sure it’s going to be quick,” Raffaele said. I said, “I’ll just come with you.” Did the police know I’d show up, or were they purposefully separating Raffaele and me? When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside, that I’d have to wait for Raffaele in the car. I begged them to change their minds. I said, “I’m afraid to be by myself in the dark.”
They gave me a chair outside the waiting room, by the elevator. I’d been doing drills in my grammar workbook for a few minutes when a silver-haired police officer—I never learned his name—came and sat next to me. He said, “As long as you’re here, do you mind if I ask you some questions?”
I was still clueless, still thinking I was helping the police, still unable or unwilling to recognize that I was a suspect. But as the next hours unfolded, I slowly came to understand that the police were trying to get something out of me, that they wouldn’t stop until they had it.
I’d done this so many times in the questura I felt as if I could dial it in. And finally someone there seemed nice. “Okay,” I said, starting in. “There are the guys who live downstairs.”As I was running through the list of male callers at No. 7, Via della Pergola, I suddenly remembered Rudy Guede for the first time. I’d met him only briefly. I said “Oh, and there’s this guy—I don’t know his name or his number—all I know is that heplays basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced Meredith and me to him in Piazza IV Novembre. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.
[Chapter 11, Page 125] ‘’ ... I signed my second “spontaneous declaration” at 5:45 A.M., just as the darkness was beginning to soften outside the small window on the far side of the interrogation room…’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 125] ‘’ ... The room emptied in a rush. Except for Rita Ficarra, who sat at the wooden desk where she’d been all night, I was alone in the predawn hush. Just a few more hours and I’ll see Mom, I thought. We’ll spend the night in a hotel.
I asked permission to push two metal folding chairs together, balled myself into the fetal position, and passed out, spent. I probably didn’t sleep longer than an hour before doubt pricked me awake. Oh my God, what if I sent the police in the wrong direction? They’ll be looking for the wrong person while the real killer escapes. I sat up crying, straining to remember what had happened on the night of Meredith’s murder. Had I really met Patrick? Had I even been at the villa? Did I make all that up? I was too exhausted, too rattled, to think clearly. I was gripped by uncertainty about what I’d said to the police and the pubblico ministero. I tried to get Ficarra’s attention. “Um, scusi,” I murmured tentatively. “I’m not sure what I told you is right.” “The memories will come back with time,” Ficarra answered mechanically, barely raising her eyes to look at me. “You have to think hard.”
[Chapter 11, Page 126] ‘’ ... I tried to weave the images that had flashed in my mind the night before into a coherent sequence. But my memories—of Patrick, the villa, Meredith’s screams—were disjointed, like pieces of different jigsaw puzzles that had ended up in the same box by mistake. They weren’t ever meant to fit together. I’d walked by the basketball court near the villa every day. I’d said, “It was Patrick,” because I saw his face. I imagined him in his brown jacket because that’s what he usually wore. The more I realized how fragmented these images were, the closer I came to understanding that they weren’t actual memories….’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 126] ‘’ ... Suddenly my cell phone, which had been lying on the desk since it was waved in my face, lit up and started ringing. Ficarra ignored this. “Can I please answer it?” I begged.
“I’m sure it’s my mom; I’m supposed to meet her at the train station. She’ll freak out if I don’t answer.” “No,” Ficarra said. “You cannot have your phone back. Your phone is evidence.”
[Chapter 11, Page 127] ‘’ ... Around 2 P.M. on Tuesday—it was still the same day, although it felt as if it should be two weeks later—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. With my sneakers confiscated, I trailed her down the stairs wearing only my socks. She turned and said, “Sorry I hit you. I was just trying to help you remember the truth.”
[Chapter 11, Page 127] ‘’ ... I was still too confused to know what the truth was….’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 128] ‘’ ... I didn’t want them to think I was a bad person. I wanted them to see me as I was —as Amanda Knox, who loved her parents, who did well in school, who respected authority, and whose only brush with the law had been a ticket for violating a noise ordinance during a college party I’d thrown with my housemates in Seattle. I wanted to help the police track down the person who’d murdered my friend…’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 128] ‘’ ... What I did not know was that the police and I had very different ideas about where I stood. I saw myself as being helpful, someone who, having lived with Meredith, could answer the detectives’ questions. I would do that as long as they wanted. But the police saw me as a killer without a conscience. It would be a long time before I figured out that our presumptions were exactly the opposite of each other’s….’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 129] ‘’ ... “We need to take you into custody,” she said. “Just for a couple of days—for bureaucratic reasons.”
[Chapter 11, Page 129] ‘’ ... I needed to say that I had doubts about what I’d signed, to let the police know they couldn’t rely on my declarations as the truth. I knew that undoing the cops’ work would almost surely mean they’d scream at me all over again. As paralyzing as that thought was, I had to risk it. In naming Patrick, I’d unintentionally misled them. What if they thought I did it on purpose? They’d wasted time on me when they could have been out pursuing the real killer….’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 130] ‘’ ... “Can I have a piece of paper?” I asked Ficarra. “I need to write down in English what I’m trying to tell you, because you apparently don’t understand me right now. You can bring the paper to someone who can tell you what it says in Italian. We can communicate better that way. You’re telling me that I’m going to remember when I’m telling you that I am remembering, and that I doubt what I said is true.”
She handed me a few sheets of paper and a pen. “You’d better write fast,” she said. “We have to get going.”
[Chapter 11, Page 135] ‘’ ... I finished writing and handed the pages to Ficarra. I didn’t remember the word for “explanation.” “This is a present for you”—“un regalo,” I said.
She said, “What is it—my birthday?” I felt so much lighter. I knew that I was blameless, and I was sure that was obvious to everyone. We’d just had a misunderstanding. I’d cleared the record. ....’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 136] ‘’ ... I was on the police’s side, so I was sure they were on mine. I didn’t have a glimmer of understanding that I had just made my situation worse. I didn’t get that the police saw me as a brutal murderer who had admitted guilt and was now trying to squirm out of a hard-won confession….’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 136] ‘’ ... My memoriale changed nothing. As soon as I gave it to Ficarra, I was taken into the hall right outside the interrogation room, where a big crowd of cops gathered around me. I recognized Pubblico Ministero Giuliano Mignini, who I still believed was the mayor….”
[Chapter 11, Page 136] ‘’ ... I thought that they were keeping me to protect me. But why would they have to arrest me? And why did they have to take me to prison? I’d imagined that maybe “custody” meant I’d be given a room in the questura. That Mom could be there with me….’
[Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... Still, what came next shocked me. After my arrest, I was taken downstairs to a room where, in front of a male doctor, female nurse, and a few female police officers, I was told to strip naked and spread my legs. I was embarrassed because of my nudity, my period—I felt frustrated and helpless. The doctor inspected the outer lips of my vagina and then separated them with his fingers to examine the inner. He measured and photographed my intimate parts. I couldn’t understand why they were doing this. I thought, Why is this happening? What’s the purpose of this? ....’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... Next they checked my entire body for cuts and bruises, clawing through my hair to get to my scalp and inspecting the bottoms of my feet. A female police officer pointed out different places to examine and document. I thought, Why are they measuring the length of my arms and the breadth of my hands? What does it matter how big my feet are? Later, I realized they were trying to fit the crime to my dimensions. What would Meredith’s wounds be like if I’d been the one who stabbed her? Could I have stabbed her from my height? They took pictures of anything they thought would be significant….’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... I asked to use the bathroom. A female police officer stood in front of the stall with the door open. Why is she standing here? I can’t relax enough to pee, even if she’s looking away. I guessed this unwanted guardian was somehow supposed to keep me safe.
Eventually I put aside my inhibitions long enough to be able to pee. After that they closed the handcuffs back around my wrists. I think they’d left them intentionally loose, but I was so submissive I reported their breach. “Excuse me,” I said. “But I can slip my hand out.”
[Chapter 11, Page 139] ‘’ ... I just wanted this ordeal to end.’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 139] ‘’ ... I was consumed by worry for Patrick. I felt that time was running out for him if I didn’t remember for sure what had happened the night of Meredith’s murder. When I’d said, “It was Patrick,” in my interrogation, the police pushed me to tell them where he lived. As soon as I’d mentioned his neighborhood, several officers surrounding me raced out. I figured that they’d gone to question him. I didn’t know that it was too late, that they’d staged a middle-of-the-night raid on Patrick’s house and arrested him….’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 140] ‘’ ... Finally our car pulled through the main gate of the Casa Circondariale Capanne di Perugia—not that I knew where we were—and came to a stop inside a dim, cavernous garage. As the doors rumbled closed, I was allowed to sit up. A uniformed prison guard came over, and I tried to catch his eye. I wanted someone, anyone, to look at me and see me for who I was—Amanda Knox, a terrified twenty-year-old girl. He looked through me….’‘
[Chapter 11, Page 141] ‘’ ... Ficarra ahead of me, the other officer behind, each gripping one of my arms. Once inside, they let go. “This is where we leave you,” they said. One of them leaned in to give me a quick, awkward hug. “Everything’s going to be okay. The police will take care of you.”
“Thank you,” I said. I gave her a last, beseeching look, hoping this meant that finally they knew we were on the same side….’‘
[Chapter 12, Page 144] ‘’ ... The cold traveled up from the concrete floor and through my bare feet. I hugged myself for warmth, waiting—for what? What’s coming next? Surely they wouldn’t give me a uniform, since I was a special case. It wouldn’t make sense, since I’d be in prison so briefly.
“Your panties and bra, please,” Lupa said. She was polite, even gentle, but it was still an order.
I stood naked in front of strangers for the second time that day. Completely disgraced, I hunched over, shielding my breasts with one arm. I had no dignity left. My eyes filled with tears. Cinema ran her fingers around the elastic of the period-stained red underwear I’d bought with Raffaele at Bubble, when I thought it’d be only a couple of days before I’d buy more with my mom….’‘
[Chapter 12, Page 147] ‘’ ... When I’d first been brought inside from the squad car, I’d seen Raffaele through a barred glass window, locked in a hallway near the prison entrance. He was wearing his gray faux fur–lined jacket and was pacing back and forth, his head down. It was the first time since we’d been separated that I’d seen more than his feet. He didn’t look at me. I’d wondered if he hated me.
Raffaele and I hadn’t been together long, but I’d believed I knew him well. Now I felt I didn’t know him at all….’‘
[Chapter 12, Page 149] ‘’ ... “I feel terrible about what happened at the police office. No one was listening to me,” I said. Tears sprang to my eyes again.
“Hold up there, now,” Argirò said. “Wouldn’t listen to you?” the doctor asked. “I was hit on the head, twice,” I said. The doctor gestured to the nurse, who parted my hair and looked at my scalp.
“Not hard,” I said. “It just startled me. And scared me.” “I’ve heard similar things about the police from other prisoners,” the guard standing in the background said. Their sympathy gave me the wrongheaded idea that the prison officials were distinct and distant from the police.
“Do you need anything to sleep?” the doctor asked. I didn’t know what he meant, because the idea of taking a sleeping pill was as foreign to me as being handcuffed. “No,” I said. “I’m really tired already.”
[Chapter 13, Page 154] ‘’ ... Argirò had said this seclusion was to protect me from other prisoners—that it was standard procedure for people like me, people without a criminal record—but they were doing more than just keeping me separate. In forbidding me from watching TV or reading, in prohibiting me from contacting the people I loved and needed most, in not offering me a lawyer, and in leaving me alone with nothing but my own jumbled thoughts, they were maintaining my ignorance and must have been trying to control me, to push me to reveal why or how Meredith had died….’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 154] ‘’ ... But I had nothing more to tell them. I was desolate. My scratchy wool blanket didn’t stop the November chill from seeping bone deep. I lay on my bed crying, trying to soothe myself by softly singing the Beatles song “Let It Be,” over and over….’‘
[Chapter 10, Page 154] ‘’ ... I tried to answer, to say, “I’m okay,” but I couldn’t stop the surge of tears. Lupa asked her colleague to unlock the door and came inside. She squatted in front of me and took my cold hands in her large ones and rubbed them. “You have to stay strong,” she said. “Everything will be figured out soon.”
[Chapter 10, Page 155] ‘’ ... Six days ago I believed that I could, and should, cope with Meredith’s murder by myself. But everything had broken down so quickly. I was sure that if I’d asked for Mom’s help sooner, I wouldn’t have felt so trapped and alone during my interrogation. I could have stopped it. If my mom, my lifeline, had been ready to jump to my defense on the other side of the door, I’d be staying with her now, not in prison by myself….’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 155] ‘’ ... And then, right after the nun had left, detail after detail suddenly came back to me.
I read a chapter in Harry Potter. We watched a movie. We cooked dinner. We smoked a joint. Raffaele and I had sex. And then I went to sleep.
[Chapter 13, Page 156] ‘’ ... I quickly wrote at the top of the page: “To the person who must know this.” Unlike my first memoriale, this one expressed less doubt and more certainty about where I’d been the night Meredith was killed. I rushed to get it down, so excited to finally be able to make sense of my memories for myself, and to be able to explain myself to the police. It read:
[Chapter 13, Page 156, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... Oh my God! I’m freaking out a bit now because I talked to a nun and I finally remember. It can’t be a coincidence. I remember what I was doing with Raffaele at the time of the murder of my friend! We are both innocent! This is why: After dinner Raffaele began washing the dishes in the kitchen and I was giving him a back massage while he was doing it….’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 156, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... [backrubs are ] something we do for one another when someone is cleaning dishes, because it makes cleaning better. I remember now that it was AFTER dinner that we smoked marijuana and while we smoked I began by saying that he shouldn’t worry about the sink. He was upset because the sink was broken but it was new and I told him to not worry about it because it was only a little bad thing that had happened, and that little bad things are nothing to worry about…’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 156, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... We began to talk more about what kind of people we were. We talked about how I’m more easy-going and less organized than he is, and how he is very organized because of the time he spent in Germany. It was during this conversation that Raffaele told me about his past. How he had a horrible experience with drugs and alcohol. He told me that he drove his friends to a concert and that they were using cocaine, marijuana, he was drinking rum, and how, after the concert, when he was driving his passed-out friends home, how he had realized what a bad thing he had done and had decided to change.
He told me about how in the past he dyed his hair yellow and another time when he was young had cut designs in his hair. He used to wear earrings. He did this because when he was young he played video games and watched Sailor Moon, a Japanese girl cartoon, and so he wasn’t a popular kid at school. People made fun of him. I told him about how in high school I had been unpopular as well, because the people in my school thought I was a lesbian. We talked about his friends, how they hadn’t changed from drug-using video game players, and how he was sad for them.
We talked about his mother, how she had died and how he felt guilty because he had left her alone before she died. He told me that before she died she told him she wanted to die because she was alone and had nothing to live for. I told Raffaele that wasn’t his fault that his mother was depressed and wanted to die. I told him he did the right thing by going to school….’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 157, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... I told him that life is full of choices, and those choices aren’t necessarily between good and bad. There are options between what is best and what is not, and all we have to do is do what we think is best….’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... Around five in the evening Raffaele and I returned to his place to get comfortable. I checked my email on his computer for a while and then afterward I read a little Harry Potter to him in German….’‘
‘’ ... After the movie ended, around 9:15 P.M., we sautéed a piece of fish and made a simple salad. We were washing the dishes when we realized that the kitchen sink was leaking. Raffaele, who’d already had a plumber come once, was frustrated and frantically tried to mop up a lot of water with a little rag. He ended up leaving a puddle. “I’ll bring the mop over from our house tomorrow. No big deal,” I said. Raffaele sat down at his desk and rolled a joint, and I climbed into his lap to read aloud to him from another Harry Potter book, this one in German. I translated the parts he didn’t understand, as best I could, into Italian or English while we smoked and giggled….’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... We watched Amelie and afterward we kissed for a little while. I told him about how I really liked this movie and how my friends thought I was similar to Amelie because I’m a bit of a weirdo, in that I like random little things, like birds singing, and these little things make me happy. I don’t remember if we had sex….’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... Raffaele made dinner and I watched him and we stayed together in the kitchen while dinner was cooking. After dinner Raffaele cleaned the dishes and this is when the pipes below came loose and flooded the kitchen floor with water. He was upset, but I told him we could clean it up tomorrow when I brought back a mop from my house. He put a few small towels over the water to soak up a little and then he threw them into the sink. I asked him what would make him feel better and he said he would like to smoke some hash…. ‘’
[Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... I received a message from my boss about how I didn’t have to come into work and I sent him a message back with the words: “Ci vediamo. Buona serata.”
While Raffaele rolled the joint I laid in bed quietly watching him. He asked me what I was thinking about and I told him I thought we were very different kinds of people. And so our conversation began, which I have already written about. After our conversation I know we stayed in bed together for a long time. We had sex and then afterward we played our game of looking at each other and making faces. After this period of time we fell asleep and I didn’t wake up until Friday morning…’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 159, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... I know the police will not be happy about this, but it’s the truth and I don’t know why my boyfriend told lies about me, but I think he is scared and doesn’t remember well either. But this is what it is, this is what I remember….’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 159] ‘’ ... I was a little girl again. I was doing what I’d done since I was seven years old, whenever I got into trouble with Mom. I’d sit with a Lion King notebook propped up against my knees, write out my explanation and apology, rip it out, fold it up, and then either hand it to Mom or, if I wasn’t brave enough, put it somewhere I knew she’d immediately find it. When I was older I had a small, old-fashioned, beat-up wooden desk with a matching chair and a drawerful of pens. I felt so much more articulate writing than speaking. When I talk, my thoughts rush together, and I say things that don’t always seem appropriate or make sense…’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 160] ‘’ ... That’s what I wanted to have happen now. Somehow the kindness from the nun and that embrace from Agente Lupa had encouraged me that it would.
I believed it was only a matter of time before the police understood that I was trying to help them and I would be released. The guard would unlock the cell. Without leading me by the arm, she’d escort me to an office where I could reclaim my hiking boots, my cell phone, my life. I’d walk out and into my mom’s arms…’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 160] ‘’ ... I thought I’d made it clear that I couldn’t stand by what I’d said during my interrogation, that those words and my signature didn’t count.
We would have to talk again. This time they would have to listen and not shout.
I thought about what to do while I waited for my memoriale to get passed to the right readers and the paperwork to get filled in. Since I’d never been in a prison before —and I’d never be here again—I decided to record what I saw so I wouldn’t forget.
I felt I had a duty to observe and collect information, just like a tourist who writes a travelogue or a war correspondent who witnesses devastation…’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 161] ‘’ ... As I gathered this insider’s information, I felt more like an observer than a participant. I found that being watched by a guard every time I peed or showered or just lay on my bed seemed less offensive when I looked at it with an impersonal eye. I saw the absurdity in it and documented it in my head…’‘
[Chapter 13, Page 161] ‘’ ... But no matter how much I tried to distance myself from my physical surroundings, I was stuck with the anger and self-doubt that were festering inside me. I was furious for putting myself in this situation, panicked that I’d steered the investigation off course by delaying the police’s search for the killer….’‘
[Chapter 14, Page 163] ‘’ ... In the middle of my second full day as a prisoner, two agenti led me out of my cell, downstairs, outside, across the prison compound, and into the center building where I’d had my mug shot taken and my passport confiscated. There, in an empty office converted into a mini courtroom, seven people were waiting silently for me when I walked into the room, including two men, who stood as I entered.
Speaking in English, the taller, younger man, with spiky gray hair, said, “I’m Carlo Dalla Vedova. I’m from Rome.” He gestured toward a heavier-set man with smooth white hair. “This is Luciano Ghirga, from Perugia.” Each man was dressed in a crisp suit. “We’re your lawyers. Your family hired us. The American embassy gave him our names. Please, sit in this chair. And don’t say anything.”
[Chapter 14, Page 164] ‘’ ... Also in the room were three women. The one in black robes was Judge Claudia Matteini. Her secretary, seated next to her, announced, “Please stand.”
In an emotionless monotone, the judge read, “You, Amanda Marie Knox, born 9 July 1987 in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., are formally under investigation for the murder of Meredith Kercher. How do you respond? You have the right to remain silent.”
I was stunned. My lower jaw plummeted. My legs trembled. I swung my face to the left to look at the only people I recognized in the room—Monica Napoleoni, the black-haired, taloned homicide chief; a male officer from my interrogation; and Pubblico Ministero Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, who I still thought was the mayor. Napoleoni was resting her chin on her hand glowering at me, studying my reaction. She seemed to be enjoying this….’‘
[Chapter 14, Page 165] ‘’ ... There hadn’t been enough time between their hiring and this preliminary hearing for Carlo and Luciano to meet with me. But more time might not have made a difference. It turned out that, mysteriously, Mignini had barred Raffaele’s lawyers from seeing him before his hearing. Would the prosecutor have treated me the same? I think so. I can’t be certain who ordered that I be put in isolation and not allowed to watch TV or to read, to cut me off from news from the outside world. But I believe that the police and prosecution purposely kept me uninformed so I would arrive at my first hearing totally unprepared to defend myself.
I do know this: if I’d met with my lawyers, I could have explained that I was innocent, that I knew nothing about the murder, that I imagined things during my interrogation that weren’t true. The only thing my lawyers knew about me was that when I talked I got myself in trouble. I understand their impulse to keep me silent then, but in the end, my silence harmed me as much as anything I’d previously said….’‘
[Chapter 14, Page 166] ‘’ ... It would be a long time before my Italian would be good enough to read Judge Matteini’s nineteen-page report, which came out, and was leaked to the press, the next day. But my lawyers told me the gist of it. The judge said, “There were no doubts” that Patrick, Raffaele, and I were involved. Our motive, according to her, was that Raffaele and I wanted “to try a new sensation,” while Patrick wanted to have sex with Meredith. When she refused, the three of us tried “to force her will,” using Raffaele’s pocketknife.
I couldn’t believe anyone could think that of me…’
[Chapter 14, Page 166, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... She went on to say that we hadn’t called 112, the emergency number for the Carabinieri military police; that the Postal Police arrived at 12:35 P.M., and that our calls to 112 came afterward, at 12:51 P.M. and 12:54 P.M., suggesting that the police’s appearance at the house took us by surprise and our calls were an attempt at orchestrating the appearance of our innocence. It wasn’t until our trial that this accusation was proven to be erroneous….’‘
[Chapter 14, Page 166, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... The report said that in Raffaele’s second statement, made on November 5, he changed his story. Instead of saying that we’d stayed at his apartment all night, as he’d done originally, he told police we’d left my apartment to go downtown at around 8:30 or 9 P.M., that I went to Le Chic and he returned to his apartment. He said that I’d convinced him to lie….’‘
[Chapter 14, Page 167, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... A bloody footprint allegedly compatible with Raffaele’s Nikes was found at our villa, and the pocketknife he carried on his beltloop was presumed to be compatible with the murder weapon…’‘
[Chapter 14, Page 167, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... The judge’s report concluded that we “lost the appearance that [we] were persons informed about the facts and became suspects” when I confessed that Patrick had killed Meredith; that I wasn’t sure whether or not Raffaele was there but that I woke up the next morning in his bed…’‘
[Chapter 14, Page 167] ‘’ ... It was just the start of the many invented stories and giant leaps the prosecution would make to “prove” I was involved in the murder—and that my lawyers would have to try to knock down to prove my innocence…’‘
[Chapter 14, Page 168] ‘’ ... “It’s the judge’s paperwork,” the male guard explained, his voice without inflection.
“The confirmation of your arrest. It says the judge ‘applies the cautionary measure of custody in prison for the duration of one year.’ ”
“One year!” I cried out.
I was floored. I had to sit down and put my head between my knees. That’s when I learned how different Italian and U.S. laws can be. The law in Italy allows for suspects to be held without charge during an investigation for up to a year if a judge thinks they might flee, tamper with evidence, or commit a crime. In the United States, suspects have to be indicted to be kept in custody.
I felt I had only myself to blame. If I’d had the will to stick to the truth during my interrogation, I would never have been put in jail. My imprisonment was my fault, because I’d given in to the police’s suggestions. I’d been weak, and I hated myself for it….’‘
Archived in The former defendants, Amanda Knox, Other legal processes, Knox calunnia, Family + defense hoaxers, Knox-Mellas team, Lies in Knox book
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (14)
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #2
Posted by Chimera
The Dark Force: evil for evil’s sake? This is a long post, click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Overview Of This Post
I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.
Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition. Here I dissect pages 67 to 107 of the new paperback edition.
Points from this and many other posts will end up on a new TJMK page devoted exclusively to Knox’s lies.
2. Dissection Of Pages 67 to 107
[Chapter 6, Page 70] ‘’ ... Raffaele dialed 112—Italy’s 911—for the Carabinieri, which was separate from—and more professional than—the Perugian town police.
As soon as he hung up, I said, “Let’s wait for them outside.” Even without Chris’s insistence, I was too spooked to be in the house. On the way out I glanced from the kitchen into the larger bathroom. The toilet had been flushed. “Oh my God!” I said to Raffaele. “Someone must have been hiding inside when I was here the first time—or they came back while I was gone!”
We ran out and waited on a grassy bank beside the driveway. I was shivering from nerves and cold, and Raffaele was hugging me to calm me down and keep me warm, when a man in jeans and a brown jacket walked up. As he approached us he said he was from the police. I thought, That was fast.
Another officer joined him. I tried to explain in Italian that there had been a break-in and that we hadn’t been able to find one of our roommates, Meredith. With Raffaele translating both sides, I gradually understood that these officers were just Postal Police, the squad that deals with tech crimes.
“Two cell phones were turned in to us this morning,” one said. “One is registered to Filomena Romanelli. Do you know her?”
“Yes, she’s my housemate,” I said. “It can’t be Filomena’s, because I just talked to her. But I’ve been trying to reach my other roommate, Meredith, all morning. She
doesn’t answer. Who turned these in? Where did they find them?”
Later I found out that a neighbor had heard the phones ringing in her garden when I’d tried to call Meredith. They’d been tossed over the high wall that protected the neighbor’s house from the street—and from intruders. But the Postal Police wouldn’t explain or answer my questions.
We went inside, and I wrote out Meredith’s phone numbers on a Post-it Note for them. While we were talking, we heard a car drive up. It was Filomena’s boyfriend, Marco Z., and his friend Luca. Two minutes later, another car screeched into the driveway—it was Filomena and her friend Paola, Luca’s girlfriend. They jumped out, and Filomena stormed into the house to scavenge through her room. When she came out, she said, “My room is a disaster. There’s glass everywhere and a rock underneath the desk, but it seems like everything is there.”
The Postal Police showed her the cell phones. “This one is Meredith’s British phone,” Filomena said. “She uses it to call her mother. And I lent her the SIM card to the other one to make local calls.”
The men seemed satisfied; their work was done. They said, “We can make a report that there’s been a break-in. Are you sure nothing was stolen?”
“Not as far as we can tell,” I said. “But Meredith’s door is locked. I’m really worried.”
“Well, is that unusual?” they asked.
I tried to explain that she locked it sometimes, when she was changing clothes or was leaving town for the weekend, but Filomena wheeled around and shouted, “She never locks her door!” I stepped back and let her take over the conversation, Italian to Italian. The rapid-fire exchange stretched way past my skills. Filomena shouted at the Postal Police officers, “Break down the door!”
“We can’t do that; it’s not in our authority,” one said.
Six people were now crammed into the tiny hallway outside Meredith’s bedroom, all talking at once in loud Italian. Then I heard Luca’s foot deliver a thundering blow. He kicked the door once, twice, a third time. Finally the impact dislodged the lock, and the door flew open. Filomena screamed, “Un piede! Un piede!”—“A foot! A foot!”
A foot? I thought. I craned my neck, but because there were so many people crowding around the door, I couldn’t see into Meredith’s room at all. “Raffaele,” I said.
He was standing beside me. “What’s going on? What’s going on?” ....’‘
[Chapter 6, Page 72] ‘’ ... One of the guys shouted, “Sangue! Dio mio!”—“Blood! My God!” Filomena was crying, hysterical. Her screams sounded wild, animal-like.
The police boomed, “Everyone out of the house. Now!” They called for reinforcements from the Perugian town police. Raffaele grabbed my hands and pulled me toward the front door.
Sitting outside on the front stoop, I heard someone exclaim, “Armadio”—“armoire.” They found a foot in the closet, I thought. Then, “Corpo!”—“A body!” A body inside the wardrobe with a foot sticking out? I couldn’t make the words make sense. Filomena was wailing, “Meredith!
Meredith! Oh, God!” Over and over, “Meredith! Oh, God!” My mind worked in slow motion. I could not scream or speak. I just kept saying in my head, What’s happening? What’s happening?
It was only over the course of the next several days that I was able to piece together what Filomena and the others in the doorway had seen: a naked, blue-tinged foot poking out from beneath Meredith’s comforter, blood splattered over the walls and streaked across the floor.
But at that moment, sitting outside my villa, the image I had was of a faceless body stuffed in the armoire, a foot sticking out.
Maybe that’s why Filomena cried, and I didn’t. In that instant, she’d seen enough to grasp the terrible scope of what had happened. All I got was confusion and words and, later, question after question about Meredith and her life in Perugia. There was nothing I could say about what her body was like in its devastation.
But even with all these blanks, I was still shaken—in shock, I’d guess. Waiting in the driveway, while two policemen guarded the front door, I clung to Raffaele. My legs wobbled. The weather was sunny, but it was still a cold November day, and suddenly I was freezing. Since I’d left the house without my jacket, Raffaele took off his gray one with faux-fur lining and put it on me.
Paramedics, investigators, and white-suited forensic scientists arrived in waves. The police wouldn’t tell us anything, but Luca and Paola stayed close, trying to read lips and overhear. At one point, Luca told Raffaele what the police had said: “The victim’s throat has been slashed.”
I didn’t find out until the months leading up to my trial—and during the trial itself —how sadistic her killer had been. When the police lifted up the corner of Meredith’s beige duvet they found her lying on the floor, stripped naked from the waist down. Her arms and neck were bruised. She had struggled to remain alive. Her bra had been sliced off and left next to her body. Her cotton T-shirt, yanked up to expose her breasts, was saturated with blood. The worst report was that Meredith, stabbed multiple times in the neck, had choked to death on her own blood and was found lying in a pool of it, her head turned toward the window, eyes open….’‘
[Chapter 6, Page 73] ‘’ ... In the first hours after the police came, standing outside the villa that had been the happy center of my life in Perugia—my refuge thousands of miles from home—I mercifully didn’t know any of this. I was slowly absorbing and rejecting the fractured news that Meredith was dead.
I felt as if I were underwater. Each movement—my own and everyone else’s —seemed thick, slow, surreal. I willed the police to be wrong. I wanted Meredith to walk down the driveway, to be alive. What if she’d spent the night with one of her British girlfriends? Or gotten up early to meet friends? I held the near-impossible idea that somehow the person in Meredith’s room was a stranger.
Nothing felt real except Raffaele’s arms, holding me, keeping me from collapsing. I clung to him. Unable to understand most of what was being said, I felt cast adrift. My grasp of Italian lessened under the extraordinary stress. Catching words and translating in my head felt like clawing through insulation.
I was flattened. I was in despair. I cried weakly on and off into Raffaele’s sweater. I never sobbed openly. I’d never cried publicly. Perhaps like my mom and my Oma, who had taught me to cry when I was alone, I bottled up my feelings. It was an unfortunate trait in a country where emotion is not just commonplace but expected.
Raffaele’s voice was calm and reassuring. “Andrà tutto bene”—“It’s going to be okay,” he said. He pulled me closer, stroked my hair, patted my arm. He looked at me and kissed me, and I kissed him back. These kisses were consoling. Raffaele let me know that I wasn’t alone. It reminded me of when I was young and had nightmares. My mom would hold me and smooth my hair and let me know that I was safe. Somehow Raffaele managed to do the same thing.
Later, people would say that our kisses were flirtatious—evidence of our guilt. They described the times I pressed my face to Raffaele’s chest as snuggling. Innocent people, the prosecutor and media said, would have been so devastated they’d have been unable to stop weeping.Watching a clip of it now, my stomach seizes. I’m gripped by the same awful feelings I had that afternoon. I can only see myself as I was: young and scared, in need of comfort. I see Raffaele trying to cope with his own feelings while trying to help me…’‘
[Chapter 6, Page 53] ‘’ ... We waited in the driveway for what seemed like forever. The police officers would come out, ask us questions, go in, come out, and ask more questions. I always told them the same thing: “I came home. I found the door open. Filomena’s room was ransacked, but nothing seems to have been stolen. Meredith’s door was locked.”
It seemed like the words came from somewhere else, not from my throat.
In the middle of my muddy thoughts I had one that was simple and clear: “We have to tell the police that the poop was in Filomena and Laura’s bathroom when I put the hair dryer away and was gone when we came back,” I told Raffaele. The poop must have belonged to the killer. Was he there when I took my shower? Would he have killed me, too?
We walked up to a female officer with long black hair and long nails—Monica Napoleoni, head of homicide, I later found out. Raffaele described in Italian what I’d seen. She glared at me. “You know we’re going to check this out, right?” she said.
I said, “That’s why I’m telling you.”She disappeared into the villa, only to return moments later. “The feces is still there. What are you talking about?” she spat.
This confused me, but I continued to tell her what happened anyway. I told her I’d taken the mop with me in the morning but had brought it back when Raffaele and I came to see if the house had been robbed.
“You know we’re going to check that for blood, too?” she asked.“Okay,” I said. I was surprised by how abrupt she was.
The police explained that they couldn’t let us back into the house, that it would compromise the crime scene. Before we were told to go outside, Filomena had carefully gone through her room to see if anything had been stolen. Now, having calmed down momentarily, she came over and whispered that she couldn’t leave without her laptop, that she had to have it for work. She snuck back into her room—I have no idea how she got past the police standing sentry—and grabbed it, disturbing the scene for a second time. Marco stood in the driveway, looking lost. Paola and Luca had slipped off to the car, where it was warm….’
[Chapter 7, Page 77] ‘’ ... For the first hour, I was questioned in Italian, but it was so hard for me to follow and explain that they brought in an English-speaking detective for hours two through six. Alone in the room, we sat on opposite sides of a plain wooden desk. I described everything I could think of. Some questions he asked were obvious. Others seemed irrelevant. “Anything might be a clue for the investigators,” he said. “Don’t hold back—even if it seems trivial. The smallest detail is important. You never know what the key will be to finding the person who did this.”
How did you meet Meredith? How long have you been in Perugia? Who was Meredith dating? What do you know about the guys who live downstairs? Where did Meredith like to party? When was the last time you saw her? Where was she going? What time did Meredith leave home?” ....’’
[Chapter 7, Page 78] ‘’ ... “It was yesterday afternoon. I don’t know where she was heading,” I said. “She didn’t tell us.” “What did you and Raffaele do yesterday afternoon and last night?” he asked. “We hung out at my house and then at Raffaele’s apartment.”
He didn’t press me. He just listened. It seemed like a straightforward debriefing. I was too naïve to imagine that the detectives suspected that the murder had been an inside job and that the burglary had been faked. I had no way of knowing that the Postal Police had thought Raffaele’s and my behavior suspicious. The detective didn’t say any of this. Nor did he allow that the homicide police had begun to watch us closely before we’d even driven out of the driveway. ...’‘
[Chapter 7, Page 77] ‘’ ... Now I see that I was a mouse in a cat’s game. While I was trying to dredge up any small thing that could help them find Meredith’s killer and trying to get my head around the shock of her death, the police were deciding to bug Raffaele’s and my cell phones.
[Chapter 7, Page 77] ‘’ ... As I sat waiting to hear what else the police needed from me, I asked the detective if it was true that it was Meredith who had been murdered. I still couldn’t let go of the tiniest hope that the body in her room hadn’t been Meredith’s, that she was still alive. The detective nodded and ran his finger in a cutting motion across his neck.
[Chapter 7, Page 78] ‘’ ... Trying to be helpful, I shared the information I had, much of which turned out to be wrong. I still thought Meredith’s body had been found stuffed into the armoire.
When I first saw Laura, she was dry-eyed. She came up and hugged me and said, “I can’t believe it. I’m so sorry. I know Meredith was your friend.” Then she sat me down and said, “Amanda, this is really serious. You need to remember: do not say anything to the police about us smoking marijuana in our house.”
I was thinking, You can’t lie to the police, but I considered this anxiously a moment and then said, “Okay, I haven’t yet. I won’t.” I asked, “Do you think they’ll let us get our stuff out of the house?”
Laura said, “I hope so. Filomena and I are talking to our lawyers about that.” It didn’t occur to me—or to my parents, who were now calling me nonstop—that perhaps I should call a lawyer, too. ...’‘
[Chapter 7, Page 80] ‘’ ... Around 3 AM a police officer led the British girls and me downstairs to get fingerprinted. “We need to know which fingerprints to exclude when we go through the house,” he said.
One by one they took us into a room and painted our fingertips with a black, tarlike syrup. When I came out, Sophie was sitting on a chair outside the door, sobbing. I tried to make up for my earlier lack of warmth, saying, “I’m so sorry about Meredith. If you need anything, here’s my number.”
And suddenly, I woke up from deep shock. I was struck with righteous fury against Meredith’s murderer. I started pacing the hallway. I was so outraged I was shaking and hitting my forehead with the heel of my palm, saying, “No, no, no,” over and over. It’s something I’ve always done when I can’t contain my anger.
The English-speaking detective who’d been overseeing the fingerprinting approached me and said, “Amanda, you need to calm down.” ...’‘
[Chapter 7, Page 81] ‘’ ... As I continued walking back and forth in the hallway, my mind kept looping back around itself, making quick, tight turns: What happened? Who would leave poop in the toilet? Why hadn’t Laura’s and my rooms been touched? Why was Filomena’s computer still there? Did Meredith know her attacker? How could this have happened? How? How? How?
[Chapter 7, Page 82] ‘’ ... When I wasn’t on the phone, I paced. I walked by one of Meredith’s British friends, Natalie Hayworth, who was saying, “I hope Meredith didn’t suffer.”
Still worked up, I turned around and gaped. “How could she not have suffered?” I said. “She got her fucking throat slit. Fucking bastards.”
I was angry and blunt. I couldn’t understand how the others remained so calm. No one else was pacing. No one else was muttering or swearing. Everyone else was so self-contained. First I showed not enough emotion; then I showed too much. It’s as if any goodwill others had toward me was seeping out like a slow leak from a tire, without my even realizing it.
[Chapter 7, Page 81] ‘’ ... I suspect that Raffaele thought I was having a breakdown. He sat me in his lap and bounced me gently. He kissed me, made faces at me, and told me jokes—all in an effort to soothe my agitation, babying me so I would stop storming around. I cringe to say that treating me like an infant helped. Normally it would have repelled me. But at that time it worked….’‘
[Chapter 7, Page 81] ‘’ ... Finally I took my journal from my purse and scribbled down a few stream-of-consciousness lines about how unreal all of this was and how I wished I could write a song about the heinous, tragic event—a personal tribute to Meredith. I thought that, like the act of writing itself, music might somehow help me feel better. Later, when the police confiscated my notebook and its contents were leaked to the press, people saw this as proof that I was trivializing Meredith’s death.
They found more evidence in my gallows humor. I wrote, “I’m starving. And I’d really like to say that I could kill for a pizza but it just doesn’t seem right.” ...’‘
- So, just on this one page:
[Chapter 7, Page 83] ‘’ ... It was early morning by the time I put my notebook away. The police weren’t stopping to sleep and didn’t seem to be allowing us to, either. Raffaele and I were part of the last group to leave the questura, along with Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, and the other guys from downstairs, at 5:30 A.M.
The police gave Raffaele and me explicit instructions to be back at the questura a few hours later, at 11 A.M. “Sharp,” they said.
I can’t recall who dropped us off at Raffaele’s apartment. But I do remember being acutely aware that I didn’t have anywhere else to go.
[Chapter 8, Page 85] ‘’ ... I had the same opportunity. Mom had asked in one of our phone conversations the night before if I wanted her to buy me a plane ticket to Seattle. “No,” I said. I had been adamant. “I’m helping the police.” ...’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 69] ‘’ ... I never considered going home. I didn’t think it was right to run away, and that’s exactly how I looked at it—as running away from being an adult. I knew that murders can and do happen anywhere, and I was determined not to let this tragedy undo all I’d worked so hard for over the past year. I liked my classes at the University for Foreigners, and I knew my family’s finances didn’t allow for re-dos. The way I saw it, if I went home, I’d be admitting defeat. And my leaving wouldn’t bring Meredith back….’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 86] ‘’ ... I was already so paranoid I refused to let Raffaele out of sight in his one-room apartment. Walking down the street with his arm around me, I kept looking nervously over my shoulder to make sure no one was following us. Passing cars made me jump. Had the murderer watched our house, waiting until one of us was alone to make his move? I couldn’t help but wonder, Would I have died if I’d been home Thursday night? All that separated Meredith’s and my room was one thin wallboard. Why am I alive and she’s now lying in the morgue? And: Could I be the next victim?
[Chapter 7, Page 86] ‘’ ... I hated that I felt so traumatized. As my family, friends, and the UW foreign exchange office checked in one after another, they each said some version of “Oh my God, you must be so scared and alone.” ...’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 86] ‘’ ... I believed I had to demonstrate to Mom, Dad, and myself—as if my whole personhood depended on it—that I was in control, that I could take care of things in a mature, responsible way. And just as I’d had some wrong-headed notion about the link between casual sex and adulthood, I was also sure that an adult would know how to deal with whatever was thrown at her—including how to behave if her roommate were brutally murdered. It wasn’t logical, but I believed that I’d made the decision to come to Perugia and that, while no one could possibly have anticipated Meredith’s death, I just had to suck it up. I treated the whole incident as if it were an unanticipated situation I had found myself in and now I had to handle it….’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 87] ‘’ ... So, anytime I was on the phone with my parents I put my energy into reassuring them that I was okay. Just as I hadn’t wanted to alarm my mom when I’d first run out of the villa after seeing the poop in the toilet, I still didn’t want to alarm her.
Therefore, each phone conversation was more or less the same. “Yeah, I’m really tired, but it’s going to be okay. I’m with Raffaele. He’s taking good care of me. My roommates are looking for a new place. Don’t worry, don’t worry, don’t worry.” ....’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 90] ‘’ ... Sometime that afternoon the police drove me to the villa. Sitting in the backseat with an interpreter on the way there, I admitted, “I’m completely exhausted.”
One of the officers in the front seat swung around and looked at me. Her reaction was harsh: “Do you think we’re not tired? We’re working twenty-four/seven to solve this crime, and you need to stop complaining. Do you just not care that someone murdered your friend?”
[Chapter 8, Page 91] ‘’ ... When the police finally came to get me, I saw that the entrance to our apartment was blocked off with yellow police tape. Instead of going in, the police had me show them from the outside what I’d noticed about Filomena’s window, asking whether the shutters were opened or closed when Raffaele and I had come home. They wanted details about how we lived. Did we usually lock the gate to our driveway? What about the faulty lock on the front door? Did anyone else have a key? Were there outside lights on at night? Did Meredith often stay there alone? Did we have frequent visitors?
They handed me protective booties and gloves. After I slipped them on, I sang out, “Ta-dah,” and thrust out my arms like the lead in a musical. It was an odd setting for anything lighthearted, but having just been reprimanded for complaining, I wanted to be friendly and show that I was cooperating. I hoped to ease the tension for myself, because this was so surreal and terrifying. Instead of smiling, they looked at me with scorn. I kept trying to recalibrate my actions, my attitude, my answers, to get along, but I couldn’t seem to make things better no matter what I did. I wasn’t sure why…..’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 92] ‘’ ... Next we went to the room that Marco and Giacomo shared. There was no blood—or contraband plants. While we stood there, the detectives started asking me pointed questions about Giacomo and Meredith. How long had they been together? Did she like anal sex? Did she use Vaseline?
“For her lips,” I said. When I’d first gotten to town, Meredith and I had hunted around at different grocery stores until we found a tiny tub of Vaseline.
Giacomo and Meredith had definitely had sex, but I certainly didn’t know which positions they’d tried. Meredith didn’t talk about her sex life in detail. The most she’d done was ask me once if she could have a couple of the condoms I kept stashed with
Brett’s still-unused gift, the bunny vibrator, in my see-through beauty case in the bathroom Meredith and I shared.
I couldn’t understand why the police were asking me about anal sex. It disturbed me. Were they hinting that Meredith had been raped? What other unthinkably hideous things had happened to her? ...’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 93] ‘’ ... Back at the questura, I had to repeat for the record everything I’d been asked about at the villa. It was a tedious process at the end of a difficult day.
Finally, at around 7 P.M., I was allowed to call Raffaele to pick me up. While I was waiting for him, Aunt Dolly phoned. “Did you ask the police if you can leave Perugia? If you can come to Germany?” she asked. “Yeah, and they said no, that I’d have to wait until they heard from the magistrate in three days. Whatever that means.” ...’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 94] ‘’ ... As I walked outside the questura, I saw the guys from downstairs coming in. After we said hello, I wavered for a moment over the police’s order that I never talk about what I saw. “I was at your apartment today and you should know that your comforter was splotched with blood, Stefano. It made me wonder if Meredith was down there before she died. It was awful.”
“Yeah,” Stefano, said. “I hope that was from our cat and not Meredith.” Stefano, Giacomo, and Marco exchanged anxious looks…’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 94] ‘’ ... Just then, Raffaele drove up and I said good-bye to the guys. Raffaele took me to a small boutique downtown called Bubble, next door to a luxury lingerie shop. Pulsating with music, Bubble catered to students, offering trendy, cheaply made clothing, the kind that’s not meant to outlast a season. I tried on a few things but decided to wait until my mom got to town to replace my staples, which were locked in the crime scene. I settled on one necessity, grabbing a pair of cotton bikini briefs in my size from a display rack near the cash register. In the long run it probably would have been better if I’d chosen a more sedate color than red. I didn’t give it another thought, but it turned out that what was insignificant to me was a big deal to other people. Standing at the cash register as he paid, Raffaele hugged me and gave me a few kisses—our lingua franca in a scary, sad time. A few weeks later, the press would report that I bought “a saucy G-string” and that Raffaele brazenly announced: “I’m going to take you home so we can have wild sex together.”
[Chapter 8, Page 94] ‘’ ... “The police are grilling me endlessly,” I said. Filomena said, “I know it’s hard, Amanda. You’ve just got to be patient. They’re fixated on you because you knew Meredith better than we did.”
Laura and Filomena were each consulting a lawyer about how to get out of the lease. No doubt their lawyers were also counseling them on other things, such as how to deal with the police and on our pot-smoking habit, but they didn’t mention any of that.
“Are you okay living with Raffaele? How’s it going?” Laura asked. “Filomena and I are thinking about sharing another place.” “Would you guys mind if I live with you again?” Laura said, “Of course you can live with us.”
They both hugged me. “Don’t worry. Everything will be okay,” Filomena said. ...’‘
[Chapter 8, Page 96] ‘’ ... It was after midnight when Raffaele and I finally went back to his apartment. I stayed up surfing the Internet on his computer, looking for articles about the case. As many answers as the police had demanded of me, they weren’t giving up much information. Then I wrote a long e-mail, which I sent to everyone at home, explaining what had happened since I’d gone back to the villa on Friday morning. I wrote it quickly, without a lot of thought, and sent it at 3:45 A.M….’‘
[Chapter 9, Page 97] ‘’ ... Had I seen a news item that morning in The Mail on Sunday, a London tabloid, it might have shifted everything for me. The article said the Italian police were investigating the possibility that the murderer was a woman—someone whom Meredith had known well. “‘We are questioning her female housemates as well as her friends,’ a senior police detective said.”
[Chapter 9, Page 98] ‘’ ... In quiet moments like this, as in the squad car the day before, my thoughts went straight to Meredith and the torture she’d been put through. I tried to imagine over and over how she might have died, what might have happened, and why. I replayed memories of our hours spent on the terrace talking, our walks around town, the people we’d met, the last time I’d seen her.
Either Meredith’s murder was completely arbitrary or, worse, irrationally committed by a psychopath who had targeted our villa as Chris had suggested. The hardest question I put to myself was: What if I’d been home that night? Could I have saved Meredith? Would she somehow still be alive? ...’‘
[Chapter 9, Page 97] ‘’ ... We stood together, talking quietly about nothing. I leaned against him, glad for his company. He kissed me.
Just then, Rita Ficarra, the police officer who’d said I couldn’t leave Perugia, walked by. She turned around and gave us a piercing stare. “What you’re doing is completely inappropriate,” she hissed. “You need to stop this instant.”
I was taken aback. It’s not like we were making out. What could she possibly think was improper about a few tender hugs and kisses? Raffaele was being compassionate, not passionate—giving me the reassurance I needed. But we were offending her.
Raffaele was the main reason I was able to keep myself somewhat together in those days. I’d known him for such a short time, and he had met Meredith just twice. Who would have blamed him if he hadn’t stuck around? Besides giving me a place to stay, he had been patient and kind. He’d dedicated himself to my safety and comfort —driving me to and from the police station, making sure I ate, curling around me at night so I’d feel protected. I had put him on the phone with Mom, Dad, Chris, and Dolly to reassure them. He made sure I was never alone….’‘
[Chapter 9, Page 100] ‘’ ... I reached in, pushed a few knives around, and then stood up helplessly. I knew the assortment in the drawer might include the murder weapon—that they were asking me to pick out what might have been used to slash Meredith’s throat. Panic engulfed me.
I don’t know how long I stood there, arms limp at my sides. I started crying. Someone led me to the couch. “Do you need a doctor?” the interpreter asked.
“No,” I whimpered, my chest heaving. I couldn’t speak coherently enough between the sobs to explain. I could only think, I need to get away from here. I felt the way Filomena must have felt when she looked into Meredith’s room two days before. I didn’t have to see the blood, the body, the naked foot, to fully imagine the horror.
[Chapter 9, Page 102] ‘’ ... I was naïve, in over my head, and with an innate stubborn tendency to see only what I wanted. Above all, I was innocent. There were so many what-ifs that I never even began to contemplate. What if I hadn’t thrown the bunny vibrator in my clear makeup case for anyone to see? What if I hadn’t gone on a campaign to have casual sex? What if Raffaele and I hadn’t been so immature? What if I’d flown home to Seattle right after the murder, or to Hamburg? What if I’d asked my mom to come immediately to help me? What if I had taken Dolly’s advice? What if I’d gotten a lawyer?...’‘
[Editorial note: it is in chapters 10 to 12 that Knox lays the Interrogation Hoax on thick and most inventions in those chapters will be exposed in that alternate series soon.]
[Chapter 10, Page 103] ‘’ ... Police officer Rita Ficarra slapped her palm against the back of my head, but the shock of the blow, even more than the force, left me dazed. I hadn’t expected to be slapped. I was turning around to yell, “Stop!”—my mouth halfway open—but before I even realized what had happened, I felt another whack, this one above my ear. She was right next to me, leaning over me, her voice as hard as her hand had been. “Stop lying, stop lying,” she insisted.
Stunned, I cried out, “Why are you hitting me?” “To get your attention,” she said. I have no idea how many cops were stuffed into the cramped, narrow room. Sometimes there were two, sometimes eight—police coming in and going out, always closing the door behind them. They loomed over me, each yelling the same thing: “You need to remember. You’re lying. Stop lying!” “I’m telling the truth,” I insisted. “I’m not lying.” I felt like I was suffocating. There was no way out. And still they kept yelling, insinuating. The authorities I trusted thought I was a liar. But I wasn’t lying. I was using the little energy I still had to show them I was telling the truth. Yet I couldn’t get them to believe me.
We weren’t even close to being on equal planes. I was twenty, and I barely spoke their language. Not only did they know the law, but it was their job to manipulate people, to get “criminals” to admit they’d done something wrong by bullying, by intimidation, by humiliation. They try to scare people, to coerce them, to make them frantic. That’s what they do. I was in their interrogation room. I was surrounded by police officers. I was alone.
- This makes for an entertaining story to start the chapter, but several problems here:
[Chapter 10, Page 104] ‘’ ...That Monday morning, Meredith’s autopsy report was splashed across the British tabloids depicting a merciless, hellish end to her life. The fatal stabbing, the coroner said, had been done with a pocketknife, and skin and hair found beneath Meredith’s fingernails showed she was locked in a vicious to-the-death struggle with her killer. Mysteriously, news accounts reported that something in the same report had made the police bring Filomena, Laura, and me back to the villa. To this day I don’t know what it was.
There was evidence that Meredith had been penetrated, but none that proved there had been an actual rape. But other clues that would lead the police to the murderer had been left behind. There was a bloody handprint smeared on the wall and a bloody shoeprint on the floor. A blood-soaked handkerchief was lying in the street nearby. As the stories mounted, I was the only one of Meredith’s three housemates being mentioned consistently by name: “Amanda Knox, an American,” “Amanda Knox, fellow exchange student,” “Amanda Knox, Meredith’s American flatmate.” It was all going horribly wrong….’‘
[Chapter 10, Page 105] ‘’ ... I was desperate to get back to my regular routine, an almost impossible quest given that any minute I expected the police to call again. I didn’t have a place of my own to live or clean clothes to wear. But trying to be adult in an unmanageable situation, I borrowed Raffaele’s sweatpants and walked nervously to my 9 A.M. grammar class. It was the first time since Meredith’s body was found that I’d been out alone….’
[Chapter 10, Page 106] ‘’ ... When class ended I headed back toward Raffaele’s apartment. As I walked through Piazza Grimana, I saw Patrick standing in a crowd of students and journalists in front of the University for Foreigners administration building. He kissed me hello on both cheeks. “Do you want to talk to some BBC reporters?” he asked. “They’re looking for English-speaking students to interview.”
I said, “I can’t. The police have told me not to talk to anyone about the case.” “Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to put you in a difficult position,” he said. “That’s okay. But Patrick . . .” I hesitated. “I’ve needed to call you. I don’t think I can work at Le Chic anymore. I’m too afraid to go out by myself at night now. I keep looking behind me to see if I’m being followed. And I feel like someone is lurking behind every building, watching me.”
Archived in The former defendants, Amanda Knox, Other legal processes, Knox calunnia, Family + defense hoaxers, Knox-Mellas team, Lies in Knox book
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (25)