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? ...’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- Do you feel bad for the Kerchers? Or for Meredith?
- Do you feel bad for Patrick and his family?
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- Yet another entertaining tale of sexual harassment ... that you did not report.
[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.”
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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….
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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? ...’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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?
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…’‘
- 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?
[Chapter 19, Page 221] ‘’ ... All I could think was that if he’d been put behind bars then, Meredith would still be alive.
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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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. ...’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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….’‘
- Guede backs your alibi, but fingers you alibi witness?
- How is this a momentary problem?
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- You seriously think they kept Patrick was held until they had someone else?
[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? ...’‘
- 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’‘.
[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 ....’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- You just said you didn’t want people to see you as manipulative, but you are now saying you put up a front.
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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.”
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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.”
- 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?
[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.”
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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).
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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).
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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.
[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!”
- 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.
[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….’‘
- Read the transcripts above. Knox stopped the questioning, not Luciano.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.’‘
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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.
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
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. 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….’‘
- Hate to break it to you, but this isn’t like getting detention in high school.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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.”
- 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.
[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.”
- 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…
[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….’‘
- Umm… did you forget this passage from chapter 13, page 122?
‘’ 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.”
- 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?
[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.”
- 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.
[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.”
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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.’‘
- 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?
[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? ...’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- This makes for an entertaining read, but did you report it formally? Even after you left prison?
[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!”
- 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.
[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.”
- 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?
[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.”
- 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?
[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?”
- Are we sure the roles are not reversed here?
[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….’
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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!”
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- You think the police are framing you? Pot, meet kettle.
[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…’
- 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.
[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.) ...’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- Your Italian was still elementary enough? Wow, you seem to unlearn it faster than you learn it
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
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
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 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…’‘
- 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?
[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.
- ”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?
[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…’‘
- “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.
[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.”
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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.”
- 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?
[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.”
- 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.
[Chapter 11, Page 127] ‘’ ... I was still too confused to know what the truth was….’‘
- That reads very evasive and deceptive. If you were so confused then, and at trial, how is it you have such perfect recall now?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[Chapter 11, Page 129] ‘’ ... “We need to take you into custody,” she said. “Just for a couple of days—for bureaucratic reasons.”
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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.
[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. ....’‘
- 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 ....
[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….’‘
- 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’‘?
[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….”
- 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?
[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….’
- 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.
[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? ....’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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’‘.
[Chapter 11, Page 139] ‘’ ... I just wanted this ordeal to end.’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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.
- 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.
[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:
- 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
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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….’‘
- So, stabbing Meredith, was that a good/bad choice, or a best/not best choice?
[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….’‘
- 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???
‘’ ... 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….’‘
- 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….
[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…. ‘’
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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…’
- 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.
[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….’‘
- Interesting summary, except is WASN’T proven to be false. Your call to the police DID come after the Postal Police arrived
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
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
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. 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?” ....’‘
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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…’‘
- 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….
[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….’
- ‘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?
[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?” ....’’
- 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?
[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. ...’‘
- 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?
[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.
- 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?
[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.
- 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?
[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. ...’‘
- 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?
[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.” ...’‘
- 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?
[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?
- 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?
[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.
- 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?
[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….’‘
- Really, you have to do this now? And what was reported about odd behaviour… aren’t you just confirming it?
[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:
- 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
[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.
- 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.
[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.” ...’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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?
- 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.
[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.” ...’‘
- Why would the UW foreign exchange office be checking in? You weren’t on any formal exchange program.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.” ....’‘
- 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?
[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?”
- However, from accounts told later, Amanda frequently complained about being tired, and hungry, and cold
- Seriously, you were treated this way? What proof?
[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…..’‘
- 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?
[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? ...’‘
- 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.
[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.” ...’‘
- 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.
[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…’‘
- 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?
[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.”
- 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?
[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. ...’‘
- 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.
[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….’‘
- 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.
[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.”
- 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?
[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? ...’‘
- ’‘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.
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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.
- 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?
[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?...’‘
- 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…
[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:
- 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?
[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….’‘
- 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?
[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….’
- 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.
[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.”
- 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?
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)
Monday, August 17, 2015
Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #1
Posted by Chimera
The Dark Side stalks… Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Why “Revenge of the Knox”?
In 2005, Star Wars III, Revenge of the Sith, came out. In it, the hero Anakin Skywalker started out as a Jedi Knight, and Hero of the Republic.
Without much reason or plausibility, he morphed to Sith Lord Darth Vader, and went on a destructive, power driven rampage. He causes absolute destruction to everyone who ever cared about him. ‘‘A powerful Sith you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth ... Vader.’‘
Makes sense to me….(!)
In ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘, by Amanda Knox, 2013, with addition in 2015, she starts off portraying this quirky, free-spirited, but serious and ambitious young woman, who wants to be her own person, study languages, and work as a translator.
Without much reason, or plausibility, she morphs into an immature kid, naive and oblivious, and engages in a campaign for casual sex. She doesn’t seem to take the death of her ‘‘friend’’ seriously (other than it could have been her), and her actions cause absolute destruction to anyone who ever cared about her.
‘‘A freespirited skank you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Foxy .... Knoxy.”
Makes sense to me… (!)
2. The Knox Book In Context
I previewed this series here previously. The series consists of my own dissections of Knox’s claims. ‘‘Tell-All’’ Memoir ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘! Or… is it her ‘‘Blood-Money’’ novel, ‘‘Waiting to Cash in’‘?
Knox’s book was written in the first few months after Judge Hellmann, probably illegally, let her walk, though her legal process was (and still is) far from done.
All sarcasm aside, 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 in the book.
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 as well. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit to her.
Since the hardcover came out we have pointed in many long posts to specific “mega-lies” of Knox in the past, such as her “interrogation” claims.
Amazingly on 9 June 2015 HarperCollin released a paperback edition, totally unchanged except for a nasty afterword added on. With that new edition fully translated into Italian for legal purposes, skeptical readers in Italy and elsewhere can now start to really zoom in.
These will be combined with any others for one master set of Knox’s lies. This post covers pages 1-67 of the 2015 paperback’s 482 pages. Much more here soon.
3. Dissection Of Pages 1 To 66
[Chapter 1, Page 6] ‘’ ... It wasn’t until my freshman year in college that I realized I had a knack for languages and started playing around with the idea of becoming a translator. Or, if only, a writer.
When it came time to decide where to spend my junior year, I thought hard about Germany. But ultimately I decided to find a language and a country of my own—one my family hadn’t already claimed. I was sure that would help me become my grownup self—whoever that was.
Germany would have been the safer choice, but safety didn’t worry me. I was preoccupied by independence. I trusted my sense of responsibility, even if I sometimes made emotional choices instead of logical ones—and sometimes they were wrong.’
- Well, if this had actually happened, it would have been a very grown up way to alter her life. However, as she states very shortly, her real only interests are booze, boys and drugs. So take this passage with a few ounces of salt.
[Chapter 1, Page 8] ‘’ ...As I began researching programs in Italy, I realized that having my dad’s support was fundamentally important to me. I’d never rehearsed any part in a play as hard as I had this conversation in my head. I wanted my dad to be impressed. I wasn’t at all sure what I would do if he said no. Once we were seated, I couldn’t wait a second longer. I started making my case even before the waiter brought us menus.
“Dad,” I said, trying to sound businesslike, “I’d like to spend next year learning Italian in a city called Perugia. It’s about halfway between Florence and Rome, but better than either because I won’t be part of a herd of American students. It’s a quiet town, and I’ll be with serious scholars. I’ll be submerged in the culture. And all my credits will transfer to UW.”
To my relief, his face read receptive.
Encouraged, I exhaled and said, “The University for Foreigners is a small school that focuses only on language. The program is intense, and I’ll have to work hard. The hours I’m not in class I’m sure I’ll be in the library. Just having to speak Italian every day will make a huge difference.” ...’‘
Like the last quoted passage, this sounds great—if it were actually true. A few things stand out:
- She began researching programs in Italy? Well, she took a single course, so clearly didn’t research much.
- She didn’t know the University for Foreigners was attached to the school at large? Great research skills.
- ’‘All my credits, would transfer’‘? Perhaps, if she actually took more than one.
- ’‘I’d never any part in a play as hard as I had this conversation in my head?’’ Are you talking about your June 2009 testimony?
- ’‘The hours I’m not in class I’m sure I’ll be in the library’‘...? Are libraries still for reading and studying, or is Perugia different?
[Page 9] ‘’ ...I kept going. “I’ve been living away from home for almost two years, I’ve been working, and I’ve gotten good grades. I promise I can take care of myself.”
“I worry that you’re too trusting for your own good, Amanda,” he said. “What if something happens? I can’t just make a phone call or come over. You’ll be on your own. It’s a long way from home.”
Dad has a playful side to him, but when he’s in parent mode he can sound as proper as a 1950s sitcom dad. “That’s the whole point, Dad. I’ll be twenty soon, and I’m an adult. I know how to handle myself.”
“But it’s still our job to take care of you,” he said. “What if you get sick?”
“There’s a hospital there, and Aunt Dolly’s in Hamburg. It’s pretty close.”
“How much is tuition? Have you thought about the extra costs involved?”
“I’ve done all the math. I can pay for my own food and the extra expenses,” I said.
“Remember I worked three jobs this past winter? I put almost all of it in the bank. I’ve got seventy-eight hundred dollars saved up.”
- Dad can sound like a 1950’s sitcom dad? RS mocks his father in Honor Bound as well
- You can pay for food and extra expenses? Great, just as long as they aren’t booze and drugs. Wait ....
- You have $7800? How did you burn through half of it in just a month? Even with ‘‘a job?’‘
[Chapter 1, Page 11] ‘’ ... During senior year at my Jesuit high school, Seattle Prep, almost all my friends sent applications to schools hundreds of miles from home. Some even wanted to switch coasts.But I knew that I wasn’t mature enough yet to go far away, even though I didn’t want to miss out on an adventure. I made a deal with myself. I’d go to the University of Washington in Seattle, a bike ride from my parents’ houses, and give myself a chance to season up. By the time high school graduation came around, I’d already started looking into junior-year-abroad programs.
- Well, give Knox credit for one thing. She acknowledges in high school she is immature
- She started researching programs in high school? Wait a minute, on the last page, she says she began researching in 2nd year university. Now she says she has been doing it for at least 2 years. Which is it?
- I guess with all the ‘‘seasoning up’’ (that might be a metaphor), we can now observe the serious student in action.
[Chapter 1, Page 11] ‘’ ... I was the quirky kid who hung out with the sulky manga-readers, the ostracized gay kids, and the theater geeks. I took Japanese and sang, loudly, in the halls while walking from one class to another. Since I didn’t really fit in, I acted like myself, which pretty much made sure I never did.
In truth I wouldn’t have upgraded my lifestyle even if I could have. I’ve always been a saver, not a spender. I’m drawn to thrift stores instead of designer boutiques. I’d rather get around on my bike than in a BMW. But to my lasting embarrassment, in my junior year, I traded my friends for a less eccentric crowd.
I’d always been able to get along well with almost anyone. High school was the first time that people made fun of me or, worse, ignored me. I made friends with a more mainstream group of girls and guys, attracted to them by their cohesiveness. They travelled in packs in the halls, ate lunch together, hung out after school, and seemed to have known each other forever. But in pulling away from my original friends, who liked me despite my being different, or maybe because I was, I hurt them. And while my new friends were fun-loving, I was motivated to be with them by insecurity. I’m ashamed for not having had the guts to be myself no matter what anyone thought.
Several contradictions are apparent here
- Knox says since she never fit in, she just acted like herself
- A few paragraphs later, she says she is ashamed for not having the guts to be herself. Which is it?
- She is drawn to thrift stores, and is a saver, yet blows through half her ‘‘savings’’ in one month. How, if not gambling or drugs?
- You make friends with a ‘‘mainstream, cohesive group’‘, yet are motivated by insecurity to be with them?
- Knox is not clear how, not being herself hurts her ‘‘outsider’’ friends. Were they jealous, or did she change?
[Chapter 1, Page 13] ‘’ ... Most of my other friends were male. We played football, jammed on the guitar, talked about life. After we smoked pot we would choose a food category—burgers, pizza, gyros, whatever—and wander around the neighborhood until we found what we considered the best in its class.
As I got ready to leave for Perugia, I knew I hadn’t become my own person yet, and I didn’t quite know how to get myself there. I was well-meaning and thoughtful, but I put a ton of pressure on myself to do what I thought was right, and I felt that I always fell short. That’s why the challenge of being on my own meant so much to me. I wanted to come back from Italy to my senior year at UW stronger and surer of myself—a better sister, daughter, friend.
- You jammed on the guitar. Did you ever learn more than 1 chord?
- Most of your friends are male? Guess we can all agree with that.
- You felt pressure to do what is right, but always fell short? Huge understatement.
- Perugia is the challenge of being on your own? You told your parents were grown up and had spent 2 years on your own.
- You want to come back a better sister, daughter, friend? I thought the motivation was to learn languages and be a translator. Though, to be fair, she could have multiple motivations.
[Chapter 1, Page 13] ‘’.... I received a blank journal and a fanny pack and tins of tea. Funny, irreverent Brett brought me a small, pink, bunny-shaped vibrator. I was incredulous; I had never used one.
“Until you meet your Italian stallion,” Brett said, handing it to me. She winked.
Her newest cause was to convince me to give casual sex a chance. I’d heard the same thing from other friends. It seemed to make some sense. I yearned to break down all the barriers that stood between me and adulthood. Sex was a big one—and the one that scared me the most. I’d bloomed late and didn’t kiss a guy until I was seventeen. I lost my virginity after I started college. Before Italy, I’d had sex with four guys, each in a relationship I considered meaningful, even though they had turned out to be short-lived.
I left for Italy having decided I needed to change that. For me, sex was emotional, and I didn’t want it to be anymore—I hated feeling dependent on anyone else. I wanted sex to be about empowerment and pleasure, not about Does this person like me? Will he still like me tomorrow? I was young enough to think that insecurity disappeared with maturity. And I thought Italy would provide me the chance to see that happen.
On the day I was leaving—in a rush to get to the airport and without a single thought —I tossed Brett’s pink bunny vibrator into my clear plastic toiletry bag. This turned out to be a very bad idea.
- This is somewhat confusing. A few pages back I read about this serious young woman who planned a study year abroad, and who had ambitions to be a translator.
- Now .... what we get are Amanda’s rationales for wanting to sleep around.
- (Whether the details are true or not), no one cares about your sex life. We want to know what happened to Meredith.
- You don’t want sex to be emotional, you want it to be empowering and about pleasure? Okay, Ms. Arias.
- And while tossing the vibrator in a clear bad may have been due to a rush in time, you know, you could have stored it in something else once you got to Perugia.
- Yes, we know you turned out. You don’t need to publish it.
[Chapter 2, Page 16] ‘’ ... We shared a joint, and then, high and giggly, we went to his hotel room. I’d just turned twenty. This was my first bona fide one-night stand. I’d told my friends back home that I couldn’t see myself sleeping with some random guy who didn’t matter to me. Cristiano was a game changer. We didn’t have a condom, so we didn’t actually have intercourse. But we were making out, fooling around like crazy, when, an hour later, I realized, I don’t even know this guy ...’‘
- Wow, so you leave your sister Deanna alone to do a guy you met on the train?
- And lacking condoms was the only thing preventing you from going all the way?
- Wasn’t his real name Federico Martini? Wasn’t he supplying you with free drugs in return for sex?
- Out of curiousity, how do you think Deanna would feel, not only knowing this, but knowing you published it? And you named her?
[Chapter 2, Page 19] Referring to a man who gave Amanda and Deanna a ride ‘’... I rode shotgun and did all the talking. On the off chance that he did anything crazy, I’d be the buffer between him and Deanna. As the oldest, I automatically reacted this way to any possibly dicey situation that included a sibling. I also felt safer when I had the illusion of being in control. Now, looking back, I see that I had a ridiculous amount of unwarranted self-confidence. Why did I assume I knew the way to a hotel in a country I’d been in once, years before, and a city I’d never been in at all? I hadn’t been in a physical fight in my life. What could I have done to protect Deanna if the ride had gone wrong?
- Amanda says that she is too trusting, yet has fear about the man she and Deanna accepted a ride with. Odd
- You react this way to any situation that involved a sibling. Yet, you just ditched your sister to go hook up with a stranger. Please explain.
[Chapter 2, Page 22] ‘’ ... They said I wasn’t the first roommate they’d interviewed. A guy they called “totally uptight” was interested in renting, until he found out they smoked—cigarettes and marijuana. “Are you okay with that?” Filomena asked…’‘
- You state earlier in the page that Filomena and Laura worked at law firms. Yet, you publish that they are into marijuana, a great idea, given the socially conservative nature of law firms
- Did you not also post a few photos of the 3 of you together as ‘‘friends’‘?
[Chapter 2, Page 23] ‘’ ... I couldn’t wait to return. But I’d also been chastened by my first trip to Perugia. A few days after Deanna and I got to Germany, I broke out with a gigantic cold sore on my top lip that Dolly and I figured must be oral herpes—from Cristiano. To my great embarrassment, Dolly had to take me to the pharmacy to find out how to treat it. I couldn’t believe this was the first wild thing I’d done in my entire life and—bam! I’d made an impulsive decision, and now I’d have to pay a lifelong consequence.
I was bummed knowing I’d have to take medication forever. Even more humiliating was that from here on out I’d have to explain to potential partners that I might be a risk….’‘
- So, not only do you publish the fact that you ditched your sister to go screw a stranger, you now publish that you shared it with your Grandmother, and that you needed to get medication?
- Yup, definitely the stuff Grandma wants to read about ....
- Curiously enough, you leave out the part about getting arrested for throwing rocks in Seattle, and devote a huge amount of time to covering this casual encounter with Cristiano, or Frederico, or whatever his name is. I would be interested to know your version of the Seattle ‘‘riot’‘.
- Of course, if you wanted to talk about this guy supplying you with drugs, it would be interesting to know that as well.
[Chapter 3, Page 26] ‘’ ... But what drew laughs in Seattle got embarrassed looks in Perugia. It hadn’t dawned on me that the same quirks my friends at home found endearing could actually offend people who were less accepting of differences. A person more attuned to social norms would probably have realized that immature antics didn’t play well here.
So I was glad I could hang out with Laura, Filomena, and Meredith at home. Even though Meredith was definitely more mainstream and demure than I’d ever be, and Laura and Filomena were older and more sophisticated, I felt comfortable in their company. They seemed to accept me for me right from the start.
During my first month in Perugia I spent more time with Meredith than anyone else. I liked her a lot, and she seemed to enjoy being with me. I could already see us keeping in touch by e-mail when our year abroad was over. Maybe we’d even end up visiting each other in our hometowns. ...’‘
- ’‘Quirks’’ such as publishing sexual topics involving family members?
- If you realized these things, why did you not tone your behaviour down?
- Antics such as bringing strange men home and disturbing the women you lived with?
- You and Meredith became close? Then why did she complain about you to her friends and family?
[Chapter 3, Page 30] ‘’ .... I didn’t let my mistakes keep me from getting to know my neighborhood or my neighbors a little better. Each time I went to the Internet café to Skype with DJ or chat online with Mom, I’d talk to the guy who ran it, Spyros, a Greek in his late twenties. We talked about the same things that filled my conversations with my UW friends—mainly our ideas and insecurities…’‘
- This is the ‘‘Spyros’’ that Knox put in her ‘‘list of suspects’’ November 5/6th, 2007. Not entirely sure what he does to make Amanda think he is a potential murderer, he seems friendly enough. Perhaps she will elaborate later.
[Chapter 3, Page 32] During dinner at his kitchen table my thoughts battled. Was I ready to speed ahead with sex like this? I still regretted Cristiano. But I’d also been thinking about what Brett and my friends at UW had said. I could picture them rolling their eyes and saying, “Hellooo, Amanda. Sex is normal.”
Casual sex was, for my generation, simply what you did.
I didn’t feel that my attitude toward sex made me different from anyone else in my villa. I knew Meredith hadn’t been with anyone since her serious boyfriend in England. Filomena had a steady boyfriend, Marco Z., in Perugia. And while Laura was dating and sleeping with a guy she thought was sweet but clingy, she encouraged sex outside relationships.
From the start, all four of us were open to talking about sex and relationships. Laura insisted that Meredith and I should just have fun. Filomena was a little more buttoned-up. She couldn’t understand how, with our history together, DJ and I could just be friends and inform each other about our romantic exploits over Skype.
- What is the point of all this? Amanda supposedly writes this book so she can get her story out, but so far, she just seems content to embarrass everyone she has come in contact with. On the next page, Knox goes on to detail her next casual encounter, some guy named Mirko.
[Chapter 3, Page 34] ‘’... I walked back to the villa alone, feeling both exhilarated and defeated.
The next morning, I told my roommates I’d had sex with Mirko. “I feel conflicted,” I said. “It was fun, but it was weird to feel so disconnected from each other. Is that just me?”
Laura absolved me. “You’re young and free-spirited. Don’t worry about it.”
That made me feel a little better.
[on their next encounter…]
[Chapter 3, Page 34] I was too ashamed and embarrassed to go back to the café after that. Was there something wrong with me? Or was it with him? Either way, I couldn’t bear to run into him again.
I was alone with Meredith when I told her about fleeing from Mirko.
“I feel like an idiot.”
“Amanda,” she said, consolingly, “maybe uninvolved sex just isn’t for you.”
- I have serious doubts that Laura, who was by Knox’s admission a serious woman, would say that. At a minimum, Laura would likely have been annoyed to be hearing about this, at worst, somewhat alarmed by AK’s behaviour.
- In any event, it partially confirms the story Laura and Filomena told about Amanda being an attention seeking exhibitionist.
- Knox tells Meredith about another (almost) encounter with Mirko, and supposedly Meredith is very understanding…
- More likely is that a professional woman, and a serious student, would be turned off by these antics.
[Chapter 3, Page 35] ‘’ ... We shared a house, meals, a bathroom. I treated Meredith as my confidante. Meredith treated me with respect and a sense of humor.
The only awkward interaction we had was when Meredith gently explained the limitations of Italian plumbing.
Her face a little strained with embarrassment, she approached me in my room and said, “Amanda, I’m sorry to bring this up with you. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but with our toilets, you really need to use the brush every time.”
- In Knox’s May 2014 interview with Chris Cuomo, Knox admitted that some of Meredith’s English friends had issues over cleanliness. Seems odd, if this was the only awkward interaction
- Like before, why does she need to bring this up? Unless Meredith was killed over a flushed toilet, it really is rather pointless and irrelevant.
[Chapter 3, Page 37] ‘’ ...Around our house, marijuana was as common as pasta. I never purchased it myself, but we all chipped in. For me, it was purely social, not something I’d ever do alone. I didn’t even know how to roll a joint and once spent an entire evening trying. I’d seen it done plenty of times in both Seattle and Perugia, but it was trickier than I thought it would be. Laura babysat my efforts, giving me pointers as I measured out the tobacco and pot and tried rolling the mixture into a smokable package. I never got it right that night, but I won a round of applause for trying. Either Filomena or Laura took a picture of me posing with it between my index and middle finger, as if it were a cigarette, and I a pouty 1950s pinup.
I was being goofy, but this caricature of me as a sexpot would soon take hold around the world.
- Again, you know that Laura and Filomena work for lawyers, yet you publish accounts that claim they are involved in regular drug use?
- With ‘‘friends’’ like these ...
- Curious whether these photos actually exist, or are something her mind made up.
[Chapter 4, Page 39] ‘’ ... I went to school for two hours, five days a week. Besides grammar and pronunciation, I had a third class, in Italian culture. We all went home for lunch at noon, and I spent the rest of the day and night doing whatever I wanted. My teachers didn’t give homework, so I’d sit on the terrace or, when the days cooled, at my desk with a grammar book and a dictionary, making my way, one word at a time, through the Italian translation of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
- Knox says she has 3 classes: Grammar, Pronunciation, and Italian Culture. Wait, was she not only doing 1? Did she drop 2? Which ones?
- 10 hours a week (by her admission), is not really a full course-load in ANY university in Canada. Is it in Italy?
[Chapter 4, Page 41] Like Juve, Patrick wasn’t interested in my work experience. Looking back now, I’m sure they hired me because they thought I’d attract men to the bar. But I was too naïve back then to get that. I still thought of myself as a quirky girl struggling to figure out who I’d be when I grew up. I now realize that the point of the job “interview” was to see if my looks were a draw or a liability.
- Wow. a bit narcissistic, aren’t we. Lumumba is nice enough to give you a job (without a work permit), and you think he just wanted to use you as a piece of meat to attract customers?
- Well, coming from the woman who has casual flings and then writes about them, maybe it’s where your mind always goes.
- And no, your looks are not a ‘‘liability’‘. Your ‘‘creative writing’‘, on the other hand ....
[Chapter 4, Page 44] My job made me feel like a bull’s-eye in the middle of the chaos. Guys continually came up to me to flirt, saying they’d stop by Le Chic only if I promised to be there.
Brushing them off, as I would have liked, would have been bad for business. So I hoped my chirpy “You should come by” came off as inviting for Patrick’s sake and not too suggestive for mine.
- Um… you are supposed to be promoting a bar.
- And aren’t you the one (in your Diane Sawyer interview), you said she went on a campaign for casual sex?
[Chapter 4, Page 44] ‘’ ... But I could see why they didn’t come back. Le Chic didn’t get a lot of foot traffic, so the dance floor was usually empty. The bar felt forlorn—not exactly a recipe for a good time. Patrick was jovial and did his best to make it welcoming, but it was still noisy and dark inside and attracted a crowd of older men—often friends of Patrick’s—and not students.
There was nothing truly dangerous about Le Chic, but its seediness did hint at Perugia’s dark side. What I didn’t know when I arrived was that the city had the highest concentration of heroin addicts in Italy. I never heard about the high level of trafficking and drug use until I was in prison, bunking with drug dealers. During my trial, the prosecution and the media seemed to take for granted that our neighborhood was bad and our little villa a deathtrap.
Even without knowing this, my mom worried about my safety—a lot. One day, while I was e-mailing back and forth with her at the Internet café, she asked, “Who should I call if I can’t reach you?”
“We don’t have a home phone, but I can give you Laura’s number,” I wrote. “But honestly, Mom, I think I’m safer here than in Seattle. My friend Juve walks me home from work most nights, and Perugia is much smaller than Seattle. I’ve really made a lot of friends.”
“Okay,” Mom wrote back. “I feel better.”
I believed what I said—not because I had reason to but because I was in love with the city’s many charms. And I didn’t pick up on some obvious clues.
One night, when Le Chic was closing and Juve couldn’t walk me home, I saw an acquaintance of Meredith’s. I didn’t know his real name, only that Meredith and her girlfriends had nicknamed him Shaky because of the way he danced. He offered me a ride home on his scooter. I figured a friend of a friend was close enough to trust. I figured wrong.
- Patrick’s bar isn’t doing well, but he is hiring staff—you—to help promote it?
- Let me guess, you framing Patrick only helped attract business with the free publicity?
- You didn’t know about Perugia’s drug problems? Didn’t you choose that city BECAUSE there were drugs available?
- While you pass yourself off as a hard worker, Lumumba said he wanted to fire you for laziness. Which is it?
- The prosecution claimed your villa was a deathtrap? Didn’t your lawyer, Dalla Vedova, claim that the police don’t know how to handle a murder case since Perugia hadn’t seen a murder in 20 years. Your town (and home), can’t be a deathtrap if there hadn’t been any murders in decades.
- You made a lot of friends? Why were you already considering leaving Perugia?
- You’re in love with the city’s charms? You just said it was seedy, had heroin problems, and a dark side.
- Juve and ‘‘Shaky’’ also appeared on your list of suspects that you gave to Rita Ficarra. Why exactly did you include them?
[Chapter 4, Page 46] ‘’ ... Giacomo handed me a beer, and I pushed my way through the crowd to find Meredith. When we had rejoined the guys, they introduced us to a friend who, I’d later learn, had moved to Italy as a kid, from Ivory Coast. His name was Rudy. They sometimes played pickup basketball with him. The five of us stood around for a few minutes before walking home together. The guys invited us to their apartment, but Meredith and I first stopped at ours to drop off our purses.
“Ready to go downstairs?” I asked her.
“You go. I’ll be down in a second,” she said.
When I opened the door to the downstairs apartment, Giacomo, Marco, Stefano, and Rudy were sitting around the table laughing. “What’s funny?” I asked. “Nothing,” they said sheepishly. I didn’t think another thing about it until months and months later, when it came out in court that just before I’d opened the door, Rudy had asked the guys if I was available.
A short time later, Meredith came in and sat down next to me at the table. The guys passed us the joint they were smoking. We each inhaled, handed it back, and sat there for a few minutes while they joked around in Italian. Tired and a little stoned, I couldn’t keep up with their conversation. After a little while I told Meredith, “I’m going up to bed.”
- In her December 2013 email to Judge Nencini, she claims to have never met Rudy.
- In that same email, to claims to have crossed paths with Rudy once
- In WTBH, Amanda, Meredith, Rudy, and the men downstairs get high together. That is more than just ‘‘crossing paths’‘.
- In the 2009 trial, there was testimony that Rudy Guede frequently visited the downstairs floor
- Why would it be funny asking if Amanda is available? It’s not like she is a loose woman or anything.
- Meredith is your ‘‘friend’‘? Why leak these details? Her family doesn’t want to hear them.
- So, Rudy was interested in you? Thank you for confirming a possible connection as to why he might have been upstairs in your [the women’s] floor.
- Silly question: was Rudy the ‘‘South African’’ from the basketball court that you put in your list of suspects?
[Chapter 4, Page 49] ‘’ ...When we got home, Bobby followed me to the front door.
“Do you want to come in?” I asked.
“Are you sure?”
I nodded. This was the first time I’d invited a guy into my bed since I’d arrived in Perugia. We went to my room and had sex. Then we both passed out.
The next morning I got up before he did, got dressed, and went to make myself breakfast. Bobby came into the kitchen a few minutes later.
We were eating cookies when Laura came out of her bedroom. I’d never entertained a lover at the villa for breakfast, and it was awkward, despite Laura’s proclaimed sense of easy sexuality. All three of us tried to ignore the feeling away.
After breakfast Bobby left to return to Rome. I walked him to the door. He smiled, waved, and walked away….’‘
I didn’t feel the same regret I’d had after sex with Mirko, but I still felt the same emptiness. I had no way of knowing what a big price I would end up paying for these liaisons.
- Again, I am not sure what Knox is trying to prove here. Meredith, according to her English friends, found Amanda to be somewhat deranged and disturbed. And here, Knox is confirming that Laura found this awkward, and it was only the first one…
- Laura and Filomena reported that Knox brought MANY strange men home. Seems AK is a little vague on the exact extent of this, maybe we need to ask her best truth… wait a minute! This is a murder case. No one cares who Amanda slept with.
- Perhaps Amanda’s roommates can see right through her.
[Chapter 4, Page 49] A few minutes later, Meredith came upstairs. She and Giacomo had slept together for the first time, and she was giddy. It had been a wild night at No. 7, Via della Pergola, but it turned out to be a one-time thing.
- So, Meredith is your ‘‘friend’‘, and yet in your book you publish details of HER sex life? Wow…
[Chapter 5, Page 51] ‘’ ... Later I would wonder what would have been different if this hadn’t happened. What if Meredith had stayed at the concert? What if Raffaele had gotten there in time to get a seat? Would we have noticed each other? Would he, naturally shy, have introduced himself without the excuse of a needed chair? Would never knowing him have changed how I was perceived? Would that have made the next four years unfold differently? For me, maybe. For Raffaele, absolutely.
But we did meet. And I did like him. Raffaele was a humble, thoughtful, respectful person, and he came along at the moment that I needed a tether. Timing was the second ingredient that made our relationship take off. Had it been later in the year, after I’d found my bearings and made friends, would I have needed the comfort he offered?
Waiting for the return of the quintet, we talked. His English was better than my Italian.
- So which happened first? Did you meet Raffaele because Meredith left, or did Meredith leave because you were interested in Raffaele? You are unclear here
- Relationship? You spent the last few chapters talking about casual sex? Why do you need a relationship?
- So, what exactly about Raffaele was a ‘‘tether’‘?
- Do you typically sleep together in relationships, or just casual encounters?
- Would the next four years unfolded differently? For me, maybe, for him, definitely…? So, you would have found other goons to help you murder Meredith?
[Chapter 5, Page 52] ‘’ ...When we stood up to leave, he asked for my number. In Perugia, where I’d gotten this question a lot, my stock answer was no. But I thought Raffaele was nerdy and adorable—definitely my type. He was wearing jeans and sneakers that evening. Like DJ, he had a pocketknife hooked to his belt loop. I liked his thick eyebrows, soft eyes, high cheekbones. He seemed less sure of himself than the other Italian men I’d met. I said, “I’ll be working later at Le Chic on Via Alessi. You should come by.”...’‘
- Seriously? You go on a campaign for casual sex, and you typically DON’T give out your number?
- Raffy likes to carry knives? Great, thank you for confirming it
[Chapter 5, Page 54] ‘’ ... Raffaele looked surprised, then pleased. “Do you want to come to my apartment and smoke a joint?”
I hesitated. He was basically a stranger, but I trusted him. I saw him as a gentle, modest person. I felt safe. “I’d love to,” I said.
Raffaele lived alone in an immaculate one-room apartment. I sat on his neatly made bed while he sat at his desk rolling a joint. A minute later he swiveled around in his chair and held it out to me.
The marijuana was starting to kick in. “You know what makes me laugh?” I asked.
“Making faces. See.” I crossed my eyes and puffed out my cheeks. “You try it.”
“Okay.” He stuck out his tongue and scrunched up his eyebrows.
By then, Raffaele had moved next to me on the bed. We made faces until we collided into a kiss. Then we had sex. It felt totally natural. I woke up the next morning with his arm wrapped snugly around me. ....’‘
- Okay, we get it. You hooked up with Raffaele, and on the first meet What is this, the fourth different guy you’ve written about sleeping with?
- This whole thing about hooking up with strangers… you are still reluctant? Or is this a relationship? I can’t tell.
- Sex with a knife carrying, pot-smoking Harry Potter is natural? Okay, to each their own….
[Chapter 5, Page 57] ‘’ ... Raffaele looked at me seriously, appreciatively. “Will you be my girlfriend?”
We’d known each other for three days.
“Yes,” I said, feeling a tiny twinge that I took as a warning sign. This is moving too fast. Is Raffaele making too much of our relationship too soon? He’d already said he wanted to introduce me to his family at graduation, and he was planning our winterweekends together in Milan. We barely knew each other.
I couldn’t see how we would last, because we were a couple of months away from living in two different cities, and I was definitely going back to Seattle at the end of the next summer. Since a big part of why I’d come to Italy was to figure myself out, it occurred to me that maybe I should be alone, that I should slow things down now, before they rocketed ahead. But just because I thought it doesn’t mean I did it.
It was easy to shove my doubts aside, because I really liked Raffaele. He was sensitive, and I felt calm around him. And without any solid ties, I’d been lonelier in Perugia than I’d realized…’‘
- You slept together on the first night, but aren’t sure if this is another quickie, or a relationship. And now you are worried about moving too fast?
- Three days later, Raffaele asks you if you want to be a couple
- You are lonelier than you realized? Didn’t you tell everyone that you were having a blast, making all kinds of friends?
- Figure yourself out? You previously said you wanted (a) to learn languages, (b) work as a translator, and (c) that you wanted to do your third year abroad If you actually were doing (a), (b), and (c), you wouldn’t be so lonely, trying to figure yourself out. You would be too busy.
- Besides, weren’t you going on about how Meredith and Laura were such great people to be with? Why do you feel ‘‘lonely’‘?
- Definitely going back to Seattle? I thought you had all these ambitions abroad?
[Chapter 5, Page 57] ‘’ ... Being with Raffaele also taught me a big lesson about my personality that I’d tried so hard—and harmfully, in Cristiano’s case—to squelch. I was beginning to own up to the fact that casual hookups like I’d had with Mirko and Bobby weren’t for me. I like being able to express myself not just as a lover but in a loving relationship. Even from the minuscule perspective of a few days with Raffaele, I understood that, for me, detaching emotion from sex left me feeling more alone than not having sex at all —bereft, really. I didn’t know that this lesson had come too late to do me any good…’‘
- You learned too late that casual sex with strangers can result in STD’s? Did you not know, or just not care?
- Did Cristiano (or I mean Federico Martini), have something else besides his looks? Drugs prehaps?
- You realized after the fact that unattached sex leads to feelings of emptiness?
- Why are you going through these ‘‘self-discoveries’’ anyway’? Didn’t you have a full slate of ambitions, and amazing people living with you?
[Chapter 5, Page 59] ‘’ ... Around 12:30 A.M., when I met Spyros and his friends for drinks, I couldn’t get into the good time they were having. Even on a blowout party night, Perugia’s social scene didn’t do much for me, and the whole evening felt like a dud. It made me nostalgic for the sit-around-and-talk gatherings of friends at UW. I was glad when Raffaele came to Piazza IV Novembre to walk me home. By that time it was 1:45 A.M., and most of my eyeliner whiskers had rubbed off. Thankfully, Halloween 2007 was over.
- Well, still waiting to hear what Spyros did that made you add him to you ‘‘suspect list’‘
- Why does the evening feel like a dud? You told your mother you have lots of friends.
- You’re in the great town of Perugia, and you just want to sit around and talk? Didn’t you have your fill in Seattle?
- What is the real reason you are not enjoying yourself?
[Chapter 5, Page 61] ‘’ ... Raffaele and I were good at being low-key together. We chilled out in the common room and smoked a joint while I played Beatles songs on the guitar for an hour or so. Sometime between 4 P.M. and 5 P.M., we left to go to his place. We wanted a quiet, cozy night in. As we walked along, I was telling Raffaele that Amélie was my all-time favorite movie.
“Really?” he asked. “I’ve never seen it.”
“Oh my God,” I said, unbelieving. “You have to see it right this second! You’ll love it!”
Not long after we got back to Raffaele’s, his doorbell rang. It was a friend of his whom I’d never met—a pretty, put-together medical student named Jovanna Popovic, who spoke Italian so quickly I couldn’t understand her. She’d come to ask Raffaele for a favor. Her mother was putting a suitcase on a bus for her and she wondered if he could drive her to the station at midnight to pick it up.
“Sure,” Raffaele said.
As soon as she left, we downloaded the movie on his computer and sat on his bed to watch it. Around 8:30 P.M. I suddenly remembered that it was Thursday, one of my regular workdays. Quickly checking my phone, I saw that Patrick had sent me a text telling me I didn’t have to come in. Since it was a holiday, he thought it would be a slow night.
“Okay,” I texted back. “ Ci vediamo più tardi buona serata!”—“See you later. Have a good evening!” Then I turned off my phone, just in case he changed his mind and wanted me to come in after all. I was so excited to have the night off that I jumped on top of Raffaele, cheering, “Woo-hoo! Woo-hoo!”
Our good mood was only elevated when the doorbell rang again at 8:45 P.M.: Jovanna had come back, this time to say that the suitcase hadn’t made the bus and that she didn’t need a ride after all. With no more obligations, we had the whole rest of the night just to be with each other and chill out.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 part he didn’t understand, as best I could, into Italian or English while we smoked and giggled.
[Chapter 5, Page 45] We planned to break our routine the next day, All Souls’ Day, by taking a long drive into the countryside, to the neighboring town of Gubbio. The November 2 holiday wasn’t usually observed with as much fanfare as All Saints’ Day, but since it fell on a Friday in 2007, a lot of people, including us, were turning it into a four-day weekend. I thought, Italians having a good time again. And I couldn’t wait.
- You remember playing Beatle’s songs for an hour. Okay, do you remember which ones?
- Silly question, I don’t remember Raffaele having a guitar. Whose was it?
- Raffaele had already called a plumber before? Would be interesting to see a service record.
- So… was this a minor spill, or was your house virtually flooded? How serious was it?
- You live in this apartment? Do you not have a single towel?
- If it had leaked before, why did you not have a mop, or at least a few extra towels?
- You turned off your phone. In Honor Bound, Raffy says he turned off his. Is this normal?
- You have a German Harry Potter book, and you are translating parts of it into Italian and English. So much for barely knowing Italian.
- Mentioning Jovanna may seem like an alibi… but the murder happened much later.
- You are excited about not having to go to work? What happened about being a serious person?
- You are a language student, and you really didn’t know that a common Italian expression means something totally different in English?
- So, AK and RS are about to head to Gubbio. Sounds like a fun trip. All Amanda has to do is go back to her place, shower, and grab some clothes, right?
- How long were you planning to be in Gubbio? How many changes of clothes would you need?
- And of course, she adds details about sex, and how she got a scratch (I mean, hickey, on her neck).
- Had you and Raffaele done any road trips before, or was this a first time thing?
- Alibi, check. Excuse for scratch, check. Not being able to wait, check.
- You said in your November 6th statement you didn’t remember if you read or made love. Why don’t you remember?
- If you and Raffaele were doing things that could cause a hickey, why don’t you remember making love?
- You seem to have a very detailed memory of that night. Why did you tell the police many different stories later?
[Chapter 5, Page 62, Knox letter to police]’‘Then I turned off my phone, just in case he changed his mind and wanted me to come in after all. I was so excited to have the night off that I jumped on top of Raffaele, cheering, “Woo-hoo! Woo-hoo!”
Our good mood was only elevated when the doorbell rang again at 8:45 P.M.: Jovanna had come back, this time to say that the suitcase hadn’t made the bus and that she didn’t need a ride after all. With no more obligations, we had the whole rest of the night just to be with each other and chill out.
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….’‘
‘’ ... This is what happened and I could swear by it. I’m sorry I didn’t remember before and I’m sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared. I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house….’‘
- This has you receiving the message, replying, and turning off your phone BEFORE your dinner. Which is it?
[Chapter 6, Page 65] On that cold, sunny Friday morning, I left Raffaele asleep in his apartment and walked home to take a shower and get my things together, thinking about our romantic weekend in the Umbrian hills. In hindsight, it seems that arriving home to find the front door open should have rattled me more. I thought, That’s strange. But it was easily explained. The old latch didn’t catch unless we used a key. Wind must have blown it open, I thought, and walked inside the house calling out, “Filomena? Laura? Meredith? Hello? Hello? Anybody?”
Nobody. The bedroom doors were closed.
I wasn’t alarmed by two pea-size flecks of blood in the bathroom sink that Meredith and I shared. There was another smear on the faucet. Weird. I’d gotten my ears pierced. Were they bleeding? I scratched the droplets with my fingernail. They were dry. Meredith must have nicked herself. It wasn’t until I got out of the shower that I noticed a reddish-brown splotch about the size of an orange on the bathmat. More blood. Could Meredith have started her period and dripped? But then, how would it have gotten on the sink? My confusion increased. We were usually so neat. I went to my room and, while putting on a white skirt and a blue sweater, thought about what to bring along on my trip to Gubbio with Raffaele.
I went to the big bathroom to use Filomena’s blow dryer and was stashing it back against the wall when I noticed poop in the toilet. No one in the house would have left the toilet unflushed. Could there have been a stranger here? Was someone in the house when I was in the shower? I felt a lurch of panic and the prickly feeling you get when you think someone might be watching you. I quickly grabbed my purse and coat and somehow remembered the mop I said I’d bring back to Raffaele’s. I scrambled to push the key into the lock, making myself turn it before I ran up the driveway, my heart banging painfully.
By the time I was a block from home I was second-guessing myself. Maybe I was overreacting. Maybe there was a simple reason for the toilet being unflushed. I needed someone to say, “Amanda, you’re right to be scared. This isn’t normal.” And if it wasn’t okay, I wanted someone to tell me what to do. My skittering brain pulled up my mom’s mantra: when in doubt, call. Forgetting the nine-hour time difference between Perugia and Seattle, I pressed the number sequence for home. My mom did not say hello, just “Amanda, are you okay? What’s wrong?” It was in the middle of the night in Seattle, and she was worried.
“I’m on my way back to Raffaele’s,” I said, “but I just wanted to check in. I found some strange things in my house.” I explained my reasons for worrying. Then I asked, “What do you think I should do?” “Call your roommates,” she said. “Go tell Raffaele, and call me right back.”
- So, you leaves Raffaele’s apartment, to grab some things to take back for your Gubbio trip? Okay.
- White skirt and blue sweater? Well, you can’t really deny that, since you were photographed in it.
- Didn’t you walk by Filomena’s room to get to the front door? You didn’t notice the broken glass?
- The front door is open, but you think nothing of it? If someone was taking out the garbage, wouldn’t you have passed them?
- You find blood in the bathroom sink (even 2 spots), and you don’t clean it)?
- You see an orange shaped lump of blood, and you think it is Meredith ‘‘dripping’‘? You leave the mat where it is?
- You find ‘‘poop’’ in the toilet, which at this point probably smells rank, and don’t think to flush it?
- And this ‘‘happens’’ to be the poop left behind by Meredith’s ‘‘sole killer’‘?
- You notice both poop, and ‘‘menstrual blood’‘, and you don’t think to clean up either?
- You are in a panic to leave, but you grab your coat, purse .... and a mop?
- You think you may be overreacting, and you don’t go back to flush and clean the blood. Did you not just say you were usually so neat?
- And Mom doesn’t advise you to just flush the poop either? Odd family.
- When Edda Mellas testified at the 2009 trial, did she not say that Amanda thought someone had been in the house? And that Meredith was missing? Did Edda not tell her to hang up and call the police? This account is VERY different.
[Chapter 6, Page 67] I called Filomena first and was relieved when she picked up. “Ciao, Amanda,” she said.
“Ciao,” I said. “I’m calling because when I came home from Raffaele’s this morning, our front door was open. I found a few drops of blood in one bathroom and shit in the other toilet. Do you know anything about it?”
“What do you mean?” she asked, her voice instantaneously on high alert. “I didn’t stay there last night—I was at Marco’s—and Laura’s in Rome on business. Have you talked to Meredith?”
“No, I tried you first,” I said.
“I’m at the fair outside town,” she said. “I just got here. Try Meredith, and then go back to the house. We need to see if anything was stolen.” She sounded worried.
I called Meredith on her British phone. A recording said it was out of service. That struck me as odd. Then I pulled up Meredith’s Italian number. It went straight to voice mail.
By that time, I was back at Raffaele’s. He was in total vacation mode: he’d slept in and had just gotten out of the shower. I’d forgotten about our trip. “Hey,” I said, trying to sound casual, “does this sound weird to you?” I told him what I’d seen.
“Yeah,” he said. “We should definitely go over and look around.”
Over a quick breakfast, Raffaele and I talked some more about what I’d seen. “Maybe the toilet is just broken,” he said.
Even before we’d downed the last sips of our coffee, Filomena called back. “What do you see?” she demanded. Her panic was retriggering my own.
“Filomena,” I said, as evenly as I could, “we’re just leaving Raffaele’s.”
Ten minutes later, when we reached the villa, my stomach was knotted with dread.
“What if someone was in here?” I said, feeling increasingly creeped out. Raffaele held my free hand while I unlocked the door. I yelled, “Is anyone here?”
At first nothing seemed amiss. The house was quiet, and the kitchen/living area was immaculate. I poked my head in Laura’s room. It looked fine, too. Then I opened
Filomena’s door. I gasped. The window had been shattered and glass was everywhere.
Clothes were heaped all over the bed and floor. The drawers and cabinets were open. All I could see was chaos. “Oh my God, someone broke in!” I shouted to Raffaele, who was right behind me. In the next instant, I spotted Filomena’s laptop and digital camera sitting on the desk. I couldn’t get my head around it. “That’s so weird,” I said.
“Her things are here. I don’t understand. What could have happened?” Just then, my phone rang. It was Filomena. “Someone’s been in your room,” I said.
“They smashed your window. But it’s bizarre—it doesn’t look like they took anything.”
“I’m coming home this second,” she said, her voice constricted.
Meredith’s door was still closed, just as it had been when I was home earlier. I called out, “Meredith.” She didn’t answer. Could she have spent the night with Giacomo? Or with one of her British girlfriends? Still, at that moment I was more worried about the smashed window in Filomena’s room than about Meredith’s closed door.
I ran outside and around the house to see if the guys downstairs were home and to see if they’d heard anything during the night. Outside, away from Raffaele, my anxiety soared. My heart started racing again. I pounded on their door and tried to peer through the glass. It looked like no one was home.
I ran back upstairs and knocked gently on Meredith’s door, calling, “Meredith. Are you in there?” No sound. I called again, louder. I knocked harder. Then I banged. I jiggled the handle. It was locked. Meredith only locks her door when she’s changing clothes, I thought. She can’t be in there or she’d answer. “Why isn’t she answering me?” I asked Raffaele frantically.
I couldn’t figure out, especially in that moment, why her door would be locked. What if she were inside? Why wouldn’t she respond if she were? Was she sleeping with her earphones in? Was she hurt? At that moment what mattered more than anything was reaching her just to know where she was, to know that she was okay. I kneeled on the floor and squinted, trying to peer through the keyhole. I couldn’t see anything. And we had no way of knowing if the door had been locked from the inside or the outside.
“I’m going outside to see if I can look through her window from the terrace.” I climbed over the wrought-iron railing. With my feet on the narrow ledge, I held on to the rail with one hand and leaned out as far as I could, my body at a forty-five-degree angle over the gravel walkway below. Raffaele came out and shouted, “Amanda! Get down. You could fall!” That possibility hadn’t occurred to me.
“Please come in before you get hurt!” As soon as we got inside, we went back to Meredith’s closed door. “I can try to kick it down,” Raffaele offered. “Try it!” He rammed the door with his shoulder, hard. Nothing. He kicked next to the handle. It didn’t budge.
I called my mom again. “Mom,” I said. “Someone broke into our house, and we can’t find Meredith. What should we do?”
“Amanda, call the police,” she said.
My stepfather, Chris, yelled into the speakerphone, “Amanda, get the hell out of the house, this instant!”
While I was talking to them, Raffaele called his sister to see what she thought. She was a police officer in Rome.
- You called Filomena first? Wasn’t the first call a very brief one to Meredith?
- So, you tell Filomena about the poop and the blood, and she doesn’t just say to flush/clean it?
- You just ‘‘forgot’’ about your Gubbio trip? I thought there was nothing to be alarmed about.
- Raffaele’s first reaction isn’t to just flush either? Okay….
- You ‘‘opened’’ Filomena’s door? RS, in Honor Bound, said it already was…
- Filomena’s room looked like it had been broken into. Why was there no glass outside, assuming the climb was possible?
- So, you are incredibly alarmed by Meredith’s locked door, but tell the police it is no big deal?
- You thought Meredith might be with Giaccomo, or her British girlfriends. Did you call any of them?
- Did you tell the police about your efforts to look in through the terrace?
- Raffaele is a kickboxer, yet he could not break it down?
[This post covers 1-67 of the 2015 paperback’s 482 pages. Much more very soon]
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)
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Justice System Comparisons #4: How Canada And Italy Shape Up Against The US
Posted by Chimera
Framing This Post
A major argument of conspiracy theorists like the one dissected in James Raper’s post below is that the Italian justice system is not very good, and often cruel.
In English only (of course) Sollecito and Gumbel tried that in Sollecito’s book and maliciously and self-servingly misled Americans a lot. Doug Preston has done the same. Here we nailed some of Sollecito’s and Gumbel’s malicious claims.
We have propagated an accurate take on Italian justice in numerous posts here. Between them they show that Italian justice IS very good, apart from occasional meddling which almost always goes nowhere. By comparison the US (which co-operates closely with both Italy and Canada) has more headaches with law enforcement and justice system (or systems) than quite a few other countries now.
This post and the next post in my series focuses on the US and Canada and some basic differences in those laws relevant to our case here.
Plus the highlighting of some notorious killers in both Canada and the United States of a kind which in fact in Italy are quite rare.
Who Makes the Laws?
One important distinction to make here: In Canada, criminal law is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. That means Ottawa makes the criminal laws, and is responsible to setting the sentences for each offence. In a similar vein, Ottawa also can remove laws that are outdated, and amend the sentencing ranges for offences. In the United States, murder and sexual assault are considered ‘‘state crimes’‘, and the respective states determine the laws. This is why some states have the death penalty, and others do not.
While the American model, being state made, does in theory make the laws more closely reflect the will of the people, it makes for a very uneven set of penalties for crimes. The Canadian model, by comparison, is uniform across all provinces and territories.
When is it First Degree Murder?
It is first degree murder when a killing is planned out. However, many circumstances arise which are so aggravated that the government will consider them 1st degree, regardless of being intentional. Also, depending on who the victim is, just the murder alone may result in s 1st degree charge. This is a commonality between both Canada and the U.S.
According to the Criminal Code of Canada Section 231(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:
(a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);
(b) section 271 (sexual assault);
(c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);
(d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);
(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or
(f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).
In The US
The individual states have differences in their laws, but they are common in that planned or premeditated killings are particularly heinous and call for severe punishment. Most states also have what is called ‘‘felony murder’‘, which is when someone is killed during the commission of a crime, such as rape, robbery, arson or kidnapping.
Generally speaking, killing of police officers, jail guards, and court officials is also first degree murder, regardless of whether those were planned. I am not posting the statutes for 50 states, but you get the idea.
Take the Jodi Arias case for example. Arias, in trying to fight off premeditation allegations, claimed that she did not bring the gun (a .25 automatic) to Travis Alexander’s house to kill him. Prosecutors allege that Arias staged a burglary in her Grandparents’ home a week before to to provide cover.
Arias claimed that the gun was actually Travis’. However, no gun was ever recovered from the home. So, then if it was Travis’ gun, Arias must have stolen it from his house, making it a robbery.
Prosecutor Juan Martinez argued either Arias: (a) Brought the gun to Arizona, meaning it was premeditated, and hence 1st degree, or; (b) She robbed Mr. Alexander of his gun after killing him, which makes it felony murder, hence 1st degree.
Note: in the 2013 trial verdict, all 12 jurors thought it was premeditated, while 7 of them thought it qualified as ‘‘felony murder’’ as well.
Federal v.s. State/Provincial Prison
Under Canadian law, whether a person goes to a Provincial or Federal prison is determined by the length of the sentence. 2 years is the cutoff mark. 2 years and above, the person goes to federal prison, whereas 2 years less a day and below results in going to a provincial jail.
For federal prisoners, in Canada, they are transported to Kingston, Ontario for ‘‘classification’‘. This can take months. Then they are usually shipped off to other prisons around the country. For provincial prisoners serving very short sentences (3 months or less), they may just stay in the local jails, while those serving longer terms are usually sent to other provincial jails.
Under American law, the difference between state and federal prison depends on the offence. Sexual assault, assault, and murder are state charges, while the federal system is more drug trafficking and white collar crime. This is likely why federal prison is seen as ‘‘easier time’‘.
Death Penalty Laws
Canada currently does not have the death penalty.
Several U.S. states still do, such as California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Virginia. This is determined at the state level.
However, do not think that all Americans are bloodthirsty, and all Canadians too forgiving or soft. Depending on the research poll, about 35-45% of Canadians do support capital punishment in some circumstances. This is a significant minority. And many Americans find the death penalty distasteful, as there is the chance to kill innocent people.
Sex Offender Registry
Both Canada and the U.S. have sex offender registries. Concerning what happened to Meredith: Knox, Sollecito and Guede would all have to register if they were ever set free. They would be registered for life, regardless if the crime happened locally or internationally. The reasons are the same for both countries—namely to monitor sexual predators.
One key difference: in Canada, the S.O.R is limited to police use, while in some U.S. states, the public in general can look it up. Without getting into a debate, I imagine the difference is which concern is more pressing: (a) Letting the public have the right to know and act; (b) Concerns about becoming a pariah, and potential acts of vigilantism.
Deportation of Foreigners
If someone came to Canada or the U.S. and committed these acts, they would be deported after serving their sentence.
There have been attempts to fight deportation, claiming the home country engages in human rights abuses, but hopefully, these will become harder to pull off.
’‘Cashing in’’ on the Notoriety, or Son-of-Sam Laws
Canadian provinces have their own laws, as do U.S. states and the federal government, but in content they are almost identical. Notorious criminals (usually killers, but not always), cannot cash in on their ‘‘fame’’ in the form of paid interview, articles, book deals or movie deals.
Any such deal would very likely be forfeited either by a government challenge, or by a lawsuit from the victims or their families. The proceeds from ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’’ or from ‘‘Honor Bound’’ would be seized.
Classifications of Crimes
Minor crimes are tried ‘‘summarily’‘
Major crimes are tried ‘‘by indictment’‘
Crimes which the prosecutor has discretion are called ‘‘hybrid offences’‘
In the U.S.
Minor crimes are called ‘‘misdemeanors’‘
Major crimes are called ‘‘felonies’’
Judge Alone v.s. Jury Trial
In Canada, a defendant has the option of choosing between a judge only trial (called a bench trial), or a jury trial if facing any offence that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years or more. If the maximum penalty is 5 years or less, then it will be the judge only. This cuts down on the amount of times jury notice is sent out.
In the U.S. (I don’t know all the cases), but there is usually more options to have the case heard by a jury.
In Canada, jurors are sworn not to talk about their deliberations with their families, or with the press. This ‘‘legal omerta’’ survives even after a decision and a sentence has been handed down. In fact, it never expires. Jurors who deliberated over cases 50 years ago cannot talk about it. This works the same as with Italy.
This differs from the U.S., where (unless a specific publication ban is in place), jurors are free to talk and give interviews after the fact. In fact, many jurors do give interviews after high profile cases are resolved. If Genny Ballerini (who talked about the Florence appeal in 2013/2014), had been an American juror, it would have been okay to do.
Threshold to Getting an Appeal Heard
In all 3 countries: Canada, the U.S., and Italy, all defendants who are convicted have the right to pursue an appeal. However, an important difference is made.
Canadian and American appeals are screened before the full appeal is heard. They are checked for merit, and to review if their is any real likelihood of success. This applies to both defendants seeking to have convictions overturned, and those merely seeking sentence reductions. If the appeal appears to be baseless, it will be rejected, and the full panel of judges will not hear it. If the appeal filed before Judge Chairi (later moved to Judge Hellmann), had been in a Canadian or U.S. court, the grounds would be so weak it would have been thrown out on review.
Italy, by comparison, automatically grants not 1, but 2 appeals to all defendants. All they have to do is file for one. Yes, a much lower burden, but it means that the appeals courts (and Cassation), are clogged by appeals, slowing everything down.
Makeup of Appellate Courts
Appeal courts in both Canada and the U.S. are comprised of a panel of judges. This will usually be between 3 and 9 judges. In Italy, the typical first level appeal is decided by 2 judges and 6 jurors (or lay judges).
Canadian, American and Italian Supreme Courts are decided by judges alone.
Agenda of Appellate Courts
Canadian and American courts are similar in that they are ‘‘paper courts’‘, not ‘‘evidence courts’‘. They work from transcripts, not evidence or witnesses. However, in Italy, at the lower appellate level, witnesses are heard, defendants can talk, and evidence can be presented. It is more like another trial than a Common Law ‘‘appeal’‘. But to be fair, an appeal to the Italian Supreme Court (a.k.a. Corti di Cassazione), is a brief hearing on the procedures, logic, and findings of the lower court, and is quite similar to a Common Law appeal.
Canadian and American appeals courts are not there to ‘‘retry a case’‘. Rather, the burden falls on the appellant (the party appealing), regardless of whether it is a prosecution or a defence appeal.
For a defendant appealing a conviction, the burden is on him/her to show that there was significant error that led to the conviction, such as:
-Evidence admitted at trial that should not have been
-New evidence emerges that shows innocence, or impeaches a prosecution witness
-Wrong legal procedures were applied at trial
-There was bias or prejudice from the court
For a defendant appealing a sentence, the burden is to show that:
-The sentence was unduly harsh
-It is inconsistent with similar crimes and circumstances
Size of the Nation’s Highest Court
The Supreme Court of Canada has 9 judges.
The Supreme Court of the United States has 9 judges.
The Supreme Court of Italy has about 300 judges.
Consecutive v.s. Concurrent Sentences
Until very recently, the law in Canada was that all convictions a person received for acts, (or a series of acts), ran together, or concurrently. This changed to exclude multiple murderers, and the so called ‘‘bulk discount’’ they were getting. In the past, even serial killers would be eligible for parole after 25 years. No guarantees of parole of course, but the possibility angers victims rights groups.
The U.S. judges have much more lattitude in handing out consecutive sentences.
Canada has mandatory sentences for many offences, including: 1st and 2nd degree murder, crimes committed using firearms, child sex offences, trafficking in drugs, and fraud (if the value is over $1 million). The trend in the last several years has been to push for harsher penalties.
-For murder, multiple murder sentences now run consecutively.
-The minimum for crimes using guns was 4 years, it is now 5, 7 or 10 depending on number of previous offences
-Child sex offences was 90 days (if by indictment), now it is 1 year
-Discretion has been removed in sentencing drug dealers to prison for the most part
-Major fraud has a 2 year minimum. It never used to.
America also has mandatory jail sentences, including for minor drug offences, Too numerous to list here, but there has been pressure to reduce these sentences to curb the swelling prison population. Except for the Walter Whites (Breaking Bad) out there, dealing shouldn’t carry a longer minimum sentence than manslaughter.
Knox’s drug dealer, Federico Martini, should be especially grateful to have been in Italy. Rather than the 28 months he got for dealing, had he been in the U.S., it would likely be closer to 28 years.
In both Canada and the U.S., plea bargaining is available, (something not available in Italy). Not only does a defendant usually have the option of pleading for lesser time, but but a lesser charge. This can cause a quick settlement, especially if one is accused of an offence which carries a high minimum sentence.
While prosecutors and defence counsel can make a deal, the judge ultimately accepts or refuses it.
Plea bargaining in a single defendant case is one thing, but it is much more controversial to make a deal to testify against someone else. The reasoning is that the person’s story can’t help but be shaped in an effort to please the prosecutors, and that it is in essence ‘‘buying testimony’‘. Though state standards differ, corroboration is required, as a person cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of an accomplice. There is also the risk of a conviction being thrown out if lies are discovered.
Guede offered to testify against Knox and Sollecito, but Mignini/Comodi refused to let him. They didn’t need him, and even if they let him, there was the chance it would blow up in their faces.
Canada: 118 per 100,000
United States: 707 per 100,000
****Incidentally, Italy’s rate is 100 per 100,000
Note: Those topics: (a) consecutive sentences; (b) mandatory minimums; (c) plea bargaining; and (d) incarceration rate; are closely related.
Recording of Police Interrogations
It is not required in Canada to record suspect interrogations, nor (although I don’t know each state) in the U.S. There is no law in either Canada or the U.S. that witness interviews must be videotaped, often they end merely in statements being written up.
However, most police agencies have a policy of recording suspect questionings. There are several reasons for doing it: (a) To protect against any claim of being ‘‘roughed up’’ by authorities; (b) To protect against potential claims of being misinterpreted; (c) To provide a full record of what happened; (d) To review later, as a video may be mined for further information.
Knox claimed she was ‘‘interrogated’’ by Perugian Police, and that she was targeted. Odd, how Rita Ficarra had no idea she would even be coming to the police station. (Sollecito had been called—alone—to clear up his alibi). Knox started to work on a list of ‘‘potential suspects’‘. When Sollecito backed off on being her alibi, Knox was asked to explain. She then falsely accused Lumumba, and placed herself at the scene. At this point her legal status changed from potential witness to suspect, and the questioning stopped. Knox waived her warnings, and signed those statements anyway.
In the media it is misrepresented as being a ‘‘long, brutal interrogation’’ or a ‘‘series of interrogations’‘, and Knox complains of it lasting over 50 hours in her December 2013 email. She also accuses Rita Ficarra of assault (part of her current calunnia trial), and Prosecutor Mignini of illegally questioning her without counsel.
Again, how could the Perugia Police be setting an elaborate trap for Knox? She showed up that night completely unexpectedly. See the 18 part ‘‘Knox Interrogation Hoax’’ series.
Double Jeopardy Law
Under the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms, section 11(h) says that a person who has served a sentence for an offence shall not be tried again, or a person finally acquitted shall not be tried again. The key is ‘‘finally’‘, as in the parties don’t intend to appeal further
The 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that a person shall not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence.
The only real difference is that acquittals at trial in Canada may be appealed under very limited circumstances, such as wrong instructions at trial. It CANNOT be a redo, but there must be a very serious legal error to redress. Canadian prosecutors have a very high burden to meet. Under U.S. law, a trial acquittal is the end, barring killing a witness or bribing a judge.
This does not apply to appeal courts. In both Canada and the U.S. appellate court rulings may be appealed further. Had Hellmann been a U.S./Canadian appeal judge, it would not be double jeopardy to challenge his ruling.
Canadian Charter v. U.S. Constitution
Italy goes out of its way to give defendants, but here is a quick comparison with the Western Hemisphere. Sadly, as victim’s rights groups point out, criminals seem to have more rights than their victims.
The Canadian Charter, sections 7 to 14, and the U.S. Constitution, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments guarantee many of the same rights to criminal defendants
Canada: illegal searches would violate section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
America: illegal searches would violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution
Canada: one has the right to instruct counsel without delay, and be informed of the right under Section 10(b)
America: one has the right to a lawyer under the 6 Amendment.
Canada: cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited under Section 12
America: cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited under the 14th Amendment.
Canada: one can’t be forced to be a witness against themselves under Section 11(c)
America: one can’t be forced to be a witness against themselves under the 5th Amendment (taking the 5th)
Canada: retrying for the same offence violates Section 11(h)
America: retrying for the same offence violates the 5th Amendment.
Canada: demanding unreasonable bail violates Section 11(e)
America: demanding unreasonable bail violates the 8th Amendment.
-The police obtained warrants before getting internet records, phone records, etc ...
-AK’s first 2 statements were inadmissible because she had no lawyer (even though she refused one).
-AK/RS complain about ‘‘hellish’’ conditions now, but not when the U.S. State Department checked in.
-AK only testified regarding the ‘‘calunnia’‘, but AK/RS used their ‘‘right to not respond’‘.
-AK/RS claim their ‘‘acquittals’’ should be the end, but 11(h)/5th doesn’t apply to appeals court that get further appealed
-AK/RS got multiple attempts to apply for bail
Notorious Killers In Canada
1. Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka
Scarborough, Ontario—This case still leaves a bad taste for Canadians. The couple murdered 3 teens, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, as well as Karla’s younger sister, Tammy. Bernardo was already a prolific rapist before meeting Homolka, but no one died until they got together.
Bernardo is serving life in prison and has been classified as a ‘‘dangerous offender’‘. Homolka served only 12 years after testifying against him, in what was called the ‘‘deal with the devil.’’ Homolka claimed that she was forced to go along to help with Bernardo’s crimes, using the ‘‘battered woman’s syndrome’‘, although it has since been shown that she was a willing and enthusiastic participant. Police speculate that there were other victims but no more additional charges were filed.
Though claiming her innocence, Knox has tried using the ‘‘I was browbeaten’’ line against Italian authorities.
2. David Bagshaw and Melissa Todorovic
Toronto,Ontario—A 15 year old girl convinces her 17 year old (almost 18) boyfriend to murder a rival, a 14 year old girl Todorovic had never met, Stefanie Rengel. Todorovic threatened to withhold sex from Bagshaw unless he complied, and these threats went on for months. When Bagshaw finally did kill Stefanie, he got his reward, sex. While Todorovic never met Stefanie, Stefanie and Bagshaw had briefly dated.
Bagshaw, 4 days short of 18 at the time, lost his bid for a youth sentence, and received a life sentence. In custody, he helped an inmate try to kill another. Todorovic tried to claim she never meant for this to happen. She received an adult sentence, life with a 7 year minimum in custody. Both lost their appeals.
Todorovic was reportedly jealous Bagshaw had once dated Stefanie. Knox was reportedly jealous Meredith started dating Giacomo.
3. Jeremy Steinke and ‘‘Jane Doe’‘
Medicine Hat, Alberta—Steinke was the 23 year old boyfriend of ‘‘Jane Doe’‘, the 12 year old who arranged to have her brother and parents murdered. The girl cannot be named, as an adult sentence could not be imposed (she was under 14 at the time). Given that 23 and 12 is considered pedophilia in Canada, there were concerns that the parents would have called the police.
The parents wanting to end the relationship was the apparent motive for the murders, although it is not clear why the brother, then 8, was killed as well. The woman is currently serving the rest of her 10 year sentence in the community, while Steinke is serving 3 concurrent terms of 25 years to life.
The parents obviously disapproved of the huge age gap. But to be fair—Raffaele Sollecito was a ‘‘kid’’ when he was 23.
4. Russell Williams
Tweed, Ontario—Williams was a colonel in the Canadian Air-Force and Commander of the Trenton Air Base. He has since been given a service misconduct and kicked out. In his early 40’s, he began breaking into neighbours’ homes and stealing underwear. He later committed 2 sexual assault, but let those victims go, but committed 2 more but killed those victims: Marie-Frances Comeau (a military officer under his command); and Jessica Lloyd.
Williams plead guilty to 2 murders, 4 sexual assaults, and 88 break-ins, but will still be eligible for parole after 25 years.
A few gruesome facts: Williams suffocated Ms. Comeau by wrapping her head with duct tape, and made a video of it.
Also, he told Jessica’s boyfriend (at the time worked under William’s command), that he didn’t have to talk to police without a lawyer. He also dumped Jessica’s body where he knew her boyfriend hunted. It seems likely that Williams was trying to frame him. Perhaps Williams wanted Jessica’s boyfriend to be the one to find her, a bit like Knox wanted Filomena or Laura to find Meredith.
5. Cody Legebokoff
Prince George, British Columbia—Termed ‘‘Canada’s Youngest Serial Killer’‘, he killed 3 women: Jill Stuchenko, Natasha Montgomery, Cynthia Maas, and a 15 year old girl Loren Leslie, all by age 20.
When originally stopped, Legebokoff claimed the blood was from a deer he was poaching and had clubbed to death. At trial, he tried to claim that a drug dealer X, and his two associates: Y, and Z did it, and that he was an unwilling participant. That excuse failed, and he was convicted on 4 counts of first degree murder.
An appeal is pending based on the claim that the trial should have been moved elsewhere due to the publicity. He complains it is impossible to be judged fairly. But to be fair, he hasn’t sought out the limelight, given TV interviews, or signed any book deals.
Author’s note: I was in Prince George while the trial went on. Yes, the town knew about it, but people still went about their lives.
Notorious Killers In The US
1. Gerald and Charlene Gallego
This couple committed a series of murders in California and Nevada. They kidnapped women to become sex slaves. Their victims included: Rhonda Schleffer, Kippi Vaught, Brenda Judd, Sandra Colley, Stacey Redican, Karen Twiggs, and at least 4 others. When caught, Charlene turned against Gerald, claiming he was abuse, controlling, and had initiated everything.
In return for testifying against Gerald, Charlene was not charged in California, and only received 16 years, 8 months in Nevada. She has since been released. Gerald received death sentences in both states, but died before either could be carried out. While Charlene received much more lenient treatment, there has been speculation that the sex slavery was her idea.
Since plea bargaining is illegal in Italy, neither Knox nor Sollecito could turn on each other for a deal. They probably would have, if it was possible.
2. Douglas Thomas and Jessica Wiseman
Virginia—14 year old Jessica Wiseman arranged to have her 17 year old boyfriend Douglas Thomas murder Wiseman’s parents. They were shot dead in their sleep. Thomas apparently was so desparite for love that he was willing to go along with a girl who wanted away from her controlling parents. While pledging to be with him at first, Wiseman abandoned him once he ‘‘served his purpose’‘.
Wiseman was tried as a juvenile, and released after 7 years, since she could not be held past her 21st birthday. Thomas was executed 2 years later, after spending 9 years on death row. This happened even as information emerged that Jessica shot her Mom, though it was never verified. Though she was younger, it was widely viewed as unjust.
Knox, though not living with her parents, had problems in her home with the women upstairs. Other options were available, such as moving in with Sollecito, or ‘‘re-negotiating’’ with Federico Martini, but Knox tried to solve her problem by getting rid of it.
3. Alvin and Judith Neelley
Georgia—this couple abducted a 13 year old girl, repeatedly sexually assaulted her, and injected her with Drano, hoping to poison her. When that didn’t work, Judith shot her in the head. Afterwards, they abducted a couple, Janice Chatman and John Hancock, brought them to a hotel to be tortured and murdered. John was shot and left for dead, but survived, and was able to identify the Neelleys afterwards.
Judith was sentenced to death, but it was commuted to life without parole. Alvin is serving a similar sentence.
A sick game they played, as if they were living out a fantasy. Who else fantasizes violence?
4. Jodi Arias
Arizona—A California resident had a long distance relationship with an Arizona resident, until he rejected her. Arias staged a break in at her grandparents’ place to get a gun, went out of town to rent a car, got 3 5-gallon gas cans (so she wouldn’t have to stop), and turned off her cell phone (so it couldn’t be traced). She went to Travis Alexander’s home, had ‘‘good-bye sex’’ with him, then stabbed him 29 times, slit his throat, and shot him in the head. She then cleaned up, and went to her new boyfriend, in Utah, as if nothing happened.
Initially Arias said she wasn’t there. Then she said 2 masked burglars did it, but she was afraid to identify them. Next she said she didn’t know who they were. At trial she claimed self defence, while invoking ‘‘battered woman’s syndrome.’’ The judge and jury didn’t believe her, and while she was spared the death penalty, Arias received life without parole.
Arias didn’t take rejection by Travis well at all, and neither did Knox take being stood up on Hallowe’en by Meredith.
5. Casey Anthony
Florida—Her daughter Caylee goes missing, so Casey goes partying (a bit like Guede did after Meredith’s death). Prosecutors claim Anthony just wanted out of the responsibilities that came with being a parent. Casey countered that Caylee accidently drowned. Unfortunately, coroners were never able to positively determine the cause of death.
Although eventually acquitted of Caylee’s death, Casey was convicted on 4 counts of providing false information to law enforcement. Among other things, Anthony made up a story about ‘‘Zanny the Nanny’’ possibly being involved to divert attention. On appeal, 2 of those counts were overturned. She is free, but keeping out of the public eye. Anthony still has a record for lying, as does Knox.
6 Thomasdinh Bowman
Washington State—He shot another driver, Yancy Noll, in the head several times. Bowman tried to clean up the crimescene—his car, and had his cellphone turned off. When arrested, he denied involvement, but later changed his story to ‘‘self-defence’‘, claiming Noll attacked him in a fit of road rage. Prosecutors claimed that this was planned, and that he had studied on how to get away with murder.
At trial, he was observed smirking and seeming to enjoy himself. Knox likewise enjoyed the attention of her 2009 trial. This attitude would come back to haunt him. He was convicted of murder, and sentenced to nearly 30 years in prison. He never expressed remorse to the family, just that he was ‘‘sorry they [the jury] didn’t believe me.’‘
Some Further Observations
Canadian and American laws are very similar in dealing with serious crime, with the focus being on punishment and deterrence. Both countries have a bill of rights to ensure basic defendant’s rights are met, quite similar to what Italy has, but something many nations don’t offer. Some main differences: (1) Canadian criminal law is made federally, while the U.S. states make their own laws for murder; (2) Canada has a much lower incarceration rate; (3) Canada’s sentencing laws are getting tougher, while U.S. laws are going the other way; (4) some states have the death penalty while Canada does not.
Both countries have their fair share of wackos, (pardon the non-technical term). This is not an American problem, or a cultural problem, but a problem of having people who should not be walking freely among us. While both countries do have ‘‘rehabilitation’’ as part of their sentencing guidelines, murder is a crime that must be punished, both to condemn the act, and to protect the public.
When faced with the prospect of a long mandatory sentence, or multiple, consecutive sentences, there is the reaction to plead out for lesser offences. However, pleading guilty can have major implications, especially if giving someone else up for a lighter sentence.
Falsely accusing innocent people, or at least fictional people, seems fairly common by killers. They do not ‘‘falsely confess’’ that other people did the crime, rather they ‘‘falsely accuse’‘.
Male-female killer couples occur in both countries, but almost universally, the female killer gets a much lighter sentence. This is likely in part due to society willing to believe that the man is primarily responsible. Also, these women have no qualms about blaming it all on the man. The case of Knox getting a higher sentence than Sollecito or Guede seems to be an anomaly.
Acknowledgements: A thank you to Yummi, Peter Q., and Cardiol. Your feedback has altered the direction of this series.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (23)
Monday, August 10, 2015
Problems With Fred Davies #2: His Claims On Knives, Wounds And Stains Also Highly Mislead
Posted by James Raper
Overview Of This Post
Remember that Amanda Knox, a felon for life, served three years for framing Patrick for murder.
In my previous post I dismissed the claim which the British barrister FG (Fred) Davies pervasively made in Parts 1 to 20 of his mammoth series in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly that it was actually Guede and his team who had somehow framed Knox and Sollecito for a crime he alone committed and left all of Italian law enforcement bamboozled.
I now have Parts 21 to 26 as well, all of the series, and I wish to examine one more large area of cherrypicked facts and misinterpretations, along with Davies’s final conclusion.
First, Fred Davies’s Final Scenario
As anticipated, Davies concludes that Knox and Sollecito should only have been convicted of the charge of simulating a burglary. He presents his own synopsis of what happened on the night of the murder which has both Knox and Guede present at the cottage for the murder, but not Sollecito.
Davies says it is Guede who sexually assaults and stabs Meredith. Knox, unaware of what was going to happen is horrified and scared out of her wits, retreating to her bedroom and locking herself in.
Davies says Guede flees, ignoring or unable to do anything about the fact there is/was a witness to his horrific crime. When it’s safe to do so Knox emerges and meets up with Sollecito.
Davies says that Knox, fearing that if she went to the police she would only end up being accused of involvement in the murder, persuades Sollecito to be her alibi, and to stage the scene to point to a burglar, and Sollecito, being the Honour Bound sort of chap he is, agrees to go along with this. Once they both embark on this course of action there us no turning back.
I trust that you are all duly intrigued with Davies’s scenario and panting to learn how and why he arrives at it. Unfortunately this will have to wait until another day if it is to be from me.
He has, after all, taken 26 Chapters in half a year to get to this point and I am not yet ready to deal with them comprehensively. Others here may contribute posts and discuss implications with the Criminal Law editor.
Fred Davies On Knife Or Knives
Whilst I guess most comments are going to be about the above synopsis, I am going to deal with his thoughts regarding the knives, these being quite central to his synopsis.
My argument below is supported by numerous previous posters none of whom differed markedly from Massei or Nencini.
Davies in contrast is sharply critical of Massei. He simply excludes the Double DNA knife (Exhibit 36) as the murder weapon.
He is also critical….nay, I would have to say that he is outraged…. at Massei holding that Sollecito was responsible for the lesser of the two wounds, that on the right side of Meredith’s neck. He is critical of Micheli for not finding, as a matter of fact, that Guede was the one responsible for the wounds, using his own knife which has yet to be recovered.
Without more ado I will proceed to Mr Davies’ evaluation:
“The finding against Sollecito that it was he who inflicted two of the three wounds to Meredith Kercher using a pocket knife which was in his possession at the material time is deeply flawed, offensive and wrong in law”
Well, I was unaware that Massei had found that Sollecito inflicted two of the three wounds. In fact I am not aware of three wounds (unless he includes what is effectively a nick) , but if there were then Massei only attempted to attribute two, the one to the right of the neck, 4 cms deep and with a width of 1.5 cms, being attributed to Sollecito’s “pocket knife“.
It did not cause any significant structural damage, unlike the wound to the left, 8 cms deep and 8 cms wide which had penetrated both Meredith’s larynx and the cartilage of the epiglottis, and had broken the hyoid bone.
Is the rest “deeply flawed, offensive and wrong in law”?
“It could not have been part of the prosecution case that Sollecito used a pocket knife to subdue and stab Meredith Kercher. If it had why was Sollecito and/or Knox not charged with carrying the said pocket knife without justified reason? To recapitulate,, the charge alleged that the killing was achieved by means of………….and deep lesions to the left anterior-lateral and right lateral regions of the neck, caused by a bladed weapon (Exhibit 36).
The Massei Court’s finding strikes against basic principles of fairness which applies to all criminal proceedings. Put another way, a criminal court is not generally entitled to bring in a verdict which differs markedly from the basis on which the prosecution puts it’s case. This is because the defence would not be able to adequately prepare and meet such an unexpected contingency. In plain English the defence would be ambushed or taken by surprise. In this case the defence was ambushed and the defendants’ rights (Knox and Sollecito) were fundamentally infringed.”
Oh come on! Ambushed? Really?
OK, so the charge did indeed indicate that that both the right and left sided wounds were caused by “a bladed weapon to which Chapter B applies” (Exhibit 36) but the reality is that the defence always knew that Exhibit 36 (because of it’s dimensions and in particular it’s width 4cms from the tip) could not have been the cause of the wound to the left anterior lateral. That’s a matter of simple logic and in any event every expert and all the lawyers in the case agreed on that.
So the way the charge was erroneously framed in fact misled no-one.
Indeed had the defence thought so then they could have raised the matter. Mr Davies does not claim that Massei did not have the power to amend the indictment. If the court was unable to, or the defence chose not to raise it, either way thinking it was a clever appeal point, then it did not become one.
Indeed, Mr Davies will know anyway that in English law, by virtue of The Indictments Act 1915, courts can (and frequently do) order an amendment to an indictment at any stage (which includes during a trial) provided the amendment does not result in an injustice to the accused. This is a practical necessity as it would be an affront to the concept of justice if defendants were to be acquitted on the basis of a mere technicality.
One might consider what amendment might have been made.
A possibility is that reference to the right-sided wound might have been excluded. It was the left-sided wound that was fatal, after all, and caused, as the prosecution would endeavour to prove, by a weapon which, as it happened, belonged to Sollecito.
The prosecution did, of course, maintain that it was Knox who wielded the weapon, but might, as an alternative, have also asserted that it was Sollecito. Indeed the framing of the charge leaves it an open question as to which of them did. They were charged jointly with having caused Meredith’s death.
The evidence that it may have been either (AK or RS) is a common feature of cases to which the English legal doctrine of joint criminal enterprise applies.
The doctrine applies particularly to a case such as this in that no matter who actually wields the weapon the other participant in the common enterprise is deemed to possess the same level of criminal liability even if he did not know that there was a knife or that it would be so used. Being reckless as to that possibility is sufficient.
It is surprising how often how little is required to establish joint enterprise. Frequently the mere fact that the participants know each other and were there, and that the situation was a combustible one of the group’s making, is enough. The doctrine has come in for a great deal of justified criticism but despite this remains firm law.
My preference would have been to amend the indictment to refer to the right sided wound being caused by a bladed weapon, the blade being of indeterminate length but with a width of approximately 1.5 cms. It is the width of the wound that is salient because it is indicative of the width of the blade on the knife being used which, whilst also being indicative of the likely length of the blade, but without being sure, could be either a pocket knife (4 cms or more) or a flick knife (which could also be a pocket knife). 1.5 cms is about the width of the tip of one’s index finger, by the way.
Massei, and others, always refer to this knife as a pocket knife. However henceforth I am going to write “pocket knife“ to refer to the options of a pocket knife with a blade of 4cms or more, or a flick knife.
As to Mr Davies other point as to why Sollecito was not specifically charged with carrying a “pocket knife” without justified reason, I do not know, but since the framing of charges is a matter for the prosecution, one might as well leave the matter there.
In any event the lack of a specific charge does not in any way preclude a court from inferring the nature of a weapon from the pathology of the wound nor from identifying the probable assailant (as distinct from having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the culpability of a single perpetrator named in a specific charge of “carrying“).
Guede did not ever face a specific charge of carrying a weapon but that does not prevent Mr Davis from concluding that Guede had a knife and had stabbed Meredith. It seems that Mr Davies would have been quite happy for Guede to have been so charged and convicted on Professor Vinci’s (see later) dubious testimony.
In this last respect, however, Mr Davies could have more telling argument. Lets see.
“To infer that Sollecito had a pocket knife at Via della Pergola 7 on the fateful evening of November 1-2, based on the character evidence of four witnesses called for the defence, was to say the least highly unusual..”
I think the operative words here are “witnesses called for the defence”, amongst whom was Sollecito’s own father. Yes, highly unusual but then that is what happens when you do not vet your own character witnesses before cross-examination.
Sollecito’s proclivity for carrying a knife (usually a pocket knife) at all times (and indeed he had one on him at the time of his arrest in the Police Station) is highly relevant. These witnesses referred to a knife with a blade of about 4 cms, or perhaps 6 cms.
In addition Sollecito was something of a knife aficionado. The police found two specialist knives, a Spiderco and a 2004 model Brian Tighe. Neither of these can be connected to Meredith’s wounds but they are indicative of his affinity to weapons specifically designed to be used in a fight to maim or kill. Clearly a flick knife falls into the same category.
As to proclivity evidence against Guede one can refer to his brief possession of a kitchen knife acquired at and belonging to the Milan nursery (which he did not break into, he had been given a key).
There is, of course, Tramontano’s dubious claim (angrily dismissed by Micheli even though Guede was never given the chance to challenge this in court) that a black man broke into his property and, confronted by Tramontano, had pulled out a flick knife as he exited. Tramontano tried to claim the burglar was probably Guede based on a photo of him he had seen in a newspaper. If it really was Guede he was not carrying that knife with him at the Milan nursery 8 weeks later.
“Even if Sollecito was present at the scene of the crime (as distinct from being complicit), the court could not have been sure that any “pocket knife” in his possession, which incidentally was never recovered, had inflicted all or some of the injuries, the most cogent rationale being:
1. The prosecution could not prove the dimensions and the character of the knife were consistent with the injuries inflicted upon Meredith Kercher.
2. The Court paid scant regard to the totality of expert opinion as to the type of bladed weapon (or weapons) which had been used to stab the victim
3. The Court paid scant regard to the dimensions of a bloody outline of a knife found on Meredith’s pillow
4. Consequently the Court could not have been sure that any pocket knife and, a fortiori, exhibit 36 had been used to stab Meredith that fateful night.”
As to 1 above, we know that no suitable weapon was ever recovered but if the indictment had been amended in accordance with my preference then the prosecution would easily have proved that part of the indictment, relating as it does to the wound on the right side of the neck.
It is a reasonable inference on the balance of probabilities that the wound was caused by a “pocket knife” and if one accepts the presence of multiple attackers (which I understand is a judicial truth in the case even following the latest acquittal of Knox and Sollecito) then, again on the balance of probabilities, and taking into account all the other circumstantial evidence in the case, I submit that it is a reasonable inference that it was Sollecito’s “pocket knife“.
The bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt” applies to culpability re the specified charge and is not to be confused with the elements.
As to 2, this simply is not true. I shall look at the totality of the expert opinion in a moment but suffice it to say that Massei spent a considerable amount of time in his Motivation detailing with and discussing the defence experts’ opinions.
As to 3, (and it was not on the pillow but the bedsheet) it was Professor Vinci’s contention that the bloody outline (there was a dual outline, he said) was left by a knife with a blade 11.3 cms long or a knife with a blade 9.6 cms long with a congruent section of handle 1.7 cms long (9.6 + 1.7 = 11.3). Davies does not mention a blade width but in fact Professor Vinci actually says 1.3 to 1.4 cms wide.
Taking these measurements as read, Davies points out that they are incompatible with either a pocket knife (such as Sollecito had a proclivity to carry) and Exhibit 36. I have no argument with that observation. It follows, he then argues, that one has to infer the presence of a third knife in any hypothesis and if a pocket knife and Exhibit 36 are already accounted for by Knox and Sollecito then a reasonable inference is that the third knife would have to be Guede’s. Indeed (Davies does not say this, but I will) Professor Vinci’s blade is not incompatible a priori with either of the two wounds.
This is worth looking at seriously as so far it is the only worthwhile point Davies has made.
First of all I have to say that I have searched for but have not found any rebuttal evidence or comment from the prosecution amongst the documents on the Wiki. I do not even see a question on the matter in the cross-examination of Professor Vinci.
Massei only briefly commented about the bloody outline on the bed sheet. He opined that the blood stains were certainly “suggestive” but insufficient to establish any clear outlines from which reliable measurements could be established. Clearly then he did not accord any reliability to Professor Vinci’s measurements. But is Massei right? One does not have to be an expert to consider this.
Did the prosecution overlook their own analysis of the stains? Did they deliberately do so after Exhibit 36 was found, 9 days later on the 12th November, to have Meredith’s DNA on it? Or did they always know that the stains established nothing?
The next question to be asked is whether we can see the outline of a knife, or rather a blade. I think the honest answer to that is, on balance, yes. We think we see the tip of a blade, do we not? Maybe two, maybe even three.
It is fairly clear that Professor Vinci takes the largest of the stains to be the hilt of the handle to the knife. Lining that up with what is perhaps the likely clearest possible perceived blade tip (being the middle out of a possible three I believe I see) then the distance to the perceived hilt is indeed something like the 9.6 cms which Professor Vinci has measured.
But there are problems. Here are two of Ergon’s photos from his posts here and here with Exhibit 36 superimposed on the stains in two different positions to reflect the supposed dual outlines.
The blob of blood in the bottom left of the pictures and it’s lesser moon at 1, or 2, o’clock are regarded as having come from the same position on the blade and so with that reference point the blade is positioned accordingly in each photo.
We can surely take it that Professor Vinci also sees the same duality. But if the bloody hilt is aligned to fit with “the moon” stain in order to get the 9.6 cms measurement, then what has happened to that large hilt stain when the knife is moved further to the left, and then dropped a bit, to align to the moon’s planet (the blob)?
It has either disappeared or become an edge. That doesn’t make sense if “the moon” is the lesser version of the blob. The blob has to come from the first positioning of the knife. Despite this, in the knife’s later position the volume of blood at the hilt has actually increased comparative to the knife’s first position. That doesn’t make sense either.
So maybe the largest stain pre-exists, even for perhaps a moment, the stains suggesting the blade outlines, but in that case we can throw Professor Vinci’s measurements out of the window.
Can we do without the blob and it’s moon? It’s all a lot less convincing without them. But in truth we cannot even be sure that they are related. Nor that the largest stain has anything to do with the hilt of a knife.
A further connected observation concerns Professor Vinci’s claim that the blade of the knife is 1.3/1.4 cms wide. Like the rest of his evidence I do not find this very convincing. I suspect that he has deduced this from the largest stain which has a length, he says, of 1.7 cms. It’s width could then be something like 1.3/1.4 cms.
If the width of the knife is represented by approximately 1.4 cms then, given the position of the bloody hilt relative to the tip of it’s blade, what are we to make of the two spots of blood in a horizontal line above? They look like the upper (or lower) edge of a knife but they can’t be without making the blade wider.
Why does it have to be the same knife anyway? The stains could be the result of two different knives collected and laid to rest in the same spot.
The blood stains are certainly bewitching - rather like seeing patterns in tea leaves at the bottom of one’s cup - but on the balance of probabilities I would not totally rely on anyone’s perception of them even, with all due respect, Ergon’s but his analysis is as good as anyone’s, and that for me is the point of it.
In short I think that Massei was probably right. These stains are suggestive but basically useless and the police/prosecution ignored them for that reason.
“Consistent with English law the Massei Court’s findings should be struck down as Wednesbury unreasonable. Where there is no evidence to support a finding of a court or the court has reached a conclusion which is irrational or perverse, in the light of the evidence adduced at trial, a conviction based on that part of the evidence cannot be sustained……….The Massei Court also appears to have violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair trial),”
Yeah, right. The case to which he refers, Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation  1KB 223, is an odd and unnecessary one to pray in aid. It was a civil case where the appellant sought judicial review in respect of a licencing decision. As a formulation of a first principle of natural justice it is, of course, unquestionable. However the claim that Massei reached a conclusion that was irrational or perverse is laughable.
It is at this point that one does begin to wonder whether Davies is indeed connected in some way with the daffy Nigel Scott (Sollecito‘s ex Lib Dem Haringey Councillor groupie) who similarly emerges with bizarre arguments.
Next, in his evaluation, we come to a numbers game as to who was for and against the incompatibility of Exhibit 36 with the fatal wound on the left side, but before I enter into that game I want to make a point about incompatibility.
A knife blade is only incompatible with a wound if the depth of the wound is longer than the length of the blade or if the width of the wound is shorter than the width of the blade at the relevant depth.
We can therefore establish that Exhibit 36 was not incompatible, a priori, with the depth of the wound. The blade on Exhibit 36 was 17. 5 cms long and the depth of the wound was 8 cms.
Yes, I know that other arguments as to incompatibility were advanced based, in the main, on these measurements. These Massei logically deconstructed. In fairness to Mr Davies he did not advance them in his evaluation and so neither shall I.
I would also have to concede that Sollecito’s “pocket knife” is not incompatible a priori with the wound on the left side nor, even if it‘s length of blade was over 4 cms, with the wound on the right. Nor Professor Vinci’s knife either.
The same is true of the width of these knives.
It should however be recalled that the width of the right-sided wound was also 8 cms. That is over 5 times the width of the “pocket knife”. The width of the blade on Exhibit 36 - 8 cms from it’s tip - was twice the width of the blade on the “pocket knife”.
This fact, and the robustness of the larger weapon, particularly with regard to the observed butchering at the base of the right-sided cut, makes Exhibit 36 a far more likely candidate, in my submission, than a “pocket knife“, and that’s without taking into account Meredith’s DNA on the blade.
Returning to our numbers game, Mr Davies puts it slightly differently from Massei. He says -
“And if that were not enough, of the 8 experts who gave evidence on the point, two (Dr Liviero and Professor Bacci) opined that Exhibit 36 could have caused the fatal wound to Meredith’s left side. Professor Norelli could not rule out Exhibit 36. Professor Ronchi’s opinion is not clear due to the use of the “double negative” (non-incompatibility) - it will be assumed that he supported the prosecution contention, but in any event al the remaining four experts, Professors Introna, Torre, Cingolani and Dr Patumi) opined that Exhibit 36 could be ruled out.”
In other words a draw but one of the prosecution experts is a bit “iffy”.
Massei tells us that Dr Liviero concluded “definite compatibility“, Dr Lalli and Professors Bacci and Norelli “compatibility” whilst “non- incompatibility” came from the 3 GIP experts nominated at a preliminary hearing. The latter were Professors Aprile, Cingolani and Ronchi.
“Non-incompatibility” is not hard to understand. It simply means not incompatible or rather, compatible.
Note that Mr Davies has Professor Cingolani lining up to exclude Exhibit 36. Massei disagrees and I agree with Massei. So, for what it is worth (and this is a bit childish I know) Mr Davies loses the game 7 - 3.
“And one final thought. If the defendants (Knox and Sollecito) were sufficiently compos mentis to dispose of the pocket knife …. Why did they not dispose of Exhibit 36? By a process of deduction and logical synthesis the answer is plain for all to see: Exhibit 36 never left Corso Garibaldi and was not the murder weapon ”
Because it was on his landlord’s inventory of kitchen items? Indeed we don’t know for sure that the “pocket knife “was actually disposed of. All we know is that it was not identified and recovered by the police.
And In Conclusion
This is the second of my posts involving Mr Davies. I may not be disposed to do any more. I have to say that although he certainly provided some food for thought on this one, I have not been impressed with his analysis in the topics I have covered so far.
Others here have been tabulating other factual errors and forced arguments and as I mentioned at the start we may see them carry this a bit further.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (12)
Friday, August 07, 2015
Our Book Experience: Knox PR Reaction Way Too Fanatical, Only Grows Suspicion She DID Do It
Posted by Nick van der Leek
When the one faction believes us not to belong to theirs, well, then there is war. Mudslinging, slander, insults – everything except a genuine discussion of the case.
From where Lisa Wilson and I stand, which is hopefully in the middle and on the side of Lady Justice [who is blind, or blindfolded] both factions are mirror-images of each other. Both sides are throwing stones, like the protagonists in the Middle East conflict, both have their grievances, and plenty of stones to throw.
And like the Middle East, the two factions in the Amanda Knox case have been in a war of mostly words for years. Who has won? Amanda Knox seems to have eeked out some sort of victory, but though recently engaged, shows no signs of getting married, and it’s possible the wedding is off.
All is not always what it seems.
Before highlighting a few of our haters, I want to touch on a quick incident that happened on twitter literally in the last day. We had one of our followers enthusiastically report on one of the books she’d read [on Jodi Arias] and promise to give a review the same day. We get bad reviews and we get good reviews, and especially when a book is new, reviews matter. When I followed up with a tweet and then a second tweet, our enthusiastic reader said she felt pressured and obligated and then blocked me on twitter.
What I’m trying to illustrate here is that even those you agree with our work aren’t necessarily above board themselves. What we’re trying to achieve with our books isn’t merely justice in the court of public opinion, but we also want to encourage people to go out and live their lives in an honest, genuine and hopefully happily-ever-after way. One of the ways we interrogate these cases is we try to fathom the underlying psychology of the criminals, and we try to understand these crimes as cautionary tales that we can learn from, and hopefully avoid spiralling into ourselves.
Which is why Lisa and I find the constant lobbing of stones and jibes a little unfortunate. When I confronted one of our supporters with their constant ping pong [block, reporting, badmouthing etc especially on twitter], the response was: but didn’t that debate suit you when we were reviewing your books.
We’ve love our reviewers to be honest, even when they disagree, especially when they disagree. We’d hate our books to be part of a sort of football that is kicked about to score personal points for either side. Our narrative isn’t intended to score points for either team, it’s intended to solve ‘the mystery’ of Meredith’s death. Lisa and I see very little debate on that. Maybe that’s fair given the time since Meredith’s death, but for me this is a crying shame.
I came into this investigation unsure of whom to believe. When you see – as you see in the Middle East conflict – two sides engaged in a tit for tat battle, it’s hard to come away with a sense that either side is right. It’s even harder to trust that either side is going to even be able to be unbiased and fair in their assessment of things. Does that make sense?
Of the 30-odd books I’ve written and co-written with Lisa Wilson, DOUBT [on Amanda Knox] was the first to face accusations of plagiarism. It became a lightning rod for haters and Pro Justice folk, and to date is my most reviewed book on Amazon by far. To be honest, Amanda Knox’s fans are by far the most vindictive and malicious of the folk we’ve encountered through the course of nearly 20 True Crime books. To be honest these people and their underhanded behaviour, even their language, don’t reflect well on their patron at all.
They descend on any criticism of Amanda in organised groups that tag team each other. Do these people not have day jobs? Because it’s hard to believe such tactical and practised viciousness isn’t bought and paid for. Such frenzied attacks inspire responses, and there’s been a lot in the comments section under various reviews – good and bad – of DECEIT. Does that mean people actually read the narrative or are debating it? In a few cases they are, and in a few cases people have contacted us and let us know where they have learnt something or where they disagree, and this is tremendously useful and helpful.
But what about the plagiarism accusation? It was at one time the most popular ‘agreed on’ review when DOUBT was published, so does that mean the plagiarism accusation was actually valid? Or was the accusation a cynical attempt by one side to throw a stone at another side because they didn’t agree with something. Shoot the messenger in other words, forget the message.
Why would someone ignore a message, ignore a narrative unless there’s an implied threat that it could be true?
If it wasn’t true, would anyone really care? But in the context of justice denied, the stakes are rather higher when truth and facts are obscured from the public view. And then it seems, in order to defend the indefensible, one resorts to dirty tricks, like suppression of freedom of speech, and slander. The biggest ironies are the accusations that we are profiting from the tragedy.
Or that we’re slandering someone in our books [that’s the real crime]. It’s ironic when a murder suspect and her boyfriend together earned $5 million for their books, and have numerous and very real slander charges they have faced. In Knox’s case she’s already been found guilty of her false incrimination of Lumumba. Lumumba never got off because Knox said, “Oh, hang on, that’s not right, sorry I made a mistake, it wasn’t him.” Lumumba got off because he had an alibi and someone from the bar came forward to vouch for him. In Sollecito’s case he must still defend allegations of police conduct made in his book [and so must Knox’s parents.
Since Knox was found guilty of slander she served a few years for that. She hasn’t paid restitution to Lumumba [who lost his job and moved to Poland] to date. If Knox is innocent, why isn’t she suing the Italian authorities for wrongful imprisonment? Lumumba did and got a hefty pay-out, so why doesn’t Amanda? Why aren’t we talking about that? But no, we – those of us writing books about the trial – we are the real criminals, we’re the slanderers, we’re profiting out of the loss of the poor victim [no not Kercher, Knox]. This is a crazy inversion of the facts, and only the intellectually weak actually fall for it.
Coming back to Pruett’s plagiarism accusation: was it an exaggeration, was it a lie? Was it based on real plagiarism? Within a few days – subsequent to a phone call to Karen Pruett, and a lawyer’s letter delivered by overnight courier to her work address [she’s a hairdresser in Seattle]– DOUBT was once again available online. We elected to remove any references we made to Pruett’s work ourselves [credited in every instance] and repackage the narrative without including references to Pruett’s timeline in a new book, DECEIT. Of course then the accusation is that our views, since we haven’t referred to Pro Knoxers, is biased and unbalanced. Interesting isn’t it: you quote them and they accuse you of plagiarism, you don’t quote them and they accuse you of being biased.
I only subsequently saw Pruett is endorsed on Amanda Knox’s own website, and was probably paid to research the timeline she produced for Ground Report, which is itself a site facing shutdown due to financial difficulties. The first 80% of her research seemed fairly solid and reasonably unbiased, much of it did reference court testimony, but the last 20% [relating to the crucial timeline of the crime itself] became increasingly dodgy, and part of the original DOUBT narrative highlighted this.
If Pruett had received a hefty payment for her timeline and someone had come along and analysed all of it only to find sections of it to be….well…wanting, well, no wonder she wanted herself excised out of her book. No wonder she wanted the book blocked. So was it really about plagiarism then [because I referenced all quotes to Pruett, and all her quotes were italicised] or was it about Pruett protecting Pruett?
In the end the blocking of the book [for a few hours, perhaps a day or two] by haters created curiosity amongst the Pro Justice folk, and this was invaluable PR for us. Upwards of 40 people asked for a PDF of the original DOUBT manuscript to be sent to them, and at least half sent through carefully considered reviews and feedback. As a result of these reviews and the endorsement of Meredith’s supporters, when DOUBT returned as DECEIT it immediately sold like hot cakes.
Right now it’s currently in the top 20 in Amazon’s ‘Criminal Procedure’ category, and the interest in that book has encouraged us to write a second [DARK MATTER, #15 on Amazon] , and in two weeks we begin with a third [UNDER SUSPICION]. We plan on writing around a dozen more books on this case, and we hope by around midway we will have galvanised a real conversation, not around ‘libellous wankers’ or ‘plagiarism’ or ‘removing Jesus from the Last Supper’ but the most legitimate questions of all:
1. Did Amanda Knox get away with murder?
2. Can the courts in Italy [or the USA or SA] be trusted, even when the world is watching?
3. Is justice up for sale, is it a PR game?
4. If it is, what can we do as the Court of Public Opinion?
As someone sympathetic to Meredith Kercher wisely pointed out in a recent review, the biggest mystery in this case is that it is a mystery at all. My suggestion is we do something more constructive than throw stones at each other.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (35)
Monday, August 03, 2015
Melissa Todorovic Perpetrates A Grisly Jealousy-Driven Murder With Many Other Similarities
Posted by Chimera
The victim Stefanie Rengel, ambushed and killed with a knife; here her mother speaks out
1. The Jealousy Crime
Jealousy sparks a lot of crimes. This is from Toronto Life
It started as a joke. Melissa Todorovic and David Bagshaw fantasized about how they wanted to hurt and humiliate David’s ex-girlfriend. They talked about it for months and months, until the fantasy became a plan, and Melissa gave David an ultimatum: no more sex until Stefanie was dead. How two high school students became killers
On New Year’s in 2008, 14 year old Stefanie Rengel was ambushed, stabbed 6 times, and left to die in a snowbank. She was still alive when a passer-by found her, but did not survive the night.
Her killer was David Bagshaw, 17, and in fact just 4 days shy of this 18th birthday. It turns out that he had been pressured by his girlfriend, Melissa Todorovic, 15 at the time, to do this, or to be deprived of sex from her. After letting Todorovic know that the ‘‘deed had been done’‘, she called Stefanie’s number 3 times to confirm. When no one answered, she took it as proof this had been done.
Between Bagshaw and Todorovic, there were hundreds of emails and text messages on this topic, so once police suspicion fell on them and these records were pulled, it left no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what had happened. Other evidence was gathered of course, but these messages were smoking guns by themselves.
Police believe that the topic had initially come up as a prank, and that on some level they fantasized violence against Stefanie.
2. A Very Disturbing Case
(1) Bagshaw and Stefanie had supposedly dated before (a non-sexual relationship), and it was chilling to see how viciously he could slaughter a young woman he once had feelings for.
(2) Todorovic considered Stefanie to be a rival (she had once ‘‘dated’’ her current boyfriend), but the two had never actually met.
(3) The brief, but completely savage nature of the ambush and killing.
(4) Bagshaw claimed his ‘‘prize’’ after Stefanie was dead—namely a romp with Todorovic. Whatever ‘‘remorse’’ he may have felt with this act, he was still in the mood for sex.
(5) Bagshaw, in one of the messages, complained that he was approaching 18 years of age, and that he would be tried as an adult. This shows that he understood in advance what the likely consequences were.
(6) Even though the messages went back and forth for months, apparently neither Bagshaw nor Todorovic ever stepped back to reflect on what they were setting in motion.
3.The Trial Outcome
At Bagshaw’s trial, his lawyer understood that he really had no defence to the murder charge. He plead guilty to first degree murder, hoping to get a youth sentence from the judge. Remember, he was a few days shy of 18.
It didn’t work, and the judge gave him an adult sentence of life, with a minimum of 10 years in custody. Prosecutors argued that he ‘‘bought himself 15 years right there’‘, as he would have received a 25 year minimum had he actually been 18. Bagshaw has confessed, and apologised to the family for doing this.
At Todorovic’s trial, her lawyer tried to claim that she never intended for Bagshaw to actually go ahead with it. That argument failed as well, and as a 15 year old, Todorovic received a life sentence with a minimum of 7 years to be spent in custody.
4. More Background On The Case
Note: Initially, both Bagshaw and Todorvic had their identities withheld from publication, as both were considered ‘‘young offenders’‘. The media had merely referred to them as D.B. and M.T. However, since adult sentences have been imposed, that restriction has been lifted.
5. Comparisons Of Those Involved
- Bagshaw was 17, Todorovic 15, Stefanie 14
- Sollecito was 23, Knox 20, Guede 20, Meredith 21
- Bagshaw’s lawyers (in pleading for a youth sentence), argued that he was Todorovic’s ‘‘slave’‘
- Sollecito has been widely portrayed as Knox’s ‘‘slave’’ in the media.
- Todorovic was jealous of a girl who had once dated her boyfriend
- Knox was jealous that Meredith got a boy (Giacomo), whom she found attractive
- Todorovic killed someone she had never met before
- Knox killed a roommate that she ‘‘only knew for a month’‘.
- Bagshaw plead guilty to 1st degree murder hoping to get a youth sentence.
- Guede took the ‘‘fast-track’’ trial, to get 1/3 off, or at least avoid a possible life sentence.
- Todorovic’s lawyer claimed Bagshaw did it all on his own.
- Knox and Sollecito’s lawyers claim Guede was the ‘‘lone wolf’‘.
- Cellphone texts and emails were used to nail Bagshaw and Todorovic
- Lack of cellphone activity or computer activity (for Sollecito), raised red flags about the alibis of AK and RS.
- Bagshaw claimed that Todorvic set it all in motion.
- Guede and Sollecito have both claimed that the problems were largely caused by Knox.
- Bagshaw, while pleading guilty, expressed remorse for the murder
- Guede, while denying the murder, has expressed remorse.
- Bagshaw and Todorovic had a sexual encounter as a ‘‘reward’‘, after Stefanie’s murder
- Knox and Sollecito were still having sex after Meredith’s murder, and Knox was still trading sex-for-drugs with Federico Martini.
- Todorvic has never expressed any real remorse for setting Stefanie’s murder in action
- Knox, while claiming Meredith was ‘‘her friend’‘, made comments such as ‘‘shit happens’‘, and ‘‘I want to get on with my life.’‘
- Todorovic and Bagshaw were found guilty (Bagshaw plead), and both lost their appeals at the Appeals Court in Toronto
- Knox and Sollecito were found guilty at trial, but by judge shopping have had success in their appeals.
- Guede was found guilty in the fast tract trial, and despite a sentence reduction, (getting 1/3 less than AK and RS), the conviction was upheld.
6. What Happened Next
Todorovic appealed her conviction to the Ontario Court of Appeals, and it was rejected.
Todorovic lost a bid to remain in youth custody for a year longer than she was to be transferred.
Bagshaw appealed his sentence (he had plead guilty) to the O.C.A., claiming it was wrong to impose an adult sentence on such an emotionally immature person. It was rejected.
Bagshaw, while in custody, was charged with attempted murder, for helping to try to kill an inmate. His excuse: he was pressured to do so, the same line he used in his murder trial
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (14)
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Did Guede’s Separate Trial REALLY Impact Negatively On The Other Two, As Fred Davies Etc Claim?
Posted by James Raper
1. Summary Of The Complaints
I want to write about the separate trials of Guede on the one hand and Knox and Sollecito on the other.
This feature has often been criticized by the apologists for Knox and Sollecito, and I was surprised to learn just recently that their gripe seems to have some support in learned establishments in the UK! Ahem.
The gripe concerns the Fast Track trial of Rudy Guede, and the consequent Supreme Court confirmation of his conviction, with the apologists arguing that these had an adverse and unfair effect upon the proceedings in which Knox and Sollecito were involved. It is based on the simple fact that Guede chose to be tried separately, this being seen as an unfair complication for the administration of justice in the Italian justice system.
There are a number of complaints that the usual apologists have regarding the separate trial of Guede. Most of these are in fact fantasies as I will address.
These complaints, or constant refrains, which some apologists fondly thought could form the basis of a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in due course, can be summarised as follows -
1. That the proceedings concerning Guede established various tenets the most important one of which was the multiple attacker scenario, and that this unfairly affected Knox and Sollecito bearing in mind that their defence was based on the Lone-Wolf scenario.
2. That the evidence in the Guede proceedings could never be effectively challenged by the Knox and Sollecito camps.
3. That, in consequence of which, Knox and Sollecito had virtually already been convicted by the judiciary by the time of their own trial.
4. That Guede was allowed to give evidence against Knox and Sollecito at both his own trial and at the Hellmann appeal hearing without effective cross-examination. Had this been the case the defence would likely have exposed and demonstrated his sole responsibility for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed had he been tried together with Knox and Sollecito this could well have happened at the Massei trial.
5. That Hellmann was right to give no probity value to the content of Guede’s sentencing and the subsequent annulment unfairly allowed material that was prejudicial for the aforesaid reasons into the Nencini Appeal.
6. That Guede was induced into electing for a separate trial with the promise of a reduced sentence should he be convicted - this being to prosecution’s advantage re the case against Knox and Sollecito.
2. How Overall The Complaints Are Wrong
I think that we know what fast-track is by now, so I will not dwell on that. Guede’s trial was over relatively quickly. It lasted a month and likely consisted of about 3-4 hearings. There were just a few witnesses called.
The judge, Micheli, in addition, dwelt on all the evidence in the investigative file including witness statements and forensics. This was because Guede was charged with murder “in complicity with others” and because Micheli also had to make the decision whether or not to commit Knox and Sollecito to stand trial as the other accomplices.
Before I address whether or not there could be any justification at all for the apologists’ above complaints I would like to mention that learned quarter to which I referred at the outset.
I recently stumbled (with the help of the apologists’ website) across the Criminal Law and Justice Weekly website.
I was surprised to learn that various articles had been appearing on it under the heading of “The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher - A critical examination of the trials and subsequent appeal hearings of Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.”
Lexis Nexis ( publishers and distributors of legal material to the legal profession in the UK) describe Criminal Law and Justice as….”the leading weekly resource for criminal law practitioners and all those working within the courts and criminal justice areas.”
The articles are by an F. G Davies, described as a Barrister and listed in Anthony and Berryman’s Magistrates Court Guide as a Deputy Justices Clerk, North Cambridgeshire, in England. He is also a contributor and specialist editor to Justices of the Peace Law Reports.
Online image associated with an annual legal-fees guide which FG Davies edits
Here are two quotes I picked out relevant to this post about separate trials.
“This supports the writer’s contention made earlier that the holding of separate trials for co-accused was wrong in principle and law because the prosecution were alleging that at all three defendants committed the crime acting in concert”
“It provided Guede with a golden opportunity to minimize his part in the attack upon and murder of Meredith Kercher, loading the blame on to Knox and Sollecito who, by this time were suspected to be chief architects of the attack.”
It is of course perfectly true that in the anglo-saxon world Guede would not have had the choice to elect for trial separately from his co-accused. It might have made for a very interesting trial for everyone concerned if he had stood trial together with Knox and Sollecito, but for reasons I will explain later I doubt it, or that Knox and Sollecito would have gained any advantage from it.
Indeed separate trials had rendered a very specific advantage to the Knox and Sollecito camps in that Guede had already been convicted when Knox and Sollecito stood trial, a fact that their PR campaign and followers have drilled home at every conceivable opportunity.
But what on earth does it mean to say that “the holding of a separate trial [for Guede] was wrong in principle and law”? .
Whose law? Whose principles? Just how deeply does the Deputy Justices Clerk delve into the respective systems of justice (and particularly the Italian one) for a comparative evaluation?
Certainly on the basis of a quick read of his articles I would say that he hasn’t delved very far at all. In fact I will go further and say that despite that he is capable of a detailed review of various aspects of the case he pretty much shares the same hostility and concerns based upon parochialism and ignorance to be found on the usual apologists’ websites.
So I will try to put him and the apologists right on how the Italians cope, as a matter of law, with any evidential difficulties that separate trials can throw up.
However, let’s start first with the assertion that the fast-track trial “provided Guede with a golden opportunity to minimize his part in the attack upon and murder of Meredith Kercher, loading the blame on to Knox and Sollecito”? Is that true?
Guede admitted that he was present at the scene of the murder and he has always minimized his part in the attack, in fact denying that he had any part. This is all to be found in his statements pre trial. He would have minimized his part even if he had been tried with his co-accused and had given evidence. Given that he was not believed anyway, it is difficult to detect wherein lies the golden opportunity of a fast track trial.
It is also difficult to envisage what cross examination formula (and the point of it) would have been available to the Knox and Sollecito defence teams as to Guede’s minimal role or otherwise given that Knox and Sollecito maintain that they were not there and thus are hardly in a position to dispute Guede‘s version.
Did Guede load the blame onto Knox and Sollecito? The answer to that is that he did directly implicate Knox but not Sollecito. Again this is all to be found in his pre-trial statements and interviews with the police and investigating magistrates. Whilst on the toilet he had heard the doorbell ring, Meredith call out “Who is it?“ and later say “We need to talk” followed by another woman’s voice, which he thought was Amanda, replying “What’s happening?“ He had also claimed to have seen, through Filomena’s bedroom window, a female figure with flowing hair and had recognised the shape as being that of Amanda Knox.
It might be useful at this point just to pause and remember when Guede could have been cross-examined on this by the Knox and Sollecito defence teams.
Guede was called to give evidence during the Massei trial but declined to give evidence. Not surprising given that he was appealing his own conviction at the time. This was heard two weeks after the conclusion of the Massei trial.
He then appeared at the Hellmann trial by which time he already had a definitive conviction. On this occasion he did respond to questioning and I shall look at this a little later.
3. The Specific Mistakes In Each Complaint
Let us return now to the apologists standard refrains as I listed them at the beginning.
1. That the proceedings concerning Guede established various tenets the most important one of which was the multiple attacker scenario, and that this unfairly affected Knox and Sollecito bearing in mind that their defence was based on the Lone-Wolf scenario.
One might also add the staged break in and some others as well which were all considered by Micheli and endorsed by Massei.
However as at the conclusion of the Massei trial Guede’s first appeal was still extant and the Supreme Court’s definitive reflections on the multiple attacker scenario were still a year off. Nothing had been written in stone at that point. If the multiple attacker scenario became a tenet of the case then it would be more accurate to say that it became so because of Massei joining up with Micheli.
But let’s also take in the second refrain to consider alongside the first at this point.
2. That the evidence in the Guede proceedings could never be effectively challenged by the Knox and Sollecito camps.
This really is pretty rich. So what? Knox and Sollecito were not on trial there. And what to make of the Massei trial which of course is when Knox and Sollecito then wheeled out their big guns; the expensive lawyers and experts in telecommunications, forensic pathology, forensic DNA, ballistics and footprint analysis?
The Massei trial may have taken its time but it was nevertheless (unlike Guede’s trial) a full blooded adversarial trial of first instance, lasting a year, with the prosecution producing each and every one of it’s witnesses for rigorous cross-examination by the defence.
It was Massei that confirmed the multiple attacker scenario on the basis solely of that evidence and with scarce a mention of Guede’s sentencing report. It is lame to argue that Massei was in any way constrained by Micheli’s reasoning on the matter though his judgement was indeed available.
However Massei did make the following observation -
“……the reconstruction of the facts leads to the unavoidable conclusion that he (Guede) was one of the main protagonists (writer’s note: no concession to Guede’s chances on appeal, then?); thus it is not possible to avoid speaking of Guede in relation to the hypothesised criminal facts. The defence of the accused in particular have requested the examination of texts concerning only Rudy, and have demanded the results, specifically concerning Guede of the investigative activities carried out by the police in particular. In fact they have expressly indicated Guede as being the author, and the sole author, of the criminal acts perpetrated on the person of Meredith Kercher.”
So here we see the defence making the running on Guede (without Guede being present as a co-accused to dispute anything) to include any and all evidence as to his alleged criminal background with the precise purpose of bolstering the Lone Wolf scenario, all of which was duly evaluated by Massei.
[One might think, in addition to the above, that Guede would have had cause to complain about the indictments for Knox and Sollecito, in that both were indicted, and subsequently convicted, with the crime of murder “in complicity with Rudy Hermann Guede”, although he still had two appeals left and theoretically (though not realistically) it was still possible for him to be acquitted of the crime. However the drawing up of indictments in separate trials, and how the judiciary would deal with an outcome such as above (which I don’t think would be difficult) would be a topic for another discussion.]
3. That, in consequence of which, Knox and Sollecito had virtually already been convicted by the judiciary by the time of their own trial.
This is so lame by any objective standard, but it is amazing just how often this particular drum is beaten. However our Deputy Justices Clerk would probably subscribe to this. He develops an argument akin to this which he terms the Forbidden Reasoning (echoes of Preston’s “The Forbidden Killer”?) which is basically that Micheli made a number of errors which were then compounded in subsequent hearings.
4. That Guede was allowed to give evidence against Knox and Sollecito at both his own trial and at the Hellmann appeal hearing without effective cross-examination. Had this been the case the defence would likely have exposed and demonstrated his sole responsibility for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed had he been tried together with Knox and Sollecito this could well have happened at the Massei trial.
The evidence that implicated Knox I have already mentioned. It is not entirely decisive in that it is not a solid ID of Knox at the crime scene. At the Hellmann appeal Guede added this in an exchange with Knox‘s lawyer -
DEFENSE ATTORNEY DALLA VEDOVA—And therefore, Mr. Guede, when you wrote verbatim that it was a “horrible murder of Meredith a lovely wonderful young woman, by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox” what do you mean exactly? Have you ever said this?
WITNESS—Well, I… this, I’ve never said it explicitly, in this way, but I’ve always thought it.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY DALLA VEDOVA—And so, it’s not true.
WITNESS—No, it’s very true……………………………….............. So if I wrote those words it’s because I’ve always had them inside of me. It’s not up to me to decide who it was who killed Meredith, in the statement that I made in my trial, I always said who was there in that home that damned night, so, I think I’m not saying anything new……
In another exchange, this time with Bongiorno, Guede makes it clear that he is not planning to answer any further questions about what happened that night but this is because he has already stated (statements and recorded interviews etc), and stands by, all that he has to say about it. Thus all that is taken into evidence perfectly properly. The matter is then left to rest by the defence.
Indeed it is difficult to conceive what further effective cross-examination could have occurred in this situation because clearly Guede would have responded with exactly the same answer each time.
The above exchanges also show just why it is unlikely that there would have been any fireworks had Guede been tried with his co-accused.
Guede would not have been obliged to give oral testimony any more than were Knox and Sollecito and in the event that he had done so (and I think it would have been in his interests to do so) his evidence would not only have been the same but it would have been subject to the same limitations, which would have been zealously protected by his lawyers, that had protected Knox when she gave oral evidence.
On due consideration it might have been a somewhat tetchy affair for the lawyers but it would not have been in the interests of any of the respective teams of lawyers for there to have been any surprises such as Guede moving from beyond what he had already said in pre-trial statements to a solid ID of Knox from the witness box. That wouldn’t have particularly helped Guede as it would have affected his credibility even further. They all had prepared positions to protect and Guede’s presence would be neither that much of an added threat nor an advantage for Knox and Sollecito.
5. That Hellmann was right to give no probity value to the content of Guede’s sentencing and the subsequent annulment unfairly allowed material that was prejudicial for the aforesaid reasons into the Nencini Appeal.
Now we are into the law, Italian law that is, and how it coped with separate trials of co-accused.
By this time Guede’s conviction, remember, had been ruled as definitive by the Supreme Court.
This is what Hellmann said about that -
“……. in truth, this judgement, acquired pursuant to article 238 and so utilisable under the probative framework only as one of it’s evaluative elements pursuant to article 192.…………….. already appears in itself a particularly weak element, from the moment that this judgement related to Rudy Guede had been carried out under the fast track procedure.”
It will be useful to consider some of Prosecutor-General Galati’s observations in the prosecution’s appeal submission and we can do this because the Supreme Court agreed with him.
This is what the Supreme Court said -
“The submission on the violation of article 238 …….is correct. Even though (Hellmann) obtained the final judgement pronounced by this court against Rudy Guede, after properly considering that the judgement was not binding, it has completely “snubbed” the content of the same, also neutralizing it’s undeniable value as circumstantial evidence on the presupposition that it’s profile was particularly weak, since the judgement was based at the state of proceedings without the enrichment acquired as a result of the renewal of the investigations hearing arranged on appeal, In reality, the court was not authorised at all, for this reason alone, to ignore the content of the definitive judgement.”
The enrichment referred to would of course have been the Independent Expert’s evidence (subsequently debunked by Nencini) and the Supreme Court also added that in any event article 238 was not impaired at all by the fact that the first instance trial was fast track.
At the end of the day this was just poor argument by Hellmann but it was symptomatic of the many flaws that underlay much if not all of his reasoning for acquittal.
More importantly for me and in addition to the foregoing the Supreme Court delivered a withering criticism of Hellmann’s understanding of circumstantial evidence and how to evaluate and treat it in its broad spectrum.
However, how can and what elements contained in the separate trial of one co-accused have any probative weight in the trial of the others?
Prosecutor-General Galati puts it like this. The Supreme Court’s rulings -
“have now settled definitively regarding the interpretation according to which finalised judgements can be acquired by the proceedings, as provided for by the indicated law, but they do not constitute full proof of the facts ascertained by them, but necessitate corroborations not differing from the declarations of the co-accused in the same proceedings or in a connected proceeding………………………………......
Naturally this confirmation is not directly used for the purpose of proof but as corroboration of other circumstantial pieces of evidence or of evidence already acquired, not very different from what happens when declarations of collaborators with justice corroborate each other.”
In the event the only material from Guede that really seems to me to have hitherto been extraneous to the first instance trial of Knox and Sollecito was the inclusion at the Nencini appeal of Guede’s partial ID of Knox at the scene and his evidence as to Meredith’s missing money, which were corroborative of elements of evidence that had appeared at the Massei trial; in the case of the missing money for instance, the missing credit cards and Filomena’s testimony that at a meeting shortly before both the murder and the day the rent was due Meredith had told her that she had the cash to hand and was prepared to hand it over there and then.
No such money was found at the crime scene. One suspects that these two elements would have been more prominent at the Massei trial, and have been motivated more attentively, had the three been tried together. In the event Guede’s partial ID of Knox was not even mentioned by Massei and Knox and Sollecito, in the absence of any evaluation of Guede’s evidence, were acquitted (not even motivated at all in fact) of the charge of theft in relation to the money and the credit cards.
Given the foregoing I would argue that Knox and Sollecito derived an advantage rather than a disadvantage from the separate trials.
Furthermore I would argue that the material from Guede’s separate proceedings was not particularly damaging given the overall context of the evidence already directly available from the trial of Knox and Sollecito (which received some but in truth did not require much corroborative confirmation from Guede’s separate trial) and which in itself was sufficient to found a verdict of “beyond reasonable doubt”, but it did supply some useful insight into a motive when of course Hellmann had found none and Massei had supplied a rather improbable one.
6. That Guede was induced into electing for a separate trial with the promise of a reduced sentence should he be convicted - this being to prosecution’s advantage re the case against Knox and Sollecito.
Needless to say this is what you get from desperate and deluded minds. Guede’s lawyer has explained why his client took his advice and the decision was perfectly rational and in Guede’s interests. Guede was entitled to a third off his sentence from choosing fast track though I am no fan of that. Furthermore I have explained why no particular advantage accrued to the prosecution from this choice other than that it probably foreshortened the time that a full trial of the three would have taken.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (25)
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Why The Count Of Discredited Prosecution Witnesses Even Now Remains Down Around Zero
Posted by James Raper
As with all images on TJMK this image above will expand if clicked on
Just sifting through the latest drivel on Injustice in Perugia today and I came across this statement from one of their main posters.
“It was physically impossible for Capezalli to have heard any sounds from Meredith’s residence”.
Note : not that she was mistaken or that her evidence was unreliable but the bald statement that it was physically impossible for her to have heard anything.
Was she profoundly deaf then? If not, then why this assertion? Without some basis for this assertion then it is simply a dismissive slur on the credibility of the witness.
This happens to be the same poster who wowed that board with his claim that the Prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence that would have cleared Knox and Sollecito.
Not that he supplied any proof. How could he? It is axiomatic, of course, that if there was suppressed evidence then what it was would not be known. Nevertheless it was a ready springboard for calls from mindless idiots to have the Prosecution fully investigated and charged with perverting the course of justice!
Anyway, to move on, the purpose of this post is just to revisit (with pictorial assistance) Capezalli’s testimony (I shall call her Nara from now on) and see if there is even a scintilla of justification for the claim.
Now to be fair, Nara did say in her evidence that she had double glazing and maybe that is what he is referring to although for the life of me I don’t see why that would make it impossible for her to hear a scream outside.
But it’s worth investigating because it’s the sort of thing that does get repeated without further analysis and I have read others taking that remark at face value and doubting whether she did hear a scream and, perhaps more credibly, whether she would have heard the sound of someone running on the gravel of the cottage forecourt and up the metal steps from the car park.
Here is what she said -
“What happens is that getting up I’m going past the window of the dining room, because the bathroom is on that side, and as I am there I heard a scream, but a scream that wasn’t a normal scream. [A terrifying and agonising long scream as she describes it elsewhere] I got goose bumps to be truthful. At that moment I no longer knew what was happening, and then I went on to the bathroom. There is a little window with no shutters, none at all.”
Mignini then asks -
Q—Well, you go by the window and you hear this cry?
Ans – Yes.
Q – Then you continue to go towards the bathroom, you told me?
Ans – Yes.
Q – Do you open the bathroom window?
Ans – No.
Q – Explain what happened for us.
Ans – I haven’t any shutters on that window, I only have double-glazing so I can look straight out
Q – So you looked out of the bathroom window?
Ans– I didn’t open up because I had all the little succulent plants there for the light.
A little late in her testimony Mignini seeks to clarify her evidence -
Q– So you hear the scream, go to the bathroom, look out the window and you don’t see anything?
Ans – No.
Q – Then you go back to the bedroom?
Ans – Yes.
Q – When is it that you hear the noises you described, and then we will see what they are?
Ans – I hear the noises I described when I was closing the bathroom door, then I heard running, because that steel there [the metal stairs] makes a tremendous noise at night, then when you don’t hear cars going by or such like, I looked out but there was nobody there.
Q – From which way?
Ans – To the left and the right, and there was nobody there.
Q – Then you heard the scuffling?
Ans – The same, in the meantime I heard running on the stairs, from the other direction they were running in the driveway.
Much later Nara is helpfully (perhaps) cross examined by Dalla Vedova on her remark that she has double glazing, as follows -
CDV - How are your windows made?
Ans - My windows are made of wood. They have double glazing and they have a shutter.
CDV - When you say “they have double glazing” do you mean that every single window has two panes, or are there two windows, one in front of the other?
Ans - No, two panes in each side and opening in the middle.
Confused? What is she really describing?
Many moons ago Kermit put together a very helpful Powerpoint lambasting the behaviour and claims of Paul Ciolino, the American PI who appeared on CBS rubbishing the suggestion that Nara would have been able to hear anything. It is obviously Ciolino’s disreputable work that is the basis for the claim.
I am going to lift some stills from Kermit’s excellent Powerpoint and add to them some more from a (somewhat infamous) Channel 5 documentary, from which it will be clear that
(a) Nara doesn’t have double glazing, nor shutters, at least not at the back of her property overlooking the cottage. However there are shutters at the front and, for all I know, double glazing there but that is not of concern to us.
(b) There is little reason to doubt that she would have been able to hear sounds outside quite well.
Here’s a picture of the back of Nara’s property immediately above the car park.
Here it is again in relation to the cottage
In the first picture Nara’s first floor flat is shown circled. In the second, it is obvious that only the roof of the cottage would be visible from the first floor, as indeed she said in her testimony.
There are two further floors above. The top floor is the one to which Ciolino (and Pater Van Sant) gained access, having tried but failed to interest Nara. Nara in her evidence said that there was an apartment above which she rented out and I suspect that this was the top floor. The top floor undoubtedly had double glazing or double casements.
Below is one of the top floor windows. (We can see Ciolino’s reflection in the glass)
And here he is, standing in front of the same window whilst conducting his experiment with a couple of kids running along the road outside -
As we shall see it really was quite pointless conducting off-the-cuff sound experiments from there with the double casement shut tight
Nara said that her daughter also lived in the building so either the second floor was a separate conversion for her daughter or first and second were shared and the second was where their bedrooms were. That’s actually immaterial as it is the first floor that really interests us.
Here is a close up of the first floor. We can be sure because we can see Nara and the co-presenters of the Channel 5 documentary standing on the balcony.
We can see how large the windows are on either side of the balcony. As to the window on the right it is also apparent that this has been blocked up save as to four panes in the middle so that now there is only that smaller window there.
Clearly then she is standing inside her bathroom and the bathroom window looks over the car park. Indeed we can see her succulent plants on the inside window ledge as she stated in her evidence. Also, if we look closely, we can see that her wall is tiled or wall-papered with a tile design befitting a bathroom. Probably that wall is also made of little more than plasterboard.
One thing is quite certain though and that is that the window, which opens in the middle, is not double glazed.
Nara’s understanding however seems to be rather different. To her “double glazing” is (as she said to Dalla Vedova) “two panes in each side and opening in the middle”.
We can also infer that the large window to the left of the balcony belongs to her dining room. What she said, in effect, was that she was traversing the first floor (from left to right) from her dining room to her bathroom (being both on the same side, as she says). She heard the scream in her dining room.
The window there does not appear to be blocked off as it is to the right. Indeed I think we can see full length drapes or net curtains but certainly one would expect a larger window there and again, clearly, it is not double glazed.
So again, why would it be physically impossible for her to have heard a sound, particularly a scream, coming from the cottage?
It couldn’t be because it was too far away. We can see that from the pictures but also here is a handy GoogleMap calculation of the distance from her place to the far side of the cottage.
So that’s, say, 45 metres. Or 49 yards. Not far at all. Thanks to Yummi for bringing that up on pmf.org.
We should also remember that it was the 1st November which is a religious holiday in Italy in remembrance of the dead and therefore background noise was quieter than usual. It was also probably sometime around 11pm and the back of Nara’s property looks out on what is a natural amphitheatre in which noise will echo.
Nara Capezalli in fact came across as a compelling witness to what she heard that night and there is no way at all that it was physically impossible for her not to have heard that scream. Nor the metal stairs (“..makes a tremendous noise at night”….) just off to the right of her property and immediately below it.
On a personal note I was recently driven nuts by a manhole cover that had come loose in the road outside my bedroom window. Cars constantly drove over it and the noise kept me awake. The top floor of the car park would probably also act like a sounding board and the noise made by the stairs may also have come up through the stairwell we see immediately in front of her property. I am not so sure about the sound of gravel on the cottage forecourt being crunched underneath but already I am more than prepared to believe Nara on that score as well. Why not?
Finally, as we await the Cassation Motivation (whenever!) I seem to remember that at least one appeal point was the failure of the lower courts to accede to a defence request for audio tests to be conducted from Nara’s property.
Bearing in mind that Judge Marasca reportedly has stated that the ground for overturning the Nencini convictions was insufficient and contradictory evidence one wonders whether Cassation will say that a test was required, in the absence of which Nara’s testimony can be thrown into a pot along with other evidence somehow deemed “insufficient”?
If they do then watch out for them getting the double glazing issue quite wrong as well.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (24)
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Amazon Reviews: Are Knox PR’s 1000 Dishonest Paid Reviews Losing Traction?
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
Sales of the Sollecito and Knox books have been way below expectations despite dozens of glowing reviews - and by the way numerous repeats of the hoaxes and defamations.
At the same time sales of objective books on the facts of the case and the psychologies have been meeting expectations despite the absence of advertising or a paid-for PR campaign.
Here are some of the spontaneous review for the two books Deceit and Dark Maatter by Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson.
By atlantic 1 “atlantic1” on June 3, 2015
This is an exceptionally-well-written, complex (but lucid and fast-paced) account of the murder of Meredith Kercher (a British exchange student) in Perugia, Italy, and the unconvincing behavior and at times multiple stories of the main suspects: Amanda Knox (the American roommate), Raffaele Sollecito (Knox’s Italian boyfriend at the time of the murder), and Rudy Guede (Ivory Coast native adopted by an Italian family, currently the only one serving time in Italy for the murder).
Other characters are prominently featured, along with a lot of background information from reputable sources.
What I really liked about the book is that many links throughout the text (in the Kindle edition that I purchased) send the reader to outside documents (e.g., photographs) that would otherwise take a while to research (warning: some visuals are pretty disturbing, but one always has the option of not clicking on the link).
The book has a fluid style and is absolutely engrossing, I highly recommend it.
By Leigh on June 8, 2015
Nick has done a superb job in ‘Deceit’ of reviewing, combining, comparing, and contrasting vast amounts of information from many different sources on Meredith Kercher’s case. As someone who has followed anything and everything of substance I could find on the case since 2007—I appreciate his massive effort, and certainly agree, some amount of speculation is required. What is especially effective about Nick’s speculations is that they are based on confirmed ‘knowns’ about the case from genuine sources such as investigations, witness testimony, interviews with Meredith’s friends, housemates, and others who knew AK (rarely spell out AK’s name since I hold extreme animus for that wrongly acquitted psychopath!).
While I don’t agree with every speculation of Nick’s—I have many of my own—I do appreciate that he examines what’s real. For everyone trying to follow the case, it’s been difficult to sift through the exhaustive amount of subterfuge, deceit, and duplicity from rabid AK fan club members, a professional ‘damage-control’ PR / media manipulation machine, lazy mainstream US media lapdogs, and AK’s lying family—people and organizations who clearly would stop at nothing to defend their favorite two murderers. The worst of them always show up to deliberately hurl their vile insults and spew hatred at anyone who doesn’t howl about the great Italian conspiracy perpetrated against the murderer AK, or who don’t constantly drool like a fool over AK’s beauty and brilliance. The AK jerks are certainly out in force at trying to bring down this book—they try and destroy anyone who seeks to get the truth out about Meredith’s murder and AK’s direct involvement in her death.
By S. Gleason on June 7, 2015
Thank you for reminding people of the truth Nick. Wonderful book. A breath of fresh air. Please don’t listen to propaganda being posted here in the reviews. Listen to the abundant case evidence against all three. Justice for Meredith and her family.
By M Thomson “Elizabeth” on June 2, 2015
This book is a interesting and fast paced read. Suspicion builds naturally as the author follows the two defendants in the hours before and the murder. Their actions and changing alibis are well documented here. Amanda Knox falsely accused Patrick Lumumba in a very short time just after learning Sollecito said she went out that night. I wonder if the one star reviewers would rather you not know this.
By Margaret Ganong on May 25, 2015
The author has a good grasp of the facts and makes a case that is far more convincing than the two recently and bafflingly acquitted Knox and Sollecito have ever been able to do. Indeed, one of the most compelling reasons to read this book is for its effort to set the written accounts of Knox and Sollecito side by side, revealing the many ways they don’t add up and are at odds with one another.
By Amazon Customer on May 25, 2015
Thoroughly enjoyed this book. I cannot wait for the next one in the series. There HAD to be more to this murder ... and I am now sure that there was more than one person involved. Poor Meredith ’ s family having to live with this. I just love the narrative that makes Nick’s books SO enjoyable.
By kris arnason on May 26, 2015
Nick van der Leek has written an extremely cohesive narrative about the tragic Meredith Kercher case. The author takes you through what likely happened that horrific night, and why Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito’s stories don’t add up, all the while providing the reader with hundreds and hundreds of hyperlinked images, news reports, and audio clips, etc. that have been consolidated, collected and embedded in this one narrative. Everything sourced, right at your fingertips. A must read for people like me who have followed this case from the beginning and folks just getting interested and want to learn all they can. Thanks Nick! Looking forward to more from you about this case!
By Caroline on July 5, 2015
I bought this book because of the reviews! I’ve never done that before but I’m so intrigued by the almost angry tone to all of these one star reviews. It just makes me wonder if a nerve was hit. Somebody’s hiding something maybe? Anyway, I just have to read it now. Will come back with full review when I’m done.
By Amazon Customer on June 1, 2015
Finally! An honest book of what really happened to Meredith Kercher! Can Nick interview AK & RS on TV in the USA? I am sure he would ask REAL questions!
By Jeff “jeffski” on May 26, 2015
It is a disgrace that Amazon allows these Amanda Knox trolls a platform to spread hate and abuse people simply because they write a review for a book that these people disagree with. Amazon must act on these known frauds/cyber bullies who suppress and insult/abuse people on forums/Comments section and social media.
This book is a excellent read and obviously hits a nerve with Knox’s followers as the negative comments and abuse/insults aimed at author prove. Please look beyond the rent a hate mob and read the book and come to your own conclusion.
By Columbo on May 25, 2015
This is an excellent true crime story with highly accurate and precise detail of how Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede all killed Meredith Kercher. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to know the truth of this case in a very revealing and fast page turning account of what really happened in this case.
By Michela on May 30, 2015
By Maria Chinnapan on May 26, 2015
A great read!, very down to earth appraisal of what may have happened. No nonsense and to the point
By MCD on May 31, 2015
Again this formidable true crime writer has come up trumps with an incredibly well researched interrogation of a crime that continues to baffle the world. The detailed sequence of events is painstakingly pieced together. I had only superficially followed this case when the news initially broke so have been fascinated by this book which has filled in many gaps and highlighted the inconsistencies in the behaviour of Amanda Knox and her boyfriend, who said what, who lied about what, etc.
In addition to the bare bones of the case, the author’s classic approach is the use true crime as a melting pot of evil and the extremes of human nature. He asks unsettling questions about human behaviour, herd mentality, apathy and our place in society - a society where a crime like this one can and does take place and despite all the investigation, the waters are still muddied in the deeper pools.
For those who appreciate that truth is stranger than fiction and like to delve deeper into these cases, the author brings it all together for you, with a dollop of enriching ‘food for thought’.
By Truth Seeker on May 26, 2015
It is the behavioural evidence which has always bothered me about this case, and it has always seemed that everything said/done by the ex defendants had to be explained away or justified. The author has cross referenced the two versions written by them in their memorials, and needless to say, there are major discrepancies.
Unless we expose the inconsistencies, then the two will have literally got away with murder. Legally this may be the case, but analysis provided by this book goes some way to keeping the memory of Meredith honoured, and ensuring that there are some still fighting for justice for her. Do buy the book- it has none of the obfuscation and image management that we have been subject to in the past years.
By Ipsos Maati on May 30, 2015
Why is Amanda Knox panicked about this book, and why did she try to have it banned?
Deceit shines light on the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher, and the dishonest effort to free her.
Exonerated does not mean “innocent”.
By elizabeth on May 26, 2015
Deceit is a fascinating read no matter where you stand on the recent verdict. Fast paced but manages to bring a cohesive dialogue to days before and after the murder
By A. Futo “911 coincidence analyst” on May 26, 2015
Well written book by author Nick van der Leek, with all new research and links to original reporting and publicly available information about the murder Of Meredith Kercher.
Is Amanda Knox, the main suspect in the case, guilty of murdering her room mate as many believe, or was she railroaded by the prosecution, as claimed by her friends and family?
The author skilfully navigates the questions of motive, means, and evidence, starting with the premise that this is a case that begins with and is marked by many layers of deceit, as Knox first accuses an innocent man, Patrick Lumumba, then must lie and keep on lying to distance herself from the crime she implicates herself with by admitting to her presence at the scene.
Her co-accused, Raffaele Sollecito withdraws then confirm her alibi, and the other person evidence shows was involved in the sexual assault that preceded the murder, Rudy Guede, also tries to distance himself by running away then denying her involvement, then accusing the two of them in a letter to the media.
The author’s hypothesis of what happened is based on a finely rendered psychological evaluation of Amanda Knox. No matter what the final decision will be, this is a case that will be discussed for many years to come. I look forward to his next book of the series.
By Leigh on June 25, 2015
After more than 7 years of following Meredith Kercher’s murder case closely as the saga has wound through the arcane Italian justice system, I am completely convinced that AK & RS are her two other murderers who have ultimately escaped justice. Their final acquittal has not changed anything for me. Yet I’ve been asked by others who have more than a slight interest as to why is it I’m so certain, what’s your 3-minute elevator speech? Well, an elevator speech doesn’t exist, but in ‘Dark Matter’ and its prequel, ‘Deceit’ and I hope, in more follow-up e-books on this case, a reader can get as close as possible to a comprehensive full-view, what-happened, tell-me-everything explanation without having to slog through over 1,000 pages of trial documents translated from original Italian and endless arguments from two deeply entrenched opposing sides. Trying to read through it all could easily take most of an interested person’s discretionary time for a lengthy period of their lives. And who needs that, right?
What’s special about ‘Dark Matter’ is how easy it is to read, how well the authors guide readers through crucial evidence while using a technique borrowed from Socrates—keep asking yourself common sense questions as you’re reading. ‘Dark Matter’ examines the early case from a big picture view—the most prominent evidence, the investigation, what happened in days before, and after Meredith’s murder, and what was the behavior like of those near Meredith? Then go further, examine what AK & RS wrote in their own books about the murder. Do they agree with each other or give themselves away by not agreeing in crucial areas? ‘Dark Matter’ creates these scenes while assisting readers in finding their own answers.
‘Dark Matter’ examines what is important to know, then asks readers to consider: ‘does it make sense?’ or ‘were these actions meant to deceive and lead investigators astray?’ ‘is there an innocent explanation?’ ‘does unusual behavior indicate guilt, youthful carelessness, or something else?’ ‘Dark Matter’ lays out salient evidence found during investigations, and continues to encourage readers to question its importance: ‘where does this evidence naturally lead?’ ‘can we tie the evidence and the behavior together to draw conclusions, and how do we do that?’
‘Dark Matter’ is exactly how I’d want someone to guide me through an enormous case if didn’t know much about it. Don’t tell me what to think, don’t try to persuade me towards your view—show me what is important to know—and I’ll decide for myself; in this, both authors excel.
One area where I completely disagree with the authors is their, what appears to be, complete acceptance of nonsense created by AK’s professional Seattle-based propaganda machine and American author Douglas Preston—these two parties had their own reasons to intentionally malign and destroy Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Their agendas were obvious to truth seekers—one sought to do ‘damage control and create a villain to take attention away from AK,’ the other, to leverage the murder to create interest in his own book.
Unfortunately this propaganda proved to be extremely effective, and was picked up by most US media outlets that then ran with the deception. Those who know the case from the pro-justice side are keenly aware of how this vicious, deceitful campaign against the prosecutor convinced tens of millions of Americans AK was an innocent who was framed. I hope the authors make an effort to learn how completely they have been deceived and correct these mistakes in future books in this series.
By JJ on July 3, 2005
Great book!! Highly recommended
By Sarah Breen on June 30, 2015
Research and writing are top notch! True investigative journalism into this controversial subject.
By Nicole church on June 27, 2015
I loved your book-you guys definitely did your research and systematically take the reader though some of the most damning evidence in this case. I was impressed at how you tied it all in with the theme of dark matter- very well done and thought provoking.
No need to apologize for your narrative;yes there are some f bombs but it made me respect you more for being authentic and your sarcasm is justified when it comes to this case. Like you both said it would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. You do a great job calling bulls*** on both murderers using example after example from their own words(in court,interviews,diaries,etc)
I am sure this book has the murderers supporters all in a tizzy- it is easy to spot their attempts to sabotage your deservedly 5 star reviews with their 1 stars. Just look for lots of exclamation points and words in all caps then move right along to the honest reviews that will really help you decide if this book is worth reading- and it certainly is.
Looking forward to your next book and thank you for being the stars that shine light on the truth
By Columbo on June 26, 2015
Another really great book by Lisa Wilson and Nick van der Leek. In this easy to read and compelling book the key events, character aspects of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede and the most significant evidence against them are all objectively weighed and analyzed. Additionally, in a very balanced view, the case for Amanda Knox as promoted by her supporters is also reviewed so readers can make up their own minds. But there is only one conclusion: all three killers murdered Meredith Kercher (RIP). I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to know even more about this case.
By kris arnason on July 5, 2015
Dark Matter is a must read for everyone wanting to know more about the murder of Meredith Kercher. Those who believed in the lies & cover up of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s multi million dollar PR campaigns will have their eyes opened after reading this excellent book.
By JJ “jj0388” on July 3, 2015
great book!! highly recommended
By A. Futo “911 coincidence analyst”
I read many crime books, and this is one of the really good ones on the case. Amanda Knox’s strange behavior and lies, accusing Patrick Lumumba, her relationship with Meredith, all reflected in the “Dark Matter” of her psychology.
She simply is not very believable in her book, and her media appearances have been disasters which is why she’s withdrawn in hiding. Her father hired a PR firm to manage her image, and in the process influenced many sad, gullible people who still try to negate any criticism. Even though Amanda Knox has ‘won’ her case, why are they still posting nonsensical, abusive reviews of a book they never read?
One example, but this is important to me. Her father said that Meredith gained advanced three levels in karate and would not have gone without a struggle. A testimony to her character, but a reviewer writes “that’s an orange belt, beginner’s level”. Sorry, but the people who loved her say she would have fought to the end. So why the lack of defensive wounds, if she was being restrained by only one person?
In the struggle, she managed to injure Amanda Knox, who left her blood behind in the crime scene. (A bloody nose, ear stud pulled out? Left her lamp behind in the room to assist cleaning?) She was photographed with a scrape on her neck, and the police photograph taken on arrest shows the long scratch which she only partially covered with makeup on November 02. Her adoring fans call that a “hickey”, lol. Perhaps Lisa Wilson can collect these reviews as insight into their “Dark Matter” as well?
By GH2006 on June 22, 2015
This book is a perceptive analysis of the evidence in the murder case of Meredith Kercher. Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson take you through the court documents, statements made by the suspects as well as the DNA evidence among other things, which reveal the many lies and obfuscations by the public relations firm hired by the defendants as well as the ob-knox-ious murder-supporters who attack anyone who writes about the truth of this crime. (Shown by the flock of 1 star comments with long venomous attacks by haters who haven’t even read the book.)
Written with the same interesting, insightful, and at times entertaining way van der Leek and Wilson hook the reader in from beginning to end. I couldn’t pull myself away from this book that Nick generously gifted to me because this is not about making a profit for them but in getting the truth out there! (In stark contrast to the defendants who made millions selling their version of the crime.) Oh! And this book also shines a light on the way Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito obscure the truth in their own books. That was very interesting as well! I also enjoyed the first book DECEIT and looking forward to the next book! TY
By Bibliophile on June 21, 2015
Awesome humdinger of a book. This book will tell you the truth!
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (16)
Friday, July 10, 2015
The Milestone Book By Dr Andrew Hodges On Knox’s Driving Psychology “As Done Unto You” #1
Posted by Peter Quennell
1. Who Put Knox’s Psychology Front And Center?
In fact Amanda Knox herself did.
Her turbulent history goes way back. She is on officlal record as having had a difficult and possibly damaging early childhood. She herself describes her oddball faux-lesbian status at her high school, not of her own doing. She has been referred to as brash, sharp-elbowed, a drug-using man-eater and risk-taker at the University of Washington.
Suggestive incidents she herself describes (when she is not disavowing them) on her way to Perugia only added to this.
At most, one in 100 American students arrive in Perugia with (1) no formal program via their university back home, and thus no supervision, (2) no enrollment in the University of Perugia - merely enrollment in a glorified language school, which demands less than 10 hours a week of study, (3) no European work permit, no financial grant, and few financial savings; and (4) an assured drug supply. But Amanda Knox was indeed one in 100.
Given her burn rate, her savings would have run out early in 2008. Her drug-supply arrangement began on the train, even before she arrived in Perugia. Around Perugia Knox was soon isolating herself quite relentlessly. With the drug taking and her choices of men to entice and all the people she ticked off, she showed early signs of a pending trainwreck. One of the very few who tried to give her comfort was in fact poor well-meaning Meredith.
Note Knox’s trajectory from the day after Meredith’s murder, where she was reported to stink of cat urine (an indicator of recent cocaine or crystal meth use) after claiming she had showered just 2 hours earlier, through her erratic highs and lows prior to her arrest, to her screaming fits and head-hitting at the central police station, to her endemic feuding with Sollecito, right through 2008 to her trial.
At the Massei trial in 2009 Knox herself put on a front as endlessly daffy - as epitomized in the Beatles T-shirt she wore, and her first interjection to the court, which was about her Bunny vibrator.
That might have worked as an “I am not all there” defense (possibly arrived at between the defense team and the PR scheme) but two things at trial totally destroyed prospects of that.
- Her strident, sarcastic, callous two-day stint on the witness stand, which was seen on live Italian TV and reported as a disaster for her in Italian eyes here and here.
- The closed court reconstruction of the exceptionally barbaric pack attack by three assailants, which took Italy’s best crimescene analysts a whole day to present and which made some in the court cry or feel ill; reflected later in a 15-minute video and in the prosecution’s summations. Throughout all of that, Knox herself and her hapless defenses had zero comeback and to this day have still offered no alternative.
From 2007 through late 2011 a number of further hard-to-explain-as-normal episodes took place in Capanne prison. Knox’s paranoid book Waiting To Be Heard says that black is white, down is up, she alone is normal, and everyone around her intends bad.
We have reported frequently and very fairly on all of this, with half a dozen psychologists posting, most especially SeekingUnderstanding, who has long argued Knox is in decline and years overdue for treatment (see especially the post here and post here and post here) surfacing essentially similar insights. That Knox has a lot bottled up and that she cannot stop signalling guilt is a recurring theme of our past Psychology posts here.
Those Americans and Brits who hopped on the PR-driven bandwagon for Knox on the psychology dimension almost all arrived several years after the PR campaign started its Orwellian mission.
Without a single exception ALL of them crash on the details. They leave enormous amounts out, and what they dont leave out is more often wrong than on-target. One criminal psychologist Dr Saul Kassin was shown to be so seriously off-base that he has disappeared himself.
The most factually inaccurate and psychologically badly-grounded takes on Knox and her defensive moves have come from John Douglas and others in the fading first generation of “ex FBI profilers”. John Douglas seemingly learned nothing from Kassin’s crash and burn - he repeats the extremely inaccurate and defamatory Kassin depictions largely verbatim. More about the bamboozled “ex FBI profilers” will follow later in this series.
2. Introducing The Analysis Of Dr Andrew Hodges
Dr Hodges is at the forefront of his vital field now. He is impressively qualified, and widely networked in the crime-fighting community. He has a successful publishing track-record.
He describes his methods in full in his book subtitled The Secret Confession Of Amanda Knox and elsewhere. He arrives at a fair and and extremely detailed and not unkind analyses of both the presumed perp and those hangers-on who surround them.
Dr Hodges himself has suggested to TJMK that, as if he were at one of his presentations (he has presented, among other venues, at FBI Quantico), he should first let others with knowledge of the field speak about the book and about himself.
Accordingly, the rest of this first post consists of some reviews. Future posts in the series will include some book excerpts and some explanations of why various professionals who should have known better have simply misread Knox, John Douglas included.
Review In New York Crime Examiner
By Liz Houle
NY Crime Examiner
Dr. Andrew G. Hodges proves that Amanda Knox is guilty in his new book
July 8, 20157:06 PM MST
The police are investigating the murder of a young woman. They bring three people in for questioning, two males and one female. All claim to be innocent. After hours of questioning the suspects are released. The female goes home and types into the wee hours of the morning. She creates a spontaneous five page email alibi. She writes that she has to “get this off my chest.” She sends it off to approximately 25 people. Her email is addressed to “everyone” and describes her “account” of the last time she saw the murder victim. She writes that as she was “fumbling around the kitchen” when the victim appeared with “blood dripping down her chin.” Afterwards she and her boyfriend did a lot of mopping and cleaning up because they “spilled a lot of water on the floor. “
Later an autopsy would reveal that the murder victim sustained multiple cuts and bruises to her face and neck area by a kitchen knife. As the victim lay dying, a pool of blood spread out on the floor. The blood had been cleaned up afterwards, mopped up, by the homicidal maniacs who had killed her.
A practicing psychotherapist and nationally recognized forensic profiler named Andrew Hodges M.D, has written a new book, As Done Unto You, which decodes the hidden messages in the verbal and written statements of the murder suspects in the Meredith Kercher murder case. Dr. Hodges uses a “cutting-edge forensic profiling technique of thoughtprint decoding by accessing the deeper intelligence (unconscious mind) of suspects in criminal investigations.”
He writes on his website, ”I have learned that the human mind works simultaneously on two levels—consciously and unconsciously. The discovery of an unconscious super intelligence [super-intel] reveals that it reads situations in the blink of an eye and invariably tells the complete truth.”
In As Done Unto You he starts with a brief introduction to his methodologies followed by a hypothetical version of events based on the evidence and his findings. He reveals what unfolded the night Meredith Kercher was gang raped and slaughtered in her bedroom. His narration is graphic and has the ring of truth. Hodge’s comprehensive knowledge of this case including some lesser known facts renders his retelling as one of the most profound to date.
We know the who, what, where, when, how of Meredith’s murder so all that is left is the why, and this is what Dr. Hodges brilliantly addresses in his book. Investigators scrambled to find a motive or an immediate trigger(s) provoking Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede to rape and stab Meredith Kercher to death. Prosecutors debated over whether it was it a fight over Amanda Knox’s slovenly habits, indiscriminate sex life, or was it a robbery gone wrong? Hodges answers this riddle unequivocally in his book based on the murder suspects own statements.
Hodges explains, “Unquestionably there would have been two types of motives. Immediate trigger motives and far deeper time-bomb motives which caused such distorted thinking consciously.” (Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 740-741). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.) There is most likely a list of provocations resulting from the quickly deteriorating relationship between Amanda and Meredith which was witnessed by many. Ultimately it appears that it was Meredith’s rejection of Knox on October 31st that set things off.
On Halloween night in 2007, Knox in her cat costume walked aimlessly around Perugia for hours - alone. She kept texting Meredith over and over to try and meet up with her. Meredith was having fun, partying with her friends and ignored Knox’s persistent texts. This rejection and abandonment on top of a series of earlier clashes with her roommate, unleashed the beast in Amanda - the repressed rage stemming from her early life traumas.
As Hodges explains, “Criminals are typically controlled by deeply buried unconscious emotional trauma which they re-enact on their victims. It’s well-documented that abuse victims often themselves become abusers.”
After the crime is relived in the first two chapters, the author then delves deeply into the inner world of the murderers unconscious. Analyzing their words, Hodges takes the reader through all of the reasons Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy found each other, their shared emotional baggage. All three had upheavals in their early life which brought them together and the toxic combination exploded into a group assault that went too far.
Hodges includes an intriguing and insightful description of the deeper meanings within photographs taken in the months leading up to the crime. This is followed by a methodical and intense study of the murder suspects writing in the rest of the book. In particular he focuses on Amanda Knox’s writing.
Dr. Hodges’s book is dense and full of observations which reveal much more than any other book about this case. Some of the insights that he discovers through thoughtprints include:
- “ . . . [Knox] suggests they initially entered Meredith’s bedroom “together,” like storm troopers, to carry out maximum humiliation. This never started out as a one-on-one catfight.”(Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 243). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.)
- “Amanda also implies . . .that she and Raffael both penetrated Meredith— as did Rudy Guede, whose DNA was found inside her. It was a gang assault. “Came out” suggests lesbian activity on Amanda’s part. In a later writing, Amanda will recall how people thought she was a lesbian in high school.” (Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Locations 3630-3633). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.)
- “[Knox’s] super-intel continues to highlight motives – first the immediate trigger motives. Evidence clearly indicates Amanda had significant conflicts with Meredith, and she outright lied about those disagreements. Meredith’s parents, friends and roommates, however, knew about them.” (Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Location 3132). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.)
- Amanda certainly knew her parents were married on February 21, 1987, with her mother five months pregnant before Amanda’s birth on July 9. 1987. That meant she was conceived around October 9, 1986. Her utterly brilliant super-intel would have figured out in a heartbeat that it was sometime in November 1986 when they considered the abortion. That month would have had special significance to her and evoked an enormous unconscious anniversary reaction marking her near-death.” (Hodges MD, Andrew G. (2015-06-23). As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox (Kindle Location 4747). Village House Publishers. Kindle Edition.)
Over and over again, Dr. Hodges uncovers the distressing realities surrounding that night. Hodges work is truly groundbreaking. As if all of this weren’t enough, in the final chapters he includes the super-intel study of one of Knox’s most prominent supporters, Nina Burleigh, uncovering what she says in between the lines of her own writing.
As Done Unto You is a fascinating, intense and thought provoking look at the truth as only a psychiatrist and FBI profiler with a firm understanding of the Super Intelligence technique could reveal.
Thoughtprint decoding has proven to be an invaluable tool in criminal investigations. Similar to when DNA was first introduced, some people may be circumspect about it however in time it will prove to become critical in solving cases like the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Unfortunately, the Meredith Kercher murder case has been closed and due to the inability of the Italian legal system to confidently identify the multiple attackers, two of the three suspects have been acquitted. Hopefully Dr. Hodges thoughtprints become a part of future murder investigations like this one so that victims families get the closure and justice they deserve.
2. Amazon Reviews By Actual Readers
There are some PR-inspired reviews on Amazon which are so angry and so badly grounded that there is no way those reviewers had read the book. These are some appreciative reviews by those who did actually read it.
From a noted forensic psychiatrist and author (NOT funded by Knox & co.)
By malcontent on July 8, 2015
The “Knoxies” don’t want you to read this…but shouldn’t you make up your own mind? Written by noted forensic psychiatrist and author, this book provides unique insight into the minds of Meredith Kercher’s killers (note: plural). A fine analysis. Fascinating and well done!
Journalist Amanda Knox buries the lead in her own story: “I Confess - I Murdered Meredith!”
By Leigh on July 8, 2015
For those following Meredith Kercher’s murder saga for over seven years, the revelations from Dr. Hodges are not startling. Many of us have been able to read through the lines to find lies and see confessions—early on picking up on the importance of the Nov. 4th, 2007 middle-of-the-night email home to family and friends. I’m grateful to whichever person saw the truth buried there and decided to turn the email over to Perugian Police. Dr. Hodges shows in a very detailed manner exactly how AK’s confesses to her crime. AK selected the victim, manipulated co-conspirators in a pack attack, and struck the fatal knife stab herself. Readers keep in mind, AK is not reporting what actually happened in her many communications efforts, she’s creating a narrative—a story she’s telling in order to extricate herself from blame while confessing through ‘thoughtprints’ which once decoded, show how her unconscious mind is working below the surface.
Following Meredith’s murder, AK couldn’t stop talking, nor stop herself from making insensitive remarks, writing and writing, giving statements, writing ‘memorials’ to police, writing a prison diary, also letters, many letters. And following her 2011 release, doing interviews, writing a book, creating a web site, and positioning herself as wrongfully convicted. There was an abundance of materials for Dr. Hodges to examine. AK didn’t leave breadcrumbs, she left an entire bakery of evidence all over the place within her own communications, while maintaining consciously she was an innocent being persecuted by corrupt Italians.
Dr. Hodges offers several theories as to how AK may have suffered deep psychological wounds in her earliest life and childhood which could have contributed to AK’s instigation of violence against Meredith. According to Hodges, AK followed a ‘reverse golden rule’ so typical of wounded people—“Do unto others as was done unto you.” Throughout ‘As Done…,’ Hodges draws upon words used by AK in her communications after the murder to explain how AK’s deep pain contributed to AK’s decision to commit murder. Location 5827: “Amanda clearly describes the deep entitlement that often drives victims of abuse.”
Dr. Hodges is an optimist, and clearly in the ‘forgiveness business,’ much as Italian prison priest Father Saulo, Hodges believes AK is capable of confession, and desires via her super-intelligence, to confess. Location 6149: “The inescapable conclusion: she (AK) must confess. Her deeper moral compass will prevail.”
However, after watching the AK show for over seven years, I disagree that AK will ever be capable of confessing without a huge financial payoff to her after all legal proceedings are concluded. Self-atonement is meaningless to a narcissistic psychopath like AK—she doesn’t feel guilt—she feels fear of being caught, being found out, what other people think of her. Hodges wants AK to have a soul, but I think she’s empty—a vampire / zombie hybrid—desires to do harm and feels nothing afterwards. In fact, I think AK has not shown a desire to confess in her communications because of guilt, she wants to gloat, she’s proud of her murder, she wants to brag to everyone how she won in her battle with Meredith.
Appreciate how courageously Hodges takes on the gang of retired FBI agents who have voluntarily served among AK’s ‘White Knights.’ Hodges does an effective job at pointing out their errors, especially “the superficial attempts” of John E. Douglas, the retired expert profiler. Location 6244: “He ignores far greater forensic evidence—verbal communications in the forensic documents produced by all 3 ...—which he is not trained to decode.” Also found it interesting Hodges calls attention to an article by Malcolm Gladwell from The New Yorker magazine, Nov. 12, 2007, entitled ‘Dangerous Minds’ that comprehensively highlights the flaws in profiling methodology, still available online as of 7/8/‘15. Very interesting!!!
Dr. Hodges also takes on the lazy American media for spreading deception about AK for years and examines one reporter / book author’s lies and her inability to see, or decision to NOT see below the surface—that one is Nina Burleigh. Burleigh wrote a point-of-view fiction that sold well as non-fiction, that’s why we true justice seekers find her particularly disgusting. Based on our research during Burleigh’s early career as a reporter, Burleigh was eager to gain valuable cooperation and became a rather opportunistic and promiscuous leg-spreader—clearly she saw a kindred spirit in AK. Today, Burleigh routinely yells and rails against female sexual violence, real or imagined—maybe Burleigh’s super-intelligence at work in her own personal narrative? My take, not Dr. Hodges who sees a different set of wounds displayed by Burleigh.
‘As Done Unto You’ is a fascinating insight into the dangerous, criminal mind of a murderer—the more they deny, they more details they give away!
Don’t listen to those “one star” reviews, they’re all ...
By Aki on July 3, 2015
Don’t listen to those “one star” reviews, they’r all written by PR of the Knox entourage. The book is very interesting. Independently from some details that some may find subjective and enphatic on the part of the author, it’s basically a valuable and consistent analysis; deserves to be read, much more than any other recent book on the case.
By Columboon July 1, 2015
This a great book that I highly recommend for anyone following this ongoing case. And Amanda Knox did, in fact, confess to being at the crime scene when it happened when she said “I was there. I heard Meredith screaming.” Right there that is enough guilt for at least a conviction of accessory to murder. Amanda Knox should be doing life without parole right now and may still be sent to prison after the ludicrous acquittal is overturned in Italy. Following that her extradition will be expedited with two of her accomplices already in prison.
Among these readers are many who are driven by a great humanitarian interest
By Student Forever on June 29, 2015
The recent Amanda Knox case has taken on a life of its own. The task at hand facing the Italian court: who IS responsible for the brutal murder of British coed, Meredith Kercher studying abroad in Perugia, Italy? Kercher’s roommate and fellow student, Amanda Knox was clearly the centerpiece of this macabre drama; and still is! It appears that the final ‘not guilty’ verdict of the Italian Supreme Court has done little to quell the verdict rendered by much of the global public that has by compulsion joined the fray.
Many websites devoted to either her guilt or innocence have launched and staunchly attempted to prove their point of view. Book stores and magazine stands have provided a never-ending flow of information and commentary to inform both their casual as well as their more fervent true crime readers.
Among these readers are many who are driven by a great humanitarian interest. That is, those whose heart aches for the pain Meredith’s family have suffered through all the tragic ordeal, and still are left with the crushing question, “Who took the life of our precious Meredith, and WHY?!?” The sentence for this family is “life.”
Missing from the judicial pursuit of culpability has been the testimony of one very important witness: the unseen subconscious mind; the super intelligence of each person involved, especially that of Amanda Knox! This is the infamous 90% of the mind that we do not use, the all-seeing witness that processes and catalogs all stimuli, and which, by no surprise, becomes the most reliable witness for every aspect of this mystery.
The reason this testimony has not been queried to date is because the judicial system, both here and abroad, has not yet discovered the integrity and veracity of the source, and consequently does not look to it as star testimony. They don’t know this “deep throat” witness exists! Who can we approach to get the witness to the stand, and who can evoke the testimony? That is what psychiatrist Andrew G. Hodges brings to the table as a forensic profiler. He demonstrates how to listen to the testimony of the subconscious, revealing “an x ray of the deeper mind of Knox.” In this book, he shows us how this “expert witness” testifies on behalf of Meredith Kercher. She subconsciously drops bread crumbs as it were, in plain sight and sound of the trained de-coder. As her super intelligence gushes the truth, not yielding to the predictable efforts of one trying in vain to maintain a false narrative, the veil of the story is finally lifted.
As Hodges looks directly at the writings of Knox, her own testimony contained therein, it becomes clear to his uniquely trained forensic “eye” that Knox, in her own words, is the one responsible for Kercher’s gruesome death, and she is subconsciously wanting the truth to be told.
Hodges’ book is certainly about Meredith Kercher’s murder, but for me it was also a textbook of what one should know about the super intelligence we all have, and how profoundly it knows who we are.
Amanda: a good girl being framed?
By An Amazon Customer on June 29, 2015
Beginning in 2007 when we first heard news reports of murder charges lodged against American college student Amanda Knox in Italy, many thought she was a good girl being framed by anti-American Italian authorities and the equally anti-American European media.
However, once you learn the gory and often grisly details of the case, which are fairly presented in Dr. Hodges’ excellent book of analysis, you begin to question the party line of Amanda’s supporters, who still maintain her innocence despite the fact that the Italian courts have twice found her guilty of murder in separate trials. Yes, she has been cleared most recently by the Italian Supreme Court in the ping-pong game of Italian justice, which is still not completely over (the Jurists are reserving a slander-against-the-Court charge). But one still wonders what exactly happened when British college student Meredith Kercher had her throat fatally slashed in what looked to be a sex game gone bad—very bad.
Perhaps more than *what* happened, we wonder *why* someone like Amanda would be motivated to participate in so vicious a murder of her roommate, even if that act was fueled by alcohol, sexual tension, and/or drugs in the heat of the moment? Here is where Dr. Hodges, with his extensive experience in creating forensic profiles of serial killers, comes to our aid, using his proven method of linguistic “thoughtprint decoding” to ferret out Amanda’s deeper motivations, hidden in her unconscious mind. Dr. Hodges has worked on several high-profile murder cases, using his same well-established method, including the cases of O.J. Simpson, JonBenet Ramsey, Natalee Hollaway. Casey Anthony, and the BTK serial killer.
Hodges explains how the killer inevitably leaves clues about his guilt in his/her actual words, and how to recognize and interpret these clues; Hodges’ method, though at times complex, is fascinating and understandable if you recognize that we do have an unconscious mind. This part of our mind Dr. Hodges calls “the super-intelligence,” which tries to get the truth out any way it can, while the conscious mind of the guilty person tries to spin the clues to exonerate itself (this is why the clues are partially hidden by the words, stories, images and outright denials the conscious mind uses in its attempt to obscure the ugly truth of guilt).
This book will fascinate you if you are willing to look beyond the surface facts and begin to understand the deeper motives of a killer.
Cutting Edge Science, Metaphysically Profound
By Pieder Beelion June 30, 2015
“There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law. It is as hard as nails” C. S. Lewis
Yes. The conscience is hard on all of mankind, including Amanda. And so we must, even if subconsciously, come clean.
As Done Unto You is a shining example modeling how Christians should “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).
The tone of the entire book is a blend of sobriety, truth and compassion.
I had previously written a review of Hodges’ book on Obama at Tea Party Nation: http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/book-review-the-obama-confession-by-dr-andrew-hodges-m-d
I salute the courage, vision, boldness and creativity of Dr. Hodges to produce work and research of this nature.
Dr. Hodges’ work holds out the possibility of uniting a fractured culture into a unified people upheld by a great consensus understanding of our unalienable rights.
Dr. Hodges is full of compassion toward Amanda in all her stages of life. This is a book about compassion and deliverance, not only for Amanda, for the individuals who read this book to understand the moral drama around which their own psyche aligns.
Whereas Physics routinely can perform near instantaneous calculations on dumb unconscious systems that are self-consistent to better than one part in 10^13 or more, Dr. Hodges’ psycholinguistics does not have the same analytical foundation and so ones requires much more time to perform his thoughtprint analysis.
Nonetheless I view Dr. Hodges’ work as breakthrough advancement in science and as one of the most exciting areas in research being performed in science. Science has been spending hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars on space programs and high energy physics which, after the hardware and software tested, points to a philosophical or even a theological quest,
Dr. Hodges’ work subtly invites the thought, “Maybe we didn’t need to spend all that taxpayer money.” Maybe the answers to who we are and the nature of our world are more profoundly found—not in a vacuum chamber decorated with sensitive detectors or in a space station telescope—but in the mind of each one of us.
The postscript is genius: It shows that Hodges is well-read and running circles around the opposition to the Knox-is-guilty thesis. It uses the opposition’s words against them and demonstrates the practicality of Dr. Hodges’ technology.
Finally the postscript is redemptive toward an opposing author, Nina Burleigh. It is a gift of tremendous value to her and something powerful for the reader to behold. This is the book AmandaKnox does not want you to ...
A positive review
By Ipsos Maation June 30, 2015
This is the book AmandaKnox does not want you to read. I found it fascinating because it explores the possible subconscious tells connecting Amanda Knox to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Provocative and insightful.. Thank you, Dr. Hodges
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (46)
Sunday, July 05, 2015
Our Conclusions In “Deceit” & “Dark Matter” And How Our Journey Took Us To Them
Posted by Nick van der Leek
One of the tremendously rewarding experiences we [my co-author Lisa Wilson and I] have as authors is our research forces us to set up camp around questions. We spend time: mornings, afternoons, days, weeks, even months asking questions and pursuing answers. The amazing thing when it comes to True Crime, especially popular crime, is those answers are out there. One merely needs to go out and make the effort to look for them. And keeping looking. Seek and we do find!
What makes our narratives distinctive, I think, is that Lisa Wilson and I more often than not work as a team. How many other narratives have two authors, working from opposite sides of the Atlantic? While Lisa provides a US perspective as a juror and a True Crime buff, I am more interested in the intuitive subtleties that underlie these cases. The psychology, the economics, the motives. Human behaviour is fascinating, especially when it drives people to the extreme. I’m also intrigued by what these intuitions reveals about us, and society.
I wasn’t always into True Crime, in fact like Ann Rule I sort of fell into it by accident. While Rule worked with Ted Bundy, I was facebook friends with the model Oscar Pistorius shot dead in his bathroom. I didn’t intend to write a novel, I simply started asking questions, and then penned a 12 000 word magazine article [intended as a 4 part series]. That narrative eventually became my first bestseller.
Although I studied law and economics, I left the corporate environment to freelance fulltime as a photographer and writer. My great grandfather was a famous South African artist, and my brother and aunt are also both well regarded artists [and yes, freelancers] in their own rights too. I guess there is something restless in my blood that makes we want to dig beneath the surface, to see expanded perspectives than what the media serves us.
I need to not only explore the world beyond my door, but represent it to myself and others in a constructive and meaningful way. I feel passionate about meaning above all, and it’s gratifying to find so much in so grim a setting where someone has lost their life. When we honour them, when we remember them honestly, something unexpected happens: we also set ourselves straight, we also get ourselves [and society to some extent] back on track.
In terms of the Amanda Knox case, I stepped into the bullring for the first time in April this year. I knew virtually nothing about the case other than it had been newsworthy around the world. I knew ‘something’ had happened in Italy, and that Amanda Knox was somehow involved [or not] because she was a housemate of a murdered British girl [also a student]. Before I started studying the case I had no bias either way – I didn’t know whether she was guilty or not. Based on the little media that came my way, there seemed to me to be equal parts bias that she was innocent and…suspicion.
As soon as I started examining the case, literally within a few minutes, my interest was aroused. It was along the lines of: she’s hiding something. It was also along the lines that I thought Amanda might be involved in some way, complicit in some way, but probably not involved in the actual murder. How could she? Why would she?
Again, it is easy to ask these questions and then walk away from them without investing time in their answers. And when they do come they’re…well…stupefying.
While Lisa travelled to Italy to investigate this case first-hand, I started working behind-the-scenes on a narrative Lisa and I designed a framework for called DOUBT. The plan was that Lisa would return and then we would work on the narrative together. I got so caught up in my own research I started on the narrative and by the time Lisa returned from Italy DOUBT was done. Interestingly, Lisa still wasn’t convinced of Amanda’s guilt when she got back, and we had one or two heated Skype calls while Lisa was still in Italy, where Lisa’s position was set to the default setting of most outsiders to the Amanda Knox case: “but there was no DNA.”
A lie repeated often enough eventually becomes if not the truth, then a kind of truism, doesn’t it? A truism isn’t the truth, it’s a platitude. It’s something you say to get rid of enquiring minds.
No DNA? Well, of course there is – at least five instances of it, mixed with Meredith’s blood. What’s perhaps more bizarre, for example, is the lack of Amanda’s fingerprints in her own home. A single print? How many of us could say the same about fingerprints in our own homes? Our computers, door handles, kitchen areas ought to be splattered with prints. Coming back to DNA, not only is Amanda’s DNA present, but so is Raffaele’s in Meredith’s bloody bedroom.
What is the chance that Raffaele was at the villa, in Meredith’s room, but not Amanda? What was he doing there if Amanda wasn’t with him? And is it any surprise that Meredith’s bra, cut with a knife after the murder also had Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp? This is a guy who had a knife fetish, and who was carrying a knife at the time of his arrest?
In DOUBT [which was banned at first by strident Pro Knoxers and then resurrected as DECEIT] I identified 28 Red Flags. These were singular signals that seem to show patterns of inconsistency. Things just didn’t add up. Indeed Amanda did seem to be [and still is?] hiding something. In DARK MATTER Lisa and I joined forces. We brought a binocular lazer-like narrative focus to the four days of intense police investigation following the discovery of Kercher’s body at midday November 2nd, 2007.
In DARK MATTER we identified an additional 100 plus Red Flags [we distinguished these from the first 28 by calling them ‘Black Asterisks’]. In addition to these we listed several other Highly Suspicious Events amongst other increasingly odd behaviours – not only from Amanda, but Raffaele as well. It is when we pool all of these clues together that a picture begins to emerge. Patterns emerge. And suddenly the mystery becomes…less mysterious.
If my initial ‘gut feel’ was that Amanda was simply ‘hiding something’, by the end of DECEIT there was little doubt that there was a lot more going on than that. In fact, I’ve suggested to Lisa that based on forensic evidence alone [if one threw away all the circumstantial evidence], Amanda would still a have a major case to answer to. Conversely, if one took the entirety of circumstantial evidence, including the on-again-off-again alibi, and simultaneously threw out [ie ignored] the totality of forensic evidence, Amanda would still have a major case to answer to. That’s my opinion. Lisa’s too, now that she’s gone beneath the surface of this case herself.
The irony is this case is so large, so convoluted, so filled with spin and counterspin, that it is easy to get lost in the details. As we see so often in court cases, it is not a lack of evidence that is a problem, it is the volume of it that gets disconcerting, and frequently confusing. Confusion and doubt [and ‘reasonable doubt’] go hand in hand. Of course being confused by a lot of information is not the same as uncertainty based on a lack of evidence, or based on ambiguous evidence. The evidence isn’t ambiguous.
As such it is Lisa’s and my mission to demystify the eight years culminating in Amanda’s and Raffaele’s ultimate acquittal. Our narratives, especially the first two or three in the series are probably better suited to newbies [people like us]. In THE IVORIAN, and the many narratives to come after that, Lisa and I expect to be as well versed as some folks on forums and resources like the incredibly valuable True Justice.org.
Before wrapping up, I’d like to share a final insight based on our experience writing another true crime series. It may seem like Amanda Knox, Jodi Arias and Oscar Pistorius are three distinct individuals, with nothing in common. But when we look closer we don’t simply see matches in certain defense schemes, we see entire patterns of conduct [including motive] overlapping, and doing so perfectly.
In South Africa we have a similar situation where the media profit out of stories on Oscar Pistorius. They are reluctant to declare him guilty as that would be slaying a potential ‘cash cow’, and with book deals hanging in the balance [an acquittal is literally worth millions], the media are hedging their bets.
As a person involved in the media I am appalled at this, hence our eight narratives on Oscar, two detailing his motive and the method of what we speculate was premeditated murder. In terms of Amanda Knox, we suspect a similar game play between the media and Knox. Both seem to be involved in a kind of PR waltz which both stand to benefit from, if they can dance consistently to their own music.
It was once said of Lance Armstrong that one shouldn’t make Lance Armstrong angry. Anger is what motivates Lance to win. And then the punch line: ‘Beating Lance makes him angry.’ Lisa and I have been astonished at the level of organisation and aggressive militancy [and dirty tricks] employed by Amanda’s supporters. If this was intended to dissuade us from writing, these folks couldn’t be more wrong.
We are not out to make money, Lisa and I, although we care that our narratives resonate and are successful. What we really care about is justice. The bottom line, whether one is a criminal, or the supporter of a criminal is you never look good trying to make someone else look bad. The venom and personal insults Lisa and I have endured in our reviews is impressive. The strategy is clear – attack the credibility of the messenger [since the message itself is problematic].
Our credibility is simple to establish. For my part, I am a professional writer. I did not gain a twitter following of almost 14 000 based on bad writing. I write in partnership with Lisa because her research is often deeper and even more thorough than mine. For me our credibility is based on just two tests: our personal standards and our level of honesty towards ourselves and others. What distinguishes our narratives from all the others out there is the level of honesty – including self disclosure – both of us bring to our work.
This is because we care about something beyond justice. Besides wanting our readers to have a meaningful and genuine experience reading about these tragic crimes, we – as authors – also want to be enriched. When we make it a personal journey, the insights and intuitions are truly rewarding. We find how these folks – not only the victim but also the perpetrators – are not so very different from us. In this sense, if when we genuinely learn something from these true stories, Meredith Kercher’s death need not be in vain.
Follow Nick van der Leek on twitter @HiRezLife and Lisa Wilson at @lisawJ13
Please “like’ Nick van der Leek’s Facebook page.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (39)