Monday, April 02, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #3

Posted by Peter Quennell



Knox enablers Jason Flom, Barry Scheck, Greg Hampikian

(Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.)

1. What Hampikian Omits In Misleading The American Audience (1)

Think of the evidence in the case as a giant jigsaw puzzle. Say it consists of 1000 pieces.

We at TJMK and PMF and the Wiki are finally on top of nearly all of them. Thanks especially to Italy’s amazing habit of documenting and its open-process juries and our fine translators.

In the US and UK there would be few such documents. And no reasoning at all from any black-box jury. No surprise really that the Innocence Project has many cases here - and none in Italy.

Hampikian in his frenetic marketing of Knox, in sharp contrast to our full picture, leaves out pretty well everything. The previous post by KrissyG showed this for us first.

Amazingly, Hampikian revealed he is not even clued up on the full extent of the DNA.

Now in the prosecution phases of the trial back in 2009 the judges and lay-judges were presented with all 1000 pieces of the puzzle, in 20 day-long sessions (a quarter in closed court and not reported by media in detail). Also they did voluminous side-reading of the case files.

Plus of course staring at the telling Knox and Sollecito reactions for hours and hours.

Knox obviously preferred to be daffy and her version of likable, and to try to warm up a hostile Sollecito. He was obviously sulky and angry at Knox, refusing to look at her or to speak in favor of any of her alibis. Both grimly sat through the hard-to-take closed sessions.

For us and many in Italy, the case came to be a convincingly strong one about midpoint in the trial.

That was when a defiant Knox was on the stand for two days, doing herself no good, incessantly contradicting herself and causing this typical reaction and this one.

Knocked back by this, the defenses used up only a very few court days to attempt rebuttals and attempt to squeeze nice opinions out of character witnesses. Pretty well all Italy could see the defenses were outgunned, listless, and demoralized.

Back in 2008 there had been talk of RS and AK admitting to heavy drug use or psychological issues but the parents would have none of it.

So other than incessantly beating up on Guede (an easy “out” as he was not present to defend himself) it was hard for them to find things to talk about. Some court days were cancelled because of this and Sollecito lawyer Bongiorno skipped several sessions.

This all matters. It explains things. But Hampikian omits all of it in his simplistic and ridiculous bid for glory.

He misrepresents a small fraction of the DNA evidence, reveals himself ignorant of a much bigger and equally damning fraction, and ignores all other evidence as if everything other than DNA is of lower importance.

So here below from the Wiki Evidence Masterlist is all of the forensic evidence made public by the end of 2009. (Although very extensive, this is still only about 50% of all the evidence items on the Masterlist. Hampikian hid that half also.)

Again, this was all known to the jury as of the end of trial - which like any jury anywhere can convict on ONE item if it speaks guilt to them. This was the only jury to hear the whole case. The one that voted for guilt unanimously.  As any American or British jury would have done.

Part 3 at bottom summarizes the damning court take and the Knox shills’ spin.

2. Forensic Evidence In The Public Realm By Late 2009

Area 1: The Wounds

11-01   Meredith Kercher sustained 43 wounds during the assault that killed her. (Perna closing arguments 2009)

1-02   She had 10 knife wounds and 33 other wounds. (Lalli 2009)

1-03   She had at least 15 bruises: on her mouth, nose, cheeks, jaw, neck, elbows, right forearm, small of her back, left thigh, and right lower leg. The bruises indicate she was not only restrained, but also kept from screaming for help. (Lalli 2009)

1-04   Some of the bruising on Ms. Kercher was in the shape of fingertips, with some fingertips being smaller, of a woman’s size. There were no ligature marks. (Lalli, Marchionni, Codispoti 2009)

1-05   Some of the neck bruises indicate Ms. Kercher was being choked at some point during the assault. (Liviero 2009)

1-06   The internal vaginal bruising suffered by Ms. Kercher happened before her death and was violent. (Lalli, Marchionni 2009)

1-07   She had only 2 major knife wounds, one on each side of her neck. The remaining knife wounds were minor. (Lalli 2009)

1-08   The wound on the right side of her neck was narrow and deep. The wound on the left side of her neck was wide, large, gaping and fatal. These two wounds were likely made with two different knives. (Bacci, Politi, Codispoti, Mignini 2009)

1-09   She had another knife cut just below the gaping wound on the left side of her neck. (Lalli 2009)

1-10   She had 3 other glancing knife wounds on her neck and cheeks. (Lalli 2009)

1-11   She had 3 small cuts on her right hand and one small cut on her left hand. (Lalli 2009)

1-12   Her defensive wounds were virtually non-existent, especially when compared with other single-attacker knife attacks, where knife wounds on the hands and arms are prevalent. (Cingolani, Codispoti 2009)

1-13   The wounds were compatible with an assault by multiple persons (Cingolani, Codispoti, Lalli, Liviero 2009).

1-14   Bacci, Lalli and Liviero testified that the wounds could not be ascribed with 100% certainty to a single person or multiple person assault. However Lalli and Liviero preferred the multiple person assault scenario, given the quantity and different types of wounds. (Bacci, Lalli, Liviero 2009)

1-15   Lalli confirmed under questioning by Judge Massei that if the rape happened during the assault, then the assault had to be carried out by more than one person. (Lalli 2009)

Area 2: The Blood traces

2-01   Blood traces were found all around Ms. Kercher’s bedroom, not in one specific area. (crime scene photos)

2-02   In Ms. Kercher’s bedroom, blood was found by the far wall, on and inside the closet, under the desk, by and under the bed, on the walls above the bed, on the mattress cover, on the floor in large quantities and on the door into the bedroom. (crime scene photos)

2-03   Blood was also found on the floor in the form of partial shoeprints leading out of the cottage. Blood traces were also found on the small bathroom door, in the small bathroom (on the light switch, sink, bidet, bathroom floor mat, etc.), possibly on a few items in Knox’s bedroom, and also in Luminol-revealed traces found on the floor in the corridor, in Knox’s bedroom and in Romanelli’s bedroom. (crime scene photos, Codispoti 2009)

2-04   No blood traces were found near, leading to or in the large bathroom where Guede defecated. (crime scene photos, Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test report)

2-05   Blood pattern analysis indicates Ms. Kercher was fatally stabbed around 40 cm above the ground, near to the closet door. (Camana 2009)

2-06   Blood traces on the floor indicate objects were shifted or removed after Ms. Kercher had started bleeding from the fatal wound. (crime scene photos)

2-07   Ms. Kercher’s body was moved after she was stabbed, as can be seen from the blood smears on the floor. (crime scene photos)

2-08   Blood traces on the mattress cover indicate that one or more knives used in the assault were placed on the mattress cover. (Politi 2009)

2-09   Blood traces under the bed indicate someone was likely searching under the bed for something after the assault. (Codispoti 2009)

Area 3. Clothing traces

3-01   Blood was found on her sweat jacket, bra, jeans and socks. (crime scene photos)

3-02   Ms. Kercher’s bra and sweat jacket indicate she bled on the right side, likely from the knife wound on the right side of her neck, for some time before these were removed. (evidence item photos in Dr. Stefanoni’s slide presentation)

3-03   The sleeves on her sweat jacket were pulled inside-out. (Stefanoni 2009)

3-04   Blood stains on her sweat jacket and shirt indicate these were pulled up around her neck after she had been wounded. (Codispoti 2009)

3-05   Her jeans were also inside out, with blood spots inside her jeans. (Stefanoni 2009)

3-06   Her panties were found near her body, and had no blood stains. (Stefanoni 2009)

3-07   Ms. Kercher’s bra was removed after she was dead, as can be seen from blood speckles on the bra that were not found on her chest. (Micheli Motivation report, Codispoti 2009

3-08   Her body was covered with a duvet, and she only had an undershirt on. (Micheli Motivation report)

3-09   Police found a pillow, a bed sheet, a sock and two towels under her body. (Nencini Motivation Report- citing Lalli’s site report)

3-10   Guede’s bloody handprint was found on the pillow. (Sbardella 2009)

3-11   Guede’s bloody shoeprint was found on the pillow right under Ms. Kercher’s leg. (Sbardella 2009)

3-12   Police found Ms Kercher’s bra clasp under the pillow, and then later found it again under a carpet in the bedroom, 46 days after initial discovery. (Cantagalli, Codispoti, Stefanoni 2009, crime scene photos)

3-13   A sock was found around one of Ms. Kercher’s purse handles on the bed. (crime scene photos)

3-14   Ms. Kercher’s purse was found on the mattress cover, indicating it had been placed there after the duvet had been used to cover her body. (crime scene photos)

Area 4. Ms. Kercher’s room

4-01   Only the mattress cover remained on the bed. After the assault, someone removed the duvet, pillow and bed sheet from the bed, and placed Ms. Kercher on the bed sheet, two towels and pillow on the floor, then covered her body with the duvet. (Codispoti 2009, crime scene photos)

4-02   Someone took Ms. Kercher’s wallet and credit cards from her purse and placed the purse on the mattress cover on the bed. (Profazio 2009, Nencini Motivations report, crime scene photos)

4-03   Someone left receipts on the duvet covering Ms. Kercher’s body. (Codispoti 2009, crime scene photos)

4-04   Someone took Ms. Kercher’s cell phones and tossed them over a roadside wall, inadvertently into the garden of another villa, some 950 meters from the cottage. (Nencini Motivations report)

4-05   Someone took Ms. Kercher’s room and house keys. (Napoleoni 2009)

4-06   An empty jar of Vaseline was found on her desk. (crime scene photos, Napoleoni 2009)

4-07   The wall shelf by her closet had been knocked around, and objects on the shelf were tipped over. (crime scene photos, Codispoti 2009)

4-08   Ms. Kercher’s nightstand lamp and Knox’s nightstand lamp were both on the floor next to the bed. (crime scene photos)

4-09   Knox’s lamp was partially under Ms. Kercher’s bed, and it was the only functioning light Knox had in her room. (crime scene photos, Nencini Motivations report)

4-10   Someone closed and locked Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door, and took her bedroom door key. (Battistelli, Romanelli, Altieri, Zaroli, Napoleoni 2009)

4-11   Romanelli testified Ms. Kercher rarely closed and locked her own bedroom door, while Knox claimed Ms. Kercher normally locked her door. (Battistelli, Zaroli, Altieri, Romanelli 2009)

4-12   Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door had a small crack in it before it was broken down. (Altieri 2009).

Area 5: Shoeprints

5-01   Guede’s bloody left shoeprints were found in Ms. Kercher’s room.

5-02   Guede’s bloody left shoeprints were also found leading down the corridor, into the kitchen/dining room and out the front door, without any trace of prints indicating he turned to close and lock Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door.

5-03   Five different papers and cards, most smudged with blood, were found on the floor in Ms. Kercher’s room. These papers and cards had at least two different types of shoeprints which did not match any of Ms. Kercher’s shoes.

5-04   A similar card was found in Romanelli’s room, with a shoeprint not matching those on the cards and papers in Ms. Kercher’s room.

5-05   A smaller shoeprint similar to Guede’s shoe type was found on the pillow found under Ms. Kercher. Police consultants estimate this was a female sized shoe.

Area 6: Footprints

6-01   Half of a bloody footprint was found on the bathmat. The heel of this footprint, which should have been on the floor, was missing, suggesting it was cleaned away. (crime scene photos, report)

6-02   The bloody footprint matches Sollecito’s right foot size and characteristics.

6-03   Five Luminol-revealed footprints were found on the floor in the corridor and in Knox’s bedroom.

6-04   One of these Luminol-revealed footprints was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot.

6-05   Two others were compatible with Knox’s right foot.

6-06   None of the Luminol-revealed footprints were compatible with Guede’s feet.

Area 7: Fingerprints

7-01   Ms. Kercher’s fingerprints were found on Knox’s closet door.

7-02   Knox’s fingerprints were only found on a glass in the kitchen. None of her fingerprints were found in her own bedroom, or elsewhere in the cottage.

7-03   Sollecito’s fingerprints were on Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door and on the inside face of Laura Mezzetti’s door.

7-04   Guede’s fingerprint was found in Ms. Kercher’s bedroom.

Area 8: DNA testing general

8-01   227 evidence items were sampled or bagged. 30 of these were not analyzed.

8-02   From the remaining 197 evidence items, over 480 DNA and Y haplotype tests were prepared from liquids, solids or hairs. Many objects were sampled in multiple places.

8-03   Out of the over 480 DNA and Y haplotype tests, only 193 of these tests actually yielded DNA useful for comparison. (40%)

8-04   24 tests were from samples taken from Ms. Kercher’s body. Of these, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s Y haplotype, 17 tests yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s, and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-05   11 tests were from samples taken from the exterior of the cottage. Of these, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown female, 2 tests yielded cat DNA and the remainder did not yield useful DNA.

8-06   21 tests were from samples taken from the basement apartment at the cottage. Of these, 16 tests yielded cat blood, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-07   221 tests were from samples or items taken from the upper apartment at the cottage. Of these, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA or Y haplotype, 82 tests yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Guede’s DNA or Y haplotype (both tests from the same sample), 5 tests from 5 different samples yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Sollecito’s DNA or Y haplotype (both tests from the same sample), 4 tests yielded DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown female, 3 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-08   4 tests were from samples taken (from bloodied tissue papers) found in the vicinity of the cottage, yielding DNA compatible with an unknown male or an unknown female.

8-09   16 tests were from samples taken from Sollecito’s car and no DNA useful for comparison was found.

8-10   102 tests were from samples taken from Sollecito’s apartment. Of these, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Knox’s DNA, 7 tests yielded DNA compatible with a combination of Knox and Sollecito’s DNA, 7 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Sollecito’s DNA, 3 tests yielded DNA of 3 unknown males and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-11   29 tests were from samples taken from Guede’s apartment. Of these, 14 tests yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-12   6 tests were from samples taken from the pub Le Chic and no DNA useful for comparison was found.

8-13   50 tests were from samples taken from the defendants or defendant’s items during arrests or likely at the police station. Of these, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Guede’s DNA, 8 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Knox’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with a combination of Knox and Sollecito’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Lumumba’s DNA, 4 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Sollecito’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA of an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-14   Of the 82 tests yielding DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA at the cottage, 4 samples were taken from the corridor floor, 5 were taken from the kitchen/dining floor, 66 were taken from Ms. Kercher’s room and clothing, 1 was taken from the floor in Romanelli’s room and 6 were taken from the small bathroom.

8-15   17 tests yielded unmatchable DNA, with 6 tests yielding DNA compatible with 3 different females and 11 tests yielded DNA compatible with 7 different males. 13 of these samples were found in tissue paper outside the cottage and on cigarette butts in the ashtray in the cottage kitchen.

Area 9: DNA testing- specific

9-01   Ms. Kercher’s DNA was found on the kitchen knife at Sollecito’s apartment. Her DNA was found in a groove towards the cutting edge of the blade. The grove is part of a series of noticeable scratches running parallel along the blade.

9-02   Knox’s DNA was found on the top of the handle of the same knife.

9-03   A second sample of Knox’s DNA was also found on the same knife, where the blade goes into the handle. This second sample was an LCN sample of mixed DNA, and was statistically determined to be Knox’s DNA. (RIS Berti & Barni 2013 report)

9-04   DNA mixture compatible with Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA was found on another stained pocket knife that Sollecito had.

9-05   DNA mixture compatible with Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA was found on a cigarette butt in the cottage kitchen. Except for the bra clasp, no other samples at the cottage yielded Sollecito’s DNA.

9-06   7 samples yielded DNA mixtures compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s DNA, Sollecito’s DNA or Guede’s DNA.

9-07   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Sollecito’s DNA was found on the metal bra clasp. Sollecito’s Y haplotype was also on the metal bra clasp.

9-08   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse near the zipper.

9-09   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was found in three blood traces in the bathroom- on the bidet drain plate, in the sink and on a plastic container containing cotton swabs.

9-10   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was also found in a Luminol-revealed blood stain on the floor of Romanelli’s room, and in a Luminol-revealed bloody footprint in the corridor.

9-11   A second Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

9-12   A sample of blood from the small bathroom faucet yielded ONLY Knox’s DNA.

9-13   Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse, the left sleeve of her sweat jacket, her bra strap, in Ms. Kercher and on the toilet paper in the large bathroom.

Area 10. Other biological traces

10-01   3 samples of presumed blood traces were found in Knox’s bedroom, on a pillow, on the night stand and on the wall by the head of the bed.

10-02   No semen was found in Ms. Kercher.

10-03   Guede left his feces in the toilet in the large bathroom.

10-04   3 fragments of toilet paper were found on Ms. Kercher’s desk; all three yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

10-05   2 tissue papers were found in Sollecito’s bedroom; both had blood that yielded DNA compatible with Sollecito’s DNA.

10-06   A glass on Ms. Kercher’s night stand yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

10-07   A strand of hair and a trace of blood were found on Romanelli’s window frame. The blood trace did not yield human DNA; the hair color was dark chestnut.

10-08   5 samples of blood traces on a towel and faucet in Guede’s bathroom all yielded Guede’s DNA.

10-09   4 samples of blood stains on Guede’s jeans and a museum ticket in his jeans also yielded Guede’s DNA.

10-10   The range of digestive timing is, under normal circumstances, 3-5 hours. This range could easily be expanded depending on any number of factors, including stress and alcohol, both of which slow digestion. (Ronchi 2009)

10-11   Based on body temperatures and the digestive process, the time of death range was estimated between 20:00 of November 1st and 04:00 of November 2nd, with the probability that the time of death occurred around 23:00 of November 1st. (Lalli 2009)

Area 11. Luminol traces

11-01   1 sample of a Luminol-revealed blood trace was taken from Guede’s apartment.

11-02   9 samples of Luminol-revealed blood traces were taken from the cottage, including Knox’s room, the corridor and Romanelli’s room.

11-03   Knox’s and Ms. Kercher’s DNA was found on the Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room.

11-04   Knox’s and Ms. Kercher’s DNA was found mixed in a Luminol-revealed bloody right footprint in the corridor.

11-05   14 samples of Luminol-revealed blood traces were taken from Sollecito’s apartment.

11-06   6 samples were taken from Sollecito’s bathroom, including the door, floor and shower basin.

11-07   3 samples were taken from Sollecito’s bedroom, including the door and floor.

11-08   5 samples were taken from the floor of Sollecito’s kitchen.

11-09   2 of the Luminol-revealed samples taken from Sollecito’s apartment yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Sollecito’s and Knox’s DNA. 1 sample yielded DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA.

11-10   1 sample yielded an unknown male’s DNA (unmatchable).

Area 12: Hairs

12-01   Of the over 480 tests prepared on samples, 93 of these constituted hairs or fibers. 86 were human hairs of varying length, in varying colors. The most significant colors noted were black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut and red chestnut.

12-02   Only 3 hairs yielded DNA; all 3 hairs yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA. All 3 hairs were chestnut colored and over 15 cm long.

12-03   35 hairs were chestnut in color; the vast majority of these were found in Ms. Kercher’s room. 2 were also found on a kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.

12-04   7 hairs were black in color. 6 of these were 4 cm long or less, and so likely Guede’s hair. 4 of these were on the duvet and 1 was on the mattress cover, both in Ms. Kercher’s room. 1 was also on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.

12-05   21 blonde hairs were analyzed, and were likely Knox’s hairs. Most were found at Sollecito’s apartment, 10 on a sponge in the kitchen and 5 on a sweater.

12-06   Of the 6 blonde hairs found at the cottage, 2 were on the duvet, 1 was inside the small bathroom sink, 1 was on Ms. Kercher’s purse and 1 was on her mattress cover.

12-07   4 light chestnut hairs were found. 3 of these were 9 cm long or less. 1 was found on the kitchen sponge; 1 was found on the bra and one was found on Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket. Sollecito had light chestnut colored hair.

3. Court Assessment & Knox Spin

Judge Micheli was the first judge to make something of all this evidence, late in 2008. Unsurprisingly, if one has actually studied it, one of his major findings was this.

The pack attack, and the crime-scene rearrangement. Led by Knox. She could have escaped trial right there by rebutting it. But she and her team had pretty well zero comeback.

Oh, Hampikian, you didn’t know that?!

The “counter-case” of Hampikian, and other such shills of the PR campaign as Heavey, Fischer, Douglas, and Moore, is like a three-legged stool, with all the rest of the case simply ignored.

  • One leg is the Interrogation Hoax and we have shown in 20 posts that Knox always lied about that.

  • One leg is the supposedly “flawed” DNA analysis that actually wasn’t, which KrissyG took first new whack at last week.

  • The third leg is that there was no pack attack and that Guede somehow did all of the above on his own.

Including taking off a shoe to make ONE imprint in blood on the bathmat in a footprint several sizes smaller than his own…

On Planet Earth, nobody has ever come close to making all of the above fit a Lone Wolf. The defenses only listlessly went through the motions when they tried. Then they seized on Alessi and Aviello when they came along.

That was the defenses proving a pack attack!!

4. Tip for IP contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Thursday, March 29, 2018

Bizarrely Jubilant And Way Too Exposed Amanda Knox Again Fails Liar-Analysis Tests

Posted by The Machine



Pamela Meyer, a highly respected liar spotter and fraud spotter, explains how she knows if someone is lying. TED Talks applies the telltale signs to Amanda Knox.

This brilliant video needs to be promoted as much as possible on social media websites. Most people can’t be bothered to read the official court reports, but they will watch a fascinating TED talk that last a few minutes.


Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #2

Posted by KrissyG



Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments

1. Post Overview

Previously main poster Hopeful showed up the intensely superficial grasp of the case by an Innocence Project founder who is a lusty huge booster of Knox.

We see no sign that anyone in the Innocence Project (IP) has ever done due diligence, or has any better grasp of the case than Jason Flom. We certainly don’t see any on video or in print. We see only appallingly misleading and illegal work…. and nothing else. As Hopeful said in that post:

Anyone who thinks Idaho IP representative Greg Hampikian’s seemingly illegal involvement in the court-ordered DNA re-testing was somehow competent and truth-based should read KrissyG and James Raper for two blasts of reality.

This may come as a surprise. In ten years nobody whatsoever has ever landed the slightest blow on the huge (though not pivotal) DNA component of the case.

The defenses and many others have seriously misrepresented it, yes, but that is something else.

2. Chief IP Misleader Hampikian

Nearly a year before Knox ever turned up at her first Innocence Project meeting in Oregon, we had highlighted IP Idaho rep Greg Hampikian’s very misleading work here.

Our main poster the Machine had acidly remarked about Greg Hampikian in that post:

    1. He is ignorant of most of the basic facts of the case.

    2. He hasn’t read the official court documents in their entirety, but has instead relied on Amanda Knox’s family and supporters for his information without bothering to do any fact-checking.

    3. He incessantly downplays or misrepresents the hard evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and overstates that against Rudy Guede.

    4. He doesn’t limit himself to his own narrow area of expertise, but speaks about other aspect of the case and gets basic facts wrong.

    5. Like so many in the seedy defense operation he ridicules his counterparts in Italy, most of whom are much better qualified in criminal-case DNA than he is.

Do please read all of the Machine’s very damning post. Note that Hampikian has never ever tried to answer back, though he is still as much of a self-infatuated rooster as before. I would add to the Machine’s profile of Hampikian these further revealing points:

    1. In an aura of personality cult he incessantly proclaims that he is the founder and director of the Idaho Innocence Project.

    2. He took quite a shine to Amanda Knox and went white-water rafting with her.  He broke with his wife, shortly after.

    3. This absurd claim appears on his Wikipedia page - those are often written by the “celebrities” themselves:

    During the high-profile case of Amanda Knox, on May 23, 2011, Greg Hampikian announced that, based on its independent investigation and review, DNA samples taken at the crime scene all pointed to African drifter Rudy Guede and excluded Knox and Sollecito. Upon reexamination of the DNA, he concluded that the evidence is unreliable and contaminated. Hampikian’s findings are one of the main reasons that Knox and Sollecito were set free.

    Really?! The mafias had no role? Hard to believe from this that Hampikian was never an official witness put under cross-examination at the trial or appeals. He had zero official role, and the very extensive DNA evidence really proved nothing of the sort. More DNA samples of Knox than of Guede were at the scene. No contamination was ever proven.  In fact, it was categorically ruled out by the courts.

    4. He has appeared in numerous Youtube clips in especially prepared tv shows, in which he presents himself as “the objective scientist” not letting on that he is essentially only a PR shill.

    5. Hampikian was claiming a government grant for his department at Boise State University.  Journalist Andrea Vogt suspected he was using the funds to promote Amanda Knox’s marketing.  Vogt applied for information under the Freedom of Information Act.  Hampikian evaded the demand by claiming his work was a top trade secret. Academic scientists are supposed to be transparent and make their work replicable and peer-reviewed by other scientists.  So Vogt’s instincts seem correct, given the unlikely reason.

    6. He praises himself on his wiki page as “Prof. Hampikian is also an accomplished amateur folk singer and songwriter.” Indeed, he appears on a Youtube video, sounding like a hundred cats in pain singing about his d-i-v-o-r-c-e., after his rafting expedition with Knox.  She appears grinning by his side in pictures.

    7. He has given evidence under oath in court several times (though never in Italy) claiming he was THE expert who got Amanda Knox “exonerated”.  Knox has never been exonerated, certainly not on the DNA evidence, and the mafias clearly had a role in springing the pair. So, Hampikian is not someone who takes solemn oaths seriously, although his illegal interference was real. 

    8. The defence lawyers for Paul Jenkins and Fred Lawrence are currently in court to try to pin the DNA evidence on another convict, David Wayne Nelson, with Hampikian as the ‘expert DNA witness’ claiming,

‘“I do a lot of cases,” said Hampikian. “This is the second time I can remember one of my cases where it cleared two men and someone else is a hit to the database.”

He doesn’t say to whom he is referring in this absurd claim, but no doubt it is Knox and Sollecito with Guede as the ‘hit’.  Hampikian, thus, is a stranger to the truth, as Knox and Sollecito’s DNA at the crime scene is legally sound.

Comment by Ergon

Examples of typical dishonesty from Greg Hampikian in this article

1. “We asked the Italian lab to supply validation of such a sensitive measurement, but they never complied”.

Yes they did, though maybe not to the professor from Idaho.

2. “a new study on the knife was then ordered in Italy. This failed to repeat the DNA finding”.

They didn’t retest the ‘DNA finding’.

3. “This finding was never repeated, despite many attempts”.

There was only one attempt, which the defense accepted as all that could be done.

4. “As DNA consultant for the defence in the Amanda Knox case”.

You weren’t hired ‘by the defense’ but inserted yourself in your personal capacity using public funds.

5. “but when fingerprints and DNA from the scene were analysed, only two profiles were identified: those of the victim and Rudy Guede”

Also Raffaele Sollecito’s, and Amanda Knox’s blood DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s.

6. “Calls followed for global standards on use of low copy number DNA”.

Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA profile on the bra clasp wasn’t LCN DNA, nor was contamination proven against any of Stefanoni’s findings.

7. “a kitchen knife at Sollecito’s house. It didn’t match many wounds on the body and tested negative for blood.”

Because there were two knives, and it tested negative for blood because it was rigorously washed in bleach.


3. Who Manages Or Crosschecks Hampikian?

Hampikian seems to have a pass to claim whatever he wants in the name of the Innocence Project. No quality control, no peer review, no reporting, no accountability at all. Just a near-endless stream of lies.

If Hampikian was to be checked out and made to stop lying and acting as a PR shill, and to stick only to the truth, whose job in the IP would be that? Presumably the man at the top. Barry Scheck.

Has Barry Scheck been asleep at the switch? If so, not for the first time. .



4. Ten Quick Facts About Barry Scheck

1. Born 1949, at Yale Scheck was a ‘fervent anti-war demonstrator’.  In Los Angeles he was a key member of OJ Simpson’s ‘dream team’, which got OJ off a murder rap in 1995.

2. Barry Scheck, as a law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, is a forensic and DNA evidence expert. He joined the “Dream Team” to help them ‘harness the power of forensic and DNA evidence’ to assist in Simpson’s defence.

3. Scheck is also known for his work as co-founder and co-director of the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization that uses DNA evidence to ‘clear the names of wrongfully convicted inmates’.

4. Scheck co-founded the Innocence Project in 1992 with Peter Neufeld, also his co-counsel on the O.J. Simpson defence team.

5. The Project claims it is ‘dedicated to the utilization of DNA evidence as a means to exculpate individuals of crimes for which they were wrongfully convicted’.

6. To date, it claims 343 wrongful convictions have been overturned by DNA testing ‘thanks to the Project and other legal organizations’.

7. The Innocence Project claims ‘it does not use legal technicalities to challenge convictions; the Project accepts only cases in which newly discovered scientific evidence can potentially prove that a convicted person is factually innocent’.

8. Scheck unsuccessfully defended British baby sitter Louise Woodward against a charge of killing a baby in her care, shortly after the OJ acquittal, leading some to perceive a ‘backlash’ against his defence methods.

9. Scheck and Neufield were heavily criticised in 1999 in a case where eight cops were charged with abusing Abner Louima or shooting dead Amadou Diallo-to benefit their own civil cases on behalf of those victims, putting the police at risk of an unfair trial.

10. Scheck and Neufield called a press conference before the criminal trial, revealing potentially incriminating evidence against the four policemen from an autopsy report, which revealed Diallo was shot in his foot and legs whilst already down. Their ethics were questioned.  Outside the press conference, 1,000 Scheck supporters chanted, ‘“No justice, no peace, no more racist police.”

5. So The Bottom Line On Scheck Is?

Thus, we have a picture of someone who sees himself as a warrior for social justice, and anti-establishment.  Scheck uses his privileged position as a lawyer and DNA expert to help the disadvantaged and oppressed.

However, after the OJ Simpson trial, which saw Scheck shoot to fame, and not necessarily in a good way, but as a silver-tongued crafty defence lawyer who could persuade a jury that night is day by any means at his disposal, regardless of ethics, there emerges a hint of a ruthless man driven by an urge to get the better of his perceived opponents.

So far so good, this is 100% of what we the public have cynically come to expect of a winning-at-all-costs lawyer.  We want them to write our ‘strong letters’ for us, or to win our compensation; perhaps get us off a rap.

We want them to ‘be on our side’, and when you are poor, dispossessed and otherwise ‘invisible’ to the establishment, finding such a high-profile lawyer to champion your case, then fawning gratitude transforms into hero-worship and cult following.

Such is the effect of Scheck’s Innocence Project, thousands of prisoners in the USA claiming to be ‘wrongfully convicted’, whether they are or not, flock to sample the ‘exoneration’ he holds out as the prize for joining up.

Add to the pot US attorneys who as part of their standards are expected to devote a substantial part of their time towards ‘pro bono’ work (free representation), then the ready pool of the poor and deprived that make up the Innocence Projects are ready made clients for them.

6. IP Does Indeed Do Some Good Work

We have shown again and again that American law enforcement, justice and incarceration systems, not their Italian equivalents, are the systems where injustices are off the charts.

Read for example the series of three posts starting here.  An estimated 200,000-plus sitting in prison because prosecutors scared them into a plea-bargain.

Barry Scheck’s target group and release rate is absolutely miniscule compared to this 200,000, but it is not a net negative on the whole. Every little bit of pushback can help. Scheck’s interviews and speeches are often good.


 

7. But Things Do Go Badly Wrong.

The Medill Innocence Project Case

There seems plenty of evidence that the Innocence Project is only loosely managed from the top. Other grandstanders and corner cutters and law-breakers like Hampikian are far from unknown.

And to IP host institutions like lawschools “mistakes” like this one below can bring major harm.

In the Medill Innocence project, a professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, David Protess, was picked to head this.

His work had overturned convictions in a number of high-profile cases that won freedom for the ‘wrongfully imprisoned’ and earned him fame and prestige that included a TV-movie deal and a new post. From the start, Protess got his law students to were acting as amateur gumshoes, Protess dispatched them to interview witnesses and dig up new evidence.

Protess was looking for wrongful convictions.  He thought he had found one in Anthony Porter, who had narrowly escaped execution for a 1982 murder and had since served fifteen years, after winning a last minute reprieve.

Protess was keen to highlight that the State had been prepared to execute an innocent man, and he and his private eye students pinpointed an ‘alternative perpetrator’ in Alstory Simon.

“This investigation by David Protess and his team involved a series of alarming tactics,” the Cook County State’s Attorney, Anita Alvarez, said in her statement after Simon’s eventual release.  The Medill Innocence Project’s tactics, “were not only coercive and absolutely unacceptable by law-enforcement standards, “they were potentially in violation of Mr. Simon’s constitutionally protected rights.”

From the Daily Beast in 2014:

Perhaps the worst of those alarming tactics were used by Paul Ciolino, a private investigator working with Protess who got Simon to confess to the murder. According to Alvarez’s findings, Ciolino threatened Simon, promised him a short sentence and financial rewards for cooperating, and used an actor to play a witness who accused Simon of the shooting.

Finally, Ciolino volunteered a lawyer, Jack Rimland, to represent Simon in court. Rimland, a personal acquaintance of Ciolino, may have had a conflict of interest defending a man that his associate was trying to prove guilty, but that didn’t stop him from taking the case.

At the time, it did the trick. Alstory Simon confessed to the murder on video and within days, after more than a decade on death row, Porter walked free.

The State prosecutors then had to spend time and money retrying Porter and reaffirming the seemingly overwhelming evidence of his guilt (six eye witnesses named him).  However, the case against Porter was dropped a month later.  Following on from this case, Illinois banned the death penalty, in 2011.

More from the report in the Daily Beast.

After initially defending the program, Medill launched an investigation of its own. In the end, it was found that students working under Protess had used false pretenses in trying to elicit witness statements.

More damningly, the professor’s claim that the records from his class’s work were protected by journalistic privilege was undermined by the discovery that he’d altered an email instructing that the project’s findings should be turned over directly to defense counsels without any copies retained.

When it was all over, Protess had negotiated his retirement and left the school. His reputation bruised but with legacy of his central victory—winning Anthony Porter’s freedom—still intact.

After Simon’s release last month and the accusation that Protess helped put an innocent man in prison for 15 years, possibly freeing a killer in the bargain, his legacy may be the least of his concerns.


The IP Role

This is a perfect illustration of what can happen when badly supervised lawyers try to solve a case outside of a courtroom.  Delusion, fanaticism and a disregard for due process can blind an Innocence Project lawyer or law student to the truth of culpability.  In other words, they find themselves fighting the establishment, whatever that is, rather than true injustice.

The State prosecutor, Alvarez, said at the time:

“The bottom line is, the investigation conducted by Protess and private investigator Ciolino as well as the subsequent legal representation of Mr. Simon were so flawed that it’s clear the constitutional rights of Mr. Simon were not scrupulously protected as our law requires.”

In 2016, Alstory Simon filed a $40m lawsuit From the Chicago Tribune.

A federal judge on Tuesday gave the green light to a $40 million lawsuit alleging Northwestern University and former star professor David Protess conspired to frame a man for an infamous double murder that became one of the most significant wrongful conviction cases in Illinois history.

The lawsuit brought by Alstory Simon alleges Protess and private investigator Paul Ciolino manufactured bogus evidence, coaxed false statements from witnesses, intimidated Simon into confessing and set him up with a lawyer, Jack Rimland, who coached him to plead guilty.

In denying a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Robert Dow said that it was plausible the money and publicity Protess had brought to Northwestern had allowed a culture of lawlessness and unethical conduct at the university.

The Bombshell Twist

In June 2017 Chicago Tribune reported a ‘bombshell’ twist.  It was revealed that in 2014 at the time of Simon’s release a 28-page internal report wherein the deputies of the then State Attorney Alvarez had concluded, ‘there is not sufficient evidence to seek to vacate Simon’s convictions’. 

Many High-profile Innocence ‘Exonerees’ Earn $’000’s

Simon is like so many prisoners released early, whether or not there is an ‘Alford’ deal – where release is on condition the prisoner accepts the State does not accept liability that the conviction was wrongful and no ‘certificate of innocence’ is provided.

This type of deal is true, for example, for ‘Sunny’ Jacobs, released from death row and finally prison for her role in the murder of two policemen in Florida, and the notorious WM3 which includes Damien Echols, who has since made millions from books and tours on the back of ‘innocence’.

Amanda Knox, Damien Echols and the other two WM3 are listed by All American Entertainment as exonerated ‘speakers’ charging up to $10,000 a time.  Yet none have had a ‘certificate of innocence’.  Thus, by Ciolino’s own words, they cannot be classed as ‘exonerated’.

Cook County ‘Wanted to Prosecute David Protess and Paul Ciolino’

The reason Cook County gives for refusing to vacate Simon’s conviction is because he failed to come clean on the deception a taking a rap for another man’s crimes in exchange for a shorter sentence.  The reports states:

Simon was not a child or inexperienced at any relevant time. As of 1982 he had accumulated an extensive criminal history. He had been arrested for robberies or armed robberies five times between 1966 and 1977. He had three felony or armed robbery convictions. ... He was 47 when he (pleaded) guilty. This certainly complicates his claims regarding coercion and being misled.

The report criticises the ‘less than ideal circumstances’ in which Ciolino tricked Simon into confessing the first time, after which Simon continued the masquarade by spontaneously admitting to firing the fatal shots for some time after his conviction.  For example, in a letter to his lawyers.

However, in spite of these reservations, Alvarez had called a news conference and announced there was ‘no other conclusion’ than that Simon should be freed.  Pointedly, she indicated that if it were not for the statute of limitations (time limit for bringing a charge) she would have prosecuted Protess and Ciolino.

Subsequently she declined to send representatives to contest Simon’s effort to win a “certificate of innocence,” a document that allows wrongfully incarcerated, factually innocent persons to collect cash damages from the state.  It was because whilst Simon probably did not commit the murders, he was part of the innocence fraud which put him in prison and which freed Porter.

Paul Ciolino Hits Back

The latest news, as of January 2018, leading on from the supposed ‘leaked’ document of 2014 which showed Simon’s convictions were merely ‘vacated’ is that Paul Cionlino is suing Simon, Alavarez, and a couple of the ‘Park’ filmmakers, a Chicago Tribune journalist and policemen for damages for ‘defamation’.

The 66-page petition mirrors the counterclaim Ciolino filed before and which was dismissed last year.  He claims his reputation and career were destroyed by the allegations in the Simon case.  Ciolino claims Simon was ‘paid thousands of dollars’ and witnesses interfered with by these anti-Innocent Project forces. 

The Murder in the Park documentary, asserts there are many other cases where ‘the wrong man is imprisoned and the right one was freed, which Ciolino claims is defamatory.  He highlights the letter to Simon’s lawyers in which he states he killed Hillard in self-defence and Green by accident.  Ciolino’s new lawsuit is described as ‘frivolous and without merit’ (Prieb) and ‘so false as to be sanctionable’ (Ekl)

Simon had alleged Ciolino impersonated a police officer and used actors as fake eye witnesses.  He claims Ciolino said if he confessed, he’d get a shortened sentence by claiming ‘self defence’ and avoid the death penalty.  He was also ‘promised large sums of money from book and movie deals’ if he played along, the suit alleges.

Paul Ciolino Acknowledges a Vacated Conviction Does Not Mean ‘Exoneration’

If this illustrates anything, it’s that Innocence Projects running parallel to the US legal system can cause all sorts of chaos and confusion.  In effect, Alvarez the State Prosecutor having freed Simon, is now refusing to vacate his conviction.  The Innocence Project does not see a vacated conviction as an ‘exoneration’ as evidenced by Ciolino suing for defamation on the grounds that ‘Simon is guilty after all’.

If a vacated conviction does not mean exoneration to people like Ciolino, then people like Ryan Ferguson, the West Memphis Three and Amanda Knox, whom the Innocence Projects spearhead as their ‘Star Exonerees’ are gods with clay feet standing on a false pedestal.

It calls into question the integrity of Innocence Project lawyers, such as Kathleen Zellner, who is said to earn more than $12m per annum as a conservative figure.  The last published Annual Report of the Innocence Project shows a turnover of $26m, with a surplus gain of >$3m in the ‘not-for-profit’ org in 2016.  Zellner is famous for obtaining ‘death bed’ confessions from prisoners on Death Row taking the rap for the alleged crimes of her clients, thus securing their release.

8. My Conclusion About This Above

Given these pressures and these possibilities for mismanagement, what of the IP’s illegal intervention into the case in Italy? What of the false touting of an “innocent” Knox? What of the trashing of Italian justice, in witting or unwitting harmony with the mafias?

Another IP trainwreck waiting to happen. And happen it did.

9. Tip For IP Contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Monday, March 12, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #1

Posted by Hopeful




1. Series Overview

Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project quite openly admits to bending the 2011 appeal via collaboration with the “independent” DNA consultants.

Anyone who thinks Idaho IP representative Greg Hampikian’s seemingly illegal involvement in the court-ordered DNA re-testing was somehow competent and truth-based should read KrissyG and James Raper for two blasts of reality.

Beginning early in 2014 (soon after the Florence Appeal Court reaffirmed Knox’s guilty verdict and a whole year prior to the Supreme Court outcome) the Innocence Project clutched Knox firmly and propelled her onto the elite speakers’ circuit. It has repeatedly used her since as a keynoter and potent draw for attendees and presumably for funding too. 

Knox’s speaking career would have gone absolutely nowhere if Barry Scheck & Co had not promoted her with such manic enthusiasm. They still remain unencumbered by comprehensive due diligence or a fact-based narrative. Much simply seems unknown. Trashing Italy is apparently just fine.

Late next month at an Innocence Project “gala” in Kansas City Knox will yet again be an IP keynote speaker.

2. The Jason Flom Podcast

Jason Flom is a founding board member of the Innocence Project. As the sharp eyes of our main poster Guermantes picked up, Flom interviewed Knox in January 2017 for a podcast: The Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox.

Flom seems to have done little or no homework. Most of these posts predate this interview. So an open-minded interviewer not toeing the self-serving IP party line could have avoided the naivety and manipulation we can see here.

Knox tells Flom the Perugian investigators (actually the highly respected national elite) were like children pretending to process a crime scene but making major mistakes. Her tone of voice suggested mockery and ridicule of them playing at being forensic scientists.

Flom laps up this nonsense unquestioningly. However Knox’s lies to Flom were mainly of omission, so much that she didn’t want to speak of and that Flom could not even comprehend.

When he asked her why she was targeted when several other people were at the cottage the morning the police arrived (Filomena, her boyfriend, Raffaele) Knox explained that her behavior didn’t impress police as that of an innocent person because she was kissing Raffaele and being comforted in the yard of the cottage.

There is no special sign that she was targeted. And she omits a mountain of other behavior. She refuses to tell Mr. Flom of her highjinks in the Questura, her tongue sticking out, her cartwheels, or her thong-buying visit to Bubbles, nor of her skipping the memorial service for Meredith in the days after the death. None of that escapes her lips.

She does pretend some indignation about Rudy Guede the “real killer”. Mostly she talks of every single sad emotion she endured in the 8 months of incarceration before she was charged with murder.

She mentions Meredith throughout the interview very little. She seems to be mostly swept up in memories of how she was robbed of hope behind bars, and she revels (this was 2017) in how a few persons who first thought her guilty have been convinced by more recent media that she is innocent and have apologized to her. She ascends skyward on such thoughts.

Her main concern seems to be with her public image and her power to con the world.  It becomes evident when she narrates to Flom her morning at the cottage in the hours before Meredith’s body was discovered, when she first entered the cottage saying the door was wide open and she was there alone to take a shower before proceeding to go to Gubbio for the weekend with loverboy, that she was in a deep mental quandary as to the meaning of the open door, the small bits of blood in the sink (she emphasized to Flom how small the specks were) and the dirty toilet in a nearby bathroom that she was so greatly alarmed enough to want to slow down her trip out of town and instead bring Raf back over to see about things at the cottage and give his opinion.

She was so worried, she pretends. So terribly worried, but not worried enough to walk a few feet down the hall and open a bedroom door to see if a roommate were present and hadn’t heard her “hello, is anybody there?” Ridiculous. She also mentions that her computer was safe in her own bedroom and hadn’t been stolen but not one word that her lamp was missing… as if she wouldn’t have noticed that.

She talks much of her own humanity, that people who meet her will not judge her but will find her innocent, but if they haven’t met her in person they will assume guilt. She seems to feel that they need to be blinded by her “humanity” and give her a pass on having destroyed Meredith’s life. She says very little to Jason Flom about Raffaele, depicting him as a non-threatening puppy and their relationship before the murder as one of sweetness and a juvenile thing.

Mr. Flom suggests it was like a high school relationship between two college students, she half-way assents to his description. She said that the language barrier circumvented them from discussing deep issues, that it was mostly hand-holding and him wanting to give her perfume like Italian women wore and to show her some new store or market he had discovered.

Knox seems to hold her greatest anger and disdain (well-hidden of course unless you know this case backwards and forwards and have seen Knox’s wiles) toward Philomena. It was Philomena’s hysterics and shouts of “a foot, a foot” and the general screaming and shouting of spontaneous anguish and grief over knowing it was Meredith’s body in the bedroom, that seems to antagonize Knox the most. Imagine that, some people actually GRIEVED for Meredith and thought her worthy of a display of emotion and concern.

Knox tells Jason Flom that it was Philomena’s SIM card inside the cell phone that Meredith was using, that tied the phone to the cottage. It was Filomena’s SIM card that enabled the first police to rush to the cottage so fast, and who interrupted Knox in her little last minute cleaning scheme and that threw her out of her rhythm and almost tripped her up by arriving so quickly, perhaps that was why Knox despised Filomena so much. Also it was Filomena’s boyfriend who kicked open the door and thus sent Knox out of the cottage quickly and permanently. She seemed to show irritation with Flom when she spoke of being rousted from her house in Perugia.

She tells Flom that she believed the police when they said she was being sent to prison for her own protection, thinking she was a witness (untrue: grounds for arrest were fully explained by Dr Mignini). She said she should have realized when they put her in handcuffs that this was ludicrous, but she was naïve and idealistic.

She said she went to Japan and to Germany when she was 14 years old, and that her beloved Oma, her German grandmother, had wanted her to be an exchange student to Germany. She was taking German and Italian language classes before she went to Perugia, she said.

She seems to imply slightly that it was her father’s fault that she took the language courses rather her first love of creative writing. She said she felt she couldn’t have sold Dadddy on the usefulness of a creative writing degree, so she detoured and took the languages degree hoping to become a translator. She said that the University for Foreigners in Perugia was not demanding or rigorous at all and she was disappointed at that. (Hint hint, is she suggesting she had too much free time from studies and thus went wild due to “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”? She could easily have enrolled at the main university and gained course credits for her degree back in Seattle - as her parents believed she was doing.)

She bristles with rage at the thought of friends who suggested she change her name to deflect publicity. Never. Her ego is limitless and she wants to be herself, that is paramount.  She said her biggest fear was that she would forever have to cower in a corner. She speaks of her determination to do the opposite now that she has her freedom back and is safe to speak.

She seems sincerely grateful to people who spent their energy and time in trying to get her free from prison, and feared she might have been forgotten and left to languish behind bars. She seems sincerely moved that people who didn’t have to care about her, did so. No doubt this is the natural reaction of anyone sprung from prison cells, whether guilty or innocent.

Her main beef behind bars was that she could not sway the entire world with her words alone.  She talks a smooth line and certainly had Mr. Jason Flom in her sway. She also claimed that Meredith’s DNA had been thought to have been on the knife but that it was not (Carabinieri labs confirmed it was, so there’s another lie from Knox).

It irks me that people who question Knox won’t take time to read up on the case.

Why can’t they ask Knox about the 5 spots of her DNA mixed in Meredith’s blood throughout the cottage? Knox also laughs with Jason Flom about the impossibility of her cleaning up the crime scene, when it’s proven without question that a bloody footprint was erased that led to the footprint on the blue bathmat. Knox is lying about the cleanup.

And when Knox explained to Flom her discomfort at discovering the unflushed toilet, she tells him that Laura and Filomena were neat freaks (liked to keep a very clean house). She did not say the same for Meredith, but only mentioned Laura and Filomena being clean freaks. She did not tell Mr. Flom of her normal unflushed toilets that the long-suffering Meredith Kercher had to face daily.

Knox omits much of the truth, and twists the rest of the truth. Her best truth is whatever she can think up for the occasion. And the daffy Mr Flom swallows it.

3. Tip For IP Contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Monday, March 05, 2018

Knox’s War Of Aggression Against Italy: Questions For Media To Nail Her Once And For All #1

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.

1. Series Overview

First, whither Sollecito? At last he seems subdued.

Why? Well many Italians have connected a lot more dots, many are realizing how their courts were bent (most blame US pressure and they were not entirely wrong), and many know that to a Florence court he has admitted his book lied: prosecutors never asked him to rat on Knox. He was never honor-bound.

In fact each incessantly stabbed the other in the back. Sollecito sold Knox out from the time of arrest in 2007 (“I never want to see Amanda again”) right through to Cassation in 2015, during which time he never once told any court he verified her alibi. Despite her numerous pleas.

After 2011 Sollecito had several brief spasms of lust for Knox, his father repeatedly trampled that, he was snubbed elsewhere on the marriage front, and he is finally back to his usual sullen self. 

And what of Sollecito’s damages appeal (he sought the equivalent of half a million dollars, valuing himself at $125,000 a year for time inside)? After Cassation stopped rolling on the floor, they sharply shot that down

All this would indeed tend to shut a fellow up. No so much luck yet with Amanda Knox.

Knox has long been widely despised in Italy. Now some pushback to her ludicrous war of aggression is mounting in the US and UK. That war (unprecedented except perhaps for Doug Preston and Bruce Fischer) seems to be driven by pure spite. Oh and of course by big bucks.

This is who she is now. Generating for cash millions of new bigots in America every year. That is her career. And on all possible occasions projecting herself as serial victim, with dozens of supposed victimizers in her past. 

Give us a break! Does she forget the kindly employer she put in prison for several weeks? The drug dealer she also put inside? The polite cops she framed? The prosecutor about whom she criminally lied? The Perugia landlady who lost the value of her house? The kind people she encountered in prison? The supporters who tithed millions for her defence? The supporters (think Frank Sforza) who ran afoul of the law because of her? The supporters (think Steve Moore) who got bounced out of their jobs?

And the 90 demonizations in Knox’s book?

We know so many in the media would be happy to nail her if they could. Below are the right questions to ask.

The PR has created a tough wall: the selected interviewers are all pussycats, questions for audiences can only be on postcards. But put all the open questions in one accessible spot and interviewers and audiences will increasingly understand they are being sold a dog.

We start this series with our own questions long unanswered here on TJMK. Some are for the media, and some for Knox direct.

2. Questions For The Media From SomeAlibi

Please Read Conclusions To Massei Report

Consider as you read it what is your own possible explanation for each of the following:

  • the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom?

  • the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede?

  • the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records?

  • the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife in Raffaele’s flat which Raffaele himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally “pricking” Meredith’s hand in his written diary despite the fact Meredith had never been to his flat (confirmed by Amanda Knox)?

  • the correlation of where Meredith’s phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guedes’s flats?

  • the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele’s computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer?

  • Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body?

  • the utterly inexplicable computer records the morning after the murder starting at 5.32 am and including multiple file creations and interactions thereafter all during a time that Raffaele and Amanda insist they were asleep until 10.30am?

  • the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed?

  • the accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox?

  • the fact that when Amanda Knox rang Meredith’s mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the “missing” Meredith, she did so for just three seconds - registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world

  • the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal porn at his university – so far from the wholesome image portrayed?

  • the fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn’t break down a flimsy door to Meredith’s room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren’t martial artists could?

  • the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox?

  • the fact that Amanda knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered?

  • the lies of Knox on the witness stand in July 2009 about how their drug intake that night (“one joint”) is totally contradicted by Sollecito’s own contemporaneous diary?

  • the fact that after a late evening’s questioning, Knox wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks *highly* like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi?

  • the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele both said they would give up smoking dope for life in their prison diaries despite having apparently nothing to regret?

  • the fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn’t celebrate the “true” perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn’t know would “make up strange things” about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people?

  • the fact that both an occupant of the cottage and the police instantly recognised the cottage had not been burgled but had been the subject of a staged break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes?

  • that Knox and Sollecito both suggested each other might have committed the crime and Sollecito TO THIS DATE does not agree Knox stayed in his flat all the night in question?

  • the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime?

  • the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening?

  • the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up?

  • the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged?

  • Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head?

Posted February 2011


3. Questions For Knox From The Machine

The various alibis

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave at least three different alibis, all of which have turned out to be false. Nobody has ever provided a plausible innocent explanation for the numerous lies that Knox and Sollecito told before and after 5 November 2007.

Amanda Knox told Filomena that she had already phoned the police. Knox’s mobile phone records proved that this was untrue.

She told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked. Filomena strongly disagreed with her, and told the postal police the opposite was true.

And in her email to friends in on 4 November 2007, Amanda Knox says she called Meredith’s phones after speaking to Filomena. Knox’s mobile phone records prove that this was untrue and that she had called Meredith’s phones first.

Question for Knox: Why did Amanda Knox lie to Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007 and to her friends in her e-mail on 4 November 2007?

Sollecito’s alibi lies

On 5 November 2007, Raffaele Sollecito admitted to the police that he had lied to them and said that Amanda Knox had asked him to lie for her. He claimed that Amanda Knox had left his apartment at around 9.00pm and returned at about 1.00am on the night of the murder.

Question for Knox: Why did Sollecito stop providing Amanda Knox with an alibi and why does he still refuse to corroborate her alibi?

Sollecito’s further alibi lies

After admitting he had lied, Sollecito was given another opportunity to tell the police the truth. However, he decided to tell the police even more lies. These lies were exposed by his computer and mobile phone records.

Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

He claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. There was no human interaction on his computer between 9.10pm and 5.32am.

He claimed that he had slept until after 10.00am on 2 November 2007. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and played music for about 30 minutes. He turned on his mobile phone at about 6.02am and received three phone calls at 9.24am (248 seconds long) and at 9.30am and at 9.29am (38 seconds long).

Question for Knox: Why do you think Sollecito deliberately chose to tell the police more lies? 

The DNA on the bra clasp

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

Question for Knox: Bearing in mind that DNA doesn’t fly, how would you account for the abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA being on Meredith’s bra clasp?

The DNA on the large knife

Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli - categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

Question for Knox: How would you account for Meredith’s DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

The traces of mixed blood

A number of criminal biologists testified at the trial that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood. Independent DNA expert Luciano Garofano stated that this was undoubtedly the case and even Amanda Knox’s lawyers conceded that her blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood.

Question for Knox: Why was Amanda Knox bleeding on the night of the murder and why was her blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in four different parts of the cottage?

Sollecito claims to cut Meredith

Sollecito claimed in his diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking.

Question for Knox: Why do you think Sollecito lied about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking?

Sollecito on Filomena’s room

Sollecito told the police that nothing had been stolen from Filomena’s room.

Question for Knox: How did Sollecito know nothing had been stolen from Filomena’s room?

Knox accuses Patrick

According to the corroborative testimony of multiple witnesses, including Knox’s interpreter, she voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith.

Question for Knox: Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily accuse an innocent man of murder?

Knox refusal to recant

She acknowledged that it was her fault that Diya Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007, but she didn’t retract her allegation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison.

Question for Knox: Why didn’t Amanda Knox recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba when he was in prison?

Knox at crime scene

Amanda Knox state on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed

Question for Knox: Why did Knox repeatedly claim to be there?

Knox’s Seattle call

Amanda Knox called her mother at 4.47am Seattle time before Meredith’s body had been discovered.

Question for Knox: Why did she phone her mother when it was in the middle of the night in Seattle and before anything had happened?

Knox forgets that call

Knox told her mother and the court that couldn’t remember making this phone call.

Question for Knox: Do you think Amanda Knox can’t genuinely remember phoning her mother at in the middle of the night?

Knox involvement

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted her involvement in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007.

Question for Knox: Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith’s murder?

Knox calls Meredith

Knox claimed that when she called Meredith’s Italian phone it “just kept ringing, no answer”. Her mobile phone records show this call lasted just three seconds.

Question for Knox: Do you think Amanda Knox made a genuine attempt to contact Meredith on 2 November 2007?

Posted May 2011


4. Questions For Knox From James Raper

1. Why did you not mention in your e-mail the 16 second 12.07 phonecall to Meredith’s English phone on the 2nd November?  When explaining why you made this call, please also explain why it was to the English phone rather than Meredith’s Italian phone which you knew Meredith used for local calls?

2. Why did you not mention this call when you phoned Filomena immediately afterwards?

3. Why did you make so little effort to contact Meredith again after being told by Filomena to do so. Remember the logged 3 and 4 second phone calls?

4. Why did you tell Filomena that you had already phoned the police when neither you, nor Raffaele, had.

5. Can you and will you explain the contradiction between your panic at the cottage (as described in the e-mail) and the testimony of all the witnesses who subsequently arrived that you appeared calm, detached and initially unconcerned as to your friend’s whereabouts or safety?

6. Why did you tell the postal police that Meredith often locked her bedroom door, even when it came to taking a shower, when this was simply not true, as Filomena testified?

7. Can you and will you explain why you did not try either of Meredith’s phones at the cottage if you were indeed in such a panic about Meredith’s locked door?

8. Can you and will you explain how you knew that Meredith’s throat had been cut when you were not, according to the witnesses’s testimony, a witness to the scene in Meredith’s bedroom after the door had been kicked in and, with the exception of probably a postal police officer or the ambulance crew, no one had looked underneath the duvet covering the body when you were there?

9. What made you think that the body was in the cupboard (wardrobe) when it was in fact to the side of the wardrobe? Were you being flippant, stupid, or what, when you said that? Do you think it just a remarkable coincidence that the remark bears close comparison to the crime scene investigators conclusions, based on the blood at the scene, that Meredith had been shoved, on all fours, and head first,  at the door of the wardrobe? She was then turned over on the floor and moved again. How did you know that there was any position prior to her final place of rest?

10. Will you ever be able to account for the 12.47 pm call to your mother in Seattle ( at 4.45 am Seattle time)? Do you remember this now because it was not mentioned in your e-mail nor were you able to remember it in your court testimony?

11. Why do you think Raffaele told the police – contrary to your own alibi that you had spent the whole time with Raffaele at his apartment – that you had gone out at 9 pm and did not return until 1 am?

12. Did you sleep through the music played for half an hour on Raffaele’s computer from 5.32 am?

13. Were you telling the truth when you told the court that you and Raffaele ate dinner some time between 9.15 and 11 pm? Can you not narrow it down a bit more? The water leak occurred, you said, whilst washing up dishes after dinner. Why then did Raffaele’s father say that Raffaele told him at 8.42 pm about the water leak whilst washing up dishes?

14. What was the problem about using the mop, rags, sponges etc already at Raffaele’s apartment, to clear up a water spill? Why was the mop from the girl’s cottage so essential and if it was, why not collect it immediately since it was just a short distance away?

15. Why, when you knew that you were going to Gubbio with Raffaele on the 2nd November, did you not take a change of clothing with you, if needed, when you left the cottage on the afternoon of the 1st?

16. Why did you need a shower at the cottage when you had already had one at Raffaele’s apartment the previous evening?

17. If you had needed one again why not have it at his apartment, in a heated apartment, before you set off, or on your return, rather than have a shower on a cold day, in a cold flat?

18. Why did you not notice the blood in the bathroom, and the bloody footprint on the bathmat, until after your shower? If the blood you then observed was already diluted and faded, how do you explain this?

19. Do not ignore your blood on the faucet. In your own testimony you said that there was no blood in the bathroom when you and Raffaele left the flat on the afternoon of the 1st.  What is your considered take on this now? Did your ear piercings bleed when having that shower or drying afterwards? If so, why were you not perfectly clear about the matter in your e-mail?  But then again you said that the blood was caked dry, didn’t you?

20. Why did Raffaele say that, on entering the flat with you, Filomena’s door was open and he saw the damage and mess inside, but you said, in your e-mail, that Filomena’s door was closed when you returned at 10.30 am? Did you subsequently look inside on that occasion, or not? It’s just that if you did, then why did you not mention the break in to Filomena prior to you and Raffaele returning to the cottage?

21. You are a creative writer so please explain. What is the point of the word “also” in the following extract from your e-mail? “Laura’s door was open which meant that she wasn’t at home, and Filomena’s door was also closed”.

22. In your trial testimony you mentioned shuffling along the corridor on the bathroom mat after your shower. From the bathroom to your room.  Because there was no towel in the bathroom. You had left it in your bedroom. Then back again. Why is this not mentioned in your e-mail?

23. In your e-mail you stated that you changed for your shower in your bedroom, and then afterwards dressed in your bedroom. That makes sense. What you don’t explain is why, if you towelled and dressed in your bedroom, there was any need to shuffle back to the bathroom on the bathmat. Why not just carry it back?

24. But why, in the same testimony, did you then change your mind as to where you had undressed for your shower? Not in your bedroom - saying so was a mistake you said - but you did not say where. Some people might think, uncharitably, that your change of mind was necessary to incorporate the double bathmat shuffle.

25. Were there any things that you disliked about Meredith? Be honest because we know from her English friends and other sources that there were things that she disliked about you.

26. Why are pages missing from your diary for October?

27. Once again, and this time so that it makes some sense, please explain why you permitted the police, on your say so, to believe that poor Patrick Lumumba was involved in Meredith’s murder.  Clearly, had you been at the cottage you would have known that he was not, and had you not been there you could not have known that he was.

Posted April 2012


5. Questions For Knox From Mediawatcher


  • Why did you call your mother in the middle of the night Seattle time prior to the murder having been discovered?  What was it you wanted to tell her?

  • You tried calling Meredith the day after the murder took place and yet phone records show that two of the calls you made to her cell numbers lasted only three and four seconds and you left no messages.  How diligent were you in trying to reach her?

  • Why do you think you falsely accused your boss Patrick Lumumba? 

  • Why didn’t you withdraw your accusation against Patrick Lumumba in the light of day, once you’d had time to rest and reflect? 

  • You have said - though never under oath - that you were treated terribly – can you summarize for us what happened the night you voluntarily gave your written statement and very specifically, any circumstances in which you were treated poorly?

  • Were you given food and drink on the night you were questioned?

  • Were you bleeding on the night or morning of the murder in any way that could have left DNA in the bathroom or in Filomena’s room?  If so, why were you bleeding?

  • You’ve said that went back to your apartment to take a shower and to retrieve a mop to clean up some water at Raffaele’s apartment from the night before.  Why didn’t you simply use towels at Raffaele’s apartment to clean up the water - why wait until the next day?

  • Reports indicate that Rudy Guede was a frequent visitor to the flat below yours.  How well did you know Rudy Guede prior to the night of the murder? 

  • Do you stand by the statement you made on the day the murder was discovered that Meredith always locked her door? 

  • You emailed to friends and family that you were panicked about what might have happened to Meredith given the locked door.  Did the two of you try to break the door down?  If not, why not?  And if Meredith always locked her door, why did the fact that it was locked worry you?

  • Have you read the Massei report? 

  • Raffaele Sollecito said during his book tour that no one asked him to testify during the original trial.  Do you believe this is true? 

  • If your conviction is affirmed by the Supreme Court, do you think you should be extradited to Italy.  If not, why not?

Posted April 2013


6. Questions For Knox From The Machine

1. Multiple false alibis

You and Raffaele Sollecito gave completely different accounts of where you were, who you were with and what you were doing on the night of the murder. Neither of you have credible alibis despite three attempts each. Sollecito told Kate Mansey from The Sunday Mirror that you and him were at a party.

He told the police that you and him were at his apartment. He then told them that he was home alone and that you weren’t at his apartment from around 9.00pm to about 1.00am. You first told the police that you were at Sollecito’s apartment. After you were informed that he was no longer providing you with an alibi, you repeatedly claimed that you went to the cottage with Diya Lumumba.

You changed your story yet again and claimed that you were at Sollecito’s apartment, but he might have gone out. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified.

Extract of Sollecito’s witness statement.

“I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think.

Question 1. Why did you and Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly tell the police and others a pack of lies?

2. False accusation

You falsely claimed that Diya Lumumba killed Meredith in two witness statements and you repeated the false accusation in your handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. You served three years in prison for this felony and your appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.

Question 2. Why did you repeatedly accuse Diya Lumumba of murder when you knew full well that he was completely innocent and why didn’t you or your mother retract your accusation when he was in prison?

3. The Double DNA Knife

According to a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor, Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian - Meredith’s Kercher’s DNA was found on the blade of a knife from Raffaele Sollecito’s kitchen.

He falsely claimed in his prison diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking. Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory.

Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment, so contamination away from the laboratory was impossible.

Question 3. How do you think Meredith’s DNA got onto the blade of the kitchen knife?

4. The bra clasp

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s on the exact part of Meredith bra clasp that was bent out of shape during the attack on her.  His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Professor Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it.

Professor Novelli analysed the series of samples from all 255 items processed and found not a single instance of contamination, and ruled out as implausible that a contaminating agent could have been present just on one single result. David Balding, a Professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London, recently analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded it was strong.

Question 4. How do you think Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp?

5. The bloody footprint on the bathmat

According to two imprint experts - Rinaldi and Boemi - the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house which indicates that he didn’t go into the bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

See our past posts on this here and here.

Question 5. Who do you think left the bloody footprint on the bathmat?

6. Mixed samples of Amanda Knox’s DNA or blood and Meredith Kercher’s blood

According to the prosecution’s experts, there were five instances of your DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. Even your lawyers conceded that your blood had mingled with Meredith’s blood. In other words, Meredith and Amanda Knox were both bleeding at the same time.

Question 6. Why were you bleeding on the night of the murder and is it a coincidence that only your DNA was found mixed with Meredith’s blood?

7. The Luminol Enhanced Footprints

Bare bloody footprints were revealed by Luminol at the cottage. Three of them are compatible with your foot size and one of them is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s foot size.

Question 7. What do you think the Luminol was reacting to - Meredith’s blood or some other substance?

8. The staged break-in

There is absolutely no evidence that anyone stood outside Filomena’s window and climbed up the vertical wall on the night of the murder. There were no marks from soil, grass or rubber soles on the wall. The earth of the evening of 1 November 2007 was very wet, so if anybody had climbed the wall, they would have left some marks on it.

The glass on the window sill and on the floor show no signs of being touched after the window was broken, which would have been the case if the intruder had gained entry through the window.

There was not a single biological trace on any of the shards of glass. It would have been very likely that an intruder balancing on the window sill would have suffered some kind of injury or cut because of the shards of glass.

If the window had been broken from the outside, there would have been shards of glass outside, but there wasn’t even one.

Judge Massei and the panel of judges at the Italian Supreme Court specifically mentioned the shards of glass on top of Filomena’s clothes which had been tossed onto the floor in her room and regarded it as proof that the break-in was staged.

Question 8. Who do you think staged the break-in at the cottage?

9. Knowledge of the crime

Umbria Procurator General Galati’s pointed out in his appeal that you knew specific details of the crime that you could have only known if you had been present when Meredith was killed.

According to multiple witnesses at the police station, you said you were the one who had found Meredith’s body, that she was in the wardrobe, that she was covered by the quilt, that a foot was sticking out, that they had cut her throat and that there was blood everywhere. But you weren’t in a position to have seen anything at all when the door was kicked in.

In your witness statement you described Meredith’s scream. Other witnesses have corroborated your claim that there was a loud scream.

Question 9. How did you know so many precise details of the crime?

10. Shower and the “bathmat shuffle”

The Scientific Police found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom that Meredith and you shared. Prosecutor Mignini and Filomena have both expressed their surprise that you showered in a blood-spattered bathroom.

Filomena told Mignini during cross-examination:  “I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place.”

You told Mignini that you used the bathmat to shuffle to your room.

Question 10. Why did you shower in a bathroom that was splattered with blood, and did you notice the visible bloody footprint on the bathmat when you used it to shuffle to your room? And why so soon after did the police notice that you were stinking?

Posted September 2013


7. Questions For Knox From Marcello

    1) Rudy Guede had been to the apartment at least twice already on prior occasions and knew the boys who lived in the lower story. Why did Guede choose to NOT break-in to the lower story where he knew (or could ascertain) that all four boys were away on holiday, and therefore could break-in and rummage with some certainty of not getting caught?

    2) Why did Guede choose to break-in to the upper story of the villa when he surely knew Knox and Kercher would be staying at the villa for the holidays and could have returned at any time to “catch him in-the-act”?

    3) Why did Guede not check the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in? Surely he would have verified that no one was present by circling the cottage and checking if any lights were on in the windows.

    4) If Guede did circle the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in, why would he then choose the most visible and more difficult path of entry through a second story window, as opposed to the more hidden and easier path of break-in at the back of the villa, which he would have noticed while circling the villa?

    5) Why would Guede choose to break-in through a second story window that was highly exposed to the headlights of passing cars on the street as well as exposed to night lighting from the carpark?

    6) Ms. Romanelli testified that she had nearly closed the exterior shutters. Assuming her memory is correct, there is no way a burglar could easily verify if the windows were latched and if the inner scuri were latched to the window panes, which would make access to the window latch impractical unless one was armed with a core drill or an ax. Why would Guede, who was certainly familiar with such windows, choose to attempt the break-in through a window that he could not easily verify would allow him quick access?

    7) Assuming the shutters were closed, Guede would have to climb up the wall and open the shutters before smashing the window with the rock. The night of the murder, the grass was wet from rain the previous day. Why was there no evidence of disturbed grass or mud on the walls?

    8) Guede had Nike sneakers, not rock climbing shoes. How did he manage the climb up the wall with that type of footwear?

    9) If the shutters were closed, or somewhat closed, how did Guede manage to lift himself up to the sill with only an inch of sill available to grab onto?

    10) Assuming Guede opened the shutters, how did Guede verify if the inner scuri where not latched to the window panes, which would prevent access to the window latch? There was no light inside Ms. Romanelli’s room to reveal that the scuri were ajar.

    11) Assuming Guede managed to check that the inner scuro behind the right-hand window was not latched, how did he manage to break the glass with a 9 lb rock with one hand while hanging on to the sill with the other?

    12) Assuming Guede managed check that the right-hand inner scuro was not latched, how did he break the glass with the rock without having glass shards fly into his face?

    13) If Guede climbed down to lob the 9 lb rock at the window from 3 meters below, how would he do so to avoid glass shards raining down on him?

    14) If Guede climbed down to the lob the rock at the window from below, why would he choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to lob up to a window 3 meters above him, with little chance of striking the window in the correct fashion?

    15) If Guede climbed down again and climbed back up to the carpark (up a steep slope with slippery wet grass and weeds) to lob the 9 lb 20 cm wide rock from the car park, why is there no evidence of this second climb down on the walls?

    16) Why did Guede choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to throw from the car park, given that a large, heavy rock would be difficult to lob with any precision? Especially considering that the width of the glass in the window pane is only 28 cm wide, surely anyone, experienced or not, would have chosen a smaller, lighter rock to throw with greater precision.

    17) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Guede would have been roughly 11-12 feet away from the window, in order for the lob to clear the wood railing at the carpark. If the rock was thrown with some velocity, why is the upper 1/2 of the glass in the window pane intact, without any fracture cracks at all?

    18) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Why is there so little damage to the scuro the rock hit, so little damage to the terrazzo flooring impacted by the rock, and so little damage to the rock itself, which surely would have fractured more on impact with a hard terrazzo floor?

    19) Why was there no evidence of glass shards found in the grass below the window?

    20) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window, how does he manage to hoist himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill?

    21) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, hoisted himself onto the sill, tapped the glass with a 9 lb rock to lightly break the glass in a manner more consistent with how the window was broken, why did he throw the rock into the room, rather than let it fall into the grass below?

    22) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found on the window sill?

    23) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found in Romanelli’s room?

    24) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window again, hoisted himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill, unlatched the window and stepped inside Filomena’s room, how did he manage to get glass on top of Romanelli’s clothing that was found under the window sill?

    25) Why would Guede, who would have spent a good 10 minutes trying to break and enter with the climbing up and down from the carpark, waste valuable time throwing clothes from the closet? Why not simply open the closet doors and rifle through the clothes without creating more of mess?

    26) Why did he disregard Romanelli’s laptop, which was in plain view?

    27) Why did Guede check the closet before checking the drawers of the nightstand, where surely more valuable objects like jewelry would be found?

    28) Why were none of the other rooms disturbed during the break-in?

    29) Assuming Ms. Kercher arrived to the cottage after Guede’s break-in, presumably when Guede was in the bathroom, why did she not notice the break-in, call the police and run out of the cottage?

    30) Assuming Guede was in the bathroom when Ms. Kercher returned, why go to the extent of attacking Ms. Kercher in her room rather than try to sneak out the front door, or through the window he had just broken, to avoid if not identification, at least more serious criminal charges?

    31) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, why did she not call the police the moment she heard the rock crash through the glass, loudly thud to the terrazzo floor and investigate what was happening in Romanelli’s room while Guede was climbing back down from the car park and climbing back up to the window?

    32) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, Guede could have been on the sill already because he had tapped the glass with the 9 lb rock to break it. Therefore perhaps Guede was already partially inside Romanelli’s room when he was discovered by Ms. Kercher. In this case Guede follows Ms. Kercher to her room in an attempt to dissuade her from calling the police and the assault ensues. But then, if this scenario is correct, when does Guede have time to rifle through Romanelli’s clothing and effects?

    33) Why is there a luminol revealed footprint in Romanelli’s room that has mixed traces of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA ?

    34) Why does this footprint not match Guede’s foot size?

    35) If multiple attackers were required to restain Ms. Kercher, holding her limbs while brandishing two knives and committing sexual violence, then who else was with Guede and why no traces of this 4th (or more) person(s) were found, either in shoeprints, footprints, fingerprints, DNA or otherwise?

    36) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why has Guede not acknolwedged them, and instead consistently hinted that, and finally admitting that Sollecito and Knox were with him during the assault?

    37) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why do the other shoeprints, footprints, DNA traces and fingerprints all point to Knox and Sollecito being present during the assault, in one way or another?

Posted October 2013

But wait!!

There’s more. Another post soon.

Posted on 03/05/18 at 02:05 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (3)

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Dr Mignini & Dr Comodi Explain The Real Strength Of The Trial Case, Little Disputed In Italy

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Because of subtitles watch in full-screen - click icon bottom-right when video starts

Some Context To The Video

This video subtitled and uploaded by Machiavelli shows a live panel aired in Italy on 27 December 2017.

The trial prosecutors are freed finally of professional requirements not to discuss any ongoing case they have a role in.

This is a rule not hampering American prosecutors, mostly elected, who make sure, in those few cases not plea-bargained that actually go to trial, the People’s case is being understood.

In the US an estimated 200,000-plus inmates are innocent but there because of unreported forced pleas. In Italy? None at all.

Italian citizens obtain their substantially more informed and accurate understanding of any ongoing case differently, by way of court documents posted on the Internet and frequent live TV.

The video hammers home the contrast between the perception of the generally highly-informed Italian pubic and the mostly mis-informed perception of the American and British publics.

Fine reporting was deliberately swamped.

Posted on 02/27/18 at 10:05 AM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (6)

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Netflixhoax 25: Omitted - Epidemic Of Hazing Deaths In United States No Different From Meredith’s

Posted by Peter Quennell



These hazing deaths in the videos are among many in the United States news these days.

Hazing deaths and bullying deaths and school shootings and teenage suicides (44 hundred a year, often caused by cyber-bullying) are at all-time highs. Deaths annually are in the thousands.

We first posted early in the trial in Perugia in 2009 that something was being lost in translation.

Investigators and prosecutors were seeing here the same type of group dynamic as in hazing, bullying and “let’s teach him or her a lesson”. Death was probably not the intention, but inevitably in the 15-minute attack death became the logical, wanted outcome.

At least for Knox if possibly not for the other two.

Key parts of the trial were behind closed doors. The only jury ever to hear all the evidence including the one-day recreation of the attack voted unanimously for this all-too-common fatal group dynamic.

Nobody in the United States sees any complexities or unbelievabilities in the motives of the American cases. It is not rocket science. The causes are so blatantly obvious.

To increasingly many, a dogmatic denial that Knox in exactly this same context had ANY motive, and that it’s thus case-over, is frankly ludicrous.

Many hazings start being voluntary and cooperative. But many others are forced and often sprung unannounced. Knox herself at the University of Washington got joy out of a surprise attack.

Alcohol and drugs are almost invariable. Investigators were quite sure Knox was on cocaine on the night of Meredith’s attack, and that she was on an extended high or new high when she had her surprising conniption on 5-6 November 2007. 

Here we should also take into account that (unique in student circles in Perugia) Knox was not a well-funded exchange student with a heavy study load at the main university. She had zero supervision. She had little money, and no work permit, and was working illegally.

By the end she had pretty well no friends. Patrick had not yet fired her in favor of Meredith, but it was already in the cards. Knox raging at that is not farfetched.

Knox in those days was essentially a sharp-elbowed, lazy nuisance with “issues” and her three flatmates were praying for the day when she would move out. In fact it is very hard to know WHAT Knox was doing in Perugia, other than booze, boys and drugs.

And killing people.

 

Click here for more

Posted on 02/24/18 at 10:47 AM by Peter QuennellClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (4)

Monday, February 19, 2018

Knox v Knox 5: How She Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #35 To #38

Posted by Chimera



Publisher Jonathan Burnham paid up to $4M with zero due diligence???

Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.

Series Overview

As wide as the Grand Canyon…

That seems to be the gap between the truths Knox is mostly forced to tell on the stand as contrasted with the multitude of lies in her book. Seriously bizarre.

Clearly Knox and her shadow-writer Linda Kulman and PR team gambled that no-one would transcribe and translate the Knox testimony and contrast it with that of the investigators (our Interrogation Hoax series) and with that of Knox herself in her book (this series).

That gamble to lie flat-out in English about Italians has been quite central to the Knox PR. But every time we transcribe a tape or translate a document we expose some more of this despicable charade.

Now the book is in legal trouble for the third time, for myriad defamations - the first time publishing was cancelled in Italy and the UK and the second time OGGI was sued for publishing defamatory excerpts.

Knox’s Friday stint on the stand at trial was posted here and here and also here and here.

These final four posts cover her Saturday stint on the stand. Numbering of instances resumes from the previous post.

2 Telling Contradictions 35 to 38

35. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

GM:  On page 40 (I don’t know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation of December 17, you said, I’ll read it, that: “I turned off my phone to save my battery.” Do you remember that?
AK:  Well, if it’s written there, it must be okay.
GM:  Today you’re saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another. [Voice intervenes: can you be more precise about the page?] Page 40: I’ll read it. “But why did you turn off your phone?” Interrogation of Dec 17. “To save my battery.” “Do you usually keep it on at night?” [He stops, annoyed at some murmuring.]
GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me.
CP?:  We’re not interrupting, we’re finding the page.
GCM:  Please, please [because of noise]. 39, 40, but anyway, these were the words. 39 or 40 is the page. Please, go ahead, pubblico ministero…

GM:  I see. Now you’re saying this was the motive.
GCM:  I heard an objection. [Annoyed voices.] Please, please. Go ahead. [Voices arguing, dalla Vedova (I think it’s him) is standing up.]
GCM:  This is an analysis. Indeed, yesterday Amanda Knox stated that turning off the cell phone was to guarantee her a free evening without being… [interruption] Excuse me. But at the interrogation of Dec 17 she said that it was both to save battery and also for this reason [interruptions, arguing]. So, I thought I understood that she had two reasons. We’re not arguing about that.
[defense]: Also not to be called by Patrick.

December 17, 2007 Questioning

PM Mignini: But why did you switch off your phone?
Knox: To save the battery, usually I keep it on at night if the following morning I have things to do, but the morning after was the day that everyone was going to skip school and we were going to go to Gubbio the day after with Raffaele. So I switched off my phone because I didn’t want that maybe Patrick might call to tell me to go to work. That’s why I switched it off and saved the battery.
Interpreter: To not have the battery discharge
PM Mignini: But you could recharge it
Interpreter: Since she was out of the house she wanted to save the battery because the next day she would have gone to Gubbio with Raffaele and since the day… she leaves it on during the night when the following day she has to go to school, but the following day there was no school and so she switched it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would change his mind and would call her to go to work
PM Mignini: Because there was the risk, that is you weren’t sure that…
Knox: He had told me that I didn’t need to go to work but it was still early and I didn’t know if he might have called back to tell me “Yes, now I need you”…
Interpreter: No, when Patrick had called saying that she didn’t need to work it was still early enough and the situation could still change in the sense that more people could turn up and he couldn’t…

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 5, Page 61/62]  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 piu 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!”

[Comments] in the trial testimony and December 17 questioning, AK cites both (a) saving the battery; and (b) not wanting to risk getting called back to work.  In the book she lists avoiding PL, but nothing about the battery.  Still, doesn’t exactly scream of dedication.

December 17, 2007 Questioning

PM Mignini: After having talked, after you were heard at the Questura, did you go away or did you wait?
Knox: The first day I was questioned I was there for hours… maybe 14…
Interpreter: The first time it seems to her that she had been there a very long time, 14 hours
PM Mignini: But questioned
Knox: No, maybe they questioned me for 6 hours but I stayed at the Questura a very long time…
[Comments] Off topic, but AK admits in interview that she wasn’t questioned for 14 hours.  At the police station yes, but not questioned.


36. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

GM:  Why did you speak about Patrick only in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45? Why didn’t you mention him before? You never mentioned him before.
AK:  Before when?
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.”
AK:  Yes.
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.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 107]  “I’m sure it’s going to be quick,” Rafael said.  I said, “I’ll just come with you.” Did the police know I’d show up, or were they purposefully separating Rafael and me? When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside, that I’d have to wait for Rafael in the car. I begged them to change their minds. I said, “I’m afraid to be by myself in the dark.”

[Comments] Yes, this was mentioned before, but just to repeat: AK claims this was a police sting, but she showed up: (a) uninvited; (b) unannounced; and (c) resisted Rita Ficarra’s instruction to go home.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 112]  “Why did you pause it?” “I don’t remember.” “Why? Why? What time?” “I don’t remember!” I said it forcefully, trying to shake them off, but it didn’t work. They were peppering me relentlessly. The questions seemed simple, but I didn’t have the answers. And the more they asked, the more I lost my bearings. I was getting hot, looking around for air.

[Comments] This supposed switch to ‘‘bad cop’’ is never explained in any way.  According to AK, she is being asked general questions (and again, she showed up unannounced to the police station), and all of a sudden the police are suddenly browbeating her.  Keep in mind, that Sollecito had been called in to answer discrepencies in his account—the phone records didn’t match his story.  But AK says they went after her BEFORE RS pulled her alibi. Check here.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 103]  November 5, 2007, Day Four.  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.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 113/114]  Just then a cop - Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa - opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.”  My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded, devastated. What? I couldn’t believe that Raffaele, the one person in Italy whom I’d trusted completely, had turned against me. How could he say that when it wasn’t true? We’d been together all night. Now it was just me against the police, my word against theirs. I had nothing left. “Where did you go? Who did you text?” Ficarra asked, sneering at me. “I don’t remember texting anyone.” They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history. “You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” “My boss at Le Chic.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114/115]  “Stop lying! Who’s Patrick? What’s he like?” “He’s about this tall,” I said, gesturing, “with braids.” “Did he know Meredith?” “Yes, she came to the bar.”  “Did he like her?” “Yes, he liked Meredith. He was nice to her, and they got along.”  “Did he think Meredith was pretty?”  “Well, Meredith was pretty. I’m sure he thought she was pretty.”  “When did you leave to meet Patrick?”  “I didn’t meet Patrick. I stayed in.”  “No, you didn’t. This message says you were going to meet him.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  “Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?”

[Comments] So, if the book is correct, AK has told the police that PL is: (a) her boss; (b) at Le Chic; (c) a rough description, yet the police still want to know who he is.  Of course, the book omits the fact that AK had already named PL in her infamous ‘‘7 person list’’ for Rita Ficarra, and drawn a map, and given his cell #.  For original sources read posts 2, 3, 4, 5, 11,and 12.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  They pushed my cell phone, with the message to Patrick, in my face and screamed, “You’re lying. You sent a message to Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head. “Why are you hitting me?” I cried.  “To get your attention,” she said.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  People were shouting at me. “Maybe you just don’t remember what happened. Try to think. Try to think.  Who did you meet? Who did you meet? You need to help us. Tell us!”  A cop boomed, “You’re going to go to prison for thirty years if you don’t help us.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  The silver-haired police officer took both of my hands in his. He said, “I really want to help you. I want to save you, but you need to tell me who the murderer is. You need to tell me. You know who the murderer is. You know who killed Meredith.” In that instant, I snapped.

[Comments] So AK tells the police who PL is, yet they still smack her, getting her to say who she went to meet.  Really?

37. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

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.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH cont] 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.  I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me,

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 108] 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.

[Comments] So in the book it is “grammar drills”, but in Court it is “paragraphs of reading”

[WTBH cont]  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.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 108] “Why don’t you keep talking about the people who’ve been in your house—especially men?” he suggested. 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.”

[Comments] in both the trial testimony and in the book, AK leaves out the fact that she was giving names and numbers (and addresses) in her “list”

For original sources read posts 10, 11,and 12.

[WTBH cont]  “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.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 113/114]  Just then a cop - Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa - opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.”  My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded, devastated. What? I couldn’t believe that Raffaele, the one person in Italy whom I’d trusted completely, had turned against me. How could he say that when it wasn’t true?  We’d been together all night. Now it was just me against the police, my word against theirs. I had nothing left.

[Comments] AK had been building her “list of 7” until she had been informed that she no longer had an alibi.  THEN she had to come up with someone—anyone—and she did.  The June 2009 testimony and book and surprisingly consistent (for Knox), yet it does not in any way reflect what actually happened.  Reread these posts

For original sources read posts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7,8 and 9.

[Comments] And again, to repeat from before, how exactly could this “sting” be planned for that night?  Knox showed up to the Questura: (a) unannounced; (b) uninvited; and (c) refused to leave when told to do so?

[WTBH cont] I was always in Raffaele’s apartment

[Comments] RS has repeatedly thrown AK under the bus on this.  To this day, he refuses to provide an alibi. For multiple examples see here.

38. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

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—-

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH cont]  “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.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  People were shouting at me. “Maybe you just don’t remember what happened. Try to think. Try to think. Who did you meet? Who did you meet? You need to help us. Tell us!” A cop boomed, “You’re going to go to prison for thirty years if you don’t help us.” [Comments] Notwithstanding the fact that this browbeating was made up, it is told differently.  At trial, AK says she was threatened because she wasn’t sure of what she was saying, while in the book she claims it was due to not remembering at all.

[WTBH cont] “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.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114] “Where did you go? Who did you text?” Ficarra asked, sneering at me. “I don’t remember texting anyone.”  They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history.  “You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”  “My boss at Le Chic.”

[Comments] Again, aside from the fact this “interrogation” didn’t happen, these events change as well.  In the Trial testimony, AK says she handed over her phone since the police wanted to verify that she had received such a message from Patrick.  In the book, the police seem to be searching for people AK may have talked to.

[Comments] And, as mentioned before, if this really was a sting, why wouldn’t the police have pulled AK/RS phone and text records beforehand?  Why would the police set up such a sting on the offchance AK would show up:  (a) unannounced; (b) uninvited; and (c) refuse to leave when told to do so?

[WTBH cont] “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.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114]  “My boss at Le Chic.”  “What about his text message? What time did you receive that?”  “I don’t know. You have my phone,”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114] They said, “Why did you delete Patrick’s message? The text you have says you were going to meet Patrick.”  “What message?” I asked, bewildered. I didn’t remember texting Patrick a return message.  “This one!” said an officer, thrusting the phone in my face and withdrawing it before I could even look.  “Stop lying! Who’s Patrick? What’s he like?”  “He’s about this tall,” I said, gesturing, “with braids.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  “Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?” The questions wouldn’t stop. I couldn’t think. And even when it didn’t seem possible, the pressure kept building. I said, “Patrick is my boss.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  The interpreter offered a solution, “Once, when I had an accident, I didn’t remember it. I had a broken leg and it was traumatizing and I woke up afterward and didn’t remember it. Maybe you just don’t remember.  Maybe that’s why you can’t remember times really well.”  For a moment, she sounded almost kind.  But I said, “No, I’m not traumatized.”  Another cop picked up the same language. He said, “Maybe you’re traumatized by what you saw. Maybe you don’t remember.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]  That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head. “Why are you hitting me?” I cried. “To get your attention,” she said. “I’m trying to help,” I said. “I’m trying to help, I’m desperately trying to help.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  People were shouting at me. “Maybe you just don’t remember what happened. Try to think. Try to think. Who did you meet? Who did you meet? You need to help us. Tell us!”  A cop boomed, “You’re going to go to prison for thirty years if you don’t help us.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]  The silver-haired police officer took both of my hands in his. He said, “I really want to help you. I want to save you, but you need to tell me who the murderer is. You need to tell me. You know who the murderer is. You know who killed Meredith.” In that instant, I snapped.

[Comments] So AK tells the police who PL is, yet they still smack her, getting her to say who she went to meet.  Why?

Posted on 02/19/18 at 12:46 PM by ChimeraClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (15)

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Knox v Knox 4: How She Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #27 To #34

Posted by Chimera



Guede was handcuffed and put in that cage; for some reason not RS or AK

Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.

Series Overview

Knox’s trial testimony over two days in June 2009 is about 200 pages long.

In her book, this was boiled down to a little more than one page. Anything that made her look bad was simply left out. That was one of only two times she was ever pressed hard for the truth.

The other time was at the 17 Dec 2007 interrogation she herself requested of Dr Mignini, from which she withdrew without clear answers under mild questioning, seemingly in tears.

Pretty well at all other times Knox desperately spins and misleads.

Her Perugia lawyers don’t ever seem to believe her and have previously asked her to stop, but seem to have given up now (or not been paid). It seems certain that the Knox book (not published in the UK or Italy for legal reasons) was never run past them.

We have highlighted 500-plus provable lies and 90 provable demonizations in that book - large numbers, but still a fraction of her total record if one includes her paid talks.

This series contrasts what Knox was edged into admitting on the stand with her wild claims in the book when she was under no control. The previous posts appeared here and here and also here.

Numbering of instances resumes from the previous post.

2 Telling Contradictions 27 to 34

27. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  I took so many creative writing courses, but in one of them, they asked me to write a piece on the ten minutes prior to the discovery of a body.
CDV: This was the subject given to you by the teacher?
AK:  Yes. It was exactly the subject.
CDV: For everyone?
AK:  What?
CDV: For all the students, or just for you?
AK:  No, for all the students.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] I haven’t found it in WTBH, and It seems extremely farfetched

28. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  Yes. They called me downstairs and told me that they had to confiscate some things in my room. They told me I could either go up with them and do what I wanted and they would come later with a warrant, or I could let them take whatever they wanted spontaneously. I said they could, so they came up with me and they came into my room and looked in all my things, and they took everything on which I had written anything.
CDV: Listen, in relation to this diary, there is a part in which you tell about the AIDS tests that were made in the first days. Can you tell us? It’s written in the diary, but you can tell us exactly what happened, and also why you wrote about it in the diary?
AK:  So, the first thing that happened when I got to prison was that they made a [blood] analysis. After the analysis, they called me downstairs and told me that they had to make further tests because I might have AIDS. I was really shocked because I didn’t understand how it could have happened that I could have gotten AIDS. But they advised me to think about where I might have caught it, so they wanted me to really think about it. So I was writing in my diary about how astonished I was, and then I wrote down every partner that I had ever had in my life…
CDV: How many are there? Do you remember their names?
AK:  Seven.
CDV: These are the partners that you had in your life?
AK:  Yes. All of them.
CDV: Why did you write them down? For some kind of check?

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 11, page 137] 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?

[WTBH, Chapter 12, Page 149] “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.

[WTBH, Chapter 13, Page 154] 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.

[WTBH, Chapter 16, Page 192] Doctor-patient confidentiality didn’t exist in prison. A guard was ever-present, standing right behind me .This bothered me so much that, as time went on, I skipped a needed pelvic exam and didn’t seek help when I got hives or when my hair started falling out. Whatever happened in the infirmary was recycled as gossip that traveled from official to official and, sometimes, back to me.

[WTBH, Chapter 16, Page 192-194] Vice-Commandant Arguer 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.“He also liked to ask me about sex. The first time he asked me if I was good at sex, I was sure I’d misheard him. I looked at him incredulously and said, “What?!“He just smiled and said, “Come on, just answer the question. You know, don’t you?“Every conversation came around to sex. He’d say, “I hear you like to have sex. How do you like to have sex? What positions do you like most? Would you have sex with me? No? I’m too old for you?“His lewd comments took me back to the pickup lines used by Italian students when I’d relax on the Cuomo steps in Perugia. I wondered if I should just chalk up his lack of professionalism to a cultural difference. Sitting across the desk from him, I thought it must be acceptable for Italian men to banter like this while they were on the clock, in uniform, talking to a subordinate—a prisoner. He had me meet with him privately and often showed up during my medical visits, but I had always been so sheltered, I didn’t think of what he did as sexual harassment—I guess because he never touched or threatened me. At first when he brought up sex I pretended I didn’t understand. “I’m sorry—Mi displace,” 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 Arguer was saying. My dad said,“Amanda, he shouldn’t be doing that! You’ve got to tell someone! “Knowing that Dad thought this was wrong validated my own thoughts. But Arguer was the boss—what could I do? Whom could I tell? Who’d take my word over his? 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 per. 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.”

[WTBH, Chapter 16, Page 194] I still wasn’t sure this was something I should bother Luciano and Carlo with. But when it continued for a few more days, I did. Luciano looked revolted, and Carlo urged me, “Anytime At-giro 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.“But I was so lacking in confidence I couldn’t imagine it would be okay to resist Arguer directly. I reminded myself that the pressure I felt during these sessions wasn’t anything close to the pressure I’d been put under during my interrogation. Arguer usually sat back and smoked a cigarette, and I knew that I could just wait out his questions. Eventually he’d send me back to my cell. I didn’t tell him off because I’m not a confrontational person.

[WTBH, Chapter 17, Page 197] November 15-16,2007 Vice-Commandant Arguer 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.

[WTBH, Chapter 17, Page 199] The untruths kept coming—seemingly leaked from the prosecutor’s office. 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. Things that never happened were reported as fact.

[Chapter 18, Page 209] And if I was drop-dead sexy, it was news to me. Vice-Comandante Argiro always made a production out of opening my mail, winking and chattering about how many admirers I had.

[WTBH, Chapter 18, page 212/213] Arguer 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 Rafael, 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, Arguer said, “Don’t worry. I’d still have sex with you right now. Promise me you’ll have sex with me.”

[WTBH, Chapter 18, Page 215/216] 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.“In the end, I don’t know if they made up the HIV diagnosis. It wasn’t the doctor who said I should think about whom I’d had sex with, but Arguer. It might have been that the test was faulty, or Arguer could have put the medical staff up to it so he could ask me questions and pass the answers along to the police. It was nearly two months before the doctors let me know that the HIV test had come out negative. When they did, I thought, Oh, thank God! But I was still seeing the doctors twice a day, and it had been a longtime since anyone had even brought it up.

[Comments] This all makes for a nice story. However, if you read AK’s June 2009 testimony, NONE of this appears in there. She never mentions sexual assault, sexual harassment, or violations of her rights. No complaint was ever filed by her lawyers, or family (the ECH appeal is not the same thing). Funny that none of this made it into her testimony, if she was so badly mistreated. Below is the closest thing (from the trial testimony), but AK herself is likely the source of the leak

29. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  More than that, it was panic, I was crying.
CDV: This was during the first period of time that you were in prison? Do you remember the period of time?
AK:  Yes. In fact, I didn’t understand anything. I was there with a climate who was going crazy, who kept yelling “Don’t touch me! You have AIDS!” and then there was this inspector who kept coming to talk to me, saying “Ah, come on…”
CDV: What? An inspector or a doctor?
AK:  There was an inspector who called every day…
CDV: And then there was a doctor?
AK:  And there was also a doctor who also called me every day

CP: I think I’m talking about November 30th. On November 30, you were in front of the Tribunals deli Same. Why didn’t you declare this circumstance, that Patrick was foreign to all this, totally innocent?
AK:  So, that date is when I arrived here, to the Camera Di Consiglio?
CP: Yes.
AK:  That’s it. So I said, I made a spontaneous declaration in front of those judges, saying that I was very upset about the fact that Patrick had been put in prison because of me. I said that. If I’m not mistaken.
CP: Listen, the first time you ever actually said that Patrick had nothing to do with it, when was it? Do you remember? Of these people you told, was it to your lawyers? Or was it your mother on the phone on the 10th?
AK:  That Patrick had nothing to do with it? I imagined that he was innocent because—
CP: But when did you said it for the first time? In the phone call with your mother on November 10th?
AK:  I don’t know when the first time I told someone was.
GCM: Excuse me. Before you told your mother, did you tell anyone else?
AK:  Yes, I wrote it in my memorandum of the 7th, and then when I discussed the situation with my lawyers, I explained why I had said these things. And I explained the fact that I couldn’t talk about the guilt of this person. I thought that, at a certain point, thinking about how Patrick was, I thought that it wasn’t even possible that he could be guilty of something like that, because he wasn’t like that. But I wasn’t actually in the house seeing anything, so I couldn’t actually state whether he was guilty or not.
GCM: Yes. But before you told your mother on November 10th in that recorded conversation, did you tell others? That Patrick, as far as you knew, had nothing to do with it?
AK:  I had explained the situation to my lawyers, and I had told them what I knew. Which was that I didn’t know who the murderer was. That.
CP: But listen, in the memorandum of the 7th, you did repeat that Patrick was the murderer. Do you contest that? You expressly say “I didn’t lie when I said Patrick was the murderer. I really did think he was the murderer.” So in the memorandum of the 7th, you confirm—

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Chapter 19, Page 224] Seeing how the prosecution treated Patrick in the two weeks since his arrest should have given me in sight 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 went free the day Guide was arrested. Timing his release to coincide with Guide’s arrest, the prosecution diverted attention from their mistake. They let him go only when they had Guide to take his place.

[Comments] In the book, AK claims that the police intentionally held onto PL until they had another suspect (Guide). But she conveniently omits she plainly told her mother PL was innocent. In fact, she could have gotten him released….. Oh wait, she could have just not accused him in the first place.

30. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

LG: I see. From certain declarations which you spontaneously emitted in the following days, you were heard to mention a certain “June”. Who is this June?
AK:  June is the friend of Laura who found me the job with Patrick, because he worked for Patrick. In fact, he was my personal contact at work. At least, he was the one who often had to translate for me, to tell me what I was supposed to do, also because since my Italian wasn’t great, I would listen to Patrick, and then turn to June to ask him what I was really supposed to do. He spoke to me in English.
LG: But what is his nationality?
AK:  I think he was Albanian? I don’t remember. But he was a foreigner. He hadn’t been in Italy very long.
LG: We’ve already spoken about your relations with Patrick. But I wanted to ask you one thing. Did Patrick ever have any complaints about you? For example, because you didn’t show up for work, or because of the way you worked?

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] June was one of the 7 names AK dropped in the list building exercise of November 5. But that list is never mentioned in her book.

31. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  I felt fine. I remember that Laura sometimes complained that there were draggier around, but I felt quite safe.
LG: I see. Do you remember when you called Filomena, more or less, on that morning?
AK:  I called Filomena when Rafael advised me to call someone.
LG: And what did Filomena say?
AK:  Filomena was worried. She asked me if I had called Meredith, and I said I had already called but she wasn’t answering. I told her what I had seen, and she said “OK, when you’ve finished, go to the house and check everything that happened and call me back.”

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

I called Filomena first and was relieved when she picked up. “Ciao, ,” she said.“Ciao,” I said. “I’m calling because when I came home from Rafael’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.

[Comments] AK gets these details consist, but they are different than what the actual phone records show. Specifically, she made the 3 and 4 second calls to Meredith’s phones BEFORE calling Filomena. AK claims in the book that the British phone was out of service, and the Italian phone went straight to voicemail. Odd that she remembered those details while forgetting the phone calls to her Mom. However, when Filomena called these numbers, the phones rang and rang

32. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

LG: Did you try to climb over the balcony?
AK:  Yes. When I saw that Meredith’s door was locked, and that if she was in there, she wasn’t answering, I really wanted to find out whether she was in there or not. I was confused about this, because why should her door be locked if she wasn’t inside? So first I tried—the way the house is situated, she had a window near that little balcony, so I first tried to climb over the balcony to see if I could see inside. But I couldn’t, and [laughing] Rafael was saying “No, get back here!” and pulling me back onto the balcony. So then he tried to knock the door down.
LG: Yes, and I know that you had tried to open the door together, hadn’t you?
AK:  Yes. Rafael tried giving it a kick, and also pushing it with his shoulder to open it, because we didn’t know why that door should be locked.
LG: And you also tried calling out Meredith’s name?
AK:  Of course, and I also tried looking in the keyhole.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

“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 the have spent the night with Giacomo? Or with one of her British friends? 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 Rafael, 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 Rafael 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. Rafael came out and shouted, “! Get down. You could fall!“That possibility hadn’t occurred to me.

[Comments] Interesting, AK says that she is freaked out, but laughs when talking about it.  Also, she is merely confused, but risks her well being out of worry?!

33. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009. . .

AK:  They wanted me to be careful, but above all, they wanted me to go to them, to try to find myself. I was so disoriented, and I didn’t know where to go, where to look. So they thought maybe I should go to be with them, but I didn’t want to leave Perugia or Italy, because of collaborating with the police, and then, I just didn’t want to leave this place.
LG: How many times did you go to the Questura in the following days, the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th?
AK:  I went back every day.
LG: And more or less for how many hours, for how much time?
AK:  It depended, but it was always for several hours.
LG: But did you also go to class on those days? You tried to continue your normal life?
AK:  Yes. Finally on the 5th, I had time to go to class. And then Rafael was called.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 7, Page 83] The police weren’t stopping to sleep and didn’t seem to be allowing us to, either. Rafael 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.

[Comments] As for the police “targeting” AK on November 2 (into Nov 3), she lets it slip that EVERYONE in the house was detained.  She also complained (the call was recorded), that she was hanging around the police station, and since they WEREN’T asking questions, it was a waste of her time.

[WTBH, Chapter 9, Page 100] The police took all three of us back to the villa, with Laura and Filomena riding in the backseat of one squad car and the interpreter and me in another. We ducked under the yellow police tape that blocked off the front door and put on protective blue shoecovers. I hadn’t been back in our apartment since Meredith’s body was discovered and the Postal Police had ordered us outside. Tingling with fear, I never thought to reprise my “ta-dah” from the day before.

[Comments] On November 4, yes, AK does go back to the house with the police, but so did Laura and Filomena.  Some targeting.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 105] But by that time I wasn’t paying attention to the news. 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 Rafael’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. Class wasn’t as normal as I would have liked. Just before we began the day’s lesson, a classmate raised her hand and asked, “Can we talk about the murder that happened over the weekend?”

[Comments] Oh, look, AK still has time to go to class on November 5

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 108] I said, “I’ll just come with you. “Did the police know Id show up, or were they purposefully separating Rafael and me? When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside, that I’d have to wait for Rafael in the car. I begged them to change their minds. I said, “I’m afraid to be by myself in the dark. “

[Comments] So AK is not only free during the day but the evening too.  And she lets it drop that she wasn’t actually called to the police station.  She just showed up.

34. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009. . .

CD: What did you—what was your evaluation of this broken window?
AK:  I was perplexed, because. . . First I thought “Oh, a robbery”, but then I didn’t understand, because nothing had been taken from the house, at least—there was a mess in the room, but the computer was there, all the things, the things of value, and Laura’s room was perfectly clean, and mine was as if no one had touched anything, so for me I didn’t understand these things. In fact, I remember having talked with Laura and Filomena and Rafael, at the house of a friend of Laura’s, in the days after, when we were trying to figure out how everything could have happened.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 6, Page 68] 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 Rafael, 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. “

[WTBH, Chapter 6, Page 71] 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. “

[WTBH, Chapter 6, Page 71] 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?”

[WTBH, Chapter, 6, Page 75] 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 some more.


Monday, February 05, 2018

Another Of Many “They Really DID Do It” Cases Where Suspicions Only Grow

Posted by Peter Quennell

Several dozen new videos like these have gone online in this year alone.






Posted on 02/05/18 at 02:27 PM by Peter QuennellClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links: Other legal processesThose elsewhereThe wider contextsN America context
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (24)

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

“Americans Are Paying Knox $10,000 A Gig To Trash Italian Cops - Smart Move Liberating Her”

Posted by Peter Quennell




1. Americans Knox Has Hoaxed

So the news is out to considerable disgust that Knox is being paid up to $10,000 a gig plus costs to lie about her case.

Now she is going global on Netflix’s tail and seeks to hoax bleeding-heart Irish via another Kabuki-style paid interview. Knox has lied to and defrauded these groups so far.

  • Roanoke College
  • YPOG Pacific Northwest (Walla Walla)
  • Westside Bar Association “Injustice Seminar”
  • Kentucky Bar Association Annual Convention
  • YPOG Beverly Hills
  • Florida Innocence Project “Gala”
  • Palm Beach Bar Association “Law Day Luncheon”
  • YPOG Pacific Northwest (Seattle)
  • American Psychology and Law Conference
  • Windsor Law’s “Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted Special Event”
  • Aegis Living EPIC Annual Conference
  • Union League Club of Chicago
  • Loyola Law “Life After Innocence Annual Luncheon”

That adds up to thirteen, a lot of people Knox has directly hoaxed, to say nothing of her book and of the millions Netflix has hoaxed. Plus the presumed Irish lovefest this weekend.

2. The Misleading Marketing Pitch

Here is the pitch for Knox on the All American Speakers site.

Amanda Knox was tried and convicted for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, who died from knife wounds in the apartment she shared with Knox in 2007. Knox and her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were both found guilty of killing Kercher, receiving 26- and 25-year prison sentences, respectively. In October 2011, Knox and Sollecito were acquitted and set free. In March 2013, Knox was ordered to stand trial again for Kercher’s murder; Italy’s final court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, overturned both Knox’s and Sollecito’s acquittals. Knox and Sollecito were again found guilty of murder in February 2014, with Sollecito receiving a 25-year prison sentence and Knox receiving a 28.5-year sentence. The Supreme Court of Italy overturned her and Sollecito’s convictions in 2015.

3. How That Pitch Misleads

The marketing of Knox as cash-cow is replete with wrong implications, to get the paying customers quickly on the hook before it occurs to check with Italy. Here are several:

1. There were several trials and Italy just kept trying

Untrue. In fact (1) there was ONE very definitive trial, in 2009; (2) Knox and Sollecito appealed in 2011 on very narrow grounds and were wrongly set free as appeals were not done; that court was provably bent and the result was annulled by the Supreme Court’s First Chambers (the “murder court”); (3) the First Chambers (not the prosecutors) ordered a repeat of the first appeal in 2013-14 and the 2009 guilty verdict was confirmed; (4) in Knox’s and Sollecito’s final appeal a provably bent Fifth Chambers (which normally never handles murders) declared them not guilty but involved anyway in the mother of all weird rulings. Had that appeal correctly gone back to First Chambers, they would still be locked up.

2. All four years Knox was in prison were unjustified

Untrue. In the first year she repeatedly failed to convince courts including even the Supreme Court, in the face of ever-mounting evidence, that she should make bail or house arrest or be released entirely. The other three years were fully justified because with no provocation she accused an innocent man of murder and never ever retracted her claim.  Endemically Knox tries to make out her “interrogation” was forced and therefore it was all the cops’ fault not hers.  But see here. There was actually no interrogation as such at all, she was not forced to confess, the malicious accusation of murder against an innocent man was spontaneous, and she sustained it for several weeks.

3. Knox was exonerated proving lower courts wrong

Untrue. Knox was not exonerated. And the provable bending of three courts is ignored. The mafia role in sliming Italian justice and liberating the pair is swept under the rug. Almost every Italian has long known what was going on but to talk about it or write about it is not something they like to do. The existence of the mafias does not make them proud and to talk of them is not always safe. We first wrote extensively here and most recently again extensively here about why and how the manipulations occurred.

4. Knox is a model for all prisoners wrongly held

Untrue. They can learn nothing from this. Maybe 200,000 are wrongly held in the US; are any seeing a way out via Knox? There is no mention of the role of the brutal PR campaign which few could afford. Omitted is how damaging and dishonest it was and still is, how destructive to so many additional victims of Knox, and how focused on making a buck. Knox is not the only speaker being paid to lie to crowds; others are as well. Numerous books and articles are involved and media and consultant fees. This is a cash industry now, not a charity, with Knox as hallowed cash-cow.

4. Where This Hoaxfest Goes Next

More and more is out in the open. There are attempts to change the subject when curiosity about these subjects is on the rise - but notice how there is no direct pushback and there are no legal threats. Those who have foolishly acted as witting or unwitting mafia tools want zero attention to their roles here.

Don Corleone surely smiles broadly in his grave. Never has Italian justice been trashed around the world on a scale anything like this. Very nice if groups who have rented Knox and become aware they were hoaxed choose to demand their $10,000 back right now. That’d end the blood-money flow at one stroke.


Friday, January 26, 2018

Contrasting The Dishonest, Demonizing Knox With The Real Victim And Victim Advocate Elizabeth Smart

Posted by Peter Quennell


1. Amanda Knox

Read here for the warnings Roanoke College management received.

We are told none of that was ever shared. College management did their students no favors at all by lying by omission about Knox.

College management KNEW that Knox lies on an epic scale and has no real respect for truth. They KNEW the case against Knox was actually one of exceptional strength. They KNEW Knox is a felon for life for framing an innocent man and that she rightly served three years.

They KNEW Knox in Perugia had been heavily on drugs. They KNEW she was not an exchange student and was a growing nuisance to those around. They KNEW that Knox demonizes Italy and its fine, fair justice system and staff, and that she encourages bigotry and dangerous hate.

They KNEW the Supreme Court’s final verdict was provably bent and the Ndrangheta played some role.

Wrongly demonizing police and courts, and wrongly demonizing foreigners, are very dangerous games which if absorbed as lifetime lessons will cause serious psychological and social disarray.

WHY were fee-paying Roanoke students never provided by management with this reality check?

2. Elizabeth Smart

The only other American in victim mode so prominently making herself available for speakers gigs is the REAL victim Elizabeth Smart.

She is the Mormon girl abducted from her Salt Lake City home when she was 14 by a fundamentalist pair.  Although some do believe she may have been kidnapped willingly to get out of a suffocatingly regimented home, she has won just about everybody over, because she is so cool, frank, funny, self-effacing, and genuinely nice.

And because she has chosen a really noble cause, instead of a divisive one.

To general admiration, she is trying to slow child kidnappings and kidnapping-deaths, which are at epidemic levels not least in Utah where the polygamists want second, third and fourth wives and are in the habit of helping themselves.

She has systematized her advice - a number of pointers for kidnap victims to help them come out alive, and a number of pointers for parents, police and political leaders which end up in law and handbooks and training and are filling a real void. She unquestionably is saving lives.

3. Bottom Line

In contrast, what is Knox’s cause? Fanning bigotry and trashing Italy and Italian justice through extensive lies? Mischaracterizing why she is a convicted felon who served three years and nefariously escaped much worse? Demonizing hundreds while seeking to make herself a saint?

So. To best meet their students’ lifetime needs, out of these two, who was it Roanoke College management chooses to expose them to? Really? Amanda Knox?!?!


Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Netflixhoax 24: Which Took A Harder Line Against Sollecito & Knox? The Prosecutors Or The Courts?

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Above and below, one of Italy’s ultra-modern courthouses, this one in Palermo

1. Post Overview

Continuing our series on the myriad ways the dishonest Netflix team misled.

“For The Press. September 09, 2016: The Netflix documentary “Amanda Knox” opens at the Toronto International Film Festival today Amanda Knox. While claiming to be a balanced perspective its producer Stephen Robert Morse had made inflammatory reports about the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (who was interviewed by the film makers) of “having been convicted of crimes” (he was acquitted) and being “a power-hungry prosecutor running the show”.

That was a press release our Wiki team put out which set this series on the road. If you got your information on the case from Netflix, you may have wrongly assumed it was the demonized prosecutor Dr Mignini calling all the shots. But read Dr Mignini here and here.

And read what Netflix darling Amanda Knox did to Dr Mignini here. (Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!)

2. Where Power Lies

Prosecutors in the Italian system are among the less empowered anywhere in the world (though usually smarter too). The harder line in the Perugia case was always taken by the judges in the Perugia, Florence and Rome courts.

Judge Micheli was the judge who late in 2008 sentenced Guede (to 30 years) and actually decided to send Knox and Sollecito to trial. (Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!)

He was one tough judge. Read summaries of his very tough report here, here, and here.

Italian judges are almost all career path (think: carefully trained, and promoted on their merits) whereas almost all American prosecutors and judges are either elected or appointed by the political party in power, at times without even a degree in law.

Italian prosecutors cannot plea-bargain as happens in over 90% of all American cases - resulting in an estimated 200,000-plus sitting wrongly in American prisons. Italian equivalent: around zero.  (Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!)

In his book Sollecito said the prosecution tried to plea-bargain for him to roll over on Knox. Not only was that a lie, but Sollecito has now admitted it was a lie in a Florence court. .

Unlike American prosecutors, Italian prosecutors are forbidden from going on TV or holding press conferences while any legal process goes on.

Italians get to be more objectively and more deeply informed - on the Perugia case they know on average many times what the average American knows - by reading all that the judges put online.

Italian judges repeatedly put reports on the Perugia case online to justify their decisions as they are required by law to do, usually within three months.

Italians by the hundreds of thousands got to read those reports and so they continue to believe in guilt (though a bit less-so for Sollecito than Knox, who they universally believe started the attack.)

How many of those reports (almost all translated and posted on our Wiki) do you think were full translated by the American media?

In fact precisely none. Not one. They didnt even summarise the weird Bruno/Marasca report.

The excellent reporters for the few media outlets in American that tried to describe the whole case objectively did some translation, but translating a 400 page report would provide no income for them and leave little time to report.

Italian prosecutors are monitored and supervised by judges almost from Day One as happened in the Perugia case.

Not just one judge: within the first month alone a panel of review judges checked out how how the first supervising judge (Matteini) was getting on.

Early in 2008 even the Supreme Court in Rome reviewed the strength of the case. (Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!)

Dr Mignini was indeed the first prosecutor in the Perugia case. But from late in 2008 when a trial became a near-certainty he shared the job with Dr Comodi.

She herself is well known throughout Italy as a fine prosecutor in her own right.

In 2011 new prosecutors (in Florence) took on the Hellman appeal. New prosecutors (in Florence) took on the Nencini appeal. And there were no prosecutors at all at the Supreme Court in Rome in 2012 and 2015 - In each session it was judges who presented the case as best they could.

(Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!)




3. Italian Process In Summary

.
One of our very first posts back in late 2008 was by our main poster Nicki in Milan, an expert in Italian law,. She described where the power in the Italian system really lies:

Much of the US media and some of the UK media - sometimes enthusiastically, sometimes with reserve - has parroted the claim that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were “held without charges” for nearly a year.

Perhaps bringing to mind the notion of two innocent bystanders to the crime being arbitrarily arrested? Locked up in cockroach-infested jails by abusive police? Led on by an evil prosecutor with endless powers up his sleeve, and nothing at all to slow him down? Lost and forgotten by any judges in the case?

Well, good luck with that one, if it’s designed to sway the process.

It irritates just about everybody here in Italy, the judiciary and the media included. And it is doing the defendants no good at all.

Negative stereotypes like these really should not be applied to a country that is one of the founding members of the EU, of NATO, and of the European Council, and of the G-7, G-8, OECD, and United Nations (the non-permanent member of the Security Council in 2007-2008).

So for media reporters and commentators, please let us get the facts straight. Once and for all?!

Italian jurisprudence developed from Roman Law. It was shaped in the course of history to become a modern and very fair system. Judicial powers are subjected to a very complex and extremely pervasive set of checks and balances, which really assure maximum protection of every citizen’s rights.

Comparing the US and UK common law system - a model founded on non-written laws and developed through judicial proceedings - with this system which arose from the Roman Law model - based on a written civil code - is really like comparing apples to oranges.

They were both conceived to protect individual’s rights at a maximum level, while seeking justice for the victims. But with entirely different processes.

One is not necessarily better or worse. But there are legal experts who think the Italian system is distinctly fairer - much more weighted toward the defendants. In the US and the UK the prosecutor usually has to make it through only one pre-trial hoop. In Italy the prosecutor has to make it through a whole row of pre-trial hoops.

Let’s see what happens in Italy to the legal status of a person who, while considered a “persona informata dei fatti” which means “a person who could yield useful information” in relation to a brutal murder, suddenly becomes a suspect in the eyes of the police.

If while interviewing the “person who could yield useful information” the suspicion arises that such person could have played an active role in the crime, their status then turns into that of a suspect. The police can then detain that suspect up to 48 hours.

Those 48 hours are the period within which a prosecutor - if he believes that the evidence of guilt is meaningful - can request a validation of the arrest by the Judge of Preliminary Investigation (the GIP).

If the judge agrees with the prosecutor that a serious indication of guilt exists, a warrant for the arrest is issued by the judge, and the person’s detention is thus validated.

Immediately, as soon as the status of “person who could yield useful information” status changes into the status of a suspect, the suspect person has a right to legal counsel. This legal counsel normally immediately appeals for the release of the suspect.

Thus setting in motion what can be a LONG sequel of hearings - for which in US and UK common law there is no such equivalent. Each hearing is headed by a different judge. This judge examines prosecution and defence arguments, and decides if the suspect may be released on any of these bases:

  • Seriousness of the clues presented by prosecution

  • Likelihood of repeating a similar crime

  • Likelihood of fleeing the country during the ongoing investigation

  • Danger of tampering with, or fabricating evidence

If every one of the defence appeals fails, in front of a number of different judges, in a number of different hearings, and the investigation is officially closed, the suspect then goes on to a pre-trial hearing.

Once again here, yet another judge rules either to clear and release the suspect by rejecting the submitted evidence, or to send the suspect to trial on the basis of that evidence, thus making the charges official.

Now that the charges are official, the judge can decide if the defendant must await trial under house arrest, or in freedom, of if the defendant must remain in jail.

If the judge, based on their knowledge of the crime and the defendants, estimates that the chances of re-offending or fleeing the country are high, the suspect must remain in jail.

So nobody in Italy can be detained without a reasonable suspicion, a long series of judicial hearings (any one of which could set them free) or eventual official charges.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have not in fact been incarcerated for over one year due to zealous police or a bizarre prosecutor or the complicity of a number of judges throughout the process.

They have been incarcerated because an articulate and balanced process of law has officially and very fairly established there are strong indications that they willingly participated in the vicious murder of Meredith Kercher.

Their own lawyers have put up a tough fight for Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox throughout the judicial process.  But they have simply failed to convince the judges throughout that process.

One that actually seems strongly weighted in their favor.


Thursday, January 18, 2018

Interrogation Hoax #20: Illustrating How Batshit Crazy The Knox Interrogation Hoax Has Become

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Knox again making things up, despite vast evidence and her defense team to contrary

1. From Impeccable Police Process…

Click here for the overview of this huge series.

We are coming full circle now, with new translations showing what happened at the very start, from the day Meredith’s body was found, to the day of RS’s and AK’s arrests.

In those days Knox and Sollecito provided information about possible perpetrators in four relatively brief sessions with investigators in the central police station, and they signed the written records on every page.

It is pretty obvious from those signed depositions why no court believed Knox was forced to frame an innocent man.

Even Knox’s own defense team did not believe the hoax (yes she actually had one, though hoaxers leave this awkward fact aside). Though it took us some time to translate it all, some of that stark evidence against Knox has been available in English for years.

And yet it could be quicker to list here who among the Knox apologists HASN’T put this hoax on steroids than who has.

2. To Interrogation Hoax On Steroids

This is from a hyped keynote presentation to a New York conference of senior government justice officials from all over the world.  It mentioned no original sources as proof and was not peer-reviewed. No attempt has ever been made to set the record right. The 37 untrue statements are rebutted in Part 3 below.

Meredith Kercher was found raped [untrue] and murdered in Perugia, Italy. Almost immediately [untrue] police suspected 20-year-old Amanda Knox [untrue], an American student and one of Kercher’s roommates—the only one who stayed in Perugia after the murder [untrue]. Knox had no history of crime [untrue] or violence and no motive [untrue].

But something about her demeanor [untrue] such as an apparent lack of affect [untrue], an outburst of sobbing [untrue], or her girlish and immature behavior [untrue] led police to believe [untrue] she was involved and lying, when she claimed she was with Raffaele Sollecito, her new Italian boyfriend, that night [untrue]. 

Armed with a prejudgment of Knox’s guilt [untrue] several police officials interrogated [untrue] the girl on and off for four days [untrue]. Her final interrogation started on November 5 at 10 p.m. [untrue] and lasted until November 6 at 6 a.m [untrue] during which time she was alone, without an attorney, tag-teamed by a dozen police [untrue] and did not break for food [untrue] or sleep [untrue].

In many ways, Knox was a vulnerable suspect—young, far from home, without family, and forced to speak in a language [untrue] in which she was not fluent. Knox says she was repeatedly threatened [untrue] and called a liar [untrue]. She was told [untrue], falsely [untrue], that Sollecito, her boyfriend, disavowed her alibi and that physical evidence placed her at the scene [untrue].

Despite a law that mandates the recording of interrogations, police and prosecutors maintain that these sessions were not recorded [untrue]. 

Police had failed to provide Knox with an attorney [untrue] or record the interrogations [untrue] so all the confessions [untrue] attributed to her were ruled inadmissible in court [untrue].

Still, the damage was done [untrue]. The confession [untrue] set into motion a hypothesis-confirming investigation [untrue], prosecution, and conviction….

It is now clear that the proverbial mountain of discredited [untrue] evidence used to convict Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was nothing but a house of cards [untrue] built upon a false confession [untrue].

3. And Pesky Hard Facts

Neither Knox’s own lawyers nor any court ever believed Knox’s fluctuating versions of what happened on 5-6 November 2007 to make her frame Patrick for murder and maintain that for 2 weeks.

Only a guilty person would let such claims stand. All courts saw that and so Knox is a convicted felon for life. She served three years for the malicious accusation, and she still owes the victim $100,000.

Below, how to destroy the hoax in 12 points.  See further our extremely detailed 20-part series on Knox’s interrogation hoax (via the link in our right column) with numerous translations as proof.

1. Police provably kept open minds, and did not immediately suspect Knox though her odd behaviors were hard to miss, or treat her differently than others with possible useful facts.

2. She was not the only one with possible useful facts told to stay in Perugia for several days; others were told they might be needed again; no others complained.

3. There is no documented investigator prejudgement of guilt, even at her fourth and final quite short session on 5 Nov when the subject was provably once again listing more visitors to the house.

4. She was never tag-teamed by a dozen police, and she signed every page of all four session reports which named the mere several officers who were there.

5. There was no 50 or more hours of sessions. No session lasted from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am. All four of her sessions over 4 days combined may not have exceeded that length of time.

6. The fourth and final session on 5-6 Nov was unplanned, and when she turned up late on 5 Nov and was told to go get some sleep, she insisted she wanted to remain.

7. All four sessions were recorded and she signed. She was never threatened or called a liar; her conniption when shown a text message on 5-6 Nov happened spontaneously and very fast.

8. On 5-6 Nov 2007 Sollecito also u-turned - and blamed Knox! No tag-team there. Knox never confessed; she made a false charge of murder against someone else, allowed to stand for several weeks.

9. She did not simply claim she was with Sollecito that night; under no pressure she repeated several times in writing that she went out and all courts allowed that. Sollecito said she did too.

10. After she broke she was told several times she should not talk further without an attorney. No questions were asked of her after that but she pressed on.

11. She had a translator at all four sessions, though she herself chose to speak in Italian now and then. She made and handed over notes in Italian.

12. At trial she confirmed she was provided with refreshments and helped to get some sleep. She was never refused bathroom breaks and confirmed she was not hit.

4. In Conclusion

This hoax is a money-tree for Knox. A blood-money tree. Act the real victim, shake the tree, and tens of thousands fall out. Knox is to blame, but far from the only one. Most of the hoaxers are trying to shake their own money-trees too. Knox’s speaker agency and her PR and lawyers and publishers all want a big payday. Huge sums are at stake.

Can the hoax survive?  Probably not for long. It needed a 100% rebuttal which finally we have achieved now. And it needs Knox’s confidence and her credibility. Even one disbelieving voice from the audience could show the world that the empress has no clothes.


Monday, January 15, 2018

Interrogation Hoax #19: ALL Knox Q&A Sessions 2-6 November 2007 WERE Recorded #2

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



More Ndrangheta rounded up in Perugia’s recent sweeps

1. What Does The Hoax Allege?

As the previous post noted (see Part 3) this widely-promulgated hoax alleges among other things:

(1) that the total hours Knox was questioned from 2 to 6 November was upward of 50;

(2) that Knox was the main suspect for the murder of Meredith from the get-go;

(3) that the “interrogation” was conducted by tag-teams of investigators working in shifts;

(4) that Knox was under duress and forbidden bathroom breaks, sleep and refreshments.

(5) that Knox was refused a lawyer and all questioning sessions were illegally not recorded.

(6) That the outcome was “a confession”.

2. Who Are The Main Propagators?

Again as noted in the previous post, the frontrunners in propagating this huge hoax are Doug Preston, Steve Moore, Michael Heavey, Paul Ciolino, Saul Kassin, John Douglas, and Bruce Fischer.

Also Steve Moore, Steve Moore, and Steve Moore. Seemingly for him an obsession.

Thousands of other accounts accept their word as gospel. Curt Knox and Edda Mellas have repeated it often, blaming Amanda when challenged (really).

Amanda Knox herself attempts to fire up this hoax again repeatedly. Watch her do so and cry her eyes out with foolish Netflix, and maybe with foolish Roanoke College and VICE TV soon.

But testimonies of numerous investigators at trial that she sat through without objection confirmed one another, strong proof that nothing on the list above is true.

So far, the hoax is a huge fail. See Part 2. No judge in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 ever accepted that a “confession” was forced out of her. Knox’s own lawyers did not believe it.

3. Where We Stand On The Sessions

We have already posted the records of all Q&A made and signed by Knox herself for 2 November and for 5 and 6 November.

These for 3 and 4 November are the middle two. Both these short sessions took place at the questura, after Knox had been with Dr Mignini and police officers to check out the house. (There was testimony at trial by officers who were part of those teams.)

You will see below that the core interest of the investigators in these sessions is also almost exclusively upon others who might have been around the house in recent times. If anything, they point away from Knox, not toward her, and you will see Knox actually building on that.

Her next session, her fourth and unplanned, on the night of 5-6 November, was used to add yet more names of possibilities, seemingly a delight to Knox, but then she broke unexpectedly, and she left under arrest some hours later.

Sollecito was not interviewed at all on either the 3rd or the 4th. His next session, only his second after the 2 November interview (scroll down) was on the night of 5 November. That was to explore discrepancies in his phone records, and he also left under arrest.

These sessions were not at all unusual. In the same period numerous sessions with others also took place, including every person named in the Knox and Sollecito sessions.

In this same period, several phone conversations of Knox and Sollecito were recorded and transcribed, along with phone conversations of Meredith’s friend Sophie Purton and some others as well.

They are available on the Wiki. They don’t really add anything, except for Knox complaining to her Aunt Donna in Germany at length that the police will not let her leave. So much for staying in Perugia voluntarily, to help police find the killer of her “friend” Meredith.

4. Signed Record Of Knox Statement 3 November

Police station of PERUGIA
MOBILE Team

Subject: Summary minutes of information of a person informed of the facts made by: KNOX Amanda Marie, born in Washington (U.S.A.) on 09.07.87, domiciled in Perugia in Via della Pergola No. 7; identified by Pass. No 422687114 issued by the U.S. government on 13.06.2007. Tel. 484673590.

Day 3 November 2007, at 14.45, in Perugia at the offices of the Mobile Squad of police headquarters in Perugia. Before the undersigned officers of the judicial police: Inspector FACCHINI Antonio and FICARRA Rita, in service respectively at police central operations in Rome and the office in the inscription indicated above.

Together with the person named in the subject who speaks sufficiently the Italian language, but is assisted by the interpreter Marco Bacha. Following the statements about the death of KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara, she already made on 2 November 2007, hereby declares the following:

“In the elaboration of what was already reported yesterday at 15.30 p.m. at these offices, to be precise, when I said I checked the girls ’ rooms and that these were all in order, I meant to say that apparently there was nothing missing but not that there were no things out of place.

In fact, the oddest thing, besides the broken glass, within Filomena’s chamber was the fact that some of her clothes were on the ground.

This morning, when I entered the apartment of the boys who live below us, together with the police and the magistrate [Mignini], I got to notice that the bed of Stephen’s room was completely untidy, as it did not have sheets and pillows, and the bedspread dirty with blood was tossed on the bed all ruffled. The thing seemed to me very strange because usually Stefano’s bed was always neat with linens, pillows and blankets. Sometimes I had noticed that on the bed there were also well-folded clothes.”

A.D.R. [Q&A] This was impressed on me because usually, when I go to that house, I can see into his room, which usually has the door half-open and the bed is always in order.

A.D.R. I attend the boys’ house for a variety of reasons, for example to play the guitar together with James, sometimes to play Risk, sometimes to get a coffee or to have a chat. I dined with them, in that house only in one instance in early October. There were present besides me Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, Stefano, his girlfriend, Marco and three friends from Rome of whom I remember only the name of one, a certain Daniel. The last time I was at the home of the boys was about a week ago to simply greet them.

A.D.R. I’m not aware that Meredith smoked and I’ve never smoked. Meredith had told me that when she was in England she smoked but that then she had decided to quit as it was healthier.

A.D.R. I personally do not smoke cigarettes or even joints. I think my friends don’t too. They smoke only cigarettes, whereas with regard to the boys, on occasions when we have been together and playing guitar, I saw that they were rolling cigarettes with papers but I never thought that it was anything other than tobacco.

A.D.R. None of the boys has ever manifested a particular interest in us girls,  Only Marco, but only as a joke, sometimes he was a witty one.

A.D.R. Around mid-October, while I was at the “Le Chic” pub where I work, I met Hicham, who us girls nicknamed Shaky, who I also met and recognized yesterday evening at your offices [questura]. At the end of my work shift at about 02.30 o’clock, he offered a ride home with his moped, and I agreed. Arriving below his house he asked me in for a drink. I was hesitant, but as he insisted, I accepted while specifying that I could only remain half an hour.

So I thought that he wanted to take me to another bar but then, when we arrived below his house, at his insistence I went home with him. I went into the house entering a room in which there were other Italian kids watching TV, when Shaky said I should follow him to his room. Entering his room, he closed the door. He wanted to talk to me. At that point I was worried and told him I preferred to return home immediately because I felt very tired. Shaky continued to insist that he wanted to talk to me, to get to know me better, while I was asking to leave. We kept discussing this for about an hour and a half, when he finally gave up and took me back home.

A.D.R Even the other girls knew Shaky, they had met him more often than me. I am not aware of their level of friendship with him, since I usually do not go out with them.

A.D.R. As far as I know Meredith has never quarreled with Shaky, I can only say that she found him kind because on one occasion, returning from the disco he had offered her a ride home. This does not mean that Meredith also considered him insistent, though after I told him about my episode she told me that the same thing had happened to Sophie too

F.L.C.S.
The Reporting Agent


5. Signed Record Of Knox Statement 4 November

Police station of Perugia
Mobile Squad, General Affairs Section

Subject: Minutes of summary information from a person informed of the facts made by Amanda Marie KNOX, also already reported in other general statements.

On 4 November at 2.45 p.m., in the offices of the Mobile Squad of police headquarters in Perugia, to the undersigned officers of PG: VQA. GIOBBI Edgardo, VQA CHIACCHIERIA Marco, Comm. NAPOLEONI Monica, and English-speaking interpreter COLANTONE Aida.

Also present is the above-named in question making additions to declarations made on 2 and 3 November at these offices, on the facts of the case being investigated. She declares the following:

A.D.R. [Q&A] I know a young man who frequents an internet cafe which is called INTERNET POINT located in the centre of Perugia near the Duomo. This young man is Argentinian and is called Juve for whom I provide the phone number 320/3758112.

A.D.R. Yes, he came to my house at least five times, the latest being on October 31, 2007. He knows Meredith because he met her at the pub with me.

A.D.R. Juve has never tried to stay with me, but has a way of embracing and touching, even when he is not drunk. He’s engaged, and he has always said he follows good principles towards his fiancee.

A.D.R. Juve is about 1.80 meters high, skinny with a little “bacon”, dark curly hair down to his neck, dark complexion, usually dresses in jeans, t-shirts and sneakers.

A.D.R. Meredith had no close relationship with Juve and when he came by to see me Meredith wasn’t there. I knew that Juve did not like Meredith, because of the attitude that the latter showed to him.

A.D.R. The other men I brought home are a certain Spyros, height about 1.80, (tel. 3293473230), only once, in October, and on that occasion he met Meredith without talking except for their greeting. Also Daniele of Rome, for whom I do not know the telephone number; Daniele came home 2 times, the second time he spoke with Meredith saying goodbye.

A.D.R. Also ALESSI Pasquale known as Jafar. He is the owner of the Merlin Bar; He knew Meredith, who he intended to have work for him. Meredith said he was nice; she never said that he had called her. I don’t know if Jafar knows the location of our house.

A.D.R. Also I know Giorgio the friend of the boys who lives below. He often came to my home, and knew Meredith with whom he had friendly relations. Giorgio had danced on the premises with me, with Meredith, and with the others. Giorgio is not tall, he just exceeds my height.

Amanda KNOX is made aware of the fact that, by proxy of the Attorney General, acting as a witness, she is bound to secrecy in order not to prejudice the investigations now ongoing.

This minute after reading and confirmation is signed by all those present.

OAU

5. Some Conclusions

So. This is it. We have the full picture of all four Knox sessions and both Sollecito sessions pre-arrest. All signed by them. Numerous names advanced and little needlings of some of them by Knox, but not much otherwise.

Certainly no interrogation. No obvious drama. Not so many investigators. No hard targeting of Knox. No confirmation bias. And not so many hours taken. In total, surely below ten and that includes the writing of reports.

No denying of food, water, sleep, bathroom breaks, or a lawyer. No obvious forcing or oppression. No serial tag-teams interrogating day and night. No obvious reason for Knox to complain that the sessions were oppressive.

Exactly what are Doug Preston, Steve Moore, Michael Heavey, Paul Ciolino, Saul Kassin, John Douglas, and Bruce Fischer still on about? And Knox herself?

Posted on 01/15/18 at 12:29 AM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (3)

Page 1 of 113 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »