Tuesday, February 07, 2017
Sollecito Compensation Decision Overdue Since Last Friday; Fifth Chambers Ruling May Be His Problem
Posted by KrissyG
Sollecito, represented by his attorneys throughout the process, Avvocato Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, is currently claiming compensation for ‘wrongful imprisonment’.
This claim now before a Florence court is in respect of the four years he served of a sentence of 25 years handed down for the Aggravated Murder of Meredith Kercher, 1 Nov 2007.
The conviction was controversially overturned by the final Italian Supreme Court in March 2015, and its Motivational Report published – some three months late – in September 2015.
It was only then Sollecito was able to commence compensation proceedings, as the Italian Penal Code provides for this, given its long-winded legal process whereby defendants accused of serious crimes (i.e., one with a sentence of over three years custody) can be held on remand whilst awaiting trial. In theory, this should only be for up to one year.
The Florence panel of three women judges indicated over a week ago that their decision could be expected by last Friday. Why the further delay? Well, a major reason could be that, far from finding Sollecito “innocent”, the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court ruling in fact did him few favors and the judges may be having a hard time grappling with that.
They will also know of Dr Mignini’s explosive contention that two articles of the judicial code were flouted and the case should have been referred back down to the appeal court (the same Florence court!) if there were evidence problems.
Issues with Marasca/Bruno ruling
The Marasca/Bruno verdict is considered controversial because Sollecito and his co-defendant, Amanda Knox had been found guilty at the first instance trial court (merits), which was upheld on appeal.
It is unusual for the Supreme Court to have not remitted the case back to the Appeal (second instance) court as the Penal Code – as is standard in the UK and the USA – does not allow the Supreme Court to assess facts found at trial.
The correct procedure is to send the disputed evidence back to the court which in the opinion of the Supreme court erred. Marasca did not rule a Section 530,1 ‘Not Guilty’ acquittal, but a Section 530, 2 ‘Not Guilty’ ‘insufficient evidence’, which some say is similar to Scottish Law, ‘Not Proven’. However, the wording used, proscioglimento indicates a pre-trial ‘charges dropped’, rather than ‘acquittal’ (assoluzione).
Sollecito and Knox made several applications against being held in custody whilst awaiting trial and were turned down at every stage, including appeals and an application for ‘house arrest’ in lieu.
The prosecution opposed the application on the grounds of the seriousness of the crime, and in Knox’ case, the standard ground that she might flee the country, as a foreigner to Italy. In addition, the prosecution had used special preventative powers to isolate the defendants (Knox, Sollecito and Guede) to prevent tampering with witnesses, a power which had been added to the Penal Code to assist in the fight against mafia gangs who did intimidate witnesses, often through their lawyers.
Therefore the law allowed the prosecutors to deny the defendants an attorney until just before their remand hearings.
However, the award of compensation for having (a) been held in remand, and (b) serving a sentence until such time the conviction was overturned, is not automatic. The applicant has to show that they are factually ‘not guilty’, i.e., cannot possibly have committed the crime, perhaps because the ‘real perpetrator’ has come to light, or ‘new evidence’ presented.
Neither of these scenarios apply in Sollecito’s case. Whilst a defendant is allowed to ‘lie’ and indeed, does not need to swear an oath in testifying, this only holds true if they are guilty. Marasca did not find Sollecito or Knox, ‘Not Gulty’ as per Article 530,1, the common or garden ‘Not Guilty’ verdict.
Further, Sollecito refused to testify at his own trial, and made various misrepresentations and lies to the police. He argues in current tv and radio show rounds – for example, in the recent Victoria Derbyshire BBC morning show – that as he was a ‘collector of knives’ and had always carried a knife around since age thirteen, ‘To carve on tables and trees’, he explains, and thus argues, the police should not have viewed this with suspicion when he attended the questura carrying one in the days after the murder.
Sollecito’s other difficulty is that Marasca, whilst criticising the investigation as ‘flawed’, and this being the main reason for acquittal, it nonetheless cuts Sollecito little slack.
How Marasca-Bruno Cut Sollecito Little Slack
From the Marasca Supreme Court Motivational Report, Sept 2015 (boldface added):
It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he [Sollecito] was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine. On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.
And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file.
Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house.
Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action.
The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.
An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2.
An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.
Sollecito in his police interview of the 5 Nov 2007, shortly after which he was arrested, withdrew his alibi from Amanda Knox. During the Nencini appeal phase, he and his advocate, Bongiorno, called a press conference to underline that Sollecito ‘could not vouch for Knox’ whereabouts between 8:45 pm and 1:00 am on the night of the murder. Sollecito has never once retracted this withdrawal of an alibi for Amanda.
Further, Judges Marasca and Bruno state:
The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions.
In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.
Sollecito had claimed he was surfing the internet until 3:00 am in one statement and claimed to have watched Naruto cartoon until 9:45 pm on the murder night. It winds up:
The technical tests requested by the defence cannot grant any contribution of clarity, not only because a long time has passed, but also because they regard aspects of problematic examination (such as the possibility of selective cleaning) or of manifest irrelevance (technical analysis on Sollecito’s computer) given that is was possible, as said, for him to go to Kercher’s house whatever the length of his interaction with the computer (even if one concedes that such interaction exists), or they are manifestly unnecessary, given that some unexceptionable technical analysis carried out are exhaustive (such are for example the cadaver inspection and the following medico-legal examinations).
Leading to the verdict:
Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.
*[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgments during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a non-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgment nor a court’s decision.] http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Marasca-Bruno_Report_(English)
The Issues Facing the Florence Appeal Court
Sollecito has clearly passed the first hurdle of being eligible to have a hearing for compensation. His legal team have asked for the maximum €516,000. A claimant who can successfully plead ‘wrongful imprisonment’ can claim €500, per diem imprisonment, up to a cap of €516,000.
Sollecito’s legal team have referred to Marasca’s criticism of the investigation as grounds for the full compensation, claiming Sollecito’s “innocence and loss of youthful endeavours” because of the ‘flaws’. Problem is, the issue of investigative flaws was never pleaded at trial, or at least, not upheld, by either the trial or appeal court judge. Marasca never really explains in which way this was a proven fact.
The Prosecutor’s Office based at Florence is opposing the application. I would expect they will be relying on Matteini’s remand hearing and Gemmelli’s written reasons rejecting Sollecito’s appeal against being kept in custody until the hearing.
The three judges who on 27 January 2017 in a hearing listed for five days announced they would issue their verdict ‘within five days’, as of 7 Feb 2017, some seven working days later, have yet to make a decision. Alternatively, the decision has been made, but the public and press have not yet accessed it. It could be Sollecito’s legal team have yet to call a press conference, whilst they study the findings.
The Florence panel of judges will have to decide:
- 1. is Sollecito entitled to compensation?
2. if so, how much?
3. did he lie to police or mislead them?
4. if so, to what extent was he contributory to his being remanded?
5. to what extent is the ‘flawed investigation’ a factor in his ‘wrongful imprisonment’?
6. should Sollecito receive compensation for the one year remand in custody leading up to the trial?
7. should he be compensated for the three further years of a sentence served as a convicted prisoner, six months of it in solitary confinement?
8. should this be for both of the above, either of the above, or neither of them?
Watch this space for the decision! Also Sollecito has made noises that he plans further legal action against the prosecutor, based on Marasca’s criticisms in the Motivational Report. Watch for that too.
Sources: The Murder of Meredith Kercher com True Justice for Meredith Kercher
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (25)
Wednesday, February 01, 2017
Florence Court Decision On Whether Sollecito Gets Any Compensation - If Yes, Why Its Ill Deserved
Posted by Peter Quennell
Here is the BBC’s interview with Sollecito on his compensation claim.
The ill-prepared Victoria Derbyshire was snowed.
Sollecito was convicted ONCE and not ever found “innocent”. The verdict was that he was probably at the scene of the crime, and Knox definitely so. And that fail was despite a mighty effort to corrupt two Italian courts.
Who knows what new tricks behind the scenes are being played now? But if the Florence judge really studies the record of the early days, there is no way in which Sollecito gets paid.
He ADMITTED on 5-6 November 2007 that he had lied to the cops, because Knox made him do so. That same night he signed a confession to that effect. Lying to the cops is itself a crime.
And Sollecito was treated extremely fairly throughout. He and Knox had half a dozen judicial hearings even before the 2009 trial began.
He and Knox failed to win release at every one - all the judges ending with Judge Micheli who wrote up the case against them at length turned his pleas down, moving him from prison to mere house arrest being one.
One of Sollecito’s and Knox’s failed attempts at being sprung before trial was an appeal directly to the Supreme Court (amazing - try that in the UK or US!).
Our translation by Catnip of the Gemelli judgment is highly worth a read (there is a similar judgement for Knox) as the Florence court has to decide: did the Gemmeli court act unfairly in light of the list of evidence here?
Gemelli Court Decision on Raffaele Sollecito’s 2008 Appeal (English)
Held: the decision to continue pre-trial prison detention for the suspect was reasonable.
THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION
SECTION 1 CRIMINAL DIVISION
Comprised of the most Honourable Justices:
Dr Torquato GEMELLI - President -
Dr Emilio Giovanni GIRONI - Member -
Dr Maria Cristina SIOTTO - Member -
Dr Umberto ZAMPETTI - Member -
Dr Margherita CASSANO - Member -
have pronounced the following JUDGMENT on the appeal lodged by:
(1) RS, born on X, against Order of 30/11/2007 Liberty Court of Perugia;
having heard the relation made by Member Emilio Giovanni Gironi;
having heard the conclusions of the Prosecutor-General Dr Consolo for its rejection;
having heard the defence advocates G and T (substituting for advocate M).
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The order referred to in opening confirmed, at the Re-examination stage, the one by which the GIP [the Preliminary Investigation Magistrate] had applied pre-trial prison detention of RS for participation in the murder of MSCK, the which occurring in Perugia on the evening of the 1st of November 2007 by means of a cutting weapon, in an alleged context of sexual assault by a group, in which there would have taken part, in addition to S, his girlfriend AK and a RHG, who had left behind a palm print on the bloodied pillow on which the victim’s body was resting and whose DNA was found on the vaginal swab taken from the body of the same and on faecal traces found in a bathroom of the house that the victim was sharing with Ms AK and two Italian students.
The picture of circumstantial evidence specifically concerning S consists of the identification of a print left in haematic material present at the scene of the crime of a sports shoe held to be compatible, because its dimensions and configuration of the sole, with the type of footwear, “N” brand size 42.5, used by the suspect; of the recovery – in the kitchen of his house – of a kitchen knife bearing traces of Ms AK’s DNA on the handle and on the blade traces of Ms MK’s DNA; and of the collapse of the alibi put up by the young man (having been disproven by technical investigations carried out), in which, as asserted by him, he had interacted with his computer during the hours in which, according to the forensic pathologist’s reconstruction, the criminal fact would have occurred, that is between 22:00 and 23:00 of the 1st November 2007; from the investigations carried out up until now it would appear, in fact, that the last interaction with the machine on 1 November occurred at 21:10 and that the subsequent one took place at 5:32 the day after, when S also reactivated his mobile phone, acts witnessing thereby an agitated and sleepless night. Equally disproven was that the young man had received a phone call from his father at 23:00 on the night of the murder, it resulting, instead, that said call had happened at 20:40.
Against S, caught at the time of arrest with a switchblade initially considered compatible with the wounds found on the neck of the victim, would line up, in addition, the mutability of the stories given to the investigators by the same and by his girlfriend, having initially maintained they had remained the whole evening and night in the young man’s house, later to state, instead, that at a certain point Ms AK would have left to meet the Ivorian [sic] citizen PDL, manager of a pub in which Ms AK was undertaking casual employment, she making a returning to her boyfriend’s house only around one in the morning.
It must, finally, be added that the same Ms AK had, amongst other things, initially referred (not confirming, in any case, the thesis in confused and contradictory subsequent versions) to having taken herself to her own house with L, where this latter (he also was struck with a custody order, later revoked after the previously mentioned identification of G’s DNA) had had sexual relations with Ms MK, and to having, while she herself was in the kitchen, heard her friend scream, without, further, remembering anything else of the subsequent events, up until the occurrences of the day after, marked by the discovery of traces of blood in the small bathroom next to Ms MK’s room and culminating in the discovery of the body, after the intervention of the forces of law and order (the police appear, in particular, to have intervened prior to the call to 112 effected by S); in particular, the young woman was specifically pointing out not being able to remember whether S were also present in the victim’s house on the occasion of the events just described.
The Re-examination Court concluded recognizing, for the purposes of maintaining pre-trial detention, the persistence of all the types of pre-trial exigencies mentioned by Article 274 Criminal Procedure Code.
The S defence has indicated an appeal, on the grounds of, with new reasons as well:
- reference to Ms AK alone of the circumstantial evidence constituted by the presence of biological traces from her and from the victim on the knife found at S’s house;
- absence, at the scene of the crime, of biological traces attributable to the suspect [ndr: note, this was before the bra-clasp tests had been done];
- arbitrary transference onto S of the weighty circumstantial evidence against Ms AK, on the unfounded assumption that the pair could not have been anything but together at the moment of the homicidal fact;
- inexistent evidential value of the phases relative to the discovery of the body;
- absence of blood traces from the soles of the “N” shoes worn by the suspect even at the moment of his arrest;
- absence of any evidential value of merit, alleged failure of the alibi, constituting the use of his computer, of which the falsity has not in any case been ascertained, of the lack of interaction by the subject with the machine after the last operation at 21:10 not permitting the inference that the computer was not, however, engaged in downloading files (being, to be specific, films);
- irrelevancy of the mistake revealed between the indicated time of the phone call to the father furnished by S and the actual time of the call, given the uncertainty of the time of death of the victim, depending on the time, otherwise uncertain, of the consumption of the dinner (according to various witness statements coinciding with 18:00), it being well able, therefore, for the time indicated by the forensic pathologist (23:00) to be revised backwards to 21:00, a little before which time the witness P had referred to having made a visit to S, finding him at home and not on the verge of going out;
- interpretability of the so-called unlikelihood of the versions supplied by the suspect as attempts to cover for (aid and abet) another subject;
- attribution of the victim’s biological traces found on the knife seized at S’s house to chance contamination not related to the homicidal fact;
- insufficiency of the pre-trial exigencies, having diminished in a probative sense after the return to Italy of G; those relating to risk of flight lacking in specificity and concreteness; and with reference to the conventional content of blogs posted on the internet by the suspect, those relating to danger to society illogically reasoned;
- missing appearance of the young man’s walk, via security cameras installed along the route that the aforesaid would have had to traverse to go from his house to that of the victim’s.
THE APPEAL IS UNFOUNDED
As regards what this Court is permitted to appreciate, not being able here to proceed with a re-reading of the investigative results nor with an alternative interpretation of the factual data referred to in the custody order, the appellant defence substantially contests the recognition, as against S, of the necessary requisite of grave indicia of culpability. The question thus posed and submitted for scrutiny by this bench of the well-known limits of the competence of the court of merit, it must be held that the finding expressed by the Re-examination judges concerning the gravity of the frame of circumstantial evidence is not susceptible to censure.
Not upheld, in the first place, is the defence submission according to which the knife bearing the genetic prints of Ms AK and of Ms MK found in S’s house would constitute a piece of evidence relevant solely as against the young woman, even if privy of traces attributable to the suspect, the utensil has as always been found in the young man’s house, and the testimony acquired up until now has led to the exclusion that it formed part of the inventory of the house inhabited by the victim, and which, at the time, and until proved to the contrary, must be held to be the same available for use by the suspect and which had been used in MK’s house, there being contested no access by her to S’s house.
Given the multitude of group contributive possibilities, the fact is not significative, then, in itself being a neutral element, that on the scene of the crime there are no biological traces attributable to S, to which, in any case, is attributable the “N” brand shoe print considered compatible, by dimensions and sole configuration, with the footwear worn by the suspect at the time of arrest. Although having the same impugned order excluded, at the time, the certainty of the identification constitutes as, in any case, a certain datum that the print in question had been made in haematic material found in Ms MK’s room by a shoe of the kind and of the dimensions of those possessed by the appellant, while it remains to be excluded that this could have originated from G’s shoe, who wore a size 45 and, therefore, dimensions notably larger. The revealed coincidence, notwithstanding the residual uncertainty on the identification, assumes particular valency in relation to the restricted circle of subjects gravitating to the scene of the homicide, with not even Ms AK, who made admissions about her presence on site at the same time as the execution of the offence, excluding the presence of her boyfriend in the victim’s house in the same circumstance; nor can it be held that the print could have been left by S the following morning, he never having claimed to have entered into the room wherein the body was lying.
It does not answer, therefore, to verity that, as against the young man, there had been recognized, by a phenomenon of transference, items of circumstantial evidence in reality pointing solely to Ms AK.
The last finding held unfavourable to S is constituted by the failed proof of the alibi constituted by the argument of the suspect as having remained at home on the computer until late at night; it being a matter of, properly speaking, an alibi failing up till now and not of a false alibi and the defence, correctly, does not refute the technico-judicial valency of the circumstantial evidence, but it remains, in any case, acquired into the case file that the accused had not been able to prove his absence from the locus of the crime at the same time. An item up until now assumed as certain is, instead, the fact that S had interacted with his computer at 5:32 the morning following the murder, at around the same time reactivating his own mobile phone, a contradiction of the assumption of a waking up only at 10:00 and a symptomatic tell-tale of a more or less sleepless night; likewise as symptomatic was held to be the nearly simultaneous cessation of telephonic traffic as much by Ms AK, in his company the evening of 1 November 2007.
The proof of a permanent stay in his house by the suspect can, all told, be considered as acquired up until 20:40 – coincident with P’s visit – who confirmed his presence, or up until 21:10, the last interaction time on the computer, but this does not cover the time of the homicide, located between 22:00 and 23:00.
As for the proposed argument that S’s conduct were interpreted as aiding and abetting, this does not result, in the event, as being supported by anything emerging from the investigations and its plausibility cannot be verified by the judges of merit.
In conclusion, the Re-examination Court’s evaluation as to the gravity of the circumstantial evidence picture are removed from the audit of this court.
There remains, finally, the finding that for what concerns the pre-trial exigencies, those of a probative nature are not able to be considered as ceasing from the sole fact of G’s re-entry into Italy (amongst other things significantly never invoked in the statements by the suspect and by his girlfriend, who instead co-involved L in the proceedings), given the existence of an investigative picture in continual evolution, in which the positions of the various protagonists so far remain unclear, the changing versions of which are marked by reticence and mendaciousness (the same suspect had, in truth, admitted to having, at least initially, told ‘a load of balls’); but the permanence of pre-trial exigencies had been held reasonablely even under the aspect of flight risk, in relation to the gravity of the charges and of the potential sanctions, not to mention danger to society, given the revealed fragility of character and the specific personal traits of the subject, – which would narrowly evaluate as innocuous youthful stereotypes –, in a context the more connoted by the noted habitual use of drugs.
FOR THESE REASONS
Rejects the appeal and sentences the appellant to payment of costs of the proceedings. Article 94 para 1 ter, and activating provisions, Criminal Procedure Code, applies.
DEPOSITED IN THE REGISTRY ON 21 APRIL 2008
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (18)
Thursday, January 26, 2017
El Chapo, The Most Most Wily And Deadly Drug Cartel Leader Ever, Is For Now Locked Up - In Manhattan
Posted by Peter Quennell
Mid-2015 report; El Chapo was soon captured, but escaped and was recaptured in November 2016
Who’d a known it? We are being told that the highrise prison adjacent to the courts in downtown Manhattan is maybe the US’s most escape-proof.
Well that is a relief…
The career of Sinaloa cartel leader and escape artist “El Chapo” (three escapes so far) in northern Mexico (see the great 2015 movie El Sicarrio for a fictional version) has been littered with bodies - he himself claims to have bumped off thousands.
Having escaped those three times very ingeniously from Mexican prisons, the authorities there were not unhappy to send Guzman northward. He faces his first American trial soon, in the Federal courts in Brooklyn. The Chicago courts will be his next destination.
Much of northern Mexico is a desert - actually a quite beautiful one - and the drug-transporting cartels had traditionally divided it up into corridors to run the drugs that are produced further south, especially in Colombia. The Sinaloa cartel initially settled for only the western several.
But as the video explains, a fired-up and mistrustful El Chapo set about taking over all of the corridors.
The Sinaloans are assiduous builders of long tunnels, and there are said for example to be many dozens between the Tijuana and San Diego areas.
No border wall like that being mooted is likely to have any effect on them. This is though experts say hard drugs do way more harm to society than the dwindling trickle of illegal immigrants.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (10)
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Understanding Why Guede’s Appeal For A New Trial Was Declined By The Florence Court
Posted by Machiavelli
A trial review is something that resembles what in the US would be called an “appeal”, in fact a kind of appeal that a person convicted might request, in the event that new evidence emerges that may change the verdict. The existence of new evidence is required in order to simply request a revew trial. The burden for presenting new evidence which is significant is fully on the convicted person (requesting party).
So this is what Guede was attempting to request. The “new evidence” that he was presenting as I understand was basically the points made by the Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court, that is basically: the finding that presence at the murder is not sufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt; despite it being proven the suspects were there there is still no evidence beyond reasonable doubt of their active role in the act of killing.
If that point was applied to Guede too, he could argue that there is still reasonable doubt on his participation in the murder and guilt, despite the evidence of his being on the scene of crime (as the Fifth Chambers said about Knox).
In a situation of the normal functioning of the law - where the previous judges’ decisions are actually legal - there would be no room for a review of Guede’s conviction, because in order to obtain a trial review, a convicted person has to show that given the new evidence, the overall assessment of the evidence has a significant probability to change, meaning that a court assessing all the evidence would have a significant probability to come to a different conclusion.
Now, if evidence on Rudy Guede is assessed legally by a court, there would be no significant probability that any court would come out with a different verdict, because there is in fact sufficient evidence that he took part in a murder and that he is guilty in complicity along with other culprits as the courts have already found.
Before the Florence ruling my mind was open because the situation was not a normal legal situation: we had the Fifth Chambers verdict that was making those absurd points of law potentially changing the legal landscape, they created a precedent on which Guede could have requested a different assessment of his evidence, aligned with the standards set by the Fifth Chambers.
Those standards are not normal, not legal. They are delusional. But they are in the record, and so the decision on whether to allow a re-trial of Guede would depend on (1) whether the court decides based on the normal legal standards, or (2) whether they decide based on the verdict & rationale on reasonable doubt by the Fifth Chambers.
Since there is a conflict of res iudicata any possible rationale on Guede’s request was theoretically possible.
My guess is that the Florence judges could see that based on normal legal rules it was obvious that there is no actual room for a trial review of Guede’s verdict. So they declared his request inadmissible.
The question of how to fit the decision with the Fifth Chambers Bruno/Marasca verdict is an open question, upon which the court may decide to invent something so to make it look consistent in the pending report.
It is impossible to make it *actually* consistent with the Fifth Chambers verdict, but the Florence court can’t change the Fifth Chambers verdict and the verdict is not about Guede, therefore they might just ignore it, or mention it in a way that is vague, or write arguments that are either building pretexts about it or dismissive of its implications. What they write doesn’t really matter, actually because their decision is not about Knox & Sollecito.
The Florentine court can neither find AK & RS guilty nor “acquit” them, that is they cannot “take them away from the murder room” where the Fifth Chambers definitely placed them. This is true no matter what the Florence courts decides to write about AK & RS: it doesn’t matter what they write about them, since they only have power to assess the final verdict about Rudy Guede for retrial purposes and nothing else.
Whatever excuse they write about any other topic - such as the participation of Knox & Sollecito - is legally irrelevant, because they are not invested with the task of finding anything else. Whatever they write in their motivations might be useful for the media, but we shall bear in mind the Florence court is making no decision about Knox & Sollecito and cannot make any finding that could ever change the previous definitive judicial truths.
That included the definitive finding that Guede acted in complicity with others, that he was not the person who was holding the murder weapon, and that AK and probably RS were right there.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (11)
Friday, January 06, 2017
Netflixhoax 18: Omitted - Any Mention Of The Toxic Public Relations Assaults On Italian Justice
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Nature Of The Excess
The huge public relations effort on behalf of Sollecito and especially Knox is entirely omitted from the film.
Perhaps because Netflix’s “Amanda Knox” was itself a toxic assault on Italian justice? Perhaps because the producers had themselves for five years acted as a nasty sharp end of that same PR?
Amazing omission, any way you look at it, as complete movies and books could dwell on this brutal attempt by non-legal means to set Knox and Sollecito free. The pro-Knox PR in particular, mostly in English in the US making it hard for Italians to know about, let alone respond, was taken to unique extremes.
Look at the giant scope of the PR as presented in Kermit’s masterful Powerpoint. That was created even before the 2009 trial was done, before the worst of the PR was set loose.
Note the number of strongarming threats and false talking point and outright lies. The dishonest TV appearances and misleading books. The threats and personal abuse of officials and reporters who had no easy way to hit back. The myriad hapless professionals roped in as glovepuppets, many of which we will quote in the next two posts.
And the staggering moneygrubbing, surely a world record in itself.
2. Initiation of the Sollecito PR
It is pretty well impossible to affect court outcomes in Italy with PR. Contempt of court and defamation laws are too strong. Papa Doc Sollecito and his family tried a few things, but they ended up in court in Bari, and Vanessa Sollecito was fired from her job.
Giulia Bongiorno was then the head of the powerful justice committee in the parliament. She was hired as lead counsel and acted as the spokesman for Sollecito’s cause, often (like Sollecito) dropping Amanda Knox in the drink. Other actions moved underground.
3. Initiation Of The Knox PR
The Knox PR beamed at Americans was initiated by Curt Knox before he and Edda Mellas ever left West Seattle for Perugia. Before any lawyers had even been consulted, let alone employed.
Why so fast? Well one good hunch is that Curt Knox already KNEW with his family history of dangerous volatility that Knox really could have exploded and led a pack attack that left Meredith dead.
Here is a great book on how aggressive American PR too often helps clients with financial means to win while trampling on the law.
Here is a good roadmap for what is known in the PR world as astroturfing, the techniques of which the ever-expanding Knox/Marriott public relations effort followed almost to a tee.
Prior to the start of the trial, the PR was becoming extremely shrill. Deathfish posted this. The Machine posted this. After a crazed PR event in West Seattle was reported upon, even Knox’s lawyers wanted it toned down.
In April 2010 we were hearing things similar to this description of the PR from everyone who had tried to file honest reports.
Coverage of the crime began to diverge on the two sides of the Atlantic. From the vantage point of Perugia, it seemed as though the Knox family’s American supporters were simply choosing to ignore the facts that were coming to light in Italy….
The American press hung back, at first, objective and somewhat disbelieving that such a wholesome-seeming girl could have any connection to such a sordid foreign crime, and then, as the family stepped up its defense, increasingly divided between two camps that would become simply the innocentisti—those who believed she was blameless—and the colpevolisti, those who did not. In Perugia, these labels governed access…
Of the handful of American journalists in Perugia in late 2007 and early 2008, none got access to the Knox family without certain guarantees about positive coverage. Within months, the family decided to speak on the record primarily to the American TV networks, often in exchange for airfare and hotel bills. Most of the print press was shut out. And the TV producers learned to be very cautious about being seen with people like me, lest the Knox family should cut them off.
But as interest in the case grew, an odd assortment of American talking heads attached their reputations to Amanda’s innocence. An aggressive support group called Friends of Amanda formed in Seattle, headed by Anne Bremner, a media-savvy criminal lawyer who had cut her teeth as a tough prosecutor in Seattle’s King County Court…
Very quickly, [PR manager David] Marriott lost control of the situation. As he spoon-fed the Knox-approved message to American outlets that couldn’t afford to send correspondents to Italy, those of us on the ground in Perugia began passing his contradictory e-mails around as entertainment during the long days in the court.
[We reporters in Rome] began what would be a two-year battle against the Seattle message machine, incurring personal attacks and outright threats.
Newsweek said that the PR campaign was winning over nobody in Italy and doing some real harm.
The talking points became so extreme that you’d think they would be impossible to spoof. However Chimera did the impossible here.
4. Overview Of Where Next
This brings us to a halfway point with the Hellmann appeal court, first chambers of the Supreme Court, the Nencini appeal court and the fifth chambers of the Supreme Court still ahead. The first and fourth of those courts were bent and in each case the PR played some role.
But the outcome is not cast in stone. Guede could spark a retrial for himself (we will know in a few days) in which the Knox and Sollecito teams will not even be present. A lot could be said that will set them back.
A dozen main media outlets and several hundred professional writers and TV commentators and so on came to swallow the PR bait without any checking of the truth. We will quote them at length. Netflix itself has clearly done this - it swallowed the assurances of thee cranks with axes to grind and did no due diligence in Italy before guying and airing a very unsafe product.
Both Curt Knox and David Marriott have declared the PR to have been a success. We will asses that. The PR departed so wildly from the truth and did so much harm to those it lied about that it is easy to shoot down. Look at the comments on the media threads about the Netflix movie and you will generally see a majority denying that Knox did no harm or was framed. One of various signs of a huge fail?
Archived in Overviews Powerpoint, Hoaxes against Italy, Italian justice hoax, Evil Mignini hoax, Hoaxes by Knox, Knox no-PR hoax, Hoaxers - main media, The Netflix hoax, Hoaxers - main people, Knox-Mellas team, Sollecito team, Francesco Sforza, Nina Burleigh, Michael Heavey, Steve Moore
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (21)
Monday, January 02, 2017
Developments On The Fake News Front In The US: We Hope That These Reports Are Truthful!
Posted by Peter Quennell
1. The team that created the video above explores whether fake news is killing the Internet.
2. The influential activist Noam Chomsky is reported as denouncing the fake-news aspect of the Internet as a “cult generator”.
3. And the serious and most diligent media seem to be profiting from a media market suddenly increasingly hungry for news that is trustworthy.
Profitable’ Washington Post adding more than five dozen journalists
... Now, come 2017, the Post seems to be doing something unique in daily journalism: It is adding journalists early in the year.
“We’re adding dozens of journalists,” Fred Ryan, the Post’s publisher and CEO, told me late last week. Ryan, in a recent memo, said the Post was “profitable and growing.”...
The Post newsroom will number more than 750, third among the national newspaper-based press and moving it closer to the Times, with which it increasingly competes for high-end talent.
The Times complement stands at about 1,307, the company says. USA Today’s newsroom stands at about 450, while the Journal, after its recent buyouts, tells me it employs 1,500.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (1)
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Meredith’s Birthday: By Now She Could Have Risen Far And Fast, In A Career Of Great Implication
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
Brussels, the headquarters of the European Community.
This is where Meredith thought she might be heading. With a skillset and natural leadership talents that Europe and, well, everywhere so badly needs now.
Have others of her age been so inspired? We have heard from friends that their mostly brief acquaintances still really matter, and their own futures are better for having known her.
And the prosperous attractive caring well-run town of Perugia, now relatively drug-free, has some of that to revere her for.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (7)
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
What Is The Legal Situation As Of Todays Hearing Of Rudy Guede, As Set Out By The Courts Themselves?
Posted by KrissyG
Update: The Florence court has agreed to do an initial review and has requested some documents and will convene again on January 10. The court could then trigger Criminal Code Article 636 which provides for a quick retrial focusing on that evidence relevant to what Guede’s team think was handled wrong, which rotates around the identity of the other two. There is tough evidence suggesting he was part of the attack so a simple release seems not in the cards. But there is tough evidence also suggesting that RS and AK were those other two, as Florence Judge Nencini in 2014 already showed.
What is Guede’s legal situation as set out by the courts?
Guede has brought the application for a review of his case to the Florence courts.
A closed session excluding the media and the Knox and Sollecito teams is scheduled for today. Guede’s application cites ‘internal inconsistencies’ within the Marasca-Bruno reasoning in respect of Knox and Sollecito.
I plan to sort out the facts from the fiction and to provide a definitive review of what the legal facts concerning Guede are. These will be as specified at his trial and appeal and rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court in Guede’s case, plus how the Supreme Court verdict in the Knox / Sollecito case impacts on then.
I also anticipate what might be the comebacks of the Knox and Sollecito defenses if they are allowed to participate down the road.
One starting point might be the recent crimepod broadcast by ex-FBI agent and ex- District Attorney & prosecutor, Jim Clemente, in tandem with Laura Richards, criminal psychologist and ex-Scotland Yard, wherein they attempt a ‘behavioural analysis’ of the Guede interview on RAI3an Italiana TV channel earlier this year with interviewer Franca Leosini.
My analysis below of their analysis will highlight some of the misconceptions about the case revealed by Clemente and Richards in this broadcast, which can be accessed here.
Sorting the Facts from the Spin
There are many theories about Guede’s role in the Kercher murder case with many assertions becoming common currency, as interested parties, such as Knox and Sollecito compete for the hegemony. I have referred to original source material to get to the actual facts of the matter.
These consist of Guede’s Prison Diary whilst under extradition proceedings in Koblenz, between 21 Nov 2007 and late November 2007, his Skype conversation 19 Nov 2007 with best friend Giacomo Benedetti, whilst on the run from the police and the detailed Micheli report, Perugia, 28 Oct 2008,the finalised legal findings of fact, and as approved by the Cassazione Supreme Court.
Thus, whether one agrees or disagrees with the court findings or of Guede’s exact role in the crime, these remain the legal position today, and these are the grounds on which Guede is bringing his application for a review to the Florence Supreme Court.
A summary of the main findings of Judge Micheli
• Guede definitively did not wield the murder knife.
• He had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith.
• Therefore he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact.
• The burglary and rape mise en scene was a second stage of the crime after the murder.
• It thus follows, says Micheli, that Knox let Guede into the murder cottage.
• The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.
• There were multiple assailants – as per DNA and luminol testing and the fact of a return to the scene to rearrange it.
• Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.
• He was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop it as soon as knives were produced.
• Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. - Micheli
How the ‘True Crime’ Masters of Spin Clemente and Richards Act as PR-Agents for Knox and Sollecito
1. Is Clemente’s and Richards’ claim – one of Guede being the ‘lone killer’ grounded in any substance?
2. The timeline of the events from Guede’s point of view
3. Could Guede have been the sole killer?
4. How do Knox and Sollecito fit in with Guede?
5. The actual legal position with Guede, as laid down at Guede’s trial.
6. How this differs from the Fifth Chambers (Knox & Sollecito) Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in March 2015, acquitting the pair on the grounds of Article 530 Para II, ‘Not guilty: due to insufficient evidence’.
These are the claims of Clemente and Richards,which reflect the views of pro-innocence campaigners of Knox & Sollecito, critiquing Franca Leosini’s tv interview.
During their broadcast several ‘behavioral’ observations are made:
1. ‘The foundation as to why he is in her room and cottage, DNA inside as well as outside – he is finding a plausible excuse for being there.’
Comment: Guede did not claim to have made sexual advances in Meredith’s room.
2. ‘Meredith had locked door from the inside – helped self to drink – Meredith went to bedroom – claimed she was mad at Knox for stealing money and being dirty.’
3. ‘He said he ‘wouldn’t go with her unless she had a condom. Not appropriate time to get going so got dressed. As if.! Leosini cracks, ‘You missed the best part of the evening – ‘No Sex Please We’re British’ – inappropriate – she is flirting with him (Leosini). She purports to get tough with him, but he dances around the question.’
4. ‘Got dressed, had bad stomach, had to go to bathroom, kernel of truth – poop in toilet. Before Meredith came in. Trapped in there – he if flushed the toilet, she’d know he was there. She tells him to use that bathroom, in kitchen, then went to bedroom.
Comment: Guede used the large bathroom which was by the front door. If he was in there when Meredith unexpectedly returned, it was easy to run away unrecognised.
5. Heard doorbell ring, Meredith opens door, engages in conversation - 101% it is Amanda. Fallacy – Amanda lives there, why would she ring doorbell? ‘Meredith had locked inside door.’ There is no reason for Amanda to ring doorbell.
Comment: The courts agree. The courts uphold that it was Knox who let Guede in.
6. Becomes very detailed and specific. He saying look, I’m very clean. Poor boy ‘found myself in Germany’. 101% - extending.
7. Why would Amanda ring, Rudy’s explanation. Identifies someone by voice – despite listening to very loud music. Hears girls arguing, puts on ear phones to block out- 2.5 songs – 10 minutes. Inconsistency. It’s a lie. The attack on MK took about 10”. Kernel of truth in the lie.
Comment: Guede says he put on headphones after hearing initial greetings. However, Micheli agrees that how come Guede only hears the last scream, from 4-5 metres away, when a nearby resident, witness Mrs Capezelli, heard a series from 70 metres away.
8. It was Meredith coming home, not Amanda, we ‘know as a fact’ it didn’t happen. His sleeve had the victim’s DNA. He carried a knife consistent with bloody impression on bed.
Comment: There is no evidence Guede carried a knife. At the Milan nursery trespass 27 Oct 2007, Guede was found with a knife which belonged to the nursery so had not carried it with him.
9. Scream louder than his music, runs to Meredith’s room, lights off. So concerned about his image in terms of cleanliness. He leaves a dying girl alone. ‘Lights were suddenly not on’ coming out of the bathroom into the hall, but were on in her room.
10. Can only describe the jacket – guy facing Meredith. Guy turns starts flashing with his scalpel. Happened so fast, did didn’t know what was in his hand. He says, ‘I said’, not what happened. Recount what happened, not ‘when I testified I said this’ – leakage – skips ahead. ‘This is the story I am sticking to’. It shows he is trying to keep to the story he testified.
11. “He turned around and came to me I didn’t see his face”. Quotes self. Not in the moment any more. Wildly gesticulating hands – struggling for words. Cognitive load, wants to get it right. Story trying to remember. How do you remember insignia but not face? (The brand logo on the man’s jacket.)
Comment: The light was described as an abat-jour so it’s possible it was on an auto-timer. Guede explains he was busy concentrating on the blade in the man’s hand. The man’s face would have been back lit. Good point about Guede reverting back to testimony.
12. German police found he had a cut on his hand.- ‘you were focused on his hand’ – ‘I said I thought it was a scalpel. It could have been a knife 12” long 7” blade. So he says, ‘I thought’ but didn’t know. Mignini argued, ‘There are two knives’. Rudy and Mignini are ‘perverted accomplished liars’ (Clemente’s view). ‘Pissed off with Mignini for perverting justice. Collusion’. Man fleeing. RG backed out of way.
Comment: The fact of at least two knives was decided by the courts after expert witness testimony and not up to the prosecutor.
13. Says he saw Amanda walking away outside. Statement made to Mignini – You must have seen her, you must have seen her! - I saw her silhouette a long way into the night. - Voice over music in earphone from bathroom. Mignini pushing his agenda to ID Amanda. ‘Man is like – had beret with red band, jacket’ ; called out to other person, let’s run before they catch us; black man found’ odd thing to say . ‘Great! We just killed Kercher, we’ve got a black man here we can blame!’
Comment: the courts agree this is Guede being self-serving. The fact he doesn’t mention the silhouette until later, could be preclusion, from reading the press.
14. Hero, he finds Meredith bleeding – runs out of bedroom to grab towel x 2. Grabs third towel, that didn’t work, so left. Said she was alive. Was able to run into Romanelli’s room – sees Amanda run away with this young man. Made silhouette ID in time period there is a dying woman on the floor. More important than helping Meredith is to go to Filomena’s room to ID these people.
Comment: No DNA on towels due to environmental degradation, but someone did apply them.
15. Why, If he is already 101% certain it was Amanda? No reason except to please the prosecutor. All of a sudden, people saw the three together. Pressuring others. Mignini ends up giving Rudy a fast track trial. – he wouldn’t have to testify on any subsequent trial. Takes first amendment against self-incrimination, should have to testify in Amanda and Raffaele’s case – he was not used.
Comment: Mignini as a prosecutor (district attorney) has no authority to provide legal advice. Guede would have been advised by his counsel to take the fast track as it offers the incentive of a ‘one-third off’ discount from the sentence. He pleaded, ‘Not Guilty’ therefore, he had the right to decline from giving any further self-incriminating testimony, as exercised by Sollecito himself in his trial. There are mechanisms. A party can appeal for other documents or transcripts in evidence instead (as Mignini did at one stage) and it is up to the presiding judge whether to accept the application or dismiss it. It is the Judge’s or the defendant’s decision, not the prosecutor’s.
16. Why does he want the fast track? – wait. He has to say he stayed in bathroom for that long. This other person did it, when he left, Rudy was trying to stop the bleeding. Meredith was saying af – writing on the wall ‘in her blood’ – there’s a desk right there. Why didn’t he alert for help? Has to construct a narrative to make sense. How does this person get in when door was locked? What we hear in his narrative is how he is overwhelmed. He is the victim, everyone feels sympathy for him.
Comment: In his original claims he says he was in the bathroom between six and ten minutes. Later Guede changes this to ‘lightning fast’, although he may have meant the supposed fight between him and the mystery man.
17. He hears scream. The broadcast host, Laura Richards says she once saw someone run into a room and stab someone. Stabbing had very little blood. Saw stab put pressure on it. Quick in and out – what prisoners do. Will never forget the guy’s face. Guy turned ran out, Guede could not remember the guy’s face. Would he forget? In the only lit room. Light is on this guy, why can’t he ID his face? – clearly lying. Fear. Afraid he’d be blamed. What does he do, he goes out drinking with his friends – he is establishing an alibi. He ran out of country ‘because he was afraid’ – alibiing himself.
Comment: The issue of the blood spray after the stabbing is an important forensic point, which is dealt with further on.
18. Clever narrative because of kernel of truth. Always wants to be seen as victim. ‘Why didn’t you call for help?’ a six-year old would ask – he starts to talk over her – the real him. ‘The investigators didn’t believe your point’. Sad fact is, that black people do get blamed for crime – he is lumping himself in with them. OJ? Exactly same situation – charismatic, wants people to think he’s a victim. How he left Meredith. Details of crime scene.
19. When he left Meredith she was fully dressed. In his story, Amanda had argument with Meredith killed her, then ran away everything was in order except one drawer pulled out. Filomena’s room undisturbed.
Comment: Guede describes Meredith as wearing a white top. Robyn Butterworth (friend) testified Meredith was wearing a sky-blue zip up top with sporty arm stripes, with a beige top underneath, and perhaps a second, patterned one.
20. If he saw her, she must have seen him. Raffaele must have told Amanda man there. Why would Amanda then come back? Feel bad for anyone who believes this crap. ‘Judge didn’t believe your version of events’. Why did someone come back and alter the crime scene?’ He left Meredith fully clothed, with full details of clothes she was wearing but can’t remember the guy’s face.
21. Franca Leosini says left foot and face showing. Crime scene staged , as a legal fact. Glass and rock on top of clothes, rock thrown from inside. Glass and rock on top. Rudy gets specific about Knox and Sollecito; not in dispute they were there. Judge said Rudy wasn’t the one who had the knife and dealt the blow, not in dispute. It is now in dispute, they were declared ‘innocent of the crime’.
Comment: False: there is zero mention Knox and Sollecito were ‘declared innocent’.
22. Rudy did it in concert with two people – it is a legal point of law and cannot be appealed – certified fact. Once evaluated it was 100% fraudulent, not a mistake. People would be fired if they did not say what Mignini wanted them to say. If they disagreed, they weren’t called to testify. (Clemente’s views.)
Comment: Mignini - and later Comodi - only get to choose the prosecution witnesses, the defence get to call whomsoever they wish..
23. Leosini: You fled to Germany. Guede: I had no idea how I got there, it could have been Russia. Conversely, they (Knox/Sollecito) did not run. Rudy trusts the system. Skyped with his friend Giacomo for four hours. Threw away clothing. Choosing not to give an account.
24. Specifically says, ‘Amanda was not there’. Why bring it up at this point? Friend says Amanda was arrested. Friend brought her up. Police direct the conversation. Says clearly, ‘She was not there’. Rudy gets it from Mignini. Mignini gets Rudy to ID Knox – silhouette, knife. Patrick Lumumba has a proven alibi, so they needed another black man there, which is why Amanda volunteered his name.
Comment: Knox was hardly arrested ‘for no reason’.
25. Accomplished liar. Part 9, Leosini talks through the forensics consensual foreplay. Palm print, DNA on toilet paper . Interesting leakage about Patrick being there – he gets vociferous there, true self. Why fast track trial? He says because of his ‘non-involvement’. More than one person. Sentence reduced from 30 to 16 on assumption he did not hold the knife. ‘He went along with others’; someone else’s initiative.
26. Jan 2016. People are still sticking to their beliefs Sollecito and Knox are still guilty. Reformed character, artsy, intellectual. Served sentence because, “I didn’t call for help”. Lawyers have been very strategic – stylised interview – deliberate choice. FB and twitter set up.
27. All evidence points to him being only killer and guilty of murder and sexual assault. He’s charismatic, intelligent, detail-oriented no sign of remorse. Psychopath; gifted at selling himself. Takes a trained eye to see the holes in his story. Let Meredith die; fled country only after he went drinking with his friends. Abominable. Foster father says he is ‘an accomplished liar’. Multiple perpetrators.
28. Retrial 20 Dec will be interesting. Already eligible for parole. 2018. By the time the motivation comes out. Opens everything up for Kercher family. This interview may have been the grounds on which the interview is granted. Engaging charismatic young man – interview strategy to get him out. “Amanda got away with murder.” It was because of Mignini. He used Rudy to get Amanda. Should be prosecuted. Recommendation: Amanda wrongfully convicted and then exonerated. JC and LR.
Comment: Mignini was nothing to do with the ultimate conviction. That was solely for the courts to decide.
Timeline of events from Guede’s Perspective
Born in the Ivory Coast 26 Dec 1987 six months older than Knox and three years younger than Sollecito. Came to Italy with his father Roger, aged five, rejected by his mother. Lived with a series of foster families, including a wealthy local family, whom he left as soon as he reached age of majority. Stayed with an aunt in Lecca. Took up various short-term jobs, had periods of unemployment, tended to ‘disappear’.
His childhood friend Mancini, the son of Guede’s teacher, Mrs Tiberi tried to keep tabs on him. His last job he was fired from for sickness without a note, took up bedsit in Perugia in early September 2007 nearby Sollecito and the cottage. Socialised with the Spanish contingent in his house. Mrs Tiberi described Guede as always polite and well-behaved. His childhood friends, Mancini and Benedetti, say they never saw him take drugs or get drunk, although latterly they had not seen him much. His more short-term acquaintances mentioned witnessing him drunk at various times.
A witness claimed he had said he wanted to go to Milan for a few days ‘to dance’. In Milan 27 Oct 2007, just a few days before the murder, he was caught trespassing at a nursery, but was not charged at the time. He was found in possession of a stolen laptop, a knife found at the nursery, a ladies watch and a small glass-breaking hammer. His mobile phone was confiscated, thus claimed to have no phone as of the time of the murder. He was charged post-murder conviction for the laptop possession.
Around the time of a friend’s birthday (Owen), ‘12th or 14th October 2007’ he’d been out celebrating with friends, met up with some basketball playing pals outside, which included the boys in the downstairs apartment of the cottage, Knox approached, whom he had seen before at Patrick’s bar, Le Chic, to say ‘Hi, I’m Amanda from Seattle’, the boys made off towards home, together with Guede. Knox went into her apartment on the upper level whilst the boys went downstairs and lit up a joint. Knox came down to join them, and then Meredith later. This was the first time she met Guede. Guede relates Meredith had just one toke on the joint and then said she was off to bed, Knox followed shortly after.
The next time Guede saw Meredith was at a pub called ‘The Shamrock’ where the World Cup Rugby Final between England and South Africa was being played. This took place 20 Oct 2007. Witnesses confirm that both Meredith and Guede were present, within groups of friends. Guede claims to have struck up a banter with Meredith, but there are no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to her friends if it happened. On Sunday, Guede went by the cottage to watch the Formula One final after seventeen events. This took place 21 Oct 2007. If Guede had struck up a friendship with Meredith, he made no attempt to pop his head around the door to say hello. Laura Mezzetti, one of the roommates upstairs did witness Guede there, when she came down to ‘buy a smoke for €5’.
Guede then claims to have asked Meredith for a date on the night of Halloween on 31 October 2007 at the Domus nightclub, again there were no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to anyone. Both were at the packed night spot. He gives this as the reason he approached the cottage the next evening, 1st Nov 2007, claiming Meredith let him in. He had a drink from the fridge whilst Meredith went to her room. He claims he heard her cursing Amanda, as her money was missing; she showed him her drawer where she had kept it; he calmed her down; they searched the cottage together and, after chatting about their families; they began canoodling. They had no condoms so it went no further.
As Meredith had not been home when he first arrived circa 20:20 pm, he had gone to see his friend Alex and then went to buy a kebab whilst he waited. Because of the effects of the kebab, Guede claimed that whilst at the cottage, he had to rush to the bathroom and whilst there, the doorbell rang, Meredith who had been on her way to her room, answered the door and Guede heard Amanda’s voice with Meredith saying, ‘We need to talk’ and Amanda reply, ‘What’s happened? What is the problem?’
Guede put on his earphones to listen to loud music for ten minutes when he heard a loud scream, ran out, the light was now off, ‘to my astonishment’, saw the figure of a man standing on the threshold of Meredith’s room, who suddenly turned with a knife in his hand. Guede backed off and grabbed a chair in self-defence, the man said, ‘Black man found, black man guilty’ and then ‘Let’s go!’ and ran off. Guede administerd three towels to the dying girl before himself running off, because he heard a noise from downstairs that frightened him, he claimed.
He ran home via Plaza Grimana direction, changed and washed his jogging pants, then went out nightclubbing.
3 Nov 2007 he went to Milan via Modena and Bologna and after midnight he jumped on a random train, to avoid police seen at the station, an ended up in Duesseldorf in Germany. Between then and 19th he stayed in barges and places along the Rhine. Sixteen days to reflect. Mancini his childhood friend had contacted him 12/13th November via the internet, unaware he was wanted, accusing him of ‘always running away’ and Guede replied, ‘You know why’, without elaborating. His other old friend, Benedetti helping police, set up a Skype conversation with Guede, 19 Nov 2007,and persuaded him to return. In the meantime German police caught him on a train without a ticket and on an Interpol warrant, held him in custody in Koblenz until 1 December 2007, whilst processing an extradition order.
Guede was brought back to Italy and subsequently interviewed by prosecutor Mignini 26 March 2008 and charged with the murder, in complicity with Knox and Sollecito. Guede opted for a separate, ‘fast-track’ trial, which was closed, although we can discern what took place from the presiding Judge’s reasoning (Micheli) for the ‘guilty of aggravated murder’ verdict and the dismissal of the theft charge of the phones and credit cards.
Could Guede have been the Sole Killer?
The Missing Money: Who first mentioned it? It was Guede, and he brags about this fact of being first in his Prison Diary written in Koblenz up to 19 Nov 2007.
Who First Mentioned Knox and Sollecito at the scene? Whilst Guede does refer to a mystery man holding a knife in the doorway of Meredith’s room in his presence, he does not actually name either Knox or Sollecito until his recorded interview with Mignini, March 2008. We know he read the papers whilst on the run for he mentions to Benedetti in the Skype conversation he saw that Knox is accused of using the washing machine to clean Meredith’s clothes.
An alternate explanation is that he was applying ‘Prisoners Dilemma’, a situation when there are several perpetrators and each is dependent on the other/s to not ‘grass’ them up. Therefore, it is theorised, the best strategy is to say nothing. Knox did not name him, he did not name Knox. Guede himself confirms he did not know Sollecito at all to name him.
Who First Mentioned Sollecito and Knox together at the scene with Guede, and when? A witness, Kokomani did come forward to say he had seen the three together outside the cottage prior to the murder, and police have corroborated he was in the region because of pings from his phone and his account of seeing a dark car, also seen by a separate car mechanic witness. However, his testimony was dismissed by Micheli as ‘ravings’. It appears that what holds the three together is circumstantial evidence as constructed by the forensic police (DNA, luminol, bathmat footprint), the inactivity of Knox & Sollecito’s phones in advance of the crime and for the rest of the night, their false alibis and inability to ‘remember’ what they did that evening, together with the apparent staged scene of the burglary, clean up and repositioned body.
The case against Rudy Guede When comparing Guede’s original account with his later recorded interview, it is safe to note that much of what he says is:
• To try to establish justification for being at the cottage at all. To do this, he claims to have made a date with Meredith the night before. However, when he made a date with a Latvian girl in a similar circumstance, they wanted to swap telephone numbers, with Guede having to memorise hers as he did not have a phone at the time. He does not say this for Meredith.
• To try to justify his DNA being on Meredith’s body, he precludes this by claiming the contact was consensual. In his conversation with Benedetti he expresses he knows none of his sperm will be found. In his Prison Diary he makes no mention at all of Meredith talking about her mother being ill. Micheli points out that his later claim that Meredith spoke about her mother’s specific condition was already widely reported in the papers since 4 November 2007, by Meredith’s aunt.
He claims in his testimony the Formula 1 final race (21 Oct 2007) was BEFORE the Rugby World Cup (20 Oct 2007) – and Micheli does not pick up on this – to evade the fact he didn’t say hello to Meredith when he visited the cottage to watch the F1 race downstairs. In his Prison Diary he claims Meredith told him she had ‘someone special’ back home, implying she was free in Italy. However, we know Meredith was in an exciting new relationship with Silenzi, from downstairs, so would not have made herself easily available. None of the British girls corroborated Guede’s claim to have made friends with Meredith.
• Guede in both his original Prison Diary account and in the Leosini tv interview in Jan 2016, expresses disapproval of Meredith cursing out Knox over the missing rent money. In the interview he becomes quite agitated. Thus, Guede takes Knox’ side in this dispute and is not a friend of Meredith’s.
• To try to justify running away without calling for help for Meredith, despite his claim it was ‘another man’ who did the killing, Guede says he was worried he would be blamed because he was Black and because the man said so, before running off. He claims he was frightened off by ‘a noise downstairs’.
• Most incriminating of all is the description of the blood. Micheli found as a fact that Meredith was stabbed in the neck and then immediately fell backwards into a supine position because (a) of a bruise on the back of her neck indicating a violent jolt, (b) because there is no spray of blood on the desk where one would expect it to be and (c) it was a logical position by which to carry out the sexual assault by Guede. Her left hand was restrained. Dr Arpile an expert witness said this was a characteristic of a sexual attack.
• In his Prison Diary in Koblenz he recalls the stabbing of Meredith was being like the time he was whacked over the head with a stick by his father and blood spurted out of his head ‘like a fountain’. This suggests he may have witnessed the ‘fountain of blood’ spurting from Meredith?
In his Prison Diary Guede makes much of the sheer volume of blood. He sees blood everywhere, and sees nothing but ‘red’ when he closes his eyes to sleep. Massei in the later trial of Knox and Sollecito, does not agree with Micheli that she was stabbed whilst standing and then falling onto her back, and rules that Meredith was killed whilst forced into a kneeling position. Where then, did the spray of blood go, when the knife was pulled out, if there is none to be seen on the furnishings and upholstery? Garofano in Darkness Descending offers his expert forensic opinion that the blood surge would have gone all over the person who withdrew the knife.
Guede by his own account relates that his pants were ‘soaking wet’ and he’d had to cover them up with his sweatshirt as he ran home fleeing the scene.
• Guede states that on his way out, none of the windows were broken and Meredith was full dressed. The broken window and condition of the body were all widely reported so it could be argued that Guede states everything was intact when he left as a self-serving narrative to preclude himself as the culprit.
Micheli’s Finding Of Fact
Micheli ruled that Guede’s claim to have struck up a first date with Meredith was proven false and therefore it was not Meredith who let him into the cottage. As Meredith was in a new relationship and no-one could corroborate any date with Guede, she did not consent to any sexual activity with him. In addition, Knox would not need to ring the doorbell as she had a key and in any case, had Meredith locked the door from the inside, she would have in effect locked Guede in for the night, not to mention locking out Knox. Therefore, as the burglary was staged – clothes rummaged first and then window broken, bits of paper from the burglary on top of the duvet on top of the body – then it must have been Knox who let him in.
Micheli directs that it is a legal fact that Guede did not wield the knife based on submissions by the prosecutor and that the crime was in complicity with the others. This was due to the fact that even if Guede only intended a sexual assault, he became culpable of murder ‘as soon as the knives were produced’.
Micheli legally acquitted Guede of the theft of the phones as he ruled that they were taken ‘to cause their sudden removal’ and not for lucrative gain. He ruled that the autocall to Meredith’s bank Abbey National logged at circa 22:11 was due to the phone falling from her person to the floor due to her wanting urgent contact with her sick mother, and indeed, there does appear to be an outline in blood in the shape of a phone.
Micheli ruled that Guede did not go through Meredith’s bag as his DNA (which was scant at the scene) was midway on the clasp at the top of the bag, indicating Guede had gripped it to lift and move it, as there is no DNA or blood stains inside it. In addition, there were multiple differing footprints of sundry persons at the murder scene, as highlighted by luminol, a forensic instrument to make visible invisible blood which had been cleaned up.
• Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli
The March 2015 Fifth Chambers Ruling acquitting Knox and Sollecito
This merely stated that the pair were acquitted because of ‘insufficient evidence’, not because they were ‘innocent’. Knox was placed at the scene of the crime and Sollecito probably so. The attackers were estimated most probably at three. All attempts to prove they were other than Knox and Soillecito fell far short.
It specifies that Knox did wash off the victim’s blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede. It stated that the pair told ‘umpteen lies’ and that their behaviour remains ‘highly suspicious’.
So does Guede have a case, based on the final definitive facts, as set out, above?
We shall see.
*** UPDATE*** It has been decided that there will be a decision on whether to revise Guede’s verdict on 10 January 2017
Source: The Murder of Meredith Kercher wiki: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Primary_Sources
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (24)
Saturday, December 17, 2016
On Tuesday BEHIND CLOSED DOORS Guede’s Crack Team From Rome Will Argue That AK & RS Killed Meredith
Posted by Peter Quennell
Rudy Guede’s legal team: Carla Anastasio, Tommaso Pietrocarlo, and Monica Grossi
In the Florence court - behind close doors? It happened for the same reasons first in February 2013.
Actually Guede has already very publicly made his case to all of Italy on Italian national TV.
Knox and Sollecito have tried very hard to keep it unknown that in their report late 2015 the Supreme Court’s Fifth Chambers placed Knox at the scene of the crime, for multiple reasons, and Sollecito probably so.
That damning fact is not in the faux Netflix “documentary”.
Again for multiple reasons, the trial court in 2008 and the appeal court in 2009 and the Supreme Court in March 2011 had all found Guede guilty in conjunction with others. All of the courts concurred that Guede did not attack Meredith alone.
The proof that two others were party to the attack is voluminous, though unfortunately at trial in 2009 it was almost all presented behind closed doors. Still, the court reports did tell us a lot.
- 1) Our main poster Brian S summarised the trial decision here. No lone wolf.
2) Our main poster Cardiol listed 20 key evidence points pointing to all three.
3) Our main poster Pat Az spots something damning for the other two that even the courts did not.
4) Some in Guede’s own team helpfully mapped out further the minefield for Sollecito.
Rudy Guede’s team consists of Tommaso Pietrocarlo, Monica Grossi and Carla Anastasio, who have offices (chambers, legal studio) about 5 minutes walk away from the Supreme Court.
On Tuesday they will get the opportunity to repeat all of that telling evidence above - with the Knox and Sollecito forces locked out.
This is ironic. Throughout the Knox and Sollecito legal process it was usually Guede on the outside and being stridently accused as a lone-wolf killer - except when Alessi and Aviello were brought forward by the defenses, with alternative theories.
Odds of his sentence ever getting wound back are remote, but it was obvious to Italian TV audiences that he mostly wants Knox and Sollecito to serve time too.
If the Florence court agrees that his case should go forward and a new outcome is the result, the First Chambers of the Supreme Court - not the rogue Fifth Chambers - will have the final word.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (9)
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
As Fake News Is Increasingly Not Being Bought Into, Painstaking Newspapers & Websites Are Benefiting
Posted by Peter Quennell
Co-founder David Mikkelson of snopes.com, one of the main debunkers of fake news
Fake-news seems to be the only hard-news topic on American news channels these days. Our poster Hopeful said this about it last Thursday:
Fake news, a dreadful new trend. It makes slanted news stories seem tame in comparison with outright lies. Believe only half of what you read, stay cautious and consider the source. That will be my new mantra.
Hopeful is far from alone, it seems. Particularly in the financial industries professionals just cant risk betting on what might be myth-making. Fox News long blamed as a main cause of it is moving to a new place under the sons of Rupert Murdoch.
And the New York Times as the American newspaper of record (it is usually huge, if you havent seen a paper version) which most of the time strives for extreme carefulness is seeing a bonanza in its newspaper and online-subscriptions. This is a report by the influential Seeking Alpha investment site.
Fake News Will Boost The New York Times by Duane Bair
Apparently, in the year 2016, an alarming number of Americans are unable to decipher the difference between obscure conspiracy theories and actual world events.
While I won’t comment on how profoundly sad that statement reads, it is worth discussing its impact on traditional media. The New York Times (NYSE:NYT) remains the most read and one of the most respected news outlets in the country.
With such high levels of uncertainty regarding basic facts, Americans are increasingly turning to media brands they know and trust. The years of declining revenue may finally begin to reverse as the new normal in political discourse emerges.
The Oxford dictionary named ‘post truth’ as the word of the year for 2016. Anyone tuning into recent world events can immediately understand the context of that decision. With the seeming explosion of “fake news” and little to no desire by social media companies to rein it in, traditional media may grow in stock as it has maintained a relatively solid reputation for fact-based reporting.
In an attempt for higher ratings, many traditional media networks and newspaper have stepped into dangerous territory, by giving voice to untrustworthy sources that regularly misinform. Many in the public have been able to recognize this phenomenon. The select news outlets that resisted are being rewarded with massive subscription bumps.
As other news outlets continue to cut costs and eliminate high expense in-depth journalism, The New York Times is investing in this space. Readers are noticing and subscribing to the times while abandoning some peers. Subscribers are longer lasting and reflect a more positive outlook than simple viewer gains that are inevitable in the lead up to an election.
Over the next four years, we are likely to see an onslaught of misinformation from formerly fringe elements of the media. If the 2016 campaign period was any indication, the next few years will likely see a blurring between uncontested facts and skewed innuendo.
A recent Buzzfeed poll (don’t worry, the methodology is sound) of 3,105 respondents found that 75% of regular news consumers were unable to distinguish a fake news story from the truth. The new administration may, in part, be adding to the confusion.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (8)
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Interim Prime Minister, Which Points to Renzi Back On Top Soon & Bad News For RS & Knox
Posted by Peter Quennell
Why is this maybe not the worst outcome for Meredith’s case?
Well Mr Renzi has had more than enough of fake news which perverted both this case and his referendum.
President Obama and the faction in the US State Department hornswoggled by the Knox PR will be gone by the end of January. A President Trump already ticked off by Knox’s ingratitude will be in charge.
And Rome politics suggests neither Mr Gentiloni nor Mr Renzi would want to place any further roadblocks in front of popular legal initiatives such as this.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (7)
Thursday, December 08, 2016
Fake News Provably Propagated By The “No” Parties Making Questionable The Referendum Outcome
Posted by Peter Quennell
PM Renzi is reported as being in a fighting-back mood.
A main reason is that alarmist fake news has hit Italy on the Internet big-time and he claims it may have tilted the final count and perhaps even caused the “Yes” faction to lose.
Fake news on the Internet plagued the US election, and it may even have tilted the result. Russia is conclusively pointed to as a main propagator, if not the only one.
Almost every day a new violent incident is being reported as caused by fake news. Today another Internet-infected crackpot was indicted and she may face 20 years inside.
Did fake news actually begin with mainstream media? See the video at the top which argues that it did. Meredith’s case has been plagued by a massive volume of fake news in the main media over the past nine years. Netflix continues that trend.
In Perugia the fake news has led to a number of threats of violence and angry verbal rants, some by the Netflix team themselves.
In our next post, we’ll list some of the hundreds of writers of articles and books about Meredith’s case and TV talking heads who have propagated fake news.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (9)
Sunday, December 04, 2016
Italians Inside And Outside Italy Are voting Today On PM Renzi’s Proposed Reforms.
Posted by Peter Quennell
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (15)
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
How The Epidemic Of Fake News She Helps Generate For Once Bites Even Amanda Knox In The Tail
Posted by KrissyG
Fake News Has Been Knox’s Main Weapon
Amanda Knox has been in the news a great deal recently, riding the crest of a PR-driven “exoneration” campaign
Currently this barrage of fake news culminates with the Netflix film six years in the making which was released worldwide on streaming media in Sept 2016. In the film, the factors that led to her so-called ‘wrongful conviction’ (she claims) included Nick Pisa’s tabloid reportage in that most middle class of UK “comics” the crucifix-and-garlic Daily Mail.
The Lurid Caricatures Resulting, UK Version
A paper much loved for its doomladen headlines, to the extent that the Guardian’s pop hackette, Julie Burchill, famously nicknamed it ‘THE DAILY HORROR’, wherein the non-Guardian-reading masses could immerse themselves daily in an entertaining round of ‘illegal immigrants and asylum seekers flooding the country’, ‘family of 27 given 50-roomed mansion’ and that most loved standby of all, ‘Benefit Scroungers’.
Bearded ‘modern parents’ Guardian readers, on the other hand, in their peep-toed sandals and chomping of organic vegetarian nut roasts, lap up bleeding heart eulogies (note there the protest of over 100 of Meredith’s friends) of Simon Hattonstone and other reporters for the wrongfully imprisoned one.
Thus Guardian hack good. Daily Mail hack Nick Pisa bad.
In the Netflix movie there is the plodding Italian Prosecutor, a Dan Brown-style Italian Catholic, with a paranoia about masonic cults and devilish conspiracies, who sees himself (the film makers claim) as Sherlock Holmes.
So that explains his lurid interest in her! Not a shred of evidence she had anything to do with Meredith Kercher’s murder! Yes, it’s all about priggish, obsessive tyrants, still living in the Italian equivalent of the Victorian ages.
Fake News By Donald Trump Confounds Knox
Enter Donald Trump, whose finger in the pie of Meredith’s case actually goes way back.
Swept along on a wave of her own lies, see above, we are now entertained by the spectacle of Knox claiming that Donald Trump’s support for her, after her original conviction, only made it worse for her!
Because after all, the Italians were riding on anti-American feelings in convicting her (and Sollecito)! (But not anti-African, as Rudy Guede did do it. That’s quite different.)
Knox is now claiming, in her fervent support for the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton, that she despises Trump for his views on the Central Park Five, whom he still refers to as ‘guilty’, despite their exoneration, as contrasted with her, whom he described as ‘completely innocent’.
She sees racism in his stance. Oh, the irony of Knox who fingered an innocent black man for Meredith’s murder.
Paradoxically, Knox seems to be saying, the Five are innocent and Trump calls them guilty, whereas I am guilty and Trump calls me innocent. Both made because he’s a racist. Really.
Knox vocally states she does not stand with Trump and why should she vote for him, just because he supported her and helped fund her defence?
These are perhaps commendable points. But before we get carried away, whoa! Let’s stop and take a reality check. For the astonishing fact to come out of all of this, is that Knox should indeed be grateful to Republican Trump.
Of course, not to agree with his political views. However, had her conviction been upheld by the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court, as all the legal experts expected, Trump, as President of the United States has the weapon of refusing her extradition. Not directly, as that is a veto tool for the State Secretary, but that power is there - and the Government of Italy knew about it
Senator Cantwell The First Politician To In Effect Threaten Italy
We saw it highlighted when Maria Cantwell the senator for Seattle (a Democrat) put out a press release, which was propagated globally and rebutted by our Seattle posters demanding of the then-State Secretary Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration that the USA should intervene to free Amanda Knox because of the clear anti-American sentiment of the Italian judicial system, or so she states.
Maria Cantwell even made an appointment to see Hillary Clinton, saying she had been strongly petitioned by friends of Amanda Knox.
Didn’t the makers of the Netflix film Amanda Knox (2016) assert it was the tabloid journalists who had bullied the Italian police and courts? We see immediately that, true, whilst the mass media is intensely powerful in influencing opinion, it doesn’t actually do anything, except reflect social mores. The real movers and shakers being politicians and political advisers.
From day one, Amanda Knox had the full weight of American politicians behind her, and, rather than Nick Pisa being responsible for her conviction, it is surely the likes of Donald Trump and influencers in the US State Department in part responsible for getting her off the charges. It can be readily seen that Knox has a debt of gratitude owing to these shady enforcers behind the scenes.
Tom Ford of The Washington Post writes on 06 Dec 2009:
As angry Americans promised to boycott Italian holidays, wine and food, a vociferous support group calling itself Friends of Amanda Knox urged people to email Barack Obama to ask him to support her appeal.
Maria Cantwell, a US Democrat senator for Washington state has said she plans to bring her own concerns about the trial, including possible anti-Americanism, to the Mrs Clinton’s attention.
Mrs Clinton, the Secretary of State, said on Sunday that she had not yet looked into the case as she had been preoccupied with Afghanistan policy.
She told ABC News: “Of course I’ll meet with Senator Cantwell or anyone who has a concern, but I can’t offer any opinion about that at this time.”
The dastardly Daily Mail publishes this on 8.12.2009:
After the verdicts, Knox’s furious father Curt Knox vowed to fight to clear his daughter’s name and spoke of his ‘anger and disbelief’ at the Italian justice system.
His campaign seems to be gaining support on Capitol Hill. Senator Maria Cantwell, from Washington state, declared there were ‘serious questions about the Italian justice system’.
She said she was concerned there had been an ‘anti-American’ feeling at the trial and said she would be raising her concerns with Mrs Clinton.
‘The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Miss Knox was guilty,’ she said. ‘Italian jurors were allowed to view highly negative news coverage about Miss Knox.’.....
Mrs Clinton was asked about the trial in an appearance on a U.S. news programme. She said: ‘Of course I’ll meet with Senator Cantwell or anyone who has a concern but I can’t offer any opinion about that at this time.’
She said she had not expressed any concerns to the Italian government. Last night, Knox’s Italian lawyer distanced himself from the senator’s claims. Luciano Ghirga said: ‘That’s all we need, Hillary Clinton involved. I have the same political sympathies as Hillary but this sort of thing does not help us in any way.’
Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini said: ‘This senator should not interfere in something she has no idea about. I am happy with how the trial went.’
Enter the American cavalry. Two years after first ranting at Italian justice, near the end of the Hellmann appeal Donald Trump tweets this:
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
Everyone should boycott Italy if Amanda Knox is not freed—-she is totally innocent.
5:12 PM - 30 Sep 2011
In a tv interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren, Donald Trump explained:
“I helped the family out — I felt very, very badly for that family and for her — I never thought she did it,” Trump told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “I watched very intently, like everybody else, and there was just no way she was involved in that.
“And so I did help them out — I feel very, very happy about it — in fact, I said boycott Italy until they release her,” Trump said. “It was really an injustice — and I would get on that plane so fast if I were her and get out.”
Van Susteren asked Trump whether he had ever spoken to her parents. Trump said he had and “well, they’re lovely people.”
(Newsmax 4th Oct 2011)
Not That Knox Reigns In Her Own Aggression
Whilst Knox has been complaining loudly about the intervention of Donald Trump the ingrate stalks, taunts and laughs in the face of the Kercher family, who had to struggle financially as John Kercher wrote:
How Foreign Office let us down
We were surprised at the lack of financial help available from the British Government as we dealt with the aftermath of Meredith’s death.
We had received tremendous support from the British Consulate in Florence, which arranged translation facilities and made transport arrangements, but despite our pleas, we did not receive any financial support from the Foreign Office.
A number of MPs campaigned on our behalf for some contribution towards our flights, but their efforts were to no avail.
Indeed, it seemed this was a policy decision, one that did not affect just us, but anybody who had suffered an ordeal such as ours. This lack of help was despite the fact that we were obliged to provide testimonies in court.
Nor could we expect any help from the Italian government. Before Meredith was murdered, EU states had said they would sign an agreement to compensate the families of foreign nationals who were victims of a violent crime committed in their country.
However, of all the states, Italy failed to sign the agreement in time.
Financially we were alone and it made the business of attending the trial, and seeking justice for Meredith, all the more problematic.
(Daily Mail Femail 15 April 2012)
Guardian Long Chained To PR Of Curt Knox & Marriott
The Guardian has been the most single-minded of any newspapers anywhere in giving Amanda Knox, in particular, a sympathetic ear. Nick Richardson in a reader comment wrote:
From the outset the innocentisti accused the colpevolisti of anti-Americanism. Following the trial the US senator Maria Cantwell wrote to Hillary Clinton to alert her to the anti-Americanism at work in the courtroom – though Sollecito, an Italian, was being tried too.
Was there anti-American sentiment among the colpevolisti? The resentment, even, of a former great imperial power towards the current hegemon? Almost certainly. But the anti-Italian sentiment flowing in the other direction has been just as concentrated.
The managers of Knox’s downfall have come in for savage caricature: Giuliano Mignini, a Perugia public prosecutor, has been portrayed as a senile fuddy-duddy; Monica Napoleoni, head of Perugia’s murder squad, a vindictive bully; Patrizia Stefanoni, who was responsible for collecting forensic evidence from the crime scene, has been slammed for incompetence, though at the time of the crime she was well respected in her field.
Cantwell stated that she had “serious questions about the Italian justice system”, though the state she represents, Washington, currently holds eight people on death row. (Guardian 30.1.2014)
A blogger on My North West astutely ripostes:
I was intrigued by a press release that came out right after the guilty verdict. Senator Maria Cantwell issued a statement in which she said “I am saddened by the verdict and I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial.”
Anti-Americanism??? I can understand how that could have been a factor during the Bush years when the world hated us.
But once we elected Obama, the world fell in love with the United States all over again. We were once again “welcomed into the world community”… and “no longer a pariah on the world stage”…
How could Senator Cantwell suggest that anti-Americanism played a role in this verdict. Barack Obama is our president – THERE IS NO MORE ANTI-AMERICANISM!!!
I guess the other possibility is that Knox actually whacked the gal…
Dori Monson MyNorthWestCom
The ‘abominable’ Daily Mail published this:
This high profile case though, brings a particular set of problems for the Obama administration because of the high emotions if elicits on both sides of the Atlantic - not just in Italy and America, but in the United Kingdom too.
The United States and Italy enjoy a successful extradition relationship, with cooperation high on busting organised crime.
It would cause a potential diplomatic row should the president and John Kerry choose not to send Knox to Italy if her appeal fail.
However, on the flip side, Italy may choose not to anger their most powerful ally over such an emotive case.
Knox herself has said that she would not return to Italy and that would only do so, ‘kicking and screaming.’
Regardless, any decision on whether to extradite the 26-year-old from the U.S. is likely months away, at least. Experts have said it’s unlikely that Italy’s justice ministry would request Knox’s extradition before the verdict is finalized by the country’s high court.
If the conviction is upheld, a lengthy extradition process would likely ensue, with the U.S. State Department ultimately deciding whether to turn Knox back over to Italian authorities to finish serving her sentence.
So far the State Department has refused to be drawn on a position regarding the outcome of the Knox re-trial.
Spokesman Patrick Ventrell was asked in March last year what would be the likely decision and only offered that the verdict was still months away.
‘We can’t really comment beyond that,’ Mr Ventrell told reporters according to the Daily Telegraph. ‘We never talk about extradition from this podium in terms of individual cases.’
(31 Jan 2014)
So, we see that the decision to extradite would now have been in Trump’s Secretary of State remit whether or not to extradite and with the power to override any treaty with Italy or US court.
From what we see of Trump’s attitude towards the legally exonerated ‘Central Park Five’ and his public disregard in continuing to label them guilty and to refuse to apologise for the ads he took out in four main newspapers calling for the death penalty, it is a short step to his overriding any guilty verdict by the Italian Supreme Court.
Many observers in Italy are convinced of the invisible hand of the US State Department in the background in the recent shock acquittal of the pair.
In Fact Knox Got Unique Level Of Official Help
Another disturbing aspect is the issue of press releases by Maria Cantwell calling on Italy to free Knox. The question arises, on whose authority was she given permission to issue press releases about sensitive international legal matters?
It seems she then had to petition Hillary Clinton during the appeal process, who prudently declined to comment. Matt Ford of The Atlantic.com analyses the issue in fine detail on 31.1.2014:
Slate’s Justin Peters hypothesized that the U.S. could use Article X of its extradition treaty with Italy, which requires the requesting nation to prove “a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested,” to block her extradition.
There are more drastic options the U.S. government could take to protect Knox, though. Could Congress and/or President Obama override the extradition treaty with Italy to shield Knox, for example? Yes, says Julian Ku, an international law professor at Hofstra University, but they’re unlikely to do so. “I doubt there will be any need for Congress to intervene,” he said. “If the political winds blow so strongly in favor of Knox, Secretary [of State John] Kerry has all the authority he needs to keep her in the U.S.”
But even if Italy does request Knox’s extradition, Kerry can still simply refuse regardless of whether there are legal problems, says Ku. “It would be a real diplomatic blow, and a bad policy decision in my view, but neither illegal nor unconstitutional.”
Peter Quennell of TJMK channeling John Kercher (see quote above) posted this earlier this year on US v UK governmental support.
Compare with how the UK government reacted after Meredith died. Basically it looked the other way. Many in Italian justice were amazed at how totally disinterested the UK government was in the case in all the years since Meredith’s death.
The US government sprang into action to help Knox and to make sure she was treated right, though there was no proof the Italians would do anything but. They found her a Rome lawyer with good English (Carlos Dalla Vedova) and monitored all her court sessions and her four years in Capanne.
This came at a probable cost of over half a million dollars. And that is just the public support. Nobody ever said “the Federal budget cannot stand this”.
The extent of the British government in pushing justice for Meredith and her family? Exactly zero over the years.
Nothing was ever paid toward the legal costs or the very high travel costs of the Kercher family to be in court as the family finances ran into the ground. Nobody from the Foreign Office in London or the UK Embassy in Rome observed in court except in Florence, just the once.
So Hothead Knox Distances From Hothead Trump
In more recent weeks Knox made a powerful denunciation of Trump in the wake of Clinton’s presidential election defeat.
Knox went on to say that Trump called for the death penalty to be reinstated in New York during the Central Park Five case.
Is It Because I Is White?
“Even now, he views (the suspects) as guilty, though they were exonerated when the true perpetrator, a serial rapist, confessed to the crime,” she wrote. “Why did Trump defend me and condemn them? Is it because I was an American on trial in a foreign country? Is it because I’m a white woman?”
So, when Amanda Knox declares her opposition to Trump, are we to take her seriously? Any more so than her claim it was, ‘Nick Pisa wot got me jailed’?
Knox has had all kinds of senior and anonymous political figures involved in her rescue from justice: Cantwell, Kerry, Clinton, Ventrell, President elect Donald Trump, and faceless officers of the US State department, the latter of whom appear to have issued a press release to the global media, circa 31 Mar 2015, that they would refuse to extradite.
We need to ask, on whose authority were all these press releases circulated? It kinda takes your breath away when Knox claims – and as reported in the national press – that she is not ‘standing by Trump’.
To claim firstly that the likes of Nick Pisa is more powerful than US politicians really exposes the manipulative lies of Knox and the Netflix film makers.
Donald Trump is reported in the Italian press in recent days as being ‘bitter’ about Knox’s comments about his donation towards her legal costs, and who can blame him? Sure, she doesn’t need to share his views, but a little gratitude may have been the better part of valour.
Law And Order And Donald Trump
Consider Trump and his views otherwise on law and order. The Washington Post interviewed Kevin Richardson, one of the Central Park Five on 8 Oct 2016
Trump became a part of this widely reported and closely followed crime story when, two weeks after the teens were arrested, he spent a reported $85,000 placing full-page ads in all four major New York daily newspapers.
“Just like those ads, that speech was a call for extreme action based on a whole set of completely false claims. It seems,” Richardson said, “that this man is for some strange reason obsessed with sex and rape and black and Latino men.”
This week, when confronted again with just how wrong he was about the Central Park Five, Trump not only refused to acknowledge widely reported and well-known facts or the court’s official actions in the case.
He did not simply refuse to apologize: He described the men as guilty, and then demonstrated, once again, that he is a master at the dark art of using long-standing racial fears, stereotypes and anxieties to advance his personal and political goals.
He used the Central Park Five to differentiate himself from his political opponent. He stoked support for solutions inconsistent with the law. And he refused to admit any error….
Wise — who served the longest term of all the wrongfully convicted teens and eventually crossed paths with the real Central Park rapist in prison, setting off a chain of events that got the convictions tossed out — said the content of Trump’s campaign is really a continuation of those 1989 ads.
The Washington Post also interviewed Yusef Saleem, on 12 Oct 2016
At the time, our families tried to shield us from what was going on in the media, but we still found out about Trump’s ads. My initial thought was, “Who is this guy?” I was terrified that I might be executed for a crime I didn’t commit.
Another man, Matias Reyes, eventually confessed to the rape and was definitively linked to the crime through DNA. Because of this, we were exonerated in 2002. New York City paid us $41 million in 2014 for our false imprisonment. (As is customary in such settlements, the city did not admit liability.)
Trump has never apologized for calling for our deaths. In fact, he’s somehow still convinced that we belong in prison. When the Republican nominee was recently asked about the Central Park Five, he said, “They admitted they were guilty.”
In a statement to CNN, Trump wrote: “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. [= This applies to Knox, her confession and Sollecito. ~ KG] The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.”
(Meili, for her part, told CNN in 2003: “I guess there are lots of theories out there, but I just don’t know. . . . I’ve had to come to peace with it by saying: ‘You know what? I’m just not going to know.’ )
It’s further proof of Trump’s bias, racism and inability to admit that he’s wrong. When I heard Trump’s latest proclamation, it was the worst feeling in the world. I couldn’t breathe….. I realize, too, that I’m not the only victim. Trump has smeared dozens of people, with no regard for the truth.”
Some Final Commentary
Trump’s intervention in the Central Park Five case illustrates how imprudent it is for a politician to attempt to intervene in legal cases. He can have had very little idea of the impact of the huge body of evidence presented before the jury.
Trump’s gung-ho White Knight charge-to-the-rescue of a fellow German-American - and backed by hard funding - is based on irrationality, emotion and jingoism, “the last refuge of a scoundrel”.
How dangerous and meddlesome for Cantwell to demand a defendant be released, regardless of the facts of the case. How reckless and patronising, too, were Trump’s interventions.
Okay, Knox doesn’t stand by Trump today. But it’s directly thanks to the likes of the Lizard King she is walking free today.
I am the Lizard King
I can do anything
I can make the earth stop in its tracks
I made the blue cars go away ~ Jim Morrison
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (19)
Monday, November 21, 2016
Fast US Arrival Of Eataly The Remarkably Large Italian Marketplace With Multiple Places To Eat
Posted by Peter Quennell
New York city now has two of the huge Eataly food marketplaces, the first of which opened in Turin just a decade ago.
Each has multiple bars and numerous areas to buy or to eat Italian food. Chicago already has one open (see the video below) and next Tuesday Boston will open one too. Eatalys are already open in Los Angeles and San Francisco as well.
Each occupies the equivalent of a city block. One in New York is on 23rd Street by Madison Square Park, with a special elevator to a rooftop restaurant and the other is in a newly-occupied highrise tower at the World Trade Center which has great views - and thousands of financial types looking for lunch.
If you are in any of these cities, do think to take a look. This is an exciting new scene with a lot of happy mingling going on, something the US could use a lot more of.
And happy mingling on Thursday, Thanksgiving for those in the US!
Archived in The wider contexts, Italian context
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (4)
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Netflixhoax 17: Omitted - Too Many Pesky Truths, To Inflame False Notion Italian Justice Failed Here
Posted by Corpusvile
They have been campaigning for Knox since 2011, which has included harassing real journalists who actually covered the case far more thoroughly than they did.
The movie opens with lingering almost gleeful close ups of the bloody crime scene and goes downhill from there. It begins by trying to shape a false narrative of handy villains who all seemingly came together like the stars aligning to make innocent Amanda look so screamingly, beyond a reasonable doubtingly guilty.
In the beginning, there were the cops. It was them who railroaded and coerced poor Amanda.
Then it was the nasty prosecutor, who the documentary falsely intimates took part in Knox’s trial and appeal, whereas he only took part in her trial and was one of several prosecutors. The documentary attempts to make out he’s some Sherlock Holmes fanboy nut job.
They also mistranslate him, by having him proclaim that only a female killer would cover a female victim, when he actually said that an “unknown” male killer - within the context of a supposed burglary gone wrong - would be unlikely to cover up a victim.
Then it was the ENFSI certified forensic specialist who Knox’s fan club labeled a “lab technician”. (Oddly, though, the same forensic specialist and prosecutor seemed to do a great job testifying against and prosecuting the black guy, and sogood work guys).
Then it was Meredith Kercher’s friends who conspired against The Railroaded One, then it was the innocent victim’s innocent family themselves who were “persecuting” sweet Amanda.
Now, courtesy of Netflix, the REAL villains were the tabloid media, specifically one tabloid hack, Cockney wideboy Nick Pisa, who comes across like I’d imagine Danny Dyer’s dad would come across as and is quite hilarious, albeit totally devoid of any scruples as any tabloid hack worth his/her salt would.
The media, the prosecutor, the witnesses, THEY were the ones who were responsible for poor Amanda’s woes (and not the 10,000 pages of behavioral, circumstantial and hard physical evidence against her which the documentary brushes over in a cursory manner.)
It makes out that Knox and Sollecito were in love after an alleged five day romance. I say “alleged” as Sollecito is rather inconsistent in this regard, variously claiming a fortnight, 10 days, to a week to now apparently five days. This is hammered home by shots of what I presume to be lovebirds, complete with feel-good treacle music.
Sollecito comes across as a smirking stoned weirdo, and Knox comes across as her usual creepy quasi psychopathic self, complete with crocodile tears and loud theatrical sighs.
Knox is also her usual inconsistent self and can’t seem to stop changing her story, whether it’s droning on that she and Meredith weren’t the best of friends (after droning on in other interviews that they were “dear friends”).
Or claiming that she only knew Guede to look at and had only seen him two or three times. This despite claiming that she only saw Guede for the first time ever in court (Dianne Sawyer interview) and claiming she never had contact with Guede, in her rambling eight page email to the Nencini appellate court before claiming - in a consecutive sentence no less - that she actually did have contact with him.
She proclaims it’s “impossible” for her DNA to be on the murder weapon, disregarding that it was a matter of established fact that her DNA is on the murder weapon with Meredith’s DNA on the blade.
The film makes out that Rudy Guede, the sole person convicted for Meredith Kercher’s murder, left his DNA all over the crime scene, with funky arrows pointing here, there, and everywhere. The problem is this simply isn’t true. Rudy Guede was convicted on less DNA evidence (five samples) than Amanda Knox (six samples).
The documentary also displays quasi racism, where trial and appellate courts can be rejected for innocent Amanda, but innuendo is sufficient for black guys, as Knox lies in the documentary that Guede is a known burglar.
The documentary happily facilitate this lie by obligingly showing a mugshot of Guede with the intimation that it’s a mugshot for burglary. The problem again is, this is simply untrue. Guede has no burglary convictions, and indeed was the only one out of the trio with no prior criminal record before Ms Kercher’s murder.
Knox and Sollecito both had minor run-ins with the law resulting in fines. Guede was never even charged with the burglary, and even the acquitting court decreed that the burglary was staged, as in staged in another flatmate’s room where Amanda Knox left her presumed blood DNA mixed with the murder victim’s and where no trace of Rudy Guede exists.
Knox also claims that no biological traces of her exist in one localized area of the crime scene, specifically Meredith’s bedroom, yet ignores that by such a rationale Guede couldn’t have committed the burglary.
Knox also claims that Guede acted alone, but no court decreed this, and she claims that he broke into her home when Meredith was present, neglecting to explain how Meredith never heard the 4 kilo rock hurling through Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom and why she obligingly did nothing while Guede shimmied 13 feet up a sheer wall TWICE.
The documentary, apparently not content with trying to match the record of most lies ever told in a single documentary before, then breezily attempts to surpass such a record, by introducing the film’s saviors, Stefano Conti and Carla Vechiotti, as “independent forensic DNA experts”.
Conti hypothesizes, like he did in court, that anything is possible. It’s like totally possible that contamination could have occurred, therefore it… DID occur. Basically a hypothesis on the basis that “anything’s possible” supersedes actual submitted evidence.
Vechiotti not to be outdone promptly contradicts Conti by attacking Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA as a science. Basically he claims Meredith Kercher’s DNA profile on the murder weapon (found in Sollecito’s flat, causing him to lie in his diary as to how the DNA got there by claiming that Meredith had cut herself cooking while at his apartment; but Meredith had never visited Sollecito’s apartment) is so tiny that it should be discarded and ignored.
LCN DNA is however now accepted by courts of law worldwide, including in the State of New York USA. Vechiotti also admitted in court that it was Meredith’s profile, and that contamination couldn’t have occurred due to the six day delay between testing.
She does a u-turn on the documentary though, claiming that contamination was likely due to Meredith’s profile being LCN and so small, despite testifying the exact opposite where it mattered the most, in court.
Problem is, Conti makes the contamination hypothesis for the bra clasp, only Sollecito’s DNA found there isn’t LCN, it’s a 17 loci match, with a US court considering between 10-15 loci sufficient enough to be used as evidence.
The doc also fails to explain how his DNA ended up only on the tiny bra clasp in such abundance and nowhere else apart from a cigarette, but mixed with Knox’s. So, too small for the knife, and hey, anything’s possible for the bra clasp.
They also make a big thing about the bra clasp lying in a sealed crime scene for 46 days, yet don’t mention that two samples of DNA evidence used to convict Guede (Meredith’s sweatshirt and purse) also lay there for 46 days. I guess there’s different burdens of proof bars for black guys.
However again the problem is that all of this (yep, again) is simply untrue. Conti and Vechiotti are not experts in forensic DNA or ENFSI certified.
Carla Vechiotti is a pathologist. Her lab at Sapienza University was shut down due to atrocious hygiene practices including honest to God corpses being strewn about the halls, I kid you not.
Conti’s expertise is “computer medical science”...whatever that’s supposed to be. Nor are they independent. Conti and Vechiotti were found “Objectively biased” and “Objectively deceptive” in court by the Nencini appellate. Specifically because Vechiotti falsely claimed that the technology did not exist to re-test the murder weapon. It did indeed exist in 2011.
Vechiotti was also filmed by the BBC shaking hands with Sollecito’s father in court, no less, hardly appropriate behavior for so-called independents. Vechiotti has also been found guilty of criminal misconduct in a separate case, and was fined €150,000 for screwing up in yet another separate case, known as the Olgiatta murder.
You’ll notice in this review how I’ve rarely mentioned the victim Meredith Kercher. That’s because she barely gets a mention in this sad excuse for a documentary. Not even an RIP.
Meredith, the victim is relegated to a mere footnote and indeed a foot under a duvet.
The doc does use archive footage of her mother, Arline, and intimates that she herself is having doubts, whereas the Kerchers have made very clear on several occasions that they know who murdered their daughter.
Reprehensibly, the doc also displays close up autopsy photos of Meredith, yet the autopsy photos were never made public.
Considering only the Kerchers (who didn’t take part in Netflix’s PR makeover) and the defence - and by extension the two former defendants - had access to such material, this begs the very pertinent question: who provided two ardent Knox supporters with autopsy photos of the murder victim?
The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for this alone, utterly contemptible behavior which comes across as needlessly and despicably taunting the victim’s family, and at the very least exploiting their daughter and sister purely for lurid effect to make their documentary more “gritty”.
So what’s the verdict on Amanda Knox the documentary?
Well, it’s a terrible, false and ultimately immoral exercise in innocence fraud, and here are some more of the facts that Knox’s PR infomercial left out:
1 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that Amanda Knox was present during Meredith’s murder and may even have possibly washed the victim’s blood from her hands afterwards but it STILL can’t be proved that she did it, which begs more questions, namely why didn’t innocent Amanda call the cops for her friend and why wasn’t she charged as an accessory at least? (The same Supreme Court did not make the same allowance for the black guy though, had he washed the victim’s blood from his shoes for example.) The court also states that there’s “strong suspicion” that Sollecito was there.
2 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that the burglary was staged.
3 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that Meredith was murdered by three attackers and that Guede had two accomplices. (And you really don’t have to be Stephen Hawking to figure out who these two accomplices were, when you view the evidence in its totality)
4 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that Meredith’s murder was NOT due to a burglary gone wrong.
5 The Supreme Court’s acquitting nonetheless finalizes Knox’s calumny/criminal slander conviction, which she was handed for falsely accusing her innocent employer of rape and murder, leaving him in prison for two weeks, and never retracting her statement, despite false reports that she did, meaning that Knox’s status is still that of a convicted criminal felon.
6 In finalizing Amanda Knox’s calumny/criminal slander conviction, the Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that Knox blamed her boss to protect Rudy Guede as she was afraid that Guede could “retaliate by incriminating” her, which of course begs some more very interesting and pertinent questions, such as how could Guede incriminate innocent Amanda to begin with?
7 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report does NOT exonerate Knox, it acquits her due to “insufficient evidence”,like Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and that nice man Robert Durst now back on trial.
The Truth is Out There, as a fictional 90s FBI agent who investigated strange stuff once mused. The truth in Meredith Kercher’s case is out there too, specifically in the Massei and Nencini court reports.
Never have I seen a case where such overwhelming evidence existed and where all the primary sources and court reports are fully available, only for such false reporting and fawning (and equally false accounts abound). It’s like the mainstream media have collectively turned into the robotic town of Stepford.
Yet the truth often has the strangest habit of coming to light, often when we least expect it to shine. I have hopes it’ll shine in Meredith’s case, in time. The supporter fanboy filmmakers are fooling nobody who is familiar with Meredith’s case, and neither are Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.
RIP Meredith Kercher, who along with her stoic dignified family (who have been subjected to absolutely abhorrent abuse and attacks by Knox’s supporters online) and Knox’s employer Patrick Lumumba are the only victims here.
May the truth shine in your case one day and the facts and truth come to light.
Archived in Hoaxes against Italy, Italian justice hoax, Evil Mignini hoax, Evil police hoax, No-evidence hoax, DNA contam hoax, Rabid media hoax, Hoaxes by Knox, Knox persona hoax, Knox alibis hoax, Hoaxes by Sollecito, Sollec persona hoax, Hoaxes re Guede, Guede sole perp hoax, Hoaxers - main media, The Netflix hoax, Hoaxers - main people, More hoaxers, News media & movies, Terrible reporting, Movies on case
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (22)
Friday, November 04, 2016
Netflixhoax 16: Omitted - How Netflix Depicted Media Coverage 180 Degrees Away From The Truth
Posted by Peter Quennell
1. Overview Of This Series
This is the first of three posts describing how in the real world various arms of the media performed.
The Netflix report showed British reporter Nick Pisa relishing some early headlines, and a scene where the solving of the crime by the national and Perugia police is announced to the press.
From those seemingly damning episodes, the audience is encouraged to make the vast extrapolation that it was a voracious media and an overzealous police that drove the whole case.
Also that this was fundamentally unfair to a self-effacing, publicity-shy Knox, and that it caused the verdicts to go the “wrong” way - twice, first in the 2009 Massei trial, and second in the 2013-14 Nencini appeal.
2. The Real Police “Slant”
The police announcement - typical of such announcements in the US and UK when the local population is freaked out - was NOT made simply to win points for the police or to isolate and slam Knox (Sollecito and at that point Patrick were also described as suspects in the crime).
There had not been a single murder in Perugia for many years. This murder was reported (rightly) as singularly depraved and (rightly) as a pack attack with knives.
Many people could not sleep at night. The immediate effect upon Perugia and in particular its huge student population (over 20,000) of Meredith’s death was that many men and women, especially women as a sex crime was (rightly) described, did indeed become freaked out.
Literally thousands began to leave town.
Both the town managers and the university managers were quite desperately demanding an early break or major assurances to stem this tide. The police announcement did in fact do that.
Thereafter the investigators went on about their work for the better part of a year, and the documentation is huge - it was put at 10,000 pages early on but is now substantially larger than that.
Here is one example of just how much work was done after the police calmed things down.
At the infamous “interrogation” of Knox on 5-6 November 2007 she in fact worked on a list of seven names of people who might be able to help the police. The police took that list and they tracked down all seven, and the cross-checking of their accounts went on for months.
Complicated, of course, because Knox most heavily pointed at Patrick, and used the list to point away from herself. Her drug dealer, which police soon found out about, did not appear on the list though he had repeatedly been at her house.
3. The Real Media “Slant”
In the next post, we shall show how there really was a huge slant - but not what Netflix depicts.
All of the Netflix’s global demonization of the media flows from Nick Pisa’s few deprecating words. No extensive checking of his reports is seen.
No Italian media disposition was examined at all - the Italian media was by far the most likely to have an effect on a jury of Italian speakers who are encouraged by the system to do some research.
Netflix maybe omitted this for their own convenience - there was little or no slant to point to at all.
Italian media reported methodically before and during trial and long thereafter on what the US and UK media mostly did not - all the crucial process steps pre-trial were reported in Italy but largely ignored by the UK and US press.
You can read about the remorselessly building evidence in this eye-opening series here.
The Netflix team dont appear to have read even one official document on the case.
The key two documents here would be the report on the Massei guilty verdict in 2009 and the report on the Nencini guilty verdict in 2014. That was respectively two years and over seven years after the early “damning” media reports.
Take a look.
In fact try to find even ONE instance where a UK reporter writing in English for an English audience in late 2007 got inside an entire panel of Italian judges’ heads late in 2009, and again in 2014, which is what Netflix would like you to believe.
4. Nick Pisa’s Real Reports On The Case
Fortunately for the hard truth, what we often called the “Rome pool” of foreign correspondents included nearly a dozen exceptionally talented reporters (those posted in other countries usually are the cream of the crop).
Thanks to their very hard work and their incessant costly travel to Perugia, we were able to repost on the 2008 and 2009 developments with a scope far beyond what any one “man on the spot” could do (we did have several of those too).
Free-lancer Nick Pisa in fact reported from the court for a lot of media outlets in the UK, not simply one. He was the only non-Italian reporter to pretty consistently have a cameraman along, for his reports for Sky News, and some of his good video reports still show.
This kind of fast, comprehensive coverage badly rattled the Knoxes and Mellases and their camps and especially diminished their PR, and they openly displayed angry aggression at times.
We’ll describe in the next post their desperate attempts to demonize all of the few reporters they did not have on a chain as coming straight from hell.
We have carried a total of 35 of Nick Pisa’s reports, in whole or in part. Check them all out below. Do you see ANY bias here?
Click here for post: Trial: The Proceedings Commence: The UK’s Daily Mail Reports First
Click here for post: Trial: Friday Morning Not A Good Start For The Knox Team
Click here for post: Trial: Defendant Noticeably Bubblier Than Meredith’s Sad Friends
Click here for post: Trial: Nick Pisa Of On-The-Ball Sky News Reports Early Testimony
Click here for post: Trial: Nick Pisa Of On-The-Ball Sky News Reports On Saturday Morning
Click here for post: Guede’s Grounds For Appeal Sound None Too Convincing
Click here for post: Trial: Sky News Video Report On Friday’s Court Session
Click here for post: Confirmed: Neither Knox’s Father Nor Stepfather Were So Solicitous In Seattle
Click here for post: Trial: Prosecution Witnesses Present Many More Reports On Odd Behavior Of Knox
Click here for post: Sollecito Gets A Birthday Card From His Co-Defendant
Click here for post: Trial: Witness Emulates A Loud Scream She Heard On The Night
Click here for post: Trial: Sky News’s Report On Today’s Eyewitnesses
Click here for post: Trial: The Closed Court Sees Graphic Photos And Video Footage Of The Autopsy
Click here for post: Trial: One Busy Day On The Court Agenda For The Judges And Jury
Click here for post: Owner Says The House Will Be Available For Rent
Click here for post: Trial: The Trial Agenda For Today And Tomorrow Is Physical And Forensic Evidence
Click here for post: Trial: At Saturday Morning Session Bloody Footprints Said To Match The Defendants
Click here for post: Trial: The Morning Report By Sky New’s Nick Pisa
Click here for post: Trial: Court Hears Of Enormous Cruelty Of The Crime
Click here for post: Trial: Meredith’s Family Recounts The Terrible Pain Of Her Loss
Click here for post: Trial: Richard Owen Reports First Knox Testimony With Nick Pisa Video
Click here for post: The Letters Between The Women’s And Men’s Wings In Capanne
Click here for post: Trial: Dr Sollecito Testifies About The Human Qualities Of His Son
Click here for post: Trial: Early Report By Nick Pisa On What Was Expected To Be Heard Today
Click here for post: Trial: Defense Witnesses Testify On Cannabis Effects And Meredith’s Mobile Phone
Click here for post: Trial: Further Expert Examinations Denied - The Report From Nick Pisa
Click here for post: The Summations: Nick Pisa In Daily Mail Has A Late-Morning Report
Click here for post: The Summations: Defendant Leaves Court As Prosecutor Proposes What Meredith Was Subjected To
Click here for post: The Summations: Patrick Lumumba’s Lawyer Describes Defamation By Knox As Ruthless
Click here for post: Could The Italian Authorities Be Starting A Wave Of Libel + Slander Investigations?
Click here for post: The Summations: Lawyer Luca Maori Sums Up All Day Today In Sollecito’s Defense
Click here for post: The Summations: The Two Defendants Make Their Final Pleas To The Court
Click here for post: US Overreaction: Amanda Knox’s Own Lawyer Groans “That’s All We Need, Hillary Clinton
Click here for post: The Controversy Over The Lifetime Movie Seems To Be Stirring Some Needed Changes
Click here for post: Kercher Family Lawyer Walks Out As Amanda Knox Engages In What Looks Like Yet Another Stunt
Click here for post: UK’s Sky News Carries A Pre-Session Report from Nick Pisa In Perugia This Morning
Click here for post: A Belated Attempt To Do A U-Turn On The Misconceived Loser Of A PR Campaign?
Click here for post: The Fourth Appeal Hearing Today Saturday: The Main Items On The Court’s Agenda
Click here for post: Fourteenth Appeal Session: Judge Hellmann Consults Jury And Concludes They Have Enough To Wrap Up
Click here for post: Conspicuous By Their Absence Now: Legal Commentators For Sollecito And Knox
Click here for post: Lord Justice Leveson: In Fact MANY Press Errors Were Made In The Reporting On Meredith’s Case
Click here for post: A Smug Killer Who Thought Perhaps He’d Escaped Justice Was Brought Down In The UK Today
Archived in Hoaxes against Italy, Rabid media hoax, Hoaxes by Knox, Knox persona hoax, Knox no-PR hoax, Hoaxers - main media, The Netflix hoax, News media & movies, Great reporting, Terrible reporting
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (20)
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
A Majority May Vote “No” In Referendum 4 December, Maybe Transforming Prospects In Meredith’s Case
Posted by Peter Quennell
The justice chunk of the huge package of reforms Italy is voting on 4 December probably appeal to pretty well everybody.
They address the awful slowness of the Italian courts and the repetitions of process steps to get it “just right” which too often result in just the opposite. They would tilt back a little toward the victim who too often gets “disappeared” just as Meredith did.
But they are chained to the parliamentary, economic and educational reforms, which PM Renzi cooked up with ex-PM Berlusconi. Maybe not such a smart idea.
They passed with only a bare majority in parliament, hence the referendum. Hence also Renzi’s promise to resign as Prime Minister if the electorate votes against them.
Those reforms are seen by young people in particular as amounting to a powergrab by the center-right and a move away from free college-level education (just when the US may be about to do the opposite).
PM Renzi may or may not have angled for the strange Fifth Chambers outcome in Meredith’s case. But he lost popularity for seeming bending to widely-suspected US arm-bending on this and some other issues even though he and President Obama seem to have not much in common.
If Renzi does go, we are told that prospects for a turnaround in Meredith’s case could become dramatically better. The politics would become right for this case to proceed.
Archived in Justice systems, Italian system, The wider contexts, Italian context, Europe context
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (2)
Monday, October 31, 2016
Nine Years Tuesday Since The Pack Attack: The Compelling Aura Of Meredith Lives On
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
Archived in Concerning Meredith, Her memory
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (7)
Friday, October 28, 2016
Netflixhoax 15: Omitted - Amanda Knox’s Incriminating Lies To The Police, Prosecution And Courts
Posted by The Machine
Overview Of This Post
The filmmakers allow Amanda Knox to portray herself as a terrified ingenue.
One who lied about Diya Lumumba killing Meredith and placed herself at the cottage only because she was subjected to a coercive police interrogation and was physically assaulted.
They don’t question ANY of the witnesses who were present when she was questioned at the police station to contradict her account of events - witnesses who testified as to exactly what did happen over many days at the trial in 2009.
They allow her account of her questioning to go unchallenged though NOT ONE JUDGE at pre-trial hearings, the trial, first appeal, Supreme Court, second appeal, and Supreme Court appeal considered any of her varying accounts to be the truth.
The filmmakers also don’t address the fact that Amanda Knox lied repeatedly to the police and others both before and after her questioning on 5 November 2007, let alone provide viewers with a plausible innocent explanation for these lies.
In this article, I will detail the lies Amanda Knox told the police and others using the official court reports and court testimonies as well as Amanda Knox’s book Waiting to Be Heard.
Instances Of Knox Lies Refuted
Amanda Knox lied to Filomena about where she was on 2 November 2007.
But the Nencini report, 2014, page 174, said:
“In the first telephone call the defendant made to Filomena Romanelli, she clearly said that she would go back to Raffaele’s place to tell him about the strange things discovered in the apartment, and then return with him to check the situation. This circumstance is clearly false, since when Amanda Knox made the first call to Romanelli at 12:08:44 pm on 2 November 2007 she was at already Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment and not at 7 Via Della Pergola.
This fact is certain because it is gleaned from the telephone records, as has been already been said, and specifically from the fact that the telephone call above connected to the cell that served precisely 130 Via Garibaldi, a cell that is not within reach of anyone who would have been at 7 Via Della Pergola.
Amanda Knox claimed that she and Sollecito called 112 before the arrival of the postal police officers at the cottage.
But the Nencini report, 2014, page 176, said:
“There was one specific circumstance about which, this time, both the defendants lied. This is about the succession of events at the moment when the postal police intervened on the spot.”
And the Nencini report, 2014, page 179, said:
“From the testimony of the witnesses referred to above it thus clearly emerges how both of the defendants (but to be precise it was Raffaele Sollecito to tell the police this) declared to Inspector Battistelli that they were sitting there awaiting the arrival of the Carabinieri whom they had called. However Inspector Battistelli indicated in his service notes that he arrived on the scene at 12:35 pm, and questioned in the court hearings by the Judges of First Instance Court, he explained that he looked at his watch at the moment when he arrived at the cottage.” (The Nencini report, page 179).
Amanda Knox told the postal police on 2 November that Meredith always locked her door.
But the Massei trial report, 2010, page 31, said:
“This last circumstance, downplayed by Amanda, who said that even when she went to the bathroom for a shower Meredith always locked the door to her room (see declarations of Marco Zaroli, page 180, hearing of February 6, 2009 and declarations of Luca Altieri, page 218, hearing of February 6, 2009), had alarmed Ms. Romanelli more. She said she was aware of only once, when she had returned to England and had been away for a few days, that Meredith had locked the door of her room. (This circumstance was confirmed by Laura Mezzetti, page 6, hearing of February 14, 2009).”.
Knox pretended she hadn’t called Meredith when she spoke to Filomena.
But the Massei trial report, 2010, page 387, said:
“Amanda called Romanelli, to whom she started to detail what she had noticed in the house (without, however, telling her a single word about the unanswered call made to Meredith, despite the question expressly put to her by Romanelli)”
Amanda Knox falsely claimed in her e-mail to friends on 4 November 2007 that she had called Filomena first
But she had actually called Meredith a minute earlier. The Nencini appeal report, 2014, page 169, said:
“A first discrepancy is immediately noticeable between what the defendant states in the memorial and what is ascertained from the telephone records.”
“At the moment when Amanda Marie Knox rang Filomena Romanelli she had already made a call to the English telephone used by Meredith Kercher, not therefore the opposite.”
Amanda Knox claimed that when she called Meredith’s English phone after speaking to Filomena, it “just kept ringing, no answer”.
But the Nencini appeal report, 2014, page 170, said:
“From the telephone records it appears that the telephone call made at 12:11:02 pm to the Italian Vodafone service of the victim lasted 3 seconds”
Amanda Knox claimed she slept until around 10:00am the next morning.
But the Nencini appeal report, 2014, page 158, said:
“What the Court finds proved is that at 6:02:59 am on 2 November 2007 they were not in fact asleep, as the defendants claim, but rather the occupants were well awake. At 5:32 am on 2 November 2007 the computer connected to a site for listening to music, remaining connected for around half an hour. Therefore, at 5:32 am someone in the house occupied by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito sat in front of the computer and listened to music for around half an hour and then, at 6:02:59 am, switched on Raffaele Sollecito’s mobile phone…”
Amanda Knox claimed she was at Sollecito’s apartment when she received Diya Lumumba’s text message.
But the Nencini appeal report, 2014, pages 132-132, said:
“At 8:18 pm and 12 seconds, Amanda Marie Knox received a text message sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, in which he informed her that it would not be necessary for her to go to the bar to carry out her usual work. At the time of receipt, Amanda Marie Knox’s handset connected via the sector 3 mast at Torre dell’Acquedotto, 5 dell’Aquila, as shown by phone records entered in evidence. This mast cannot be reached from the vicinity of 130 Corso Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito. According to the findings of the judicial police entered in evidence, this mast could be reached by anyone in Via Rocchi, Piazza Cavallotti or Piazza 4 Novembre, all locations in Perugia which are intermediate between 130 Corso Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito, and Via Alessi, where the “Le Chic” bar is located.
“From this set of facts established in the case, Amanda Marie Knox’s claim, according to which she received Patrick Lumumba’s text message while she was at 130 Corso Garibaldi, appears false. Given the mast connected to and the time, it is reasonable to assume that, when Amanda received the message, she had already left Raffaele Sollecito’s home and was on her way to the ‘Le Chic’ bar. Presumably, she then turned around and went back.”
Amanda Knox initially claimed she was at Sollecito’s apartment on the night of the murder.
But Sollecito categorically stated in his own signed witness statement that Amanda Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the night of the murder: Raffaele Sollecito’s witness statement, 5 November 2007, said:
“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some 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.”
And Judge Bruno and Judge Marasca of the Fifth Chambers stated in their 2015 report that Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.
The Bruno and Marasca report, 2015, said:
“… now we note, regarding Amanda Knox, that her presence in the dwelling, that was the “theatre of the murder”, was proclaimed in the trial process in alignment with her own admissions, including those contained in her signed statement in the part where she states she was in the kitchen, after the young English girl [Meredith] and another person went off to Kercher’s room for sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she fell down huddled on the floor, holding her hands tightly against her ears so as not to hear more.
We do indeed share the previous judge [Nencini’s] opinion that this part of the accused’s story is reliable, due to the plausible observation that it was she who first put forward a possible sexual motive for the murder and mentioned the victim’s harrowing scream, at a time when the investigators still didn’t have the results of the examination of the corpse or the autopsy, nor the witness information, which was subsequently gathered, about the victim’s scream and the time it was heard.
Amanda Knox told the police she hadn’t replied to Diya Lumumba’s text message.
But Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, 2008, page 36, said:
“the police, who merely asked Ms Knox whether she had replied to the message that he had sent her, that her phone showed she had received, and to the young woman’s negative response it was put to her that [her telephone showed] that a reply was in fact given.”
Amanda Knox claimed the police hit her.
But the witnesses who were present when Knox was questioned, including her interpreter, testified under oath at the trial in 2009 that she wasn’t hit.
These repudiations are from the relevant court transcripts:
Giuliano Mignini: ... violence, of …
Monica Napoleoni: But absolutely not!
Mignini: You remember it… you’ve described it; however, I’ll ask it. Was she threatened? Did she suffer any beatings?
Anna Donnino: Absolutely not.
GM: She suffered maltreatments?
AD: Absolutely not.
Carlo Pacelli: In completing and consolidating in cross-examination the questions by the public prosecutor, I refer to the morning of the 6th of November, to the time when Miss Knox had made her summary information. In that circumstance, Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?
Anna Donnino: Absolutely not.
CP: In particular, was she struck on the head by a police woman?
AD: Absolutely not!
CP: Miss Knox was, however, threatened?
AD: No, I can exclude that categorically!
CP: With thirty years of prison… ?
AD: No, no, absolutely not.
CP: Was she, however, sworn at, in the sense that she was told she was a liar?
AD: I was in the room the whole night, and I saw nothing of all this.
CP: So the statements that had been made had been made spontaneously, voluntarily?
Carlo Della Valla: This…
Giancarlo Massei: Pardon, but let’s ask questions… if you please.
CP: You were also present then during the summary informations made at 5:45?
CP: And were they done in the same way and methods as those of 1:45?
AD: I would say yes. Absolutely yes.
CP: To remove any shadow of doubt from this whole matter, as far as the summary information provided at 5:45 Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?
CP: In particular, was she struck on the head by a policewoman?
Knox told the police she hadn’t smoked marijuana.
But Amanda Knox herself in “Waiting to Be Heard” said:
“When we finished, a detective put me through a second round of questioning, this time in Italian. Did we ever smoke marijuana at No.7 Via della Pergola? ‘No, we don’t smoke,’ I lied. squirming inwardly as I did.”
Amanda Knox was forced to accuse Diya Lumumba of murder.
But Amanda Knox voluntarily told the police and her interpreter that Diya Lumumba had killed Meredith.
Anna Donnino: “It’s a thing that has remained very strongly with me because the first thing that she did is that she immediately puts her hands on her ears, making this gesture rolling her head, curving in her shoulders also and saying ‘It’s him! It’s him! It was him!’”
Rita Ficarra: “She suddenly put her hands to her head, burst out crying and said to us ‘It’s him, it’s him, it was him, he killed her’.
Amanda Knox then claimed Diya Lumumba killed Meredith in two witness statements she insisted on writing.
But the Nencini appeal report, 2014, page 114, said:
“Amanda Marie Knox accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder at 1:45 am on 6 November 2007.”
“Amanda Marie Knox repeated the allegations before the magistrate, allegations which she never retracted in all the following days.”
Also Amanda Knox reiterated her false allegation against Diya Lumumba on 6 November 2007 when under no pressure.
“[Amanda] herself, furthermore, in the statement of 6 November 2007 (admitted into evidence ex. articles 234 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code and which was mentioned above) wrote, among other things, the following:
“I stand by my [accusatory] statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick…in these flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer…”
This statement was that specified in the notes of 6 November 2007, at 20:00, by Police Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra, and was drawn up following the notification of the detention measure, by Amanda Knox, who “requested blank papers in order to produce a written statement to hand over” to the same Ficarra. (Massei report, page 389.)
For several weeks Amanda Knox let the police believe Diya Lumumba killed Meredith.
But the Nencini report, pages 115-116, said:
She never retracted her false and malicious allegation the whole time he was in prison. This verdict from the 2013-14 Nencini Appeal Court was THE FINAL WORD from the courts; the Supreme Court did not reverse it:
“Amanda Marie Knox maintained her false and malicious story for many days, consigning Patrick Lumumba to a prolonged detention. She did not do this casually or naively. In fact, if the young woman’s version of events is to be relied upon, that is to say, if the allegations were a hastily prepared way to remove herself from the psychological and physical pressure used against her that night by the police and the prosecuting magistrate, then over the course of the following days there would have been a change of heart. This would inevitably have led her to tell the truth, that Patrick Lumumba was completely unconnected to the murder. But this did not happen.
“And so it is reasonable to take the view that, once she had taken the decision to divert the attention of the investigators from herself and Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Marie Knox became fully aware that she could not go back and admit calunnia. A show of remorse would have exposed her to further and more intense questioning from the prosecuting magistrate. Once again, she would bring upon herself the aura of suspicion that she was involved in the murder.
Indeed, if Amanda Marie Knox had admitted in the days following to having accused an innocent man, she would inevitably have exposed herself to more and more pressing questions from the investigators. She had no intention of answering these, because she had no intention of implicating Rudy Hermann Guede in the murder.
“By accusing Patrick Lumumba, who she knew was completely uninvolved, because he had not taken part in the events on the night Meredith was attacked and killed, she would not be exposed to any retaliatory action by him. He had nothing to report against her. In contrast, Rudy Hermann Guede was not to be implicated in the events of that night because he, unlike Patrick Lumumba, was in Via della Pergola, and had participated  in the murder. So, he would be likely to retaliate by reporting facts implicating the present defendant in the murder of Meredith Kercher.
“In essence, the Court considers that the only reasonable motive for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba was to deflect suspicion of murder away from herself and from Raffaele Sollecito by blaming someone who she knew was not involved, and was therefore unable to make any accusations in retaliation. Once the accusatory statements were made, there was no going back. Too many explanations would have had to be given to those investigating the calunnia; explanations that the young woman had no interest in giving.”
Knox claimed that Mignini questioned her and made suggestions on 5 November 2007.
But the transcript of Knox’s cross-examination at trial 2009 said:
Amanda Knox: The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were suggested by the public minister [Giuliano Mignini].
Carlo Pacelli: Excuse me, but at 1:45, the pubblico ministero was not there, there was only the judicial police.
The computer and telephone records as well as the corroborative testimony of multiple eyewitnesses provide irrefutable proof that Amanda Knox lied repeatedly to the police and others. Many of these lies were told before and after her questioning on 5 November 2007, so they can’t be attributed to police coercion.
There isn’t a plausible innocent explanation for these lies. Perhaps that’s the reason why the filmmakers don’t address them - they presumably don’t want to portray Amanda Knox in a negative light. It would be far harder to persuade their audience that Amanda Knox is an innocent victim, which is undeniably their ultimate objective. They were never interested in making an objective and balanced documentary that give viewers the full picture.
Judge Bruno and Judge Marasca clearly couldn’t brush these numerous lies under the carpet and pretend they didn’t exist because Judge Massei, Judge Nencini and Judge Chieffi had detailed Amanda Knox’s lies in their reports. They acknowledge that Amanda Knox lied and claimed she had lied to cover for Rudy Guede.
The Netflix filmmakers completely hide all of this in their documentary.
Archived in Those who were charged, Amanda Knox, Hoaxes by Knox, Knox persona hoax, Knox alibis hoax, Knox interrog hoax, Hoaxers - main media, The Netflix hoax, Hoaxers - main people, Knox-Mellas team, More hoaxers, News media & movies, Terrible reporting, Movies on case
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (11)
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Netflixhoax 14: Omitted - Any Mention Of Big Red Flag In Forced Closing Of Vecchiotti’s Laboratory
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
This post is one in our ongoing series.
Amazingly EIGHTEEN MONTHS AGO Dr Carla Vecchiotti became quite possibly the most discredited DNA expert in the world, when news about her appalling lab conditions exploded in Italy.
In their narrow-minded fanaticism to make Dr Mignini the most reviled prosecutor in the world - and Nick Pisa the most reviled reporter - the producers somehow left that awkward fact out of their report entirely. She and Dr Conti are given major time in the film to misrepresent key evidence.
Netflix’s own due diligence (if any; we think not) missed all of this entirely. Now thanks to Netflix the misrepresented evidence and Vecchiotti’s discredited opinions of the Scientific Police labs are being given credence as hard fact worldwide.
KrissyG in her own excellent review of the movie summarised the conditions that led to the lab being closed down. It happened directly because the Carabinieri DNA experts Dr Barni and Dr Berti appointed for the 2013-14 Nencini appeal (which Netflix also omitted any mention of) visited the place to inspect it, and to pick up some key evidence, a DNA sample from the knife.
They made mention of what they encountered in their report and in court testimony. That was nearly three years ago (January 2014) long before the final cut of the movie and long before the sale to Netflix was a done deal.
In our view this HAD to be yet another deliberate dishonesty.
2. Catnip’s Translations Of Main Italian Reports Of Lab Closing
Catnip kindly provided us with these translations of some of the Italian news reports 18 months ago.
The March 2015 report from News 24
The Medico-Legal Institute of Sapienza University in Rome was closed down this morning.
For some time it has been known that unhygienic conditions were the norm in the Institute and the Rector of the University has decided today, in anticipation of NAS findings, to shut down the entire mortuary.
Sapienza’s Institute did not have adequate space to accommodate the large number pf bodies and quite often they had to be spread out along the corridors.
The hygiene rules were onerous and the building inadequate. It was for this reason that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had ordered a detailed report by NAS which would have presented their findings within a few weeks.
The Rector of the University, Eugenio Gaudio, has pre-empted the PPO’s expected closure of the Institute. The closure, explains Guadio, had been necessary to prevent the raising of legal questions as regards the autopsies being carried out, which would have risked the results being no longer reliable in future.
During the NAS inspections, even cadaver remains from 1990 had been found, a serious anomaly due to, as the mortuary attendants explained, the fact that no one had ever reclaimed the bodies. Another serious problem at the Sapienza Institute is the huge disorder that reigns inside the building, where, in point of fact, cadavers are to be found out in the corridors.
The March 2015 report from Corriere.
Rome: bodies in the mortuary corridors, Medico-Legal Institute of Sapienza closed
The Rector’s decision anticipates the MOSSA by the Prosecutor’s Office which has been investigating conditions at the Medico-Legal Institute of Rome’s flagship university
by Giulio De Santis
ROME – The University of Sapienza’s Legal Medicine Institute has been closed for health reasons. The decision has been made by the university’s Rector, Eugenio Gaudio, who made the order before the Prosecutor’s Office could make a move. At Clodio Place the investigators, in fact, are expecting the filing of a report by NAS, where serious hygienic shortcomings by the management of the Institute are highlighted.
The closure has been necessary to head off the raising of questions relating to future autopsy results that would have risked being unreliable. The problems discovered by the Carabinieri of the Health and Food Adulteration Unit – and noted to the university administration – relate to, in fact, the equipment, starting with the tables, intended for carrying out autopsies, which have deteriorated during the course of time. The oldest have been in the building since the early 1980s while those acquired more recently go back to ten years ago. Even the instruments used to examine the cadavers have deteriorated and should be replaced.
Cadavers in the corridors
During the inspections, remains of cadavers preserved since 1990 were found. An anomaly due to the fact that no one had ever reclaimed the bodies. The other problem raised by the doctors at the Institute and revealed by NAS is the disorder that reigns in the Institute, where it is possible to see cadavers in corridors due to the lack of space in which to store them. Sapienza has now promised to proceed with restoration works. There is lack of certainty though on the end point by which the Institute will become operative again. There is no compulsory time limit but the university has guaranteed a return to normality by the beginning of May.
Transferring the bodies
Contributing to the uncertainty are Sapienza’s empty coffers and the collection of funds is expected to be complicated. In the meantime, to try and minimise the impact of the closure, autopsies will be carried out at the Tor Vergata Institute directed by Professor Giovanni Arcudi. The bodies have already started to arrive in the last few days in the mortuary of that university and in some cases the work has been given to specialists from the Gemelli Polyclinic. A case file has been opened by the Prosecutor’s Office and assigned to Antonella Nespola who in October had already ordered the sequestration of the mortuary. The decision to close the Institute has been communicated to the Prosecutor’s Office, who is caught out by the choice.
The March 2015 report from RAI News.
Rome, Medico-Legal Institute closed. The Public Prosecutor’s Office is investigating health conditions. The decision of the Sapienza University Rector Ettore Gaudio. Cadavers from 1990 found.
Cadavers in the corridors because of lack of space for storing them, serious health issues in the management of the Institute. For this reason, Sapienza’s Medico-Legal Institute has been shut down for health reasons. The decision was made by the university’s Rector, Eugenio Gaudio, who made the order before the Prosecutor’s Office could make a move. At Clodio Place the investigators, in fact, are expecting the filing of a report by NAS, where serious hygienic shortcomings by the management of the Institute are highlighted.
The closure had been necessary to pre-empt questions being raised about the risk of future autopsy results being unreliable. During the inspections, cadaver remains preserved from 1990 were found. An anomaly due to the fact that no one had ever claimed the bodies. The other problem raised by the doctors at the Institute and noted by NAS is the disorder that reigns in the Institute, where it is possible to see cadavers in the corridors because of the lack of storage space.
The March 2015 report from Cronaca
Cadavers in corridors, Medico-Legal Institute in Rome closed
Rector Eugenio Gaudio’s decision: «Autopsy results at risk».
01 March 2015
There were cadavers in the corridors due to lack of space, as well as serious health issues in the management of the building. For this reason the Medico-Legal Institute at Sapienza University in Rome has been closed for health reasons.
RECTOR’S DECISION. The decision had been taken by the unicersity’s Rector, Eugenio Gaudio, who made the order before the Public Prosecutor’s Office could act. At Clodio Place, the investigators, in fact, are expecting the filing of a NAS report, where serious hygiene problems in the management of the Institute are highlighted. The closure was necessary to forestall questions being raised concerning future autopsy results which would have been at risk of being unreliable.
REMAINS OF CADAVERS FROM 1990. Inspections revealed remains of cadavers preserved from 1990. An anomaly due to the fact that no one had ever reclaimed the bodies. The other problem raised by the doctors at the Institute and noted by NAS is the disorder that reigns in the Institute, where it is possible to see cadavers in the corridors because of lack of space to store them.
The March 2015 report from Dagospia.
Sad corridors dimly lit. A room with refrigeration units from the 1980s, dozens of units occupied by the bodies of persons deceased by violent means and never recognised, never asked for, and, if foreigners, never repatriated. It’s here that, as many say, along the basement corridor it is even sadder: there’s no space inside and the cadavers are just left there, on trolleys, at times not even in mortuary bags. The smell, they say, is pungent and nauseating. To say nothing of the dissection tables and the equipment, or even the safety of the workers. Non-existent.
And so the Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation by NAS, the Carabinieri of the Health and Food Adulteration Unit [nucleo antisofisticazione e sanità]. Eugenio Gaudio, Rector of Sapienza University — of which the Medico-Legal Institute is a part — and Domenico Alessio, Director-General of the Polyclinic at Umberto I University, have pre-empted likely legal orders deciding to shut down the building.
It received the latest body last Wednesday a little before midnight. The others — like that of the young man squashed on Friday night by a bus in Piazza Venezia and dying in San Giovanni Hospital — will all be, from Thursday onwards, taken to the Gemelli Polyclinic.
A truly disconcerting situation for the largest mortuary in the Capital, the Sapienza Medico-Legal Institute. Already by October month end Public Prosecutor Antonella Nespola had sequestered six operating theatres at the Umberto I University Polyclinic, which is close to the mortuary, and also placed the Medico-Legal Institute in her sights.
And «for possible contamination, likely compromised results, the building physically falling apart, cadavers in the corridors and inadequate equipment», they explain in the mortuary. «NAS inspected the mortuary when I was not even Rector» explains Eugenio Gaudio. «We are all hopeful that the restoration works will conclude as soon as possible: within two months».
Eight years a scandal led to the lose of the operating theatre at Umberto I: not only were the health and safety conditions extremely bad (blood traces everywhere, building falling apart, a back and forth of funeral agency operators who were following the relatives of the deceased), but corneas were being stolen from the bodies, which in turn ended up having to be transferred from one place to another under armed guard. But today «we’re re-opening the Polyclinic dissection room» explains Gaudio. «I’ve put in an order for autopsy tables and new and modern equipment».
And even if the Rector highlights that the decision to close «had been taken in accord with the Health Director and Director-General of the Polyclinic, with all due care and authority» in the Public Prosecutor’s Office the news of the closure, which seems to have arrived with only 24 hours’ notice, has raised a storm. Chief Prosecutor Giuseppe Pignatone plays it down. But he also explains that today or at the latest tomorrow «there will be a meeting at the PPO with the top layers of management from the Polyclinic and Rector Eugenio Gaudio». And in the meantime, «for now, Gemelli will be asked to handle the immediate exigencies».
The funeral undertakers who tell of the scene from hell are describing «flies and bluebottles attracted by the odour, doors that don’t seal properly and when you go downstairs at the least you almost fall ill», as a source who works in the mortuary recalls. «But even on the first floor, where the forensic pathologists work, everything has remained stuck at 40 years ago. To say nothing of the place where the evidence is kept: all heaped up on each other, contaminated according to me unusable».
Captain Dario Praturlon, NAS Commander in Rome who last September on delegation from the Public Prosecutor’s Office carried out an inspection, explains that «we only had to check if there were health and safety irregularities: and we had found lots of them. The employers — that is the Rector and the Polyclinic Health Director — are obliged to fix up the building. To give the workers a safe place to work. We found none of all this». The first criminal charges are expected quite soon, although relating to previous management.
3. Lab Reopens Sans Vecchiotti
The lab has been closed for 18 months but now Corriere reports its reopening under the supervision of three prosecutors’ offices, making it all but impossible for either the lab or Vecchiotti to perpetrate further transgressions.
University’s Polyclinic takes over management of Rome’s mortuary instead of Sapienza University, while the forensic pathology department is now overseen by the three relevant Public Prosecutor’s Offices (Rome, Tivoli and Civitavecchia).
Archived in Evidence & witnesses, DNA and luminol, The two knives, Hoaxes against Italy, DNA contam hoax, Hoaxers - main media, The Netflix hoax, Hoaxers - main people, Conti & Vecchioti, More hoaxers, News media & movies, Terrible reporting, Movies on case
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (16)
Monday, October 17, 2016
Netflixhoax 13: Omitted - How The DNA Processes And Evidence Points Were Deliberately Misrepresented
Posted by KrissyG
First,a tip on the images. These are movie snippets with English subtitles included. They will expand to full screen in Acrobat Reader (please download it if you dont yet have it) if you click on each image.
I posted a general review of Netflix’s “Amanda Knox” several weeks ago. Here I want to drill down into the DNA section and to consider the inclusion in the film of the geneticists Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti.
I’ll explain how and why the film misleads the viewer via their inclusion. The choreography used by the film makers to present Knox and Sollecito as ‘exonerated’ and ‘innocent’ based on Vecchiotti & Conti’s narrative in the film will be revealed for the careful script that it is.
I’ll show why Vecchiotti & Conti’s declarations in the film are deceptive. An analysis of Vecchiotti and Conti’s entire role in attaining the release of the pair and the revelation of the hidden agenda that underlies the film will be explored. Let’s do it!
2. Fictions In The Movie
In the film, Vecchiotti and Conti appear quite deeply into the film, at minute 64 of 92 minutes. The appearance of the ‘DNA experts’ towards the end enables the film makers to reinforce the image of a great miscarriage of justice, leading up to the grand finale denouement.
Enter Conti. Referring to the evidence of Sollecito’s DNA found on the bra, Conti introduces the audience to a key principle of DNA. It is ‘dust spread everywhere,’ he avers. To set the scene, we are informed that the Forensic Police (‘Scientific Police’ in Italy) acted chaotically and that the crime scene was an absolute shambles. We hear an audio voiceover of a supposed scientific policeman saying to another ‘this is absurd, there is unbelievable chaos everywhere’.
So there we have it. ‘A crime scene must be completely sterile’. We are roundly informed that this crime scene was not, based on Conti’s word for it.
Next, enter his co-partner, the other ‘independent’ expert hired by the Hellmann appeal court to evaluate the evidence concerning he DNA identified on the presumed murder weapon knife, and the bra clasp sample: Carla Vecchiotti.
Carla Vecchiotti claims that the issue of contamination of the DNA ‘was raised by the court’. Shot moves to the scientific police as she continues, ‘ it could have been by other people’.
She then throws in a red herring. ‘There was the DNA of two unknown males on the clasp’, which we can dispense with straight away. In reality they were fragments of DNA, no more than 6 – 8 alleles, and precisely of the type of dust contamination Conti is talking about. This effectively subverts the issue away from the strong DNA profile of Sollecito found on the clasp.
She claims there are ‘problems with contamination in the laboratory’, yet in court she insisted the alleged contamination was at the collection stage, and not at the laboratory. A picture of the knife comes up.
Of the Kercher DNA on the blade she states, ‘It’s so small. So scarce, the likelihood of contamination is very high.’
From this, she concludes the Kercher DNA is ‘inconclusive’.
The film makers show us the picture at least three times with ‘INCONCLUSIVE’ in bold red letters. ‘I asked Dr Stefanoni (the forensic police chief in charge of this case) how she concluded this is the murder weapon without any other evidence?’
However, the courts upheld, and Conti and Vecchiotti themselves concurred under oath, that far from being inconclusive, it was a strong profile of Meredith, at 15 alleles.
Again, Vecchiotti repeats the lie that the laboratory was contaminated, when no such finding was upheld by any court, including Hellmann’s, by referring to Stefanoni stating she had examined fifty of Meredith’s samples at the same time, see above. She insinuates Stefanoni overrode standards so that they would not have to close the lab up between samples.
The film then cuts to clips of US media outrage at Vecchiotti’s findings of ‘contamination’, even dragging in Donald Trump, no doubt sucking on a tic tac, with just a small cameo of Mignini for ‘balance’, stating that ‘all evidence’ needs to be looked at, implying that Mignini accepted the alleged contamination and was now trying to deflect from it onto other evidence. The reader should bear in mind, that in fact, there was no such finding of contamination in Stefanoni’s labs.
Nor does she or her co-partner ever once in the film, and nor do the film makers mention that their report was discredited by the Chieffi Supreme court and Hellmann expunged.
We are shown a diagram of eight black spots of Rudy Guede’s traces and one white one for Sollecito, some distance away from the body, underneath which it was actually found. A police mug shot of Guede appears on screen, whom Knox describes as ‘ a guy who regularly committed burglaries’.
From this we are led to believe Guede is a seasoned criminal career burglar, when as of the time, he had no convictions at all. The film makers inform the audience it is, ‘a burglary gone wrong’, not a finding by any court, apart from the vacated Hellmann court. The balance (at roughly six to one against, in terms of time coverage) once again is provided by Mignini who points out its unfairness, given the evidence found at the trial.
The film then cuts to Conti, who makes an astonishing confession – for a scientific professional expert witness and professor – stating, ‘What happened inside that room between Guede and Meredith, was not a job assigned to me.’
So now it is out in the open, Vecchiotti and Conti, far from protecting their professional integrity by following their ethical code, which states that they are expected to act with objectivity in their professional role and should safeguard this by recusing themselves should they feel that they have become advocates for a party, in the film do not even hide their partisanship.
Conti feels confident in this ‘documentary’, now as a global film star, to declare his advocacy for Knox and Sollecito with the above statement.
‘Cicero once said’ – pause – ‘ Any man can err, but only a fool perseveres.’
Next, the film completely ignores that his and Vechiotti’s 2011 report was unceremoniously ridiculed in 2013 by the next level court – Chieffi, Supreme Court – and the pair branded as ‘intellectually dishonest’. It ignores that the case was remitted back to a completely different Appeal Court, in a completely different area, from Umbria to Tuscany, and under a completely different judge.
In the Netflix film, a diagram showing Knox’ DNA on the knife handle is admired as a strong profile. Meredith’s DNA on the blade is highlighted as a question mark. About three times, the viewer is shown the same diagram with the word ‘INCONCLUSIVE’ above the Meredith DNA in red letters.
The truth is, ALL of the defence experts – including Vecchiotti and Conti – accepted it was a strong DNA profile of Meredith (15-allele) so we see a blatant misrepresentation here, that rather than the confidently strong profile it is, Vecchiotti declares that it is ‘inconclusive’, and leads the viewer to believe this was because of proven contamination.
This deception is underlined by the film makers immediately galloping to the 2011 Hellman Court after the Vecchiotti & Conti interview, with wild scenes of Hellmann freeing the pair and declaring them innocent.
The connection is made: the knife DNA – and the bra clasp – is ‘contaminated’ and that is why the pair were freed. ‘This was the only flimsy evidence,’ is the message conveyed. Thanks to the lurid and putrid imaginings of Mignini and Pisa, those kids suffered, the viewer is told.
Cue mass media bombardment by the outraged Netflix viewers, on Twitter and Facebook excoriating Pisa, mostly, and also Mignini as having botched up the whole case and ruined the lives of these two kids.
3. The Hard Facts In Reality
- I will look at Vecchiotti and Conti’s true track record, which is appalling. The husband of a murder victim was denied justice for a staggering NINETEEN years, as DNA investigator Vecchiotti, et al, negligently refused to investigate the DNA of the perpetrator of the murder.
- How did Vecchiotti and Conti get appointed by Hellmann court at all? I reveal how the US contingent of pro-Amanda Knox scientists helped ‘fix’ it.
- I will highlight the legerdemain ploys adopted by the pair in preparing their report, which predicated Hellmann freeing the pair from prison. It was a moot point henceforth as to whether they would ever return.
- I will set out Chieffi’s and Nencini’s damning criticisms of Vecchiotti and Conti in the case. Crini points out, in the Nencini report, that Vecchiotti’s own laboratory fridge did not have a thermometer!
- I will show how the elaborate ‘heist’ of the judicial system in springing ‘the kids’ from jail happened. A US scientist, using Boise University resources Greg Hampikian was bragging to courts in the US under oath, even as Hellmann had been expunged and Nencini had just recommenced the appeal, that, ‘I am still working on the Amanda Knox case’.
- My analysis exposes the interconnections between US advocates Hampikian, Bruce Budowle and British forensic expert, Dr Peter Gill, with Vecchiotti and Conti, which casts grave doubt on the pair being ‘independent’ expert witnesses at all.
The Conti and Vecchiotti Track Record
On 21 April 2016, Carla Vechiotti, together with Pascali, Vicenza and Arberello, was found guilty in a civil suit of gross negligence in the examination of the murder of Contessa Ogliata, dating from 1991, and ordered to pay €150,000 in damages. Vecchiotti appears to have a reputation for cutting more corners than Stirling Moss, with other cases often quoted, with which she is associated.
Recently, Conti and Vecchiotti’s laboratory in Rome was closed down due to public health issues. Contamination almost certainly occurred in their laboratory. Rotting cadavers unclaimed by relatives, were said to have piled up in the corridors. Stefanoni’s laboratory, which followed all the conventional standards of the day was never proven to have been contaminated.
Carla Vecchiotti’s reputation is in tatters. She has made a number of shocking errors in a couple of murder cases, she repeatedly misled the appeal court - Judge Nencini described her and Conti’s work as “misleading” and “reprehensible”.
The Hellmann Court (Appeal Court)
On 18 Dec 2010 at the Hellmann appeal the defences made three unusual requests, (a) to get an independent review of the DNA and (b) to bring in Alessi to challenge Guede’s testimony and (c) Aviello, a mobster. Hellmann agreed to appoint Conti & Vecchiotti from La Sapienza University in Rome. In the interim 16 Dec 2010, Rudy Guede was definitively convicted.
Request (a) was challenged by Comodi, saying there were many experts for both sides already. Hellmann argued a judge did not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the experts’ opinions. Having achieved the appointment of Conti & Vecchiotti , Conti & Vecchiotti [‘the experts’] delivered the coup de grâce: claiming international standards were not met, contamination could not be ruled out, and that the DNA profile of Meredith could not be reliable.
The pair made the claim the DNA could have ‘come from dust’, strongly rebutted by Stefanoni, who said in that case, there should have been contamination elsewhere, not just on the bra clasp.
Contamination from the laboratory was completely ruled out, contrary to the claims made in the Netflix film, after which, ‘the experts’ moved to a stance that the contamination happened before it even got to the laboratories. At the hearing, Conti was constantly asked what the criteria were for alleging contamination, to which he replied, ‘Anything is possible’. As a scientist, a proper evaluation of probability was expected of him.
In their report they claimed, ‘The electrophoretic profiles exhibited reveal that the sample indicated by the letter B (blade of knife) was a Low Copy Number (LCN) sample, and, as such, all of the precautions indicated by the international scientific community should have been applied.’
It transpired ‘the experts’ had decided to use the US standards of Bruce Budowle and supported by Gill, et al., that the threshold for Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA should be raised to 200 picograms, from the hitherto conventional 100 picograms.
In addition, ‘the experts’ argued, the US standard of 50 RFU’s should be used in place of the then Italian standard of 30 RFU’s. Analysis of DNA below these levels introduces a higher risk of ‘background noise’; contamination from alien sources, i.e., everyday dust, which may contain DNA fragments.
Hellmann, ‘the experts’ and the US scientists getting involved, by virtue of ‘the experts’ quoting extensively from their papers, erred in presupposing that Dr Stefanoni knew nothing about these issues. Professor Novelli, for the state, challenged the claim that there was any contamination. Indeed ‘the experts’ were unable to demonstrate this other than by quoting lengthy academic papers which had little to do with mundane case law and more to do with ivory towers.
Vecchiotti, born 1951 with a long CV from medical student days would have known what Italian standards were, yet tried to subvert them in retrospect.
A complaint was lodged by the prosecution about the pair being seen to openly fraternise with Sollecito’s defence team during the hearing, a strict Bar Standard ‘no, no’ for an independent expert witness.
‘The experts’ refused to analyse a further sample of DNA found on the knife, giving the reason it was LCN, and they ‘didn’t want to make the same mistake as Stefanoni.’
Hellmann accepted ‘the experts’ findings and acquitted Knox and Sollecito declaring them innocent, aside from the calunnia for Knox, together with finding that Guede acted alone, as a ‘burglar disturbed.’
For the film makers, this defines the end of the film.
The Chieffi Court (Supreme Court)
In 2013 the next level of appeal court overturned completely Hellman’s findings. It rebutted that the DNA sample of Meredith’s was ipso facto low quality just because it was LCN.
‘The experts’ had claimed, relying on their US sources that LCN sampling should only be done on special projects, such as missing persons or cadaver identification, and that there was not the technology as it was ‘too innovative’.
Chieffi did not buy this, pointing to embryology studies. He scoffed at the idea of ‘the experts’ being more expert than Professor Novelli or Dr Torricelli. He censured Hellmann for failing to consider their equivalent expert knowledge. Chieffi was particularly critical of ‘the experts’ refusing to test the remaining knife sample, calling their reasoning, ‘intellectually dishonest’.
On 25 March 2013, Chieffi ordered the case back to the Appeal court to consider the DNA evidence again, amongst other issues, and that the knife sample be tested. One suspects ‘the experts’ were loath to test the sample in case it turned out be further DNA of Meredith, and this may be why Chieffi smelt a rat.
The Nencini Court (Appeal Court)
In 2014 Judge Nencini made it clear in a newspaper interview it was not within his remit to criticise ‘the experts’, but rather, to assess the legal rectitude of the Massei court decision, which Hellmann patently failed to do. However, criticise he does.
He directs Dr Barni, witness for the Carabinieri Lab, that ‘no US standards’ are to be quoted which C&V had done profusely. In upholding the findings of the Massei court he makes the following point in his reasoning about the DNA of the knife and bra clasp:
“… The consultant holds furthermore that the most appropriate technical approach to interpret the genetic profile arising from trace 165B and to avoid subjective interpretations is to “call upon”, meaning to consider as valid, all of the alleles with RFU > 50, independently of their position or whether or not they might be stutter.
Once the complete profile is determined, given that there may also be more than two contributors to the trace, we feel that the only statistical approach that can be used adequately here is the RMNE (Random Man Not Excluded) method.
This statistical approach makes it possible to estimate the possible error due to a chance compatibility, meaning that of a person chosen randomly from the population and who by pure chance is fully compatible with the genetic characteristics of the individual represented in the trace.
The higher and nearer to 1 that probability is, the more likely it is that the profile could be the result of a random choice and thus the higher the probability of an error in the attribution of the genetic profile to a given individual. In this case, as seen in Table 5, the profile of Raffaele Sollecito is compatible at all the loci analyzed in the mixture of DNA found on Exhibit 165B.
The probability that a random individual from the population would also be compatible (the inclusion probability)  was calculated, and came out to be equal to 3.05592 x 10^-6, which is about 1 in 327 thousand. This computation is considered to be extremely conservative, since all of the allelic components are taken into consideration together with their frequency in the reference population.” (Pages 15-17 of the technical report submitted at the 6 September 2011 hearing before the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia.)
The same investigative method was also suggested by the consultant of the Prosecutor in relation to the interpretation of the genetic profile of the markers located on the Y chromosome of trace 165B. Here again, all alleles with RFU>50 were considered, giving the following table:
 On the basis of the data in the above table, applying the method of statistical calculation indicated above, Prof. Novelli estimated the probability of a chance inclusion of a random person from the population in the mixed profile, together with the chance compatibility of this random individual with the major contributor to the Y chromosome, as about 1 in 3 billion.”
He upholds that the Forensic Police, aside from some human error, acted correctly and dismissed defence claims that Stefanoni had withheld raw data, and as claimed by ‘the experts’, citing documentary proof the information had been deposited. Nencini reinstated the convictions, 31 January 2014, and dismissed the claim of contamination.
The sample on the knife ‘the experts’ had claimed was ‘starch’ and ‘too low LCN’ was successfully tested and found to be that of Amanda Knox. None of this is mentioned by Vecchiotti & Conti in the film and nor do the film makers point it out, leaving their audience to believe ‘the experts’ claim of ‘contamination is proven’.
A key finding was that Professors Novelli and Torricelli had already been the target of the criticisms raised specifically by Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, technical consultant for the Sollecito defense, at the first instance trial court, and thus was a matter settled (res judicata).
This is important to note, for Marasca later describes Tagliabracci in glowing terms as ‘world renowned’ when he reinstates the Hellmann findings in this matter, at the next level. Nencini observes, ‘Finally, it is observed that Prof. Tagliabracci’s criticism is founded on an unproven and unprovable suspicion, namely that the biologist doing the work being already in possession of reference samples supposedly used the “suspect-centric” method.’
Nencini also found that the second instance [Hellman] court undervalued the fact that the tests carried out took place during the preliminary investigation [of which the Defence was notified and had the right to attend], that at the time of those tests, there were no objections concerning the sampling and laboratory activity, nor was a pre‐trial hearing requested regarding the testing, all of which proves agreement with the [laboratory] procedures.
Was There Contamination?
There were NO full male DNA profiles on the bra, apart from Sollecito and Guede’s.
Vecchiotti and Conti, significantly, in the film, try to detract from this highly incriminating scientific fact, by making reference to everyday dust fragments, as if that could possibly account for it.
The assertion by Conti in the film that ‘a crime scene must be kept sterile,’ is meaningless for there are many environmental pollutants at every crime scene.
The expert witness testimony of Professor David Balding, to the court is as follows, and who, until October 2009 was Professor in Statistical Genetics at Imperial College, London, where he still retains an affiliation as Visiting Professor. He is an editor of the Handbook of Statistical Genetics.
“Sollecito’s alleles are all represented and these generate the highest peaks, but there are some low peaks not attributable to him; so at least one of the additional contributors of low-level DNA to the sample was male.”
“They correctly criticised the scientific police for ignoring these: many do appear to be stutter peaks which are usually ignored, but 4 are not and definitely indicate DNA from another individual. The extra peaks are all low, so the extra individuals contributed very little DNA.
That kind of extraneous DNA is routine in low-template work: our environment is covered with DNA from breath and touch, including a lot of fragmentary DNA from degraded cells that can show up in low-template analyses. There is virtually no crime sample that doesn’t have some environmental DNA on it, from individuals not directly involved in the crime.
This does create additional uncertainty in the analysis because of the extra ambiguity about the true profile of the contributor of interest, but as long as it is correctly allowed for in the analysis there is no problem - it is completely routine.” (David Balding).
“in some cases we have peaks that correspond to a fourth person.”
“The fourth person is not Guede, it seems. This mystery fourth person hasn’t been mentioned much. (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending).
“But because Sollecito is fully represented in the stain at 16 loci (we still only use 10 in the UK, as the legal threshold, so 16 is a lot), the evidence against him is strong.”
“In this case all the peaks associated with Sollecito seem clear and distinct so I think there can be no concern about the quality of the result as far as it concerns him or Kercher.”
The Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI - the European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:
“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.
In other words, Conti and Vecchiotti were not referring to the specific guidelines and recommendation of one particular international forensic organisations despite giving that impression at the appeal in Perugia.
They cited a number of obscure American publications such as the the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Physical Evidence Handbook. The Italian Scientific Police are under no obligation to follow the DNA protocols of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory.
Professor Novelli also pointed out that contamination has to be proved:
“The contaminant must be demonstrated, where it originated from and where it is. The hook contaminated by dust? It’s more likely for a meteorite to fall and bring this court down to the ground.”
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.
Back in 2008 pre-trial there was an independent review of the forensic evidence.
Dr Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police, reviewed Dr Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He testified at Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial in October 2008 and confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable. He also praised the work of Dr. Stefanoni and her team.
“We are confirming the reliability of the information collected from the scene of the crime and at the same time, the professionalism and excellence of our work.”
So thus we have a pointer as to why Conti introduced his presentation by claiming ‘DNA is spread like dust.’
To the bottom line, then, WAS there any possibility of contamination, as Vecchiotti and Conti are now claiming in the film?
- 1. Conti and Vecchiotti didn’t prove there had been any contamination. Judge Chieffi pointed this out.
2. Conti and Vecchiotti lied to the appeal court - Judge Nencini pointed this out - and they didn’t test the DNA sample despite the fact they were specifically instructed to do so.
3. Numerous DNA experts believe the bra clasp is strong evidence - Professor Balding, Professor Novelli, Luciano Garofano, Professor Torricelli and Dr Biondo.
4. It’s impossible that the knife was contaminated.
5. There is no universally accepted DNA standards for collecting and testing DNA evidence. DNA protocols vary from country to country.
6. Conti and Vecchiotti cited obscure sources, They didn’t refer to the specific guidelines of an international forensic organisation.
7. Conti and Vecchiotti excluded contamination in the laboratory.
8. The defence experts had no objections when the DNA evidence was tested.
9. Vecchiotti made calamitous errors in other cases and her lab was closed down.
10. Does anyone really believe Sollecito’s DNA floated on a speck of dust under Meredith’s door and landed on the exact part of her bra clasp that had been bent out of shape during the attack on her?
The Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court (Final)
In the final Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court appeal, the short-form provisional 48- page reasoning from March 2015, the guilty verdicts as upheld by Massei and Nencini are overturned, and Vecchiotti & Conti‘s report reinstalled.
“The second reason [the first reason being: The first reason challenged the violation and inobservance of the criminal law], highlights a problem of great relevance in the circumstance of the present judgment, that is the right interpretation of the scientific examination results from a perspective of respect of the evaluation standards according to article 192 of the criminal procedural code and the relevance of the genetic evaluation in the absence of repeatable amplification, as a consequence of the minimal amount of the sample and, more generally, the reliability coefficient of investigations carried out without following the regulations dictated by the international protocols, both during the collecting phase and the analysis.
Particularly, anomalies were challenged in the retrieval of the knife (item 36) and the victim’s brassiere hook, which do not exclude the possibility of contamination, as correctly outlined in the Conti-Vecchiotti report, ordered by the Perugian Court of assizes, which also notified the unreliability of the scientific data, precisely because it was not subject to a further examination.
It was also denied that the retrieved knife would have been the crime weapon.”
Thus, we see the First (Chieffi) Supreme Court Chambers directly challenged by the Fifth Chambers and the criticisms of Vecchiotti and Conti swept aside, as though they had never happened.
Judges Marasca & Bruno write:
‘In fact, no trace of Sollecito was found in the room of the murder. The only element of proof against him was represented by the DNA trace retrieved on the brassiere hook of the victim; trace of which relation with the indicted was actually denied by the Vecchiotti-Conti report, which, in this regard, had accepted the observations of the defense advisor Professor Tagliabracci, world-renowned geneticist.’
It further states:
‘12) Also erroneous was the interpretation of the results of the genetic evidence on item 36) …[…]
14) Obvious also was the flawed reasoning on the results of the genetic investigations on the bra hook, …[…]…
With regard to the possible contamination of the item, the appeal judges overlooked the photographic material placed before the court, which clearly demonstrated the possible contamination, regarding the way the hook was treated, with a “hand to hand” passage carried out by persons who wore dirty latex gloves.
Furthermore, a second amplification was not carried out on the hook …[…]… With regard to this, the objections by the defense and the contrary conclusions of the defense adviser professor Tagliabracci, were not considered.’
In other words, the DNA evidence for the knife and the bra clasp is completely dismissed. We see no proper rationale by Judge Marasca, just a few handfuls of abstractions along the lines of Conti’s famous, ‘Anything is possible.’
It takes on board Gill’s theories of ‘secondary’ and ‘tertiary’ transfer of DNA, when Gill himself appears to have overlooked that he himself wrote, that ‘this is highly improbable after 24 hours have passed’.
If Marasca’s rulings are considered bizarre, then light is shed when one realises that Bongiorno, for Sollecito, was given NINE times longer to present her appeal than any of the other parties, so it is fair comment to assume its reasoning is based on Bongiorno’s appeal points.
Nobody from either the Perugia or Florence prosecution teams was even present.
In addition, her 306 page appeal was appended with Gill’s advocacy report. Gill was never cross-examined.
The resuscitation of the hitherto presumed decaying corpse of Vecchiotti & Conti is remarkable, given the cadaver of their report to Hellmann was picked raw, first by the First Chambers Supreme Court (Chieffi) and then Judge Nencini.
Vecchiotti and Conti have risen like Lazarus from a car crash, shrouded in the malodorous cloth of something fishy.
How the ‘Heist’ was pulled off.
Andrea Vogt wrote of the Marasca reasoning: ‘In my opinion, their report is superficial at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, when even the most minimal amount of Quellenkritik is applied’.
Andrea Vogt writes an incisive analysis of the US influence on the C&V reports, which I cannot better here, so do read it for yourself.
However, I will repeat her prophecy, ironic in hindsight:
“If Knox is acquitted at the end of this month, the quiet American hand in her forensic defense will be heralded as the turnkey that made the ultimate difference in her case. But if she is convicted, there are legitimate questions to be asked about exactly what public resources were spent on this international defense.”
Vogt uncovered what appears to be a whole secret network that she was unable to penetrate through the fog of Freedom of Information law, which enabled Hampikian to claim ‘trade secrets’ as a project of Boise University, where his laboratory is based, to evade the question of, ‘Who was funding his Amanda Knox advocacy work?’
If then it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that both Meredith’s and Sollecito’s DNA is strong and background contamination ruled out by the trial courts, why then does the film revisit the discredited testimony of ‘court experts’ Vecchiotti & Conti?
We can link this back to the film makers own self-professed strong pro-Knox beliefs in her innocence. Thus we have come full circle.
The defence managed to convince the now expunged Hellmann court to appoint ‘independent experts’; the Chieffi Supreme Court ruled that, whilst this was within Hellmann’s remit, he did not provide adequate reasoning for doing so.
Vecchiotti & Conti, remarkably, in their report, relied heavily on US standards, thus making the straw man claim that Italy hadn’t followed them, notwithstanding their strong academic and legal background in Italy. This therefore cannot have been due to ignorance, so we have to point to their own volition to be influenced strongly by Knox-advocates.
For example, Hampikian, funded by Boise University grants and protected by a blanket of secrecy, citing ‘trade secrets’ when journalist Andrea Vogt requested information under the Freedom of Information statutes.
In addition, Bruce Budowle, a more conservative ex-FBI forensic expert, was heavily relied upon, together with peers Gill, et al. It was at this stage Gill may have got roped in. His later book draws on Vecchiotti &Conti’s Hellmann’s Report.
Thus, we see a band of pro-Amanda Knox advocates determined to influence the so-called ‘independent’ experts, even when both Hampikian’s and Budowle’s reports were rejected as depositions by the courts. Even when ‘the experts’ were spiked by the Chieffi Supreme court, Hampikian was still averring, ‘I am involved in the Amanda Knox case’.
Friends of Amanda Knox even today lovingly quote Hellmann despite his de facto ex-communication from the judiciary. Little surprise we see the film makers eager to include Vecchiotti and Conti, who made it all possible for the birds to fly.
On the subject of Dr Peter Gill, who is widely regarded as having influenced the Fifth Chambers, via Bongiorno’s Appeal, to which his theories were attached, is now drawing on Vecchiotti and Conti as his main source, so we have a case of the experts’ racing car, as it were, driven by the man referred to devoutly by the defence as ‘the father of forensic science’.
Dr Naseer Ahmed of PMF.net was moved to comment:
– A look at his sources show that the chapter on Meredith Kercher was directly influenced by the Conti-Vecchiotti report.
– He argues contamination, but doesn’t prove a path of transmission.
– He cites papers on secondary transfer of DNA, but misses the point his suggested routes, RS>door handle>investigator’s latex glove>bra clasp is tertiary transfer.
– He argues the low cell count of Meredith’s Kercher’s DNA on the knife suggests contamination without considering that rigorous washing with household bleach might degrade it. (Yet miraculously those cells did provide a full match with Meredith’s DNA)
– The shoe box belonging to Meredith story has been shot down.
– He clearly has not read Inspector Gubbiotti or Finci’s testimonies, which removes all possible paths of ‘innocent transfer’.
– Reading the actual research papers he cites, there is no way that such significant amounts of DNA could actually transfer to the bra clasp.
– He did not review Patrizia Stefanoni’s Scientific Report or any of her notes, instead relying on the IIP translated C&V report and Hellmann decision.
– He refers to the Meredith Kercher wiki, but never even looked at the DNA segments which would have alerted him to problems with the C&V report.
– He may have had indirect input from Sollecito’s first DNA expert, Vincenzo Pascali, and Carla Vecchiotti, but does not seem to know of Vecchiotti’s colorful record of falsifying evidence.
Last, and worst of all, he did not refer to the Supreme Court decision annulling Hellmann even though the translation was widely available almost ten months before his book was published.
There is no way he could not have known this, since we had been in contact with him since earlier this year. It is unconscionable that he chose this route to promote his theories. Elsevier under its new ownership and editorial policies seem to have allowed any number of self-published books to be written.
If Professor Gill had written a scholarly text book it would have to be reviewed by an editorial board and sent for peer review, which might have led to professional experts critiquing and hopefully pointing out his errors.
Instead, he wrote a slim, unreviewed ‘popular’ book to promote his own theories, which, embarrassing perhaps for him, is being critiqued and torn apart by lay persons, ahem.
Misleading DNA Evidence – Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Peter Gill, Academic Press. Quote:
Recommendation 1: The expert should provide the court with an unbiased list of all possible modes of transfer of DNA evidence (pg 20).”
The irony is not lost.
My Main Sources:
Thanks to Naseer Ahmed and The Machine, for the section on ‘Contamination?’
The Machine’s analysis of 50 of the most common myths still promoted.
My thanks to the wonderful translators and everybody who helped me with material.
Archived in Evidence & witnesses, DNA and luminol, Hoaxes against Italy, DNA contam hoax, Hoaxes by Knox, Knox alibis hoax, Hoaxers - main media, The Netflix hoax, Hoaxers - main people, More hoaxers, News media & movies, Terrible reporting, Movies on case
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (22)
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Netflixhoax 12: Omitted - How In Multiple Ways Poorly Researched Movie Contradicts Knox’s Own Book
Posted by Chimera
1 Knox’s Own Book Says Differently
Inadmissibility issues aside, the film is blatantly contradicted by many claims WITHIN KNOX’S OWN BOOK. Links below are for my extended series “Revenge of the Knox” on close to 1000 defamations and lies.
I rated the book as 90-95% bullshit. There is a reason it was not 100%—because there are truthful parts of it which contradict other parts. Research anyone?
Click here for post: Revenge Of The Knox: How Knox’s Body Of Lies Headed For The Dark Side (Series Overview)
Click here for post: Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #1
Click here for post: How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #1
Click here for post: How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #2
Click here for post: How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #3
Click here for post: Revenge “On” The Knox: Bruno And Marasca Strike Back
Click here for post: Revenge of the Knox, Series 4: Exposing The Tortured Logic That Permeates Her Book #1
Click here for post: Revenge of the Knox, Series 4: Exposing The Tortured Logic That Permeates Her Book #2
2. Precisely How Knox Tries To Have It Both Ways
(A) Knox didn’t speak Italian in 2007, but supplies long conversation (that were in Italian), word for word.
(B) Knox tries to be “respectful” towards Meredith’s memory, while publishing lurid details about her death and sexual assault.
(C) Knox tries to be “fair” towards others in her life, while smearing them for drug use.
(D) Knox “thanks” her lawyers, while citing supposed incidents of their illegal acts, and professional misconduct.
(E) Knox was traumatized by her “interrogation” from Mignini, but remembers it (in Italian), word for word
(F) The same crime scene experts who “bungled” things for AK/RS were professional regarding Guede
(G) The same DNA experts who “failed to meet international standards” for AK/RS, did a great job against Guede
(H) The same authorities who “jumped to conclusions” against AK/RS, handled Guede properly.
(I) The same Judge Paolo Micheli who ran a “farce of a pre-trial” for AK/RS, properly presided over Guede’s short form trial
(J) Roommates and eyewitnesses who implicate AK/RS are “unreliable”, yet jailhouse snitches who make exculpatory claims are “very credible”.
(K) AK frequently claims “I don’t remember”, while criticizing unreliable memories of Capazelli, Quintavalle, and others.
(L) AK criticizes Italian Authorities for being dishonest, but admits to fabricating parts of this “memoir”
(M) And on, and on, and on ....
3. Contradictions Just In Author’s Note At Back
Admission #1: Knox Admits she Didn’t Write WTBH
[Author’s Note] ” .... I wouldn’t have been able to write this memoir without Linda Kulman. Somehow, with her Post-it notes and questions, with her generosity, dedication, and empathy, she turned my rambling into writing, and taught me so much in the meantime.”
So why isn’t Linda Kuhlman listed as the author instead of Knox?
Admission #2: Knox Admits She Doesn’t Know What her Source Material is
[Author’s Note] ” .... The writing of this memoir came to a close after I had been out of prison for over a year. I had to relive everything, in soul-wrenching detail. I read court documents and the transcripts of hearings, translated them, and quoted them throughout.”
So, what is the main source of the book? AK claims that court documents and transcripts are translated and quoted throughout, yet those quotes are oddly absent from the book. What exactly is AK “re-living”? She claims not to speak Italian, yet quotes Italian conversations verbatim. Knox also claims to have been traumatized, but she “remembers” the details and conversations almost perfectly. And wasn’t a huge part of the 2009 defense that she and RS couldn’t remember anything?
The only documents that seem to be “quoted” are: (1) Matteini verdict where Knox did a snowjob on Judge Matteini by framing Lumumba; (2) 3rd Statement of November 5/6, 2007; (3) AK’s statement to Hellmann Appeal Court.
Admission #3: Knox Admits Parts of the Book are fabricated
[Author’s Note] ” .... The names of certain people, including friends, prisoners, and guards, have been changed to respect their privacy.”
Knox “did” create the persona of Cristiano, the man she met on the train. His real name is Federico Martini, a drug dealer whose number Knox gave to authorities. This information is publicly available. Some “tell-all” book. Makes one wonder if AK “changed” the name of her attacker to Rita Ficarra, or “changed” the name of her interrogator to Guiliano Mignini. Unfortunately, AK never specifies “which” names she changed. Also makes one wonder if AK should also have added the disclaimer that certain events had been changed as well.
Admission #4: Knox Admits she Spoke Italian (even in 2007)
[Author’s Note] ” .... Aided by my own diaries and letters, all the conversations were rendered according to my memory.”
How did Knox “remember” long Italian conversations is 2007? She claimed to know only basic Italian, so either that claim is false, or the conversations are largely made up. Or both.
Admission #5: Knox Implies Book is Largely Fictional
[Author’s Note] ” .... So much has been said of the case and of me, in so many languages, in so many books, articles, talk shows, news reports, documentaries, and even a TV movie. Most of the information came from people who don’t know me, or who have no knowledge of the facts.”
While this comment seems to imply that “other” media is based on people with no knowledge of the case, taken literally, it could mean that WTBH was also written by someone who didn’t know Knox, and had no knowledge of the case. Ms. Kuhlman? I’m looking at you.
Admission #6: Knox Never Bothered to Change Anything From the 2013 Version of WTBH
[Author’s Note] ” .... Until now I have personally never contributed to any public discussion of the case or of what happened to me.”
While that “may” have been true when the book was released in 2013, Knox did at least 30 interviews since then
4. Contradictions In Body Of Book Itself
Admission #7: Knox Admits There was no Contamination of Evidence
(a) While Claiming Evidence Against AK/RS is “contaminated” ....
[Chapter 23, Page 276] ” ... Starting right after we were indicted, Raffaele’s and my lawyers had requested the raw data for all Stefanoni’s forensic tests. How were the samples collected? How many cotton pads had her team used to swab the bathroom sink and the bidet? How often had they changed gloves? What tests had they done - and when? Which machines had they used, at what times, and on which days? What were the original unedited results of the DNA tests?”
[Chapter 25, Page 304] ‘’ ... When the defense questioned her, Napoleoni’s manner switched from professional —albeit dishonest—to exasperated, incredulous, and condescending. For instance, when Raffaele’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno asked if the gloves police used at the crime scene were sterilized or one-use gloves, Napoleoni took a snarky tone, saying, “It’s the same thing.”
[Chapter 27, Page 338] ‘’ ....Gino said. Stefanoni had met none of the internationally accepted methods for identifying DNA. When the test results are too low to be read clearly, the protocol is to run a second test. This was impossible to do, because all the genetic material had been used up in the first test. Moreover, there was an extremely high likelihood of contamination in the lab, where billions of Meredith’s DNA strands were present.
[Chapter 32, Page 414] Before the first trial, the defense began requesting forensic data from the prosecution in the fall of 2008, but DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni dodged court orders from two different judges. She gave the defense some of, but never all, the information. Now it was Conti and Vecchiotti’s turn to try to get the raw data that Stefanoni had interpreted to draw conclusions about the genetic profiles on the knife and the bra clasp. Stefanoni continued to argue that the information was unnecessary. Not until May 11, under additional orders from Judge Hellmann, did she finally comply.
(b).... Knox Admits Evidence Against Guede is Solid and “Properly” Collected
[Chapter 10, Page 105] ‘’ .... There was a bloody handprint smeared on the wall and a bloody shoeprint on the floor. A blood-soaked handkerchief was lying in the street nearby.’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... “Amanda, the investigators are in a conundrum,” Carlo said. “They found so much of Guede’s DNA in Meredith’s room and on and inside her body. But the only forensic evidence they have of you is outside her bedroom. Raffaele’s DNA evidence is only on the bra hook. If you and Raffaele participated in the murder, as the prosecution believes, your DNA should be as easy to find as Guede’s.” “But Carlo, no evidence doesn’t mean we cleaned up. It means we weren’t there!” “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede. I know it doesn’t make sense. They’re just adding another link to the story. It’s the only way the prosecution can involve you and Raffaele when the evidence points to a break-in and murder by Guede.”
[Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... The evidence gathered during the investigation pointed toward his guilt. His DNA was all over Meredith’s room and her body, on her intimate clothing and her purse. He had left his handprint in her blood on her pillowcase. He had fled the country. The prosecution called Guede’s story of how he “happened” to be at the villa and yet had not participated in the murder “absurd”—though they readily believed his claims against Raffaele and me. One of the big hopes for us was that with so much evidence against Guede, the prosecution would have to realize Raffaele and I hadn’t been involved….
[Chapter 27, Page 339] ” Copious amounts of Rudy Guede’s genetic material had been found in Meredith’s bedroom, on her body, in her purse, and in the toilet.”
[Afterword, Page 464] ” .... None of my DNA was found in my friend Meredith Kercher’s bedroom, where she was killed. The only DNA found, other than Meredith’s, belonged to the man convicted of her murder, Rudy Guede. And his DNA was everywhere in the bedroom. It is, of course, impossible to selectively clean DNA, which is invisible to the naked eye. We simply DNA and left Guede’s and Meredith’s behind. Nor was any other trace of me found at the murder scene, not a single fingerprint, footprint, piece of hair, or drop of blood or saliva. My innocence and Raffaele’s was irrefutable. Like my legal team, I believed that the Corte di Cassazione would affirm the innocence finding.
AK goes on at length about how unprofessional the Italian CSI are, and how substandard their methods are. However, AK repeatedly rants about how strong the evidence is against Guede. “Copious” amounts of evidence seems to be Knox’s favourite expression. So, are the Italian authorities complete crime-scene-destroying screw-ups, or did they do a good job? It can’t simultaneously be both. Perhaps the “A-Team” was sent in first get the evidence against Guede, while the “Inspector Gadget Team” went bumbling in afterwards.
Admission #8: Knox Admits that Conti and Vecchiotti Were “Selective” in Which DNA They Tested
[Chapter 32, Page 415] ” .... Now it was Conti and Vecchiotti’s turn to try to get the raw data that Stefanoni had interpreted to draw conclusions about the genetic profiles on the knife and the bra clasp. Stefanoni continued to argue that the information was unnecessary. Not until May 11, under additional orders from Judge Hellmann, did she finally comply.”
AK talks many times about how these experts were “independent, court appointed”. In the Common Law Countries, such experts are referred to as “friends of the Court”, meaning their allegience is to the Court, not to either the Prosecution or Defense. If that was the case, would they not want to test as many samples as possible to see just how far (if at all), that contamination really happened? If police methods were as shoddy as AK describes, why in the world analyze just 2 samples??? Why go through the time, effort and expense to hire these experts if you are only going to contest 2 pieces of DNA??? Heck, just look all the above section, with all those “copius” amounts of evidence that supposedly implicated Guede.
Conti and Vecchiotti later ran into legal trouble over their methods, but just from reading this book, it seems they were partial and selective about their work.
Admission #9: Knox Admits that Claims of her Being “Sex-Obsessed” Really Are True
[Chapter 2, Page 16] This was my first bona fide one-night stand.
I’d told my friends back home that I couldn’t see myself sleeping with some random guy who didn’t matter to me. Cristiano was a game changer.
We didn’t have a condom, so we didn’t actually have intercourse. But we were making out, fooling around like crazy, when, an hour later, I realized, I don’t even know this guy. I jumped up, kissed him once more, and said good-bye. I went upstairs to the tiny room Deanna and I were sharing.
She was wide awake, standing by the window. “Where have you been?” she asked. “I didn’t know where you were or if you were okay.”
[Chapter 3, Page 32] “Do you want to eat at my place?” Mirko asked. “We can watch a movie.”
“Sure,” I said, and instantly felt an inner jolt. It came from the sudden certainty that we would have sex, that that’s where our flirtation had been heading all along.
We carried our pizza boxes through Piazza Grimana, by the University for Foreigners, and down an unfamiliar street, past a park. Mirko’s house was at the end of a gravel drive. “I live here with my sister,” he told me.
During dinner at his kitchen table my thoughts battled. Was I ready to speed ahead with sex like this? I still regretted Cristiano. But I’d also been thinking about what Brett and my friends at UW had said. I could picture them rolling their eyes and saying, “Hell000, Amanda. Sex is normal.” Casual sex was, for my generation, simply what you did.
[Chapter 4, Page 39] The next morning I got up before he did, got dressed, and went to make myself breakfast. Bobby came into the kitchen a few minutes later. We were eating cookies when Laura came out of her bedroom. I’d never entertained a lover at the villa for breakfast, and it was awkward, despite Laura’s proclaimed sense of easy sexuality. All three of us tried to ignore the feeling away.
After breakfast Bobby left to return to Rome. 1 walked him to the door. He smiled, waved, and walked away.
I didn’t feel the same regret I’d had after sex with Mirko, but I still felt the same emptiness. I had no way of knowing what a big price I would end up paying for these liaisons.
[Chapter 5, Page 57] Being with Raffaele also taught me a big lesson about my personality that I’d tried so hard—and harmfully, in Cristiano’s case—to squelch. I was beginning to own up to the fact that casual hookups like I’d had with Mirko and Bobby weren’t for me.
I like being able to express myself not just as a lover but in a loving relationship. Even from the minuscule perspective of a few days with Raffaele, I understood that, for me, detaching emotion from sex left me feeling more alone than not having sex at all—bereft, really.
This isn’t so much an “admission”, but showing the obvious. 4 of the first 5 chapters go on and on about her casual flings, and the book is littered with references to her bunny vibrator. Later chapters make serious accusations (never reported) of sexual assault, and sexual harassment.
Admission #10: Knox Admits She Likes Writing Stories (True or False) About Women Being Sexually Abused
[Chapter 6, Page 73] ” .... itself—how sadistic her killer had been. When the police lifted up the corner of Meredith’s beige duvet they found her lying on the floor, stripped naked from the waist down. Her arms and neck were bruised. She had struggled to remain alive. Her bra had been sliced off and left next to her body. Her cotton T-shirt, yanked up to expose her breasts, was saturated with blood. The worst report was that Meredith, stabbed multiple times in the neck, had choked to death on her own blood and was found lying in a pool of it, her head turned toward the window, eyes open.”
[Chapter 8, Page 92] ” .... While we stood there, the detectives started asking me pointed questions about Giacomo and Meredith. How long had they been together? Did she like anal sex? Did she use Vaseline?”
[Chapter 10, Page 104] “.... There was evidence that Meredith had been penetrated, but none that proved there had been an actual rape.”
[Chapter 10, Page 119] ” .... I do not remember if Meredith was there or came shortly afterward. I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her.”
[Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... Still, what came next shocked me. After my arrest, I was taken downstairs to a room where, in front of a male doctor, female nurse, and a few female police officers, I was told to strip naked and spread my legs. I was embarrassed because of my nudity, my period—I felt frustrated and helpless. The doctor inspected the outer lips of my vagina and then separated them with his fingers to examine the inner. He measured and photographed my intimate parts. I couldn’t understand why they were doing this. I thought, Why is this happening? What’s the purpose of this? ....’‘
[Chapter 12, Page 145] ” .... “Your panties and bra, please,” Lupa said. She was polite, even gentle, but it was still an order. I stood naked in front of strangers for the second time that day. Completely disgraced, I hunched over, shielding my breasts with one arm. I had no dignity left. My eyes filled with tears. Cinema ran her fingers around the elastic of the period-stained red underwear I’d bought with Rafael at Bubble,”
[Chapter 12, Page 152] ” .... Later, while I was sitting on the toilet, the redheaded guard came by and watched me through the peephole. So there was no privacy at all, then.”
[Chapter 16, Page 192] ” .... 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?”
[Chapter 17, Page 197] ” ....November 15-16,2007.Vice-Comandante Argiro broke the news. Instead of his usual greeting—a lecherous smile and a kiss on both cheeks—he stayed seated behind his desk.”
[Chapter 18, Page 207] ” .... They were convinced that Meredith had been raped—they’d found her lying on the floor half undressed, a pillow beneath her hips—and that the sexual violence had escalated to homicidal violence.”
[Chapter 24, Page 286] ” .... They said she kissed me once and that I feared further sexual harassment. They knew she was a cleaning fanatic and that she wouldn’t let me make coffee because it would leave water spots on the sink.”
[Chapter 27, Page 335] ” .... I couldn’t stand thinking about Meredith in the starkly clinical terms the scientists were using to describe her. Did her bruises indicate sexual violence or restraint? What did the wounds to her hands and neck suggest about the dynamics of the aggression? What did the blood splatter and smears on the floor and armoire prove about her position in relation to her attacker or attackers?”
[Chapter 30, page 377] ” .... When we first met, we’d entertained each other making light of prison’s darkest aspects—being subjected to daily strip searches by agenti”
AK was made (more) infamous from her “Baby Brother” story, published online in 2007
[Chapter 18, Page 207] ” ....They published parts of a short story I’d written for a UW creative writing class, about an older brother angrily confronting his younger brother for raping a woman.”
Also see this (supplied by Hopeful), where Knox gets to “proxy-rape” someone else. The 3rd paragraph is disturbing.
Again, not so much an admission, but showing the obvious. Just a thought, but maybe Meredith’s murder really wasn’t about anger or jealousy. Perhaps Knox is just a sexual predator, who decided to “silence” her victim afterwards.
Admission #11: Knox Admits There is a Strong Case
[Chapter 6, Page 65] Reference to the bloody footprint on the bathmat, (dismissed as “dripping”)
[Chapter 10, Page 113] Knox admits Sollecito pulled her alibi.
[Chapter 17, Page 197] References the murder weapon being found.
[Chapter 17, Page 199] Reference to a striped sweater that went missing.
[Chapter 18, Page 212] Reference to AK’s blood on the faucet (and implausible story about taking earrings out).
[Chapter 20, Page 234] Reference to story of RS killing Meredith, then planting AK’s fingerprints.
[Chapter 21, Page 245] Reference to RS DNA on bra clasp.
[Chapter 21, Page 246] Reference to the bloody footprints in the hall.
[Chapter 21, Page 250] Reference to blood soaked bathroom.
[Chapter 22, Page 269] Reference to the bloody knife imprint on Meredith’s bedsheet.
[Chapter 23, Page 280] References to attempts to stage crime scene.
[Chapter 25, Page 291] References to statements of November 5/6.
[Chapter 25, page 297] Reference to the cut on AK’s neck (which she calls a hickey)
[Chapter 25, Page 307] Reference to AK/RS phones being switched off.
[Chapter 26, Page 313] Reference to Kokomani seeing Knox/Sollecito/Guede together.
[Chapter 26, Page 314] Reference to Marco Quintavalle seeing Knox in his store the morning after.
[Chapter 26, Page 315] Reference to neighbor Nara Capezzali hearing Meredith scream.
[Chapter 26, Page 318] Reference to Antonio Curatolo seeing Knox.
[Chapter 26, Page 325/326] Knox testimony restricted to calunnia charge.
[Various] See the section below. Knox makes numerous incriminating admissions. Details she knew about the murder.
Admission #12: Knox Admits She Knows What Happened to Meredith
(a) Knox knew that Guede had used the toilet at her flat. There is no other explanation. Consider that Meredith’s murder happened sometime between 10pm and midnight, and Knox came back around 11am the next morning. This means it had been unflushed for 11-13 hours.
(b) Knox knew Meredith had her throat cut—before the police did.
(c) Knox knew that Meredith had been moved—before the police did.
(d) Knox knew Meredith had been sexually assaulted—before the police did.
(e) Knox knew that Meredith had suffered.
(f) Knox knew that Meredith had screamed—a detail confirmed by neighbours.
(g) Knox knew more about Guede’s criminal past than the police did assuming this isn’t just another smear
(h) Know knew which knife was the murder weapon
(I) Knox knew that Meredith’s money had been taken.
(j) Knox knew—as did Sollecito—that nothing had been taken during the break in.
(k) Knox knew a black man was involved. She just falsely accused the wrong one.
(l) Knox’s “alibi” for her footprints—Sollecito’s—in Meredith’s blood was that it was just bleach.
Although the details have been “dripping” out, this in particular reads like a pretty damning murder confession.)
Admission #13: Knox Admits her “50 hour interrogation” is false
[Chapter 6, Page 77] ” .... Now I see that I was a mouse in a cat’s game. While I was trying to dredge up any small thing that could help them find Meredith’s killer and trying to get my head around the shock of her death, the police were deciding to bug Raffaele’s and my cell phones.
[Chapter 7, Page 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. The police gave Rafael and me explicit instructions to be back at the questura a few hours later, at 11 A.M. “Sharp,” they said.
[Chapter 10, Page 105] ” .... But trying to be adult in an unmanageable situation, I borrowed Raffaele’s sweatpants and walked nervously to my 9 A.M. grammar class. It was the first time since Meredith’s body was found that I’d been out alone.
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?”
[Chapter 10, Page 108] ” .... 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.”
They gave me a chair outside the waiting room, by the elevator. I’d been doing drills in my grammar workbook for a few minutes when a silver-haired police officer—I never learned his name—came and sat next to me. He said, “As long as you’re here, do you mind if I ask you some questions?”
I was still clueless, still thinking I was helping the police, still unable or unwilling to recognize that I was a suspect.”
[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.”
“What about his text message? What time did you receive that?”
“I don’t know. You have my phone,” I said defiantly, trying to combat hostility with hostility. I didn’t remember that I’d deleted Patrick’s message.”
[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.”
A number of points to address in the “Knox Interrogation Hoax”
(a) Knox complains that her phone and RS’ were tapped, but it seems that no effort was ever made either to pull their phone records, confirm their locations, confirm if the phones were on, or to read any text messages. Seems very half assed. Knox further claims that while she and RS were the targets, police went out of their way to get them to implicate—someone else! Patrick Lumumba.
(b) Knox admits that “all” the residents of the house were detained, not just her. And hanging around the central police station is not the same as being questioned.
(c) Knox admits she went to class on Monday
(d) Knox admits she showed up at the Questura uninvited
(e) Knox admits she had to ask to be let in and to stay on
(f) Knox admits she gave PL’s name to the police
Admission #14: Knox Admits that Mysogeny was not an Issue
All of these women were involved in the case and none claimed THEY were made targets:
(a) Monica Napoleoni—Chief Inspector
(b) Rita Ficarra—Inspector
(c) Manuela Comodi—Prosecutor
(d) Claudia Matteini—Judge
(e) Patrizia Stefanoni—DNA expert
(f) Sarah Gino—Defense DNA expert
(g) Maria del Grosso—Knox lawyer
(h) Guilia Bongiorno—Sollecito lawyer
(i) Carla Vecchiotti—“Independent” expert appointed by Judge Hellmann
So at least 9 women were described in positions of power and influence in WTBH, and none of them claimed bias or discrimination.
Admission #15: Knox Admits Her Lawyers Didn’t “Sign Off” on her Book
[Chapter 16, Page 194] ” .... 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.”
[Chapter 20, Page 230] ‘’ ... “It’s risky,” Carlo said. “Mignini will try to pin things on you.” “He already has,” I told them. The first time I met Mignini at the questura, I hadn’t understood who he was, what was going on, what was wrong, why people were yelling at me, why I couldn’t remember anything. I thought he was someone who could help me (the mayor), not the person who would sign my arrest warrant and put me behind bars…’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... “Amanda, the investigators are in a conundrum,” Carlo said. “They found so much of Guede’s DNA in Meredith’s room and on and inside her body. But the only forensic evidence they have of you is outside her bedroom. Raffaele’s DNA evidence is only on the bra hook. If you and Raffaele participated in the murder, as the prosecution believes, your DNA should be as easy to find as Guede’s.” “But Carlo, no evidence doesn’t mean we cleaned up. It means we weren’t there!” “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede. I know it doesn’t make sense. They’re just adding another link to the story. It’s the only way the prosecution can involve you and Raffaele when the evidence points to a break-in and murder by Guede.”
[Chapter 22, Page 270] ‘’ ... Carlo, the pessimist, said, “Don’t get your hopes up, Amanda. I’m not sure we’ll win. There’s been too much attention on your case, too much pressure on the Italian legal system to think that you won’t be sent to trial.”
[Chapter 27, page 330] ” .... Carlo, who’d never sugarcoated my situation, said, “These are small-town detectives. They chase after local drug dealers and foreigners without visas. They don’t know how to conduct a murder investigation correctly. Plus, they’re bullies. To admit fault is to admit that they’re not good at their jobs. They suspected you because you behaved differently than the others. They stuck with it because they couldn’t afford to be wrong.”
While Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga don’t seem overly bright (or ethical), it is very doubtful that either would commit career suicide by endorsing such claims, in essence that they failed to act to protect their client. These claims from the book were never reported.
Admission #16: Knox Admits that Guede got no “Deal” to Testify
[Chapter 22, Page 273] ” .... The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third.”
[Chapter 30, Page 384] ” .... friend. That feeling was compounded when, about three weeks after Raffaele and I were convicted, the appeals court cut Rudy Guede’s sentence nearly in half, from thirty years to sixteen. Meredith’s murderer was now serving less time than I was—by ten years! How can they do this?!”
WTBH is mostly dishonest crap, but the truthful parts (about 5-10%) contradict the other parts. Research, anyone?
5. Will the documentary makers please actually read AK’s book?
Painful yes, but red flags are everywhere. I ASSUME they want the truth…
6. Knox Illegally In Toronto
This post is one in our ongoing series.
Netflix’s “Amanda Knox” was first shown at the September 2016 Toronto International Film Festival. Knox herself attended to promote the movie.
That got it off to a fast start but under the law, with her criminal record, she should not even have been there. Knowing her criminal record, it is unclear “why” she was allowed into Canada. Section 140 of the Canadian Criminal Code (public mischief), makes it a crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison to falsely accuse someone of a crime, or to divert suspicion from him/herself.
This is the Canadian equivalent of “calunnia”, which Judge Massei gave her 1 year for, which Judge Hellmann raised to 3 years. Even though Canada has a different name for calunnia, the act itself is still very much illegal.
Since the financial restitution to PL was never paid for the hell she put him through, AK still has outstanding legal obligations, another reason she is inadmissible.
Knox claims she was not paid or compensated in any way for this documentary, though that is very unlikely. Further, the Province of Ontario has rules which prohibit criminals from cashing in on the notoriety of their crimes, still another reason Knox should not have been allowed into Canada. This is similar to American “Son-of-Sam” laws.
Even though the rape and murder charges were ultimately thrown out, Canada Border Services and Canadian Immigration are required to not allow entry to persons who pose a danger to the public. “Present at the murder scene, washing blood off her hands” isn’t exactly being “innocent” of the crime. This is the strongest reason Knox should have been denied entry.
Archived in Those who were charged, Amanda Knox, Hoaxes by Knox, Knox persona hoax, Knox interrog hoax, Knox HIV leak hoax, Knox no-PR hoax, Knox book hoaxes, Hoaxers - main media, The Netflix hoax, Hoaxers - main people, Knox-Mellas team, News media & movies, Terrible reporting, Movies on case
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (11)
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Netflixhoax 11: Omitted - How Italian Justice Is Misrepresented By Multiple Cherrypickings Of Facts
Posted by Swansea Jack
Quote: “The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X
We live in a society where I believe I’m justified in saying a majority of people are easily swayed by the material they see on TV or read in the newspapers.
Recently I have witnessed a mass of new posters on Twitter and other social media forums who after watching the Amanda Knox Netflix documentary have formed a cast iron, unshakable opinion on the case.
It is clear after engaging with them very briefly that they frankly have very limited knowledge and understanding of the facts relating to the murder of Meredith Kercher.
I will credit the producers of the documentary Blackhurst and McGinn on what I consider to be a quite clever (but ever so sneaky) disguising of their absolute bias towards Amanda Knox which will not be evident to those who are not acquainted with the case.
They have obviously correctly banked on the ignorance of the majority of their audience.
I get the impression that Nick Pisa is used as a “filler” and a distraction. I come to this conclusion as I feel the producers would be hard pushed to make a 90 minute documentary, favourable to Knox, while addressing the real facts of the case without getting themselves into serious legal trouble.
I also know from first-hand experience that it is a long-term strategy of Knox and her little band of PR hate-mongers to vilify others, in order to distract attention away from the real villains.
It is my impression that the intended main target for vilification was Perugian Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini.
But try as they might, even with their selective editing, they could not produce enough material to achieve their goal due to Mignini’s humility and integrity.
For me personally the documentary raised a few questions which I will share with you.
We have Knox herself stating words to the effect of “either i am a psychopath, a Wolf in sheep’s clothing or I am you” Well she certainly isn’t me or anyone else, she is her, so is this an involuntary but frank admission?
The documentary shows a clip of Diane Sawyer’s interview with Knox in which Amanda is asked “Were you there that night?” She replies “No” but nods yes.
It is my opinion that Knox gets a real power kick out of the notoriety afforded to her and revels in the “Did I or didn’t I” mystery.
She then goes from being the wolf in sheep’s clothing to being a “Warrior Princess like Xena”. An ultimate and powerful fantasy figure.
Knox maintains that she was at Sollecito’s address at 110 Corso Garibaldi watching Amelie at the time of Meredith’s murder.
Not even Raffaele supports this version of events.
It begs the question why Blackhurst and McGinn have omitted the fact that Marasca and Bruno who acquitted the pair state in their motivation report “her (Knox) presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial.”
The acquitting Judges go on to explain their reasoning that Knox was the first person to offer a sexual motive before there was any cadaver or autopsy reports available.
They also make mention of Amanda’s description of “the victim’s terrible scream” which was confirmed some time later by witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others.
How could a person who wasn’t present know these details of the crime?
Knox goes on to describe an idyllic evening, smoking pot and making love, yet makes no mention of who was listening to music on Sollecito’s computer at 05:32 in the morning, a time when both Knox and Sollecito claim to be blissfully sleeping.
Knox can’t comprehend why there is a knife with her DNA on the handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade.
There is no mention in the documentary of Amanda’s recorded prison conversation with her parents in which she says “I am very worried about this thing with the knife, because there is a knife of Raffaele’s” (*Reference Massei report page 292.)
Neither do they address Sollecito’s claim that the reason Meredith’s DNA is on the blade is because he “accidentally pricked her while cooking.”
He later admitted this was a total fabrication, Meredith had never attended his home.
Knox claims that she accused Diya Lumumba after long hours of questioning. Yet we know that due to the time recorded on her signed voluntary statement that she had fabricated a story swapping Guede for Lumumba in under 2 hours.
She only did so upon learning Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi.
There is no mention in the documentary that Amanda had provided Diya Lumumba’s name to Rita Ficarra in a list of persons of interest prior to learning Raffaele was not corroborating her version of events.
There is no mention of the sample of Knox’s blood recovered from the faucet of the bathroom she shared with Meredith which Amanda herself dated in her court testimony to the night of Meredith’s murder.
There is no mention of the mixed DNA sample of Knox and Meredith, recovered from a luminol revealed bloodstain in Filomena Romanelli’s room. This is where the alleged point of entry for the burglary occurred. It is worth noting there is no biological trace of Rudy Guede in this room.
Addressing the bra clasp, the Netflix documentary fails to address the fact that the only other sample of Sollecito’s DNA identified in Via Della Pergola 7 was on a cigarette butt in an ashtray in the kitchen. This was a mixed sample containing Raffaele and Amanda’s DNA.
The documentary emphasises the farcical views of the so called “independent experts” Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti. It fails to mention that Vecchiotti confirmed that contamination at Dr Patrizia Stefanoni’s laboratory was not possible if there was a six day gap in the testing of materials during cross questioning at the Hellmann appeal hearing.
- PROSECUTOR COMODI: “Is six days a sufficient interval to rule out contamination?”
CARLA VECCHIOTTI: “Yes absolutely”
Neither do they address Conti’s explanation (or lack of) as to how and why Sollecito’s DNA was located on the hook of Meredith’s bra clasp
- PROSECUTOR COMODI: “How would Sollecito’s DNA accidentally arrive on the hook of Meredith’s bra?”
STEFANO CONTI: “Anything is possible”
During his input in the documentary Conti implies that DNA is easily transferable, he gives an example of running his fingers along his arm and magically shedding DNA.
If this is the case I would like to pose a few of questions to him.
1, Why is the only other sample of Sollecito’s DNA located on a cigarette butt in the kitchen?
2, Why is there no genetic trace of Guede in the small bathroom or in Filomena Romanelli’s room?
3, Can you provide a figure for the statistical probability of Sollecito’s solitary sample of DNA (other than the mixed trace on the cigarette butt) innocently finding it’s way on to Meredith’s bra clasp?
Blackhurst and McGinn predictably make use of Rudy Guede’s Skype conversation with Giacomo Bendetti in which he states Knox wasn’t there, yet do not address the letter Guede wrote to his lawyers in which he refers to “a horrible murder of a splendid, beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox”
Why have the documentary makers chosen to ignore so very many facts?
Archived in Justice systems, Italian system, Hoaxes against Italy, Italian justice hoax, Evil Mignini hoax, Evil police hoax, No-evidence hoax, Hoaxes by Knox, Knox persona hoax, Hoaxers - main media, The Netflix hoax, Hoaxers - main people, More hoaxers, News media & movies, Terrible reporting, Movies on case
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (20)
Saturday, October 08, 2016
Netflixhoax 10: Omitted - How Amanda Knox Falsely Accused Dr Mignini Of A Felony
Posted by Peter Quennell
1. The 2009 Trial Verdict Was Exactly Right
The 2009 prosecution phase was as perfect as any Italian prosecution heard in court.
This phase from January to June was fast and implacable, about as forceful as a high-speed train. Amidst so much that damned, days of largely unchallenged police testimony for example proved that Knox framed Patrick only because Sollecito sold her out.
Nothing else. He said she had made him lie, and never wanted to see her again, and he and Knox never got back to one narrative theme.
Knox on the witness stand in June was a wince-making disaster - this tough sarcastic rather thuggish girl claiming “the cops were meanies to fragile little me” did not exactly ring true.
The defense lawyers never ever recovered from that and we expected at least two to simply walk off. Late in the trial Sollecito lawyer Maori sarcastically said Knox had been high on cocaine (we believe that is true) as barb after barb was exchanged.
Remember that the Massei court was the only one to see all of the massive evidence. That included days and days of autopsy-related evidence in closed court with both the perps being closely observed throughout.
And that jury got the verdict and sentence exactly right. Knox and Sollecito should indeed be serving their time as in the US or UK they would.
So. Why did the two ever get released? Simple. Gaming of the Italian justice system to produce two bent appeals.
The 2011 appeal court was bent when the defenses got the Umbria region’s top criminal judge blatantly forced aside in favor of a semi-senile business judge absolutely at sea on the law. Additionally his “independent” DNA experts were cherry-picked for him.
The 2015 Supreme Court was bent by way of known mafia connections and of the blatant breaking of Italian appeal law. Italian law enforcement never talks about mafia investigations before some bad guys are locked up, but one day the whole story should be widely known. We know much of it now.
2. Thirty PR Hoaxes To Make You Ignore The Above
Check out the 30 PR Hoaxes in our right column, or better still, wait a few days, and we will open a new page summarizing each hoax. What the Netflix hoaxers have done is to pick up a few of those hoaxes, and run with them in a mocking, sneering tone.
Hence the mocking, sneering tone of many ill-researched movie reviews.
The best way to annihilate the Netflix slant is to fully comprehend each hoax they used. One major hoax is that the synthetic Knox you see now is the real-life Knox around the time of the crime and at trial through 2009.
We can show that back then Amanda Knox was a loose cannon - and widely seen as such.
Another major hoax Amanda Knox herself advances in the film is that she was yelled at and abused by cops on 5-6 November 2007 over a long time. And so, desperate, she fingered as the real killer Patrick Lumumba.
Believe her? We address this question to Knox herself about the “interrogation” as described in her book six years later. Let us see if her response (if any) makes her look like someone you can blindly trust.
We will also post more later to destroy the interrogation hoax.
3. Question For Knox About Her “Interrogation”
Here is how you describe in BOTH editions of your book (2013 and 2015) a supposed interrogation by Prosecutor Mignini at your first (witness) interview. Below the quote, we describe what everyone else present says took place.
[This is the voluntary witness interview.] Eventually they told me the pubblico ministero would be coming in.
I didn’t know this translated as prosecutor, or that this was the magistrate that Rita Ficarra had been referring to a few days earlier when she said they’d have to wait to see what he said, to see if I could go to Germany.
I thought the “public minister” was the mayor or someone in a similarly high “public” position in the town and that somehow he would help me.
They said, “You need to talk to the pubblico ministero about what you remember.”
I told them, “I don’t feel like this is remembering. I’m really confused right now.” I even told them, “I don’t remember this. I can imagine this happening, and I’m not sure if it’s a memory or if I’m making this up, but this is what’s coming to mind and I don’t know. I just don’t know.”
They said, “Your memories will come back. It’s the truth. Just wait and your memories will come back.”
The pubblico ministero came in.
Before he started questioning me, I said, “Look, I’m really confused, and I don’t know what I’m remembering, and it doesn’t seem right.”
One of the other police officers said, “We’ll work through it.”
Despite the emotional sieve I’d just been squeezed through, it occurred to me that I was a witness and this was official testimony, that maybe I should have a lawyer. “Do I need a lawyer?” I asked.
He said, “No, no, that will only make it worse. It will make it seem like you don’t want to help us.”
It was a much more solemn, official affair than my earlier questioning had been, though the pubblico ministero was asking me the same questions as before: “What happened? What did you see?”
I said, “I didn’t see anything.”
“What do you mean you didn’t see anything? When did you meet him?”
“I don’t know,” I said.
“Where did you meet him?”
“I think by the basketball court.” I had imagined the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, just across the street from the University for Foreigners.
“I have an image of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana near my house.”
“What was he wearing?”
“I don’t know.”
“Was he wearing a jacket?”
“I think so.”
“What color was it?”
“I think it was brown.”
“What did he do?”
“I don’t know.”
“What do you mean you don’t know?”
“Are you scared of him?”
I felt as if I were almost in a trance. The pubblico ministero led me through the scenario, and I meekly agreed to his suggestions.
“This is what happened, right? You met him?”
“I guess so.”
“Where did you meet?”
“I don’t know. I guess at the basketball court.”
“You went to the house?”
“I guess so.”
“Was Meredith in the house?”
“I don’t remember.”
“Did Patrick go in there?”
“I don’t know, I guess so.”
“Where were you?”
“I don’t know. I guess in the kitchen.”
“Did you hear Meredith screaming?”
“I don’t know.”
“How could you not hear Meredith screaming?”
“I don’t know. Maybe I covered my ears. I don’t know, I don’t know if I’m just imagining this. I’m trying to remember, and you’re telling me I need to remember, but I don’t know. This doesn’t feel right.”
He said, “No, remember. Remember what happened.”
“I don’t know.”
At that moment, with the pubblico ministero raining questions down on me, I covered my ears so I could drown him out.
He said, “Did you hear her scream?”
I said, “I think so.”
My account was written up in Italian and he said, “This is what we wrote down. Sign it.”
So you choose to portray yourself as reluctant to talk at all? While Dr Mignini relentlessly edges you more and more into saddling Patrick with the blame? While you have no lawyer there?
In fact, as you well know, every word of that dialogue is made up. You invented it. Dr Mignini was not even there. Right then, he was home in bed.
Now we contrast this malicious figment of your imagination with the account of that night by many others who were present at various times. Even you yourself essentially agreed to this narrative at trial, with the one exception that the slaps to your head that several observed were by you were actually by someone else.
Feel free to tell us where we have got this wrong:
1. You insist on being around in the central police station despite being grumpy and tired while Sollecito helps investigators to check a few claims.
2. After a while an investigator, Rita Ficarra, politely invites you to help build a list of names of men who might have known Meredith or the house. She is somewhat reluctant as it was late and no interpreter was on hand. You quite eagerly begin. An interpreter is called from home. You calmly produce seven names and draw maps.
3. Sollecito breaks suddenly and unexpectedly early in his own recap/summary session when confronted with phone records which showed he had lied. He quickly points the finger at you as the one having made him lie. You are briefly told he is saying you went out.
4. You break explosively soon after when an outgoing text shows up on your phone after you had claimed you sent none. You slap your head. You yell words to the effect that Patrick is the one, he killed Meredith. Police did not even know of the existence of Patrick before you identified the text as to him.
5. Thereafter you talk your head off, explaining how you had overheard Patrick attack Meredith at your house. The three ladies present and one man do what they can to calm you down. But you insist on a written statement, implicating him, and stating you went out from Sollecito’s alone.
6. This from about 2:00 am is the state of play. You are taken to the bar for refreshments and helped to sleep. You testify at trial that you were given refreshments, and everybody treated you well.
7. As you had admitted being at the scene of a crime you had not reported, you had in effect admitted to a crime, so a legal Miranda-type caution is required saying the signee understands they should not talk without a lawyer, and if they do talk that can be used as evidence in court.
8. Dr Mignini, the on-call duty judge for that night, is by multiple account, including your own at trial, not present at that list-building session with Rita Ficarra, and in fact knows nothing about it until Rita Ficarra closes it down. He comes from home.
9. Dr Mignini reads you your rights. You now sign acknowledging you know you should not talk unless your lawyer is there. Dr Mignini asks you no questions. He is anxious to get the session over so he can get on to the task of pulling Patrick in. You yourself shrug off a lawyer and repeat your accusation and insist on a new written statement. Though you are again warned, you see it done.
10. Under Italian law that second statement could and should have been used against you, but the Supreme Court denied its use except against Patrick. Dr Mignini has said he thinks that was wrong in law but did not appeal.
Really a very simple chain of events, which was attested to at trial by all of those who had been present on the night, even including yourself.
There are no signs at all in anyone else’s description that you were leaned on by anybody, and nobody at the central police station had the slightest vested interest in making you into a target that night.
So where precisely does this new claim in your book and the Netfllix film of an illegal interrogation by Dr Mignini fit in? Now would seem a very good time to simply admit it is a hoax. Remember all courts saw it as such.
Archived in Hoaxes against Italy, Evil Mignini hoax, Hoaxes by Knox, Knox persona hoax, Knox alibis hoax, Knox interrog hoax, Knox book hoaxes, Hoaxers - main media, The Netflix hoax, Hoaxers - main people, Knox-Mellas team, More hoaxers, News media & movies, Terrible reporting, Movies on case
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (17)