Category: Hoaxes Knox & team

Correcting Netflix 2: Omitted - Producers Morse, Blackhurst, McGinn Commited Stalking Crimes

Posted by Our Main Posters

Bigotry & stalking for fame & profit: producers Morse, Blackhurst, McGinn

Under Italian law the stalkers Stephen Robert Morse, Rod Blackhurst, and Brian McGinn have committed four kinds of crimes.

Numerous abusive tweets have been deleted, but these and others were captured, and would weigh against them in court.

@NickPisa “Convinced you’re a heartless tabloid journo, but wanted to remind you that you f*cked up people’s lives:”

@BLNadeau “Reminder: Your quest for the latest, greatest story damaged people. You should be ashamed of yourself:”

@andreavogt “Wanted to remind you that your work seriously damaged many lives & you should be ashamed of yourself:”

Our main poster Pataz posted this about the gang’s harrassment of the Kercher family on his own site.

See “Amanda Knox” producer Stephen Morse’s shocking comment about the Kercher family

Posted on September 26, 2016 by pataz1

Here’s what we know: Sometime in late 2010 or early 2011, “Amanda Knox” directors Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn hooked up with Stephen Robert Morse and decided to create a documentary on Knox. Morse and Blackhurst went to Perugia in September of 2011 when Knox’s first appeal was heard. It appears that McGinn may have been with them, and that they connected with journalist Mario Spezi (who had previously been arrested by prosecutor Mignini for interfering with an investigation).

The Kercher family was represented at trial by their lawyer, Francesco Maresca. In Italy, the civil suit happens at the same time as the criminal suit, so Maresca was there to represent the Kerchers in their civil suit against the defendants for Meredith’s death. As a part of the original conviction in 2009, the Kerchers were awarded damages.

Knox’s defenders frequently attacked the Kercher family and their lawyer, Maresca, for the damages awarded to the Kercher family. Knox’s defenders claimed Maresca and the Kercher family were driven by the monetary damages awarded to the Kerchers.

Producer Stephen Morse, while covering the appeals, joined in these attacks on Meredith’s family, claiming the Kerchers were blinded by money. While covering the appeals, Morse stated his belief the DNA evidence would result in an acquittal. Three days later, while waiting for the verdict, Morse claimed the Kerchers were ignoring evidence. In a tweet (still available Sept 2016), Morse charged the Kercher family with being driven by money:

“i feel for the kercher family but they cannot ignore dna evidence simply because they were awared an 8 figure civil victory. #amandaknox” ““Stephen Robert Morse, 3-Oct 2011, 7:57 am.

For US readers, this is similar to claiming the Nicole Brown family was only out for money when they filed their civil suit against O.J. Simpson.

Two of the Kerchers- Meredith’s father John and her brother Lyle- have previously spoken about the symbolic nature of the damages, and that they do not care about the money awarded. In 2009 Lyle told the Guardian “It’s not the case that this has ever been about us seeking money, which is why we’ve been reluctant to do much media stuff throughout. That money will never really change anything in that respect.”

Meredith’s father John Kercher spoke to the Sun after the Hellmann appellate court overturned the trial conviction. He spoke out against potential book and movie deals for Knox and Sollecito:

Kercher explained that their civil claim- and an £8million damages award made when Knox was convicted ““ were symbolic in Italian law. “I find it distasteful that Knox stands to make millions from what happened to Meredith. I don’t think anyone should make money out of it ““ not us, not them,” he said.

“How would any parent feel if their daughter’s murder was to be turned into a movie for people’s entertainment?”

“We would not take a single cent from Amanda Knox,” Kercher added.

Nobody has asked yet how much Netflix is paying Rod Blackhurst, Brian McGinn, and producer Stephen Robert Morse for the rights to add the “Amanda Knox” film to Netflix’s library on September 30th, 2016.

Posted by Our Main Posters on 09/14/16 at 08:59 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in The officially involved, The prosecutors, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, 10 Mignini MOF hoax, 12 Rabid media hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 20 No-PR hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, More hoaxers, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (4)

Correcting Netflix 3: Omitted - Dr Mignini Explains The Dirty Tricks The Dishonest Netflix Team Employed

Posted by Our Main Posters

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.

1. The Wider Context

Longtime Italy-berater Judy Bachrach is one of the first to view the Netflix movie Amanda Knox. Predictably, she raves about it.

At bottom here Dr Mignini explains the actual final judgment on Knox and Sollecito, and shoots huge holes in Bachrach’s claims.

Judy Bachrach resembles one of those wind-up parrots. She repeats about a dozen of the Knox-PR talking points like mantras again and again.

There are literally hundreds of evidence points on this and other sites that overwhelmingly point to Knox and Sollecito guilt. There is no other way to account for them all. That is why the 2009 trial was so decisive.

Try running those past Bahrach and she is quite certain to come up short of any other explanation. Even simply our two posts directly below this, providing a flavor of that, would leave her seriously stumped.

She published her first very simplistic take on the case in 2008, months before trial when much evidence was not public and the myth-making Knox and Sollecito PR was ramping up. Then another simplistic take every several years since. She has also repeatedly found her way onto TV and perhaps a dozen simplistic YouTubes are one result.

At Guede, she really rants. Clearly in her eyes the nasty black guy did it, and did it all alone even though not one court, ever, ruled that.

She makes it routine to mischaracterize Dr Mignini, who she seems to think really had it in for the girl (she always forgets Sollecito) because of something to do with sex. And in her mind all of Italy has been fooled.

Our main poster Machine posted an analysis of nine of Bachrach’ wild claims way back in April 2010. They are highly worth reading, here. Machine’s overall conclusion on Bachrach was this.

We have been analyzing Judy Bachrach’s many, many articles and TV commentaries about the case, and they all seem to point to the following conclusions.

That she hasn’t ever read the Micheli report and doesn’t seem to have actually ever mentioned it.

That she hasn’t had full access to the prosecution’s 10,000-plus pages file of evidence, and maybe she has had no access at all.

That she didn’t attend the key court sessions in which highly incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence was presented.

That she hasn’t absorbed the numerous factual newspaper and magazine reports about the key forensic and circumstantial evidence.

That she seems to rely either a lot or totally on sources with vested interests who feed her wrong theories and false information.

And that she comes across to us as the reporter most often showing on US media outlets the most complete ignorance of the case.

Quite a track record. We wonder if she is really very proud of it. She seems to sound so.

2. Judy Bachrach’s Latest Crackpot Claims

Judy Bachrach was fast to start beating the drum about the Netflix flick. Almost the first reporter there. You can read her article here. She clearly loves the Netflix report.

That it leaves out about 95% of the key facts seems to be over her head.

In the article, she quotes her recollection of an interview Dr Mignini gave her years ago. This was clearly a gotcha moment for her - suddenly it was crystal clear why Amanda Knox is being tried for the crimes. Sex! It seems over her head that officially there really were sex crimes; all three were charged with them.

It pays to understand four things.

(1) Not only did the Netflix flick get things wrong and leave myriad things out (how many, we shall soon know) but it appears to accept that innocence was proved and that Knox and Sollecito had zero role. That was not what the Supreme Court said. See Dr Mignini’s final damning paras below.

(2) Italian lawyers think the Fifth Chambers ruling may have been illegal as well as bent. The reasoning can be read here. That is headed to court soon.

(3) Judy Bachrach’s crackpot inventions are not backed up by even one document, transcript or report. She really does parrot the Knox PR and uses inventions to fill in any gaps.

(4) There is a mafia angle, of which Bachrach could be part. Humiliating the forces of justice is what they like to do. We cannot go public until this officially starts to come out. Sollecito first drew attention to it, and law enforcement are on top of it.

3. Dr Mignini Corrects The Record At Length

We offered Dr Mignini this opportunity. He kindly came through. It is made pretty obvious that Bachrach was maliciously putting words in his mouth. Dr Mignini spoke in Italian, and we translated, and he approved.

Dr Mignini speaks

I will share just some of my thoughts after reading the article in that magazine, which I would really prefer not to speak about. I mainly want to say that those statements which are put between quotation marks as attributed to me contained in that article? I never pronounced them.

I have never said ““ and anyone who knows me would understand (though this journalist Judy Bachrach doesn’t know me, doesn’t know me at all and I myself didn’t have the misfortune to know her) that I would never say, I’d never talk about, and I’d never mention, the morality or the immorality of a person as an argument within the explanation for a crime. Absolutely no way.

A crime is a violation of a law, an action that may be reprehensible or whatever you like, but it is an action regulated as provided by the penal code, subjected to penalty by the code, that needs to be ascertained, period. And that’s all. It needs to be ascertained following totally objective criteria. A crime is an objective action, a codified action. It has nothing to do with moral qualities, or allegations of moral qualities, or lack thereof, of an individuals.

The discussion in the article of Bachrach about those allegedly quoted statements about “morality” attributed to me, they are FALSE, I have simply never said them. And one cannot even say that they were a little changed, because I’ve never said anything even remotely like them. Those are statements of a kind that I would NEVER make.

Such is one statement reported in the article where I allegedly said “Amanda killed because motivated by a wish to be liked at any cost” ““ by the way, statements like those do not make any sense: the person who makes up such statements doesn’t realize she is saying things void of any meaning.

The Italian Penal Procedure code (art. 220) prohibits that any research into the personality of a suspect could be used in court as evidence, such as the finding of a propensity of a suspect to commit crimes or similar argumentations. A proper research into the personality of a suspect is permitted only when there is a need to establish mental capabilities. On the other hand, some features of a suspect personality might be considered during investigations but only to understand the context of a crime.

When I happened to point at some features apparent in the personality of the suspects, I actually cited observations made by criminal psychiatrist Dr. Mastronardi who had given his opinion on the case. Aspects of personalities traits, showing features such as manipulative behaviours or a passive and dependent attitude ““ to mention some findings involving the suspects ““ were rather noted, highlighted or detailed not by the prosecution, but by the judges on various instances of the investigation and pre-trial hearings (Investigation Judge C. Matteini, Re-Examination Judge M. Ricciarelli, and Preliminary Judge P. Micheli).

[Editors note. These are the judges who really guided the case. Go to this post and scroll down and click through to posts #13 to #16. That includes the findings of the Supreme Court, which backed up the findings of Dr Matteini and Dr Ricciarelli’s panel. It also includes Dr Mignini’s interrogation of Knox, in which she in effect froze up; this was done at her own request though her lawyers were none too thrilled - they feared she would bomb out, and she did.]

As for the “motive” on this case. It should be pointed out that in a case like the murder of Meredith Kercher ““ the murder of a young student girl who was uninvolved in dangerous circles and had no enemies ““ independently from the identity of the perpetrators, we are talking about a crime that cannot have have a “motive” with a rational or consistent logical structure, nor could it be ascribed to a particular conscious and organized intention.

We may talk about causes that could have contributed to leading to a situation that ended in committing the crime. Among the factors we know that unbalanced personalities, life or emotional disorganization of perpetrators, behavioral excesses, inabilities to handle relations, psychological fragilities, are elements that always contribute to this kind of crimes, and we had reasons to believe that drugs also played a role.

The task of the judiciaries is not really to set out the motives of the individuals from a subjective point of view. We know that unfortunately a record of cases exists, in which apparent “ordinary” looking young people ““ including students ““ have committed very violent murders, in contexts where no “motive” could be explained in a way that appears rational or serious from an objective point of view, since futile crimes - including group murders - may emerge from the building up of situations involving individuals not able to handle issues of adult life.

Thus, all statements within quotation marks as reported in the article by Bachrach are false, I’d say absolutely false: they are the product of a making-up or a spin (I reserve for myself any necessary action in the event there is also a defamatory report) or reported without their context or with their context changed (like falsely reporting the dates, such as when I mentioned the time when some Perugian citizens used to compliment me).

I was stunned by one statement by the end of the article, that says ““ in which I am reported to have said ““ that “if they were innocent, they should forget”. That is a statement which I said on request of one of the two interviewers, who asked “what would you say to those young persons in the event that they were actually innocent?”. So what could I say, what should I answer to a question framed and spun in such a way? I might say: “it’s an experience that unfortunately happened to you, something that may happen, try to forget, seek all legal ways” ““ but I was saying that in the abstract, purely in the abstract ““ “that you think you can follow if you deem that you suffered an injustice” ““ albeit the Cassazione ruling is in the dubitative formula (Art. 530 Â§ 2. cpp).

But then the Vanityfair journalist does not report my *second* statement, that is, the other one I said just following: “And what about if they are guilty? If they were guilty I’d suggest them to remind that our human life ends as trial that has an irreversible sentence, that will last forever”. My answer was made of two statements, not of one. Both were rhetorical and hypothetical. The last statement was the one I thought would have unleashed criticism, but curiously it’s the one missing in the article, there is no comment about it.

Another thing: it is true that people in Perugia happened to come to shake my hand and compliment me, but that happened much later, around 2013 and later, and those people basically complimented me about the Narducci case. It was somehow satisfying because it came after many years of difficulties and attacks. The Perugian people expressed their support to me because of the Narducci case, and secondarily they also expressed their support because of my independency in facing the international media campaign that was mounted against me after the Kercher case.

I don’t know if Vanityfair was the one which made up or spun my answers, falsely reporting them from the Netflix documentary, or if it was Netflix itself who made them up by editing the interview and disseminating content from a video prior to the premiere. I had a positive experience working with the documentary directors at the time. Not knowing what the journalist watched or made up, I will anyway reserve my decision as a consequence. I have to say, I am quite disconcerted about the way a certain American environment appears to think and keeps going on in a raving manner about this case.

One stunning aspect of this, is that the narrative they put forward, such as in the article we talk about, seems to be based on a focus on me, as if I were to become a kind of key character functional to their fictional story. I found this particularly strange since in reality the Kercher case investigation was actually based on the work of a number of judiciaries, all of them making decisions with a power that was equal, or greater than mine. So is how the Italian system works on these type of serious crimes.

The fact that even a second Public Minister was appointed almost from the beginning may suggest that we didn’t have personal investment: I asked Manuela Comodi ““ who has my equal rank, is not my deputy ““ to share the investigation and deal with the technical parts, such as the expert witnesses, since she is very good in this area. The other, multiple judiciaries involved beside us, all had greater powers, each of them could have stopped the investigation or changed its orientation and settings.

Therefore, a personalization of the case ““ as if I had some kind of special power ““ or a “polarization” of it ““ like a narrative that is woven between me and one of the suspects as main characters ““ that appears unrealistic to any person with a minimum of understanding of the system. Indeed if there are reporters who like to make up a story where a person with my name plays the role of a picturesque fictional character, motivated by “moral” or religious obsessions or else, all of this only shows an agenda pursued by those journalists that tells much more about them and about the type of campaign they are part of, than about the case.

There is anyway one important element which, unfortunately, I know was left out from the documentary ““ partly because it was produced earlier than the publication of the Cassazione ruling ““ I know that something the documentary omits to mention, is the actual content of the latest ruling by the Fifth Panel of Cassazion. If we leave aside, for a moment, the several issues of consistency and law inherent in the ruling itself (those that may be spotted by those who read it with some knowledge of the topics), there is anyway the fact that the ruling confirms certain findings.

Some facts recognized as certain by the Cassazione, not reported in the documentary, are that it is anyway a “proven fact” that Amanda Knox was present at the scene of crime when crime was committed. The same ruling also points out how it is proven beyond doubt that Meredith Kercher was murdered by more than one person, and Rudy Guede certainly acted together with others. The fact that Amanda Knox was certainly there is emphasized by the Court to the point of noting their agreement with the lower Court on the fact that Ms. Knox heard Meredith’s harrowing scream, and even noted that she had the victim’s blood on her hands, that she washed them in order to clean them from Meredith’s blood.

The High Court only raises a reasonable doubt about the active participation of Amanda Knox in the action of killing. The Court ““ in agreement with other definitive findings ““ also reminds that Ms. Knox voluntarily lied as she falsely accused an innocent, and notes that no way could this finding ever be overturned. All these things are missing in the documentary. I’d like all American friends to bear in mind these last bits of information as well, whenever they decide to seek information about the Kercher case.

Posted by Our Main Posters on 09/15/16 at 03:39 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Various hypotheses, Prosecution views, The judical timeline, The officially involved, The prosecutors, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (34)

Correcting Netflix 6: Omitted - The Almost Unique Carefulness Of Italy’s Justice System

Posted by Our Main Posters

Bigotry for fame and profit: Stephen Robert Morse, Rod Blackhurst, and Brian McGinn

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.

1. Wrong “facts” and numerous omissions

As first explained previously in this series the very loaded Netflix report Amanda Knox included some seriously wrong “facts”.

Here is another of them. The HIV Hoax. Italian doctors did NOT fool Knox about a possible HIV positive; they told her in confidence not to worry, they would retest (a common practice in HIV testing) and that test soon came back negative.

NOBODY in the justice system leaked about this. The leak to the media complete with Knox’s list of recent sex partners was blatantly and well-recordedly made by the Knox-Mellas defense team. Even several of us were leaked-to - this was months before we got a grip on the case.

We shall be deconstructing the various wrong “facts”.

But mainly though the film operated at the level of cut-and-paste innuendo. And it banked on the extreme ignorance of its audience. Hundreds of inconvenient facts were omitted, any few of which would have disrupted its propaganda purpose.

We shall be adding in the numerous omissions.

2. The report’s macro-level takeaways

About 50 movie reviewers so far have mostly declared these to be their main takeways.

All three of them are untrue. We’ll take a first stab at correcting for them below, with much more to come.

(1) The REAL Dr Mignini

He framed Knox? On this there is vast evidence to the contrary. Dr Mignini has already explained some and we have much more to come. Dr Mignini had no motive, early on he was pretty good to Knox, and the checks and balances against any such hoax are simply enormous.

Ask yourself, why would a prosecutor intent on framing Knox do this recorded interrogation?

In fact he did it as a favor to Knox, because she asked him for it. She asked also for the interrogation at trial. Those were the ONLY two interrogations of Knox. Both damning. There were no others, ever.

In both of them, Knox by her own tongue dropped herself in it, far more than any police or prosecutor ever did. The second had a major effect on the jury (and on Italy).

In that same post we pointed to two of the Netflix team’s numerous self-serving omissions.

(1) [The movie] appears to accept that innocence was proved and that Knox and Sollecito had zero role. That was not what the Supreme Court said. [See Dr Mignini’s final paras.]

(2) Italian lawyers think the Fifth Chambers ruling may have been illegal as well as bent. The reasoning can be read here. That is headed to court soon.

(2) Italy’s REAL justice system

Pretty well the exact opposite of what you’d suppose if you read only Michael Heavey and Frank Sforza and Paul Ciolino and Bruce Fischer and John Douglas and Saul Kassin and Steve Moore and of course Doug Preston and the late Mario Spezi. Read only them, and one might be excused for thinking Italy’s is a huge, horrible system which the Italian population desperately needs THEM to save it from! Bigotry for fame and profit.

A total illusion, which Morse, Blackhurst, and McGinn now want you to swallow. Bigotry for fame and profit.

The main characteristics of the Italian system are (1) a large and visible national and local police presence with excellent forensics labs, (2) a low crime rate even by European standards, and even more-so by American standards, and (3) a very low rate of incarceration that is only 1/6 the rate of the US.

The system is immensely careful and with two AUTOMATIC rights of appeal for convictions for serious crimes the chances of a false conviction standing are zero. Compare this with thousands uncovered in the US. The vast wave of appeals has clogged the courts and right now Parliament is trying to reverse this.

Appellants have a huge advantage which makes it easy for them to game this system: the prosecution presents their case ONLY at trial. Then seasoned defences can game bewildered prosecutors at higher levels.

Officially the US knows all of this. It has much to gain politically from Italian co-operation and works very hard on their functional relationships. The FBI and the Italian equivalent embed one another’s officers in Rome and Washington, aid one another’s labs, share huge amounts of information, mutually take down mafia, and organize dozens of extraditions annually.

Almost all prosecutors are highly-trained by career-path; the only three who were not in this case (Judges Hellmann, Marasca and Bruno) and sprung Knox and Sollecito are all believed to have been corrupted.

Finally, the mafias and fellow-travelers work hard to smear police and prosecutors (as well as assassinating them, over 100 now). In this respect the Knox PR has wittingly or unwittingly been functioning as an arm of the mafias. Bongiorno, substituted for the hapless Sollecito PR which cost Vanessa her Carabinieri post, became famous for mafia defenses.

The 20 posts we link to below go deeper. You might read at least the headlines and the quotes below. That Italy’s is a pretty good system should be compelling.

1. Click here for post: How Italian Justice REALLY Works

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

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

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

2. Click here for post: Why The Prosecutors In Italy Are Relatively Popular

Italy’s a tough country with, albeit dwindling now, a legacy of violent crime, and many brave prosecutors over the years have been assassinated.

And the Italian legal system is not particularly weighted in their direction, with a large number of hurdles they have to climb over before a case ever gets to trial.

And the Italian prison system is relatively lenient, heavily pro-prisoner-remediation and early release, and proportionally only 1/10 the size of the US’s.

So the endemic attempts to undermine Prosecutor Mignini have invariably won only MORE popular support for him and his case in Perugia and Italy in general.

3. Click here for post: Why The Italian Judiciary’s Probably Less Prone to Pressure Than Any Other In The World

Italian magistrates enjoy an extraordinary level of autonomy from the other powers of government (executive and legislative) and the point of this post is to explain why. This autonomy is above all due to the Italian constitutional framework.

That framework is intended to guarantee such an exceptional level of independence so as to avoid the abuses that occurred during Mussolini’s fascist regime, when Italian magistrates were forced by the executive to prosecute (and persecute) political opponents to the fascist dictator…

4. Click here for post: Explaining How The Italian Appeals Process Works And Why It Consumes So Much Time

The extraordinary broad appeal rights awarded by the Italian system are all part of the 1989 reform, which intended to add even more guarantees to the right of the accused. This has resulted in an incredible increase in pending cases in the overburdened Italian justice system….

This situation is exacerbated by the broad appeal rights guaranteed also on the 2nd level of appeal, at the Supreme Court of Cassation. Like other supreme courts around the world, such court does not re-examine the entire body of evidence, but only “˜errores in iudicando’ and “˜errores in procedendo’ (errors in procedure or application of the law).

However, unlike its American or English counterparts, the Italian Supreme Court cannot refuse to review a case, and defendants have unlimited appeal rights to the Supreme Court of Cassation. They don’t even have to wait for the Appeal Court. You can in fact appeal to the Supreme Court directly after the first trial. ...

5. Click here for post: Barbara Benedettelli: Campaigner For Victims And Families Says Italian System Denies Them Justice

There are proportionally very few perpetrators in Italians prison by global standards, and when there in prison they are given quite a nice time, trained to perform usefully when released, and very often get out of prison early.

Seemingly very humane. But this does carry very high costs. There are often almost unbearable pressures on victims’ families, as Meredith’s father John Kercher has several times described. On top of all this, there is the growing western fascination with perps, and in many cases their elevating to popular cult-worship status.

Barbara Benedettelli is a writer and columnist and the editor of the popular “Top Secret” program on Rete4 TV… Her latest book (only in Italian) is called “Victims Forever”. She talks of various prominent perps and the enormous and unrequiting pressures on victims’ families. In polls a large majority of Italians detest this. They want much less stress on “fairness” and MUCH more compassion for victims families and, if still alive, for the victims.

6. Click here for post: Harvard Political Review Writer Alex Koenig Reproaches The Sliming of Italy’s Justice System

The fact of the matter is, those that immediately claim that Knox was wrongly accused and jailed by a corrupt justice system make two extremely arrogant assumptions that reveal perverse American exceptionalism.

1) It is assumed that, as an American ““ an American woman no less ““ Knox is incapable of murder. This case differs, of course, from the 1,176 domestic murders committed by women because, well, who knows?

2) It is assumed that not only is the Italian justice system incapable of fulfilling its legal duties, but that the intentions of the court were swayed by anti-Americanism.

This is not merely an abstract sentiment, but was actually articulated by Senator Maria Cantwell (D) of my home state of Washington.

7. Click here for post: Interesting Tilts Of Marcia Clark And Alan Dershowitz Toward Educated, Informed Italian-type Juries

“[American] jury instructions are so numerous and complex, it’s a wonder jurors ever wade through them. And so it should come as no surprise that they can sometimes get stuck along the way. The instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing even to lawyers. And reasonable doubt? That’s the hardest, most elusive one of all. And I think it’s where even the most fair-minded jurors can get derailed.”

“Well, if you want justice, don’t look to the criminal law system. That’s not its job. Its job is not to produce a just result. Its job is to produce a legally correct result…”

“We’ve opted for a much more democratic system, and it means that in the end you’re going to be dissatisfied with a lot of verdicts. Just don’t expect too much from our legal system. Don’t expect truth. Don’t expect justice, because that’s not what it’s supposed to give you.”

8. Click here for post: The Chief Enforcer Of The Constitution And The Rule Of Law is Wildly Popular Throughout Italy

He is said to receive dozens of petitions a day and in certain cases he does act to get things done. Significantly, two that he chose to ignore recently concerned the ongoing Sollecito-Knox appeal process.

Of two pretty blatant attempts to bias the Perugia process, one came from Joel Simon of the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists, and one came from the junior Berlusconi-party MP Rocco Girlanda.

President Giorgio Napolitano simply ignored both of them.

9. Click here for post: Compared To Italy, Say, Precisely How Wicked Is The United States?

We have often remarked that Italy’s crime rate is low, the three mafia families (Sicily, Calabria and Naples) are on the rocks, and the justice system is one of the most cautious - conviction rates are infuriatingly low for the suffering families of victims, but in a forgiving Catholic nation rates of incarceration are unlikely to jump any time soon.

The American incarceration rate in sharp contrast has for a decade led the rest of the world, and it increased every year for nearly 30 straight years from the arrival of President Reagan to the departure of President GW Bush. Its prison rate is ahead of Russia’s, with its mafias and corruption and poverty, and ahead of China’s, with its large population of political prisoners.

10. Click here for post: Involvement Of The Formidable Carabinieri Shows How Italian Justice Will Not Be Leaned Upon

Judge Nencini may have invoked the help of the Carabinieri for reasons going beyond simply very good science.

Italy has among the world’s lowest crime-rates, murder-rates and incarceration-rates. Unusually low criminal and anti-social tendencies among native-born Italians, and strong family pride, explains a large part of this.

But another main reason is the high-profile and exceptionally smart police presence. Deliberately a cool presence rather than a hot and intimidating presence, and in fact a very popular one

11. Click here for post: Italy’s Unpopular Politicians And Mafia Fellow Travelers Against Italy’s Popular Justice System

For comparison, in 2011 the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the justice system “a lot” or “enough” was 53.3%. By comparison, the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the government “a lot” or “enough” were 14.7%, and those who trust the parliament were only 15%.

In 2012, the percentage of Italians who trust the parliament is now only 9.5%, and those who trust the Mario Monti administration are only 21.1%.

Over the eight years from 2004 to 2012 the percentage of Italians who trust the justice system was always bigger than those who trust parliament or government by at least ten points, and in some years we can see a spread of 20, 30, even 39 percentage points achieved by the judiciary over the parliament and government.

12. Click here for post: Italy’s Advanced, Effective, Humane Law & Order System Also Adopted By City Of New York

New York is now the safest big city in America. It is following a route that is not only almost identical to Italy’s - it is being watched and emulated elsewhere across the US….

Now that the United States has the world’s highest reported rate of incarceration, many criminologists are contemplating another strategy. What if America reverted to the penal policies of the 1980s? What if the prison population shrank drastically? What if money now spent guarding cellblocks was instead used for policing the streets?

13. Click here for post: Italian Prime Minister Renzi Will Push Measures To Speed Up Justice

In a move popular not least among those who are part of it Mr Renzi announces moves to speed up Italian justice.

Italian justice and those who work in it are widely trusted and respected in Italy. But a very humane system designed post WWII to give those accused a level of rights unique in the world has been even further tilted over the years by politicians passing laws to aid political and business colleagues in legal trouble.

14. Click here for post: Why Numerous American JUDGES Favor The Supremely Neutral Italian Kind Of System

See that above at the bottom of the YouTube screen? Some $280 million has been spent since the year 2000. Can you guess what the $280 million was for?

In fact the $280 million is funds raised and spent for judges’ election campaigns in the roughly 3/4 of all American states where such judges’ elections are held - the original intention of which was good: to get judicial choices out of smoke-filled rooms.

15. Click here for post: Meredith May Not See Justice (Yet) But She Will Leave At Least Three Legacies

Knox behaved grossly irresponsibly in heading to Perugia under-funded, intent on drug-doing, and with zero intention of seriously studying.

The University of Washington and many others realised they could have huge liabilities if they did not distance themselves a lot from such loose cannons in future.

In October 2009 we reposted this report by Andrea Vogt which described the initiation of measures many American universities have now come to implement….

16. Click here for post: Counterterrorism: Another Way Italian Law Enforcement Is An Effective Model For Everywhere Else

A leading military analyst is citing Italy as a model of counterterrorism done right, pointing out that despite many factors going against it, Islamic terrorists have failed to kill a single person on Italian soil.

17. Click here for post: Italian Justice & The Telling Status Of Extraditions To And From Italy

If countries agree to extradite to other countries, that suggests a high degree of trust in justice at both ends. They are in effect voting confidence in each other’s justice systems.

Italy achieves an exceptionally high rate of extraditions in both directions and continues to sign more bilateral treaties.

It is clearly trusted almost worldwide as a destination where those charged will receive a fair shake. And it is very no-nonsense about sending back fleeing felons who try to go to ground there.

18. Click here for post: Knox’s Nasty-Prisons Hoax: NY Times Describes How Italy Leads The World In Rehabilitation

Around five years ago, largely because of immigrant crimes, the prison population (previously below 100,000 - in the US, California prisons alone hold almost twice that) began to balloon.

New prisons were built, with no expenses spared, and in these images you can see the result.

Stories of extreme over-crowding have gone away, and the New York Times profiles the new prisons and their programs of today.

19. Click here for post: How The Italian “Justice Tortoise” Is The Likely Winner Compared To For Example the US System

Italy is working to try to update its justice system right now and we will report on that shortly. At least in theory, it has one of the easiest tasks in the world, because post WWII its legal system was redesigned from the ground up. It had already junked bad aspects, some going back centuries.

Italy already has some of the world’s smartest juries - jury service is compulsory, so smart people cannot dodge them. And the system already has some other very positive things going for it.

Mainly what is needed is some weeding. And such reforms are made easier in Italy because (1) judges and prosecutors all follow career paths and so they are not politically competing with one another; and (2) there is the Council of Magistrates (CSM) which can be very progressive in the reforms it pushes at its level.

20. Click here for post: So Where Would YOU Want To Go On Trial? In Italy Or In The U.S.?

We have still not seen even ONE American lawyer claim that after the first trial in 2009 which found RS and AK guilty that there were strong grounds for an appeal.

In the US, back in 2009, full prison terms would have been begun.

And in fact virtually nothing at the 2009 trial was challenged in the appeal. But the defenses subversively organized to get Civil Judge Hellmann instead of Criminal Judge Chiari to preside, and in 2011 a farcical “not guilty” outcome was the result.

Then there was a THIRD jury trial, in 2013-14, which (as so often in Italy) threw out the not guilty outcome of the previous appeal trial.

And finally, in 2015, due to more subversive defense machinations with a little mafia help, the final Supreme Court appeal was assigned to the FIFTH Chambers, for the first murder appeal that Chambers has ever heard.

A second farcical “not guilty” outcome was the result.

Say what you like about the American system, there is not remotely any parallel in its judicial history to all of that. Quite the opposite in fact. We have had various posts pointing to an increasingly hard line in the US.

(3) British tabloids corrupted a jury in THIS system?

Subject of future posts. Check back shortly.

Posted by Our Main Posters on 09/28/16 at 09:10 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in The judical timeline, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, 10 Mignini MOF hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 19 HIV test leak hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, More hoaxers, Hoaxers from 2011, John Douglas, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (28)

Correcting Netflix 7: Omitted - How Knox Lied Repeatedly To Florence Court She Was Too Scared To Attend

Posted by Our Main Posters

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.

1. Many false claims in the film

NONE of the false claims by speakers were rebutted. Not one, by the Knox PR team moonlighting as serious directors and producers.

The producers’ bizarre technique was to place Knox, Sollecito, Conti & Vecchiotti in front of a camera and then to let them lie unchecked as they did repeatedly throughout the 90 minute film.

For example, Knox makes a very shrill claim in the film that she was repeatedly hit and forced into a “confession” by angry and abusive cops.

In fact she wasnt hit by anyone, except by herself. There was not even an interrogation that night - only the building of a list of names with a couple of kind cops.

Her own lawyers confirmed she was not hit, and they never filed a complaint. They publicly pleaded that she stop making things up. The movie never tells us this, never ever challenges Knox. We’ll return to this false claim in depth.

For balance, how many Italian justice officials do you suppose the PR team invited to represent the huge team of police, prosecutors and judges, and all of the witnesses, and the huge body of evidence? And to rebut Knox’ claims? After, all she was accusing his staff of crimes.

Precisely one. Dr Mignini. That was it.

He was not even told of the accusations of crimes from Knox. Instead he was asked to address only childish touchy-feely questions which no Italian journalist would ever dream of addressing to a highly trained prosecutor or judge. Dr Mignini is a regular on Italian TV explaining serious legal issues of some complexity, and is a master at it.

2. Lies previously reported and rebutted

We have so far rebutted seven false claims made by the team in the media or in the film in the previous posts here..

(1) That Knox was found innocent by the Fifth Chambers and fully exonerated or exculpated. No she wasnt. She was confirmed as being at the scene at the time with blood on her hands based on copious evidence, and any trial or appeal court which normally handles murders (the Fifth Chambers does not) would have insisted the Nencini verdict should stand. She remains guilty for life of calunnia and she still owes Patrick his award. Research anyone?

(2) That Dr Mignini hoodwinked the Justice system some way in a supposed pursuit of Amanda Knox although 30-plus judges in fact guided the judicial process - in Italian justice they and not prosecutors are the equivalent of American district attorneys. Raffaele Sollecito is conveniently not accounted for in this conspiracy theory, although with the possible exception of Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer, Sollecito’s words for Knox were the harshest, and his anger rattled on for years. Research anyone?

(3) That Dr Mignini pursued this because he had been convicted, although the conviction, by a rogue prosecutor and rogue judge in Florence with murky connections, had been annulled (in effect deleted; no record) by an appeal court and that confirmed by a strident Supreme Court ruling more than three years prior to the Netflix movie. Research anyone?

(4) That Dr Mignini had consulted a psychic, though it was widely known for many years that he had done no such thing and had written to Corriere at length refuting this more than three years prior to the Netflix movie. Research anyone?

(5) That Dr Mignini holds satanic and sex-orgy theories in this and other cases. No he does not. He has been on national TV pushing satanic theories back and saying they are few. The satanic theory of the Monster of Florence case goes back over a decade before he was requested to check an arm of the case. Knox and Sollecito and Guede were all convicted of murder with a sex-crime element, read all the judges reports prior to trial, all agreed an attack with a sexual aspect was what the evidence said. Research anyone?

(6) That the Italian justice system is somehow a dangerous error-prone joke (widely accepted as gospel by the movie’s reviewers) though in fact it is one of the most careful systems in the world and unlike the American system (with which it links extensively) never ever sees a false conviction standing by the end of the exhaustive appeals process. Research anyone?

(7) That the release of a provisional positive HIV finding for Knox and a list she created of her recent sex partners was a malicious act by prison staff or prosecutors, though they released precisely NOTHING and it was the Knox defense team that was fervently distributing those materials (of considerable damage to Knox’s public perception). Research anyone?

3. Starting to address Knox’s lies

Much of what Knox says in the movie is untrue. That is not unusual. She consistently lies in all her interviews. She also consistently tries to damage people.

In her book alone we have counted several lies on each page, close to 1000, and about 100 instances of defamations, lies intended to create real damage.

We are going to post separately on each of Knox’s most sweeping and most self-serving lies. Here, we give several dozen examples of lies repeatedly refuted, some of which are in the movie.

The Knox PR team moonlighting as serious directors and producers claim that they devoted SIX YEARS to getting their movie right. They could have found these rebuttals and read them all in a day or two if an honest movie was what they wanted to make.

Perhaps they were simply uncaring of the truth, lost in the complexities of the case, and uncaring of who they damaged, including the real victim’s family, and of what portrait they offered of Italy and Italian justice and its officers, however damaging and vile and untrue.

Or perhaps they were already deeply corrupted, and crazed at the prospect of fame and future career prospects and bloodmoney. If so, they are in unsavory company.

4. Knox’s lies to Italy (#1) rebutted

Knox does not often get the opportunity to lie on a grand scale to Italians. Just as well for her as the negative reaction is opposite and immediate.

Italians followed the trial in real-time witnessed a strident contemptuous sharp-tongued “Terminator Knox” on the witness stand for two days at trial, resulting in this sarcastic reaction and this sarcastic reaction.

“Daffy Knox” and “Terminator Knox” who forever sought media attention at trial in 2009 were retired from 2010 onward in favor of “Whiny Victim Knox”.

In 2013 Knox was too timid to return for her own Florence appeal presided over by Judge Nencini, but not too timid to send him a massively self-infatuated email containing some of the same lies Knox repeats in the movie. Here they all are, easily rebutted by Finn MacCool in Dec 2013. Research anyone?

[By Finn MacCool] You can read here the email Amanda Knox sent to Judge Nencini.

It is dated 15 December 2013 and was handed to Dr Nencini by Dr Ghirga, apparently to the disdain of both of them. It contains many statements which, if she were under oath, could be considered perjury.

One telling point is that she claims “I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.” Her co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, was not so afraid and he did present himself at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

He made a spontaneous statement and the judge assured him that he should feel free to intervene and make further interventions whenever he wished. So far he hasn’t wished to - he preferred to head back to the Caribbean for his holiday.

But that event and that presence by Sollecito completely undermine the credibility of Knox’s claim that she feels afraid of the court proceedings. There would be nothing to stop her coming and going, at this stage, just as Sollecito did.

I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified accusations of the prosecution and civil parties.

That’s what her lawyers were about to try to do. But instead they had to hand this email to the judge, showing their client’s complete contempt for the court process.

I seek not to supplant their work

She doesn’t want to supplant the work of her own lawyers? Most defendants don’t, nor do they feel the need to tell the court that using an archaic seventeenth-century grammatical construction (where modern English would have “I do not mean to…” or “I do not wish to”¦”)

Because I am not present to take part in [my own appeal], I feel compelled to share.

As Judge Nencini said, if anyone wants to talk to a court, come to court. Knox chose not to be present, which means that the word “because” is not a logical connector for why she feels compelled to share what she thinks. “Even though” would make more sense.

The Court has access to my previous declarations and I trust will review them…

The court has access to thousands of pages. Everybody trusts that courts will review the evidence before passing judgment ““ that’s how the legal process works.

I must repeat: I am innocent.

In fact she does not have to repeat that, which is simply a reiteration of her not guilty plea.

I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.

The wording is reminiscent of a previous declaration, “I am very afraid of Patrik, the African boy who…” Also the court may remember the presence of her co-defendant, who made a brief presentation to the court (and was invited to intervene again at any time he saw fit) and who afterwards flew back to his extended vacation in the Dominican Republic. It is difficult to see what the defendants have to be afraid of from the court, except perhaps the truth.

I am afraid that the prosecution’s vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you.

The prosecution’s case has already been made; this was the opportunity for the defense to make their case. It is the court’s duty to consider the evidence without being overly swayed by the vehemence of lawyers from either side ““ they look at the facts, and pass judgment based on that, and this happens in literally millions of cases every year. (Cassazione alone reviews more than 80 thousand cases each year.)

This is not for lack of faith in your powers of discernment, but because the prosecution has succeeded before in convincing a perfectly sound court of concerned and discerning adults to convict innocent people ““ Raffaele and me.

The second half of the sentence contradicts the first. The writer is explicitly stating that she doubts that the court has sufficient powers of discernment to be able to see through the prosecution’s arguments. Her justification for saying this is simply that it has happened before, with a previous court.

I’ve attentively followed this process and gleaned the following facts…

This is a delusional statement. The writer is the defendant, who is the subject of the process, not an external observer to it. We can compare it with her statements following her arrest, in which she claimed still to be helping the police on an equal basis with them, despite being charged with the murder.

No physical evidence places me in Meredith’s bedroom, the scene of the crime…

The bedroom is where the murder took place, but the crime scene is much wider than that, and certainly encompasses the adjoining room where the burglary was faked, the bathroom where the killers cleaned up, and the corridor that connects those rooms. Knox’s blood, DNA, bare footprints are all found in those places. Within Meredith’s room itself, there is also a woman’s shoeprint that does not match the victim, and which Knox’s own lawyer was obliged to claim was caused by an unfortunate fold in the pillowcase.

Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence in the brutal scenario: handprints, footprints, shoe prints in Meredith’s blood, DNA in her purse, on her clothing, in her body.

The term “brutal scenario” makes no sense here, although she repeats it again a couple of lines later. Perhaps she means “crime scene” or “bedroom”. The only footprints found at the crime scene are those of Knox and Sollecito. A woman’s shoeprint in the room where the murder took place cannot be that of either Guede or the victim, and is most likely that of Knox.

The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have… been the one to fatally wound Meredith ““ without leaving any genetic trace of myself. That is because it is impossible.

Actually it is perfectly possible to do this ““ for example, simply by stabbing someone to death while wearing gloves. However, in this case the prosecution has in fact explained how several traces of Knox’s DNA have been found on the handle of the knife which had the victim’s DNA on the blade. That obviously fits a scenario in which Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher with that knife.

Either I was there, or I wasn’t.

The same thing applies to the appeal court. Either the defendants are there, or they are not. In this case, the defendant is not.

The analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn’t there.

Knox’s footprints, blood and DNA, sometimes mixed with that of the victim, all place her at the crime scene, and so does her DNA on the handle of the murder weapon.

My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “confession” that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime.

“Non-knowledge” is a curious word. Knox’s witness interview was perfectly legal ““ it was only the unexpected confession from the witness that changed the status of that interview, so that its contents could no longer be used against her. But there is no question over its legality.

The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander…

This is an extraordinary aside. The defendant is here rejecting the legitimacy of the Italian Supreme Court, which has definitively found against her, and is also rejecting the findings of the Hellmann court that provisionally freed her, pending appeal. Every single court has found against her on this count.

. ...did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “confession”.

Let us reread some excerpts from this supposed recantation: “After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele’s hand… I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik… In these flashbacks I’m having, I see Patrik as the murderer…Why did I think of Patrik?... Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?” This is not a recantation, and it does in fact contain further accusations of Patrick Lumumba while also seeking to throw suspicion both on Sollecito and an unnamed “other person”.

My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence.

As dozens of witnesses have testified in a series of trials and appeals, Knox’s post-murder behavior indicated the exact opposite, which is why suspicion fell on her in the first place.

I did not flee Italy when I had the chance.

On page 71 of her memoir, Knox recounts the following exchange with Officer Ficarra, on the day after the murder was discovered: “My parents want me to go to Germany to stay with relatives for a couple of weeks. Is that okay?” She said, “You can’t leave Perugia. You’re an important part of the investigation.”

I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50 hours in four days.

Chapter Ten of her memoir gives her own account of what she did on Monday, November 5th. She went to a nine o’clock grammar class, at which she refused to discuss the case with her fellow students; she spoke on the phone with her Aunt Dolly, admitting that she had not yet contacted the US embassy; she bumped into Patrick Lumumba where she refused to talk to BBC reporters; she spent the afternoon with Sollecito and then accompanied him to a friend’s house where she played the ukulele. Far from being at the police’s beck and call, she ignored their request that she stay home while they interview Sollecito separately, and turned up to the Questura regardless, although not before they had finished their evening meal.

The police coerced me into signing a false “confession””¦.

Her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, for which she was convicted and has already served four years in prison, was not a confession and was not coerced.

. “¦one may be coerced into giving a false “confession” because of psychological torture”¦ This is a universal problem.

The US-based Innocence Project reports that there have been 244 exonerations since 2000, which is just over seventeen per year, which in turn means that currently in the USA, roughly 0.1% of cases are eventually overturned. Being wrongfully convicted might be devastating for the person concerned, but it is not a universal problem.

I did not carry around Raffaele’s kitchen knife.

The defendant has not been accused of carrying the knife around, but rather of stabbing Meredith Kercher to death with it. Forensic evidence supports that accusation, too.

I had no contact with Rudy Guede. Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guede.

Very typical of Knox’s writing is this kind of self-contradiction, sometimes occurring within the same sentence, or as in this case, in consecutive sentences, seemingly with no self-awareness that any contradiction has even occurred.

If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics.

The prosecution is present in the court, having made its presentation in the usual way. The defense lawyers are about to do exactly the same thing. The only theatrics happening in the court at that moment is a bizarre email sent by one of the defendants, in lieu of attending her own appeal to her own murder conviction.

But because no evidence exists that proves my guilt, the prosecution would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements.

No further comments… [End Finn MacCool]

5. Knox’s lies to Italy (#2) rebutted

The Italian weekly magazine Oggi is actually on trial for contempt of court for translating and republishing some of the numerous lies and defamations in Knox’s book Waiting To Be Heard. This is the article with offending Knox quotes in bold, and below our own rebuttal. Research anyone?

Amanda Knox: The American girl’s sensational story

Chilling. No other adjectives come to mind after having read Waiting to be Heard, finally released in the United States. An extremely detailed and very serious charge against the police and magistrates who conducted the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Immediately after the crime, Amanda recounts, and for entire days and nights, they had interrogated the American girl and placed her under pressure to make her confess to a non-existent truth, without officially investigating her, denying her the assistance of a lawyer, telling her lies, even prohibiting her from going to the bathroom and giving her smacks so as to make her sign a confession clearly extorted with something similar to torture.

And now the situation is very simple. There are only two choices: either Amanda is writing lies, and as a consequence the police officers and magistrates are going to have to sue her for defamation; or else she is telling the truth, and so they are going to have to go, not without being sanctioned by the CSM [the magistrates’ governing body] and the top brass of the Police. The third possibility, which is to pretend that nothing has happened, would be shameful for the credibility of our judicial system.

Amanda Knox has written her Waiting to be Heard memoir with the sense of revulsion and of relief of someone who has escaped by a hair’s breadth from a legal disaster, but has got her sums wrong. Cassation has decided that the [appeal] proceedings have to be redone and the hearings should be (re)commencing in October before the Florence Court of Appeal.

In a USA Today interview, Ms Knox has not excluded the possibility of “returning to Italy to face this battle too”, but it would be a suicidal decision: it’s likely that the appeal will result in a conviction, and the Seattle girl will end up in the black hole from which she has already spent 1,427 days.

In this way Waiting to be Heard risks being the “film” on which Amanda’s last words are recorded about the Mystery of Perugia, her definitive version.

We have read a review copy. And we were dumbfounded. Waiting to be Heard is a diary that has the frenetic pace of a thriller, written in a dry prose (behind the scenes is the hand of Linda Kulman, a journalist at the Huffington Post), even “promoted” by Michiko Kakutani, long-time literary critic at the New York Times.

The most interesting part does not concern the Raffaele Sollecito love story (which Amanda reduces it to puppy love: “With the feeling, in hindsight, I knew that he… that we were still immature, more in love with love than with each other”), and whoever goes looking for salacious details about the three Italian boys Amanda had casual sex with, one night stands, will be frustrated (Ms Knox describes those enounters with the nonchalance of an entomologist disappointed with his experiments: “We undressed, we had sex, I got dressed again with a sense of emptiness”).

There are no scoops about the night of the murder and even the many vicissitudes endured during the 34,248 hours spent in Capanne prison ““ the [claimed] sexual molestations suffered under two guards, the unexpected kiss planted by a bisexual cellmate, the threats made by another two prisoners ““ remain on the backdrop, like colourful notations.

Because what is striking and upsetting, in the book, is the minute descriptions, based on her own diaries, on the case documents and on a prodigious memory, of how Ms Knox had been incriminated (or “nailed”).

COME IN KAFKA. A Kafkian account in which the extraordinary naivety of Amanda (the word naïve, ingénue, is the one which recurs most often in the 457 pages of the book) mixes with the strepitous wickedness of the investigators decided on “following a cold and irrational trail because they had nothing better in hand”.

Devour the first 14 chapters and ask yourself: is it possible that the Police and Italian justice work with such incompetence, ferocity, and disdain for the truth? You place yourself in her situation and you scare yourself: If it happened to me? You’re in two minds: is it a likely accusation, or a squalid calumny, the version of Amanda?

Because in reading it you discover that in the four days following the discovery of Meredith Kercher’s body (on 2 November 2007), Amanda was interrogated continuously, and without the least of procedural guarantees [=due process].

She changes status from witness to suspect without being aware of it.” No one had told me my rights, no one had told me that I could remain silent”, she writes. When she asked if she had the right to a lawyer, the Public Prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, had responded like this: “No, no, that will only worsen things: it would mean that you don’t want to help us”. Thus, the Public Prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini.

For a long period of time, Ms Knox, who at the time spoke and understood hardly any Italian at all, mistook him for the Mayor of Perugia, come to the police station to help her.

Then, with the passage of time and of the pages, the assessment changes: Mignini is a prosecutor “with a bizarre past”, investigated for abuse of office (he was convicted at first instance, but Cassation annulled the verdict on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction: the case will be held in Torino ““ ndr) and with the hunger to fabricate “strange stories to solve his cases”.

Mignini “is a madman who considers his career more important than my liberty or the truth about the killing of Meredith”. On the phone, the Perugian prosecutor reacts with aplomb: “First I will read the book and then I will consider it. Certainly, if it really calls me “˜mad’ or worse, I think I will file suit”.

BEING IN PRISON IS LIKE CAMPING Amanda goes looking. When the officers mysteriously bring her along to the crime scene inspection of the apartment below the one in which she and Meredith were living in, Ms Knox put on the shoe protectors and the white forensics gloves and called out Ta-dah! spreading her arms “as if I was at the start of a musical: I wanted to appear helpful”.

When they dragged her in handcuffs into Capanne Prison, she believed what the Police would have told her, and that was they would hide her for a couple of days to protect her (from the true killer, one presumes) and for unspecified bureaucratic reasons. “In my head I was camping: “˜This won’t last more than a week in the mountains’, I told myself,” writes Amanda.

They take her money off her, and her credit cards, licence and passport, and she draws strength from repeating to herself that “surely they’re not going to give me a uniform, seeing that I’m a special case and that I’ll be here for only a little while”.

But it’s the account of the notorious interrogation that takes the breath away. Around ten in the evening on her last day of freedom, Ms Knox accompanies Raffaele to the police station (he was called in, also without a lawyer, by the Police) and is thrown into a nightmare which she populates with many faces: there is Officer Rita Ficcara, who gives her two cuffs on the head (“To help you remember,” she would say); there’s another officer who advises her: “If you don’t help us, you’ll end up in prison for 30 years”; Mignini arrives and advises her not to call a lawyer; super-policewoman Monica Napoleoni dives in and bluffs: “Sollecito has dropped your alibi: he says that on the night of the murder you had left his apartment and that you had told him to lie to “˜cover you’”.

And a crescendo of yelling and intimidations that lasts from 11 at night until 5.45 in the morning. Seven hours “produce” two confessions that, exactly because they are made without a defence lawyer, cannot be used in the proceedings, but forever after “stain” the image of the accused Knox: Amanda places herself at the scene of the crime and accuses Patrick Lumumba.

RAFFAELE CONFIRMS THE ACCUSATIONS An account of the horror is confirmed by Sollecito in his memoir, Honor Bound, Raffaele writes of having heard “the police yelling at Amanda and then the cries and sobs of my girl, who was yelling “˜Help!’ in Italian in the other room”, and of having being threatened in his turn (“If you try to get up and go, I’ll punch you till you’ll bleed and I’ll kill you. I’ll leave you in a pool of blood”, another officer had whispered to him).

Published lines which have passed right under the radar of the Perugian investigators: “No legal action [against the interrogators] has been notified to us,” Franco Sollecito, Raffaele’s dad, tell us. For having recounted the sourness of her interrogation in court, Amanda was investigated for calunnia: the trial will take place in Florence. This one, too, will be a circumstantial case: it’s the word of two young people against that of the public prosecutor and the police.

The recording of the interrogation would have unveiled which side the truth stands on. But it has gone missing.

Our own rebuttals:

Knox was NOT interrogated for days and nights. She was put under no pressure in her brief witness interviews except possibly by Sollecito who had just called their latest alibi “a pack of lies”.

Knox WAS officially investigated in depth, after she surprisingly “confessed” and placed herself and Patrick at the scene. Prior to that she’d been interviewed less than various others, who each had one consistent alibi.

Knox herself pushed to make all three statements without a lawyer on the night of 5-6 November 2007 in which she claimed she went out from Sollecito’s house, met Patrick, and witnessed him killing Meredith.

Far from Knox being denied a lawyer, discussions were stopped before the first statement and not resumed, in the later hearing she was formally warned she needed one; she signed a confirmation of this in front of witnesses.

Prosecutor Mignini who Knox accuses of telling her a lawyer would hurt her prospects when she claims she asked for one was not even in the police station at that interview; he was at home.

She was not prohibited from going to the bathroom. At trial, she testified she was treated well and was frequently offered refreshments. Her lawyers confirmed this was so.

She was not given smacks by anyone, though she did repeatedly smack her own head. Over a dozen witnesses testified that she was treated well, broke into a conniption spontaneously, and thereafter her talking was hard to stop.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Knox was subject to “something similar to torture” and as mentioned above only Sollecito applied any pressure, not any of the police.

There is nothing “suicidal” about returning to Italy to defend herself at the new appeal. Sollecito did. She risks an international arrest warrant and extradition if she doesn’t.

There is no proof except for her own claims of sexual molestations in prison; she is a known serial liar; and she stands out for an extreme willingness to talk and write about sex.

Many people have testified she was treated well in prison: her own lawyers, a member of parliament, and visitors from the US Embassy were among them; she herself wrote that it was okay.

She may have based her account on her diaries and “prodigious memory” but the obviously false accusation against the prosecutor suggests that much of the book was made up.

The investigators had a great deal of evidence against Knox in hand, not nothing, and they were not ever faulted for any action; they helped to put on a formidable case at trial in 2009.

“Police and Italian justice work with such incompetence, ferocity, and disdain for the truth” is contradicted by a very complete record prior to trial which was praised by the Supreme Court.

Mr Mignini has NO bizarre past at all. He is widely known to be careful and fair. He would not have been just promoted to first Deputy Prosecutor General of Umbria otherwise.

He was put on trial by a rogue prosecutor desperate to protect his own back from Mignini’s investigations; the Supreme Court has killed the trumped up case dead.

There was nothing “mysterious” about Knox being taken to the crime scene to see if any knives were gone, but her wailing panic when she saw the knives was really “mysterious”.

Knox never thought she was in prison for her own protection; she had signed an agreement at the 5:00 am interview confirming she did know why she was being held.

Monica Napoleoni did not “bluff” that Sollecito had just trashed their joint alibi; he actually did so, because his phone records incriminated him; he agreed to that in writing.

There was no crescendo of “yelling and intimidations that lasts from 11 at night until 5.45”. There were two relatively brief sessions. Knox did most of the talking, named seven possible perps, and drew maps.

There was zero legal requirement to record the recap/summary interview, no recording has “gone missing” and many officers present testified to a single “truth” about what happened.

6. Coming up In Our Next Posts

More of the same. Knox blowing smoke and our exposing her. Some of the same smoke she blew for Netflix. And also, our lies of omission seies.

Posted by Our Main Posters on 10/03/16 at 12:58 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Appeals 2009-2015, Florence 2014+, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, 17 Fake memory hoax, 20 No-PR hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, More hoaxers, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (9)

Correcting Netflix 10: Omitted - How Amanda Knox Falsely Accused Dr Mignini Of A Felony

Posted by Peter Quennell

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.

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?”

“I’m confused!”

“Are you scared of him?”

“I guess.”

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.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/08/16 at 08:52 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, More hoaxers, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (17)

Correcting Netflix 11: Omitted - How Italian Justice Is Misrepresented By Multiple Cherrypickings Of Facts

Posted by Swansea Jack

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.

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.

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

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?

Posted by Swansea Jack on 10/11/16 at 08:37 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in The judical timeline, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 2 Italian mileu hoax, 3 No evidence hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, More hoaxers, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (20)

Correcting Netflix 12: Omitted - How In Multiple Ways Poorly Researched Movie Contradicts Knox’s Own Book

Posted by Chimera

Ummmm… Amanda Knox is wildly unable to keep her multiple stories straight

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.

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.

(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.”

Commentary:

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.”

Commentary:

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.”

Commentary:

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.”

Commentary:

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.”

Commentary:

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.

Commentary:

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.”

Commentary:

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.

Commentary:

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”

Commentary:

AK was made (more) infamous from her “Baby Brother” story, published online in 2007

Short Story Shows Amanda Knox Had Rape “In Her Mind”

[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.”

Commentary:

Also see this (supplied by Hopeful), where Knox gets to “proxy-rape” someone else. The 3rd paragraph is disturbing.

How Amanda Knox Is Encouraging West Seattle To Adulate Seriously Sick Individuals

Amanda’s View: The Stanford rape case: redirecting focus

Commentary:

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.

(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

(Why Knox’s Damning Last Live TV Interview Was Attacked And Labeled “Controversial”)

(h) Know knew which knife was the murder weapon

(Why Knox’s Damning Last Live TV Interview Was Attacked And Labeled “Controversial”)

(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.

Commentary:

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.”

Commentary:

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.

(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

(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

Commentary:

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 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.”

Commentary:

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?!”

In summary:

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.

In future, countries she visits should be put in the know on all of this.

Below: Stephen Robert Morse, Rod Blackhurst, and Brian McGinn: NO CLUE what is in book?

Posted by Chimera on 10/14/16 at 05:59 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, 19 HIV test leak hoax, 20 No-PR hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (11)

Correcting Netflix 13: Omitted - How The DNA Processes And Evidence Points Were Deliberately Misrepresented

Posted by KrissyG

Above, modern Scientific Police labs in Rome; bottom, hellhole consultants labs (now closed)

1. Introduction

“Amanda Knox” by Netflix is massively misleading on the DNA. It completely ignores that Conti’s and Vechiotti’s 2011 report was unceremoniously ridiculed in 2013 by the First Chambers of the Supreme Court and the fraudulent pair branded as “˜intellectually dishonest’.

Netflix presents Conti and Vechiotti as trustworthy and competent when Vechiotti’s appalling lab had already been forcibly shut down. They ignore that the pair illegally colluded with US and British DNA academics Hampikian, Budowle and Gill beholden to the defense who interfered to pervert the outcome of the appeal.

They present Knox and Sollecito as “˜exonerated’ and “˜innocent’ based in part on Vecchiotti & Conti’s misleading narrative when they were nothing of the kind.

They ignore that, in large part because of their incompetences and dishonesties, the 2011 appeal was annulled. They ignore that the case was remitted back down to a different Appeal Court, in a different area (Florence) under a different judge (Nencini) while the 2011 judge (Hellman) was edged into retirement.

And they ignore that Italy’s best DNA experts, from the Carabinieri labs in Rome, were assigned the role of DNA analysis for the repeat appeal, as they should have been in 2011, and important confirmations were presented and barely challenged.

Here is TJMK’s series of DNA analyses and the Wiki’s giant DNA spreadsheet with a lengthy explanation of how it works. And here in Italian is the full rebuttal of all defense challenges by Dr Stefanoni, lead prosecution expert at trial and annulled appeal.

Finally, a tip on the images below. These are movie snippets, with English subtitles included. They expand to full screen in Acrobat Reader (please download it if you dont have it) if you click on each image.

Part 2 below explains what is in the film that misleads, and Part 3 describes all that was left out.

2. What Is In The Film

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.

Vecchiotti then continues the theme of the film that the prosecutor Mignini was acting entirely intuitively. “˜You can’t just make it what you want it to be’.

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.

Vecchiotti comments, “˜The Knox DNA profile is a very good one.’

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.

Having established ““ falsely ““ that Vecchiotti and Conti had proven contamination to an unwary audience, the film then cuts to Amanda Knox claiming, “˜There is no trace of me in the murder room’.

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.

The Vecchiotti and Conti sequence of the film ends with a drawn out episode of a supercilious Conti leaning back in an attitude of condescension, no doubt aimed at Mignini, when he concludes,

“˜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. What Was Left Out

Part 3 is perhaps twice as long as Part 2 because Netflix lied by omission to its audience on such a grand scale. These are the areas to be covered.

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.

Vecchiotti lab

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 â‚¬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”.

Vecchiotti lab

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) [245] 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:

[246] 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.

Nencini

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?

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.

Illegal intruder Hampikian

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.

Illegal intruder Gill

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.

The Meredith Case Wiki

The Perugia Murder File Forum (Net Version)

The Nencini Sentencing Report.

The Chieffi Sentencing Report.

The Massei Report.

The Marasca-Bruno Report:

My thanks to the wonderful translators and everybody who helped me with material.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/17/16 at 10:15 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Evidence & Witnesses, DNA and luminol, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes against Italy, 4 No firm DNA hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 15 Single alibi hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, More hoaxers, Hoaxers from 2011, Greg Hampikian, Peter Gill, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (22)

Correcting Netflix 15: Omitted - Amanda Knox’s Incriminating Lies To The Police, Prosecution And Courts

Posted by The Machine

In 2008 Knox lawyers publicly ask that she stop lying publicly; one resigned earlier over lies.

Netflix’s Amanda Knox is an extreme example of misleading bias by cherrypicking. This post is another in our ongoing series, the mothership for material for this media-friendly page online soon.

Overview Of This Post

The filmmakers Blackhurst, McGinn and Morse 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?

AD: Yes.

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?

AD: Yes.

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?

AD: No.

CP: In particular, was she struck on the head by a policewoman?

AD: No.

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 [100] 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.

Conclusion

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.

Posted by The Machine on 10/28/16 at 06:59 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, More hoaxers, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (11)

Correcting Netflix 16: Omitted - Good Media Reporting From Italy, Depicted As Fake News

Posted by Peter Quennell

Nick Pisa was among those who filed court reports objectively and very fast

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 Reporting 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 43 of Nick Pisa’s reports, in whole or in part. Check them all out below. Do you see ANY bias here?

5. Reports We Used As Trusted Valuable Source

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: Nick Pisa Reports Knox Sisters’ Macabre Posing Where Meredith Was Killed

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

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/04/16 at 08:04 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in News media & movies, Excellent reporting, Hoaxes against Italy, 12 Rabid media hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 20 No-PR hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (20)

Correcting Netflix 17: Omitted - Too Many Pesky Truths, To Inflame False Notion Italian Justice Failed Here

Posted by Corpusvile

Inside Netflix’s Silicon Valley headquarters

Amanda Knox the Netflix documentary was directed and exec produced by two ardent Knox supporters, Rod Blackhurst and Stephen Robert Morse

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 â‚¬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.

Posted by Corpusvile on 11/12/16 at 08:51 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Evidence & Witnesses, The pack attack, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 2 Italian mileu hoax, 3 No evidence hoax, 4 No firm DNA hoax, 5 No pack attack hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, 12 Rabid media hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, Hoaxes Sollecito etc, 25 RS persona hoax, Hoaxes re Guede, 33 Sole attacker hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, More hoaxers, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (22)

Correcting Netflix 22 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #1

Posted by Our Main Posters

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

1. The Very Dominant Netflix Takeway

Approximately four out of every five online Netflix reviews - about 160 out of about 200 - were somewhat, or strongly, or ISIS-level worked up about those Italians.

They were bothered or very ticked or totally outraged at the treatment of the supposedly saintly Amanda Knox, the complete lack of evidence, the cruel Italian and British media, and the even more cruel persecution of Knox (the inconvenient Sollecito is largely forgotten) by a moralistic loose-cannon prosecutor.

See these random examples by Netflix reviewers Adrienne Bischoff, and Rachel Brodsky, and Lorraine Courtney, and Natalie Finn, and Lou Lumenick, and Sara Stewart, and Genevieve Van Voorhis, all under-researched and all flaming Dr Mignini.

Not one of them mentions that around Perugia Knox was a notorious, frequently-high handful who directly caused the imprisonment of the drug dealer she was sleeping with, or that she was not actually an exchange student or in fact even enrolled at Perugia University.

Not one of them mentions that the body of evidence is actually enormous, or that the 2009 trial was very conclusive, or that she did actually have a team of lawyers, who publicly warned her to stop lying, or that the uniquely careful Italian system protected her via numerous reviews by judges, or that the claimed 54 hours of interrogation is a complete Knox fabrication.

Not one of them mentions that Knox let Patrick stew in prison for several weeks and cruelly destroyed his business despite his risk in hiring her without a work permit, or that she is a felon for life and still owes Patrick $100,000 in damages, or that Knox tried to criminally frame Dr Mignini and for that could still be prosecuted.

The Netflixhoax #20 post below featured Dr Mignini describing a comprehensive, routine and above-board investigation by a large team under judicial supervision. We have not yet seen any part of it questioned as irregular by any of the American lawyers and judges who read here.

Now we post in three parts Dr Mignini’s one and only interrogation of Amanda Knox, on 17 December 2007. His brilliance is really on display here. The Netflix report made zero mention of this, at a guess because it clashes in multiple ways with Knox’s court testimony in June 2009 and her unchallenged lies on Netflix.

Dr Mignini agreed to this three-hour session at Knox’s own request, contrary to the advice of her lawyers, presumably made because she hoped to explain away all the small mountain of hard facts already compromising her.

It seemed clear to everybody after three hours, Knox herself included, that she had failed, and her lawyers halted the session at that point (see Part 3 coming).

Mignini now had a lengthy statement from Knox on the record reflecting a timid and erratic Knox utterly unable to explain why she fingered Patrick. This transcript played a major part in her calunnia conviction and 3-year sentence and her inability to persuade even the Hellman or Marasca/Bruno appeal courts that up was really down and so on.

Your task here and in the next two posts is perhaps to spot any hint of a “mad prosecutor” or fictitious sex-crimes or satanic rituals or moral judgments or 50-plus hour interrogations that 160 Netflix reviewers were so lathered-up about.

2. The 17 December Interrogation Knox Requested (Part 1 Of 3)

Note: This is the first hour of three hours. The excellent translation is by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. The original in Italian is in the Wiki Case File here; it has been accessed nearly 4,000 times.

Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of interview Of Ms Amanda Knox

Criminal Proceeding n. 9066/07, r.g.n.r. Public Prosecutor’s Officer Perugia

On the day of 17.12.2007 At the Perugia Prison

Those Officials Present:

Public Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini
Daniela Severi ““ Clerk of the Court
Agent Danilo Paciotti ““ Carabinieri Section Judicial Police
Giacinto Prefazio ““ Head of Flying Squad Perugia Police
Monica Napoleoni ““ Deputy Superintendent Perugia Police
Julia Clemesh ““ Interpreter

[Ed note: Amanda Knox was present with her legal team of Costa & Ghirga; Dr Costa resigned after this interview, apparently unable to see a way to defend her if this was her best shot.]

Complete statement of the declarations made as a person being investigated on the facts by Ms Amanda Knox.

Public Prosecutor Mignini: It’s 10:45 am I’m assisted for the redaction of this current statement. The date is 17 December 2007, in the proceeding 9066/07 mod. 21 in Perugia, Capanne Prison, before the Public Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini, assisted for the redaction of the statement by Clerk of the Court Daniela Severi and by Carabinieri Agent Danilo Paciotti from the Carabinieri Judicial Police Section qualified for recording, present for investigative exigency Dr Giacinto Profazio, head of the Perugia Flying Squad, and Deputy Superintendent of the Perugia Flying Squad Monica Napoleoni, also present, and the interpreter Dr Julia Clemesh, born at Frankfurt-on-Maine?

Interpreter: Yes.

PM Mignini: Federal Republic of Germany, 17 September 1974, resident in Perugia, Via [address edited]. Amanda Knox has appeared, since she in a state of detention audio recording is provided for and the other requirements under Article 141 bis of the Criminal Procedure Code and the other requirements of Law. A summary report is also provided for; she is invited to declare her particulars and whatever else is required to identify her with the admonition of the consequences which apply when one refuses to give them or gives them falsely, [2] in answer. Now then, you have to tell me your particulars. And you have to tell me, exactly. So, what’s your name? You have to say, I am and my name is”¦

Knox: My name is Amanda Knox.

PM Mignini: Born at? You see, you have to tell me”¦

Knox: Born in Seattle.

PM Mignini: Seattle, Washington State, isn’t that?

Knox: Yes in the United States on the 9th July 1987.

PM Mignini: What date sorry? The”¦

Knox: The 9th July ‘87.

PM Mignini: 9 July ‘87. Resident at?

Knox: Here?

PM Mignini: No, resident in the United States in Seattle”¦

Knox: 37th Avenue”¦ a pen”¦

PM Mignini: She needs to write it down”¦ a pen”¦ yes so yes notice is given that 9821. Now then, can you speak Italian? Do you understand it a bit?

Knox: Yes but I prefer to speak in English.

PM Mignini: Yes, but in any case do you understand Italian a little bit?

Knox: Yes, yes but I can help better”¦

PM Mignini: Do you have a pseudonym? A nickname?

Knox: In the soccer team they called me Foxi Noxi (naughty fox, ndr)

Interpreter: In the soccer team they called her Foxi Noxi.

PM Mignini: Can you dictate it for the”¦

Interpreter: How to spell it?

PM Mignini: They call me Foxi Noxi.

Knox: Only when I play soccer.

PM Mignini: Nationality from the United States, residence as above, domicile as above, place of employment? “¦ Where do you work, are you a student

Knox: I’m a student.

Interpreter: Yes, student.

PM Mignini: Marital status, single, is it? Conditions of your specific life, social relations, study title?

Knox: I’ve finished high school.

Interpreter: She hasn’t graduated yet.

PM Mignini: High school diploma.

Interpreter: Yes senior high yes.

PM Mignini: Occupation? “˜I am”¦’ You’re a university student?

Knox: Yes.

PM Mignini: “I’m a university student [male adjectival form], university student [female adjectival form].” ?

Knox: Yes.

PM Mignini: Listen, do you have real estate? Do you own houses, land?

Knox: No.

PM Mignini: Propertyless. Are you under other criminal trials, besides this one, involved in other processes or proceedings?

Knox: No.

[4] PM Mignini: Do you have any convictions under the State or in foreign countries? Careful, you need”¦ Whether you have proceedings in foreign countries. Do you understand? Proceedings in the investigation phase.

Knox: No.

Interpreter: The second question instead?

PM Mignini: Whether you have had convictions, in the Italian State or in foreign countries”¦ so therefore also in the United States”¦

Lawyer: I would like that you explained”¦

PM Mignini: But is that a crime?

Lawyer: No administrative.

PM Mignini: You shall say it, have you had fines, have you paid fines in the United States

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: Yes? “¦ But was it about facts constituting an offence? You don’t know this”¦ or was it facts which constitute administrative breach

Knox: For having made noise

PM Mignini: I understand. Do you exercise or have you exercised public offices or services or of public necessity? No. Have you ever carried out public duties? Electoral for example”¦

Knox: No

PM Mignini: Public duties no. Now then you therefore have the right to nominate a defender, you have two defenders, you confirm the nominating of these defenders that are present, therefore you confirm the nominating of the advocates Luciano Ghirga of the Perugia Bar and Advocate Carlo Dalla Vedova of the Rome Bar, present at the taking down of this document. Also present as collaborator from the Dalla Vedova Law Firm, advocate Giancarlo Costa also of the Rome Bar. Now then. [5] The choice of domicile, where do you want the notices of this proceeding to go to?

Interpreter: In Italy right?

Knox: To the office of my lawyer

PM Mignini: I confirm the choice of domicile as at the firm of advocate Ghirga. The Public Prosecutor therefore notifies to you the charges that you have seen in the precautionary custody orders which are the offences contrary to Articles 110, 81 main paragraph, 575, 578, and 609 bis of the Criminal Code, committed in Perugia on the night of the 1st and the 2nd of November 2007 against Meredith Kercher in acts as registered. Statements of summary information, findings pursuant to Art 354 and 360 CPC searches and seizures, statemented search proceedings and all the elements mentioned by the Perugia Re-examination Court in the order dated 30 November, 5 December 2007. Therefore all the elements against you there are declarations by persons informed of the facts, there are the results of the tests carried out by the Scientific Police, therefore the traces, in particular the trace on the knife, the DNA trace on the knife, the DNA in the bidet, and all the other results mentioned by the Perugia Re-examination Court in the 30 November, 5 December 2007 order. Therefore you shall make known what you consider to be useful for your defence.

Lawyer: Excuse me, we’re given to understand that there have been indicated things, in the 30 pages of the re-examination some other things have been indicated, so you put them to her and invite her to say things useful for the trial, you’ve given four or five examples, if”¦ I don’t believe that it acquits your task to put them to her.

PM Mignini: Now then look. Well she was found to be”¦

Lawyer: You’re going through the evidence against her, can we describe it like that? Now then.

PM Mignini: Of course. So it resulted during the course of the investigations there was a series of items of evidence, items against her that are, that derive from the declarations of persons informed of the facts, in particular the declarations made by, from some declarations that have been made by you yourself during the phase, during, in the period in which you were a person informed of the facts, so prior to the 6th November 2007, there are also declarations by Raffaele Sollecito when he was still a person informed of the facts, and declarations by Raffaele Sollecito at the Validation Interview, because at the Validation hearing Sollecito had responded to the interrogatory and has therefore, his declarations are therefore fully utilizable and are”¦ now then from these declarations, then I’ll pass to the other items, from these declarations one can deduce a reconstruction that in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office is not credible, of what had occurred. Of what had occurred, things are different, I’ll explain to you then in particular it’s not credible in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, what was and then what had been declared by Sollecito even during his interrogation, the whole reconstruction that had been made of both your whereabouts, yours and Sollecito’s, the night of the 1st and 2nd of November 2007. In particular what happened the morning of the 2nd November up until 13:00. Then there are the findings, the DNA trace, the DNA trace on Sollecito’s knife and on the blade of this knife there’s Meredith’s DNA. Then on the handle there’s your DNA, the blood traces therefore in the bidet, yours, also in the washbasin.

Lawyer: On the bidet there’s DNA and in the washbasin.

PM Mignini: On the bidet of her and of Meredith and in the washbasin there’s blood, her haematic traces. Then there are, in the ambit of fingerprint tests that were done, the prints despite she lives, despite she lived in that house and she was the person who remained, who had moved around the inside of the house as [7] the last one there, up until”¦ there was one trace only on a glass, only one print of hers. And this, this makes one think that there had been, that she had removed her other prints, because it isn’t, in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it’s not likely that she had, that there would be only one single print of hers from”¦ although she lived in the house. Now then. It’s these ones. Then there are the findings they are basically these ones. Now then. There are also further findings that derive from declarations made by persons informed of the facts. I’ll limit myself to mentioning this. So you have the possibility, I invite you to specify what you consider useful for your own defence with the advice that your declarations can be used against you, right? But in any case you have the right to not answer, you can refuse to answer any question but in any case the Proceedings will take their course. Even if you don’t answer. Then if you make declarations on the facts that concern the responsibility of others you’ll take on as regards these facts the role of witness with all the”¦ now then, so you intend to answer?

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: First of all do you intend to answer? Then “˜I intend to answer’, “˜I claim I’m innocent’, right? What do you say? Do you admit the deed or not? Admit the facts that are being put to you or not? “¦ That is you have been accused of the murder-in-company of Meredith Kercher and sexual violence. You, do you admit this fact or else do you protest your innocence?

Knox: Innocent.

PM Mignini: I protest my innocence. So”¦ when did you arrive in Perugia?

Knox: The first time I had arrived with my sister for three days but the second
Interpreter: When?

Knox: It was August that I had come the first time in my life here

[8] Interpreter: This year?

Knox: Yes, for three days.

Interpreter: The first time was August of this year for three days with her sister.

PM Mignini: And your sister is called?

Knox: Diana.

Interpreter: Diana

PM Mignini: And then?

Knox: And I went to Germany for a bit and then I came for the second time to Perugia to stay on the 20th September”¦

Interpreter: In August for three days, then she went to Germany and came back to Perugia to stay, to remain for a while”¦

PM Mignini: In Germany where?

Knox: Grunenwald near to Hamburg where my aunt lives.

Interpreter: Where her aunt lives near Hamburg.

PP Mignini: And your aunt is called?

Knox: Dolly which is the diminutive of Dorothy.

Interpreter: Dorothy. She came back to Perugia on 20 September

PM Mignini: On the 20th September and you found, in the Via della Pergola house who did you find when you’d come back to Perugia on the 20th September?

Knox: In reality I found Laura the three days that I was here with my sister and they introduced me to Filomena and we had decided to live together. I had met Laura in front of the University for Foreigners, we had spoken of the fact that [9] she was looking for a flatmate and I had met Filomena and we had decided to live together”¦

Interpreter: In August during the three days she had met the housemate name of Laura

PM Mignini: Mezzetti?

Knox: I don’t know”¦ we were calling her Laura.

Interpreter: She doesn’t know.. she met Laura in those three days when she was looking for a housemate and then they had agreed that in September she would have gone”¦

PM Mignini: And it was only Laura there?

Interpreter: She had met her, when she had gone to see the house, she had also met Filomena

PM Mignini: Filomena Romanelli

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Meredith wasn’t there?

Knox: No

PM Mignini: Listen, do you use drugs?

Interpreter: Marijuana sometimes

Knox: I take marijuana

PP Mignini: Marijuana. Only marijuana?

Knox: In the form of hashish

Interpreter: Marijuana in the form of hashish

[10] PM Mignini: No other substances?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: And up until when have you used it?

Knox: Do you want to know when I started? Ah no, you want to know up until when “¦

Interpreter: The last time the first of November? But you asked up until when right?

PM Mignini: Up until when, yes, yes the first of November. In the evening?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: With Sollecito?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

Knox: With Raffaele yes

PM Mignini: And how much did you have that evening?

Knox: We shared a joint”¦

Interpreter: She had shared a joint, yes they had shared a joint.

PM Mignini: From whom had you obtained this substance?

Lawyer: From whom had you obtained it?

Knox: I didn’t obtain it myself”¦ it was Raffaele’s I simply used his smoke

Interpreter: It was a joint of Raffaele’s.

PM Mignini: And you don’t know who he got it from

[11] Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: And before, when you had come to Perugia had you used it? Before the first of November.

Interpreter: Ah, before the first of November?

PM Mignini: Yes

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: And from whom were you getting it?

Knox: I was smoking it with friends I never bought any”¦ I wasn’t buying it since for example I would give ten euro to Laura and she used to buy it for me”¦

Interpreter: She never bought it directly herself only with friends they shared joints

PM Mignini: And who were these friends?

Knox: A flatmate”¦

Interpreter: A housemate, the two Italian housemates and the neighbours down below.

PM Mignini: Who of these? Giacomo?

Knox: We were all together and we were smoking all together”¦ There was a young man who was living on the floor below who was called Riccardo and we didn’t use to visit him, so we weren’t smoking with Riccardo and with the others yes.

Interpreter: Everybody. It was shared amongst everybody, except for a young man who is called Riccardo who had never been around, who happens to be downstairs who had never been in their company, apart from him with the others

[12] PM Mignini: And Meredith was using it?

Knox: Sometimes but not as often as me”¦ not as much

Interpreter: Eh sometimes times but not much.

PM Mignini: But who was giving it to you? “¦ Do you know who gave it to you?

Knox: No, I don’t know who was giving it, we were smoking together but I don’t know who was giving it”¦

Interpreter: The same story, only in company.

PM Mignini: Listen and when did you start working for Patrick, for Lumumba?

Knox: Straight after when I had arrived I had looked for a job, I knew a friend of Laura’s called Jube (phonetic) and who was working for Patrick”¦ I don’t know the day, I can’t remember the day. It was October, I think”¦

Interpreter: Then when she had arrived she was looking for a part-time job through, there was a boy called Juve (phonetic) who was working with Patrick and he was a friend of the housemate Laura, through Laura and this boy Juve (phonetic) she ended up at Patrick’s in October it would have been.

PM Mignini: October?

Knox: I don’t remember precisely.

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember exactly.

PM Mignini: And the salary, what was it? That is how much was Patrick giving you?

Knox: Around 5 euro an hour”¦

Interpreter: Around 5 euro an hour

PM Mignini: How many hours were you working at Patrick’s?

Knox: It depended on how many people there were at the beginning I was working every day up until around”¦ between midnight and 2 am, starting at 10. But I was also [13] handing out flyers during the day, independent of how many hours I was working her was giving me 15, 20 euros at the end of the day”¦ and so it was”¦

Interpreter: Depending on the amount of work, how many people there were in the pub, she used to finish work between midnight and two in the morning and she used to start at ten. During the day she was distributing flyers, always for Patrick, and Patrick at the end of the evening used to give her 15 to 20 euro and doing the sums it came to 5 euro an hour on average.

PM Mignini: I want to know this, what were the work hours? If you can repeat it.

Knox: Depending on if there were things to do, I was finishing at midnight or at two.

Interpreter: She was starting at ten and depending on how much work there was she was finishing between midnight and two AM.

PM Mignini: Every day or else only some days only during the week?

Knox: At the beginning it was every day but when they had arrested me the last two weeks I had worked twice a week.

PM Mignini: What days?

Knox: Thursday and Tuesday”¦

Interpreter: Tuesday and Thursday

PM Mignini: Did it ever happen that you weren’t, beyond that, apart from the evening of the first of November right? Before, did it happen that you didn’t go to work one night on which you had work, right? That you hadn’t gone and for what reason”¦ anyone advised you?

Knox: If it had ever happened”¦ let’s see”¦ did it ever occur to me? It could have happened that one time I didn’t go because I was feeling sick”¦

[14] Interpreter: It’s possible that she didn’t go there one time because she was ill

PM Mignini: So only on one occasion. So the evening of the first?

Interpreter: She said maybe also one other time

PM Mignini: Ah so

Interpreter: But she wasn’t feeling well

PM Mignini: Ah because she wasn’t feeling well

Interpreter: Yes, yes, to be precise she doesn’t remember

PM Mignini: You weren’t feeling well and you’d informed Patrick about not being well and so you couldn’t go

Interpreter: This she didn’t say. She hasn’t said this.

PM Mignini: You say: “˜it could have happened that I hadn’t gone because I was sick once’

Interpreter: You’ve asked apart from the first of November, true?

PM Mignini: yes, yes

Interpreter: So we speaking of apart from the first of November, the question is whether she had informed Patrick”¦

PM Mignini: The question is if on other occasions she had not been able to go to work because she had been advised”¦ on other occasions”¦ ask her the question

Lawyer: Eh but this one is different to the one from before

PM Mignini: Now then the question that I asked before was this one: did it happen at other times she had not gone to work?

Interpreter: And the answer was yes, maybe when she was feeling ill

[15] PM Mignini: She was feeling ill, did it happen on other occasions that you hadn’t gone to work because Patrick had called you telling you not to go to work?

Knox: No, it never happened

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: It never happened. Listen, how were you maintaining yourself? That is how much were you earning? How much let’s say per week were you earning from Patrick?

Knox: I had saved that I had had from my parents”¦

Interpreter: The money from her parents and also her savings she had from before

PM Mignini: But how much from Lumumba were you earning in a week? You’ve said so right? “¦ I think
“¦
Interpreter: From 15, 20 euro a night

PM Mignini: A night, so 30 euro a week broad brush right? Because it was two days

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes.

PM Mignini: And the parents, how much were your parents sending you, what amount were they sending you and how often?

Knox: They were sending me each month more or less what was needed to pay the rent”¦

Interpreter: They were sending her enough each month to pay the rent

PM Mignini: How much? So how much was the rent?

Knox: 300 euro a month”¦ but they were giving me a bit more”¦ they used to put in my bank account”¦

[16] Interpreter: 300 euro a month. But they were giving her a little bit extra, they were putting in her account. Her parents were putting it into Amanda’s account

PM Mignini: So they were giving you a little bit more, so how much? How much, around 400”¦ 500 euro I don’t know”¦

Knox: Maybe around 400 euro”¦

Interpreter: Around 400 euro yes

PM Mignini: Oh, and then your savings, isn’t that? “¦ Yes

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: Right then, can you tell us how much money you had, the first of November”¦ eh?

Knox: In my bank account?

Interpreter: Where did she have this money? “¦

PM Mignini: How much did you have and where did you have it? If you had accounts”¦

Knox: Okay, it was in my bank account

Interpreter: In her savings account

Knox: “¦I think around about 5 thousand dollars but I don’t know

Around [sic: read: Interpreter]: She thinks around 5 thousand dollars in her savings account

PM Mignini: Savings account at which bank?

Knox: Washington Mutual

Interpreter: Washington Mutual

PM Mignini: Did you have an ATM [=cash dispenser]? Or a credit card?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

[17] PM Mignini: Right then, this ATM [card] where is it? This card or credit card?

Knox: In my wallet

Interpreter: In the wallet that has been seized

PM Mignini: How much had you withdrawn the last time before the first of November?

Knox: I always take out 250 euro because that’s the maximum and I always take the maximum because there’s a cost to pay for each withdrawal so I always take the maximum”¦ and I put in the drawer of my desk”¦

Interpreter: She doesn’t recall exactly which day she would make withdrawals, she knows that she always used to withdraw the maximum because she has to pay a fee and the maximum is 250 euro and this money she used to put in the little drawer of the desk at home

PM Mignini: In your room?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: And so you had 250 euro on the first? How much did you have?

Lawyer: Translate the question for her

Knox: In my room?

PM Mignini: I’m asking you where you had it, where were you holding it?

Knox: I think I could have had around 300 euro”¦ about”¦ in my desk”¦

Interpreter: She thinks she might have had 300 euro in total in the little drawer

Knox: Usually I would take 20 euro and I would put it in my wallet when I needed to

Interpreter: and she would take 20 euro that she would put in her wallet

[18] PM Mignini: Listen, did you know Guede? Rudy?

Knox: Vaguely”¦

Interpreter: Vaguely

PM Mignini: How did you know him? Where did you meet him?

Knox: I’d encountered him a couple of times, I’d seen him at my place of work and also in the city centre and I’d encountered him with my neighbours in the city centre and I’d also seen him at the basketball court”¦ I was there with all the others in my neighbours’ house

Interpreter: At the basketball court?

Knox: No

Interpreter: At a party at the neighbours’ house?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: She’d met him she thinks in Patrick’s pub, no, she had seen him she thinks in Patrick’s pub and then she’d seen him at the basketball court and at a party in the neighbours’ house below.

PM Mignini: Now, when had you known him?

Lawyer: How much time before

PP Mignini: How much time before, with when you’d arrived in September”¦

Knox: I believe that it was around mid-October but truly I don’t remember”¦

Interpreter: I think towards the middle of October

PM Mignini: Did you used to visit him? Guede

[19] Interpreter: Meaning?

PM Mignini: If she visited him with a certain regularity in short, with a certain, whether they were going out together

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Did it happen that you had to give him some money?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Listen, but were you, were you missing any money that night of the first and second?

Knox: I don’t know I didn’t look”¦ the 2nd I didn’t look”¦

Interpreter: She didn’t look in the room

Lawyer: But when?

Interpreter: The 2nd of November

Lawyer: Ah right

Interpreter: On the 2nd of November she didn’t look

PM Mignini: And where did Meredith used to keep her money?

Knox: I don’t know

Interpreter: She doesn’t know

PM Mignini: Listen, when was the last time you see Guede?

Knox: I think that the last one is that of which I have already spoken and that is a party at my neighbours’ house on the floor below

[20] Interpreter: The last time she thinks that it was at the party at the neighbours’ house below

PM Mignini: Which had taken place when?

Lawyer: More or less

PM Mignini: More or less, if you don’t recall”¦

Knox: Towards the end of October”¦

Interpreter: Towards the end of October

PM Mignini: The end of October, so close to the 31st? Eh the end of October”¦ the end of October”¦ in any case you don’t remember. Listen, did Rudy know Patrick? Had he visited his pub?

Knox: Yes I’d seen him at the pub but I’d seen him only once”¦

Interpreter: She had seen him in the pub but she’d seen him only one time

PM Mignini: But do you know whether those two knew each other?

Knox: I don’t think so but actually I don’t know, I didn’t get the impression that they knew each other”¦

Interpreter: She doesn’t think that they knew each other, she doesn’t know

PM Mignini: You know or you don’t know?

Interpreter: She’s not sure about it but what it looked like to her is that they weren’t acquainted”¦

PP Mignini: What’s the basis of this conviction?

Knox: Because everybody that knows Patrick go straight to him to talk with him and Rudy didn’t do that”¦

Interpreter: Because everyone who knows Patrick goes straight to him to talk to him and Rudy didn’t do that

PM Mignini: But did they greet each other, did you see them”¦

[21] Knox: Patrick greeted everybody who was coming in”¦

Interpreter: Patrick greeted everybody who was coming in

PM Mignini: Listen, were you getting on OK with Lumumba?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: There were no problems between you?

Lawyer: Of what nature?

PM Mignini: Problems of any sort I don’t know “¦

Lawyer: Money ones, personal ones, right”¦

PM Mignini: Problems I mean in general eh “¦

Knox: No we were getting on OK”¦

Interpreter: No, they were going OK

PM Mignini: Listen, Lumumba was irascible?

Interpreter: Was?

PM Mignini: Irascible [=bad-tempered], that is easily annoyed, was he irritable?

Knox: No he’s a relaxed young man, calm”¦

Interpreter: No he’s a calm young man.

PM Mignini: Listen and who had the keys to the house at Via della Pergola?

Knox: Me, Meredith, Filomena and Laura”¦

Interpreter: All four of the girls

PM Mignini: All four of the girls

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: No one else had keys?

[22] Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: One other thing, your rooms”¦ inside the flat there were your rooms, did you use to lock your rooms or leave them open?

Knox: When we were going out? “¦ I never used to close my door, it was always open, Laura and Filomena used to close their doors but I don’t believe that they would lock them, even when they were going out they would close their doors but not lock them”¦ but I had never tried to open their doors. Meredith sometimes used to lock her door, for example if she was inside and was getting changed, and mine was always open”¦

Interpreter: Now then, only Meredith was locking her door when she was getting changed, she said in substance, otherwise no one used to lock their rooms

PM Mignini: But on the occasion of”¦ when the police arrived and they found themselves in front of Meredith’s door isn’t that? What did you say? Did you by chance say that Meredith never used to lock her door, or that instead she did?

Knox: I said that it was strange that it was locked and she wasn’t answering while usually if the door was locked it meant that she was inside and the fact that she wasn’t answering was strange”¦
Interpreter: It was strange that it was closed without Meredith responding, because normally when it was closed”¦

PM Mignini: To us it results that she didn’t use to lock her door. So then I’ll put this to you [contestare= (leg.) to formally point out a contradiction]. That is, that it was only during one absence of hers for a few days that she locked her room

Knox: She doesn’t do it that often, it isn’t a frequent thing I would say that there were times in which I had tried to open her door to say hello to her and it was locked [23] and she was inside”¦ and when instead she was out I had never tried to open her door. So I don’t know if it’s locked”¦

Interpreter: It happened that, when Meredith wasn’t home she had never tried to open the door, Amanda had never tried to open the door, only it happened that she wanted to say hello opening [it] and had said, “It’s locked”

PM Mignini: I haven’t understood this, that is “¦ that is she used to lock the door or not? According to what you’re saying”¦ she used to lock the room or not?

Interpreter: Only when she was”¦

PM Mignini: Only when she was getting changed you say

Interpreter: Yes, yes

Lawyer: No also when she went away

PM Mignini: And when she went away”¦

Interpreter: Also once when she had gone away for a few days

PM Mignini: Sure, sure”¦ oh, did you get on well with Meredith?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: There was never any ups and downs in your relationship?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Oh, did Meredith ever go with you to Sollecito’s? To Sollecito’s house

Interpreter: Whether she had gone”¦

PM Mignini: No, whether Meredith had gone with you to Sollecito’s house?

Knox: No

[24] Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: She had never gone there?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: So she had never been for lunch at Sollecito’s house?

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You had noticed prior to 2 November eh? I mean, you had noticed”¦ I mean the 2nd, had you noticed traces of blood in the bathroom prior, in the days prior? “¦ on the mat, in the bathroom next to Meredith’s room

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Oh, so”¦ then let’s go back to this day later. Now I want to go back a step. Where did you spend the night of Halloween between the 31st of October and the 1st of November?

Knox: I had been at Le Chic for a bit, then I left and went out to the Merlin because I wanted to meet a friend and then around two in the morning I had met up with Raffaele outside the cathedral and we had decided to go to his place”¦

Interpreter: On the 31st of October she had been at the Le Chic pub

PM Mignini: Yes, up until what time? And with who?

Knox: I was there I knew more or less everybody but I was there on my own account”¦ I wasn’t there working

Interpreter: She wasn’t working but she was there

[25] PM Mignini: You were there like that

Interpreter: Yes with her friends

PM Mignini: With her friends”¦ who were these friends?

Knox: I had arrived alone, I know Lumumba, I know other people, other classmates, I know that there were people who go there exactly to have fun at the pub

Interpreter: There’s this young man who works for Patrick, Patrick there were classmates, at the Chic

PM Mignini: Of yours?

Interpreter: Yes, yes

PP Mignini: And who were these girls?

Knox: They were girls from Kazakstan who used to always be together”¦

Interpreter: They were girls who stayed in a group, these girls from Kazakstan and who came to find her a few times

PM Mignini: And you don’t remember their names? Was Raffaele there?

Interpreter: No

Knox: No

PM Mignini: He wasn’t there and where was he, Raffaele?

Interpreter: She said that after”¦

PM Mignini: Now then up until what time”¦ up until what time were you at Le Chic?

Knox: I think around one”¦

Interpreter: Around one

PM Mignini: Till one and then?

[26] Interpreter: Then she had gone to meet a friend in front of the Merlin pub

PM Mignini: Who is this friend? The friend who was waiting at the Merlin, in front of the Merlin?

Knox: He’s a boy who works at Coffee break it’s an internet café with coffee “¦ Spiros

PM Mignini: A Greek?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: And then where did you go?

Knox: Together with Spiros and some of his friends,

Interpreter: Now then she had said before that she had met the Greek (change of tape) she had gone to some other pub

PM Mignini: Where?

Interpreter: In the centre, she doesn’t remember

PM Mignini: In which area in the centre?

Knox: In the area of Le Chic and of the Merlin”¦

Interpreter: Around near the Merlin pub and the Le Chic pub”¦ in that zone there”¦ around there

PM Mignini: She doesn’t know how to point it out?

Knox: I have never been before to the other pubs

Interpreter: She hadn’t gone to visit other pubs before

PM Mignini: Listen, do you know where and with who she spent that night of Halloween, Meredith?

[27] Interpreter: She’s said that after the fountain she had met Raffaele, after going around a bit with him she had gone to Raffaele’s house

PM Mignini: At what time did you meet Raffaele?

Interpreter: At two

PM Mignini: In the morning and then you returned home with Raffaele. And do you know and with who she had spent that night of the 31st October, Meredith?

Knox: She went out with her English friends

Interpreter: She went out with her English friends

PM Mignini: Did you have, the English friends are you able to give me their names?

Knox: Sophie, Amy I don’t remember all their names but I know that Sophie and Amy were there

Interpreter: Amy, Sophie”¦

PM Mignini: And where did they go?

Knox: I think they went to the Merlin it’s what she had said

Interpreter: She said that they had gone to the Merlin pub

PM Mignini: Merlin”¦

Lawyer: Why does she know? Let’s ask her that, excuse me, eh?

Interpreter: Because Meredith had told her so

PM Mignini: That is Meredith had told you that they had gone there because you had asked Meredith to go out with you that night?

Knox: In the afternoon I asked her if she had plans and she had told me that she would have been with her friends at the Merlin pub and I had said to her “maybe we’ll see each other there””¦ but we hadn’t set a time”¦

[28] Interpreter: In the afternoon she had”¦ Amanda had asked Meredith if she had some plans for the evening and Meredith had answered that she was going with her friends to the Merlin pub

PM Mignini: Listen, do you have”¦ do you know any Spanish boys or Spanish girls?

Knox: Spanish?

Interpreter: Spanish eh [male gender]?

PM Mignini: Yes, girls as well

Knox: I might know some but usually I don’t ask where they come from

Interpreter: It’s possible but she doesn’t ask where they’re from specifically.

PM Mignini: Listen when you did you find out that Ms Romanelli and Ms Mezzetti would not have been there? Ms Romanelli, Laura and Filomena”¦

Knox: I discovered it when I had called Filomena on the morning of the second.

Interpreter: On the morning of the second when Amanda had called Filomena, she had found out that she had not been”¦

PM Mignini: And about Laura, did you know?

Knox: Filomena had told me that Laura was in Rome

Interpreter: Now then that morning of the 2nd of November Filomena had said to Amanda that Laura was in Rome.
(interruption of recording)

PM Mignini: Now then at this point the recording resumes at 11:50 am and I repeat the question, what did you do on the afternoon of the 1st of November and during that night between the 1st and the 2nd? Oh and the morning of the 2nd obviously.

[29]

Knox: When I had woken up in the morning I was at Raffaele’s house, the 1st of November, and I went to my house to have a shower to change myself, I had already spoken to Raffaele and he had said to me that he would have come over to my place, when he would have woken and everything”¦ So what I did was that I studied and then I put away my linens [whites]”¦

Interpreter: The morning of the 1st of November, so that night she had slept at Raffaele’s house

PM Mignini: The night between the 31st and the 1st?

Interpreter: Yes, in the morning she had woken up at Raffaele’s, after which she’d gone, gone back to her house to have a shower, change her clothes in expectation that Raffaele would meet up with her. In expectation that Raffaele would meet up with her she set herself to studying, to washing her clothes, and to put the clothes away

PM Mignini: And then?

Knox: While I was there in the kitchen studying and while I was in the kitchen Filomena came back home with her boyfriend, Marco, and they had wrapped a present and they got ready very quickly for a party to which they had to go and I had continued to study and I had helped them to wrap the present with Marco and when they’d left I’d continued to study.

Interpreter: She was studying, they’d only returned for a bit the housemate Filomena with her boyfriend who set themselves to wrapping a present that was going to be for a party. And she had helped them, she was studying in the kitchen and she helped get the present ready and then”¦

PM Mignini: Was Meredith there?

Knox: Meredith was sleeping

PM Mignini: In that moment”¦

Interpreter: She was sleeping

[30]

PM Mignini: Ah she was sleeping

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Ah”¦ then go on

Interpreter: Then after the couple, Filomena and her boyfriend, had gone out, and she continued to study.

Knox: While I was studying, Meredith had woken up and I think she went to the bathroom first and then she came to say hello and she sat down to have breakfast. And we had chatted while I was studying”¦

Interpreter: Then while she was still at studying in the kitchen Meredith woke up, she went to the bathroom first and then into the kitchen

PM Mignini: At what time? “¦ at what time?

Knox: I think around midday

Interpreter: I believe around midday and then Meredith had joined her in the kitchen to have breakfast and they had exchanged chitchat about the night before

PM Mignini: Was Sollecito there as well?

Knox: No, not yet

Interpreter: No, not yet

PM Mignini: There wasn’t”¦ and then? Go on if”¦

Knox: We had spoken about Halloween she’d given me some advice about young men and went to have a shower and while she was having a shower I had thought about what to prepare for lunch, because I was starting to feel hungry”¦ I pulled out some things for lunch and that is bread and cheese”¦ then Raffaele arrived and while all this was happening Meredith was under the shower or in her room getting dressed. After Raffaele arrived he got some pasta ready, I believe for lunch while we were eating together Meredith had entered and had either put in, or taken out clothes from, the washing machine, she said hello to him and had gone back into her room”¦

Interpreter: Now then, Meredith was in the kitchen having breakfast with Amanda they chatted a bit after which Meredith had gone to have a shower and get dressed. In the meantime Amanda who was starting to get hungry had thought about what to prepare for lunch had taken out bread and cheese and Raffaele had also arrived who had set himself to cooking some pasta, it seems to her, for lunch. In the meantime Meredith was still either in the shower or getting dressed. And while Meredith had returned, while they were eating lunch, she’d returned to take her clothes from the washing machine.

PM Mignini: She’d eaten with them?

Knox: No, she had just had breakfast

Interpreter: No, she had just had breakfast

PM Mignini: Please go on

Knox: After Raffaele had eaten, I felt like playing the guitar for a while and Raffaele sat himself down to listen to me”¦ and in all this time Meredith had returned, she had dressed and everything she had gone to the door and she had said “Buona giornata” [have a good day] to us. I remained at home with Raffaele playing the guitar and singing a bit and around five I hadn’t looked at the clock but I believe it might have been five we’d decided to return to his house.

Interpreter: Now then, after lunch Amanda and Raffaele set about playing the guitar and in the meantime Meredith had left the house with a greeting to them. It seems to her that they stayed home playing the guitar until around five in the afternoon when they’d gone instead to Raffaele’s house.

PM Mignini: Just a moment, before going on. When you both had saluted Meredith, did Meredith tell you where she was going? And at what time would she be back?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Go on

Knox: At Raffaele’s house we made ourselves comfortable and I sat at the computer to find songs that I wanted to learn to play on the guitar and in the meantime I know that Raffaele had gone to the bathroom, I was at the computer transcribing songs from the Internet it’s difficult to say what happened first, but what happened was that while I was using the computer a friend of Raffaele’s arrived to ask if she could use his car. She was speaking Italian very quickly and so I don’t know what they said to each other. When Raffaele was in the bathroom the doorbell rang and I let this girl in, and Raffaele came out of the bathroom to meet her.

Interpreter: At Raffaele’s house Amanda searched for songs, music on the computer to play on the guitar in the meantime Raffaele had gone to the bathroom. While Raffaele was in the bathroom a friend of Raffaele’s rang the doorbell to whom Amanda had opened the door and afterwards this friend of Raffaele’s had spoken with Raffaele and it seems to her that this friend had asked him if she could borrow his car.

PM Mignini: Yes, before going further. At Raffaele Sollecito’s house in the bathroom, right? In Raffaele Sollecito’s bathroom is there a shower?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Have you had showers at Sollecito’s house?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Oh, go on yes

Knox: After having used the computer I grabbed, I read Harry Potter in German, I gave him the Harry Potter book while he was in the bathroom, but he didn’t understand it, so after we sat ourselves down and I was reading from it to him and I was translating for him and then let’s think about what else did we do”¦ We watched the film Amelie a message from Patrick arrived and in response to the message I said to him, I wished him a good evening and that I would see him again later when he would be”¦ Patrick told me that I didn’t need to go to work because”¦ he told me that in Italian but I believe the message was “there aren’t many people, there’s no need that you come to work””¦

Interpreter: Afterwards since Amanda is studying German and Raffaele also wants to learn Amanda has a Harry Potter book in German that they were reading together, trying to translate it together. Afterwards they had watched the film Amelie.

PM Mignini: At what time?

Knox: I don’t remember the time exactly”¦ sorry.

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember

PM Mignini: Doesn’t she remember, the film?

Interpreter: Amelie it’s called yes, so Patrick had sent a message in Italian but”¦

PM Mignini: And what did this message say?

Interpreter: That there weren’t many people that there was no need that she come to work

PM Mignini: That is he said exactly this. At what time did you receive it?

Knox: I hadn’t looked at the clock

Interpreter: She hadn’t looked at the clock

PM Mignini: After the film or before?

Knox: I don’t remember

Interpreter: I don’t know

PM Mignini: Did Sollecito see this”¦ did he know about it, or else”¦ did he become aware of this message?

Knox: He hadn’t seen it but when I read it I said, “Wow! I don’t have to go to work!”

Interpreter: He hadn’t seen it although she informed him that she didn’t need to go to work and that she was happy so”¦

PM Mignini: And then?

Interpreter: And then she had responded to Patrick saying “ci vediamo più tardi” [we’ll meet up later]

PM Mignini: Meaning? How did you answer in text precisely?

Knox: My message in English but I wrote it in Italian, what I was trying to say was “ci rivediamo e buona serata” [see you later and have a good evening]”¦ that is “ci rivediamo e buona serata””¦

Interpreter: Now then two things. One thing is that she wrote in Italian and another thing what she wanted to say in English. In English what she was thinking of wanting to say was “ci vediamo dopo buona serata intanto” [see you later have a good evening in the meantime] and instead she had written in Italian “ci vediamo buona serata” [let’s meet up have a good evening]

Lawyer: She had written the same thing that it also means in English. She had translated the same thing, I don’t know if she had said the same thing..

Knox: I’m saying to you in English what I wanted to say but I’ve told you I wrote it in Italian

PM Mignini: Make me understand then, excuse me a moment, he sends a message, an SMS, this message says “there’s only a few people don’t come. Don’t come tonight”

Interpreter: Don’t come to work.

PP Mignini: Don’t come to work. This had never happened before we’ve seen.

Knox: No

Interpreter: No the first time

PM Mignini: So that time, for the first time he calls and says “don’t come”

Knox: Yes it was the first time

Interpreter: Yes it was the first time

PM Mignini: How long after did you reply to him with an SMS? Do you remember?

Knox: I think I replied immediately after I received it

Interpreter: It seems to me I replied immediately, straight after having received it.

PM Mignini: But how did you reply? Try to remember the exact words.

Knox: Okay, I said “ci vediamo” or “ci vediamo più tardi buona serata”

PM Mignini: Più tardi buona serata

Interpreter: It seems to me I’d replied something in the affirmative to his message, saying “Okay, ci vediamo più tardi”

PM Mignini: Ci vediamo più tardi

Lawyer: In Italian, but in English what she said something that she”¦ let her say it clearly in Italian, if you would

Knox: Saying “See you later” is like saying ciao

Interpreter: What she wanted to say was only a salutation ciao

PM Mignini: But in Italian you wrote let’s meet up later. In Italian you wrote it like this, do you remember this?

Knox: In Italian I had written let’s meet up later have a good evening but it means in my language, see you later have a good evening

PM Mignini: Oh, does Lumumba know English?

Knox: No, he’s never spoken to me in it, we speak in Italian

Interpreter: She has never spoken in English to him only in Italian

PM Mignini: Go on

Knox: We had fish for dinner, I remember this, because it was very good and afterwards, we had eaten in the kitchen and then afterwards he started to wash the dishes, and while he was washing some water dripped on the floor. From under the sink, because the pipes had come unscrewed and the water had fallen on the floor.

Interpreter: They had dinner, they ate fish and after the meal Raffaele washed the plates and while he was washing the plates the water had gone onto the ground because the sink was broken, the sink pipes were broken, they had leaked.

PM Mignini: But did it break suddenly?

Knox: It wasn’t exactly broken, it was rather that the pipes had come unscrewed

Interpreter: Yes it was the first time that the pipes had become detached and afterwards Raffaele had readjusted them

PM Mignini: Therefore it happened unexpectedly, this breakage?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: They had become loose? What happened? What breakage was it? What type of breakage was it?

Knox: Yes it was the first time that it had happened

Interpreter: Yes it was the first time that it had happened

PM Mignini: But what happened? I mean was there a pipe breakage or else the screw let’s say, how do you call it, had come unfastened”¦ is it? “¦ we would need to see it”¦

Knox: I hadn’t examined them myself but what happened is that it had become detached”¦ it had come loose and I don’t believe that”¦

Interpreter: The pipe had become detached, it had come loose yes

PM Mignini: The pipe came loose right go on

Knox: So to remove the water we grabbed the rags [canovacci= rags or floor rags] “¦ there was too much water and I went into the storeroom to see if there was a mop [in English in the transcript], but there wasn’t then I came back to the kitchen and I said to him “Don’t worry I have a mop at our house” and so tomorrow morning we can go and get it and we can clean”¦

Interpreter: So to get rid of the water from the ground they used the towels from the kitchen they weren’t enough, they were looking for a rag [sic “˜straccio’ in Italian in the transcript, but obviously the interpreter means “˜mop’] in Raffaele’s house, in the bathroom there wasn’t any so had said “don’t worry tomorrow morning I’ll bring you one, I’ll bring you a rag from my house”

PM Mignini: But in the meantime he’d turned the tap off, no? “¦ So the water wasn’t running out any more

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Right go on, continue”¦

Knox: After this Raffaele was a bit upset that the pipes had got broken, he asked me what I wanted to do and we had thought about going, to go back in the bedroom I was laid out on his bed and he was at the desk preparing the joint.

Interpreter: Now then Raffaele was unhappy about this incident because he was saying that the pipes were new and then to cheer her up he thought about what they could do together and they were thinking about smoking a joint together. They went back to bed and Raffaele manufactured a joint.

PM Mignini: Before going on I wanted a clarification. So you had put down towels right?

Knox: They were tiny and so they had done nothing and in the end I’d thrown them into the sink”¦ yes we had put them on the ground, they had taken up a bit of the water but nothing to speak of”¦ so I had put them in the sink and we’d gone to his bedroom.

Interpreter: They were tiny kitchen towels that had no great effect and which afterwards she had thrown into the sink, these towels

PM Mignini: had Raffaele any newspapers at home?

Knox: I think so

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Dailies?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you use the newspaper paper since it absorbs a lot? It’s a question that I put to you

Knox: I didn’t think about it”¦

Interpreter: They didn’t think about it

PM Mignini: Oh, OK, go on continue to recount this”¦ go on, yes

Knox: While we were smoking we started chatting about what we had done, and after we had chatted we had sex”¦ and after that I believe I had fallen asleep”¦

Interpreter: Now then after they had smoked the joint they had made love and afterwards she believes she fell asleep.

PM Mignini: So Sollecito what did he do? Had he fallen asleep with you, he hadn’t gone, he didn’t stay awake?

Knox: I fell asleep in his arms

Interpreter: Yes she had fallen asleep in his arms

PM Mignini: Then? Go on. He received”¦ one last thing, were there phone calls that night?

Knox: No, I switched off my mobile phone

Interpreter: No she had switched off her phone. Amanda had switched off her phone.

PM Mignini: You switched off yours and Raffaele also switched off his?

Knox: I don’t know because I don’t check him so”¦ I don’t know if he switched off his or not

Interpreter: Now then she doesn’t know if Raffaele had switched his off but she doesn’t seem to remember him receiving any phone calls

PM Mignini: But why did you switch off your phone?

Knox: To save the battery, usually I keep it on at night if the following morning I have things to do, but the morning after was the day that everyone was going to skip school and we were going to go to Gubbio the day after with Raffaele. So I switched off my phone because I didn’t want that maybe Patrick might call to tell me to go to work. That’s why I switched it off and saved the battery.

Interpreter: To not have the battery discharge

PM Mignini: But you could recharge it

Interpreter: Since she was out of the house she wanted to save the battery because the next day she would have gone to Gubbio with Raffaele and since the day”¦ she leaves it on during the night when the following day she has to go to school, but the following day there was no school and so she switched it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would change his mind and would call her to go to work

PM Mignini: Because there was the risk, that is you weren’t sure that”¦

Knox: He had told me that I didn’t need to go to work but it was still early and I didn’t know if he might have called back to tell me “Yes, now I need you””¦

Interpreter: No, when Patrick had called saying that she didn’t need to work it was still early enough and the situation could still change in the sense that more people could turn up and he couldn’t”¦

PM Mignini: One thing I wanted to know, the phone in the house rang? In Sollecito’s house?

Knox: I don’t remember I can’t be sure about it”¦

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember, she doesn’t know

PM Mignini: What’s the cell phone that you have? Which one was the cell phone that you switched off? What’s the brand?

Interpreter: the brand, or the [telephone] company”¦?

PM Mignini: No the brand, I meant the brand

Knox: It’s a Nokia phone

Interpreter: Nokia

PM Mignini: Nokia, but what’s the battery duration, I mean how long normally does the charge of your cell phone [last]..?

Knox: Let’s see”¦ I think a day but I don’t know”¦ because what I do is that I switch it off if I don’t use it during the night. But if I need it for example as an alarm clock, I let it stay on, then I go home and I charge it again, I put it on charge”¦

... I never use it to the point of battery exhaustion. Sometimes I put it on charge, sometimes I don’t.

Interpreter: It seems it lasts 24 hours, and she never lets it run out of battery to the limit

PM Mignini: So there was no risk that it would run out of battery while going to Gubbio?

Interpreter: It normally lasts 24 hours

PM Mignini: What?

Interpreter: The battery lasts 24 hours

PM Mignini: No, I’m asking, what the risk that it would run out of battery be like? I don’t understand

Knox: But why should I waste the battery leaving it on?

Interpreter: She only wanted to feel safe since she didn’t need to keep it on in order to”¦

PM Mignini: But she usually keeps it on at night

Interpreter: Only when she uses it as an alarm. In the morning

PM Mignini: Well but you’d use the alarm every morning, I use it every morning

Interpreter: But she was not going to school on the next day

PM Mignini: Ah”¦

Attorney: She said it previously, it was a holiday and I did not put the alarm on

PM Mignini: When you were going to school you said previously. Go on with the description.

Knox: You want to know more about that morning? “¦ When I woke up in the morning, I got up and Raffaele was still in bed, I dressed up and I went to my home, to take care about my things”¦ when I arrived at my home the door was wide open which was strange, so I went in my room, I undressed, I took a shower and when I got out of the shower, I noticed the blood in the bathroom”¦ There was not much of it but even that I found it strange”¦ but at the same time it’s not that I immediately thought “Oh my God, there was a murder!”

Interpreter: She fell asleep at night and the following day she woke up at Raffaele’s home, while Raffaele remained in bed she went back home

PM Mignini: Let’s stop here for a moment. I just wanted to know this: On November 2 was it holiday at the “¦ [University?]”¦ because the 2nd is not a holiday here

Knox: The teachers said it was not a problem if I stayed home, because it seems like everyone was going to skip that Friday

Interpreter: Yes there was the sequence. Also the teacher said”¦

PM Mignini: Go on, so she said”¦

Interpreter: She said students were not expected to go, they were not coming”¦

PM Mignini: [the teacher] told her so, on the previous day?

Knox: Yes, on Wednesday I think

Interpreter: Yes on Wednesday at school

PM Mignini: Who was the teacher who told you that?

Knox: I don’t know her name but she is the Professor of Culture, I don’t know the day when she said that to me”¦ but it was during that week”¦ while we were talking during the week, one day she said it was a tradition to make a holiday bridge on Friday if Thursday was a holiday, so they can do [holiday] the whole weekend

Interpreter: So the teacher said it’s a classic for the students to make a holiday bridge when there is a holiday Thursday and have a prolonged weekend

PM Mignini: What’s the name of this teacher?

Knox: I’m not good at remembering names..

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember the name

PM Mignini: A woman?

Knox: Yes a woman

Interpreter: A woman

PM Mignini: Ok, go forward. You wake up at what time, at Sollecito’s place?

Knox: More or less at ten

Interpreter: Around ten

PM Mignini: And then?

Knox: Then I went back home, the door was open

Interpreter: Then she went back to her home where she found”¦

PM Mignini: Why did you go back home?

Interpreter: To take a shower and change her clothes

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you take a shower at Sollecito’s?

Knox: Did you see his shower? “¦ It leaks [drops?] everywhere”¦ It’s a dreadful shower”¦ I hate to use it”¦ and moreover all what I need to have a shower like shampoo is at my home”¦

Interpreter: Because it’s an ugly place, small, there is little space

PM Mignini: But you took the shower other times, but also during the afternoon you had one”¦

Knox: I prefer to take a shower at my home

Interpreter: She prefers to take a shower at her home, she also has clothes at home”¦

Knox: And also all my clothes are at my home”¦

[Ed note: start of overlap with Post #2]

PM Mignini: So she needed to go home, to take a shower and, let me understand, take a shower and to what?

Interpreter: To change her clothes

PM Mignini: To change your clothes”¦ well and so what [did you]”¦ did you bring anything with you?

Knox: I think I brought some clothes”¦ dirty underwear”¦

Interpreter: Yes she thinks she brought dirty clothes from Raffaele’s home

PM Mignini: Dirty clothes that is”¦ dirty clothes from previous times? Or since which”¦ since what day were they lasting from?

Knox: I had spent two weeks living a bit at my home and a bit at his home

Interpreter: Because for two weeks she had been living half the time at her home and half the time at his home, and thus she had a bit of”¦

PM Mignini: What clothes were those ones?

Knox: Maybe underwear

Interpreter: Probably”¦

Knox: But I don’t remember, maybe it was a t-shirt

PM Mignini: You don’t remember

Interpreter: Dirty clothes…

PM Mignini: Well dirty clothes, I mean a skirt, a pullover”¦

Interpreter: No rather”¦

PM Mignini: Underwear garments

Interpreter: Underwear garments

PM Mignini: She doesn’t remember?

Interpreter: She thinks rather pants and vests /undershirts”¦ and t-shirts

PM Mignini: Well, how were you dressed when you went at your house?

Interpreter: From Raffaele’s house to her house?

Knox: I was wearing trousers I remember that and let’s see”¦ so much time has passed”¦ I know it was trousers

PM Mignini: Yes

Interpreter: She put on some trousers, she remembers it was trousers

PM Mignini: What colour?

Knox: A t-shirt and a sweater

Inte

Posted by Our Main Posters on 09/30/17 at 06:00 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (16)

Correcting Netflix 23 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #2

Posted by Our Main Posters

That’s better…

(Long post, click here to go straight to Comments.)

1. Amanda Knox’s Problem Going In

The first post on the interrogation of 17 Dec 2007 by Dr Mignini that Knox herself invited can be read here

These are two fairly typical quotes from the 240 online reviewers (yes 240 is our latest count) who the dishonest Netflix report had inflamed - and most in their turn had inflamed their numerous readers, who posted angry comments underneath. So the extent of the inflaming was huge.

The documentary is good. But it leaves out a lot of things. For example, the prosecutor Mignini continually proclaimed that it was a ritual killing with all kinds of Satanic overtones. The documentary should have discussed those bizarre thoughts more to emphasize how ridiculous this man was and still is.

Mignini’s statements are so fanciful that it’s easy to wonder if nuance has gotten lost in translation; however, perhaps as its nod to objectivity, the documentary politely omits that Mignini has not only a history of abuse of power but also an obsession with the occult and a history of fantasizing imaginary crimes based on faulty assumptions.

All untrue - if the claims were true, this interview would never have taken place.

No supporting proof from those reviewers. No grounding in what the official documents described as really having happened, though those documents were already available by the hundreds in translation by then. No research into the real Dr Mignini. No checking of his various interviews. No warning flags thrown up by Amanda Knox’s lies in the Netflix report and before. No mention that for lying she served three years, and will remain a felon for life.

The standard Knox-Mellas-Marriott mantra. “Simply blaze away. After all, the guy is in Italy, so if we make things up and defame him, what can he possibly do? As incompetent and biased as we may be, we are home and dry. And safely harass the victim’s family from afar, too, as the Netflix producers had done.”

That would make the mafias proud….

Okay. Do you know why defense counsel so often insist that their clients simply shut up? It’s not simply the possibility of lies - it is the possibility of CONTRADICTIONS that could really hurt.

It is from contradictions that investigators and prosecutors and judges will know in a heartbeat that both claims cannot be true - that at least one is a lie. And innocent parties don’t often lie.

From the day of her arrest (6 November) investigators and her soon-appointed defense not only knew that Knox was already a mass of contradictions.

They had proof in writing: Knox’s three statements on the day of her arrest, and her long email home of several days before, which did not fit together at all well.

Knox’s new defense must have feared that investigators had in writing in their notes numerous other contradictions too - more proof of lies. Sure enough, written proof of a fatal contradiction which went toward imprisoning her for three years did in fact exist.

Sollecito’s written statement early on 6 November claimed that Knox had made him lie. Sollecito’s written statement for his judicial hearing on 8 November before Judge Matteini started “I wish to not see Amanda ever again.”

Is it therefore surprising that at both the Matteini hearing and that before the Ricciarelli panel of review judges later that month, Knox’s defense team are known to have told Knox “Don’t talk” ?

So. On with the Great Contradiction Hunt. And see if any Netflix reviewers’ claim about the prosecutor shows here.

2. The 17 December Interrogation Knox Requested (Part 2 Of 3)

Note: This is the second hour of three hours. The excellent translation is by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. The original in Italian is in the Wiki Case File here; it has been accessed nearly 4,000 times.

Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of interview Of Ms Amanda Knox (cont)

[Ed note: start of overlap with Post #1]

PM Mignini: So she needed to go home, to take a shower and, let me understand, take a shower and to what?

Interpreter: To change her clothes

PM Mignini: To change your clothes”¦ well and so what [did you]”¦ did you bring anything with you?

Knox: I think I brought some clothes”¦ dirty underwear”¦

Interpreter: Yes she thinks she brought dirty clothes from Raffaele’s home

PM Mignini: Dirty clothes that is”¦ dirty clothes from previous times? Or since which”¦ since what day were they lasting from?

Knox: I had spent two weeks living a bit at my home and a bit at his home

Interpreter: Because for two weeks she had been living half the time at her home and half the time at his home, and thus she had a bit of”¦

PM Mignini: What clothes were those ones?

Knox: Maybe underwear

Interpreter: Probably”¦

Knox: But I don’t remember, maybe it was a t-shirt

PM Mignini: You don’t remember

Interpreter: Dirty clothes…

PM Mignini: Well dirty clothes, I mean a skirt, a pullover”¦

Interpreter: No rather”¦

PM Mignini: Underwear garments

Interpreter: Underwear garments

PM Mignini: She doesn’t remember?

Interpreter: She thinks rather pants and vests /undershirts”¦ and t-shirts

PM Mignini: Well, how were you dressed when you went at your house?

Interpreter: From Raffaele’s house to her house?

Knox: I was wearing trousers I remember that and let’s see”¦ so much time has passed”¦ I know it was trousers

PM Mignini: Yes

Interpreter: She put on some trousers, she remembers it was trousers

PM Mignini: What colour?

Knox: A t-shirt and a sweater

Interpreter: And a sweater

PM Mignini: A jumper?

[Ed note: end of overlap with Post #1]

Interpreter: No, sweater normally means felpa [cotton sweater]

PM Mignini: A sweater [felpa]? Ask her

Attorney: Was it made of cotton or wool?

Knox: I don’t know

Interpreter: She doesn’t know

PM Mignini: What colour?

Knox: I don’t remember”¦ a long time has passed, I remember what I put on but I don’t remember exactly”¦ I’m sorry”¦

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember

[46]

PM Mignini: You don’t remember

Interpreter: She remembers she put on but not what”¦

PM Mignini: And the trousers, what colour were they?

Knox: I don’t remember, I only remember I was wearing trousers”¦ I think they were jeans”¦

Interpreter: She does not remember even this one”¦ maybe they were jeans

PM Mignini: So around blue? Light blue?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: What route did you follow to walk”¦

Knox: The same route I do every day, I walk down Corso Garibaldi I follow the lane close to the basketball court, and next there’s my house

Interpreter: Down Corso Garibaldi then along aside of the basketball court to the house, the route she did every day

PM Mignini: You walked down the stairs?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: On the side of the basketball court”¦

Knox: This road here that”¦

PM Mignini: Oh, so you walked down the lane not the”¦ the basketball court was on your right?

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: So, excuse me, did you carry a bag, a [plastic] bag with the dirty clothes, or an empty [plastic] bag?

[47]

Knox: The clothes in a plastic bag

Interpreter: Yes a plastic bag with the dirty clothes

PM Mignini: With the dirty clothes. Well, please go on with the description”¦ then”¦

Knox: When I arrived home the door was wide open and I thought it was strange, I thought that maybe somebody.. but nobody ever leaves the door open, however there was the possibility that someone went out without locking, maybe for a moment. I saw it I thought it was strange, I closed the door without locking it, because I didn’t know if someone was out, I went into my room, I undressed and I went into the bathroom, I took a shower, first I took off my earrings, I took a shower and I used the bath mat on which there was some blood because I left my towels in my room. I saw the blood on the mat and I dragged it to my room to grab the towels. And then I took it back into the bathroom.

PM Mignini: Maybe you should stop

Interpreter: So when she arrived home she found the house door open, that was strange, she thought it was one of the girls who went out for a moment, she pulled it ajar [sic], she did not lock it because she thought maybe someone left it open on purpose and she went in her room to remove her clothes to take a shower. When she took a shower”¦

Knox: When I went to take a shower I forgot the towel in my room, I took off my earrings, I took a shower I had to use the bath mat and drag it to my room and then I dragged it back into the bathroom I put on my earrings

[48]

.. again, I saw the blood on the bath mat and in the bathroom but I did not think something terrible happened.

Interpreter: when she had gone [sic] into the bathroom to take a shower she forgot the towel and so there was this, how’s the word in Italian, bath mat which she used to go back and walk in her room to take the towel”¦ she had taken away her earrings in the bathroom and from there she noticed there was some blood on the mat and on the basin, but she noticed it was strange but she didn’t think about something”¦.

PM Mignini: I’m sorry I didn’t understand, but you took the bath mat to walk, to go in her bedroom?

Interpreter: Yes in order not to slip.. so to avoid walking barefoot

PM Mignini: When did you realize?

Knox: After the shower

Interpreter: After the shower

PM Mignini: When did you realize there was blood?

Interpreter: After the shower

Knox: I saw the blood when I entered the bathroom, I saw a little of blood just as I entered the bathroom, before taking the shower I took off my earrings, I took the shower and then I noticed blood on the bath mat

Interpreter: She noticed the blood while entering the bathroom, on the basin when she took off her earrings, then she had a shower and after the shower she was without the towel, so she used the mat to shuffle into her room

PM Mignini: Yes, so you saw blood before you took a shower?

[49]

Interpreter: Yes, in the basin

PM Mignini: In the basin

Interpreter: But on the bathmat, there she saw it when she was about to use the bathmat

PM Mignini: On the basin, where did you see it”¦ where was the blood?

Knox: It was inside the basin, that was after”¦ and it was also on the faucets

Interpreter: Inside the basin and on the taps

PM Mignini: So the blood was in the basin in the [inside] part”¦ and on the tap”¦ well, then”¦ this was before taking a shower”¦ then after taking the shower..

Interpreter: The towel was missing and she used

PM Mignini: She walked and realized that there was blood on the bathmat as well

Interpreter: Yes, yes

PM Mignini: And what did you do then?

Knox: I used the bathmat to walk to my room to get the towel and I went back into the bathroom, I think I washed my teeth, something I usually do, and when I dried myself I went back to my room and I put my clothes on.

Interpreter: So after she dried herself up in the bathroom and”¦

PM Mignini: Just a moment, before going on. The dirty clothes you had with you, where did you put them?

Knox: Between my bed and the wardrobe there is a heap of dirty clothes”¦ there is a little space between the two and I usually put the dirty clothes there, behind the guitar”¦ the guitar is not mine”¦ the guitar is Laura’s..

Interpreter: So she put the [plastic] bag between the bed and the wardrobe, there is a space where she placed the guitar her friend has lent her

[50]

Knox: Not the bag, just the clothes

Interpreter: And she placed the clothes, without the [plastic] bag, behind the guitar

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you put them into the washing machine?

Knox: Because I put all the dirty clothes in the same place, and when I’m ready to do a washing I put all the clothes in the washing machine

Interpreter: Because she was waiting to have some more to do a whole washing

PM Mignini: The bathmat, where did you”¦ where did you take it after?

Knox: Once I finished using it to go and to come back from my room, I put it in the bathroom again

Interpreter: She put it back into the bathroom

PM Mignini: Were the bedroom doors open or closed?

Knox: No they were all closed”¦ Filomena’s door was closed, Meredith’s was closed and Laura’s I think it was slightly ajar

Interpreter: Only that one, the door of Laura was only a little bit open, so it seems to her, the other two were closed.

PM Mignini: The other two were closed, you tried to open ... to knock?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you try? With .... blood ... with the front door open .... I mean….

Knox: I didn’t see a reason to do it…

Interpreter: She did not see a reason for knocking.

[51]

PM Mignini: So, excuse me, you find the door open, the front door open and itself this is something”¦ then you find the blood in the bathroom and you have a shower despite this and this is something, allow me to say that, for”¦ a bit strange this one, I mean you could imagine that there could be some, there could be some ill-intentioned person in the house or around, you find the front door open and the blood in the bathroom and in spite of everything you took a shower. The rooms were closed. You didn’t attempt to knock. Did you enter the rooms? This is strange.

Knox: In my whole life nothing that was ever remotely similar to this has ever occurred to me”¦ I do not expect to come back home and find there is something wrong

Interpreter: She did not expect to find something wring because she never experienced something”¦

PM Mignini: But there was blood, there was the front door open

Knox: There was not so much blood.. it could have been anything”¦ when I saw the open door I thought it was strange, it’s that the thing I found most strange, I did not think it was so strange to find blood in the bathroom”¦

PM Mignini: But did you enter the rooms? I asked if you entered the room

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You didn’t even knock?

Knox: No because when I came in I called to hear whether there was somebody at home

[52]

Interpreter: As she entered the house she called to know if there was somebody

Knox: But there was no answer

Interpreter: But there was no answer

PM Mignini: Listen, where did you dry up yourself?

Knox: In the bathroom

Interpreter: In the bathroom

PM Mignini: The bathroom, the small one, the one nearby”¦ yours?

Knox: Yes I took the towel from the room, I dragged myself into the bathroom [sic], I dried myself up a little more”¦

Interpreter: Yes she dried herself up in the bathroom more or less, then she finished drying herself up in her bedroom

PM Mignini: Listen, were there broken glasses?

Knox: When I came out of from the shower I used the bathmat to go to my room, I took the towel I obviously wrapped it around myself and then I went back to the bathroom and I dried myself up

Interpreter: Before, since after taking the shower she had no towel cause she had forgotten it she went back into her room with the bathmat, there she took the towel which she wrapped around herself and then she finished to dry up herself in the bathroom. She went back in her room when she had finished drying herself

PM Mignini: Still stepping on the bathmat? Still bringing the bathmat?

Knox: I dragged the bathmat, I made more or less a heap to enter my room, I jumped back on the bathmat again and meanwhile my feet had got dry”¦ and since my feet were dry I brought the bathmat back into the bathroom”¦ I did not drag it back with my feet

[53]

Interpreter: To go back she picked it with her hands because her feet were dry, she was dry

PM Mignini: Listen, but what did you do after?

Knox: I put my earrings on again

Interpreter: She put on her earrings again

PM Mignini: Oh just one thing, I wanted to know, did you see the pieces of broken glass?

Knox: No, I didn’t see them. I saw them the second time I entered the house

Interpreter: No she didn’t see the broken glasses

PM Mignini: Another thing I wanted to know: did you enter the other bathroom? The one with the washing machine?

Knox: Yes after I dressed up I went to dry my hair, and I used the hairdryer that Laura and Filomena use so I went into the other bathroom which is a large bathroom, there is a part, an area where they store all the make-ups”¦ and there is another part with the bathroom fixtures. I passed through the anteroom where they have the make ups, the hairdryer and”¦

Interpreter: Yes after she dressed up, then”¦

PM Mignini: Try to interrupt her, or it gets [difficult]

Interpreter: She dressed up she went in the other bathroom of Laura and Filomena because they have the hairdryer to dry her hair, the bathroom has two areas, let’s say the toilet area and the hairdryer area.. she saw the toilet from a distance, she did not see well because she was not in front of it she was far, and she say some shit, yes

PM Mignini: The toilet paper was there too?

Knox: I did not look into the toilet. From a corner

Interpreter: She only looked from far distance, not at close distance

[54]

PM Mignini: Excuse me, excuse me, I wanted to know this: when you saw this thing, what did you think? I mean did you think that a foreign person entered the house or”¦ ?

Knox: It’s then when I thought something could have happened because the open door and that little amount of blood did not worry me

Interpreter: The fact that the front door was open and the blood seemed strange to her but not so much to feel alarmed”¦

PM Mignini: I was talking about the faeces

Knox: It’s there that I thought there was something strange, I felt scared”¦ It’s when I decided to go back to Raffaele’s house, because I got scared”¦

Interpreter: On that circumstance when she sat the [big] bathroom she started to become afraid

PM Mignini: Have you seen that other times? Did you see un-flushed faeces in the toilet other times?

Knox: No that’s why it was strange, because nobody in our house would do that

Interpreter: No she never saw that before and exactly for this reason it seemed strange to her and she started to worry

PM Mignini: At this point there were many elements, the blood, the open front door”¦

Knox: Yes I was worried, after when I saw this, I saw the open front door and also the blood and I thought okay, maybe, I don’t know, but when I saw the blood”¦

[short break; recording begins again at 01.35 pm]

PM Mignini: At 13.35 the recording resumes, so where were we, so you, I asked you if you looked inside the toilet, or not?

Knox: I didn’t look closely inside the toilet

Interpreter: Only from a distance

[55]

PM Mignini: And you saw the faeces, but this time you got worried, what did you think, because, we said that already, didn’t we? Have you seen them [faeces] other times in the house?

Knox: It’s there when I thought something was wrong

Interpreter: At that point she started to be worried and to think there was something wrong

Knox: I couldn’t imagine what it could be because the house was in order

Interpreter: But she was unable to imagine what it could be because the house was in order

Knox: First of all I didn’t know the phone number of the Police

Interpreter: She didn’t know the police number here in Italy

Knox: Second I didn’t know if it was necessary

Interpreter: She didn’t know if it was necessary

Knox: So what I decided to do, I was thinking about it, I thought what these things would mean put altogether

PM Mignini: What is “if it was necessary”, I’m sorry, I don’t understand”¦

Interpreter: To call the police, she thinks”¦ it didn’t seem to her it was necessary to call the police

PM Mignini: But, excuse me, you found the house door open, blood in the house, closed bedroom doors, and you did not try to”¦ they didn’t answer, you called and then you didn’t try to look inside the rooms, you found faeces in the bathroom, sign of the presence of a foreign person, and you didn’t feel the need to call the police or the Carabinieri?

[56]

Knox: No, because if you come into the house and nothing is missing it usually means that no foreign person has come in

Interpreter: No, because nothing was missing, and so it appeared to her that”¦

PM Mignini: I understand, but there was blood”¦

Knox: It was not much”¦

PM Mignini: Did you check if anything was missing?

Knox: I didn’t really check; there was my computer in my room, and that was a big clue that everything was ok in the rest of the house.

Interpreter: She saw the computer was still in her room, so this”¦

PM Mignini: But you didn’t look inside the other rooms

Knox: They seemed okay.

Interpreter: And for the rest everything seemed ok to her”¦

PM Mignini: The drawer with the money, did you look [there] where the money was supposed to be?

Knox: No, I didn’t think that a foreign person or a thief could have been there, and I didn’t even think about it

Interpreter: No, She didn’t think about a theft and she didn’t imagine”¦

PM Mignini: Ok, let’s go forward, then I’ll make”¦ so you went to Sollecito, how were you dressed?

Knox: I was wearing the white skirt, the blue t-shirt and tights

Interpreter: White skirt, the light blue t-shirt and tights

PM Mignini: Well, what was the time, what route did you walk? Was it the usual rout to walk to Sollecito’s”¦? At what time did you arrive?

Knox: I think around midday

Interpreter: Around midday

[57]

PM Mignini: What did you say to Sollecito? Who was there”¦ was there someone with him or was he alone?

Knox: He was alone, and when he opened the door he was in his underpants

Interpreter: Yes he was alone, and when he answered he was in his underpants

Knox: When I went to the house, I took the bucket and mop with me

Interpreter: So she said (same as before our pause) before returning back to Raffaele’s house, she picked up the bucket and mop she promised to bring him on the previous evening”¦

PM Mignini: What bucket? How was that? What colour?

Knox: Red

Interpreter: Red

PM Mignini: Red. So where did you take it from?

Knox: In the corridor, which is between my room and Meredith’s room, there is a wardrobe, it was in there

Interpreter: She picked it up from a wardrobe that is in the corridor between her room and Meredith’s [room]

PM Mignini: There was a cleaning rag or a”¦ a towel”¦ a rag?

Knox: It was a red bucket and the mop

Interpreter: She took, it was a set, a bucket, and a rag with stick [mop]”¦

PM Mignini: The mop

Lawyer: The bucket was red, the rag was not, the bucket was red

Interpreter: Yes, sorry

PM Mignini: And you picked this in the”¦? Where was this mop?

Interpreter: This bucket was in the wardrobe that is in the corridor

[58]

PM Mignini: So you arrived at Sollecito’s, and you found him in his underpants, and what did you tell him?

Knox: At the beginning I didn’t tell him anything because I didn’t know what to say to him, still I didn’t know if there was anything strange”¦

Interpreter: She didn’t speak immediately with him because she was not sure whether there was something strange or not

PM Mignini: What, you were not”¦ Excuse me.. excuse me but you just told me everything was strange

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: I can’t [understand]”¦ I mean you, what were you thinking, please explain yourself because this is a version that honestly”¦

Knox: I was trying to understand what the whole could mean

Interpreter: She was trying to understand how the things could fit together

Knox: Because I knew it was strange

PM Mignini: Thus, understand it by asking Sollecito about it, didnt you?

Knox: At the beginning I didn’t tell that to Raffaele because I didn’t know if there was something really serious”¦ I understood there was something strange, but I didn’t understand if it was serious”¦

PM Mignini: Contradiction is noted [for the record] here [io le contesto = a legal formula by which a judge points out a contradiction] that you”¦. that you”¦

Interpreter: But the situation was not worrying…

PM Mignini: Because about this [point]”¦ in particular about this point you said contradictory things”¦ well because you said, at a certain point “blood, open front door, faeces, etcetera, I became worried”, now you are saying “I was not worried”

[59]

any more, I asked Raffaele if I should worry””¦ so honestly, explain yourself, because it’s not clear at all

Knox: It seemed strange to me but not worrying or alarming

Interpreter: It seemed strange to me but not so worrying, alarming

Knox: Because the house is exactly how it should have been, except for those small things

Interpreter: At her house, in Amanda’s house, everything was as it should have, except for those details

Knox: I had the idea that if someone entered the house and did something there should be visible chaos

Interpreter: Had some foreign person come in they would have made more mess

PM Mignini: Well so, did it happen other times that you saw blood in the house, open house door, faeces in the toilet?

Knox: No

PM Mignini: This one was the first time?

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: And”¦ and Raffaele, when you asked him about it, what did he say to you?

Knox: I talked with him about it after we cleaned up the water”¦

Interpreter: She told him after they cleaned up”¦

PM Mignini: So before that you told him nothing

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You cleaned up”¦ but excuse me?... Let me understand, that was water”¦ was that the water that spilled on the previous evening? At what time did it spill? Around 21 hours?

[60]

Knox: I don’t know because I didn’t look at the watch”¦ it was after dinner”¦

Interpreter: Ehm”¦ after dinner

PM Mignini: Ok, what time could that be? When did the leakage occur? 21: 30?... 20: 30? Have no clue?

Knox: I think it was about 10: 30

Interpreter: More like half past ten

PM Mignini: Half past ten”¦ and so almost, about twelve hours”¦ had passed, if I’m not mistaken, well, but didn’t the water dry up?

Knox: No, there was a lot of it

Interpreter: No it was a lot of water

PM Mignini: But hey it’s twelve hours that had passed, I didn’t make the count now but anyway it’s many hours that had passed, so…

Interpreter: But there was still the water

PM Mignini: As if those hours hadn’t passed. And then, what did Raffaele tell you? When did you talk about it with him? After finishing drying up [the floor]”¦

Knox: While he was dressing up I dried up the floor and when he got dressed I had finished drying up, we started to have breakfast, and then I told him”¦

Interpreter: Amanda was drying up the water while Raffaele was getting dressed and then when they”¦

PM Mignini: So when you finished everything taking your time, you said “this happened”

Interpreter: After he had dressed and they had breakfast she talked with him about it

PM Mignini: Oh so he dressed up, you had breakfast, so like about an hour has passed”¦ how long?

[61]

Knox: Yes, I don’t think quite a whole hour”¦

Interpreter: Almost an hour yes”¦ about an hour”¦

PM Mignini: At that point you told him what had happened”¦ what you had seen

Knox: Yes I told him the door was open, that there was some blood in the bathroom and there was the shit in the other bathroom”¦ the first thing I told him was “look, hear about these strange things that happened to me this morning”

PM Mignini: And what did he say?

Interpreter: Yes she told him about these three elements that were in the house

PM Mignini: And what did he say? What did he say?

Knox: Yes it’s strange, you need to call your housemates”¦

Interpreter: He said “yes it’s strange, call your housemates”

PM Mignini: But excuse me, he didn’t say call the Police or the Carabinieri? Not even on that occasion?

Knox: No, he said to call the housemates, I didn’t think that someone entered the house but that something could have happened to the girls”¦ thus he said “you should call the housemates”

Interpreter: She was thinking something happened to her housemates, not that someone, a foreign person had entered, so he suggested to her to call the housemates

PM Mignini: And did you [plural, referred to both] call them immediately?

Knox: I called Filomena

Interpreter: She called Filomena

PM Mignini: And what did Filomena say to you?

[62]

Knox: She was more worried than me”¦

Interpreter: Filomena was more worried than her”¦

Knox: She said she spent the night with her boyfriend and Laura”¦

PM Mignini: Excuse me”¦ excuse me”¦ excuse me”¦ when you called, where did you call Filomena, from where did you call Filomena and when?

Knox: From Raffaele’s house

Interpreter: From Raffaele’s house

PM Mignini: After you talked with him

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Is that after?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: So, now I note a contradiction [for the record] from you, that Ms. Romanelli said she received a phone call from you, she reported that “you were very frightened”¦ you told her you were very frightened, and you were going to call Raffaele Sollecito”. Thus on these findings, you called Filomena before you talked with Mr. Sollecito. And she, Filomena, urged you to call Police or Carabinieri

Knox: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand well

Interpreter: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand well

PM Mignini: So from statements given by Ms. Romanelli on Dec. 3., it comes out that you, Amanda, you called Filomena, you told her you had slept at Raffaele’s house, that you had gone back to the cottage in the morning and you found the front door open and some blood in the bathroom, you told her you took a shower anyway, that you were scared and that you intended to call Raffaele Sollecito. Then the thing seemed strange [to] Ms. Romanelli, and she urged you to call immediately Police and Carabinieri….

[63]

...This is what Ms. Romanelli says, according to what Ms. Romanelli says, you called her before talking to Raffaele Sollecito.

Knox: What I remember about that morning, the first time I remember I called Filomena it was when I was at Raffaele’s home”¦ An interesting thing I didn’t remember about that morning is that I called my mother three times, but I had completely forgotten about it. So what could have happened is that I forgot I called Filomena or we failed to communicate because she doesn’t speak English very well and I don’t speak Italian well. So I may have forgotten about calling her before, or I could have talked with her with some difficulty”¦ but”¦ I remember the first time I called her it was at Raffaele’s home. I might be mistaken but the other thing I didn’t remember was I called my mother three times and I don’t even remember about it”¦

Interpreter: As for what concerns her, as for what Amanda remembers, she remembers she called Filomena the first time from Raffaele’s home. It may not be she called her before. She doesn’t remember about it because she also talked that morning three times [sic] with her mother, something about which she doesn’t remember. Or it could be that they didn’t understand each other very well, since Filomena doesn’t speak English well and Amanda doesn’t speak Italian well, so they didn’t understand each other well.

PM Mignini: How many times did you speak with Filomena that morning, how many?

Knox: I recall she called at least three times when I was at Raffaele’s. I called her and she told me to call Meredith. So I tried to call Meredith and then she called me again to ask me if Meredith answered and I told her no, she didn’t answer. I said “we must go home and check then” and while we were getting ready she called again asking if we had arrived at home yet.

[64]

Interpreter: She believes she spoke with Filomena three times because Filomena told her to call Meredith, something she did but she didn’t answer. After that Ms. Filomena wanted to know the answer, and then Amanda said she would go to her house again to see the situation, and then she called Filomena again.

PM Mignini: You alerted Filomena, let’s go forward with the”¦ then we’ll see”¦ So you talked with Filomena, then you went with Mr. Sollecito, you went to the house, didn’t you? At what time did you arrive?

At this point, we put in the record that, at 13.55, clerk of the court Daniela Severi leaves and [Carabinieri] officier Paciotti takes her place.

Knox: I think I’ve left at around half past twelve

Interpreter: She thinks about half past twelve

Knox: I know it seems strange, I realize I should have arrived at the house before that time, before twelve. Because I washed (? unintelligible)

Interpreter: She should have arrived at Raffaele’s house before twelve, earlier than she thought. Because she did”¦

PM Mignini: Did you look at the time? The time?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Who was there when you arrived at the house?

(interruption of the recording)

PM Mignini: So we start again at 14.02

Lawyer: On a question by the lawyers, we ask if she was in possession of a watch

PM Mignini: Did you have a watch?

[65]

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Well, but the cell phone had a watch, you had the time

Knox: Yes but I didn’t think about looking at the time

Interpreter: Yes but she didn’t think about looking at the time

PM Mignini: Well, so there were”¦ what did you see inside the house when you came in?

Knox: It was there that we started to open the doors, I checked in Filomena’s room and there was some broken glass”¦

Interpreter: So she opened FIlomena’s room where she saw broken glass

Knox: Yes it was broken, on the floor and the window

Interpreter: On the floor and the window

PM Mignini: Did you enter the room?

Knox: No I just opened it [the door]

Interpreter: No she just opened the door

PM Mignini: Excuse me, just to understand better this point, the first time you saw the door closed you might even”¦ you didn’t open it? You only opened on your return visit?

Knox: The first time I didn’t open the door

Interpreter: The first time she didn’t open the door

PM Mignini: It was closed. Now why did you open the door this time?

Knox: Because Filomena was afraid there could have been a burglary, a theft, so I opened to check if everything was ok.

Interpreter: Amanda opened Filomena’s room door because Filomena feared there could have been a theft and so she wanted to verify

[66]

PM Mignini: So then why didn’t you check? Didn’t you check if anything was missing?

Knox: I don’t know exactly what Filomena has in her room, I saw the computer on the table so I was not so much worried. The computer was the most valuable thing

Interpreter: So she didnt know of all Filomena’s items, but she immediately saw that Filomena’s computer was on the table, and so she thought”¦

PM Mignini: Well, and the door? Meredith’s door?

Knox: I was unable to open it

Interpreter: She couldn’t open it, the door of Meredith’s room

PM Mignini: Did you try to open the door?

Knox: Yes, first I tried to open it but it was locked so I knocked to see if she was sleeping, since it was locked I imagined she could be inside so I knocked to see if she was asleep

Interpreter: Yes she did try”¦ yes she tried to open but the door was locked and so she knocked to see if she was inside, if she was sleeping”¦

PM Mignini: I go back for a moment”¦ did you entered Filomena’s room, or you didn’t?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You should be precise about this

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You didn’t enter”¦ so, as you saw that”¦ you knocked at Meredith’s door you saw her door, her room”¦ her room door was locked, at that point, did you try to call her?

Interpreter: Do you mean calling by voice?

[67]

PM Mignini: No, I mean calling her cell phone

Knox: I had already tried to call her three times from Raffaele’s home. I thought it would be easier to wake her up by knocking at the door.

Interpreter: She had tried to call Meredith three times already, when she was at Raffaele’s home, so she wanted to wake her up by knocking at the door

PM Mignini: And then what happened? “¦ oh just a moment, [you mean] you went to look inside the bathroom on the right, from the entrance point of view, not in your bathroom, the other bathroom”¦

Knox: When I looked inside, after we tried to open her door and everything, we were in the kitchen, and he would call his sister [sic]. I went to check the bathroom, I didn’t do down to the bottom, I went into the anteroom and what I had previously seen it had slipped down. It was as if it [the toilet] had been cleaned.

Interpreter: Amanda came back into the larger bathroom while Raffaele was calling his sister, and from a distance she could see the faeces had slipped down, apparently it had been cleaned.

PM Mignini: But did you go to look?

Knox: I didn’t look inside, I checked from a distance

Interpreter: She didn’t get close to see, she saw that from a distance

PM Mignini: From a distance? It’s hardly understandable”¦ from a distance of how many meters?

Knox: From the anteroom where I had dried my hair, I looked very quickly and I didn’t see anything and I got scared, because the man or whoever left the faeces had been there.

Interpreter: From the area where she dried her hair she gave a quick glance and she saw it was no more like it was before, it was clean, the faeces had slipped down and…

[68]

... thus at this point she got worried because apparently someone”¦

PM Mignini: At the same distance you”¦ you saw that from the same distance?

Knox: Yes, I had gone a bit closer the first time

PM Mignini: It’s where you dried your hair?

Knox: In the bathroom anteroom in front of the mirror”¦

Interpreter: In front of the mirror, in the area in front of the mirror”¦

PM Mignini: At what distance is that from the toilet?

Knox: I don’t understand meters”¦

PM Mignini: You mean it was in the bathroom anteroom [apparently Mignini shows her a picture or a map, ed.]

Knox: From here”¦ maybe I was here”¦

PM Mignini: It’s a couple of meters

Knox: The second time I was not at the mirror [sic] I was in the door [sic], I entered this way here and”¦

PM Mignini: At the same distance, so…

Knox: No, not at the mirror, because when I entered the mirror is this way, but I entered”¦

Interpreter: The second time from a bit more far away

Knox: But only a little more far

PM Mignini: Excuse me, you couldn’t see anything from there”¦ there is the bathroom anteroom and the bathroom, where were you?

[69]

Knox: I was at the door, I mean I entered the anteroom yet I was very close to the door, that leads to the kitchen..

Interpreter: Between the bathroom anteroom and the bathroom. Yes she was in the anteroom

PM Mignini: From the anteroom, so I note a contradiction [for the record], that you can’t see anything from there, so you made a statement, you told Raffaele the faeces were not there anymore, despite that you didn’t see anything. Because you would not be able to”¦

Knox: Because the first time I also saw from a distance

PM Mignini: Ok, that’s ok”¦ I doubt that you could see from there anyway”¦ you didn’t go to check, you say “let’s see if the faeces are still there or not”?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You remained outside [from the bathroom], you didn’t check, but you said to Raffaele “the faeces are not there anymore” in a worried fashion

Knox: I thought they were not there anymore

Interpreter: Because she thought they were not there

PM Mignini: Listen, so, then did you tell Romanelli about the break-in? about the broken glass? “¦ Filomena?

Knox: Yes I called her and she said she was coming

Interpreter: Yes she called her and she said she was coming too

PM Mignini: And what was Raffaele doing in that moment?

Knox: We decided to call his sister

Interpreter: They decided to call Raffaele’s sister

Knox: And she said, call the Carabinieri or the Police

Interpreter: And Raffaele’s sister told them to call the Carabinieri

[70]

PM Mignini: What time it was? “¦ excuse me I wanted, there’s another question I wanted to”¦ did you have any vaseline at home? Vaseline?

Interpreter: At their house?

PM Mignini: At their house, the apartment, Via della Pergola

Knox: No I don’t use it, the only thing I know about Vaseline is Meredith always looked for it and when we went in a store together she would always go to see if there was any Vaseline”¦ because she said it was very useful. I don’t think we had any, I don’t think, but I never use it

Interpreter: Amanda never used it, she only knows Meredith was always looking for it since she thought it was very useful, she [Knox] herself doesn’t know if there was any at home

PM Mignini: So you don’t know if Meredith had any?

Knox: I know she wanted it but I don’t know if she bought it

Interpreter: She knew she was going for it but she doesn’t know whether she bought it or found it

PM Mignini: Who arrived next?

Knox: After we called the police, I and Raffaele, we went outside because we felt very uncomfortable, two police men came”¦

Interpreter: After they called the police Amanda and Raffaele went outside and two police officers came

PM Mignini: So they called the police?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: At what time?

Knox: I don’t know because it was Raffaele who called them.. they came.

[71]

Interpreter: She doesn’t know if they called the Police or the Carabinieri because it was Raffaele who did it but two officers came, dressed in uniform…

PM Mignini: Yes, yes”¦ no, not in uniform

Interpreter: In plain clothes

PM Mignini: At what time did they arrive?

Knox: I didn’t look at the time

PM Mignini: I note the contradiction [for the record] that the calls to the Carabinieri were done after the arrival of the Provincial Police [sic]”¦ the Postal Police”¦

Knox: I did not call

Interpreter: Amanda didn’t call

PM Mignini: Well, did you see Raffaele calling?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: How many times did he call?

Knox: Once

Interpreter: Once

PM Mignini: Once? He called twice”¦

Lawyer: she doesn’t know

PM Mignini: So two officers of the Police came, did they identify themselves as such? [Did they say] “Polizia Postale”?

Knox: Yes, they showed us the badges

Interpreter: Yes, they did.

[72]

[Ed note: start of overlap with Post #3]

PM Mignini: Well, but in the meanwhile, did two other young people arrive?

Knox: Yes after the police arrived, I led them into the house, because I thought they were those Raffaele had called, and I showed them that the door was locked and I showed them the window was broken and in the meanwhile Filomena and the boyfriend arrived”¦

Interpreter: Yes when the two police officers arrived, she thought they were those Raffaele had called and so she showed them”¦

Knox: And also two friends of hers [arrived]

Interpreter: “¦ Meredith’s locked room and Filomena’s room with the broken glass, with the broken window and then Filomena with her boyfriend arrived and also other two young people”¦

PM Mignini: Oh”¦ so you”¦ you entered, I ask you this once more, you didn’t enter Filomena’s room, did you enter the other rooms?

Knox: It’s not that I went to look around, but I opened Laura’s door, that was all ok, there the bed was done up. There was the computer, so it was all ok.

Interpreter: She opened Laura’s room and she saw it was all in order

PM Mignini: Did you enter the room?

Knox: Maybe one step but I didn’t go inside

Interpreter: Maybe she made a step but she didn’t go around much

PM Mignini: And in which other”¦ did you enter other rooms?

Knox: I entered my room, and I tried to open the door of Meredith’s room.

[Ed note: end of overlap with Post #3]

Posted by Our Main Posters on 10/03/17 at 10:40 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (16)

Correcting Netflix 24 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #3

Posted by Our Main Posters

Knox again failing to convince 18 months later in court

(Long post, click here to go straight to Comments.)

1. Status Of Things At The Time

This follows from Post 1 and Post 2.

Six weeks after Meredith had died - in Perugia’s first murder for many years - a lot of events had occurred. Guede had been caught and Patrick finally released, through no help from Knox. Many leads had been followed up. All evidence emerging pointed only to the three.

The Matteini and Riciarelli oversight courts had received and reviewed copious evidence directly from the investigators, and had decided that AK and RS could be a flight risk and risk to witnesses and should remain locked up. Contradictions in their statements were rife.

Stuck with massive evidence, the defenses increasingly narrowed to a two-pronged attack: (1) Blame Guede and (2) Blame the police. It was not really begun here, as you can see, but soon did and continued to crescendo for seven years.

This unusual interrogation invited by Knox could actually have helped to get her released, if it had helped to prove either of the above. But in this final hour it becomes blindingly obvious to all present that Knox has boxed herself in.

So this became in effect a dry run for her second interrogation at the 2009 trial. That also was initiated by Knox and beamed more narrowly to fight the charge that she had feloniously impugned Patrick for Meredith’s death.

That was a far more public fail. This interrogation in December 2007 was not really reported, because the court ruled to keep the media out, as it did many times (oh, you didn’t know that?!)

But in June 2009 Knox was widely watched in Italy on the video feed from the court, and for many or most open-minded Italians that was it, there was no going back, to them Knox simply permeated guilt.

Our report then from Florence in part.

I don’t believe her. It is interesting to see Amanda Knox being cool and self-confident, but testifying about how disturbed she became when the police became pushy during her interrogation. It doesn’t fit.

And it comes across as untrustworthy and contradictory that when asked about her drug use, she puts on a “schoolgirl”’ attitude: In effect “Sorry, daddy judge, I was bad, don’t punish me for being young”. This seems definitely out of order with the rest of her performance.

“Performance” is the impression I get from viewing the segments shown from the court - a well-rehearsed performance. I suppose that the jury will wonder how this cool person can forget whether she has replied to a sms-message, how she can get so confused that she names Patrick, afterwards “is too afraid to speak to anyone but her mother”, and so on.

Our report then from Milan in part.

As many of us were expecting, Amanda’s testimony has backfired. She came across not as confident but arrogant, not as sweet but testy, not as true but a fake who has memorized a script, an actress who is playing a part but not well enough to fool the public.

It is true that the Italian media and public opinion in general have not been very benign with Knox. But not for the reasons that the American media seem to want to push. Let’s make it clear, Amanda Knox is not on trial because Italians are unaccustomed to or even “jealous” of her freedom and lifestyle”¦ The first time we read these “explanations” we found them quite laughable.

But for many or most Italians the initial amusement has now given way to a profound irritation. Amanda Knox’s lifestyle is shared by hundreds of thousands of Italian girls, who like partying and sex as much as she does - or even more - and they live a happy carefree life with no fear of being perceived as “bad girls.” They behave no differently from any other girl of the same age in America or in any other Western country.

2. The 17 December Interrogation Knox Requested (Part 3 Of 3)

Note: This is the third hour of three hours. The excellent translation is by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. The original in Italian is in the Wiki Case File here; it has been accessed nearly 4,000 times.

Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of interview Of Ms Amanda Knox (cont)

[Ed note: start of overlap with Post #2]

PM Mignini: Well, but in the meanwhile, did two other young people arrive?

Interpreter: Yes when the two police officers arrived, she thought they were those Raffaele had called and so she showed them”¦

Knox: And also two friends of hers [arrived]

Interpreter: “¦ Meredith’s locked room and Filomena’s room with the broken glass, with the broken window and then Filomena with her boyfriend arrived and also other two young people”¦

PM Mignini: Oh”¦ so you”¦ you entered, I ask you this once more, you didn’t enter Filomena’s room, did you enter the other rooms?

Knox: It’s not that I went to look around, but I opened Laura’s door, that was all ok, there the bed was done up. There was the computer, so it was all ok.

Interpreter: She opened Laura’s room and she saw it was all in order

PM Mignini: Did you enter the room?

Knox: Maybe one step but I didn’t go inside

Interpreter: Maybe she made a step but she didn’t go around much

PM Mignini: And in which other”¦ did you enter other rooms?

Knox: I entered my room, and I tried to open the door of Meredith’s room

[Ed note: end of overlap with Post #2]

[73]

Interpreter: She entered her room, and tried to enter Meredith’s room but it was locked

PM Mignini: And so what did you”¦ what happened at that point?

Knox: After Filomena arrived, she handled the talking with the police, and I stayed in the kitchen with Raffaele

Interpreter: After Filomena arrived, it was Filomena talking with the two officers and Amanda and Raffaele remained in the kitchen

PM Mignini: And so did you two see”¦ what happened next? You two, did you see?

Knox: I know the police opened Meredith’s room

Interpreter: She knows the police opened Meredith’s room

PM Mignini: You know that because they told you?

Knox: No, no, I was in the kitchen, and from there I could see they were beside Meredith’s room, but I was not there, I was in the kitchen

Interpreter: No, no, she saw that from the kitchen

PM Mignini: But you, what did you see of Meredith’s room?

Knox: I did not see inside the room

PM Mignini: You didn’t see anything”¦

Interpreter: She didn’t see down into the inside of the room

PM Mignini: So did you see the scene? Neither you nor Raffaele?

Interpreter: No

Knox: No we didn’t see

PM Mignini: Neither of you two, when they opened it, where were you?

Knox: In the kitchen

[74]

Interpreter: In the kitchen

PM Mignini: So you were a few meters away

Knox: Yes, yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: In what area of the kitchen were you staying?

Knox: more or less near the entrance

Interpreter: In the.. near the [outside] entrance of the kitchen”¦

PM Mignini: About the entrance, you mean the house entrance, just beyond”¦ so you were”¦

Knox: Yes we were inside

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: When they entered, then was the door immediately closed again?

Interpreter: With the officers?

PM Mignini: Meredith’s [room].

Knox: I don’t know, they just told me to get out of the house

Interpreter: She doesn’t know, because they told her to get out of the house

PM Mignini: The Carabinieri, at what time did they arrive? Did [some people] wearing black uniforms come? Other police officers?

Knox: The Carabinieri came”¦ at that point I was very frightened”¦ I don’t remember when they arrived, I’m sure that was after, when I went out, and I sat on the ground and I couldn’t understand what was going on”¦

Interpreter: The Carabinieri arrived afterwards when I was outside

PM Mignini: How long after the arrival of the two plain-clothed police officers?

[75]

Knox: I’ve already said in these instances it’s too difficult to define the time, because I only remember Filomena saying “A foot! A foot!” We were pushed out, there were police officers outside and I sat on the ground, I couldn’t”¦ I was under shock and couldn’t understand what happened”¦

Interpreter: What Amande remembers is that after Meredith’s door was opened, Filomena was screaming “A foot! A foot!” and Amanda was told to get out of the house and it’s hard to explain at this point, to tell if she was frightened..

PM MIgnini: When did the Carabinieri come? When? After the body had been discovered?

Knox: I saw the Carabinieri when I went out, I don’t know when they came”¦

Interpreter: She saw the Carabinieri when she got out of the house, she doesn’t know when they came

PM MIgnini: But the Carabinieri did not enter? You did not see them inside the house.

Knox: No I don’t think so”¦

Interpreter: No

PM MIgnini: So you saw them when you went out, so was that after a long time since the arrival of the Postal Police? After”¦ ten minutes, fifteen minutes?

Knox: Yes, maybe after some ten minutes, I was still in shock and I was scared so it’s difficult to tell at what time the various things happened”¦

Interpreter: It’s difficult for her to say how much time had passed because she was in shock but something like ten minutes must have passed

PM MIgnini: Oh well, I wanted to know this: did Raffaele tell you about what was in the room?

[76]

Knox: Before, he didn’t know himself what was inside the room

Interpreter: Before, he didn’t even know himself

Knox: But after, when they were all talking”¦ he found out yes”¦ After the police was there and we were all outside together I don’t know who told him but it must have been Filomena or I don’t know who else”¦ but someone explained him that it was not just a foot in the room but the body”¦ but what they saw of it was the foot”¦ So he explained to me that the body was in the room, but you could only see the foot.

Interpreter: When she was outside with Raffaele, to [sic] him, he understood that it was not just a foot but it was the body that had been found

PM MIgnini: But he told you, did he tell you textually “there was a girl’s body inside the wardrobe covered with a sheet, and the only thing you could see was a foot”. This, did Raffaele tell it to you?

(the interpreter, at this point translates the question asked by PM MIgnini this way: “did Raffaele tell you that in the room there was the body covered by a cover?)

Knox: Yes

Lawyer: She [the interpreter] did not say: in the wardrobe?

PM MIgnini: These are your statements. You declared on December 2”¦. on November 2. “¦ On November 2. 2007 at the first questioning when you were heard, the very first one, a few hours after the discovery of the body, you told, you said Raffaele told you that “in the wardrobe, there was the body of a girl covered by a sheet and the only thing you could see was a foot”. Is this true, that Raffaele told you this?

Lawyer: Please judge, could you read it to us?

[77]

PM MIgnini: So “in the wardrobe..” Excuse me, please translate this word by word to her”¦ “in the wardrobe there was the body of a girl covered with a sheet and the only thing that you could see was a foot”

Knox: As Raffaele said

Interpreter: This is as Raffaele told it to Amanda”¦

PM MIgnini: Yes, she said this in the first [2 November] questioning.

Knox: Yes, apparently, it seemed to me, he told me the body was in the wardrobe”¦ it’s this that he told me”¦ obviously he did not see himself inside the room, it was things that were told to him by someone else”¦

Interpreter: Yes, on November 2. she said so because it’s what Raffaele told her. Because not even what he thought he understood [sic “neanche quello che secondo lui ha capito”]... Since he did not see”¦ he did not see inside the room”¦. Raffaele told her that way

PM MIgnini: These are textual, precise words so? “¦ I may read them again to you”¦ You confirmed”¦

Lawyer: She confirmed that Raffaele heard other people saying that maybe this was the version, and he referred this version, referring to something he heard

PM MIgnini: I read them again, I can read them again”¦.

Lawyer: We’ve read it, you explained to us

PM MIgnini: So on November 2. you say, that means the first questioning at 15: 30, this is the first one, the most aseptic one let’s say, so: “I learned in that moment from my boyfriend that inside Meredith’s room in the wardrobe there was the body of a girl covered with a sheet and the only thing you could see was a foot”.

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

[76]

PM MIgnini: You confirm that he spoke to you this way

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

Lawyer: She pointed out to the previous question, the source from which Raffaele had this information

Interpreter: Raffaele did not see, so it was what it seemed to him

Lawyer: Raffaele collected this information from other people

Interpreter: From the people around, Carabinieri and other young people

PM MIgnini: But excuse me, excuse me, did Raffaele tell you this, did he tell you “this one told me, that one told me”, or instead Raffaele limited himself to just telling you this? What did Raffaele tell you?

Knox: I think it was Filomena’s friends who told him

Interpreter: She thinks it was Filomena’s [male] friend who told Raffaele

PM MIgnini: You think”¦

Knox: I don’t know who told him

PM MIgnini: Excuse me”¦

Interpreter: Yes she thinks but doesn’t know

PM MIgnini: Excuse me, the question was as follows, here’s the question”¦ Are you ready? “¦ So, Raffaele comes to you”¦

Knox: Yes

PM MIgnini: And what does he say? “There is the body of a girl in the wardrobe, covered with a sheet, and you can only see a foot”? Or did he say “someone told me that there is the body of a girl” and said who [told him]?

[79]

Knox: I understand”¦ I understand”¦ He said precisely “Apparently there is a girl, there is the body of a girl, in the wardrobe”¦ But the only thing that you can see is her foot”

Interpreter: He did not say who told him, he just said “it seems like”¦” and “apparently”¦”

PM MIgnini: He said so: “It seems like”¦” ?

Interpreter: Yes

PM MIgnini: The body is in the wardrobe covered with a sheet, and you only see a foot

Interpreter: Yes it seems like they say apparently

PM MIgnini: Oh, then when did you know, you, how Meredith died?

Lawyer: How Meredith was dead?

PM MIgnini: That she was dead, and about how she died

Knox: The police told me

PM MIgnini: When did they tell you?

Knox: At the beginning they didn’t tell us if was Meredith or not, Filomena said “Oh no, Meredith!” so I imagined it was her but I didn’t know”¦ So at the Questura when they were already questioning they told me then that it was Meredith. I don’t remember the exact moment when they told me but it was at the Questura”¦

Interpreter: She actually learned this when she was at the Questura, later, before she learned about the body of a girl and then she heard Filomena saying “Oh my god, its Meredith!” and hence”¦

[80]

PM Mignini: And about the way she was killed, when did you come to know that? Excuse me, I’ll give you an example, she could have been shot with a gun, with a stab, poisoned”¦ I mean”¦

Knox: I didn’t know how she was killed”¦ I thought that there was this foot in the room but didn’t know anything else”¦ The police…

Interpreter: The police told her

PM : When? Who told you from the police?

Knox: I don’t remember

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember

Lawyer: No, but she also said that she doesn’t know how she was killed”¦

PM Mignini: This is important: therefore you don’t know how she was killed?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No, she didn’t know

PM Mignini: You didn’t know how she was killed, what was it the police telling you?

Knox: The police told me that her throat had been cut”¦ and from what they told me I had pictured something horrible”¦

Interpreter: The police told her that her throat had been cut

PM Mignini: Who told you from the police?

Knox: I don’t remember

Interpreter: Eh, she doesn’t know who

PM Mignini: Well, a man, a woman”¦?

Knox: I don’t remember

Interpreter: I don’t remember

[81]

PM Mignini : And when were you told?

Knox: When I was at the questura, but I don’t remember. When they interrogated me the first time I remember that they said “we don’t even know if it’s Meredith” I don’t remember when they told me, I only remember that the police told me when I was in the Questura because I didn’t know what had happened”¦

Interpreter: She only remembers that she was in the questura when she came to know how

PM Mignini: At what time?

Knox: I don’t remember”¦

Interpreter: I don’t remember.

PM Mignini: After having talked, after you were heard at the Questura, did you go away or did you wait?

Knox: The first day I was questioned I was there for hours”¦ maybe 14”¦

Interpreter: The first time it seems to her that she had been there a very long time, 14 hours

PM Mignini: But questioned

Knox: No, maybe they questioned me for 6 hours but I stayed at the Questura a very long time”¦

Interpreter: It must have been more or less 6 hours that Amanda was questioned but staying in the Questura must have been about”¦

PM Mignini: But was there”¦ were you in the waiting room?

Knox: Yes the whole time together with everyone else we were there in the waiting room”¦

Interpreter Yes, yes together with the other ones

PM Mignini: And who were the other people?

[82]

Knox: The housemates, and later others arrived”¦ After quite a long time our neighbors arrived, after a while some people Meredith knew arrived, her friends

Interpreter: Her housemates and then other people who arrived later, the neighbors after a while”¦ and after, Meredith’s friends arrived, the people Meredith knew”¦

PM Mignini: But did you speak to them? Did you exchange any confidences?

Knox: Yes we were all there and I said “it appears that Meredith’s body was found in a closet”

PM Mignini: Who said that?

Knox: I remember talking to her friends and I remember telling them that it appeared the body had been found inside a closet”¦

Interpreter: She remembers having said it to Meredith’s friends

PM Mignini: But friends, who? You must tell us the name”¦ a name even just the name”¦

Knox: I remember having talked to Sophie”¦ But I don’t know the name of the other friends

PM Mignini: A certain Natalie? From London

Knox: The name sounds familiar but I don’t think I could recognize her face

Interpreter: She can’t tie the name to her face but”¦

PM Mignini: And what were you saying? What kind of comments were you making?

[83]

Knox: I told them what I knew, I told them that I had arrived home and found the door open, and told them what I knew”¦

Interpreter: She told what she knew that she had arrived home and found the door open

PM Mignini: Did you ever see, did you see in those moments the wound on Meredith’s neck?

Interpreter: Up to the moment?

PM Mignini: In that moment.

Knox: I never saw Meredith dead, I never saw her dead body”¦

Interpreter: No, she never saw her dead

PM Mignini: Ok, but was there anyone that night who said, anyone who said that she had died quickly? Did someone else say that she must have suffered for a long time”¦ was there anyone who said this?

Knox: Nobody of the people I talked to knew what had happened”¦

Interpreter: No, none of the people she talked to said something”¦ knew what had happened

PM Mignini: Did you come to know, did you ever come to know, and if yes, when, in what moment, Meredith had died”¦ that is, if Meredith’s death was immediate or if it was prolonged, if there was a death agony”¦ if yes, when did you find that out?

Knox: The only time when I heard of this was when Luciano [Ghirga] was describing the wound and how deep it was”¦ What kind of wound it was and he said “maybe she died slowly because no big vein had been struck”

Interpreter: So, the first time you had heard talking about the wound and how she died”¦ when was it with Luciano?

Lawyer: The morning of the 8th

[84]

PM Mignini: So, after the 6th…

Lawyer: The morning of the 8th

PM Mignini: The morning of November 8th

Lawyer: After the arrest validation [hearing]

Interpreter: And there she found out that no vital vein was directly struck and therefore”¦

PM Mignini: You say that she came to know on the 8th from the lawyer.

Lawyer: From the lawyers.

PM Mignini: From the lawyers, sorry.

Lawyer: We always came all together

PM Mignini: Either one or the other [of you] could have told her”¦ so”¦ [talking to Knox] I formally notify [for the record, a contradiction] that an Erasmus student and a colleague of this student, they said, on this past December 10th that on the night of the second in the Questura, while having”¦ a girl called Natalie, I won’t tell you her last name but she”¦ she was a friend of Meredith, she had noticed that you were talking at length with Sollecito, and at a certain point, in response to a comment made by one of these girls that they hoped Meredith had died without suffering, you instead said ” with those kind of wounds the death would not have come fast and that therefore Meredith must have died after a certain period of time”. I’ll reread it to you if you’d like, ok?

Knox: The police told me that her throat was cut, and what I know about that topic, I mean when they cut your throat, it is terrible and I heard that it’s a horrible way to die”¦

Interpreter: Yes the police had told her that Meredith’s throat was cut and what Amanda knew is that it’s an agonizing way to die”¦

[85]

PM Mignini: But this is something we found out after, we too found it out only later”¦ not right away”¦

Knox: The police told me that her throat had been cut.

Interpreter: The police had told her that her throat had been cut.

PM Mignini: Who from the police? Excuse me I’d like to know”¦ cutting the neck, it can happen in many ways, vital veins can be struck and might also not be struck, therefore one thing is about cutting the throat, and another is about the way how to cut it and therefore make it so that the death occurs instantaneously, or cause a death with agony. On the evening of the second, if it’s true, according to these results, on the evening of the second you knew that, with those kind of wounds, she must have suffered an agony”¦ and the police didn’t know that”¦

Knox: I thought that a death by cutting the throat was always slow and terrible”¦

PM Mignini: The autopsy was made on the fourth, two days later

Interpreter: What she thought was that cutting the throat was always a slow death in general

PM Mignini: It’s not like that”¦not necessarily”¦ anyway, who from the police told you about the neck wound? Tell us.

Knox: It was probably the interpreter”¦the first interpreter was the person I talked to the most”¦ all information I had came more or less from him”¦

Interpreter: Probably the translator/interpreter

PM Mignini: Therefore, therefore he told you while you were being heard”¦

Lawyer: She was in there 12 hours

[86]

Knox: When I was in there I was talking to the police and they told me that her throat was cut”¦ the whole conversation was between me and the interpreter. It was him who must have told me, a long time has passed but I think it was like that”¦

Interpreter: Directly from the interpreter, indirectly from the police

PM Mignini: So [it was] when you were questioned. Not before.

Interpreter: No, before she was questioned she didn’t know how she was”¦

Knox: No, when I was home the way she died”¦

PM Mignini: Before being questioned”¦ you were questioned until 15:30, until what time have you been heard? You were being heard since 15:30, until what time were you being heard?

Knox: I don’t know it was a long questioning”¦

Lawyer: She had been heard in the presence of an interpreter, maybe the interpreter”¦

PM Mignini: It was D’Astolto”¦ Fabio D’Astolto

Lawyer: The interpreter was present from the beginning or only from the questioning onwards?

PM Mignini: Yes, well he was a policeman acting as an interpreter, translating. Fabio D’Astolto. Assistant D’Astolto. When and how, in what terms did D’Astolto express himself, this translator what did he tell you?

Lawyer: When?

PM Mignini: When and what did he tell you

Knox: I don’t remember when but I asked him how she died

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember when but she asked him how she was killed”¦

PM Mignini: And he pointed out to you the wound on the neck. The wound on the neck and that’s all. Fine. This translator.

[87]

Lawyer: [to the Prosecutor] You referred to an Erasmus student who had said that on December 10th. Ms. Natalie would have said this.

PM Mignini: Yes

Lawyer: And is the Erasmus student indicated [in the records]?

PM Mignini: It is indicated

Lawyer: Do we have a name?

PM Mignini: Capruzzi, Filippo and the other one is a certain, a colleague of his, Chiara, Maioli.

Lawyer: So it was two Erasmus students

PM Mignini: Two Erasmus students who confirmed this confidentiality from this English girl. Some”¦ this is the December 10th hearing report”¦ ok

Lawyer G. She clarified if she had talked with the interpreter, with someone before”¦

Lawyer C. We have clarified that the interpreter was not an interpreter but was a police officer who speaks English and that apparently was present from the beginning and therefore at this point…

PM Mignini: Wait.. one moment”¦ did you, did you”¦ did you see this person who was translating at the house?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Perfect

Lawyer: She was approximately 12 hours in the Questura and at some time she heard the first… let’s call it questioning but it was a long time, and before the questioning she heard of this wound on the neck, is that right?

[88]

PM Mignini: During the questioning, you said before, during the questioning so much as this policeman translator was present, therefore”¦ no I’m very sorry, who did you hear this from? The translator? The policeman

Interpreter: About the wound? The first time?

PM Mignini: The wound

Knox: I think so

Knox: The first time?

PM Mignini: Yeah

Interpreter: I think the interpreter the first time

PM Mignini: And it would be this D’Astolto”¦ so this D’Astolto told you, please excuse me you told me this “it was D’Astolto” now”¦ therefore this D’Astolto told you this during the course of the questioning?

Knox: I think so”¦

Interpreter: Yes, she thinks so

PM Mignini: Ok, one more thing, so the”¦ you did, the morning of the”¦ actually no, the night between the fifth and the sixth of November, you did, let’s say partially modify your previous declarations, so then you modified your previous declarations and you made a specific accusation against Patrick Dia Lumumba known as Patrick. You said that you were supposed to meet with Patrick, that you met with Patrick at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana, that you went to Meredith’s house, to your house, and then he had sex with Meredith, then you heard a scream and you accused him even if in terms you say “confusedly” of killing Meredith. Isn’t that so? Why did you make this accusation? “¦ Now remember, I was hearing you, I was present, you were crying, you were

[89]

profoundly upset, and you were as if relieved when you made this statement.

Lawyer: Maybe she was stressed?

PM Mignini: Well, stressed or not, in any case she was very she made these declarations

Lawyer: You asked her a question “Why did you make these declarations”?

PM Mignini: Well I also have to”¦

Lawyer: Eh these are opinions

PM Mignini: I am saying that you made a declaration not in a detached way, in other words in a very involved manner, why did you make these statements?

Knox: I was scared, I was confused, it had been hours that the police that I thought were protecting me, and instead they were putting me under pressure and were threatening me.

Interpreter: She was scared, she was confused, it had been hours that the police were threatening and pressuring her.

PM Mignini: Yes, tell me, go on

Knox: The reason why I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick”¦ they kept saying about this message, that I had sent a message to Patrick”¦

Interpreter: The reason why she thought of Patrick was because the police was asking her who was this Patrick to whom she sent, with whom there was this exchange of messages, they were asking her insistently.

Knox: That was the worse experience of my life

Interpreter: The worse experience of her life

[90]

Knox: I had never been more confused than then

Interpreter: She had been so confused or scared

PM Mignini: But in the following memoriale [spontaneous statement around noon 6 November] that you wrote before going to prison, basically you don’t retract this accusation. Even if in terms, still in terms let’s say of uncertainty, between dream and reality, in other words in such a way “¦ still you didn’t “¦ I believe that in this memoriale you say “I still see this image in front of me” and then you see yourself while hearing it, you say that in that first memoriale you wrote “you hear Meredith’s screams and you put your hands over your ears”. Why do you have this image? Your ears”¦ the scream”¦ it’s not like it’s changing much after all isn’t that so?

Lawyer: No, but she says she was very confused”¦ she was under a lot of stress

PM Mignini: Yes, but why does it basically remain the same, this one”¦

Knox: Yes, I imagined these things”¦

Interpreter: Imagined this scene

Knox: I was so scared and confused

Interpreter: I was so scared and confused

Knox: that I tried to imagine what could have happened. The police told me that I was probably not remembering well. So I thought of what could be another answer and therefore I imagined it”¦

Interpreter: She tried to think of what could have happened since the police was saying that probably she didn’t remember well. And therefore she imagined this scene, trying to think how it could have happened

PM Mignini: Well, you, I just tell you, I tell you only that this Dia Lumumba, this Patrick, only comes up in your statements, he wasn’t, he has never been indicated previously in the slightest, I mean why did you, why did you almost feel…

[91]

...forced to, so you say, to give this name? While this name had never been, you had never mentioned him previously”¦ in the statements of the 2nd, the 3rd”¦. Why only at a certain point di this Patrick pop up? I’m telling you, do you realize”¦ excuse me, eh? “¦ excuse me”¦.

Knox: They were telling me “why did you send this message to Patrick, this message to Patrick!”

Interpreter: Because they were always insisting about this message to Patrick and because”¦

PM Mignini: Well because there’s the message so [it’s] the message but it’s just that, it’s not that there was an attitude, I mean it’s not like there was any reference to a message according to what emerges from the statements. In fact there was a message that you”¦ since there had been an exchange of messages right before the time of the murder between you and this person it’s normal that the police would want to know why, what this message meant, this”¦ therefore it’s not something”¦ why did you threw yourself in this kind of”¦ ? While you had, you had the possibility to”¦?

Knox: Because I thought that it could have been true

Interpreter: Because she thought it could have been true”¦

PM Mignini: It could have been true?

Lawyer: Why?

Knox: When I was there, I was confused”¦

PM Mignini: [to the lawyers, ed.] No, no, excuse me, at this point no, I’m sorry. Not the lawyers. The defense can intervene against me but against the person investigated…?

Lawyer Ghirga: But there was no question”¦ Prosecutor there was no question

PM Mignini: It could be true. What does it mean?

[92]

Lawyer Ghirga: There was no question

PM Mignini: What? I am asking the question.

Lawyer Ghirga: Then ask it.

PM Mignini: What does it mean, how “˜could it be true’? What?

Lawyer Ghirga: What could be true?

PM Mignini: Excuse me, lawyer

Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents

PM Mignini: What could be true

Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents

PM Mignini: “¦Lawyer Ghirga”¦ what”¦?

Lawyer Ghirga: [seems to Knox] What do you want to say then? Let’s ask her”¦

PM Mignini: Excuse me, I am asking the questions, I am asking them now

Lawyer Ghirga Yes of course

PM Mignini: Then after you can”¦ I am asking her”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: Yes of course, we will ask them too”¦

PM Mignini: Lawyer”¦ she is saying “it could have been true””¦

Lawyer: What?

PM Mignini: “it could have been true”. She was telling me why did she accuse Lumumba of this fact? “It could have been true” is what she answered. Gentlemen, here”¦

Knox: I said it because I imagined it and I thought that it could have been true”¦

Interpreter: She said because she had imagined it and therefore she thought it could have been true.

[93]

PM Mignini: Look, listen”¦ listen, why did you imagine it?

Knox Why?... Because I was stressed

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you imagine”¦

Lawyer: No she was answering

PM Mignini: Yes; what did you want to say?

Interpreter: Because she was under stress”¦

Knox: Knox: Why? I was stressed, I was scared, it was after long hours in the middle of the night, I was innocent and they were telling me that I was guilty

Interpreter: Because they were saying that she was guilty

PM Mignini: Who was saying it? Guilty who’”¦.

Interpreter: After hours”¦

Lawyer: Excuse me, prosecutor, if we can correctly compile this translation, these words that were said in English at the right moment

PM Mignini: She is crying, we acknowledge, I’m sorry, we acknowledge that the”¦ investigated is crying.

Interpreter: Because she was stressed, scared under pressure after many hours, she was”¦ in the middle of the night, they had reached the middle of the night and because they were saying that Amanda was guilty.

PM Mignini: Who was saying that she was guilty?

Interpreter: The police

Lawyer: The police was accusing her

Interpreter: The police was accusing Amanda

[94]

PM Mignini: Why”¦ why did you accuse Lumumba and not others? How many people did you know who could”¦

Knox: Because they were yelling Patrick’s name”¦

Interpreter: She accused Patrick and not others because they were always talking about Patrick, suggesting”¦

PM Mignini: The police, the police couldn’t suggest…

Interpreter: Yelling Patrick’s name

PM Mignini: Excuse me, what was the police saying?

Interpreter: What did the police tell you?

Knox: The police were telling me that “˜we know that you were at the house, we know that you left the house’, and the moment before I said Patrick’s name they put.. someone was showing me the message that I had sent on the phone

Interpreter: The police said that they knew that Amanda was inside the house, and when she went in, when she went out, that she was inside the house, and while they were asking her this someone showed her Patrick’s message on the phone.

PM Mignini: But this is”¦ But this is normal. You”¦ there was this message”¦ I’m sorry, I’m very sorry. There’s a murder here. There’s a girl whose throat is slit, there was a phone number, there was a call that had been made, you were being heard. There was a call that had been made to you on the night of the murder from this person, you replied to this call in a way that could have been interpreted, according to the meaning in Italian “will see you”. Eh, so what is more normal than to insist? The police are doing their job. They insist to know, what did that mean, what was the, what relationship was there between you and Lumumba. This is normal.

[95]

Knox: I didn’t understand why they were insisting that I was lying”¦ they kept telling me that I was lying”¦

Interpreter: She didn’t understand why they were insisting that she was lying.

PM Mignini: Why are you”¦?

Interpreter: The police was insisting that she was lying.

PM Mignini: But why did you accuse, then if it was like this…. Again you are, you are crying again, for a long while since you started, I put in the record, I put in the record that”¦ it’s been ten minutes that you have been crying. Why did you accuse a person that, today, you’re telling us he is innocent, but earlier you just told us “it could be true” what does “it could be true” mean? You have told me “it could be true”.

Lawyer: The subject is missing

PM Mignini: No the subject is there, because I asked the question. Why did you accuse Lumumba?

Lawyer: Can we suspend a moment please?

PM Mignini: What reason?

Knox: It means that in the moment when I told Patrick’s name, I thought that it could have been true.

Interpreter: In the moment in which she said Patrick’s name, in that moment, she thought it could have been true.

Lawyer Ghirga: We ask for a suspension”¦ she is calm, you say she is crying, and we think she’s not.

PM Mignini: I put that in the record it because I could see the tears, she was crying and I could hear her too.

[96]

Lawyer: It was not ten minutes long

PM Mignini: Well, even more, maybe

Lawyer: maybe, no less

PM Mignini: Let’s interrupt, break off.

Lawyer: You asked her six times”¦

PM Mignini: For Heaven’s sake, let’s interrupt, break off.

(interruption)

[from this point on Amanda declares her right to remain silent]

PM Mignini: So, at 15:12 lawyer Luciano Ghirga resumes the interrogation

Lawyer Ghirga: In the name of the defensive collegium we submit a reason to confer personally, privately, we mean alone together with our client, for a time not longer than ten minutes.

PM Mignini: So, the Public Prosecutor is pointing out that the interrogation had already been suspended and it’s 15: 13 now, pointing out that the interrogation was suspended several times, and the last time for, how long? Ten minutes on request of the defence, and the defence will be allowed to fully have counsel with the person under investigation at the end of the interrogation. [The Public Prosecutor] orders to proceed, orders to go forward with the investigation procedure. So now I would like”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: If you may, ask to the suspect, to the person under investigation, whether she intends to go on or to invoke her right not to answer”¦?

PM Mignini: This is a”¦ it’s a”¦ it’s a”¦ she decided to answer questions at the beginning. Now if she decides to make a statement where she says “I don’t want to answer any more” she’ll be the one who says it, and it’s not that I must ask now, that question was done at the beginning of the interrogation. If now she wants to say”¦

Knox: I prefer not to answer any more”¦

[97]

Lawyer Ghirga: What did she say?

Interpreter: She doesn’t want to answer anymore.

PM Mignini: So, at this point, at 15: 15, on a question asked by the defence lawyers, about whether the person under investigation intends to go on answering or not”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: To your questions

PM Mignini: To a question by lawyer Ghirga”¦ yes, well, Lawyer Ghirga asked her that

Lawyer: He didn’t first ask the question

Lawyer Ghirga: But what question did I ask?

Lawyer: We told you to ask her…

PM Mignini: Yes, you asked me, and I did follow the request. But”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: She made a declaration, and we took note, unfortunately, about forbidden suggestions”¦ but on what request”¦?

PM Mignini: Now at this point, at 15: 15 the defence lawyers… Let’s put like this, the defence lawyers ask this Prosecutor about whether he intends to ask the person under investigation if she intends to go on answering questions, but then, after my decision, Lawyer Ghirga said”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: Who said? You said

PM Mignini: You asked her, I put in the record what happened, it’s recorded anyway, this is what I perceived you asked her, and she answered “I do not intend to answer”, she said, and then the interpreter…

Lawyer Ghirga: I asked whether she intended to make a statement, and she made a statement

PM Mignini: You indicated that to her, it changes nothing, doesn’t change”¦ I must only put in the record what happened. The public prosecutor points out that…

[98]

...the warning about the right not to answer was explained to the person under investigation at the beginning of the interrogation, as provided by the Code, and that same [person under investigation] declared she wanted to answer. It is not possible now to invoke the duty to inform the suspect about her right, because such requirement has been already fulfilled. Anyway the person under investigation can, if she decides to, declare that she doesn’t want to answer any more. Such option has been shown to the person under investigation by lawyer Ghirga.

Lawyer: ...by the defence lawyers

PM Mignini: By the defence lawyers, to the person under investigation. What do you want to do?

Lawyer: What do you mean by “It was shown?”

PM Mignini: It was shown, because you said”¦ I need to put in the record what happened. The lawyer… Facing my warrant which I described, the notice was provided at the beginning of the interrogation as the code requires. She said “I want to answer, I do not intend to invoke my right not to answer”. That answer had been given already, I informed her, and she answered. Now to this, at this point, however, I said nothing prevents her from wanting, from declaring “at this point I do not intend to answer any more”. I put it in the record and I don’t ask why, at that point, at that point.

Lawyer: You should not put in the record “the defence lawyers have shown”¦”

PM Mignini: “at that point”

Lawyer: We did not show anything, we asked to be allowed to, well”¦ and you said no.

PM Mignini: So”¦ lawyer, lawyer?

Lawyer: And you said no, and we didn’t have the possibility to show her…

[99]

PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga”¦ Lawyer Ghirga”¦

Lawyer: that she might invoke her right to not answer. It’s not that it’s we who’ve shown this possibility this is what I want to explain”¦

PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga told her something, so…?

Lawyer Ghirga: No, no, I only said, if you could give us a ten minutes suspension

PM Mignini: You told her something, now come on”¦ I need to put that on record

Lawyer Ghirga: what did I say”¦

PM Mignini: You have shown, I don’t know if the other lawyer did too, you told, Lawyer Ghirga, you told the person under investigation about… You said, if you can, if I remember correctly, we’ll hear her again”¦

Lawyer Costa: It was me who told her, Mr. Prosecutor

PM Mignini: So I understood Lawyer Ghirga… Lawyer Giancarlo Costa declares he explained that, I didn’t say anything else

Lawyer Costa: ... To Ms. Amanda Knox to use her right to invoke her right not to answer

PM Mignini: ... And she herself declares so, she is supposed to declare what she wants

Lawyer: She has already said that

PM Mignini: Let’s repeat it since with this superimposition of voices”¦ the interpreter will translate faithfully word-by-word what you say.

Knox: At this point I don’t want to answer any more

Interpreter: At this point she doesn’t want to answer any more

PM Mignini: So “at this point I don’t want to answer any more”. We put on record that the current transcript was recorded entirely.

[100]

Lawyer Costa: Mr Public Prosecutor, we lawyers may renounce to our own time terms of deposit if Your Honour would give us a copy

PM Mignini: Yes, no problem”¦ at 15: 22. The parties demand a transcription, I mean the defence lawyers request the transcription of the recording.

Posted by Our Main Posters on 10/10/17 at 05:00 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (11)

Correcting Netflix 25 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #4

Posted by Our Main Posters

Knox looks sadly at dad. She knows he knows, all parents did, and so stalked Kercher family.

(Long post, click here to go straight to Comments.)

1. Status Of Things At The Time

This follows from Post 1 and Post 2 and Post 3.

In this post we jump a year and a half to where Dr Mignini picks up the threads at trial.

As we’ll illustrate in other posts soon, Netflix deliberately incited a vast wave of hate and contempt and defamatory accusations against Dr Mignini, by way of omitting ALL of the careful steps he and others had taken to build an exceptionally strong case ALL of which Netflix omitted too.

The prosecution component of the trial in the first half of 2009 was almost a masterclass in how such things should be done. Evidence point after evidence point after evidence point was introduced with only perfunctory challenges by the defense. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

All events that took place in the Perugia central police station after Meredith’s death took day after day for those many present to describe. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

The defense had almost no come-back and was generally anxious to move along. Knox and Sollecito haplessly sat through all of this. They knew what they were up against. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

The defense portion of the trial occupied only a few trial days and usually not full days at that, as they had so little to present. Netflix didnt tell you that?! Then the prosecutions summations hammered the bleak facts home. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

Knox was on the stand for two full days. She herself did her the most harm - those listening in Italian could see how rarely she told the truth or even made sense. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

She had zero explanation for why she fingered Patrick Lumumba and left him desperately scared in jail for about two weeks. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

Dr Mignini didnt even speak until Knox’s second day.

The first day consisted of Lumumba’s lawyer Pacelli giving Knox a very hard time. Then Knox’s lawyers labored for hour after hour to bring out the human in her and to make her malicious allegations a daffy oversight.

Three things to look for here: (1) Was Amanda Knox making things up? (2) Was Dr Mignini making things up? (3) In finding Knox guilty of calunnia for which she served three years, was the jury observing all of this somehow being duped?

2. Amanda Knox Trial Testimony—Saturday, June 13 2009

Transcription of the full two days from tapes and translation was by Thoughtful for our Wiki case file.

Below GCM is Judge Massei, GM is Dr Giuliano Mignini, AK is Amanda Knox, and CDV is Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova.

GCM:
If the public could politely cease the noise and comments…yes…we could begin the audience. [He recalls: trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, all the names of lawyers involved, defense and prosecution, civil plaintiffs]. Please state your identity again.
AK:
Amanda Knox, born July 9, 1987, in Seattle, Washington, USA.
GCM:
Please go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
All right, Miss Knox, can you tell us about when you first met Raffaele Sollecito?
AK:
It was at a concert at the Universita per Stranieri, I think it was on Oct 25.
GM:
October 25?
AK:
So I’ve understood [odd remark: meaning “so I’ve been told?”]
GM:
So it was just about a week before the facts, more or less. Now, on the afternoon and evening of Oct 31, can you tell us what you did?
AK:
In the evening?
GM:
Afternoon and evening.
AK:
So, in the afternoon, I remember that I met a friend for coffee, my friend Spiros. We had coffee in the center, and then in the street when I was going back to meet Raffaele, I was still with him and I met someone I had gotten to know at “Le Chic”, who said “We’ll see each other later at Le Chic”...
GM:
You said “We’ll see each other later?”
AK:
Yes, yes.
GM:
To whom? To Raffaele’s friend?
AK:
No, no. It was my friend, that I had gotten to know in a bar, a cafe that also had internet service, and then, okay. What happened next? [Long pause with sound ‘ummmmm’, ‘hmmm’.] Did I go home? I can’t remember.
GM:
You can’t remember.
AK:
And then, for Halloween, I know I went to Le Chic first, and then after I was there for a little while, I again met Spiros, outside the Merlin, and we went to a place with a bunch of his friends, I can’t remember what place it was now, a kind of Irish pub, and then he…I said I was tired and wanted to meet Raffaele in the center, and so he accompanied me on foot to near the church, where I met Raffaele, who took me to his apartment.

[Start of 7:52 minute video segment]
GM:
Now. Have you ever made use of drugs? In particular on the afternoon or the evening of Nov 1?
AK:
I did smoke a joint with Raffaele in the evening, yes.
GM:
So you do confirm this detail.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
So now we get to Patrick’s message.
AK:
Okay.
GM:
So, Patrick’s message came, I believe you said, at 8:15.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
More or less. What did it say exactly?
AK:
I don’t remember the exact words…
GM:
[Interrupts] Was it in Italian? Was it in Italian?
AK:
Yes, it was in Italian. It had to do with the fact that there wasn’t anyone at Le Chic so I didn’t need to go to work.
GM:
And you saw this message at around what time?
AK:
Uh, I don’t remember the time.
GM:
But was it after a little while or right away?
AK:
I was on Raffaele’s bed and then I noticed that there was this symbol on my phone.
GM:
But you don’t remember when?
AK:
No. I don’t look at the clock.
GM:
And you answered Patrick—how did you answer?
AK:
Well, I wrote something like “Okay, see you later [“ci vediamo piu—um—tardi”], buona serata.
GM:
You answered in which language?
AK:
In Italian. He didn’t speak English.
GM:
“Ci vediamo piu tardi”, you said.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
OK—
AK:
Which in English means “See you”—
GM:
Yes but, excuse me, but you answered in Italian.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
“Ci vediamo piu tardi.”
AK:
He doesn’t speak English.
GM:
Very well. It follows that your cell phone [gives number] and Sollecito’s [gives number] stopped their activity respectively, yours at 8:35 and his at 8:42. Why?
AK:
I turned mine off, because I didn’t want to get another message from Patrick, because actually I didn’t really want to go to work. For example, he had told me that I didn’t have to work, but if then a bunch of people showed up, well honestly, he had told me I didn’t have to go to work and I wanted to stay with Raffaele.
GM:
Yesterday if I’m not mistaken, you said that you did it to stay with Raffaele.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
On page 40 (I don’t know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation of December 17, you said, I’ll read it, that: “I turned off my phone to save my battery.” Do you remember that?
AK:
Well, if it’s written there, it must be okay.
GM:
Today you’re saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another. [Voice intervenes: can you be more precise about the page?] Page 40: I’ll read it. “But why did you turn off your phone?” Interrogation of Dec 17. “To save my battery.” “Do you usually keep it on at night?” [He stops, annoyed at some murmuring.]
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me.
CP?:
We’re not interrupting, we’re finding the page.
GCM:
Please, please [because of noise]. 39, 40, but anyway, these were the words. 39 or 40 is the page. Please, go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
Knox’s answer: “To save my battery.” “Do you usually keep it on at night?” “If I have something to do the next morning.” “But the next morning was the day on which everyone skipped school.” “But we were supposed to go to Gubbio the next day with Raffaele.” The next day was the 2nd?
AK:
Mhm.
GM:
You wanted to go to Gubbio on the 2nd or the 3rd?
AK:
No, on the 2nd we wanted to go to Gubbio.
GM:
So, you turned off your telephone so Patrick wouldn’t be able to call you in to work, or you turned it off to save your battery, not to use up your battery. Now, you remember what, what battery you had? what kind of autonomy it had?
AK:
What kind of battery?
GM:
Yes.
AK:
I don’t know what type of battery it was, but…
GM:
The autonomy of the battery? Do you remember?
AK:
I think it was about one or two days. It wasn’t very long, but in the end, well, for example, the next morning, I was going to go to Gubbio, but I didn’t have time to charge up the battery, so I thought, I don’t want to get any phone calls this evening, and if I want to have my phone with me in Gubbio, I wanted it to be reasonably charged up. That’s why I turned it off.
GM:
I see. Now you’re saying this was the motive.
GCM:
I heard an objection. [Annoyed voices.] Please, please. Go ahead. [Voices arguing, dalla Vedova (I think it’s him) is standing up.]
GCM:
This is an analysis. Indeed, yesterday Amanda Knox stated that turning off the cell phone was to guarantee her a free evening without being… [interruption] Excuse me. But at the interrogation of Dec 17 she said that it was both to save battery and also for this reason [interruptions, arguing]. So, I thought I understood that she had two reasons. We’re not arguing about that.
??:
Also not to be called by Patrick.
GCM:
Yes, yes. Both reasons.
CDV:
The objection isn’t about that. It’s about…
GCM:
Excuse me, please. This is an analysis. let’s return to the cross-examination by the pubblico ministero. The defense lawyers will have the final words. Everyone will hear what they have to say then.
CDV:
My objection was because the introductory request—
GCM:
Please, please.
??:
Enough now [“adesso basta”].
CDV:
My objection concerned the way the pubblico ministero presented his question, appearing to contest the fact that in the Dec 17 interrogation, Amanda also explained that she turned off her phone because she didn’t want to be called by Patrick, because she didn’t want to be disturbed. This doesn’t correspond to the truth, because on page 40 of the minutes, she actually says “So, I turned it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would change his mind and call me in.”
GCM:
Excuse me, fine. We heard. The pubblico ministero gave—
CDV:
It wasn’t an objection.
GCM:
All right, but this is an analysis. The pubblico ministero gave everything concerning the reason, two reasons, why the cell phone was turned off. Later there will be analyses to determine if there is a contradiction, or a fifty per cent contradiction, or no contradiction. Now let’s leave this question.
GM:
I would like not to be interrupted.
GCM:
Please, pubblico ministero. Go ahead.

[End of video segment]
GM:
Why? erm-ahem—why did you—we will return to this point several times.
AK:
Okay.
GM:
Why did you speak about Patrick only in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45? Why didn’t you mention him before? You never mentioned him before.
AK:
Before when?
GM:
In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there’s Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn’t you ever mentioned him before?
AK:
Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick’s name to me.
GM:
All right, now is the time for you to make this precise and specific. At this point I will take…no, I’ll come back to it later. You need to explain this. You have stated: “The name of Patrick was suggested to me. I was hit, pressured.”
AK:
Yes.
GM:
Now you have to tell me in a completely detailed way, you have to remember for real, you have to explain step by step, who, how, when, was the name of Patrick suggested to you, and what had been done before that point. The name of Patrick didn’t just come up like a mushroom; there was a preceding situation. Who put pressure on you, what do you mean by the word “pressure”, who hit you? You said: “They hit me”, and at the request of the lawyer Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
So that would be what you meant by being hit?
AK:
Yes.
GM:
Or something else? Tell me if there was something else. You can tell us.
AK:
Okay.
GCM:
So, you are—[Interruptions] The question is—[Interruptions] Escuse me. Excuse me. The question is quite clear. He is repeating this in order to give the accused a chance to add something to these events that were explained by the accused yesterday. The pubblico ministero is asking to return to these events mentioned yesterday in order to obtain more detail about exactly what happened and who did it. Please be as precise as possible.
GM:
So you were in front of—
GCM:
The question is clear.
GM:
All right, so tell us.
GCM:
Yes, it’s clear.
AK:
All right. Okay.
GCM:
If you could give more detail, be more precise, exactly what was suggested to you, about the cuffs, all that.
AK:
Okay.
GCM:
And who did all this, if you can.

[Start of 16:01 minute video segment]
AK:
Okay. Fine. So, when I got to the Questura, they placed me to the side, near the elevator, where I was waiting for Raffaele. I had taken my homework, and was starting to do my homework, but a policeman came in, in fact there were I don’t know, three of them or something, and they wanted to go on talking to me. They asked me again—
GM:
Excuse me, excuse me—
AK:
[coldly] Can I tell the story?
GM:
Excuse me for interrupting you otherwise we’ll forget—
CDV:
Presidente, I object to this way of doing things. The question was asked—[Yelling, interruptions]—we should wait for the answer.
GM:
It’s impossible to go on like this, no, no.
CDV:
If a question is asked, she has to be able to answer.
GCM:
Please, please. That’s correct. There is a rule that was introduced, which says that we should absolutely avoid interruptions from anyone.
CDV:
I want to ask that she be allowed to finish her answer. She has the right, no?
GCM:
Please, please, pubblico ministero. It’s impossible to go on this way.
GM:
I would like to, I can—
GCM:
No no no, no one can. We have to make sure that while someone is speaking, there are never any superimposed voices. And since the accused is undergoing examination, she has the right to be allowed to answer in the calmest possible way. Interruptions and talking at the same time don’t help her, and they can’t be written down in the minutes, which obliges the courts to suspend the audience and start it again at a calmer and more tranquil moment.
GM:
Presidente—
GCM:
No, no, no! Interruptions are absolutely not allowed! Not between the parties, nor when the Court, the President is speaking. So, interruptions are not allowed. Now, the accused is speaking, and when she is finished, we can return to her answers—
GM:
Presidente.
GCM:
Excuse me, please! But at the moment she is speaking, we have to avoid interrupting her. But—I don’t know if this is what was wanted—but while you are speaking, if you could tell us when. For instance, you say you were doing homework, but you didn’t tell us when. We need to know when, on what day, the 2nd of November, the 3rd, what time it was. While you are talking, you need to be more detailed, as detailed as you can with respect to the date and the time.
AK:
Okay.
GCM:
And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
AK:
Thank you. So, here is…how I understood the question, I’m answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I’m sorry, I don’t know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation.
:
The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I didn’t do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.” So I said okay and went with them, and they started asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening. At least, they kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything about what I did. Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times and schedules, and time segments: “What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember. And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.” And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn’t there? I was there! Maybe I can’t say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because I didn’t look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And she would say “No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the house.” And I said, no, that’s not how it was. I was always in Raffaele’s apartment.
GCM:
[taking advantage of a tiny pause to slip in without exactly interrupting] Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the cuffs, who gave them to you.
AK:
All right. What it was, was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started to little by little and then more and more these remarks about “We’re not convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not remember another thing. We don’t understand how you could take a shower without seeing…” And then, they kept on asking me “Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.” Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that I had gone out of the house. I said look, it’s impossible. I don’t know if he’s really saying that or not, but look, I didn’t go out of the house. And they said “No, you’re telling a lie. You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.” Sure, take it. “All right.” So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling “We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?” But I kept saying no, no, I didn’t go out, I’m not pro-pro-pro—-
GCM:
[taking advantage of her stammer] Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous crescendo.
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as continuously as possible…
AK:
Okay, I’m sorry.
GCM:
So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who… these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me…
AK:
Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said “Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick”, and I said I don’t think I did, and they yelled “Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here’s your message saying you wanted to meet him!” And I didn’t even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was telling me “Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you’re not able to remember anything you’ve done.” So I said, how could that be? And she said, “Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can’t remember it. Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg…”
GCM:
The interpreter said this to you?
AK:
The interpreter, yes.
GCM:
I also wanted to ask you because it isn’t clear to me: only the interpreter spoke to you, or the others also?
AK:
All the others also.
GCM:
Everyone was talking to you, all the others, but were they speaking in English?
AK:
No, in Italian.
GCM:
In Italian. And you answered in Italian?
AK:
In Italian, in English…
GCM:
And what was said to you in Italian, did it get translated to you in English?
AK:
A bit yes, a bit no, there was so much confusion, there were so many people all talking at the same time, one saying “Maybe it was like this, maybe you don’t remember,” another saying “No, she’s a stupid liar,” like that…
GCM:
But everything was eventually translated, or you understood some of it and answered right away?
AK:
It wasn’t like an interrogation, like what we’re doing now, where one person asks me a question and I answer. No. There were so many people talking, asking, waiting, and I answered a bit here and there.
GCM:
All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about something that had happened to her. [Interruption by Mignini.] But you need to get back to the questions asked by the pubblico ministero. This isn’t a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we still haven’t really heard the answer to it.
AK:
Yes, sorry.
GCM:
Right, so you were saying that there was this continuous crescendo.
AK:
It’s difficult for me to say that one specific person said one specific thing. It was the fact that there were all these little suggestions, and someone was saying that there was the telephone, then there was the fact that… then more than anything what made me try to imagine something was someone saying to me “Maybe you’re confused, maybe you’re confused and you should try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking, what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting “Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember,” and boom! on my head. [Amanda slaps herself on the back of the head: End of video segment] “Remember!” And I was like—Mamma Mia! and then boom! [slaps head again] “Remember!”
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me, please, excuse me…
AK:
Those were the cuffs.

[Voices: “This is impossible!” “Avoid thinking aloud!” “Or suggestions”]
GCM:
So, the pubblico ministero asked you, and is still asking you, who is the person that gave you these two blows that you just showed us on yourself?
AK:
It was a policewoman, but I didn’t know their names.
GM:
Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
So, now, I asked you a question, and I did not get an answer. You ... [interruptions]!
LG or CDV:
I object to that remark! That is a personal evaluation! Presidente! That is very suggestive. He is making an unacceptable conclusion. He can ask a question, but this is a personal opinion. It seems to me that she did answer. She answered for a good five minutes.
GCM:
Sorry, but I said that we were supposed to avoid interruptions, that we weren’t supposed to interrupt when someone was speaking—
LG or CDV:
But—
GCM:
Wait—avvocato, excuse me, please, let’s try to avoid these moments which don’t help anybody and probably harm the person undergoing the examination because they create tension in the court—
GM:
When I am doing the cross-examination I would like—
GCM:
Please, pubblico ministero. This is another recommendation: let’s avoid analyses. Let’s take the answers as they come, later the right moment will come to say that from this examination, you did not obtain the answer that you expected, that the accused did not answer the questions. That is a later phase. At this moment, let’s stay with the answers that we have, even if they are not exhaustive, and return to the question, but avoiding personal evaluations of their value. Go ahead, publicco ministero, go ahead.
GM:
I would like to—
GCM:
Yes, yes, go ahead, return to your question. And then you can come back to it with more details.
GM:
The central point of that interrogation was the moment when the name of Patrick emerged. You spoke of suggestions, you spoke of pressure, you spoke of being hit, I asked you to give me a precise description of who gave you the blows, you need to describe this person. Was it a woman or a man? Who asked you the questions? Who was asking you the questions? There was the interpreter, who was the person who was translating. But the exam, the interrogation, who was doing it? Apart from the people who were going in and out. You must have understood that there was a murder, and this was a police station, and the investigation was hot, and what I am asking you is, who was actually conducting the interrogation?
GCM:
The pubblico ministero is asking you, you said that the two blows were given to me by someone whose name I don’t know. The pubblico ministero is asking you firstly if you can give a description of the person who hit you, if you saw her, and if you can give us a description. The second question—
AK:
So, when I—the person who was conducting the interrogation—
GCM:
That was the second question! You’re starting with the second question, that’s fine, go ahead, go ahead.
AK:
Oh, sorry…
GCM:
Go on, go on. The person who was conducting the interrogation…
AK:
Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don’t know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?” Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn’t see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.
GCM:
This was the same woman with the long hair?
AK:
Yes, the same one.
GCM:
All right. Are you finished? Tell me if you have something to add.
AK:
Well, I already answered.
GCM:
Fine, fine, all right. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
I’ll go on with the questions. In the minutes it mentions three people, plus the interpreter. Now, you first said that they suggested things to you. What exactly do you mean by the word “suggestion”, because from your description, I don’t see any suggestion. I mean, what is meant by the Italian word “suggerimento”, I don’t find it.

[Interruptions]
GCM:
[quelling them] Excuse me, excuse me, please, please, excuse me, excuse me! Listen, the pubblico ministero is asking you: “suggestions”, you also mentioned words that were “put in your mouth”, versions, things to say, circumstances to describe.

[Start of 15:22 minute video segment] The pubblico ministero is asking two things: who made the suggestions, and what exactly were you told to say? }}
AK:
All right. It seems to me that the thoughts of the people standing around me, there were so many people, and they suggested things to me in the sense that they would ask questions like: “Okay, you met someone!” No, I didn’t. They would say “Yes you did, because we have this telephone here, that says that you wanted to meet someone. You wanted to meet him.” No, I don’t remember that. “Well, you’d better remember, because if not we’ll put you in prison for 30 years.” But I don’t remember! “Maybe it was him that you met? Or him? You can’t remember?” It was this kind of suggestion.
GCM:
When you say they said “Maybe you met him?”, did they specify names?
AK:
Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him—

[Interruptions]
GCM:
Please, please!

[Interruptions, multiple voices]
CDV:
It’s not possible to go on this way! [Mignini yells something at dalla Vedova]
GCM:
Please, please, excuse me, excuse me!
??:
I’m going to ask to suspend the audience! I demand a suspension of five minutes!
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me! Please!
CDV:
Viva Dio, Presidente!
GM:
Presidente, I’m trying to do a cross-examination, and I must have the conditions that allow me to do it! The defense keeps interrupting.
??:
That’s true!
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me, please—
GM:
We’re asking for a suspension!
GCM:
Just a moment, excuse me. I’ve heard all the demands and suggestions, now the Court will decide. So.

[Several moments of silence, during which Amanda murmurs in a very tiny voice: “Scusa.”]
GCM:
I want to point out that the accused offers answers to every question. She could always refuse to respond. She is answering, and that doesn’t mean she has to be asked about the same circumstances again and again. She is not a witness. The accused goes under different rules. We have to accept the answers—
??:
But—
GCM:
Please, please! We have to accept the answers given by the accused. She can stop answering at any time. At some point we simply have to move on to different questions. One circumstance is being asked again, the accused answered. The regularly, the tranquillity, the rituality of the court, of the process, has to be respected. The pubblico ministero was asking about suggestions. [To Amanda] If you want a suspension we can do it right away.
AK:
No, I’m fine.
GCM:
So the pubblico ministero was asking about the suggestions. All right?
AK:
Sure.
GCM:
So, you were the one who gave the first indication, introducing this generic pronoun “him”? This “him”, did they say who it could be?
AK:
It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying “Are you sure you don’t remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote this message.”
GCM:
In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?
AK:
No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata.”
GCM:
But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?
AK:
Actually, I don’t know if that information is in the telephone. But I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn’t find it, but they found the one I sent to him.
GCM:
I also wanted to ask you for the pubblico ministero, you wrote this message in Italian. I wanted to ask you, since you are an English speaker, what do you do when you wrote in Italian? Do you first think in English, and then translate into Italian, or do you manage to think directly in Italian?
AK:
No, at that time, I first thought in English, then I would translate, and then write.
GCM:
So that clarifies that phrase. Go ahead, pubblico ministero, but I think we’ve exhausted the question.
GM:
Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language, “suggerire” means “indicate”, someone who “suggests” a name actually says the name and the other person adopts it. That is what “suggerimento” is, and I…so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?
??:
Objection! Objection!
GM:
On page 95, I read—
CDV:
Before the objection, what was the question?
GM:
The question was: the question that was objected was about the term “suggerimento”. Because I interpret that word this way: the police say “Was it Patrick?” and she confirms that it was Patrick. This is suggestion in the Italian language.
GCM:
Excuse me, please, excuse me. Let’s return to the accused. What was the suggestion, because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had been identified, they talked about “him, him, him”. In what terms exactly did they talk about this “him”? What did they say to you?
AK:
So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message—
GCM:
You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?
AK:
To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew, and that I didn’t want to tell. And that I didn’t want to tell because I didn’t remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying “Look what a stupid liar you are, you don’t even remember this!” At first, I didn’t even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying “Maybe you don’t remember, maybe you don’t remember, but try,” and other people were saying “Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing “Remember, remember, remember,” and then there was this person behind me who—it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me…
GCM:
“Remember!” is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather…
AK:
But it was always “Remember” following this same idea, that…
GCM:
But they didn’t literally say that it was him!
AK:
No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him.”
GCM:
So, these were the suggestions.
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
I object here on the dynamics, because here there’s a contrast…well… per carita—[Brief interruption from GCM]—From Amanda’s answer, it emerges that there was this cell phone and this message and this “Answer, answer,” whereas in the minutes of the Dec 17 interrogation, page 95, we find: The police could not have suggested—[Arguing, everyone speaking, Maresca, Pacelli etc., some saying that they need to know the exact page, it’s different in their version. ]
GCM:
While the pubblico ministero is talking, let’s avoid interrupting him. It’s true that the pages are different, but still, if you can’t find the page, ask for a moment’s pause, don’t interrupt the reading.
GM:
So, on line number one, two, three, four…
GCM:
Pubblico ministero, don’t worry about the lines, please read.
GM:
[reading] She said: “I accused Patrick and no one else because they were continually talking about Patrick.” Suggesting, to use Amanda’s words. I asked: “The police, the police could not suggest? And the interpreter, was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police saying?” Knox: “The police were saying, ‘We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.’ And one moment before I said Patrick’s name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him.” This is the objection. There is a precise moment. The police were showing her the message, they didn’t know who it was—
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me pubblico ministero [talking at the same time] excuse me, excuse me, the objection consists in the following: [to Amanda], when there are contrasts or a lack of coincidence with previous statements, be careful to explain them.
AK:
Okay.
GCM:
Do you confirm the declarations that the pubblico ministero read out?
AK:
I explained it better now.
GCM:
You explained it better now. All right pubblico ministero. Go ahead.
GM:
So, let’s move forward.
AK:
Okay.
GM:
Now, what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?
AK:
Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn’t tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of “Patrick”, I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn’t agree, that maybe could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick’s face, then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted to know everything I had done. But I didn’t know how to say. So they started talking to me, saying, “Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?” I don’t know, maybe in Piazza Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. “Okay, fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the door?” Well, with my key. “So you opened the house”. Okay, yes. “And what did you do then?” I don’t know. “But was she already there?” I don’t know. “Did she arrive or was she already there?” Okay. “Who was there with you?” I don’t know. “Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?” I don’t know. It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me: “Excuse me, I don’t understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?” No. “But how could you not have heard the scream?”. I don’t know, maybe my ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don’t know, maybe, imagining…

[End of video segment]
GCM:
[Stopping her gently] Okay, okay. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
CDV?:
I’d like to ask a question, I’d like to make an objection about—
GCM?:
All right, so—
GM:
Is it a question or an objection? [crossing, arguing voices]
GCM:
Please, no interruptions.
CDV?:
[stronger] I said, I am asking a question and making an objection—
GCM:
But, excuse me, let’s stay with essentials. Let’s hear what the pubblico ministero has to say, and then we’ll see. That’s a premise.
GM:
I appeal to the court that this is making the examination impossible.
GCM:
Please, please, sorry. Go ahead.
GM:
I am trying to understand. In the interro—[he breaks off in mid-word, I think dalla Vedova must have stood up again.]
GCM:
But it’s not possible to hinder things this way, avvocato. Excuse me. Why?
CDV?:
[hard to hear because he’s speaking at the same time as GCM] The defense would like to formally ask for a break [?]
GCM:
We haven’t even heard what he is trying to say yet. You can’t make preventive objections! I’m sorry, avvocato.
CDV?:
I’m not making an objection—
GCM:
[really trying to stop him but not succeeding, CDV goes on talking at the same time] Please, please avvocato, no no no no, the pubblico ministero is speaking. [GM also says some words] Excuse me, excuse me.
CDV?:
The suggestions of the PM before asking the question are inopportune, because he is suggesting and making suggestive…
GCM:
Please, please, excuse me, excuse me! [He really, really needs a gavel to bang!]
GM:
[some words]
GCM:
Please, pubblico ministero! We are creating useless moments—
GM:
[some words]
GCM:
[much louder] Please, pubblico ministero! Please! Now, excuse me.
GM or CDV:
Please explain this concept to me.
GCM:
Please, please! [He finally obtains silence] I understand that when these interruption happens, the tone gets a bit louder, but that is not helpful. [Interruption] Please, please—but we are getting the impression that the objections are preventive. So while the pubblico ministero is speaking, which he has every right to do in this phase, and the defense already had their chance to do it, and they weren’t interrupted yesterday, so we ask for equal treatment today, at the present moment of the examination of the accused. And the tone should always remain cordial without giving the impression of a—
CDV:
Yes, yes, no, no. But it’s just that, I am asking that—
GCM:
Please, avvocato. There’s no reason. We are trying to reconcile the interests of all parties, we are gathering circumstances on which the different parties are called to make analyses and the Court to decide. This will be helpful for everyone. Go ahead.
GM:
The question is this: You say, you just told me a little while ago, that… the police—I’m trying to—well, I have to give a little introduction so she understands my question. You said “they found this message and they asked me whom it was to, if it was true or not true.” And you answered. Then the police obviously goes forward with their questions. “So, tell us”. And you…you just told me, I can’t read it, obviously I don’t have the transcription right here, but, I might be making a mistake, I don’t know, but you were saying that you remembered Piazza Grimana. Did you really say that?
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
Please, please, excuse me, there, now what the accused is saying is: “On the basis of these elements, I tried to reconstruct a scene that could be verified.” In these terms, not because she… She mentally elaborated, with her imagination: this is what I understood, how the scene could be realized, containing those elements that had come up.
AK:
Certainly.
GCM:
But she wasn’t speaking of an effective memory of circumstances that had effectively occurred in her perception. That is the meaning of the response of the accused.
AK:
Certo.
GM:
But you said that you remembered Piazza Grimana.
AK:
I had an image of Piazza Grimana.
GM:
An image of Piazza Grimana, that’s right. Now listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary…

[Post hit our page limit above, continues below]

Posted by Our Main Posters on 10/15/17 at 06:31 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (7)

Correcting Netflix 27 Omitted - State Department Monitored Knox 2007-11; Zero Ill Treament Reported

Posted by Our Main Posters

Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, where nefarious things go on

1. State’s Prodigious Monitoring Of Knox

The State Department through the Rome Embassy monitored Knox in court and prison for four years.

From late 2007 to late 2011. Usually, when drugs are involved in a local crime by an American national, the US embassies and consulates are not allowed by their rules to play any role.

Knox herself never denied drug use, in fact she made it part of her defense. So why did the consulates even monitor Knox? We dont know yet.

The cost to the US taxpayer was huge. Here is our estimate.

Such monitoring could have averaged three days work each month allowing for travel, and 3 or 4 times that during the Massei trial. Monitoring Knox could have cost $1000 a day in staff costs and hotels and travel and meals every time.

Make that say $48,000 in 2008, $120,000 in 2009, $48,000 in 2010, and $96,000 in 2011, for a total over $300,000. American taxpayers had to pay this, again seemingly against rules as this case involved drugs.

Nevertheless, for the truth we strive for on our sites, there was actually a big plus. The monitors from the Embassy never ever reported anything wrong in the situation of Knox.

2. Knox Apologists Try To Hijack State

After Washington State Senator Cantwell failed Knox (see links 1, 2 and 3 below) the Knox apologists kept trying to bend the State Department to Knox’s advantage in at least five ways.

(1) They obtained the first of the emailed reports from the Rome Embassy, obviously hoping that they would reveal something wrong. They didnt. Journalist Andrea Vogt obtained numerous other cables under the Freedom of Information Act. Again nothing was reported as wrong. See links 4, 5 and 11 below.

(2) The daffy Knox apologists Michael Heavey, John Douglas and Steve Moore ran an ill-attended presentation on Knox’s supposed woes in a room for rent at the Congress. Someone from State was said to be there and to promise to open some doors. A second presentation is said to have been offered at State. See link 6 below.

(3) An anonymous “official” source in the State Department persistently attempted in the media to pour cold water on the case on behalf of Knox. Ergon tracked him down. He proved to be merely a low-level clerk in the Department’s offices in Hawaii. See links 7 and 8 below.

(4) A campaign was run to try to get American lawyers and legal commentators to say that Knox was being subject to a second and a third trial, and that under American law this was double jeopardy. So any extradition requests from Italy should be stonewalled. Several agreed, many others did not. See links 9 and 10 below.

(5) They handed over a wildly inaccurate “petition” to a gullible Assistant Secretary of State with numerous signatures that proved to be fake. We pointed out ten inaccurate claims and the petition went nowhere at State. See link 12 below.

3. Did Any Of This Make Italian Justice Look Bad?

In fact no, not at all. Perhaps it was US taxpayer money well spent if it shoots the numerous lurid conspiracies in the foot.

The campaign just might possibly have mattered if in 2015 the Supreme Court had ruled the other way and an extradition was the subject of a request. However various lawyers observed that the Extradition Treaty is very tight and written in such a way that politics could not interfere.

Given Sollecito’s furtive shenanigan in the Dominican Republic in December 2013 it looks like his mafia chums beat the State Department to the punch and in that way the Supreme Court outcome was fixed.

Netflix definitely should have informed viewers that the American government did all this monitoring and yet proved nothing wrong. No sign that Knox was being framed. But predictably Netflix did not.

4. Further Reading On Our Site

1. US Overreaction: Amanda Knox’s Own Lawyer Groans “That’s All We Need, Hillary Clinton”

2. US Overreaction: State Department (Foreign Office) Rebuts Senator Cantwell’s Claims

3. Our Letter To Senator Maria Cantwell: Please Don’t Take Precipitate Action Till Full Facts Are In

4. Amanda Knox’s Supporters Obtain Rome Embassy Cables About Knox, Prove Of No Help

5. Andrea Vogt Obtains New Rome Embassy Cables From State, Still Showing Zero Concern About Knox

6. Knox Apologists Attempt To Bend Congress; But Nobody Important Turns Up

7. Did The State Department Really Offer Assurances To Amanda Knox She Never Would Be Extradited?

8. So Is James Moninger The One Moonlighting As Anonymous Spokesman For Dept Of State?

9. Tip For The Media: In Fact Knox Extradition Is Likely To Be Readily Granted

10. The US Lacks Legal Authority To Decline To Deliver A Guilty Knox To Italian Authorities

11. Journalist Andrea Vogt Highlights Non-Damning Nature Of Rome Embassy Cables About Knox

12. Ten Of The Ways In Which The FOA Petition That The State Department Accepted Is Dishonest

Posted by Our Main Posters on 11/21/17 at 04:39 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, 12 Rabid media hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, 21 Nasty prison hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (21)

Correcting Netflix 28 Omitted - The Case Against RS & AK Is Actually Getting Stronger Still

Posted by Peter Quennell

Pro-Guilt Trends

See the pointilist painting above? It consists entirely of dots. The more dots, the more it makes sense.

Justice can take its sweet time. But the global trend is for it to win out in the end. There is actually a huge industry that does what we do. Continue to harden cases dot by dot.

Primarily for that reason, opinion polls and surveys taken of the attitudes to specific crimes show that over time most of those attitudes trend toward guilt. Even Netflix can’t buck that.

Smoking Guns

This case is like that. Take a look at our new page. Created at popular request. The stark facts in any one of those posts is pretty well impossible to innocently explain away.

Eight of those 12 posts appeared - could only appear - in the past three years. New documents and new translation continue to arrive. The enormous Case Wiki and PMF and TJMK add more depth all the time.

Media Shortfalls

This goes on despite almost no help from US and UK media, who between them barely ever translated a single word. There was some fine reporting (see next posts). But major happenings in the case often got no reporting at all.

The blatant corruption of the Hellman appeal? No report. Sollecito’s telling second trip to the Dominican Republic? No report. Guede pointing more and more strongly at the pair? No report. Knox inevitably facing charges for the defamations in her book? No report. Her 400 lies there plus many more? No report.

The final vexatious outcome from the Supreme Court, which put Knox with blood on her hands right at the scene of the crime (the whole house)? No report. Sollecito’s two losses in court this year over his damages-award claim and his book? No report.

Bad books (think of PR shills Dempsey, Burleigh, Fischer, Heavey, Preston, Douglas, and Moore - as well as Sollecito and Knox) don’t stand the test of time. They are now really easy to shoot down. In contrast strong well-documented legal takes like James Raper’s book quietly move in. The BBC airs the best report done so far.

Inflection Point

Italians are strongly pro-guilt. Especially toward Knox, widely seen as the enraged and jealous prime mover and the killer of Meredith who wielded the final stab in the attack.

So we are pretty confident that the US and UK will see an inflection point in 2018. Just sayin’ Netflix.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/29/17 at 06:02 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Various hypotheses, Various scenarios, The officially involved, Police and CSI, The judiciary, Evidence & Witnesses, The pack attack, News media & movies, Excellent reporting, The wider contexts, Italian context, Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 2 Italian mileu hoax, 3 No evidence hoax, 4 No firm DNA hoax, 5 No pack attack hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxes Sollecito etc, 25 RS persona hoax, 29 Deal offered hoax, Hoaxes re Guede, 33 Sole attacker hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2, Raff Sollecito #2, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax • Comments here (2)