TJMKNetflix http:/truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmknetflix en editor@truejustice.org Copyright 2016 2016-01-07T11:55:00+00:00 Finally!! Netflix Is To Lionize Someone In Its “True Crime” Reports Who DIDNT Kill A Woman https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/finally_netflix_is_to_lionize_someone_in_its_true_crime_reports_who_didnt_kill_a_woman https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/finally_netflix_is_to_lionize_someone_in_its_true_crime_reports_who_didnt_kill_a_woman#When:23:32:00Z {summary} Netflix spent big on tainted reports about woman-killers Steven Avery, Adnan Syed and Amanda Knox. The first two still remain in prison, despite those reports, and many more are finally seeing guilt in Knox. Now Netflix has bought the rights to an expose of Russian-born Anna Sorokin, a mere fake heiress this time. Just-convicted Sorokin led gullible New York socialites a merry dance, and does have her share of amused fans. It seems Sorokin herself sold Netflix her rights. One trick Knox missed (we presume). 2019-04-26T23:32:00+00:00 Netflix’s Endemic Omissions: What It Still Omits In Its Avery-Case Conspiracy Mongering https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/Netflixs_Endemic_Omissions_What_It_Still_Omits_Re_Avery https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/Netflixs_Endemic_Omissions_What_It_Still_Omits_Re_Avery#When:05:06:00Z {summary} Murder Victim Teresa Halbach [Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments] 1. Summary Of The Crime Teresa Halbach’s murder took place on 31 October 2005 in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, a short distance from Lake Michigan.  Teresa has been described as artistic, adventurous and open-hearted; a day-brightening presence in the lives of her loved ones. She was at Steven Avery’s property to take photographs of a vehicle for Autotrader. He was her final appointment of the day. There is no evidence she ever left the property. Avery was the last confirmed person to see her alive. She had previously been to Avery’s auto salvage lot four or five times. On this day, she stated she didn’t want to go back because Avery previously had disturbed her by answering the door wearing just a towel. However, she was talked by Avery himself into going back at about 2:00pm. The telephone records show that Avery called her twice to get her to come over, pretending to be somebody else. He hid his identity through the *67 app. Teresa Halbach was never seen alive again. There are already a number of red flags: (1) Avery was the last known person to see her alive (2) she didn’t want to see him again because he had disturbed her and made her feel uncomfortable and (3) he deliberately hid his identity and pretended to be someone else when he called her on two separate occasions. 2. The History Of Netflix And The Case In 2016 the internet movie streamer Netflix bought and aired a 10-part documentary by novice film-makers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi. They had no crime experience. Teresa’s family refused to co-operate. Persuasive to many viewers, it did result in a free-Avery petition, but crime speciaIists poked numerous holes in it. On TV Demox and Ricciardi (below) spent as much time defending themselves as they did Avery. This second series mainly describes the attempts by an Illinois defense lawyer Kathleen Zellner, who has won a number of reversals, to poke holes in some of the evidence and to accuse two others. This report also omits numerous telling points. 3. The DNA And Forensic Evidence Against Avery Teresa Halbach’s charred remains and her car were found on Avery’s property. Unsurprisingly, he became the prime suspect. The DNA and forensic evidence collected at his property all pointed in his direction. His blood was found in six different locations in her car. His DNA was found under the bonnet of her car. Her DNA was found on a bullet in his garage and the bullet was matched to the rifle found in Avery’s bedroom. Teresa Halbach’s key with Avery’s DNA on it was found in his bedroom. 4. Brendan Dassey’s Statements Against Avery Steven Avery’s nephew Brendan Dassey repeatedly confessed to the police that he and Avery had raped and killed Teresa Halbach. Dassey knew specific details about the murder and made claims which were later corroborated by police searches and the coroner. Dassey said Halbach was chained up in handcuffs and leg irons on Avery’s bed. Avery admitted that he had just purchased handcuffs and leg irons a few weeks earlier. Dassey said Avery used his .22 caliber rifle to shoot Halbach in the head. A bullet fired from Avery’s gun and found in Avery’s garage had Halbach’s DNA on it. Dassey said Avery hid Halbach’s car and went under its bonnet to disable the battery. Avery’s DNA was found on the bonnet’s latch. Dassey said Avery threw tyres on the fire that they used to dispose of Halbach’s body.  Charred parts of her bones, cell phone, PDA, and camera were found intertwined with steel belts from those tyres. Dassey’s statements were used to support the application for the warrant that was issued in March 2007 that lead to the discovery of a bullet that was conclusively matched to Avery’s .22 rifle and yielded Teresa Halbach’s DNA. Dassey told police that Avery shot Halbach on the left side of her head. A fragment from the left side of her skull showed two bullet holes. Dassey also said that he helped Avery clean a large reddish brown stain on the garage floor using gasoline, bleach, and some other product; there was an approximate three-foot patch that reacted to luminol and a bleach bottle found in the garage. Dassey also confessed freely and voluntarily to his mother in a recorded telephone conversation. Dassey: Yeah, but you might feel bad with… if I say it today. Janda: Huh? Dassey: About what all happened. Janda: Huh? Dassey: About what all happened. Janda: What all happened? What are you talking about? Dassey: About what me and Steven did that day. Janda: So Steven did do it? Dassey: Yeah. Janda: Oh, he makes me so sick. Dassey: I don’t even know how I’m gonna do it in court, though. Janda: What do you mean? Dassey: I ain’t gonna face him. Janda: Face who? Dassey: Steven. Janda: You know what, Brendan? Dassey: What? Janda: He did it. You do what you gotta do. So in those statements, you did all that to her too? Dassey: Some of it. Janda: But what about when I got home at five, you were here. Dassey: Yeah. Janda: Yeah. When did you go over there? Dassey: Well, I went over earlier and then came home before you did. Janda: Why didn’t you say something to me then? Dassey: I don’t know, I was too scared. And he was also scared of his uncle, who he claimed in that same phone call had been molesting him and other relatives for years: Janda: Did he make you do this? Dassey: Ya. Janda: Then why didn’t you tell him that. Dassey: Tell him what Janda: That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things. Dassey: Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that. Janda: What do you mean touching you? Dassey: He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable. Janda: Brendan I am your mother. Dassey: Ya. Janda: Why didn’t you come to me? Why didn’t you tell me? Was this all before this happened? Dassey: What do you mean? Janda: All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you? Dassey: Ya. Janda: Why didn’t you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn’t have happened. Dassey: Ya. Janda: Yes, and you would still be here with me. Dassey: Yes, Well you know I did it. Janda: Huh? Dassey. You know he always touched us and that. Janda: I didn’t think there. He used to horse around with you guys. Dassey: Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that. Janda: What do you mean? Dassey: Well he would like fake pumping him Janda: Goofing around? Brendan: Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what’s her name”¦Jessica’s sister. Janda: Teresa? Brendan: Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that. 5. Wisconsin Attorney General Against Avery These points explain why Brendan Dassey’s testimony is credible: “And they had good reason to do so. There are three strong indicia that Dassey told the truth when he admitted to helping Avery. On February 28, 2006, the day before the March 1, 2006 confession, Wiegert received a lab report that lead had been detected on a defect found on skull bone fragments (193:55-56). Wierget suspected based on this report that Halbach had been shot (193:56). Dassey’s confession confirmed that Avery shot Halbach in the head (79:34:50). He further told Wiegert and Fassbender that Avery shot Halbach “about ten” times (79:34:60). This fit with the ten or eleven shell casings police found in their November searches (114:96). Dassey said Avery shot Halbach on the left side of her head (79:34:93). The forensic anthropologist “refit” three bone fragments together and determined they came from the left side of the head (114:226-27; 116:78). And Dassey told Wiegert and Fassbender that Avery shot Halbach when they were in the garage (79:34:59). Police obtained a search warrant that same day (114:56; 117:25-26). The search of the garage yielded a bullet fragment embedded in the garage floor and a bullet under an air compressor (114:63-64). An analysis of a DNA sample from one bullet revealed Halbach as the source of the DNA (115:76). And that bullet had been fired from a rifle found in Avery’s bedroom ( 114:15-16, 197, 208-209). “Dassey also told Wiegert and Fassbender that Avery hid the key to Halbach’s car in his dresser (79:34:70-71). On March 8, 2006, police executed another search warrant on Avery’s bedroom (114:106; 117:26). That search yielded the key to Halbach’s car with a blue key fob attached (114:106-107). Halbach’s sister identified the blue fob as a lanyard she gave Halbach (113:129).” The Attorney General also explained why there was absolutely nothing wrong with the investigators’ conduct: “At various times during the interview the investigators encouraged Dassey to provide details to them by appealing to his sense of honesty (46:8). Both investigators spoke in a normal speaking tone with no raised voices, no hectoring, or threats of any kind during the entire interview, including the admonitions (46:8). “Nothing on the videotape visually depicts Dassey as being agitated, upset, frightened, or intimidated by the questions of either investigator (46:8-9). His demeanor was steady throughout the actual questioning (46:9). He displayed no difficulty in understanding the questions asked of him (46:9). He answered the questions put to him (46:9). At no time did he ask to stop the interview or request that his mother or a lawyer be present (46:9). “Sometimes he revised his answers after being prodded to be truthful or being told by his questioners that they knew his answer was either incomplete or untrue and he should be honest (46:9). “On occasion, the interviewers purported to know details which, in fact, were not true or which represented uncorroborated theories of the crime which they presented to Dassey as factually accurate in order to draw information from him (46:9). “The interviewers made no promises of leniency to Dassey (46:10). He was told, “we can’t make any promises, but we’ll stand behind you no matter what you did” (46:10; 79:34:4). “I want to assure you that Mark and I are both in your corner. We’re on your side” (46:10; 79:34:3). “[W]e don’t get honesty here. I’m your friend right now, but I gotta ““ I gotta believe in you, and if I don’t believe in you, I can’t go to bat for you” (46:10; 79:34:10). “We’re in your corner” (46:10; 79:34:10). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW “The interviewers’ appeals to honesty were nothing more than a reminder to Dassey that he had a moral duty to tell the truth (46:9). In the context of this interview, the Court finds that this tactic of misleading Dassey by occasionally pretending to know more than they did was neither improper nor coercive because it did not interfere with Dassey’s power to make rational choices (46:9-10). “Interviewers statements such as “we’ll stand behind you; we’re in your corner; I’ll go to bat for you” were an attempt to achieve a rapport with Dassey and convince him that a truthful account of events would be in his best interest (46:10-11). “Under a totality of the circumstances test, which I’m using here, given Brendan Dassey’s relevant personal characteristics as set forth in the previous findings and on the record in this case, the State has met its burden by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the statements made by Brendan Dassey to Investigators Wiegert and Fassbender, and which are the subject of this motion, were the product of Brendan Dassey’s free and unconstrained will reflecting deliberateness of choice. In short, they were voluntary statements” (46:11). 6. Police Lawyer Against Avery TomM - one of the lawyers who represented the Manitowoc police who is also a poster on TJMK and PMF - made the following observations about the crime scene and the claims that Brendan Dassey was coerced. “The burning of the body made it impossible for the forensic examiner to determine the cause of death. One would think that if a major artery had been severed in the bedroom, blood evidence would have been found there, but there was not. You take the position that there was no stabbing or cutting at all. The alternative is that Dassey, who claims to be following Avery’s orders, and perhaps reluctant, made only a superficial cut across her throat, and that Avery’s stab did not result in much exterior bleeding. The lack of a corpse makes verification impossible, so Dassey’s statement is the only evidence of it, and is legally sufficient to convict him. speci “The public defender who originally represented him was apparently trying to work a plea deal. Thereafter he was replaced by private counsel and [Dassey] recanted his statements. He had the opportunity to convince the jury that his admissions were coerced, but they did not believe him. Having read the transcripts of his interrogations, I can see why. This is the first I have heard that his subsequent lawyer tried to get him to confess. I wonder if they knew something you don’t.” 7. Netflix Again Promotes Far-fetched Conspiracy Theory Steven Avery’s new lawyer Kathleen Zellner seen throughout the new report is facing Mission Impossible. There is simply too much damning DNA evidence to resort to the bog-standard defence of contamination. The forensic evidence is damning too. Teresa Halbach’s charred remains and her car were found on Avery’s property. To make matters worse for her, Brendan Dassey repeatedly confessed to the police and his mother that he and Steven Avery raped and killed Teresa Halbach and he knew multiple specific facts about the murder and made claims which were later corroborated during the police investigation. The only option available to Zellner is to try and keep a straight face and claim there was a huge and dastardly plot to frame Steven Avery involving all the Manitowoc Police Department and all the forensic scientists who worked on the case. The BBC describes her as “fiercely intelligent” and “true crime’s new star” whilst glossing over the fact she hasn’t provided any exculpatory evidence or provided any proof that the police framed Steven Avery. Incidentally, she believes Amanda Knox is innocent which speaks volumes about her competence. 8. The Dangerous, Proliferating Problem Of Innocence fraud There is a widespread misconception that (1) one-sided and biased documentaries that primarily present the defence’s point of view and omit damning evidence as well as the professional opinions of the prosecution’s experts should trump (2) criminal trials where the defence and prosecution present their cases and the jury observes witnesses and experts being cross-examined on the stand before considering and reaching their verdicts, Any legal system that didn’t allow the prosecution to present their case and cross-examine witnesses would be rightly considered to be grotesquely corrupt and unfair - and yet millions of people have no problem when this happens on documentaries such as West of Memphis, American Girl, Italian Nightmare, Amanda Knox on Netflix, Making a Murderer and Serial. It should be made evident that these filmmakers and journalists are trying to manipulate their audiences into thinking the accused is innocent, rather than just presenting the facts of the case, allowing both sides to present their cases and letting the audience make up their own minds - which is what Andrea Vogt did in her excellent BBC documentary about the Meredith Kercher case. It was recognised as far back as 1999 in the legal profession that journalists have an inclination to slant their reports in favour of the defendants. See P. Cassell, “The guilty and the “˜innocent’: An examination of alleged cases of wrongful conviction from false confessions”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1999: ...academic research on miscarriages should not rely on media descriptions of the evidence against defendants. Journalists will all too often slant their reports in the direction of discovering “news” by finding that an innocent person has been wrongfully convicted. 9. Some Assessments Of Netflix’s Attempts 1 And 2 The story presented by the filmmakers responsible for Making a Murderer that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are innocent and they were framed by corrupt cops is manna from heaven for Netflix because it’s a sensational and melodramatic tale that is guaranteed to be hugely popular and newly outrage social justice warriors, Guardian readers and gullible simpletons who unquestioningly believe whatever they are told. There are 425,000,000 search results for Making a Murderer on Google and countless articles in the media and blog posts about it. Joe Public just loves documentaries about allegedly innocent people being railroaded by corrupt and/or incompetent cops. Making a Murderer is a deeply dishonest and manipulative piece of PR propaganda. It follows the same template as Netflix’s Amanda Knox and the other documentaries mentioned above i.e. it presents the case primarily from the defence’s point of view, and brushes inconvenient facts which portray the accused in a negative light under the rug. Melissa Jeltsen details some of the inconvenient facts about Steven Avery’s violent past that the filmmakers ignored, in an article for The Huffington Post. ‘Making A Murderer’ Left Out Disturbing Details Of Steven Avery’s Past… “In a new interview, however, Avery’s ex-fiancee Jodi Stachowski says he was a violent and abusive “monster” who strangled her and threatened to kill her during their two-year relationship. “He’d beat me all the time, punch me, throw me against the wall,” Stachowski told HLN on Wednesday. “He’s like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” Records from the Manitowoc County sheriff’s department obtained by The Huffington Post confirm that police responded to domestic incidents involving Avery and Stachowski, as well as his former wife, Lori. Stachowski described one incident in which Avery beat her and then strangled her. Police records show that in September of 2004, she reported that Avery pushed her to the floor, hit her and told her he was going to kill her. She then said he strangled her to the point where she lost consciousness. When she woke up, she told police, Avery was dragging her to his car. They were eventually stopped by an officer and Avery was taken into custody. Police records also document another incident where Stachowski said she received a verbal threat from Avery while she was out of jail on work-release privilege. There’s also evidence that Avery may have abused his former wife, Lori. In a police report from 1983, Avery’s sister-in-law told police that Avery “beat up on his wife, and she left home and went to a domestic violence center.” Then in 1984, police responded to a “family trouble” incident at the Avery residence, but Lori declined to give a written statement. Once you become aware that the filmmakers have brushed inconvenient facts like these about Steven Avery under the rug, common sense should tell you they are not to be trusted because they are clearly not honest or trustworthy. You have to question their motives. The filmmakers suggest the police had a motive to frame Steven Avery because they were fearing a multi-million dollar award for Steven Avery’s wrongful conviction for sexual assault and attempt to murder in 1985. Netfix did not bother to mention in either report that that the prior sexual assault and attempted murder case wasn’t due to any wrongdoing on the part of the Manitowoc Police Department. It was due to the fact that Penny Beernsten identified him as the person who had sexually assaulted her and tried to kill her. And the Manitowoc Police Department have an insurance policy that covers multi-million dollar lawsuits. There was no reason at all for them to break the law and risk spending years behind bars. The filmmakers slyly imply the blood vial containing Steven Avery’s blood was tampered with by showing the audience that the purple seal on the test tube has been punctured. The filmmakers omit to mention it is standard forensic practice to add ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) to blood samples via a needle in order to keep the blood liquid. Tellingly, Steven Avery’s blood that was found inside Teresa Halbach’s car didn’t contain any EDTA. In other words, the police didn’t plant the blood from this vial in Teresa Halbach’s car. Fortunately, there are many journalists who don’t take everything at face value and are prepared to do their due diligence. These journalists are exposing the numerous fraudulent claims that have been made on Making a Murderer. Jessica McBride does an excellent job of debunking the myth that the police had tampered with Steven Avery’s blood vial for the OnMilwaukee website. The prison nurse who originally drew Steven Avery’s blood and put it into the vial featured prominently and dramatically in the Netflix “Making a Murderer” documentary “would testify that she was the one who put the hole in the vacutainer tube at issue,” a court document obtained by OnMilwaukee says. The nurse, Marlene Kraintz, wasn’t called to testify because the prosecution didn’t think the defense had raised the blood hole theory at trial strongly enough to warrant rebuttal. This runs in contrast to the Netflix documentary, which presents the defense finding the hole in the Avery blood vial as a virtual “eureka” movement to advance its framing theory. They would later claim that it was law enforcement officers who sneaked into the Clerk of Courts office to remove Avery’s blood from the old vial and plant it in Teresa Halbach’s car. Kraintz died in 2012. Furthermore, two national experts ““ including the chair of the committee that writes the industry standards on drawing blood samples ““ told OnMilwaukee that such blood vials are supposed to have holes pierced in their rubber stoppers. According to the experts, that’s how the blood gets into the vial. Not only is it not uncommon, but it’s the way the vials ““ in this case, according to court records, a purple-stopped Vacutainer ““ are supposed to work. 10. The Bottom Line Here There is no evidence that the police framed Steven Avery. His supporters are labouring under the misapprehension that the crime scene must fit with their own particular expectations of what the crime scene should look like. This tweet is a perfect example of someone who thinks Steven Avery should be acquitted because the crime scene didn’t fit with his particular expectations of what it should like. “Why wasnt Halbachs DNA on the key? How did Avery get every ounce of blood from every crack in the garage? A .22 caliber isnt forceful enough to go thru the skull. Where was all the blood in the bedroom where she was killed? Why no cuff marks on bed post” Some of his supporters claim there was too much of Avery’s DNA on the bonnet of Teresa Halbach’s car and regard this as proof that the police planted it. They would be laughed out of court if they made such a ridiculous claim. The DNA and forensic evidence against Steven Avery can’t be dismissed or nulifed because there was too little or too much DNA and forensic evidence at the crime scene. The defence had the chance to refute this evidence in court and they were unable to do so.  Arguing that Steven Avery should be acquitted because there should have been more DNA and forensic evidence at the crime scene would be like arguing that Ian Huntley should be acquitted because the police didn’t find any DNA belonging to schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells at his home. It’s a nonsensical argument. Making a Murderer -  just like West of Memphis, American Girl, Italian Nightmare, Amanda Knox on Netflix, Serial - is a confidence trick. One you know it’s a confidence trick and how it works, it should no longer fool you. Dan O’Donnell has written an excellent series of articles rebutting each one of the Making a Murderer claims and outlines the evidence the show omitted that proves that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey raped and killed Teresa Halbach. It’s essential reading for anyone who is following this case. You can find many similar debunkings online. For example Seven details left out of ‘Making a Murderer’. and Reminder: The 9 Shocking Pieces of Information That Were Left Out of Making a Murderer and Making a Murderer Part 2 is more entertainment than investigation. It feels a little gross and Part 2 Is a Long, Painful Look at Old Evidence with Little New to Say. Both Avery and Dassey are still in prison. In June the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Dassey. Despite all the media hype surrounding Making a Murderer nobody has provided any exculpatory evidence that proves Steven Avery or Brendan Dassey are innocent or any proof that the police framed them. That’s the bottom line. 2018-11-04T05:06:00+00:00 The Netflix Hoax Enablers EDIT https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/the_netflix_hoax_enablers https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/the_netflix_hoax_enablers#When:21:31:00Z {summary}0000 NETFLIXTOOLS James SHOTWELL “Amanda Knox” is a riveting, albeit biased true crime documentary Rosa SIMONET Feature: Monsters and the Femme fatale Chris SPARGO ‘I am a terrible monster or a regular person’ Sara STEWART “Amanda Knox” : Making a Monster Jacob STOLWORTHY Amanda Knox Netflix documentary: The journalist people are branding ‘the real villain’ Scott STRANDBERG Hidden Gems on Netflix: A thriller, a comedy and a documentary Donald STROHMAN Movie Review: Amanda Knox Scott STUMP Filmmakers shed new light on Amanda Knox case in Netflix documentary Rebecca SULLIVAN Amanda Knox’s personal Facebook page is oddly normal Sarah SZABO Bizarre things that never made sense about the Amanda Knox case Judith TIMSON Amanda Knox documentary offers disturbing take-aways Jeff TRUESDELL How Two Filmmakers Spent 6 Years On Amanda Knox’s Case and Changed Minds About the Sensational Murder Mystery Kenneth TURAN ‘Amanda Knox’ doc explores the salacious Italian murder case with laser-like precision Genevieve VAN VOORHIS Prejudiced Prosecution Vs. Sensational Journalism: Who Is The Real Villain In ‘Amanda Knox’? Starre VARTAN Why the Amanda Knox documentary is a must-watch for true-crime fans Brittany VONOW Who is Amanda Knox? Who killed Meredith Kercher? Amanda Knox confirms her relationship with new boyfriend Tom WILLIS Amanda Knox (2016) Women in the Spotlight of Murder Charlotte WALMSLEY “Amanda Knox” turns a modern-day witch hunt on its head SM WALSH The Murder of Meredith Kercher: Crime Scene Photos Kate WALTERS Amanda Knox: ‘People love the idea of a monster’ Charlotte WAREING Amanda Knox questions whether she is the “ultimate figure to fear” in new Netflix documentary Regina WEINREICH Amanda Knox, the New President, and the Media: An Interview with Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn Sophie WILKINSON In its quest to tell Amanda Knox’s story, new Netflix documentary leaves Meredith Kercher behind Daisy WOODWARD Making a film about the world’s most sensationalised murder Emily YAHR Amanda Knox: Netflix documentary shows how the “crazy” media coverage affected the case Jen YAMATO Making “Amanda Knox”: Tabloids, Trump, and the ‘Commodification of Tragedy’ Inside Netflix’s “Amanda Knox” Documentary: Uncovered Evidence and New Revelations Sage YOUNG Where To Read Amanda Knox’s Memoir To Get The Exonoree’s Story In Her Own Words Michael ZELENKO How the directors of Netflix’s Amanda Knox uncovered the humanity behind the headline 2018-03-16T21:31:00+00:00 Correcting Netflix 30: Omitted - Epidemic Of Hazing Deaths In United States No Different From Meredith’s https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_25_omitted_epidemic_of_hazing_deaths_in_united_states https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_25_omitted_epidemic_of_hazing_deaths_in_united_states#When:20:47:00Z {summary} These hazing deaths in the videos are among many in the United States news these days. Hazing deaths and bullying deaths and school shootings and teenage suicides (44 hundred a year, often caused by cyber-bullying) are at all-time highs. Deaths annually are in the thousands. We first posted early in the trial in Perugia in 2009 that something was being lost in translation. Investigators and prosecutors were seeing here the same type of group dynamic as in hazing, bullying and “let’s teach him or her a lesson”. Death was probably not the intention, but inevitably in the 15-minute attack death became the logical, wanted outcome. At least for Knox if possibly not for the other two. Key parts of the trial were behind closed doors. The only jury ever to hear all the evidence including the one-day recreation of the attack voted unanimously for this all-too-common fatal group dynamic. Nobody in the United States sees any complexities or unbelievabilities in the motives of the American cases. It is not rocket science. The causes are so blatantly obvious. To increasingly many, a dogmatic denial that Knox in exactly this same context had ANY motive, and that it’s thus case-over, is frankly ludicrous. Many hazings start being voluntary and cooperative. But many others are forced and often sprung unannounced. Knox herself at the University of Washington got joy out of a surprise attack. Alcohol and drugs are almost invariable. Investigators were quite sure Knox was on cocaine on the night of Meredith’s attack, and that she was on an extended high or new high when she had her surprising conniption on 5-6 November 2007.  Here we should also take into account that (unique in student circles in Perugia) Knox was not a well-funded exchange student with a heavy study load at the main university. She had zero supervision. She had little money, and no work permit, and was working illegally. By the end she had pretty well no friends. Patrick had not yet fired her in favor of Meredith, but it was already in the cards. Knox raging at that is not farfetched. Knox in those days was essentially a sharp-elbowed, lazy nuisance with “issues” and her three flatmates were praying for the day when she would move out. In fact it is very hard to know WHAT Knox was doing in Perugia, other than booze, boys and drugs. And killing people. 2018-02-24T20:47:00+00:00 Correcting Netflix 29: Which Took A Harder Line Against Sollecito & Knox? The Prosecutors Or The Courts? https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflix_24_which_took_the_harder_line_against_sollecito_and_knox https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflix_24_which_took_the_harder_line_against_sollecito_and_knox#When:19:51:00Z {summary} Above and below, one of Italy’s ultra-modern courthouses, this one in Palermo 1. Post Overview Continuing our series on the myriad ways the dishonest Netflix team misled. “For The Press. September 09, 2016: The Netflix documentary “Amanda Knox” opens at the Toronto International Film Festival today Amanda Knox. While claiming to be a balanced perspective its producer Stephen Robert Morse had made inflammatory reports about the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (who was interviewed by the film makers) of “having been convicted of crimes” (he was acquitted) and being “a power-hungry prosecutor running the show”. That was a press release our Wiki team put out which set this series on the road. If you got your information on the case from Netflix, you may have wrongly assumed it was the demonized prosecutor Dr Mignini calling all the shots. But read Dr Mignini here and here. And read what Netflix darling Amanda Knox did to Dr Mignini here. (Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!) 2. Where Power Lies Prosecutors in the Italian system are among the less empowered anywhere in the world (though usually smarter too). The harder line in the Perugia case was always taken by the judges in the Perugia, Florence and Rome courts. Judge Micheli was the judge who late in 2008 sentenced Guede (to 30 years) and actually decided to send Knox and Sollecito to trial. (Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!) He was one tough judge. Read summaries of his very tough report here, here, and here. Italian judges are almost all career path (think: carefully trained, and promoted on their merits) whereas almost all American prosecutors and judges are either elected or appointed by the political party in power, at times without even a degree in law. Italian prosecutors cannot plea-bargain as happens in over 90% of all American cases - resulting in an estimated 200,000-plus sitting wrongly in American prisons. Italian equivalent: around zero.  (Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!) In his book Sollecito said the prosecution tried to plea-bargain for him to roll over on Knox. Not only was that a lie, but Sollecito has now admitted it was a lie in a Florence court. . Unlike American prosecutors, Italian prosecutors are forbidden from going on TV or holding press conferences while any legal process goes on. Italians get to be more objectively and more deeply informed - on the Perugia case they know on average many times what the average American knows - by reading all that the judges put online. Italian judges repeatedly put reports on the Perugia case online to justify their decisions as they are required by law to do, usually within three months. Italians by the hundreds of thousands got to read those reports and so they continue to believe in guilt (though a bit less-so for Sollecito than Knox, who they universally believe started the attack.) How many of those reports (almost all translated and posted on our Wiki) do you think were full translated by the American media? In fact precisely none. Not one. They didnt even summarise the weird Bruno/Marasca report. The excellent reporters for the few media outlets in American that tried to describe the whole case objectively did some translation, but translating a 400 page report would provide no income for them and leave little time to report. Italian prosecutors are monitored and supervised by judges almost from Day One as happened in the Perugia case. Not just one judge: within the first month alone a panel of review judges checked out how how the first supervising judge (Matteini) was getting on. Early in 2008 even the Supreme Court in Rome reviewed the strength of the case. (Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!) Dr Mignini was indeed the first prosecutor in the Perugia case. But from late in 2008 when a trial became a near-certainty he shared the job with Dr Comodi. She herself is well known throughout Italy as a fine prosecutor in her own right. In 2011 new prosecutors (in Florence) took on the Hellman appeal. New prosecutors (in Florence) took on the Nencini appeal. And there were no prosecutors at all at the Supreme Court in Rome in 2012 and 2015 - In each session it was judges who presented the case as best they could. (Oh, did Netflix not tell you that?!) 3. Italian Process In Summary . One of our very first posts back in late 2008 was by our main poster Nicki in Milan, an expert in Italian law,. She described where the power in the Italian system really lies: Much of the US media and some of the UK media - sometimes enthusiastically, sometimes with reserve - has parroted the claim that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were “held without charges” for nearly a year. Perhaps bringing to mind the notion of two innocent bystanders to the crime being arbitrarily arrested? Locked up in cockroach-infested jails by abusive police? Led on by an evil prosecutor with endless powers up his sleeve, and nothing at all to slow him down? Lost and forgotten by any judges in the case? Well, good luck with that one, if it’s designed to sway the process. It irritates just about everybody here in Italy, the judiciary and the media included. And it is doing the defendants no good at all. Negative stereotypes like these really should not be applied to a country that is one of the founding members of the EU, of NATO, and of the European Council, and of the G-7, G-8, OECD, and United Nations (the non-permanent member of the Security Council in 2007-2008). So for media reporters and commentators, please let us get the facts straight. Once and for all?! Italian jurisprudence developed from Roman Law. It was shaped in the course of history to become a modern and very fair system. Judicial powers are subjected to a very complex and extremely pervasive set of checks and balances, which really assure maximum protection of every citizen’s rights. Comparing the US and UK common law system - a model founded on non-written laws and developed through judicial proceedings - with this system which arose from the Roman Law model - based on a written civil code - is really like comparing apples to oranges. They were both conceived to protect individual’s rights at a maximum level, while seeking justice for the victims. But with entirely different processes. One is not necessarily better or worse. But there are legal experts who think the Italian system is distinctly fairer - much more weighted toward the defendants. In the US and the UK the prosecutor usually has to make it through only one pre-trial hoop. In Italy the prosecutor has to make it through a whole row of pre-trial hoops. Let’s see what happens in Italy to the legal status of a person who, while considered a “persona informata dei fatti” which means “a person who could yield useful information” in relation to a brutal murder, suddenly becomes a suspect in the eyes of the police. If while interviewing the “person who could yield useful information” the suspicion arises that such person could have played an active role in the crime, their status then turns into that of a suspect. The police can then detain that suspect up to 48 hours. Those 48 hours are the period within which a prosecutor - if he believes that the evidence of guilt is meaningful - can request a validation of the arrest by the Judge of Preliminary Investigation (the GIP). If the judge agrees with the prosecutor that a serious indication of guilt exists, a warrant for the arrest is issued by the judge, and the person’s detention is thus validated. Immediately, as soon as the status of “person who could yield useful information” status changes into the status of a suspect, the suspect person has a right to legal counsel. This legal counsel normally immediately appeals for the release of the suspect. Thus setting in motion what can be a LONG sequel of hearings - for which in US and UK common law there is no such equivalent. Each hearing is headed by a different judge. This judge examines prosecution and defence arguments, and decides if the suspect may be released on any of these bases: Seriousness of the clues presented by prosecution Likelihood of repeating a similar crime Likelihood of fleeing the country during the ongoing investigation Danger of tampering with, or fabricating evidence If every one of the defence appeals fails, in front of a number of different judges, in a number of different hearings, and the investigation is officially closed, the suspect then goes on to a pre-trial hearing. Once again here, yet another judge rules either to clear and release the suspect by rejecting the submitted evidence, or to send the suspect to trial on the basis of that evidence, thus making the charges official. Now that the charges are official, the judge can decide if the defendant must await trial under house arrest, or in freedom, of if the defendant must remain in jail. If the judge, based on their knowledge of the crime and the defendants, estimates that the chances of re-offending or fleeing the country are high, the suspect must remain in jail. So nobody in Italy can be detained without a reasonable suspicion, a long series of judicial hearings (any one of which could set them free) or eventual official charges. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have not in fact been incarcerated for over one year due to zealous police or a bizarre prosecutor or the complicity of a number of judges throughout the process. They have been incarcerated because an articulate and balanced process of law has officially and very fairly established there are strong indications that they willingly participated in the vicious murder of Meredith Kercher. Their own lawyers have put up a tough fight for Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox throughout the judicial process.  But they have simply failed to convince the judges throughout that process. One that actually seems strongly weighted in their favor. Various hypotheses, Prosecution views, The officially involved, The prosecutors, The judiciary, Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, 2018-01-24T19:51:00+00:00 Correcting Netflix 28 Omitted - The Case Against RS & AK Is Actually Getting Stronger Still https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_23_omitted_-_the_case_against_rs_ak_is_stronger_stronger https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_23_omitted_-_the_case_against_rs_ak_is_stronger_stronger#When:23:02:00Z {summary} 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. 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, 2017-11-29T23:02:00+00:00 Correcting Netflix 27 Omitted - State Department Monitored Knox 2007-11; Zero Ill Treament Reported https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_22_omitted_state_department_monitored_knox https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_22_omitted_state_department_monitored_knox#When:09:39:00Z {summary} 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 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, 2017-11-21T09:39:00+00:00 Correcting Netflix 26 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #5 https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_21e_omitted_-_omitted_-_this_very_telling_knox_questioning_5 https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_21e_omitted_-_omitted_-_this_very_telling_knox_questioning_5#When:09:31:00Z {summary}This flows from Post 21 (d) below GM: An image of Piazza Grimana, that’s right. Now listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary… [Start of 6:54 minute video segment] ...I asked this question: Why did you throw out an accusation of this type? In the confrontations with Mr. Lumumba (I was continuing and you answered right away): “I was trying, I had the possibility of explaining the message in my phone. He had told me not to come to work.” Perfectly normal things. So, faced with a perfectly normal circumstance, “My boss texted me to tell me not to come to work and I answered him,” you could have just stated that. End of response. Instead, faced with the message, and the questions of the police, you threw out this accusation. So I am asking you, why start accusing him when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why did you think those things could be true? }} AK: I was confused. GM: You have repeated that many times. But what does it mean? Either something is true, or it isn’t true. Right now, for instance, you’re here at the audience, you couldn’t be somewhere else. You couldn’t say “I am at the station.” You are right here, right now. AK: Certainly. [Some noise] GCM: The question is clear. AK: Can I answer? GCM: [quelling noise] Excuse me, excuse me! Please, go ahead. AK: My confusion was because firstly, I couldn’t understand why the police was treating me this way, and then because when I explained that I had spent the whole time with Raffaele, they said “No, you’re a liar”. It was always this thing that either I didn’t remember or I was lying. The fact that I kept on and on repeating my story and they kept saying “No, you’re going to prison right now if you don’t tell the truth,” and I said “But I’ve told the truth,” “No, you’re a liar, now you’re going to prison for 30 years because either you’re a stupid liar or you forgot. And if it’s because you forgot, then you’d better remember what happened for real, right now.” This is why I was confused. Because I didn’t understand. I didn’t understand why. I didn’t understand anything any more. I was so scared and impressed by all this that at some point I thought What the heck, maybe they’re right, maybe I forgot. GM: So, and then, you accused Lumumba of murder. This is the conclusion. [Some noise] GCM: Please, go on with the questions. GM: So, I wanted to know something else. At what time did the water leak in Sollecito’s house? AK: After dinner, I don’t know what time it was. GM: Towards 21, 21:30? AK: 21, that’s 9? No, it was much later than that. GM: A bit later? How much? AK: We had dinner around…10:30, so that must have happened a bit later than that. Maybe around 11 [slow voice as though thinking it out, lots of ‘I don’t really know’ gestures]. GM: And then, the next morning, at what time did you go to Sollecito’s house to clean up the water? Was the water still on the floor? AK: There still was a bit, there still was a bit of water on the ground, but not too much to clean up. GM: From 23:00 onwards, at what time did you go to his house to clean up the water? AK: Twenty-three…okay. The next morning, I didn’t look at the clock, but I went to my house around 10:30. And then I went back, it must have been before midday. GM: What day are we talking about? AK: We’re still talking about Nov 2. GM: November 2. AK: In the morning. I think it was maybe around 11:30? Just by reasoning, but I didn’t look at the clock. GM: Listen, on the morning of Nov 2, you went to your house, and you saw the traces of blood in the little bathroom. AK: Yes. GM: The traces of blood on the bathmat. AK: Yes. GM: When was the last time you had been in that bathroom? AK: Me? GM: Yes. AK: I must have…well, before the 2nd, I must have gone in there at least once when I came home on Nov 1st. GM: Excuse me, but what time did you leave the house in via della Pergola on Nov 1? AK: Around…4 o’clock, maybe? I don’t look at the clock. But I know it must have been 4 or 5 o’clock when we left the house on Nov 1. GM: And you were in the little bathroom before leaving the house? AK: Yes. GM: Now, the last time you were in the little bathroom, before leaving the house, it might have been more or less around 4 o’clock? AK: Around then, yes. GM: All right. You knew that Filomena wasn’t home? AK: I knew that she had gone to a party that afternoon. GM: A party. Fine. And Mezzetti? AK: Laura, you know, I didn’t know where she was. I knew she wasn’t in the house when I was there, but I didn’t really know where she was. GM: When you saw the bathroom for the last time, were there traces of blood in it? AK: No. GM: All right. Now, let’s get to the moment when Meredith’s door was broken down— AK: Okay— GM: We can go backwards later. Did you see Meredith’s room? AK: No. GM: Did you get a glimpse? AK: No. GM: Where were you? AK: I was near the entrance, in the living room. GM: Sollecito was with you? AK: Yes. GM: So he didn’t see either. AK: He didn’t either. [End video segment] GM: From what Frost, Meredith’s friend, said, and the others, we heard that you, or Sollecito, claimed to have seen the body in the closet, covered with a sheet, and nothing could be seen but a foot. Now if you hadn’t seen the room, and Raffaele hadn’t seen it either, how could you make this observation? How could you—I’m asking another question—and how could this closet contain Meredith’s body? You know the closet, right? I have a black and white photo of it here. Here. This closet. AK: All right. Firstly, I think Frost made a little mistake, because I never said that I saw Meredith’s body in the closet. I said that I had heard people around me saying that there was a body in the closet, that was covered, with a foot sticking out. I too was confused by this, but that’s what I heard. But when people kept on asking me what happened, what they had found, I answered what I had heard. GM: Or what Raffaele told you. AK: Raffaele, or the people he was asking for me. GM: Why do you say, or rather, it’s the lawyer who says, he was speaking for you right then: “She confirmed that Raffaele heard from other people that maybe this was the version.” Page 78 of my… Do you remember this? And also page 79. AK: Do I remember that interrogation? GM: Yes. AK: I remember the fact that Raffaele was asking the people around us what they had seen. GM: Look, on page 79 you say: “I understand, I understand. He said precisely: ‘Apparently there’s a girl, there’s the body of a girl in the closet, but the only thing you can see is her foot.’ ” You say that Raffaele said this. AK: Yes. GM: You confirm it. AK: I confirm that as we understood from the people around us, there was this fact about the closet, a body in the closet. GM: But it’s Raffaele who said it to you, not the people around. AK: But— GM: You said that the people around you told it to him. AK: Raffaele was the person who was helping me to understand what they were saying. He spoke to me, explaining everything that was happening, because in the end, I was in shock and also I didn’t understand. GM: So, who were these people who said this to Raffaele? AK: We were all asking each other, because there was Filomena’s friend, who had maybe obviously heard it from the police, but it’s not like a followed exactly where the information was coming from. Everyone was talking. Everyone was giving explanations and versions and information, and I kept turning to Raffaele because at least he understood the language. I didn’t even understand… GM: Raffaele didn’t tell you who told him? AK: No, but he was explaining to me above all what I asked him: what happened, what was in the room, those things. GM: I’m asking you, but if you don’t know, just tell me: did he say to you “Filomena told me” or “such-and-such told me”, Altieri, the tall girl, the others that were there that saw into the room. There was no girl in the closet. Did he tell you who told him that? That there was a girl inside the closet? AK: No, he didn’t tell me who said that. It was the people around. GCM: Okay, okay. She already answered. All right pubblico ministero, go ahead. GM: I wanted to spend a moment on one last question, maybe the last but I don’t know, about the morning of the 6th. AK: Okay. GM: There’s another thing I didn’t understand. You said pressure was put on you, and there were suggestions, you explained today exactly what those consisted in, to say the name of Patrick and to accuse Patrick. Then you wrote a memorandum in which you confirm everything. And you weren’t under pressure right then. Why didn’t you just say: “I falsely accused someone.” Someone who was in prison, who was put in prison, maybe for a long time. Can you explain this to me? AK: Certo. CDV?: Can I make an objection? Very, very calmly and without animosity? GCM: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you [for the calm, no doubt]. Thank you. CDV?: It seems to me that the pubblico ministero, in presenting his questions, always makes references which go as far as actually suggesting the answers, and also— GM: Well it is a cross-examination. GCM: Please, please let’s avoid interruptions and let each person express what he has to say. Go ahead, avvocato. CDV?: In the question he just asked, he mentions the memorandum and says it confirms. Now, this might be a specific question, but it should not be an assertion on the part of the pubblico ministero, followed by another question. If we look in the minutes, we find a series of unilateral declarations which all go to show what interests the pubblico ministero. To my mind, this mentality goes against our way of examining the accused. I just want to make this clear. GCM: All right, taking into account these remarks, the pubblico ministero’s question remains. It could be rephrased like this: during the 5th and the 6th, you said there were pressures, and the name of Patrick Lumumba emerged as also being involved in these events. But as the pubblico ministero notes, you then you wrote the memorandum spontaneously. We heard that you yourself asked for paper to be able to write it. AK: Certainly. GCM: And writing with this liberty, you even referred to it as a gift, these elements which had already emerged, you reasserted them, and this involvement of Patrick Lumumba. What the pubblico ministero is asking is: how did you—this question was already asked yesterday—in these different circumstances, you weren’t in the room any more, there wasn’t any pressure, why didn’t the truth somehow get stabilized? AK: Yes, yes. In fact, what happened is that I had literally been led to believe that somehow, I had forgotten something real, and so with this idea that I must have forgotten, I was practically convinced myself that I really had forgotten. And these images, that I was actually forcing myself to imagine, were really lost memories. So, I wasn’t sure if those images were reality or not, but explaining this to the police, they didn’t want to listen to the fact that I wasn’t sure. They treated me as though I had now remembered everything and everything was fine and I could now make a declaration in the tribunal against someone, to accuse someone. I didn’t feel sure about that. I didn’t feel— GCM: Excuse me, but in the memorandum, do you remember what you wrote about Patrick? Because maybe it wasn’t precise… GM: [Interrupting] I want—I want—I want to contest this point. Two points in the memorandum. If I’m not mistaken, you weren’t a witness right then. You had been the object of an arrest warrant. You had been arrested. You know the difference between a suspect and a witness. You weren’t a witness. Not any longer. So in the memorandum— CDV?: One moment—[hard to hear] Does she know the difference? GM: Can I continue? Sorry, avvocato, but I’m asking questions! Can I continue? He’s continually— GCM: Sorry, sorry, go ahead. GM: This is impossible! GCM: Please, pubblico ministero, go ahead, go ahead. GM: I am interrogating. I am interrogating. Now I’m distracted. Now, the difference between a suspect and a witness—a person informed of the facts. You said: “I made these declarations so that I could leave, so I could be—” but instead, you were arrested. And you wrote the memorandum after you had been arrested. And you wrote two sentences: I’ll read them. “I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick.” [In Italian: “I confirm…”] Do you know what the word “confirm” means in Italian? “In the flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer.” There wasn’t any policeman with you when you wrote that. No one. You wrote that in complete liberty. Do you know how to explain to me why? And this is even more decisive than what you said some hours earlier. Can you explain this? AK: I couldn’t even explain to myself why I had these images in my head, because I didn’t know if they were memories or not. And I want to say that if I made these declarations, that they asked me to sign and everything, I did it, but I wanted in the memorandum to explain my doubt, this fact that I wasn’t sure about it, because no one ever wanted to listen when I said listen, I don’t know. GCM?: Effectively the memorandum was correcting what had been said, and these doubts arose. GM: Do you have lapses of memory? At that time did you ever have lapses of memory? AK: Did I have what? GM: Lapses of memory. AK: Oh, lapses of memory. GM: Lapses of memory. Moments where you couldn’t remember things that you had done. “What did I do yesterday? I don’t know.” AK: [Laughing] I’ve had that problem all my life. GM: What? AK: I’ve had that problem all my life. I can’t remember where I put my keys. GM: So it happened to you at other times? Explain it to me. You previously mixed up things, didn’t know whether you had dreamed things or they were real? AK: No, not that part about the imagination! I would forget for example what I ate yesterday for dinner, yes, that happened to me, but not to actually imagine things. GM: To imagine something that hadn’t really happened, that never happened to you. AK: No. I never had that problem, but then, I had never been interrogated like that before. GM: Okay, so when you had this flashback, you saw Patrick as the murderer. What was this flashback? AK: The flashback consisted in this image of Patrick’s actual face, not that I imagined an actual act, I imagined his face. Then I had this image of Piazza Grimana, then an image of Patrick’s face, then I always had this idea that they wanted to say: these images explain the fact that you met him, and you brought him home, and maybe you heard something and covered your ears, and it was always like this, not that I actually imagined having seen Meredith’s death. It was these images that came by themselves, to explain… GM: I see. All right. I take note of what you’re saying. Now, let’s talk about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: “I didn’t lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick.” Then you add “But now I know that I can’t know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn’t go home.” Can you explain these concept to me? AK: Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in that moment, I— GM: So what you had said might have actually been true? AK: Yes. AK: Yes, it could have been true, but at that moment. But then, when I was able to rethink the facts, it became clearer and clearer that it didn’t make sense, that it was absolutely ridiculous that I could have thought that or imagined it. GM: But didn’t you feel the need to intervene to get an innocent person out of prison? You didn’t feel the need? AK: But the police had already called me a liar, and I didn’t feel they were listening to me. Also because in the Questura— GM: But you were in prison! AK: But in the Questura, I had already told them: Look, I’m not sure about this, and they didn’t want to hear that. They didn’t want to listen, because they said to me “No, you’ll remember it later. You just need a little time to really remember these facts.” I told them no, I don’t think it’s like that, but they didn’t want to listen. GM: They didn’t believe you. But you, once you said that you remembered, [snaps fingers?] you could have just made a declaration or sent me another memorandum saying “No, I didn’t say the truth. Patrick is innocent.” GCM: Excuse me, we already had explanations about this. GM: All right, I have another question. GCM: Please, go ahead. GM: I have another question. You had a 250 dollar fine from the court in Seattle. AK: What? Oh, yes, yes. GM: Can you explain this event? What was the motive? AK: In Seattle, I lived with four friends of mine in a house. When our lease ended, we wanted to have a party to celebrate the end of our time living together and also just the end of the year. So, we had a party. At the party there was a band, one of my friends played in it. So there was a band, and they made such a tremendous racket that the neighbors called the police to come and stop the noise. Since I was the person in the best state to talk to the police right then, I went out of the house and took responsibility for the noise. So I got the fine, and everybody helped me pay it. GM: Do you know about the article that appeared on “Mail Online”, by [name?], on Dec 3 2007, which refers to the event—I ask for the acquisition of this article—in which the episode is described with many details. There is also a translation into Italian. I would like to ask for the translation of this article. [Intervention: “This will be made available to all parties.” A fairly long pause.] GCM: Excuse me. Is there actually a question? GM: It talks about incredibly loud music, drugs, alcohol and throwing rocks into the street. GCM: Could you please ask actual questions? GM: Yes. Do you remember this episode? GCM: Excuse me. The pubblico ministero is asking—you described this episode in the terms we just heard. But the pubblico ministero is asking whether there was use of alcohol and drugs on that occasion, or whether it was just a question of too much noise making a disturbance?” AK: So in fact— GM: And other things. In the article there’s also— GCM: The Court doesn’t know anything about this. Excuse me, please. All right, let’s say “And other things?” GM: There is a report by police officer Bender. GCM: Oh, all right. Okay, okay. Let’s just make specific and precise questions. [Noise] Excuse me, excuse me. Please, please. You just briefly sketched the episode. The pubblico ministero is asking for details. For instance, about the use of drugs and the alcohol. AK: So, there was alcohol at this party; we had beer. I didn’t know anything about drugs because I was inside the house. GM: So you don’t know about drugs. AK: Right. I don’t know about drugs at the party, but there was beer for sure. GCM: Anything else? Beer, and anything else? AK: And noise. GM: I can ask other questions on this point. It’s been mentioned that there were naked people around. And rocks getting thrown at windows and into the street, so much that it was blocking the traffic— CDV?: Excuse me, excuse me! That was the article, but it could say things that aren’t true. GCM: Excuse me, excuse me, please! It has been requested that this document be produced and placed at the disposal of all parties. Then the Court will see. If there are other questions— GM: Is it true what this article says? AK: [Laughing] No. No. GCM: But do you have specific questions? GM: What is the significance of this sum of 269 dollars? GCM: She said it, it’s a ticket. A fine. Payment of a sum. GM: But penal? AK: It’s like when you park your car in a forbidden place and you have to pay a fine. It’s the same thing. GCM: All right, all right. She represented the facts and she represented their consequences. We don’t have to give the administrative or penal analysis now. GM: Now, let’s get to the episode of the 23rd. AK: Twenty-third? GM: The twenty-third. We have the Italian translation. The 23rd of November…no, the 23rd…the audition of the assistant Gioia Broci and someone else from the 23rd of last April, in which she made reference to the survey or visit to the via della Pergola on November 4. AK: Okay. GM: She says that while you were looking at the silverware— AK: The what? GM: The knives… You started to tremble and cry and covered your ears with your hands. Suddenly. Can you explain why? AK: As I said… GCM: Tell him if the episode is true, if it happened, how and why. AK: All right. The fact that I cried in the house when I saw the knives is true. I cried, because when I entered the house, I had to look around to see if anything was missing that could have been used to kill someone, it made a strong impression on me. It was as if all that time, I hadn’t been able to even accept the fact that she was really killed, Meredith, and then having to actually be inside the house, looking at knives, being actually there, it was as though the people around me…I was there, and they were asking me to look if there were any knives missing. I said “Okay”, but the situation was so heavy, I don’t know, it really hit me. GM: So when you looked at the knives, you felt disturbed. AK: Yes, I was disturbed, it made such an impression on me. GM: Okay. Okay. Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith’s room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith’s room, at the foot of the bed. Was it yours? AK: I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes. GM: So the lamp was yours. AK: I suppose it was. GM: Was it missing from your room? AK: You know, I didn’t look. GM: Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room? AK: I don’t know. GM: Hm. All right. Listen, when did you know that the boys from the downstairs apartment were all leaving for the long weekend? AK: I had kind of heard that they wanted to celebrate Halloween somehow or other, but I didn’t understand or didn’t know where they were going and how long they were going to be away. It’s always because when everyone was talking together, us and the boys from downstairs, I didn’t really understand very well, I didn’t get a really clear sense of what was happening. GM: But you know that November 2nd, unless I’m mistaken, was a Friday. No? AK: Yes. GM: So then there was Saturday and Sunday; you knew that those days were a holiday here, didn’t you? The 1st and the 2nd. AK: Yes, I wanted to go to Gubbio. GM: Right. But what you just said about Halloween, you must have heard that on October 31, no? In the morning? AK: I don’t know exactly when I heard it. GM: But you knew they were going away, the boys. AK: I knew they were going to do something to celebrate Halloween together, at least that’s what I understood. GM: Hm. Now, how is it that you went downstairs to see if they were home, on the morning of the 2nd? AK: I didn’t know whether they were home, or not. We wanted to go down and ask them if they had heard anything. GM: Hm. AK: So I went there, I knocked… GM: And nobody had told you that they had all gone to their respective homes, rather far from Perugia? AK: If they said that, then I didn’t understand it, because really I thought that they were just talking about Halloween. GM: Now, on the evening of November 1, do you remember if Raffaele received any phone calls while you were at his house? AK: At Halloween? GM: The evening of the 1st. AK: Ah, the evening of the 1st. I don’t remember. GM: You don’t remember. So. Listen, another question. Do you remember, on the morning of the 2nd, if Raffaele tried to break down the door of the room? AK: Yes. GM: How then, when later Romanelli arrived, you said that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door. Yet you tried to break it down. Can you explain this? AK: Certainly. When the police came they asked, at least they asked Filomena, if that door was ever locked, and she said “No no no no, it’s never, never locked.” I said “No, that’s not true that it’s really never locked,” because sometimes it actually was locked. But for me, it was strange that it was locked and she wasn’t answering, so for me it was strange, but I wanted to explain that it wasn’t impossible, that she did lock her door now and then. GM: But usually, you remember her door being open. AK: Yes it was usually open or at least…yes. GM: But on that morning, I understand that you were said to have stated that Meredith always locked her door. And that it was normal. AK: I never said it was always locked. It’s just that they didn’t understand. I just wanted to explain that it was not always open. GM: I see, you didn’t explain properly. GCM: The pubblico ministero is asking you: okay, you say it was not always open, not always closed, but it was a circumstance which didn’t particularly alarm you, so much so that you even said this to Romanelli. AK: Yes, because Filomena was answering like that— GCM: Okay, okay, but it sounds like the locked door didn’t alarm you, whereas in fact Raffaele Sollecito had already tried to break down the door. So? AK: Well, I was worried because she wasn’t answering. The fact that the door was locked wouldn’t have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that she didn’t answer when we called her made us think: maybe she’s in there and she isn’t well or something. GCM: Yes, but per carita, still on this circumstance. A door is locked, locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn’t answering me? I could just calmly think that nobody is there— AK: Also that. But we weren’t sure. Sorry— GCM:—and if she’s not home, why should I be worried? Enough to ruin the door by breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left. She’s not answering, why call her? The door is locked, she’s not there. AK: I know. But the fact that there were all these strange things in the house— GCM: No, excuse me. Per carita. After this, the other party will continue the examination. I want to say: you find the main door open, you can think that she left and forgot to close it, but she locked her own door. Why should you be so worried that you try to break down her door? I think this is what the pubblico ministero is asking. There. If you could explain why you were so worried in relation to your knowledge. Your motive for trying to break down the door. AK: Yes. I was worried that somehow she was inside and had hurt herself, because there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn’t know what to think. But at the same time, she could have been inside or not, but I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if someone was in there, or if she went out because there was something in there, I didn’t know. And the fact that the door was locked together with the broken window had me very worried, I didn’t know what to think, but I was worried. So I wanted to knock the door down to see if there was something in there. I didn’t know what. But at the same time it worried me. And when I said to Filomena “It’s not true that it’s never locked,” I only wanted to explain the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying “No, no, it’s never locked,” and that wasn’t true. I wanted to explain that. GM: I see. On the 3rd of November, did you go to the store Discovery, on the day after the discovery of the body of Meredith? AK: When I bought underwear? GM: Yes. What happened there? Tell us a bit. AK: So, I didn’t have any more clothes, so I went with Raffaele to this store to get underwear, because I didn’t even know when I would be able to go back into my own house and get my things back. So we went there and looked at some clothes, and in the end I bought a pair of underwear. GM: The document in our possession—where is it now? GCM: We are looking at it. But I don’t know, maybe it would be better to take a break? Shall we suspend proceedings? AK: That would be beautiful. GCM: Fine. We’ll suspend the audience—now it’s 11:17—we’ll suspend until 11:28, to start again at 11:30. 11:30 a.m. Resumption after a 15-minute break }} GCM: Now we can resume the audience, continuing the examination by the pubblico ministero of the accused. GM: Here is the document we need to acquire. GCM: Oh, the document is still ...oh yes, we have it. Good, good. The parties have all had a look. Go ahead, pubblico ministero GM: Listen, do you remember….Let me show you. Do you recognize your signature on this interrogation? GCM: What interrogation is that? GM: This is the statement made following your spontaneous declarations. AK: Yes. GM: You recognize your signature. AK: Yes. GM: Now, another question. You told us before, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now, I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn’t by any chance try to break down the door to get back the lamp we talked about? AK: [perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn’t know the lamp was in there. GM: You didn’t know that your lamp was in there? AK: In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn’t even noticed it was missing. I tried— GM: You didn’t see that it was missing? AK: No, I didn’t see that it was missing. We tried to break down the door because I was so worried after having seen the broken window. I basically panicked. I was thinking, Good Lord, what’s going on here? I ran downstairs to see if anyone down there had heard anything, then I tried to see if she was inside. She locked her door when she needed “privacy” [English]. So if she wasn’t in there but the door was locked, it seemed strange to me. Also the fact that the window was broken worried me. It wasn’t to get something. GM: Yes, yes. Listen, did you actually observe Filomena Romanelli’s room? AK: I saw that there was “chaos” [English] in there. I saw the broken window, and a lot of stuff on the floor. GM: Did you see anything else? Did you see the rock? AK: I didn’t see the rock. I saw that there was the computer on the tab—No! The camera was on the table. I saw that the things were still there. I didn’t see the rock. GM: Listen, did you see the clothes on the floor? AK: Yes. GM: And the glass? On top of the clothes? AK: Well, I saw that the glass was broken and there were pieces of glass all over the place. GM: Also on top of the clothes? AK: I suppose there was, but I can’t say. GM: Listen, did you actually check whether anything was stolen? AK: I don’t know everything that Filomena has. But I saw that there was lots of stuff all over the place, so I couldn’t really check. That’s why I called her. I saw that the things that I recognized, things of value, were still in the apartment, like the television, the computer, those things. That’s why I thought: What a strange burglary! GM: Strange, eh. AK: Yes. GM: That basically there was no burglary. AK: Well, no. I saw that there was a broken window, so I did think there had been a burglary. GM: I have no other questions. AK: Okay. GCM: If the pubblico ministero has no more questions, then the other parties who have not already examined may question. Please, go ahead. MC: You said that you called your mother on the morning of Nov 2. AK: Yes. GM: When did you call her for the first time? 2017-10-16T09:31:00+00:00 Correcting Netflix 25 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #4 https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_21d_omitted_-_this_very_telling_knox_questioning_4 https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_21d_omitted_-_this_very_telling_knox_questioning_4#When:22:31:00Z {summary} 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] Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax, 2017-10-15T22:31:00+00:00 Correcting Netflix 24 Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #3 https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_21c_omitted_-_this_very_telling_knox_questioning_3 https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/site/netflixhoax_21c_omitted_-_this_very_telling_knox_questioning_3#When:09:00:00Z {summary} 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? 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 #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. Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax, 2017-10-10T09:00:00+00:00