Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Mind Game: My Lawyer Persona Represents Knox On Night Of Arrest
Posted by James Raper
Central Police Station; girls’ house over hill at rear
Mind Game
I have sometimes thought – none too clearly it has to be said - what might have happened had Knox had a legal representative with her when she was interviewed by the police about the exchange of text messages on her phone.
The easiest way to do this, since I have often attended clients at the police station, is to envisage what might have happened had I been that legal rep. This, therefore, is a thought experiment based upon my own knowledge of the case, that is the material that arose during the trial, the law, police tactics/ethics/professional standards etc as would have applied had the interview occurred within my own jurisdiction.
I may get a bit Mickey Spillane with the following.
I see myself arriving at the Questura and seeking initial disclosure before speaking to my client in private. I expect that the police would tell me about the murder and that my client was a flatmate of the murdered girl.
The murdered girl was a Meredith Kercher and that she had been found in her bedroom at the cottage which my client shared with her and two other girls, with her throat slashed. The best estimate they had as to time of death was that the murder had occurred overnight on the 1st/2nd November.
My client, Amanda Knox, had told them in various verbal and written statements that she had been with her boyfriend at his flat at that time.
That had been what the boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, had also said, but now he had contradicted that saying that my client left him earlier that evening and had not returned until about 1 am. The boyfriend had told the police that he had been persuaded by my client to give the police a false version of events but had not elaborated further on that.
In view of this contradiction to what had hitherto been a joint alibi they wanted to interview my client for her explanation of this development and to find out if she had any further information to give which she had not so far given, and if so, why not. The suspicion they had was that she had, at best, deliberately misled the police as to her alibi, for whatever reason, and at worst, that she had done so to avoid her own involvement in the murder being investigated.
So yes, having come to the Questura voluntarily initially she was now being detained for the time being, that is, under arrest, as was Sollecito.
Other than the foregoing they had no actual evidence of my client’s involvement (at least that they were prepared to disclose). I am going to assume also that my client had been told about the position concerning Sollecito, that she had told me this when she phoned me to request my assistance. After all, why would she need a legal rep unless something had just gone pear shaped.
I therefore go to see my client. She wants to talk a lot straight away but I shut her up immediately and give her the well rehearsed introduction as to who and what I am, what I am here to do for her and what I have been told by the police.
I tell her that murder, short of treason, is the most serious criminal offence there is, and if the State were able to prove her involvement in the death of her flatmate, then she could expect a mandatory life sentence.
Waiving away any possible protestation of innocence I tell her the good news is that the police apparently have very little to go on in that respect, in fact nothing but an alibi that does not now stand up, and that’s what they want to question her about.
I tell her that what we discuss, what she tells me, is confidential and privileged. I will not say anything to the police without her consent.
There are, however, some professional rules by which I must abide. If she discloses some fact which is self incriminatory (at worst, for instance, that she did murder Kercher) then although I will not tell the police, I will not sit silently by her side in the police interview as she denies it. I will not be complicit in that and will excuse myself from the interview and, furthermore, not act for her any more.
She needs to understand what is kosher but, of course I am here to advise her every step of the way, so long as I am still acting. I tell her that although she will be questioned she does not have to say anything other than to confirm her name, date of birth, address, and nationality. Anything she does say will be recorded and may be used in evidence against her.
However should she have an explanation in response to a question then a refusal to offer that up at this stage might go against her should she then want to rely on such an explanation at a later date. Any questions that stray off track and have anything to do with her possible involvement in the murder are a definite no-no and she should simply reply “No comment”.
I will be there to ensure that there is no “fishing “ by the police and that she goes “No comment” when appropriate. It is, after all, up to the police to prove a case and she does not have to give them any help.
As to whether she has committed another offence for which she can be charged, such as lying to the police as to her whereabouts for the purpose of an alibi, then that is unlikely unless it can somehow be stretched to perverting the course of justice which again, I advise her, is very unlikely.
I then ask her whether she has an explanation for Sollecito’s behaviour. If what Sollecito had said were true, then can she give an innocent account of her whereabouts up until about 1 am, preferably with witnesses to back it up?
If she can then she can expect the police to try and verify or disprove that account. Furthermore, if she could do so, why had she not already done so? Perhaps she was just waiting for me. If Sollecito was lying, had she any idea why?
Now I am guessing here, obviously, but it seems fairly clear from the stance she took at trial that she is not about to concede that she had been away from Sollecito during the relevant time period. Nor tell me that if she was, she had an innocent explanation that she could give, which anyone could at least try and check.
So she doesn’t say anything on that score but on the question of why Sollecito would lie, she has two options: she could say “I don’t know, what he says isn’t true” or she could try a bit of mind reading.
However I think it likely that she would have done the first and only then set about the second.
She tells me that she stayed with Sollecito. Normally she would have gone to work but that night she had a text message from her boss telling her that she didn’t have to turn up.
She doesn’t understand why Sollecito would lie to the police. All she can think is that he, like her, had walked into a situation he had never been in before, got scared, and must have been trying to find a way out by disassociating himself from her (the explanation she gave in her Memorial).
I let it rest as to why he would have been scared but I assure her she has no reason to be scared. I ask her if she has her phone but of course this had been taken off her when she was detained. I ask her to tell me whether there might be anything recorded on the phone that might be incriminatory. She could be asked about that during the interview. She says no.
Now there are some legal reps who simply insist that their client say nothing to the police : “say “No Comment” all the way through”.
I am not one of them as there are circumstances where I judge that it is probably in their best interest to co-operate, unless, that is, I have some very bad vibes from the police disclosure, or from my client. In this case I have got neither.
Furthermore my client wants to be released as soon as possible and a “No Comment“ interview would potentially hinder that outcome, which I have already in mind to argue for quite forcefully when the interview is over, whatever their suspicions. She should respond to their questions in the same way she has with me. My client is happy to proceed.
And so into the interview which I expect will not take long.
It is to be tape recorded. There are 4 other people there. We are all seated round a table. Inspector Rita Ficarra is to lead with the questions, assisted by Officer Lorena Zugarini. They are on one side, I and my client sit on the other side.
To one side, but next to my client, sits the interpreter, Anna Donnino. Just as well as I cannot speak a word of Italian! (I have dropped Ivano Raffo from this scenario as otherwise it would be getting a bit crowded.)
The tape is switched on, introductions are made and my client is read her rights and given the prescribed Caution.
Ficarra recounts what Sollecito had said during his interview with them, pointing out that what he had said contradicted what Knox had been telling them about her whereabouts. Had she in fact left Sollecito’s apartment in the evening of the 1st November, returning at about 1 am? My client replies “No. I don’t understand why he would have said that.” Had he left and she stayed? Knox replies “No. We were together all the time.”
Ficarra looks sceptical and produces Knox’s phone. “You sent a text to someone at 8.35 pm, just a few hours before the murder, in which you indicate that you’re going to meet up with him, or her, a little later. Who was that?”
WOAHH! I suspect the police of having had this information and of not having disclosed it to me when I arrived. I look at my client. My look says “Anything to worry about?” She shrugs her shoulders but looks irritated and confused at the same time.
Ficarra continues before any response can be formulated. “You were responding to an unidentified text that has been deleted from your phone. What did that say and who were you communicating with?”
At this point I want to stop the interview and have a private word with my client. My client has already told me about the text she received but not about the reply and a meeting. I ask for a break so that I can consult with my client.
Ficarra will have none of it. She says “Miss Knox has already had the benefit of legal advice from her rep. She is now in a recorded interview and being asked questions – quite simple questions – which she can choose to answer or not. The interview will continue. She says she did not leave Sollecito’s flat and if true she should have nothing to worry about. We need her co-operation and (looking at my client) she has been very co-operative to date.”
I interject and ask to see the text message. Ficarra places the phone in front of me and my client. I read “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata.”
Now my Italian is rubbish but with the benefit of a bit of Latin and French even I can see that this does not add up to much. Loosely translated I read “OK, See you later. Good evening.” I say that out loud and look across at the interpreter. She nods her head.
But then there is the deleted text (on my client’s phone) and who this other person is.
Again I look at my client. She responds spontaneously to my look. “See you later? That doesn’t mean that I was going to meet someone. That’s just something one says”. I nod.
Ficarra continues. “We are conducting a murder investigation and we need to trace and interview the person you were texting. Who is it?”
My client looks puzzled if not a bit stunned. Not what I was expecting. What’s the problem?
Knox says “I don’t remember.”
Ficarra presses her. “Think.”
The interpreter jumps in at this point, telling my client that memory can be effected by trauma and giving an example from her own experience.
Again I say “I do need to have a word with my client. You have brought up something that was not disclosed to me and if you persist on your right to continue and to ask my client questions, then I will direct my client, each time, to answer “No Comment”.” I give my client a long look to make sure that she has got the message too. It appears she has.
Ficarra nods in exasperation and the tape is switched off.
When we are alone together I ask my client why she can’t remember and if there is a problem. I ask her to bear in mind my previous advice. She tells me it is her boss Patrick Lumumba and that she works a couple of evenings each week at his bar, “Le Chic”.
I ask her if there is any reason why she would not want to tell the police this. She shakes her head. I tell her that if that’s the case then it would be in her best interest to tell the police that she does remember now and that it was Patrick Lumumba.
However I also tell her that the police will certainly check with Lumumba and ask him for his version of what the text exchange was about.
Knox nods but still looks concerned. I notice that and again ask if there is anything else she wants to tell me. She says no. Only after Lumumba’s arrest do I (or the police) learn that in his deleted text to her he had said that she would not be required for work that evening.
The interview re-commences. I tell the police that my client has a short statement which she wishes to make. This statement basically just confirms what she had told me about Lumumba and her employment at Le Chic. Ficarra thanks my client for that but wants to probe a lot deeper.
Doesn’t “See you later” suggest a meeting later that evening and why did my client not mention any of this in the statements which she had already given to the police?
Knox says that no meeting had been or was being suggested and that she hadn’t mentioned it previously because it didn’t seem to be relevant – not, incidently, because she had been unable to recall the exchange of texts. That was my first warning that she could be unpredictable, indeed untruthful.
Also flashing up in my mind was the disclosure I had received that Sollecito had said that he had been persuaded by Knox to give a false version of events.
I had indeed mentioned this to Knox at our initial meeting. Was the issue of relevance an easier thing for her to put forward than a lack of memory on her part, which, whenever mentioned, only ever seemed to provoke further discussion?
Was that what she was trying to avoid? Ficarra certainly seemed to think so because she immediately mentions this to my client. Why had my client put him under pressure to give a “false version of events”?
I interject and say that my client, quite clearly, disputes what Sollecito had told them. Knox adds “He is not telling the truth”. I’m going to wrap things up for my client now and tell the police that on my advice she will now answer all further questions with “No comment”.
Ficarra, however, presses on but is met with “No comment” each time. That said some of those further questions are certainly food for thought, and are going to make my overture to the police to release my client, whether unconditionally or on bail, somewhat more complicated.
Why, in Filomena’s room, was there glass on top of the scattered clothing rather than underneath, which would be the case if the break-in was genuine? She mentions a host of other observations, all indicative of a staging. Who would be most likely to have an interest in a staging, she asks my client? Again “No comment”
Why is my client’s lamp on the floor in Meredith’s room, behind a locked door?
“No comment”.
Why are there no visible prints in blood between the blood in Meredith’s room and the footprint in blood on the bathmat in the small bathroom? Somebody must have removed them. Was it her?
“No comment”.
And so on, basically a trawl through all the circumstantial evidence the police had accumulated by this point in time. Much of this stuff, admittedly, was not mentioned in disclosure, but the police are still entitled to bring it all up.
And perhaps this is what Knox had in mind when saying, later, that she had been told by the police that they had (in her own words) “hard” evidence against her.
Ficarra’s tactics here are obvious. She is trying to unsettle my client, and she is succeeding, not that I can do anything about it. Knox looks pained and unsettled. She is holding her head in her hands. I point that out to Ficarra, telling her that my client is obviously distressed and needs a break from the questioning.
Ficarra nods and the tape is switched off. However she tells me, and deliberately in Knox’s presence, that there will be further questions for my client, that the police are waiting on forensic results, and a search of Sollecito’s bedsit, and that although a matter for the custody sergeant, and ultimately for the Superintendent at the station if an extension of detention is required, she will be opposing police bail, until this is all out of the way. Clearly she thinks that my client is somehow involved in Meredith’s death.
Suddenly there is an outburst from my client. “It’s him. It’s him!” This is not recorded on tape because it has been switched off. I now ask for time to consult with my client. I can see that the request pains Ficarra but after a moment’s hesitation she nods in agreement.
Back in private conference with my client, she tells me that, although her memory is confused, she is now able to remember, in flashes of blurred images, that she had been in the cottage and that Lumumba, who had accompanied her to the cottage, had attacked Meredith and had murdered her. The trauma of the event had blocked the memory until now. Well, at least that explains the memory problem.
I point out what my client has in any event fully appreciated, that the “It’s him. It’s him!” bit (be it not on tape) certainly needs to be explained to the police. It will only increase their suspicions about her if it is not.
The interview will have to be re-started. My client can give the police the above information, just as it has been given to me. Indeed the information should lessen their suspicion of her involvement in the murder since it is adequate and believable.
Furthermore she is now an extremely valuable witness in the investigation and that should also make it much easier for me to seek her release on bail, though that cannot be assured, and she might have to await Lumumba’s arrest. She has committed no crime that I am aware of.
She may have let the perpetrator into the cottage but an innocent explanation for that would surely be available. As my client is desperate to be out of detention she agrees to the foregoing.
But what actually happened was that her further detention was authorised and Knox, in a pique, dispensed with my further services.
What I could not have known, of course, was that Knox had been lying about Lumumba. Perhaps I should have factored in that possibility? Should I have explained to her that if she was lying then that, in itself, would expose her to a criminal charge with a maximum penalty of 6 years imprisonment (in Italy at any rate, though here in England we do not have, specifically, a similar criminal offence except for a generic one of perverting the course of justice) or would that not have made a difference?
I go home to bed. I have a long day ahead tomorrow.
Posted by James Raper on 01/21/25 at 12:35 PM in Hoaxes Sollecito etc