![](https://truejustice.org/ee/images/website/tjmkfrontpage.jpg)
Breaking news: In its August 9th report the Florence Court again explains why Knox is guilty of unprovoked calunnia against Patrick - and left him in prison for several weeks. Very hard line, hits back against the Supreme Court's overruling of Florence in 2015. We hope to have it up in English by month's end. So Knox's deeply dishonest smear of the investigators in court in June had zero effect.
Sunday, June 01, 2014
Knox Interrogation Hoax #5: Key Witness Monica Napoleoni Confirms Knox Self-Imploded 5-6 Nov
Posted by Our Main Posters
[Above: Deputy Police Commissioner Monica Napoleoni as a witness at trial in 2009]
1. Overview of our series on the Knox interrogation hoax
This is a brief summary. Please read the full series here.
Approximately 10 posts will be devoted to the 2009 trial testimony, including Amanda Knox’s, which did her no good, and then another 10 posts to the escalating hoax propagated by Knox and the conspiracy nuts.
Here is a new example just posted by fervid new conspiracy nut Lisa Marie Basile in the Huffington Post.
We should remember that Knox was interrogated for many hours without food or water. She was slapped and screamed at in Italian—a language she barely understood at the time. When the police found her text message (which said the English equivalent of “goodnight, see you another time”) with Lumumba, they psychologically tortured her and coerced her into confessing that he was involved in the murder.
If her text message was sent to anyone else of any race, the same would have occurred. She named him because they named him. More so, false confessions aren’t rare. According to the Innocence Project, “In about 25 percent of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.”
What total nonsense. None of Lisa Marie Basile’s “facts” here are correct. That leaves nothing of her absurd “she’s innocent but beautiful” theory still standing. This is what actually took place.
2. How Knox helped police with recap/summary 5-6 Nov
Late on 5 November 2007 Senior Inspector Rita Ficarra arrives back at the police station, to find her way blocked by a cartwheeling Knox. She mildly remonstrates. Knox testily responds that she has become sick and tired of the investigation, though she has really been little put-out.
Rita Ficarra suggests she go home and get some sleep. Knox refuses, and stays put.
After a short while Rita Ficarra suggests to Knox that if she really wants to help, she could add to the list of who Meredith knew and who might have visited the house. Knox happily agrees. So they begin on the list.
The entire official team is three often-commiserating ladies, and one man, who holds Knox’s hand. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.
During the session, Inspector Napoleoni and a couple of colleagues are seeking facts from Sollecito in a separate wing. Shown conflicts between what he has said and what his phone records show, Sollecito backtracks in a heartbeat and throws Knox under the bus.
Meanwhile Knox calmly produces seven names. No voices were raised until, to the considerable surprise of all others present, Knox has a yelling, head-clutching conniption (the first of three that night). This happens when they come across a text she had sent to someone though she had said she sent no texts. This text said she would see this unnamed person later, at an indefinite time.
Knox in turn throws Patrick under the bus, and later Sollecito. A torrent of accusations against Patrick explodes. The discussion is brought to a halt. Several hours later, Dr Mignini arrives at the police station, and in a second session presides over a reading of Knox’s rights.
At both sessions Knox herself insists on keeping everyone captive while she writes it all out. See the first statement here and the second statement here. Both times, she is warned she should have a lawyer by her side first. Both times she declines.
In the noon statement Knox included this without any mention of having been coerced: “The questions that need answering, at least for how I’m thinking are… 2. Why did I think of Patrik?”
Here is the relevant part of Inspector Monica Napoleoni’s testimony at the 2009 trial. It was kindly translated by ZiaK. GCM is Judge Massei, who often ensures focus and clarity.
Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini
Dr Mignini [GM]: There, so 6 November, the house was therefore subjected to sequestration, so there were ...
Monica Napoleoni [MN}: Yes, the house, after it was subjected to sequestration, there was Amanda in the Questura when we got back, since the material that was sequestered/confiscated, a lot of it was hers, apart from the keys to the house of the boys on the floor below, that the boyfriend left with Meredith the keys to below, we notified the sequestration to Amanda, at any rate we sequestered the whole building.
GM: There we go; the night between 5 and 6 November. You remember, no?
MN: Certainly.
GM: There now, can you tell us what happened?
MN: We went ahead with the checks. Obviously, of all the depositions [of various witnesses], as I said. No indications of responsibility appeared against [any] others. We took photos from the Internet of the party, for example, of 31 October. We identified the people who we saw in the photos with Amanda. We had begun a series of activities also of telephone interception, obviously.
GCM: Excuse me, in photos with Amanda
MN: Pardon me, yes, with Meredith, yes. We had begun an activity of phone interceptions, in short, against numerous people, also to understand what had happened that night. We had also known, through the consultation of the phone read-outs, for example, that Amanda and Sollecito had had their cellphones inactive that evening. One from 20:35, perhaps Amanda from 20:35 and Sollecito from 20:42. And there was, shall we say, this void of telephone traffic [for] Raffaele Sollecito until 06:02 of the morning.
GM: Of the 2nd [November], therefore?
MN: Of the 2nd. And Amanda, on the contrary, until 12:03, 04 or 07 [PM], I don’t remember [exactly], at any rate when she began trying, shall we say, to catch sight of [sic] or to seek to call Meredith. I don’t know what the first call was. And that, honestly, it seemed strange to us, because Sollecito had always declared that he had woken in the morning, that he had been awoken by Amanda ...
GB: President, excuse me, we are again starting the usual”¦
GCM: Report the declarations only, where they are ...
MN: Well, how should I do, then?
GCM: ... indispensible to do them for the subsequent investigations.
MN: I wanted to say that if Raffaele had slept until ten-thirty or eleven in the morning, how on earth had his telephone been switched on at 06:02?
GCM: So you carried out these investigative activities on the telephone printouts?
MN: That’s why, in the meantime, we had ...
GCM: On the printouts, in relation to these declarations.
MN: Certainly, but on kind of a lot of people, also, obviously, with respect to these declarations, so for that reason even this fact did not add up. Obviously, during those days, we were always there, we were continuously calling witnesses. That is to say, the English girls, we called them many times. The flatmates, we called them continuously, because [for] every detail we wanted to have a crosscheck, that is, bit by bit, as we advanced with the investigations, it’s normal that we need to re-hear/re-question the witnesses and see if we can manage, in short, to understand/grasp something.
GM: The evening of the 5th [November].
MN: Ah, indeed. In fact, we had decided to call Raffaele Sollecito this time. We had telephoned a colleague from the SCO, it seems to me he called him. Raffaele said he was out to dinner with Amanda, and that he would come to the office after dinner. In fact, he arrived after 22:00 hours, I don’t recall the exact time.
Amanda also came that evening, the evening of the 5th. We said to Amanda that she could go home to rest. Since, during those days, she was always saying, always complaining that she wanted to rest, wanted to eat, we said: “Look, you’ve eaten, you can go and rest yourself. If there’s a need, we’ll call you”.
Instead, she was very nervous, and insisted on staying there, and we kept her ... well, not even in the waiting room, [but] in the entry-hall of the Flying Squad [offices], that is to say, before entering the Flying Squad [offices], outside the lifts, there are some chairs there. The girl sat herself down there.
And I began to examine Raffaele in an S.I.T. [NdT: “sommarie informazione testimone” or brief witness questioning/recap, not full interrogation], together with two colleagues from the SCO in Rome. Then, I remember for example one fact, the same that had struck me [then], that I think I went to get a little bottle of water, something, [and] while I was going out I found Amanda who was doing the splits and cartwheels, in the Questura offices. It’s obvious that all these behaviours, all the contradictions, that is to say, we re-called “¦
GCM: So she was doing”¦
GM: What time was this?
MN: Well, it would be about 11:00 [p.m.]
GM: There you go. And then?
MN: Then we ...
GM: Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele, but especially of Amanda, the night of 5 to 6 [November] in that period?
MN: For one thing, I point out that it wasn’t me who heard her for the minutes/written record, but it was other colleagues [Rita Ficarra plus several] who heard/questioned her. However, it’s obvious that we”¦ some [of us] left, some entered, some were walking by, that is to say. This is normal. She [Amanda] always had an exaggerated manner.
GCM: In this manner, you said, she was doing the splits, cartwheels, there you go.
MN: She was doing the splits, doing cartwheels.
GCM: Others…?
MN: That is to say, she was laughing. She didn’t have the behaviour of a person ...
GCM: Please.
GM: But this behaviour, did it then change? How did it change, and when did it change?
MN: No, that, however ... Afterwards, I again say… that is to say, I saw her at intervals, however I was not there while they were taking her minutes/written record. A few times, I maybe went in to get, to bring a coffee, to bring something, however it was not me who was present there the whole time.
GM: However you saw that at a certain point she had begun to cry, you said?
MN: It was already almost at the morning.
GM: Towards what time did that happen?
MN: Well, Raffaele Sollecito’s minutes/written record, I think ““ because we also gave him quite a lot of causes [sic: should be pauses/breaks?] ““ I think we finished with him around three-thirty, three-forty. [With] Amanda, on the contrary, it finished much later. Yes, I also saw that she was crying in the anti-theft office, in effect, where they were examining/questioning her.
GM: Do you remember how she was treated by the staff, whether there were “¦?
MN: Amanda was treated very well. Amanda, she was “¦
GM: ... violence, of ...
MN: But absolutely not! Amanda was given something to drink several times. She was brought hot chamomile, she was taken to the bar of the Questura to eat. First she was given brioches from the little [vending] machine. That is all to say, Amanda was treated well.
GM: So, you, later, you continued the investigations, and never returned to Via della Pergola, no?
MN: No, I ...
Civil Party Attorney Pacelli
CP: Lumumba defence. Listen, I’m referring to the evening of 5 November, precisely, when Amanda came to the offices of the Questura. At what time did she arrive?
MN: They had been out to dinner, she and Raffaele, so for that reason they arrived around 22:15, 22:20 ““ after ten o’clock for sure.
CP: After 22:00.
MN: Yes. Certainly.
CP: She remained, therefore, the whole evening, the whole night of the 5th obviously”¦
MN: Yes, yes.
CP: Also the morning of the 6th. During that period of time, does it seem to you that Miss Amanda was beaten/struck?
MN: Absolutely not. I already explained that earlier.
CP: Yes, no, but I however am in cross-examination. I am asking detailed, precise questions, and I have very few.
MN: No, absolutely not.
CP: Was she, by any chance, therefore, manhandled/beaten up, threatened or insulted?
MN: No, she was treated well. Obviously with firmness, because it’s not as though we were at the cinema, in short, or at the circus ““ even if someone else might think that, we don’t. With firmness, but with courtesy she was “¦
CP: These methods of treatment, how did they translate into practice? With what behaviour/actions [were they carried out] in actual fact? Earlier, you recalled that they actually brought her something to eat”¦
MN: It’s true. That morning, I remember that Inspector Ficarra actually took her to the bar to eat as soon as it opened. But before [that], we have little [vending] machines on the ground floor, and she was brought water, she was brought hot drinks, she was brought a snack. But also Raffaele, he was given something to drink, it’s not as though they were kept “¦ absolutely.
CP: Yes, yes. But thus we have a firm manner, but with great regard and respect?
MN: Absolutely, yes. Because at any rate we were dealing still with young folk of twenty years of age, that is to say, we never forgot this.
CP: Thank you. Thank you, Doctor [NdT: “Doctor” refers also to graduates, and is a term of respect, not necessarily implying a medical or PhD degree]. I have no other questions, President.
Defence Attorney Bongiorno
GB: You said, precisely, that Amanda was treated very well, taken to the bar, chamomile, etc.
MN: It’s true.
GB: During these interrogations in the Questura, I wanted to know, as regards Sollecito, who had these extremely long interrogations: was Sollecito also taken to the bar? Did he eat?
MN: Sollecito was not taken to the bar, because I did not take him to the bar. However, Sollecito was given “¦ he requested water, [and] he was brought water. He was given numerous pauses/breaks.
GB: Was it said to Sollecito, at a certain point, when you challenged/impugned/questioned him… obviously the interrogation, as we know, went on an extremely long time ... that he could have recourse to a lawyer?
MN: I took him in for the recaps/summary information, and I did not suspend/interrupt the minutes/written record against him.
GB: You didn’t think that a lawyer was necessary?
MN: In that moment, no.
GB: How long did this interrogation last?
MN: We started at 10:40 until three-forty approximately.
GB: Were there objections [NdT: “contestazione” can also mean “formal notice”, e.g. of a charge] in the course of the interrogation?
MN: No, I did not make any objections/[formal notices]. We asked him simply to tell us what had happened that day.
GCM: Excuse me. When you say “10:40”, do you mean 22:40?
MN: 22:40, yes.
GB: So during the course of the interrogation, he did not ... reach/join [the status of] suspect by clues/evidence?
MN: He was not?
GB: You did not make any objections/formal notices?
MN: When we hear someone for recaps/summary information, that is to say, it is normal that we ask them questions, it’s normal, that is to say “¦
GB: Questions, yes. I was asking you if you had made any objections/formal notices.
MN: I asked why on earth he had told us up to that point things that did not correspond to the truth.
GB: And after you asked this question, did you not consider that for Raffaele it would “¦ it was necessary to call a lawyer for Raffaele?
MN: Well, Raffaele Sollecito, already from when he came to the Questura at any rate, no-one ever prevented him from telephoning or from doing what he wanted.
GB: I’m not asking you if he was prevented. You know that it is provided ...
MN: No, I no ...
GB: Excuse me. Let me finish. You know that it is provided by law that when there are objections/formal notices or [if] recaps/summary informations turn into interrogations, the minutes/written record must be halted. The subject must be given the possibility, especially if it is the middle of the night, to have the possibility [sic] to call a lawyer and to have a consultation. You are telling me that there were objections/formal notices made, but you did not consider [it necessary/expedient] to stop the minutes/written records.
MN: I am telling you that I took Raffaele Sollecito for minutes/written records [NdT: the witness often uses the term “verbale”, which is literally “minutes/written record”, in the sense of “to question/questioning”] without making any objections/formal notices to him, or asking him things, as one normally does to all the witnesses, and I closed the minutes/written record, concluding the SIT [“sommarie informazione testimoniale”]. That is to say, in that moment I did not object/make a formal notice of anything to him.
GB: However, you asked him the question that you told me earlier, if he was saying things that were not true?
MN: But one asks this of everyone. That is to say, it’s not that it was asked only of him. I don’t understand.
GB: How much later after this interrogation was Raffaele’s detention/provisional arrest made?
MN: It was made the same morning.
GB: What new elements were there with respect to those interrogations?
MN: In the meantime Amanda Knox was being examined for minutes/written records over there, and there are “¦ the contradictions between them were too [far] out.
GB: And these contradictions ... on the basis of these contradictions, you never called the lawyer, neither for the one, nor for the other? Is this correct?
MN: I was not with Amanda Knox, but I don’t believe that she was prevented from calling the lawyer. You must ask this of Inspector Ficarra, not of me, because I was not there in that moment.
GB: The objective elements, starting from the declarations, on the basis of which Raffaele Sollecito was arrested: do you recall that there was a print [footprint] amongst these elements?
MN: He was subjected to provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor, not arrested.
GB: Provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor. Do you remember the print?
MN: For me, the objective elements are all the contradictions and, shall we say, the false alibis that Raffaele, together with Amanda, gave us until they were separated.
GCM: The Attorney is asking: was there, at any rate, a print?
MN: There was a print that was held to be compatible with Raffaele Sollecito by the Laboratory of Forensic Police of Foligno.
GCM: Yes. That’s what you asked, no?
GB: Yes, and I also wanted to know: these contradictions that you’ve talked so much about, so were they contradictions that were given during these minutes/written records that we are talking about, these minutes/written records when there was no lawyer”¦
MN: Taken from the first second when we had begun to hear/question them, and going onwards from there. Because it was scarcely believable all the stories that they told us, and Raffaele knows very well that he told me things, spontaneously, without me having requested/pressed him, for that matter.
GB: On the basis of all [sic]... You are talking to me of contradictions. I am asking you: since there were these contradictions, that you actually hold to be so important that they then led to the provisional arrest/detention, because this “¦
MN: But the decree of detention/provisional arrest does not come from the Judicial Police.
GB: You are telling me of contradictions from the beginning to the end.
MN: It’s true.
GB: Since you are not talking about a contradiction at the very last hour, that is to say at five in the morning, but from the beginning to the end, I am asking myself why a lawyer was not called.
MN: I repeat that the provisional arrest/detention was from the Public Prosecutor, and not the Judicial Police.
GB: No, I’m asking you why the lawyer was not called during the minutes/written record.
MN: Because I did not consider [it necessary] to do so because I closed [the session] as recaps/summary information. The gravity of the fact emerged when Amanda Knox was also heard/questioned, who was examined up to 01:45, it seems to me, of the morning. It’s obvious that afterwards my colleagues reported to me what was happening over there.
GB: Very well. Listen, is there a report in which you speak of Amanda’s cartwheel?
MN: No, me personally, no.
GB: Did someone make a report with this cartwheel of Amanda’s?
MN: The report on the cartwheel, in short, it did not seem necessary to me to make one. However, regarding strange and suspect behaviours there is always “¦
GB: Since, in one of the preliminary hearings you reported it as one of the most significant elements.
MN: It did not seem normal to us.
GCM: Excuse me. Yes, at any rate, there was no annotation.
MN: No.
GCM: We are only doing questions and the answers. Please.
Defence Attorney Ghirga
GCM: Please Attorney.
LG: One very last question: at the same time you say that the night of the 6th, between the 5th and the 6th, “Amanda was treated well, at 4 in the morning ““ [as] this timetable shows ““ she was even, shall we say, quote-unquote refreshed, she began to cry””¦
MN: No, I didn’t indicate that at 4, at any rate.
LG: She began to cry at 4. If you want, I ...
MN: However I have never indicated a timetable.
LG: Nonetheless, when you pinpoint the time, shall we say, [of] this “¦ You report about Amanda and say that, at a certain point, I have it written, at 4 in the morning it indicates, she was calm”¦.
GCM: Yes, please, please.
LG: And that she was nonetheless treated well, when [you] place [this], and then this “treated well” emerges with a tea, it seems to me. Can you place this [event] in time?
MN: Yesterday, at the Public Prosecutor’s request, I answered this, however I also specified that Inspector Ficarra dealt with this matter. I recall exactly how Amanda was treated because we were going in and out, however I can’t give you times of [her] collapse/breakdown, of when she started to cry. I saw her cry, but I don’t recall having been able to give this timetable yesterday. At 4, I don’t remember.
LG: You said that Amanda was in an antitheft room.
MN: She was in the antitheft office.
LG: And that is on which floor? I don’t know this.
MN: Still on our floor, the Flying Squad is the only one. There is a main door, and then there are various offices.
LG: On the same floor where shortly before, shortly afterwards, we shall see, Raffaele Sollecito was also interrogated?
MN: Yes, in a different wing, in effect.
LG: It is in the antitheft room - but perhaps I’m wrong, so don’t get mad straight away ““ that you saw either the splits or the cartwheel and “¦
MN: No, it was in the entry-hall before coming into the Flying Squad [offices], at the exit from the lifts.
LG: So at the lower floor?
MN: No, on the third floor one comes out of the lift, on the left there’s the entry to the Flying Squad. Before that there’s a pre-entry, with little armchairs.
LG: So we’re at the entry-hall of the third floor, where the Flying Squad is.
MN: Yes, but not inside the Flying Squad. There’s another door.
LG: Is this the anti-theft room?
MN: No, the antitheft office is an office where the antitheft squad is, and then advancing there’s the Flying Squad on the left.
LG: But when you, I believe in order to get a bottle of water, go into a place where Amanda is, you see”¦
MN: No, I was passing to go get the water, yes…
LG: If you could clarify this for us better.
MN: I was passing to go get a little bottle of water from the little [vending] machines, by necessity I must exit from the Flying Squad, and I tell you again that she was in the entry-hall, there by the lifts.
LG: Alone?
MN: No, there were colleagues.
LG: Your colleagues?
MN: Colleagues, it seems to me, from the Rome SCO.
LG: She was with policemen, and she was doing a movement, which movements were different, a cartwheel and a split are not two things, so if you remember you were this precise.
MN: I remember.
LG: What was she doing?
MN: For sure it struck me: she did both a splits and a cartwheel.
LG: Both of them. She was doing gymnastics.
MN: Eh.
LG: Thank you.
GCM: There are no further questions.
Defence Attorney Maria del Grosso
MDG: With reference to the night of 5 November, do you remember at what time Dr Mignini arrived?
MN: No, I don’t remember.
MDG: And how long did the gathering of information from Amanda Knox by your colleagues go on? How much time?
MN: Look in the minutes, I did not do it.
MDG: And there is no minutes, there is no time of closing.
MN: So then why are you asking this of me…
GCM: If you remember.
MDG: If you remember, Doctor?
MN: No, I don’t remember.
MDG: If you remember. If you don’t remember, not ...
MN: No.
Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini
GM: Listen, do you recall Amanda’s “memoriali” [NdT: written notes (plural)], do you recall the first “memorial”?
MN: I remember that Inspector Ficarra said to me, after the execution of the detention/provisional arrest, that Amanda had asked her for blank sheets [of paper] because, word for word, she wanted to give a gift, wanted to write things. And I remember too that she was given these blank sheets [of paper], she wrote for some time, so much [time] that I even requested Inspector Ficarra to go [away/home?] because we had to accompany the detainees to jail. At any rate, Amanda was made to finish writing, and she gave to the Inspector this “¦
GM: Were other “memoriali” sequestered?
MN: Yes, later in jail.
GM: At what times?
MN: It seems to me that with the report of 29 November [there were] diaries and manuscripts of Amanda’s [that were] sequestered in jail.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Ted “There Is No Evidence” Simon’s Tired Mantra Misinforms Americans And Provokes Italian Hard Line
Posted by Our Main Posters
No-evidence claim March 2013 contradicts tough-evidence claim Dec 2008
1. Is Ted Simon already fired?
Has Ted Simon been kicked off the Knox-Mellas team?
Ted Simon gets no mention on Knox’s website among the credits to her Italian legal and Seattle PR teams. He seems to serve zero useful purpose to anyone that we can see.
One could train a parrot to repeat “there is no evidence” for a smaller fee.
Ted Simon is certainly not helping Knox to get back to Planet Earth - in January Judge Nencini awarded her another year inside, and for continuing legal incautions Knox could certainly face more time.
As he seems utterly ineffective on all fronts, maybe it was high time that Ted Simon was gone.
2. If so five good reasons why
A year ago, he seemingly allowed (1) this false felony charge to be included in Knox’s book.
That malicious claim could result in more prison time for Knox, and maybe even open Ted Simon to a malpractice suit, for zero due diligence done on Knox’s book. Since then, Amanda Knox has shot herself in the foot four more times, at least, with no obvious legal restraint.
Knox charged ahead with (2) the insulting and inaccurate email to Judge Nencini, (3) the insulting and inaccurate appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, (3) the insulting and inaccurate first response to the Nencini Report, and the insulting and inaccurate website that Knox runs.
3. Seven more good reasons why
Our interest is for justice for Meredith and her family, for Italian justice to be seen in a fair light, and for an end to this protracted PR-driven dead-end fight, in which Ted Simon has had some hand.
So let us look at some other ways in which Ted Simon’s lazy mantra, a substitute for a convincing alternative scenario of the crime, gives, or at least gave, Amanda Knox false hopes and will ultimately let her down.
1. Take a look at this absurd claim by Ted Simon which millions of Americans now, large numbers of lawyers, and many TV hosts can laugh off as simply untrue.
“There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Amanda Knox in the room where Meredith Kercher was killed,” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that she is innocent.” (CNN)
What exactly does that mean? Does Ted Simon even understand the scenario of the attack? This was a KNIFE attack, which does not usually see the exchange of a lot of DNA. There was the indisputable use of two knives in the attack - and Knox’s DNA is absolutely incontrovertibly on one.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
2. Meredith’s room was not fully swabbed for DNA because fingerprint dusting was the investigators’ (right) first choice. There were no fingerprints there - but there were none in Knox’s room either. Was she never there too? Knox’s lamp was found in Meredith room, with no prints. It would not have got there without help from her. There was a Knox-size shoeprint in the room. It would not have got there without help from her.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
3. Throughout the rest of the real crime-scene, which Ted Simon would really, really like Americans to forget includes a corridor, two bedrooms, and two bathrooms as well as Meredith’s room, there is stacks of unshaken forensic evidence against Knox. Indisputably a partial cleanup occurred because some footprints in several chains had been disappeared.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
4. There is, if anything, a surfeit of possible motives (not that there is a requirement for certainty there), and certainly there is a surfeit of alibis. Knox clearly framed Patrick. She was totally unprovoked by police, and yet even after three years actually served for felony framing, she continues to perpetrate the great hoax that she was.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
5. Amanda Knox is ever more frantically claiming that Rudy Guede carried out the crime against Meredith alone, and yet there is zero question of that. Many myths spread about Guede are untrue.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
6. Raffaele Sollecito was absolutely incontrovertibly in the apartment during the attack - his own lawyers have failed to prove the print on the mat was not his. Absent Knox, it is inconceivable that Sollecito was there.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
7. Finally dozens of lawyers are saying that the extradition treaty with Italy is crystal clear. If due process to a conviction was followed - and the American Embassy in Rome monitored it and saw nothing wrong - Knox could be on a plane within weeks to pay for what was a very cruel crime.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
4. Free! New Ted Simon mantras
Due to sudden problems with Ted Simon’s gibberish machine, we are happy to step up and provide these for free.
There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Rudy Guede in the bathroom where there was a bloody footprint of RS and DNA of Knox,” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that Guede did not do the crime alone.”
There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Rudy Guede in Filomena’s room where the breakin was staged, though there was Knox’s DNA” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that Amanda Knox is framing him.”
There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Amanda Knox in the bedroom where she slept,” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that Knox did not even live in the flat.”
Look for them soon, on your local TV.
Monday, May 26, 2014
The Nencini Email: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Emails Such Obvious Lies To A Judge
Posted by SeekingUnderstanding
Above at the Florence appeal court is the defence table.
This was Amanda Knox’s own first appeal. It was not a prosecution appeal, or a second or third trial by “˜Italy’. This appeal only happened because Knox and Sollecito demanded it.
At maybe 99.999 percent of all appeals worldwide, the person doing the appealing would be sitting there at that table. But instead of heading-up and guiding her team and even addressing the court, as a generally very confident Sollecito did, Amanda Knox hung back, issuing insulting and misleading commentaries from Seattle.
Culminating in this email.
Pure genius. Or maybe not. Knox sent it via her hapless defense to the judge, loaded with nasty aspersions and false claims about the hard facts, on the same lines - only more-so - as her book Waiting To Be Heard of the previous April.
And guess what? Knox had her prison sentence increased by Judge Nencini. She appeals; she arrogantly taunts from afar; she ends up with more time behind bars.
Pure genius. Or maybe not. That too doesn’t happen in 99.999 percent of all appeals.
In other posts here on TJMK starting with FinnMacCool’s linked-to above, we examine the veracity of the actual content of the email. How did it match up to the hard facts already in evidence and mostly not even in dispute at this appeal?
We have already begun to show that the email sustains and substantially worsens the great Interrogation Hoax which has already cost Amanda Knox four years in prison.
Here we look at what the text would reveal to trained Italian officials (the original was in Italian) about the state of mind of the person who signed it. .
First, one cannot help but be struck by an atmosphere of fear emanating from the author. When we are consumed by our fears, and motivated by our adrenal glands, our cognitive abilities diminish, and, if we are prone to psychological projections, this is when they will burst out and frame others.
As I read this logically inconsistent and highly irregular email, it became vividly clear that this is what had probably happened here. It mirrors and portrays a fearful, unrealistic state of mind, underscored with defiant but very foolish psychological projections.
In this sense, the email has some pathos: it seems quite amazing that Amanda Knox’s lawyers, family and advisors saw fit to allow this to have been sent even though Knox might have been determined to have the last word.
It does, however, provide an opportunity to see psychological projection at work.
Because the entire writing is framed in the mode of ill-concealed psychological projections, we have a window into the constructs of projecting onto others.
Paragraphs 1 to 10
Court of Appeals of Florence section II Assise Proc. Pen, 11113
Letter sent to attorneys Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga via email Seattle, 15 December 2013
Attn: Honorable Court of Appeals of Florence
I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified…
Note “˜discredit’ and “˜unjustified’. They are inappropriate words, and highly presumptive. The whole purpose of a court of law is to carefully distinguish (according to thousands of years of learning) precisely what is just and justified and what is not.
The judiciary do not merely accept the explanations of the prosecution or defence lawyers: obviously this would render a court of law and all trials superfluous!
So, an inauspicious beginning.
Very often, an opening statement by someone - spoken or written - will be one of significance - from a psychological point of view. It would certainly be worth giving attention to, as it will frequently “˜map out’ the essential position of the author. Or, in a more usual phrase, “˜say where they are coming from’.
The position given away in Knox’s opening statement is that of a complete denial of and disdain for the purpose and function of a court of law, as well as disrespect for its need to follow due process, and for this to be complied with by all parties involved - including herself!
She is not exempt from the law, nor due process. Yet, the style of writing simultaneously illustrates a faux respect, something verging upon flattery towards Nencini. One can then observe these two distinct tones throughout the email.
accusations of the prosecution and civil parties. I seek not to supplant their work; rather, because I am not present to take part in this current phase of the judicial process, I feel compelled to share my own perspective as a six-year- long defendant and victim of injustice.
Note “˜feel compelled’, and “˜victim of injustice’: “˜feel compelled’ reveals an inner compulsion. It suggests that the email is other than a logical and rational consideration. Thus it speaks of a drive driven by fear, and adrenalin-led states. The second phrase, “˜victim of injustice’ is too assertive. It is asserted as a given truth, when in fact it is for the court to arrive at this conclusion. What is so odd, though, is that this appears not to be understood. There seems to be almost breathtaking disrespect and disregard, oddly dressed up in pseudo-respect.
The Court has access to my previous declarations
Note “˜my declarations’ - this seems to attribute to herself and her utterances a self-importance, which is out of kilter, given that her word has been proven to be founded on lies, on more than one occasion. An unrealistic self-confidence.
and I trust will review them before coming to a verdict. I must repeat: I am innocent.
Note “˜I must repeat:’ Why must she? This also appears overly-assertive, as in: “˜Methinks thou dost protest too much’.
‘I am not a murderer. I am not a rapist. I am not a thief or a plotter or an instigator.’
Note the “˜I am not… I am not… I am not’. This sentence is very indicative of the obsession with the label and the image. “˜I am…’ or “˜I am not…’ this or that PERSON.
The point in question is not Amanda’s own self-absorption with the definition of her own personality, but whether she is culpable for a specific, named event, at one moment in time, viz, on November 1st 2007.
The court is only deciding about this single date. It is beyond its jurisdiction to decide whether she is “˜a murderer’ in an indelible, permanent sense. This matter is for her and her conscience.
I did not kill Meredith or take part in her murder or have any prior or special knowledge of what occurred that night. I was not there and had nothing to do with it.
Note this “˜I did not… I was not’. This reads as if inserted on the advice of lawyers.
‘I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.’
Note “˜I am afraid’. This, alone of the subsequent paragraphs, is true. She is indeed afraid. But, of what? This is actually a profound question.
I am afraid that the prosecution’s vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you. I’m afraid of the universal problem of wrongful conviction. This is not for lack of faith in your powers of discernment, but because the prosecution has succeeded before in convincing a perfectly sound court of concerned and discerning adults to convict innocent people - Raffael and me.
Note this very contradictory statement. It is attempting to flatter Judge Nencini… “˜your (great) powers of discernment….perfectly sound ...concerned and discerning adults ...’ whilst simultaneously saying that he is so poor a judge that he will be “˜blinded’ and that he will hand her a “˜wrongful conviction’.
She cannot have it both ways, - which is something she has tried so often for before, (as in : “˜I vaguely remember Patrick killed her’....‘this may be true, or I may have imagined it…’ etc.
This flattery-cum-put-down is confused and confusing, as well as showing circumlocution and insincerity.
‘My life being on the line’
Note “˜MY life…’. This is a melodramatic statement, and one that is insulting to Meredith - whose life was indeed on and over the line. Amanda’s life has never been on the line. Her fears are speaking here.
and having with others “˜already suffered too much’
Note “˜suffered’. Self-centred in the extreme, given the tragic circumstances, as well as debatable. Some might say Knox appears to revel in having so much attention.
I’ve attentively followed this process and “˜gleaned the following’...
Note “˜gleaned’ - a very odd word to use. Almost suggesting, “˜these are the areas I have sifted out as being my best areas to stir up doubts’ etc. Seems to suggest a manipulative mind at work.
...facts that have emerged from the development of this case that I beg you not to dismiss when making your judgment:
No physical evidence places me in Meredith “˜s bedroom, the scene of the crime, because I was not there and didn’t take part in the crime.
Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of his presence in the brutal scenario: handprints, footprints, shoe prints in Meredith’s blood; DNA in her purse, on her clothing, in her body.
No evidence places me in the same brutal scenario. The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have participated in the aggression and murder””to have been the one to fatally wound Meredith””without leaving any genetic trace of myself. That is because it is impossible. It is impossible to identify and destroy all genetic traces of myself in a crime scene and retain all genetic traces of another individual.
Note the “˜no physical evidence…’. This is the most sweeping scientific fallacy (which we deal with extensively elsewhere). That she has the audacity to proclaim it in these terms, towards a senior judge, does display arrogance, and, again, total disregard for due process, as if it just floats by her, not existing. After this she includes, in a surreal way, ‘Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of (his) presence’. ‘Murderer’ is placed in the possessive, as in ‘Margaret’s gardener’, or ‘Sarah’s secretary’ - and as such denotes a personal relationship. Odd and eerie, and as all the email, consistently inconsistent.
Either I was there, or I wasn’t. The analysis of “˜the crime scene’
Note the “˜I was… or I wasnt’. Simple and blatant obfuscation. It is obvious to all but the most stupid that the crime scene is the whole house.
Therefore, since Ms. Knox is not stupid, to persist with this usage of the term is either stubbornly recalcitrant, or extremely misguided, - possibly both.
Again, her own unawareness of how others will read this insistence of hers, is very, very sad.
...answers this question: I wasn’t there.
My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “˜confession’ that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime- The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “˜confession.’ Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge.
Note “˜illegal interrogation’ and “˜false confession’. Our Intteroagtion Hoax series is addressing exactly this. The fact that knox can put forward a statement that is demonstrably untrue, on multiple levels, shows someone almost dangerously out of touch with reality, on an emotional level, (and equally out of touch with due process in law.)
The comment about conversations being recorded “˜without my knowledge’ shows irritation and annoyance, as if she wishes to control the investigation herself.
As if the authorities should have asked her permission first, so that she could tailor her comments to suit! “˜How dare they interfere with my manipulation of the evidence?’ Maybe this is an uncharitable inference - but one that is strongly suggested.
My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50 hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer. I never thought or imagined that they would have used my openness and trust to fuel their suspicions.
Note “˜used my openness’. Again, demonstrably untrue. I am not able to find a single example of her “˜openness’ and trustworthiness in the days of her being a witness and the interrogations, from within the actual transcripts.
Her behaviour was however noted to have been inappropriate, unrestrained, possibly “˜spaced out’, irritated, melodramatic, angry, verbose, contradictory, and unpredictable. If she genuinely believes her state of mind at that time could be best described as “˜openness and trust’, then this suggests a worrying gulf between her own perception of herself, and how she comes across to others.
I did not hide myself or my feelings:
Note “˜I did not hide my feelings’ Indeed she didn’t. However, this is stated with the inference that this is a good thing, something she should be praised for. Some people believe in restraining the expression of their feelings - in case someone else is hurt by them. This would appear to be something she is ill acquainted with.
when I needed comfort, Rafael embraced me; when I was sad and scared, I cried; when I was angry, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence; when I was trying to help, I answered questions, consoled Meredith’s friends and tried to keep a positive attitude.
Note “˜postive attitude’. Towards what? That she could positively “˜win’ in her attempt to cover up the truth? We do not know what she is being positive about. Self-absorption is again displayed. And as Judge Nencini said, “˜I do not know her. I have not met her.’ Towards what is her positivity directed?
Paragraphs 11 to 20
Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position. Twenty-years old and alone in a foreign country, I was innocent and never expected to be suspected and “˜subjugated to torture.’
Note “˜no understanding’ and “˜Subjugated to torture’. What an assertion, and more melodrama. Such a statement is foolish if she wishes to be taken seriously by a senior judge. In fact, although she appears not to know this, the statement was self-sabotage.
Also, twenty years old is adult - or should be. Any adult should know and obey the law, and co-operate automatically with law-enforcers with no back-patting.
I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew. I was denied legal counsel- The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it illegal. I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I was told I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I was told that if I didn’t succeed in remembering what happened to Meredith that night I would never see my family again.
Note, well all of it. Complete fiction. Trial transcripts are very clear. She knew this was shot down by multiple witnesses and failed to avert a prison sentence.
Is this a (misguided) attempt to appeal to Judge Nencini’s heart strings as a father, from a baby twenty year old needing protection?
I was browbeaten into confusion and despair. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth.
Note the accusations. The last sentence could be inverted, and an inverse meaning found. What is Knox’s attitude towards the judiciary that have re-instated her guilt? Perhaps, some would say, she is attempting to “˜berate, threaten, lie to, confuse, and coerce’..the court ...into believing they are wrong (to say she is guilty.)
And no, this way, we are not going to find the truth. She is actually right there.
However, it is the duty of a court of justice not to yield to coercion, confusion, threats etc, and if there was more respect and adult understanding for the Italian judiciary, the defendants would know this, and not engage in what is clearly a waste of time.
Judge Nencini’s disdainful dismissal of the “˜highly irregular “˜ email showed he was fully aware of all implications. There are solid reasons for protocols.
The police coerced me into signing a false “˜confession’ that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which the police wrongfully interpreted (”˜Civediamo piu tardi. Buona serata’). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward””it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba’s defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable. I simply didn’t know what they were demanding me to know. After over 50 hours of questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.
This coerced and illegitimate statement was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship. This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander. The prosecution and civil parties would have you believe that this coerced and illegitimate statement is proof of my involvement in the murder. “˜They are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.
Note “˜50 hours of questioning’ which was actually less than half a dozen. Another statement that could be usefully inverted, and betrays itself as a psychological projection.
Knox over-reached herself in inventing the Patrick scenario, which was only blown open two weeks later by a reputable businessman. What is she doing, (in this whole paragraph about “˜the coerced false confession’) other than accusing and blaming (the police) as a result of (her own) overreaching?
We can see, from this and other examples, the unpleasant process of a person projecting what they themselves are doing, onto others. A projection attempts to transfer their own responsibility - either for character or deed - onto others, who can then be blamed or framed for the projector’s own wrong-doing, or wrong-being.
This process of projection, as well as projective identification, underlie so much cruelty and injustice in life, as well as the erosion of others’ identity, and the interference and/ or destruction in others’ lives.
Projection, for the most part, diminishes. It can be mild to vicious. In its milder forms, it can sometimes be used as a source for cutting humour : in its worst forms, which become pathological, it can and does lead to demonization, aggression, and even murder.
Yet again, in her unrestrained and exaggerated verbosity, Knox has demonstrated foolishness, and also under-estimation of the knowledge and wisdom of professionals. In a more colloquial phrase, she has dug herself in deeper.
Perhaps she is indeed a victim - but only of her own nature, which appears to be a nature she cannot neither alter nor control, and also one that demonstrates frequently a lack of boundaries. There isn’t a clarity regarding what is herself and what is other people. The result is confusion and hurt.
When people are projected upon, repeatedly, they naturally feel hurt and offended. “˜That isn’t me, how dare s/he !’ is the natural reaction to a projection. If the projecting person then pulls back, there is damage limitation,...but if they don’t, and projection escalates, it is always a slippery slope to negativity.
Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false’confession’ because of torture.
This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false “˜confessions.’
Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone. And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party - just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guide.
Note again the false confession claim. No confession at all has been advanced in this case.
In the brief time Meredith and I were roommates and friends we never fought.
Meredith was my friend. She was kind to me, helpful, generous, fun. She never criticized me. She never gave me so much as a dirty look.
But the prosecution claims that a rift was created between Meredith and I because of cleanliness. This is a distortion of the facts. Please refer to the testimonies of my housemaster and Meredith’s British friends. None of them ever witnessed or heard about Meredith and I fighting, arguing, disliking each other. None of them ever claimed Meredith was a confrontational clean-freak, or I a confrontational slob. Laura Masotho testified that both Meredith and I only occasionally cleaned, whereas she and Filomena Romanelli were more concerned with cleanliness. Meredith’s British friends testified that Meredith had once told them that she felt a little uncomfortable about finding the right words to kindly talk to me, her new roommate, about cleanliness in the bathroom we shared. The prosecution would have you believe this is motivation for murder. But this is a “˜terrifying distortion of the facts.’
Note “˜terrifying distortion of the facts.’ It is not, of course, a distortion of the facts. I have frequently observed that Amanda says, “˜Meredith was my friend’, but I have never, curiously, heard this followed up by, “˜I was Meredith’s friend’. What act of friendship did she carry out for Meredith? On this there has been an eerie silence. (And if said now, this would be way too late in the day).
But here, what is of particular interest is the choice of the word “˜terrifying’ regarding “˜distortion of the facts’.
There has been a gross and widespread distortion of the facts of this case, encouraged by a paid PR campaign by her father. It is something that has snowballed (especially with new technology: Twitter etc), and has had an influence.
One wonders, have there been times when she wished she could “˜stop the world and get off’? Has she, in fact, found the explosion of media comment “˜terrifying’? Does she now feel to be on quicksand?
I think, at the very least, the use of this word shows that the way things have escalated - so that she does not control outcomes - is something she does not like at all.
Over and over again - through her self-exposure on TV - she has shown flashes of anger and contempt when she is displeased, and this sentiment is also perceptible as an undercurrent in this email. An innocent person might very well be angry, but they wouldn’t ever show contempt.
I did not carry around Rafael’s kitchen knife.
This claim by the prosecution, crucial to their theory, is uncorroborated by any physical evidence or witness testimony. I didn’t fear the streets of Perugia and didn’t need to carry around with me a large, cumbersome weapon which would have ripped my cloth book bag to shreds. My book bag showed no signs of having carried a bloody weapon. The claim that he would have insisted I carry a large chef’s knife is not just senseless, but a disturbing indication of “˜how willing the prosecution is to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven theory.
Note “˜how willing the prosecution… disproven theory’. This last part of her sentence is another example of herself describing what she is actually doing, whilst accusing someone else of it.
She is here describing herself, and what she does. The word “˜prosecution’ can be substituted. So one has : how far is “˜she’ willing to go, “˜to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven position’?
Sometimes, people slip into an error of making one major projection. We all are more prone to project when pressure becomes unbearable. We can all think of someone under stress who has lashed out and pinned the blame on someone else - doing this is a way of releasing a pressure valve for stress. But an emotionally balanced person is able to “˜pull themselves back’ and re-centre themselves.
It is of great concern that the very fabric of this email would seem to be so intertwined or riddled with psychological projections that it is actually woven from them - they form its substance. This strongly suggests Knox is without genuine insight into her own psyche, or processes, and also is in an very unstable state where she is far away from her own centre.
Paragraphs 21 to 30
It is yet another piece of invented “˜evidence’, another circumstance of theory fabricated to order, because having discovered nothing else, the prosecution could only invent.
Note “˜invent… invent’. This indicates another disturbing trait - a barely suppressed glee, that the prosecution “˜have discovered nothing else’. Is she proud of the lack of more evidence? Why is there not more? Who successfully concealed it, as is the case?
I had no Contact with Rudy Guide.
Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guide. He played basketball with the young men who lived in the apartment below us. Meredith and I had been introduced to him together. Perhaps I had seen him amongst the swarms of students who crowded the Perugian streets and pubs in the evenings, but that was it. We didn’t have each other’s phone number, we didn’t meet in private, we weren’t acquaintances. I never bought drugs from Rudy Guide or anyone else. The phone records show no connection. There are no witnesses who place us together. The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guide to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn’t even speak the same language. Once again, the prosecution is relying upon a disturbing and unacceptable pattern of distortion of the objective evidence.
I am not a psychopath.
Note “˜I am not a psychopath’. First of all, it needs to be said, that this is not for her to announce. It is not her province. She is not qualified to make such a statement, quite apart from the fact that it would be self-diagnosis.
It is also totally inappropriate to say so to Judge Nencini. The fact that she is unaware of this is astounding.
There is no short list to the malicious and unfounded slanders I have suffered over the course of this legal process. In trial I have been called no less than:
“˜Conniving; manipulating; man””eater; narcissist; enchantress; duplicitous; adulterer; drug addict; an explosive mix of drugs, sex, and alcohol; dirty; witch; murderer; slanderer; demon; depraved; imposter; promiscuous; succubus; evil; dead inside; pervert; dissolute; a wolf in sheep’s clothing; rapist; thief; reeking of sex; Judas; she-devil;
Note “˜in the course of this legal process’. Here she appears to be totally muddled about what has been said in the papers and social media, confusing them with serious assessments from the court. However, obviously the media reports and inventions have penetrated her mind, and blown up out of all proportion.
The fact that she (or her family) laregly brought this on herself doesn’t seem to register.
There is an answer though, or would have been : Be honest; be modest; be quiet. Let the truth speak for itself. It usually does. The media coverage is highly regrettable, but, as every celebrity finds, there is always a heavy price for “˜playing the media’.
I have never demonstrated anti-social, aggressive, violent, or behavior. I am not addicted to sex or drugs. Upon my arrest I was tested for drugs and the results were negative. I am not a split-personality
Note “˜I am not a split personality.’ Is this for her to say? Someone with a personality disorder, or indeed mental illness, would often be the last person to admit to it, or even know. Once more, there is a breathtaking dismissal of, in effect, the value of scholarship.
One does not adopt behavior spontaneously.
Note “˜adopt’. Regarding Knox’s behaviour patterns, there is much to suggest that these were neither unusual nor spontaneously adopted. They may not have been as extreme before the crime, but the indications of them are proven.
However, as an actual statement from psychology, this is untrue.
Again, AK is out of her depth, and strangely unaware of it. There are many known instances, which can be detailed, where normally uncharacteristic behaviour does in fact break out abruptly, spontaneously, and without warning. Precisely the kind of behaviour that can and does have terrible consequences. Perhaps this needs to be understood and taken on board?
This is a fantasy.
Note “˜fantasy’. Who is given to fantasy? Who wrote she “˜had a vision’ of what had happened?
This is uncorroborated by any objective evidence or testimony. The prosecution and civil parties created and pursued this character assassination because they have nothing else to show you. They have neither proof, nor logic, nor the facts on their side.
Note “˜character assassination’ Who doesn’t have logic nor facts, or indeed proof of her alibi, on her side?
They only have their slanders against me, their personal opinions about me.
Note “˜slanders’. Who has slandered? Who has aired personal opinions and false claims, for instance about a senior prosecutor?
They want you to think I’m a monster because it is easy to condemn a monster. It is easy to dismiss a monster’s defense as deception. But the prosecution and civil parties are both severely mistaken and wrong. They have condemned me without proof of guilt, and they seek to convince you to condemn me without proof of guilt.
If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics.
Note “˜theatrics’. There were none from the prosecution. So whose theatrics?
“˜Monster’ is Amanda’s own word - it hasn’t come from anyone else. It must be her nemesis - the word which she dreads to hear in her conscious mind, yet can’t escape from.
There would be no need for smoke and mirrors to distract you from the lack of physical evidence against me.
Note “˜smoke and mirrors’. Whose smoke and mirrors? Again, we have a description of her own behaviour, which is being projected outwards.
quote - ‘But because no evidence exists that proves my guilt, the prosecution would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements.’
Note “˜the prosecution would seek to deceive you’. Who really has sought to deceive? Who has demonstrated passion in her pronouncements?
Because I am not a murderer, they would seek to mislead you into convicting me by charging your emotions, by painting me not as an innocent until proven guilty, but as a monster.
Note “˜mislead you’. Yet again, the image of her person as “˜a murderer’ and “˜a monster’ are shown to be her preoccupation. The court has not tried to define her as such. They have tried her for a crime, for what she did on one day.
She is the one who gives permanent labels to herself. They are labels she cannot bear, and cannot accept. But she needs to understand that it is not the judiciary, nor many others seeking justice, who are labelling her person or personality.
The prosecution and civil parties are committing injustices against me because they cannot bring themselves to admit, even to themselves, that they’ve made a terrible mistake.
Note “˜they cannot’. Amongst a statement peppered with almost pitiful projections, this seems to be the most direct projection of them all. Substitute “˜they’ for “˜I’ and we get this:
“˜I cannot bring myself to admit, even to myself, that I’ve made a terrible mistake…’
Paragraphs 31 to 34
The Court has seen that the prosecution and civil parties will not hear criticism of their mistakes.
Note “˜will not hear’. Who will not hear criticism of their mistakes?
Not by the experts of the defense, nor by the experts of the Court.
The Court has seen that the prosecution jumped to conclusions at the very start of their investigation: they interrogated and arrested innocent people and claimed “˜Case Closed’before any evidence could be analyzed, before bothering to check alibis.
Note “˜jumped to conclusions’ and “˜before bothering’. Why is she saying any of this to Judge Nencini and the other judges? It is insulting to their intelligence. Can she be unaware of this?
The prosecutor and investigators were under tremendous pressure to solve the mystery of what happened to Meredith as soon as possible. The local and International media was breathing down the necks of these detectives. Their reputations and careers were to be made or broken. In their haste, they made mistakes. Under pressure, they admitted to as few mistakes as possible and committed themselves to a theory founded upon mistakes.
Note “˜founded upon mistakes’. Here there was a young woman who herself “˜under pressure, admitted to as few mistakes as possible , and committed themselves to a theory founded upon mistakes’ (the mistake of admitting to being at the scene of the crime, hearing a scream etc., and then found herself committed to continue to incriminate Patrick, and all the stories consequent to this move.)
One is reminded of a game of chess, where early moves commit one to the rest of the play and end game.
Had they not jumped to conclusions based on nothing but their personal and highly subjective feeling, they would have discovered definitive and undeniable evidence of not Patrick Lumumba, not Rafael Sollecito, not Amanda Knox, but of Rudy Guide. We would not be here over six years later debating inconclusive and unreliable “˜clues.’ We would have been spared the cost, anguish and suffering, not only of Raffaele’s and my family, but especially of Meredith’s family as well.
Note “˜Meredith’s family’. A belated attempt to remember the true victim, but in a way that couldn’t be more hurtful. What would really have spared Meredith’s family anguish and suffering?
It is highly objectionable that the stress and pressure Knox and Sollecito have been under should in any way at all be conflated with the deep suffering and tragic position of the Kercher family. Knox indicates that she is unable to know when she is hurting someone.
The prosecution’s accusations are unworthy of judicial or public confidence.
Note “˜unworthy of public confidence’. Then, if so, as Judge Nencini said, the person who brought the appeal should attend her own appeal, and seek to prove or disprove the worthiness of her case in the court. A basic premise the defendant showed she was oblivious to, when she resorted to the email.
In over six years they have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated theory of the crime,
Note “˜failed to provide’. The prosecution in fact have patiently, thoroughly, albeit slowly, worked their way towards the most probable truth of that fated night.
They have been grossly and deliberately impeded in their task by the defendant, who moreover has shown no contriteness, no remorse whatsoever for her lack of co-operation or worse.
And, of course, “˜in over six years,’ the defendants “˜have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated explanation of the crime’ they have been proven to have been involved with. Once more, a statement can be seen to apply more to the speaker herself than to those she is accusing.
but would nevertheless argue that you should take my life away.
Note “˜take my life away’. More unfeeling melodrama.
I beg you to see the facts and reason of what I say. I am innocent. Rafael is innocent.
Meredith and her family deserve the truth. Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice.
Note “˜deserve the truth’. These last two sentences are true. However, the very last sentence seems to have two missing words from the end, viz, “˜for them’, or “˜for the Kerchers’.
With a correction it reads: “˜Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice for the Kerchers’ - which with no help from Knox does nevertheless seem to be happening.
The wheels of justice turn, and stories, versions, delusions, projections, deceptions, - even manipulations, will eventually fade away.
[It looked like Knox lawyer Ghirga could not drop this turd in the judge’s lap quickly enough]
Thursday, May 22, 2014
The Cuomo Interview: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Tries To Argue Innocence On TV
Posted by Vivianna
Concepts of innocence
I want to make the distinction here, as in some of my previous posts, between factual and legal innocence to show how on factual evidence Knox is giving up.
- Factual innocence is what we may consider “true” innocence, i.e. the complete lack of involvement in a crime.
- Legal innocence, on the other hand, is innocence established in a court of law on the basis of a reconstruction of events.
Ideally, the two coincide. But there are certainly cases in which someone who is factually guilty of a crime may be found innocent in a legal sense due to a lack of evidence.
This distinction is important here since the type of innocence Knox appears to want to establish throughout her most recent interview is, surprisingly, legal innocence ““ not factual innocence.
There are signs that Knox knows she’s failed to sell factual innocence, and is losing traction with all crime professionals everywhere - the psychologists are already long gone.
And signs that American big-media fascination has run its course. A few days after the release of the Nencini motivation report, Knox was interviewed by Chris Cuomo on CNN. This was the one big Knox-camp response to the report - and the main airing of the interview was just after 6:00 am. A video of some highlights can be viewed on the CNN website after the brief ad.
I would like to refer you at the start to this excellent post by Eyes for Lies, who has been praised on TJMK before. The transcribed quotes below are taken from the Eyes for Lies blog and they are accurate; their accuracy can be confirmed by listening to the interview linked above.
“This judge’s motivations…”
The first thing you may notice when you watch the interview is Knox’s difficulty to form articulate sentences. This is not a comment on her intelligence or her ability to speak in public, but it appears odd considering her coaching and the number of interviews she has given before.
She pauses often and constantly reforms her sentences, perhaps realizing that what she wants to say may not play out in her favor. As a result, she uses vague and sometimes unusual language, and her sentence fragments reveal aspects which she is otherwise attempting to conceal.
This inability to effortlessly stick to her script in a somewhat tense scenario betrays the fact that there is a discrepancy between her beliefs and her public statements. It also begs the question of why someone who is supposedly telling the truth needs to construct her answers so carefully if she has nothing to hide.
Cuomo begins the interview by asking Knox why she thought that this judge [Nencini] went further than any other. Here is Knox’ answer, preceded by a rather odd smile:
I”¦believe”¦I mean, I can’t speculate what this judge’s motivations”¦personal motivations or otherwise”¦What I can say is that”¦as”¦this”¦case”¦has progressed”¦”¦.the evidence”¦that the prosecution has claimed exist against me”¦.has been”¦has been proven less and less and less.
The quote of Knox above is a good example from the legal v factual innocence point of view. First, let’s look at the opening few words.
She begins by saying “I believe”¦” and then stops. Evidently, only Knox knows what exactly she intended to say, but it’s rather obvious from her next sentence that what she wanted to say about the judge was not particularly flattering or diplomatic. Given her current situation and the pending defamation suits, she probably thought it was not a good idea to be direct.
Hence, she rephrases on the fly and goes on say that she couldn’t comment on his motivations, while doing this nevertheless towards the end of her sentence. This is known as “paralipsis” which is stating something (which sometimes may be considered an ad hominen) while pretending not to do so.
The fact that she mentions Judge Nencini’s “personal motivations or otherwise” implies that his decision may have not been objective, but based on a personal bias against the defendants (an idea that Ms. Bongiorno has been unsuccessfully trying to flog after the verdict).
“Diminishing evidence…”
Moving on, she makes the first appeal to the legal innocence I mentioned above. Instead of clearly stating that she was innocent or that she did not kill Meredith, Knox prefers to focus on the fact that the evidence against her has been allegedly diminishing.
For one, this is false, as no piece of evidence at all has been dismissed; on the contrary, the new DNA test results from the Carabinieri lab could be considered as additional evidence. So Knox is blatantly lying about something which can be factually disproved, which immediately raises the question of what else she could be lying about.
Secondly, what makes this statement odd is the fact that she does not assert her factual innocence. As someone who was supposedly wrongly accused and against whom there is evidence, whether or not she chooses to acknowledge it, the one thing she has control over is the inner knowledge of her own factual innocence.
That kind of knowledge, in someone who was not subjected to torture or brainwashing, should be untouchable ““ absolute. No matter what anyone said she did, if she knew for a fact that she hadn’t done it, she would be stating it at every opportunity.
The fact that she chooses not to do this indicates that Knox herself may have trouble keeping up this pretense of innocence, especially if she is privately plagued by fear and perhaps guilt or remorse (although she hasn’t shown any signs of the latter). It has been suggested that she may be at a point where she has convinced herself of an alternate truth, but based on what she says, I am uncertain that she genuinely believes what she says.
“I did not kill…”
Only in her next sentence does she finally offer a denial ““ unfortunately couched in vague language which undermines her point.
I did not kill my friend. I did not wield a knife. I had no reason to.
Simple, straight sentences like these are the kind we would expect from an innocent person. The problem lies in the fact that, throughout this interview, Knox never clearly states, “I did not kill Meredith.” I don’t think Knox is lying when she says “I did not kill my friend,” since, strictly speaking, she did not kill any of her friends.
The problem is that Meredith was not her friend, even if both she and Meredith may have acted friendly towards each other at the beginning. Based on statements given by Meredith’s English friends and by her family, Meredith was irritated by Amanda’s behavior and frequently complained about the latter’s habits (untidiness, dirtiness, attention-seeking, bringing strange men to the apartment, etc).
Meredith probably maintained a civil front in order to avoid tension, but she had already started to distance herself. The fact that she did not return Amanda’s texts on Halloween demonstrates that she wanted to spend time with her actual friends, rather than have to deal with Knox’ histrionic episodes. Given the social nature of Halloween in a college town, this situation would not have occurred if the two had really been close prior to the murder.
“I did not wield a knife” is a blatant lie, since Knox’ DNA was found on both the handle and blade of the kitchen knife. Eyes for Lies found it strange that Knox even mentioned the knife in light of her innocence claim, but I think it makes sense because the knife figured prominently in the appeal proceedings.
Or rather, it makes sense for someone who is focused on the legal innocence aspect mentioned above. Knox equates being found innocent with being innocent, as we’ll see below, so it’s important for her to address the evidence (without realizing that, by doing so, she is acting in ways which are not consistent with factual innocence).
“My friend…”
Returning to “my friend,” we see the beginning of a trend which continues throughout the interview. Knox has a tendency to refer to Meredith obliquely ““ rarely by name.
This manifests itself in several ways: by exerting ownership (“MY friend”) or by referring to her as an inanimate object (which we’ll see happening in the following paragraphs). Considering that murder is a total, irreversible way of taking away someone’s personhood, this constant appropriation and objectification are disturbing and belie Knox’s supposed fondness for Meredith.
Next, Knox says, “I”¦.I was”¦in the month we were living together, we were becoming friends.”
Here I agree with Eyes for Lies’ argument that perhaps what Knox started saying was “I was trying to be friends with her.” Note that she says “we were becoming friends,” not “we were friends.” This calls into question her truthfulness when she calls Meredith “my friend.”
By Knox’ own admission, they were not quite friends yet at that point - or rather, not anymore, since the disagreements had already started; once again, Knox distorts the truth by making it seem that they were getting closer rather than as in reality growing apart.
A week before the murder occurred, we went out to a classical music concert together. Like”¦we had never fought. There is no trace of us.
The part about the concert is true (this is where Knox met Sollecito). We don’t know why Meredith left before the concert ended: perhaps she was tired, she had to study, or didn’t particularly enjoy the music; it’s also possible that she may have felt irritated with whatever Knox was doing to attract Sollecito’s attention.
Given his inexperience and lack of confidence at the time, Sollecito would have most likely not approached Knox without an invitation, but that’s a matter for another post.
“Like “¦ we had never fought” can be interpreted in two ways. One: we can read it as “we went out [”¦] together like we had never fought”; this implies that they did fight, which would be true, but that they were working on settling their differences. Two: “like” could be a simple filler word, and we should read it as “we had never fought,” which would be false. I’m not sure which way she meant it, so I’ll leave it at that.
“There is no trace…”
It seems like Knox jumps to saying “there is no trace of us,” but the video posted online was edited, and not very smoothly. You can see the transition, so she must have said this after additional remarks or in response to a different question. Hence, the fact that it seems random isn’t probably her fault.
It’s interesting in itself though because it’s another instance of her lying about verifiable facts (see judges’ reports and the numerous posts regarding forensic evidence). Also, it’s an important statement in conjunction with the infamous quote about Meredith’s “broken body” because it once again equates lack of evidence with innocence, rather than directly stating innocence.
“If Guede committed…”
This is perhaps the most controversial part of the interview and also the part which ties things together (the idea of legal innocence and the objectification of Meredith).
If Rudy Guede”¦committed this crime”¦which he did”¦we know that because his DNA is there”¦on the”¦on Meredith’s body, around Meredith’s body. His hand prints and foot prints in her blood. None of that exists for me and if I were there, I would have had traces of”¦Meredith’s broken body on me”¦and I would have left traces of myself”¦.around”¦around Meredith’s corpse”¦.and I”¦I am not there”¦and that proves my innocence.
She starts her response with something which is both incredibly revealing and absolutely shocking for someone who claims innocence - “If Rudy Guede committed this crime.”
I don’t think anyone has questioned Guede’s involvement in this murder, even if the precise extent of it remains unclear, and the two have partially built their defense around the lone wolf scenario. Also, since Guede’s verdict was issued and confirmed years ago, Knox does not need to pussyfoot around his status for fear of slander charges.
Knox is not talking about Guede’s involvement in general terms, however. She’s explicitly referring to him actually committing the crime (i.e. inflicting the lethal wounds). Her hesitation betrays the fact that she doesn’t believe he did.
Of course, she catches herself: “which he did “¦ we know that because his DNA is there.” It’s interesting she has to point out how she knows this ““ from reading the evidence, certainly, not from being there and therefore knowing for a fact that he participated in the assault, but not in the actual murder.
“On the… Meredith’s body”
Next, we have another instance of objectification: “”¦on the”¦on Meredith’s body, around Meredith’s body.” Perhaps she wanted to say “on the corpse” and thought it might be a bit inconsiderate, so she switches to the more neutral “body,” only to use the implied word a few sentences later. However, what’s striking about it is that she thinks of Meredith as a body, not as a person.
I want you to think about the time you lost a friend or a family member, regardless of circumstances. Did you ever think of them as a body, or did you continue to think of them as they were in life, even if you had to identify them or take care of funeral arrangements? I’m not asking this rhetorically, by the way.
When my father died (rather suddenly, but due to illness), it never ever crossed my mind to think of him as a body, but perhaps circumstances alter perceptions. I’ve also read numerous things written by Meredith’s friends and family, and they always refer to her as “Meredith” or “Mez.” To them, she never stopped being a person because they loved her, and diminishing her would have been inconceivable.
I think it’s far more likely that the word “body” will appear in a military, medical, or anthropological context, in which there is no personal connection between the observer and the dead. We may use this word ourselves when talking about the crime scene, but it’s rather telling that we use her name far more often than someone who actually knew her in life.
I can’t know what Knox felt about Meredith, but there is no indication it was positive. The clinical and graphic manner in which she refers to “Meredith’s body,” “broken body,” and “corpse” betrays an obstinate refusal to acknowledge her as a person. Why, if Meredith was indeed her friend as she insists?
For one, it suggests that Knox actually saw Meredith being transformed into a “body” and that this image stuck with her. Let’s not forget that Knox never saw Meredith after the latter was discovered; based on the statements of the other people present in the cottage, she was not near the door when it was broken open, and she was also not asked to identify Meredith.
The only way an innocent Knox could have seen Meredith after her death would have been in photographs presented in court. There is no doubt that such photographs can be disturbing and upsetting, but I don’t think they can supplant memories of actual experiences.
Secondly, it’s a form of denying someone’s personhood and of expressing power and domination. A murderer can literally deprive someone of personhood ““ an act which they may feel triumphant about, especially if the person was a source of distress in life. I can’t help feeling that Knox is gloating when she mentions Meredith’s body.
Thirdly, refusing to name the victim and to refer to her as a person is a way of preventing her from taking center stage. While Knox has repeatedly complained about the media attention she has received, both she and her campaign have fought really hard to marginalize and displace Meredith in an attempt to replace the tragedy of the latter’s death with the supposed tragedy of Knox’ unwarranted imprisonment.
It must be disappointing when someone you’ve risked everything to eliminate continues stealing your thunder, so Knox isn’t letting us forget the actual state of things: she is there, in a TV studio, enjoying the luxury of being an “I,” while Meredith has been reduced to an “it” ““ a broken body.
The words she uses to refer to Meredith, whether graphic or macabre, suggest disgust with the physicality of death. Perhaps Knox just wanted Meredith to go away forever and found it difficult to deal with the aftermath of a violent murder.
“None of that exists…”
Returning to the issue of legal innocence, Knox claims that Guede’s hand and foot prints were identified, while “none of that exists for me”; also, “I would have left traces of myself”¦.around”¦around Meredith’s corpse.”
These are further lies, since a size 36-38 foot print was identified, and Knox was the only one it could have belonged to. There were also five mixed DNA spots (comingled blood from both women), which, just because they were not right next to Meredith’s body, cannot be dismissed.
The crime scene covers the entire house as far as the police and the court are concerned. How anyone else defines the crime scene is of no consequence at all.
“[”¦] if I were there, I would have had traces of”¦Meredith’s broken body on me,” she says next. This is, of course, an impossible scenario since Meredith was discovered long hours after her death and it was days before police looked at her.
In the meantime, a clean up had unquestionably taken place, and Knox herself admits to having showered (perhaps not in the morning as she wrote in her email, but earlier that night). Also, Knox was initially considered a witness, not a suspect, and her person and clothes were not immediately swabbed by the scientific police.
She’s trying to make it sound like no traces were discovered on her, but in fact no one tested for this and no one can prove it either way.
“I am not there…”
She continues: “I”¦I am not there”¦and that proves my innocence.” By “I am not there,” she means that incriminating traces were not found at the scene, not that she wasn’t there on that night. Note the difference between “I am innocent,” which she does not say, and “[the lack of evidence] proves my innocence.”
In other words, she’s insisting on legal innocence, but doesn’t actually confirm her factual innocence. The problem with that is since she’s lying about the factual evidence, it’s difficult to take her legal innocence claim seriously.
“Possible to win…”
At the end of the interview, she says, “I truly believe it is possible to win this and to bring”¦to bring an end to all of the speculation and the nonsensical theories and really bring peace to everyone who has suffered from this experience.”
The use of the word “win” here is peculiar, to say the least. It’s consistent with her competitive attitude towards Meredith, for one ““ killing her and getting away with it, regardless of the sacrifices made on the way, would constitute a sort of victory, I suppose.
It also has the implication of “winning the case,” which we may expect from a lawyer or someone for whom this is a professional, rather than personal undertaking. A wrongfully accused and imprisoned person has nothing to win in the end, considering the traumas they suffered; the most they can hope for is recognition and vindication.
She is correct, however, that it’s possible to end the speculation and theories. However, that would require her, Sollecito, or Guede to tell the truth about what happened on that night. In this, she has full agency ““ this is not something that can be done for her, but something which she needs to do herself.
Other than that, the “speculation and nonsensical theories” refers to the judges’ reports, in addition to lay commentary; her problem is that saying something is “nonsensical” doesn’t automatically render it so in the absence of arguments and proof (none of which she or her defense have been able to provide).
“Peace to everyone…”
“[”¦] really bring peace to everyone who has suffered from this experience” ““ this has to be one of the blindest and most self-centered things Knox has ever said about the case.
For one, it’s doubtful that a favorable verdict would even bring peace to her and Sollecito, since they will always know what they’ve done, even if they don’t have to fear imprisonment anymore. It might or might not bring peace to their families, who have already spent a fortune on their defense and whose trust has probably been shattered forever.
However, to imply that it would bring peace to Meredith’s family and friends is both presumptuous and contemptible.
Knox and her arrogant followers have, on numerous occasions, taken it upon themselves to speak for the Kerchers ““ how they should feel, what they should accept, etc. First pioneered by the contemptible Candace Dempsey, it is incredibly disrespectful to people who have suffered a great, irreplaceable, undeserved loss and who have done nothing wrong by pursuing justice for their loved one.
The fact that Knox and Sollecito have refused to confess for the past seven years has done nothing but prolong the suffering of Meredith’s family by denying them closure and the necessary space to mourn and heal.
Conclusions
what we have here is a number of outright lies, some distortions, and some false starts which help pinpoint what Knox believes, rather than what she says. What we don’t have is a plea for factual innocence, but an attempt to prove legal innocence by glossing over the evidence or dismissing it altogether, and by calling into question the judges’ professionalism. We also see no evidence of respect or compassion for Meredith, but rather an attempt to objectify and incorporate her in Knox’ own story.
My impression is that Knox does not believe the things she says herself and is struggling to maintain a front; that despite her coaching and experience with interviews, she is getting ahead of herself instead of simply reciting her lines, which denotes anxiety and conflict. I don’t believe she’s at peace with the murder at least, which hopefully means that at some point she might be inclined to confess.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Knox Interrogation Hoax #4: More Hard Realities From Rita Ficcara, Nervousness From Defense
Posted by Our Main Posters
1. Overview of this hoax series
Knox turned up at the central police station unwanted late on 5-6 Nov 2007 and briefly helped police with a list of seven names. Her version of this has morphed into a gigantic hoax.
One highly consistent version of the brief chat was testified to by all those officials present, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.
And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. Knox has done so in numerous interviews, in her 2013 book, on her website, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights. And the PR shills have done so on websites, on TV, in books, and in attempts to lobby the US federal government.
This version was repudiated several times by her smart Italian lawyers (though not by her foolish American lawyers) and they did next to nothing to try to verify it when questioning those officials at trial.
See a longer summary in Post #1 here.
2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra
Below is the examination of Inspector Rita Ficarra by Carlo Pacelli, Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer. Very tough stuff. Chronologically, this preceded the defense cross-examinations in posts #2 and #3 and may well have dampened them.
Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.
This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki.
Please click here for more
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Knox Interrogation Hoax #3: Timid Defense Pussyfooting Toward Rita Ficcara, Key Witness
Posted by Our Main Posters
([Amanda Knox’s lawyers Luciano Ghirga and Maria Del Grasso who questioned Rita Ficarra]
1. Overview of this hoax series
Knox turned up at the central police station unwanted late on 5-6 Nov 2007 and briefly helped police with a list of seven names. Her version of this has morphed into a gigantic hoax.
One highly consistent version of the brief chat was testified to by all those officials present, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.
And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. Knox has done so in numerous interviews, in her 2013 book, on her website, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights. And the PR shills have done so on websites, on TV, in books, and in attempts to lobby the US federal government.
This version was repudiated several times by her smart Italian lawyers (though not by her foolish American lawyers) and they did next to nothing to try to verify it when questioning those officials at trial.
See a longer summary in Post #1 here.
2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra
In our hoax series second post we quoted two cross-examinations of Rita Ficarra by Sollecito’s lead lawyers. Here we quote two more, by two of Knox’s lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, and Maria Del Grasso.
Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.
This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki.
Please click here for more
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Knox Interrogation Hoax #2: Trial Testimony From Rita Ficcara On Realities 5-6 Nov
Posted by Our Main Posters
1. Overview of this hoax series
Knox turned up at the central police station unwanted late on 5-6 Nov 2007 and briefly helped police with a list of seven names. Her version of this has morphed into a gigantic hoax.
One highly consistent version of the brief chat was testified to by all those officials present, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.
And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. Knox has done so in numerous interviews, in her 2013 book, on her website, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights. And the PR shills have done so on websites, on TV, in books, and in attempts to lobby the US federal government.
This version was repudiated several times by her smart Italian lawyers (though not by her foolish American lawyers) and they did next to nothing to try to verify it when questioning those officials at trial.
See a longer summary in Post #1 here.
2. The Testimony Of Inspector Rita Ficarra
Inspector Rita Ficarra was the one who initiated and led the discussion with Knox up to when Knox made her first statement, the first implicating Patrick Lumumba.
What follows is the cross-examination of Inspector Ficarra by the prosecution and all four cross-examining defense lawyers.
It would have been a really huge gain for the defenses at trial - a not-guilty verdict would have been almost guaranteed - if they had rattled Rita Ficarra and had her admit to Knox’s coercion. Especially by the supposed alternating tag teams. Especially of a Knox without food, drink, sleep, or breaks for the bathroom.
But note that in their cross-examinations NOT ONE defense lawyer even tried to go there. In their questioning of Rita Ficarra, that mundane scenario of the two brief sessions we describe above seems a given - their own sticking point.
Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.
This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki.
Please click here for more
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Knox Interrogation Hoax #1: Masterlist Of Posts Re Pre-Trial Events And Hoax Overview
Posted by Our Main Posters
Perugia Central Police Station at night (left-center)
1. Masterlist Of Posts In The Series
The Interrogation Hoax series will consist of a total of 24 posts.
These posts quote from a large number of transcripts only recently acquired and translated. There are no serious conflicts, no gray areas. One can assume with total certainty that this is the real thing (see Part 3 below), and that any other versions (see Part 4 below) are fabricated.
Numbering of posts 1-24 is not chronological, it represents the original order of postings.
1. What Happened At AK & RS Q&A Prior To 6 Nov
Click for Post: #19: ALL Knox Q&A Sessions 2-6 November 2007 WERE Recorded #1
Click for Post: #20: ALL Knox Q&A Sessions 2-6 November 2007 WERE Recorded #2
2. What Happened At Knox Q&A 6 Nov Ending 1:45 AM
Click for Post: #2: Trial Testimony From Rita Ficcara On Realities 5-6 Nov
Click for Post: #3: More Defense Pussyfooting Toward Rita Ficcara, Key Witness
Click for Post: #4: More Hard Realities From Rita Ficcara, More Nervousness From Defense
Click for Post: #12: Ficarra & Knox Notes PROVE Knox Merely Worked On Visitors Names List
Click for Post: #5: Key Witness Monica Napoleoni Confirms Knox Self-Imploded 5-6 Nov
Click for Post: #7: Testimony Of Witness Lorena Zugarini On The Knox Conniption 5-6 Nov
Click for Post: #8: Testimony Of Interpreter Donnino On Events Night Of 5 November
3. What Happened At Sollecito Q&A 6 Nov Ending 3:30 AM
Click for Post: #6: Sollecito Transcript & Actions Further Damage Knox Version
Click for Post: #9: Officer Moscatelli’s Recap/Summary Session With Sollecito 5-6 Nov
4. What Happened At Knox-Rights Session Ending 5:45am
Click for Post: #15: Knox Is Told Her Rights And Repeats Fake Murder Charge
5. What Of Relevance Happened In Ensuing Months
Click for Post: #13: The First Two Pre-Trial Opportunities Which Knox Flunked
Click for Post: #14: The Third Pre-Trial Opportunitty Which Knox Flunked
Click for Post: #16: The Fourth Pre-Trial Opportunity Which Knox Flunked
Click for Post: #17: Sollecito April 2008 Before Supreme Court Again Coldshoulders Knox
Click for Post:#18: The Final Pre-Trial Opportunities Which Knox Flunked
Click for Post: #21: Illustrating How Batshit Crazy The Interrogation Hoax Has Become
6. Why Investigators’ Version Won Hands-Down At Trial
Click for Post: #10: Why Prosecution And Defenses Never Believed Knox’s Version #1
Click for Post: #11: Why Prosecution And Defenses Never Believed Knox’s Version #2
2. Explaining Overall Arc Of Events
Much of the testimony listed above was about events at the central police station pre-arrest in early November 2007 and subsequent court attempts to achieve some believability and relief.
Early in 2009 at trial Knox and Sollecito sat glumly through all of the investigators’ pre-arrest testimony and cross-examination at trial. They were downhearted and apprehensive, and there were no smiles and few interruptions.
Subsequently Sollecito chose not to get on the stand, so from his team there really was never a rebuttal.
But Knox HAD to get on the stand, in July, for two days. She had no other way to defend herself against the serious felony crime of falsely framing Patrick for murder.
It was her word against theirs. It contradicted in many places what she had heard months earlier in sworn testimony from many investigators.
Knox’s version inevitably weakened a lot under cross-examination, and was ultimately a fail at trial and several appeals, even the annulled one.
Knox ended up serving three years. While on the stand she confirmed that she had been treated well, stiffing thousands of supporters duped into believing she had not been.
3. Explaining Court-Accepted Narrative For 6 Nov
This is an overview of Knox’s so-called “interrogation” at Perugia’s central police station, the subject of the first ten posts.
It led to her arrest and three years served. To make this picture really firm we will quote a lot of the testimony at trial. The Case Wiki carries all of these transcripts, many in English translation, and more.
Senior Inspector Rita Ficarra testified that she arrived back at the police station late on 5 November, and finds her way blocked by a cartwheeling Knox.
She rebukes Knox, who testily responds that she is tired of the investigation. Rita Ficarra tells Knox to go home and get some sleep. Knox testily refuses, and remains there.
Shortly after, Ficarra suggests to Knox that if she really wants to help, she could add to the list of possible perps - men who Meredith knew and who might have visited the house.
This was a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might or might not be of help. This could have been done on a street corner or in a house by a single officer. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. From the transcript:
Ghirga: “While this interrogation - let’s call it thus - was in progress, some colleagues arrive…” Ficarra: “It was not an interrogation, Attorney.” Ghirga: “They are called recaps/summaries.
Knox eagerly agrees. So they begin on the list.
This goes slowly because of language problems, until an interpreter, Anna Donnino, arrives. In total only Knox and four others (three of them women) are present.
Knox builds a list of seven people and adds maps and phone numbers (placed in evidence) in a calm proceeding. These were the names: Peter Svizzero, Patrick, Ardak, Juve, Spiros, Shaki and “a South African [Guede]” who played basketball near the house.
At several points in the evening Knox is provided with refreshments. No voices are ever raised, no bathroom breaks are refused.
In a separate wing Inspector Napoleoni and a couple of colleagues are seeking facts from Sollecito. Shown conflicts between what he has said and what his phone records show, Sollecito backtracks, and declares that Knox went out alone on the night, and made him lie.
Napoleoni moves through the questura to suggest to Ficarra to discuss the night of the attack with Knox in more detail and clarify who might have been present. Knox is not informed of Sollecito’s backtrack. She is asked for more names and spontaneously shares her phone. There is an outgoing to Patrick but no prior incoming. Knox is asked who Patrick is.
Suddenly, to the considerable surprise of others present, Knox has a yelling, head-clutching conniption (the first of several that night) and says “It’s him, it’s him, it was him, he killed her”. The session is halted.
Despite warnings she should not do so without a lawyer, Knox insists on a recorded statement which says she headed out to meet Patrick that night after he texted her. She accuses Patrick of killing Meredith.
Efforts are made throughout the next several hours to try to help Knox to calm down. Knox is put on hold, given more refreshments, and made comfortable on some chairs so she might try to get some sleep.
A second session ending at 5:45 is intended as merely a formal reading of Knox’s legal status and her right to a lawyer, with Dr Mignini presiding. She is to be held as a material witness and for her own protection.
Again warned that she should not speak without a lawyer, and no questions can be asked, Knox still insists on a second spontaneous accusation culminating in a second recorded statement.
This also says she went out to meet Patrick that night, also accuses Patrick of killing Meredith, and now also hints that Sollecito may have been there.
Just before noon, now under arrest and about to be taken to Capanne Prison, Knox insists on writing out at length a third statement this time in English.
She gleefully hands it to Rita Ficcara who cannot read it as she as no English. In the statement, Knox included this damning remark, without any mention of having been coerced: “The questions that need answering, at least for how I’m thinking are… 2. Why did I think of Patrik?”
Knox’s lawyers never ever substantially challenge this version, and never lodge any complaint. At trial in 2009 they accept on the record that there was no interrogation, and leave standing that Knox insisted on all three statements, and dont ever pursue Knox’s claims that she was coerced.
Courts all noted that there is no mention in that third note of Knox having been coerced, although this note was her idea and she could put in it anything she liked. From this there never was any going back.
In July 2009 at trial, in face of days and days of prior investigator testimony, Knox brashly tried to substitute this scenario above with the one below. Of course she was disbelieved.
For the calunnia framing of Patrick Lumumba Judge Massei in 2009 sentenced her to a year more than Sollecito, amended by Judge Hellmann in 2011 to three years served.
The Supreme Court definitively overruled her calunnia appeal so for her false framing of Patrick she is a felon for life.
4. Explaining Knox Family & PR Alternative
Knox’s Italian lawyers were not a part of this; in contrast the American PR lawyer Ted Simon sought to introduce major confusion.
In Italy, lawyers are REQUIRED to report tales of abuse of their clients or face possible criminal charges. Contrariwise, if they knowingly report false charges they can face similar charges. So what they do is a strong indicator of truth.
Amanda Knox’s lawyers not only did not ever report any abuse. They even announced publicly, in face of incessant claims of abuse by Knox, family, and PR forces, that they had seen no evidence of abuse and so would not be reporting.
Though her precise claims vary and often contradict one another, Knox herself has on and off ever since November 2007 tried to put the investigators on trial - tried to blame the police for causing her conniption and her false accusation of Patrick for the death of Meredith.
Her fail rate has been spectacular.
Knox failed to convince (1) Supervising Magistrate Matteini and (2) the Ricciarelli review panel in November 2007, (3) failed to convince Prosecutor Mignini in December 2007, (4) failed to convince the Supreme Court in April 2008, (5) failed to convince the Micheli court in late 2008, (6) failed to convince the judges and jury at trial 2009, (7) failed at annulled appeal 2011, (8) failed at repeat appeal 2013, (9) failed to convince the Supreme Court in 2012 and (10) failed again in 2015.
As Knox’s team simply did not ever believe her, they may not have given this their hardest shot. It was not part of their largely spurious complaint to the EC HR.
And yet despite all of these failures, the huge and very nasty Knox PR effort went full-bore ahead with the abuse allegations anyway.
Read this post of 11 February 2009 which was about two weeks before the Knox “interrogators” were cross-examined at trial, and several months before Knox herself took the stand. Dozens of media reports repeated the Knox claims as if true.
Knox repeated them in her April 2013 book, and her December 2013 email to Judge Nencini, and her appeal to EHCR Strasbourg, and in some TV and newspaper interviews, including one with the Italian weekly Oggi which caused that paper legal harm.
This version has been blown up by Knox PR shills in internet posts, articles, TV interviews, and books. Among others propagating it have been Raffaele Sollecito (in his book), Doug Preston, Saul Kassin, Steve Moore (especially), John Douglas, Jim Clemente, Paul Ciolino, Michael Heavey, Greg Hampikian, Chris Halkidis, Mark Waterbury, Doug Bremner, Candace Dempsey, Nina Burleigh, Bruce Fischer, and many posters on the Knox sites and Fischer sites and on Ground Report.
Main claims included 50-plus hours of “interrogation”, numerous officers in teams, no food or drink, no sleep, no bathroom breaks, no lawyer, no recording, and much abuse and yelling and suggestions and threats. Way beyond anything even Knox herself and notably her own lawyers ever claimed.
- Here is Steve Moore claiming that around a dozen cops in rotating tag teams of two assaulted a starving and sleepless Knox over 20/30/40 hours, threatened her, and refused her a lawyer throughout.
- Here is Saul Kassin claiming that Knox was interrogated over the entire night of 5-6 November, until she was finally broken and a coerced “confession” emerged - even though the “false confession” actually framed Patrick and was in reality a false accusation. That Kassin ignores.
- Here are several former FBI profilers blatantly embellishing the same claims in a book, with (today) 60 five-star reviews.
And yet Knox’s own Italian lawyers specifically denied her accusations! No complaint against the police was ever lodged. All courts disbelieved her. Knox served her three years. But still the PR-driven hoax keeps resounding.
Friday, May 09, 2014
Amanda Knox’s Awkward, Robotic TV Appearances: New Science Could Blow Away Such Fraud
Posted by Peter Quennell
In Italy the zillion or so Italians that Amanda Knox has framed are starting to push back on steroids in the Italian media and courts.
More on that coming up. Meanwhile Americans have been a tad less nimble to realize that they’ve swallowed a gigantic hoax.
Unsurprising, perhaps, given years of uniquely one-sided TV coverage of the case. But thanks to the good English-language reporters in Italy who have persevered. And thanks to CNN’s Nancy Grace for her biting segment this week, making it quite obvious where she stands on guilt.
Knox’s TV appearances and written statements are ringing more and more hollow as they lose all touch with reality. See our post immediately below. Such a brazen mangling of hard facts is absolutely absurd.
The professionals Vivianna and Friendofstfrank, main posters here, each have posts in the works for us on what they have been reading from Knox’s persona on the TV screen.
In the meantime, please check out these videos on the new science. Each is an hour long. They show just how hard it could get for any future Knoxes and Sollecitos to sustain a similar hoax in future.
Here’s an overview of the videos from the New York Times.
The program looks at how developments in neuroscience are affecting court cases and might do so even more radically in the future. It sets up a fictional trial involving a shooting during a convenience store robbery, cutting between courtroom scenes and visits with researchers and legal scholars who are working on the front edge of this world.
By mapping brain activity, scientists know quite a bit about which regions are involved with processes like facial recognition, as well as the differences between mature adult brains and the brains of young people. (The fictional shooting suspect is 18.) The program has segments on how this research might be applied to issues like determining whether a witness is correctly identifying someone, whether a defendant is lying about not having been at a particular location, even whether potential jurors have racial biases.
Researchers, able to see the implications of their work, are also already studying whether knowledgeable test subjects can subvert the technology, rigging test results by how they think or where they focus their eyes.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Judge Nencini Issues Harsh Warning To Tell The Truth - So Amanda Knox Does The Precise Opposite
Posted by Our Main Posters
1. Substance Of The Nencini Explanatory Report
The Florence Court of Appeals released the Nencini Motivations Report in Florence one week ago today.
This report explains the rejection of Knox’s and Sollecito’s own first appeal against the Massei trial outcome of 2009. Four years were lost because the Hellmann court, which heard the first iteration of that appeal was bent as Cassation, the competent judge displaced, and now Judge Nencini have all concluded.
The Hellmann outcome of 2011 was mostly annulled, as in “ceased to exist”. The main findings and verdict have zero legal standing, and zero relevance to today’s process though (see below) Knox and Sollecito repeatedly try to ride that dead horse again.
Cassation confirmed Knox’s three-year prison sentence for framing Patrick (for which she has served the time). And Cassation referred the methods and recommendations of the Conti & Vecchiotti consultancy, which Cassation had hammered on legal grounds, to the Florence appeal court for the substance to be reviewed.
Our evidence and law experts here and in Italy have been looking at Judge Nencini’s 347 page report and find it hard-hitting and unequivocally blunt.
It will be extremely hard to appeal against within the very narrow limits Cassation allows. It removes all of Judge Massei’s ambiguities about motives, it reaffirms the witness statements of Curatolo and Quintavalle, and it judicially affirms the validity of the DNA and other forensic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
There is overwhelming proof of the presence of all three perps, Knox, Sollecito and Guede, in the cottage that night. Guede is considered to have been brought inside by Knox, who had the only key, and he could not possibly have broken in through Filomena Romanelli’s window in the manner asserted by their defense.
Especially troubling for the defense, the report hints at an illegal suborning of the independent forensic experts appointed by the Hellmann court, and it also hints that the two “supergrass” witnesses, the prisoners Aviello and Alessi, may have been illegally tampered with by Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, as first claimed 30 months ago.
The report warns that criminal slander of justice officials and other contempts of court will be heavily leaned on.
So the report demolishes the last remnants of Judge Claudio Hellmann’s now annulled acquittal, and substitutes for its fatally flawed reasoning a tightly crafted report that confirms the convictions of Knox and Sollecito.
It confirms that they acted in concert with Guede as Cassation itself long ago concluded had to be the case, and it appears to close any possible argument against the verdict that will carry weight at the Supreme Court.
2. Amanda Knox’s Press-Release Statement In Response
Knox issued a seven paragraph statement later the same day. Maybe not the smartest bit of work.
It is riddled with factual inaccuracies and innuendo, is typically arrogant and condescending in tone, includes the trademark racial innuendos about Italians and the black guy in the case, and shows no signs in its compiling of competent legal help.
Here below we show the various ways in which Knox flouts Judge Nencini’s warning and attempts to mislead. None of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: The Hellmann Court Found Knox “Innocent”
I have stated from the beginning of this long ordeal that I am innocent of the accusations against me. I was found innocent by the only court in Italy that retained independent forensic experts to review my case. I want to state again today what I have said throughout this process: I am innocent of the accusation against me, and the recent motivation document does not ““ and cannot ““ change the fact of my innocence.
First even if she was provisionally released following the now-annulled appeal, Amanda Knox was never, repeat never, found innocent. Only Cassation can make that final ruling, and they strongly found against the lower court that had jumped the tracks midway-through.
Even Judge Hellman himself said after his verdict that ‘the truth might be otherwise’ and suggested any reasonable doubt as to guilt has not been categorically and legally dismissed. He seemed to divine that he had failed in his task of bending the outcome in a way that would stay bent.
Second the court that Knox thinks found her innocent no longer exists as a legal fact. It seems to endemically escape Knox that the Hellmann outcome was annulled. Annulled. As in: wiped off the books. It is surprising that even Curt Knox and Ted Simon and David Marriott, while admittedly themselves no masters of Italian law, cannot help Knox to grasp that simple fact. It weakens her to keep clinging to a myth.
One reason it was annulled (and the reasons were overwhelming, one of Italy’s most decisive annullments ever) was that both Cassation and Dr Nencini had good reason to suspect the Hellmann court had been corrupted and had deliberately departed from the evidence and the law. Knox needs to ask herself why the highly qualified Judge Chiari was pushed aside (and immediately resigned in anger) in favor of a wrongly-qualified business judge (who is now ignominiously retired).
Third, it needs to be grasped by Knox that the Conti/Vecchiotti consultancy, far from being legally right and acting independently (and scientifically), was suggested as illegal by Perugia’s chief prosecutor Dr Galati, as appeal judges are forbidden from appointing consultants at that stage. While Cassation passed in ruling on that one, the consultancy outcome was criticised as illogical and legally unsound by both Cassation and Judge Nencini, as biased, full of baseless innuendo about contamination, and possibly tampered with by an American academic hired by the defense.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: Only Rudy Guede’s DNA Was Found
The recent motivation document does not ““ and cannot ““ change the forensic evidence: experts agreed that my DNA was not found anywhere in Meredith’s room, while the DNA of the actual murderer, Rudy Guede, was found throughout that room and on Meredith’s body. This forensic evidence directly refutes the multiple-assailant theory found in the new motivation document. This theory is not supported by any reliable forensic evidence.
The forensic evidence is not just the DNA on the knife or in the room. It also includes the extensive traces deposited by Knox in the rest of the crime scene (bathroom, corridor and Filomena’s bedroom), and it also includes all of the autopsy.
Meredith’s room itself was not comprehensively tested for DNA. The room was dusted only for fingerprints, as the investigators had to make a call on prints or DNA.
Guede’s DNA was not found “throughout that room” or all over Meredith’s body. Guede’s DNA was found only in one instance on Meredith’s body, on a part of Meredith’s bra, mixed with Meredith’s blood on a sweatshirt cuff and the purse, and on toilet paper in a bathroom.
Knox’s DNA was found mixed with the blood of Meredith in multiple places, the only known source for which was the pool of blood in Meredith’s bedroom: multiple prints of Knox’s bare right foot in the hallway and in Knox’ bedroom, and at least five instances of mixed samples containing the DNA of both Meredith and Knox, including in the north bathroom and Filomena’s room, places where Guede did not go.
The court ruled that the blood and mixed DNA evidence found throughout the crime scene places her and Sollecito there at the time of the murder at the same time as Rudy Guede.
Though not DNA, there was one bloody shoe print in Meredith’s bedroom estimated to be Euro size 36-38, compatible with Knox size 37 and with no one else known of who could have left it there.
No fingerprints of anyone were found in the room, just a palmprint of Rudy Guede. Fingerprints were not found even on Knox’s own lamp, which she only confirmed grudgingly at trial was her own, and not found even in Knox’s own bedroom. Overwhelming sign of a cleanup? The courts all believed so.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: The Knife As Murder Weapon Was Disproved
The forensic evidence also directly refutes the theory that the kitchen knife was the murder weapon: the court-appointed independent experts confirmed that neither Meredith’s blood nor her DNA was on the alleged murder weapon, which experts also agreed did not match the stab wounds or the bloody imprint of a knife on her pillow.
Judge Nencini’s finding is that two knives HAD to have been involved from both side of Meredith’s throat and the final blow was by a large knife the same size as the one in evidence.
Regarding the large knife, Knox rehashes the same arguments her defense made to no avail before the original trial court that found her guilty. We posted explaining the solid proof here and here.
The only DNA tests that matter with regard to the big knife are (1) the sound finding by Dr Stefanoni that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade - Knox is wrong, the independent experts did not refute that; (2) the sound findings by Dr Stefanoni and the Carabinieri lab that Knox’s DNA was on both the blade and the handle of the knife. None were overturned; contamination was ruled out; and the defense was left without a shot.
The Hellmann-appointed experts confirmed that the genetic profile found on the knife blade was the genetic profile of Meredith Kercher. The TMB test did not confirm if it was blood, but defense experts were forced to concede that TMB erroneously fails to confirm that blood is present about half the times in assessing minute quantities.
The Hellmann-appointed experts tried to explain away the genetic profile as being the result of contamination, but were never able to identify any scenario by which a knife that had supposedly never left Sollecto’s kitchen contained biological material yielding a clear genetic profile of Meredith Kercher.
Accordingly the Appeals court has ruled the kitchen knife is in fact the one that was wielded by her to strike a final blow, and at the same time there was a second knife in the room used by Sollecito to torture Meredith.
London DNA expert Dr David Balding certified Raf’s DNA as being on the bra clasp. This proves by itself that Sollecito was there. Knox belatedly claimed she stayed at the Via Garibaldi apartment with Sollecito all evening and now and then Sollecito belatedly backs her up. But how could that be if the court has positives of his footprint on the bathroom rug and on the bra, showing he was over at Meredith’s cottage that night? Proof of him present equals proof of her.
The Hellmann-appointed experts were not charged with analyzing the stab wounds, or whether the imprint on a sheet was of a knife or of something else and the result of the fabric being folded - nor was this within their field of expertise. Defense experts testifying on these issues were in conflict.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: The Circumstantial Evidence Is “Unreliable”
In fact, in the prior proceeding in which I was found innocent, the court specifically concluded that the forensic evidence did not support my alleged participation in the crime and further found that the circumstantial evidence was both unreliable and contrary to a conclusion of guilt.
The recent motivation document does not ““ and cannot ““ change the fact that the forensic evidence still does not support my participation and the circumstantial evidence still remains unreliable and contrary to the conclusion of guilt.
Knox appeals to Hellmann’s ruling on the circumstantial evidence being unsound. But the Supreme Court, in annulling Hellmann, explained why it found his arguments illogical, and reminded the court of the standards by which circumstantial evidence must form a coherent whole. Judge Nencini in our opinion amply meets those standards in an elegantly argued report which will be hard to defeat at Rome’s Supreme Court.
Knox herself has proved the “unreliable” one, proven over and over again to be a liar who attests to her own bad memory in written statements, who talks of “dreams her mind made up”, who repeatedly goes vague.
We cannot rely on Knox’s recall of phoning mom, the timing of which moves and sometimes disappears. Knox claims she can’t remember where she was that night, she told a whopper of a lie on her boss, she can’t remember if the door to Filomena’s room was open or closed, she can’t remember her own lamp, she claims she rarely looks at a clock. On and on.
The strongest example of circumstantial evidence Knox can’t shake is the five spots of her DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood. Maybe 2 or 3 spots could be put down to unlucky chance, but five really removes reasonable doubt.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: No “Legitimate” Motive Is Identified
And the recent motivation document does not ““ and cannot ““ identify any legitimate motive for my alleged involvement in this terrible crime. No fewer than three motives have been previously advanced by the prosecution and by the courts. Each of these theories was as unsupported as the purported motive found in the new motivation document, and each of these alleged motives was subsequently abandoned by the prosecution or the courts. Like the prior “motives”, the latest “motive” in the new motivation document is not supported by any credible evidence or logic. There is simply no basis in the record or otherwise for this latest theory.
“Proof” of motive is not required in any legal system in the world. The serial misleader Ted Simon should at least admit to that. The motives advanced were not withdrawn or abandoned by successive judges; they were fine-tuned chronologically only within very narrow limits. The sex hazing that went too far was weighted downward and pushed back, and a battle over theft of money was weighted upward and pushed forward.
The court found very compelling evidence that Knox committed the murder and led the pack. It postulates that Meredith and Amanda were incompatible with each other, and that Knox, Sollecito and Guede, high on drugs, first assaulted Meredith, restrained and abused her, and then murdered her with two knives.
Knox was known to be in serious rejection by those she encountered in Perugia for her sharp-elbowed brashness - growing rejection by her flatmates, her employer and the bar customers, and just about everyone she encountered except initially for Sollecito. But soon even he was being given a hard time and has semi-rejected Knox in return ever since. The first words of his 8 November 2007 statement to Judge Matteini were “I wish to not see Amanda ever again.”
And money was a huge looming problem which could have had her back in Seattle in weeks. Knox was known to want to head for China, and was known locally to have an expensive drug habit which had cut her savings in half. She really needed to hang on to that job at Patrick’s bar, especially as she had no work permit.
Sollecito’s bank balance was minimally topped up by his father each month. Francesco seemed to realise cocaine is an expensive habit and didnt want to see his son off down that slippery slope. So with Knox’s own habit, her remaining savings would have run out in weeks. How then to explain to Curt Knox that she really needed a whole lot more? He would have given her a very hard time before any more money flowed.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: The Supreme Court Will Allow Another Full Appeal
I will now focus on pursuing an appeal before the Italian supreme court. I remain hopeful that the Italian courts will once again recognise my innocence. I want to thank once again, from the bottom of my heart, all of those””family, friends, and strangers””who have supported me and believe in my innocence.
Cassation wont “once again” recognise innocence. Knox should be encouraged to get real. So should her dummy followers - all her immediate circle know she was involved. There are no obvious grounds for Cassation to second-guess Judge Nencini, a very senior and very respected judge, considering the thoroughness of the Nencini Report. The disjointed series of statements on her blog arguing to the contrary look like the opinions of her friends and fans, not legal minds, and it is time she realizes they have feet of sand and no power to help.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Three lawyers and five others supplied the rebuttals for Amanda Knox’s false claims here and elsewhere, such as Knox’s email to Judge Nencini and her interviews on TV. Posts on those follow soon. Below: the careful way in which Italian media explain what Judge Nencini released.