![](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.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Knox Testimony Does Not Seem To Have Gained Much Traction Here In Italy
Posted by Fiori
Posting from Florence (image below) where we have all been watching Knox testify in Italian.
I don’t believe her. It is interesting to see Amanda Knox being cool and self-confident, but testifying about how disturbed she became when the police became pushy during her interrogation. It doesn’t fit.
And it comes across as untrustworthy and contradictory that when asked about her drug use, she puts on a “schoolgirl”’ attitude: In effect “Sorry, daddy judge, I was bad, don’t punish me for being young”. This seems definitely out of order with the rest of her performance.
“Performance” is the impression I get from viewing the segments shown from the court - a well-rehearsed performance. I suppose that the jury will wonder how this cool person can forget whether she has replied to a sms-message, how she can get so confused that she names Patrick, afterwards “is too afraid to speak to anyone but her mother”, and so on.
Most striking is that Amana Knox’s defence seems to stick firmly to the strategy of “mistreatment”; in effect that the only reason for AK being arrested is false statements produced under “illegal” pressure from the police.
By making “the ethics of police interrogation” the core question of her testimony, the defence - probably deliberately - creates a lot of associations to recent public debates of torture and interrogation techniques applied at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq.
By doing so they seem to want to try to turn the jury’s attention away from the point that AK knowingly participated in a murder investigation, and that any person with her intelligence will know that anyone who is called as a witness is required to show respect for the authorities - regardless of their nationality!
With reference to a variety of public materials from the US (“48 Hours” by CBS and many other reports), the way in which the Italian police have conducted Knox’s interview does not significantly differ from similar type interrogations made by US police. (This is not a stamp of approval, but removes the reason for any serious critique of the conduct of the Italian police.)
Her calmness and cool attitude, including her performing in two languages, does not, in my view - contrary to what the defence and her father expect - help to bring about an image of “another Amanda Knox” or a “more true Amanda Knox”.
Mostly her performance seems to contribute to shaping her image as complex, manipulative, intelligent, attention-seeking, and with only vaguely defined limits of identity.
Trial: The UK’s ITN News Posts A Video Report On Trial Events
Posted by Peter Quennell
Trial: The BBC Posts Video Of Defendant Arriving For Today’s Cross-Examination
Posted by Peter Quennell
Trail: Newsweek Reports On Friday’s Testimony By The Defendant
Posted by Peter Quennell
Click above for Barbie Nadeau’s Friday report from Perugia.
Trial: Nick Pisa Files An Overview Report For Sky News
Posted by Peter Quennell
Now 5:00 pm Italy time. Nothing new so far from the UK media sources.
Even the Italian reporting is slowed now as they try to provide historical context, and we are still seeing reports of the claimed night at Sollecito’s. There should be a good description soon of Amanda Knox on the morning after at her house.
This is intensely difficult material for the reporters to write up, because every fact and timeline now offered has a history in itself. The reporters sometimes know the history but it is tough to write up on the fly.
There are two things to look forward to here later today.
- Poster Nicki will post late but extensively from Italy on what the Italian media - and public - are now saying.
- And Andrea Vogt and Ann Wise will presumably be filing their usual excellent end-of-the-day reports.
Want to try your hand at Google translation? They are not fully satisfactory but certainly much better than nothing.
Click here for a Google News roundup of all stories in Italian. Important: click top left on the Past Hour or Past Day for the very latest.
Click here to cut and paste articles into Google Translation. They will emerge in 5-10 seconds in rough English.
We have quite a few speakers of Italian in the group, by the way, and three or four posters in Italy, but good translation does consume time.
Trial: Associated Press Reporting Testy Exchanges In Court
Posted by Peter Quennell
Click above for the report.
In a testy exchange, Mignini questioned Knox’s assertion that interrogators had extracted false statements from her by bullying her, calling her a “stupid liar” and even hitting her on the head at one point.
Knox gave a description of hours of questioning in which she said that she was told that if she did not tell the truth they would “throw me in jail for 30 years.”
Defence lawyers repeatedly objected during Mignini’s examination, accusing him of badgering the witness and asking her leading questions.
Mignini focused on Knox’s assertions that her false statements—notably, that her part-time employer Patrick Lumumba was the killer—were the result of “suggestions” during aggressive police questioning.
“Was Patrick’s name indicated after they saw (her SMS) message (to Lumumba) or just like that?” Mignini asked, sparking a heated row with the defence team that judge Giancarlo Massei had difficulty quelling.
Knox said she became so confused after “a steady crescendo ... of ‘I don’t know,’ ‘you’re a stupid liar,’ ‘maybes,’ and ‘imagines’ that ... I was led to believe I had forgotten things.”
She added: “When I said ‘Patrick’ I actually started to imagine a kind of movie, images that could have explained the situation, Patrick’s face, then (Perugia’s) Grimana square, then my house” on the night of the murder.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Trial: Sky News Italy Video Of The Defendant’s Opening Statement Today
Posted by Peter Quennell
This is the court CCTV camera feed to the press-room, which is legitimate for the reporters there to capture.
Trial: Andrea Vogt Reports Knox’s Recounting Of The Night
Posted by Peter Quennell
Click above for Andrea Vogt’s story on the Seattle PI website.
She described how the two spent the night of Kercher’s death at Sollecito’s house, checking her e-mail, reading Harry Potter in German, smoking pot, watching “Amelie” and making love, before going to sleep.
Forensic experts have testified that Kercher’s blood mixed with Knox’s blood were found in the bathroom and back bedroom of the apartment they shared.
Knox herself said she arrived at her apartment the next morning to see the door wide open and drops of blood, which she thought “strange,” but assumed one of her roommates had left in a hurry or was having menstrual issues. She took out her earrings (she had recently had multiple piercings and one was infected) on the sink, then took a shower, scooting from the bathroom to her bedroom on the bathmat, which she also noticed was stained with blood.
Prosecutors have argued that the footprint on the bathmat made in Kercher’s blood, is compatible with Sollecito’s footprint. Knox and Kercher’s DNA was also found on a kitchen knife believed to be the alleged murder weapon.
Concerned by feces left in the second bathroom’s toilet, she went to fetch Sollecito. When roommates, friends and the police arrived and knocked down Kercher’s door, she heard her roommate cry out “a foot, a foot!”
The group of friends all got into a car to warm up and talked about what police were saying might have happened. Upset and in shock, she cried then, she said, as Sollecito held and consoled her.
Trial: Knox Claimed Not To Have Been At The House On The Night
Posted by Peter Quennell
New York’s Daily News from various wire services.
Knox said she last saw Kercher on the afternoon of Nov. 1. Knox testified the two talked about what they had done the night before “” a Halloween night out “” and Knox said Kercher still had a bit of her vampire makeup on, the AP reports.
Knox went on to say Sollecito then arrived at the house; he and Knox had something to eat while Kercher remained in her room.
“She left her room, said ‘bye,’ walked out the door,” Knox said, who switched from speaking English to Italian. “That was the last time I saw her.”
Her testimony on the stand was markedly different than the statement she gave police days after her roommate was found dead.
Originally Knox claimed to have been at the house she shared with Kercher on the night of the murder. She later retracted that story and said she was not there.
Sollecito flip-flopped on his story as well. He had told police he was at his apartment watching a movie with Knox and she spent the night with him. Later, he claimed to not remember if she had spent the night.
Defendant Testifies: Is This A Prosecutor’s Dream Come True?
Posted by Arnold_Layne
To my knowledge, in the past when Amanda has spoken on her own behalf she was not challenged by the prosecution. Friday will be different. On Friday, she will be asked to reconcile discrepancies in her statements. She will not be a sworn-in witness so it is not clear which lines of questioning will be allowed but the prosecutor will certainly try to impeach her. If she is a psychopath, things could get knarly.
You’ve all seen it many times on crime shows. On cross examination, the witness offers some testimony, for example, the fact that she has never been married. The lawyer then asks to offer into evidence a marriage certificate. Reducing the credibility of a witness in this fashion is known as impeaching the witness. There are special rules that apply which allow the attorney to ask questions not normally allowed. To discredit a claim made by the witness, the prosecutor could, for example, enter new evidence not presented previously during the prosecution phase of the trial. The jury is then instructed to use the evidence only as it reduces the credibility of the witness but to ignore it when otherwise considering the guilt or innocence. That’s expecting a lot.
One characteristic of a psychopath is the ability to lie with facility. This does not mean the ability to spin a yarn or to make up a good story. Most of us can do this. It also doesn’t mean that the lie is particularly bad (a boldface lie). When asked a question when the truth is not going to yield a desirable outcome, most of us will pause a little, maybe lift our eyes upward, as we weigh the consequences of the lie. Someone who can lie with facility speaks the lie as fast as they would the truth and with the same conviction.
The problem, of course, is that without the pause there is no weighing of the implications of the lie. There is little checking for consistency. In social situations this can easily be maneuvered around by saying something along the lines of, “Aw, I was just jokin’”. Guede adjusted his story to meet the facts as they emerged. Amanda now also knows the evidence against her and she’s had plenty of time to create a story to match it. She will be on stable ground here as the Judge and jury weigh her statements against those put forth by the prosecution. This is a good reason to only have one of the two defendants testify. They can’t trip each other up.
Cross, on the other hand, is going to be a minefield for her. Not only will the prosecution point out discrepancies but they will challenge her on them and she will be under pressure to correct them. She will be up against a trial lawyer’s strong suit. Mignini will be trying to impeach her. If she steps on one of his mines, she will probably step on many ““ and he’ll be laying even more as she speaks.
Other incendiaries include her basking in the attention and notoriety she is getting. Additionally, she is a creative writer. Who can say what this might lead her to say if she strays from the straight and narrow.
I give her credit for doing this but I certainly don’t envy her. I can’t say that I have ever done anything tougher myself. I wouldn’t eat for two days, just as a precautionary measure. Btw “can you smoke on the witness stand?” I’d bring a carton, of Luckies.