Saturday, October 11, 2014

Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #1

Posted by Machiavelli, Catnip, Kristeva

A view of Capanne Prison where this interview was done

1. What Had Already Happened Prior To This Interview

How much serious questioning was Knox subjected to prior to this voluntary interview six weeks after her arrest?

In fact, none. In the early days of November, after Meredith was found dead, she had several less-formal “recap/summary” sessions with investigators on possible leads (as did many others), which the defenses conceded without argument at trial were simply that and no more.

Early on 6 November 2007 at Perugia’s central police station, Knox had headed off down a slippery slope, from which nearly seven years later she is still trying to crawl back.

It was recorded at the arrest hearing before Judge Matteini on 9 November that her newly-appointed lawyers had told her not to say a word. But by the end of that November alone the ever-talkative Knox had come out with ten-plus differing statements, and in early December she came out with even more.

The ten-plus differing November statements included an email to many in Seattle, two voluntary statements she insisted upon making early on 6 November, and another around noon; two letters she wrote to her lawyers dated 9 November, a daily diary which she began writing on 9 November in Capanne (partly in Italian, apparently beamed at police, prosecutors and judges, as she left it in her cell after she was warned the cell needed to be searched), several recordings of conversations with her parents in Capanne (into which the Supreme Court read a great deal), a letter to Raffaele Sollecito dated 22 November and another to Madison Paxton around six days later.

None of her statements prior to 17 December had helped her and several had dropped her in deeper. In some Knox was not simply in defiant denial mode all of the time about any role in attacking Meredith. In some she seems hard on herself for things she had done including the framing of Patrick, though she never wound hat back.  In Capanne Prison her parents had shushed her to be quiet just when she seemed to be coming clean, as she seems close to doing so here. 

2. Our Joint Translation Of This Extremely Crucial Interview

This interview by Dr Mignini at Capanne Prison was eagerly agreed to by Knox, possibly seeing this as her last best chance to get herself off the hook and to avoid remaining locked up.  This lasted about three hours, until Knox’s lawyers interrupted to got her to clam up.

Despite the many false claims about “interrogations” to the contrary, this was Knox’s first-ever in-depth interview. It was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini as prosecutor appointed to the case - as we have shown he asked Knox no questions on 5-6 Nov. 

All of the trial judges and appeal judges and lay judges had clearly studied this document hard. Also prosecutors and the Knox and Sollecito defense counsel periodically refer to it.

Knox’s lawyers were Luciano Ghirga and Giancarlo Costa who soon after departed from Knox’s team for mysterious reasons rumored as being that he saw guilt. (Giancarlo Costa is not even mentioned in Knox’s book; if that isnt suspicious, what it?).

Knox very much mischaracterizes this interview in her book Waiting To Be Heard (2013) but has never seriously been called on that so far, because there was no English transcript. 

We need to forewarn you that this is not a trial transcript but a transcript of a suspect interview over which Dr Mignini presided, requested to be put fully into Italian (many of Knox’s words were in English) by Knox’s defense team. That is why sometimes you will read the interpreter translating Knox (and the Italian speakers present to her) and sometimes not.

3. Our Translation Of Approximately The First 40 Minutes

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

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

On the day of 17.12.2007 At the Perugia Prison

Those Present:

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

Translation Into Italian

For the transcription of this Statement, the declarations made by Ms Knox have been translated by Prof Dr Alesssandro Clericuzio. The statement is transcribed in 100 numbered pages from number 1 to number 100. [page numbers shown in square brackets here]  (signed)  Technical Consultant Rosanna Siesto

[Note by our translation team. In the Italian, the header on each page consists of: “Statement of information supplied by Ms Amanda Knox, assisted by the interpreter Julia Clemesh. In the statement, the phrases reported and pronounced in the language of Amanda Knox have been translated by the Technical Consultant Dr Alessandro Clericuzio.” and the administrative annotations “Crim. Proc. n. 9066/07” and “Of the day 17 December 2007”.  The footer on each page carries the annotations: “Technical Consultant Rosanna Siesto”, “Interpreter Dr Alessandro Clericuzio” and the page number.]

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

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

Interpreter: Yes.

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

Knox: My name is Amanda Knox.

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

Knox: Born in Seattle.

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

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

PM Mignini: What date sorry? The”¦

Knox: The 9th July ‘87.

PM Mignini: 9 July ‘87. Resident at?

Knox: Here?

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

Knox: 37th Avenue”¦ a pen”¦

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

Knox: Yes but I prefer to speak in English.

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

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

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

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

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

PM Mignini: Can you dictate it for the”¦

Interpreter: How to spell it?

PM Mignini: They call me Foxi Noxi.

Knox: Only when I play soccer.

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

Knox: I’m a student.

Interpreter: Yes, student.

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

Knox: I’ve finished high school.

Interpreter: She hasn’t graduated yet.

PM Mignini: High school diploma.

Interpreter: Yes senior high yes.

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

Knox: Yes.

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

Knox: Yes.

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

Knox: No.

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

Knox: No.

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

Knox: No.

Interpreter: The second question instead?

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

Lawyer: I would like that you explained”¦

PM Mignini: But is that a crime?

Lawyer: No administrative.

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

Knox: Yes

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

Knox: For having made noise

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

Knox: No

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

Interpreter: In Italy right?

Knox: To the office of my lawyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knox: Yes

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

Knox: Innocent.

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

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

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

[8] Interpreter: This year?

Knox: Yes, for three days.

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

PM Mignini: And your sister is called?

Knox: Diana.

Interpreter: Diana

PM Mignini: And then?

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

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

PM Mignini: In Germany where?

Knox: Grunenwald near to Hamburg where my aunt lives.

Interpreter: Where her aunt lives near Hamburg.

PP Mignini: And your aunt is called?

Knox: Dolly which is the diminutive of Dorothy.

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

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

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

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

PM Mignini: Mezzetti?

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

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

PM Mignini: And it was only Laura there?

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

PM Mignini: Filomena Romanelli

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Meredith wasn’t there?

Knox: No

PM Mignini: Listen, do you use drugs?

Interpreter: Marijuana sometimes

Knox: I take marijuana

PP Mignini: Marijuana. Only marijuana?

Knox: In the form of hashish

Interpreter: Marijuana in the form of hashish

[10]  PM Mignini: No other substances?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

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

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

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

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

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: With Sollecito?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

Knox: With Raffaele yes

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

Knox: We shared a joint”¦

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

PM Mignini: From whom had you obtained this substance?

Lawyer: From whom had you obtained it?

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

Interpreter: It was a joint of Raffaele’s.

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

[11] Knox: No

Interpreter: No

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

Interpreter: Ah, before the first of November?

PM Mignini: Yes

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: And from whom were you getting it?

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

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

PM Mignini: And who were these friends?

Knox: A flatmate”¦

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

PM Mignini: Who of these? Giacomo?

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

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

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

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

Interpreter: Eh sometimes times but not much.

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

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

Interpreter: The same story, only in company.

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

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

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

PM Mignini: October?

Knox: I don’t remember precisely.

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember exactly.

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

Knox: Around 5 euro an hour”¦

Interpreter: Around 5 euro an hour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PM Mignini: What days?

Knox: Thursday and Tuesday”¦

Interpreter: Tuesday and Thursday

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

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

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

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

Interpreter: She said maybe also one other time

PM Mignini: Ah so

Interpreter: But she wasn’t feeling well

PM Mignini: Ah because she wasn’t feeling well

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

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

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

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

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

PM Mignini: yes, yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knox: No, it never happened

Interpreter: No

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

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

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

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

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

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knox: Maybe around 400 euro”¦

Interpreter: Around 400 euro yes

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

Knox: Yes

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

Knox: In my bank account?

Interpreter: Where did she have this money? “¦

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

Knox: Okay, it was in my bank account

Interpreter: In her savings account

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

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

PM Mignini: Savings account at which bank?

Knox: Washington Mutual

Interpreter: Washington Mutual

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

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

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

Knox: In my wallet

Interpreter: In the wallet that has been seized

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

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

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

PM Mignini: In your room?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

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

Lawyer: Translate the question for her

Knox: In my room?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knox: Vaguely”¦

Interpreter: Vaguely

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

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

Interpreter: At the basketball court?

Knox: No

Interpreter: At a party at the neighbours’ house?

Knox: Yes

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

PM Mignini: Now, when had you known him?

Lawyer: How much time before

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

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

Interpreter: I think towards the middle of October

PM Mignini: Did you used to visit him? Guede

[19]  Interpreter: Meaning?

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

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

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

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

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

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

Interpreter: She didn’t look in the room

Lawyer: But when?

Interpreter: The 2nd of November

Lawyer: Ah right

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

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

Knox: I don’t know

Interpreter: She doesn’t know

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

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

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

PM Mignini: Which had taken place when?

Lawyer: More or less

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

Knox: Towards the end of October”¦

Interpreter: Towards the end of October

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interpreter: Patrick greeted everybody who was coming in

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

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: There were no problems between you?

Lawyer: Of what nature?

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

Lawyer: Money ones, personal ones, right”¦

PM Mignini: Problems I mean in general eh “¦

Knox: No we were getting on OK”¦

Interpreter: No, they were going OK

PM Mignini: Listen, Lumumba was irascible?

Interpreter: Was?

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

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

Interpreter: No he’s a calm young man.

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

Knox: Me, Meredith, Filomena and Laura”¦

Interpreter: All four of the girls

PM Mignini: All four of the girls

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: No one else had keys?

[22] Knox: No

Interpreter: No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interpreter: Only when she was”¦

PM Mignini: Only when she was getting changed you say

Interpreter: Yes, yes

Lawyer: No also when she went away

PM Mignini: And when she went away”¦

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

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

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

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

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

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

Interpreter: Whether she had gone”¦

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

Knox: No

[24] Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: She had never gone there?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

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

Interpreter: No

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

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

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

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

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

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

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

Interpreter: She wasn’t working but she was there

[25]  PM Mignini: You were there like that

Interpreter: Yes with her friends

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

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

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

PM Mignini: Of yours?

Interpreter: Yes, yes

PP Mignini: And who were these girls?

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

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

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

Interpreter: No

Knox: No

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

Interpreter: She said that after”¦

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

Knox: I think around one”¦

Interpreter: Around one

PM Mignini: Till one and then?

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

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

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

PM Mignini: A Greek?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: And then where did you go?

Knox: Together with Spiros and some of his friends,

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

PM Mignini: Where?

Interpreter: In the centre, she doesn’t remember

PM Mignini: In which area in the centre?

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

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

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

Knox: I have never been before to the other pubs

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

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

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

PM Mignini: At what time did you meet Raffaele?

Interpreter: At two

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

Knox: She went out with her English friends

Interpreter: She went out with her English friends

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

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

Interpreter: Amy, Sophie”¦

PM Mignini: And where did they go?

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

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

PM Mignini: Merlin”¦

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

Interpreter: Because Meredith had told her so

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

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

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

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

Knox: Spanish?

Interpreter: Spanish eh [male gender]?

PM Mignini: Yes, girls as well

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

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

Continued in Part #2 at this address.

Posted by Machiavelli, Catnip, Kristeva on 10/11/14 at 04:55 PM in


Please see the “Click here to go straight to Comments” above the image at top? We reinstall it for all very long posts to speed getting to here.

Wonderful work. Very kind help. The document Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva worked from is a photocopy which was slightly off-center, which made scanning and creating a Word docx to translate from a task in itself.

Yummi intends to make sure that a downloadable PDF version is available on the Wiki, the two PMFs and TJMK, by the time their series finishes this week.

See a very fine questioner at work. Dr Mignini thought then that murder was possibly not the prior intent of the attack (even though the knife was brought down from Sollecito’s house) and he knows drugs were involved.

So he is not putting Knox on trial here, there is no heat or hyperbole here (and no judge) and no questions designed to back Knox into a corner - her lawyers (surely on tenterhooks) rarely intervene.

Any problems resulting, Knox creates all by herself. By trial of course Knox had cost herself a lot of ground and goodwill through foolish PR and endemic lying. mockery and framing, and so Mignini and Micheli - and Nencini - took hard lines.

Knox apologists have long beefed on that Knox was not recorded while being interviewed. Well, in fact she was, at least in writing, on 5-6 November. See Rita Ficarra’s memo:

She was also captured at length in written transcript here. No sign here of any prior 30/40/50 hour interrogations or the equivalent of waterboarding as the silly sap Steve Moore has put out. 

Steve Moore and Preston and pathetic “FBI profilers” and other fanatical demonizers have much explaining to do.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/11/14 at 09:47 PM | #

Well, there is no “recording” (I mean tape recording) as far as we know of the 5-6 summary information talks with the police concluded at 01.45.  There is written minutes, the interview was rather short as it was closed as soon as Knox made statements accusing Lumumba but also changed her story placing herself among potential suspects and on the scene having maybe some role in the crime. As we know, she made this U-turn after she was told that Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi, and she was qustioned about her mistranslated colloquialism “see you later” in an Italian SMS text.

Then, there is no tape recording also of the subsequent 05:45 statement she decided to release at the presence of the Prosecutor, and with the presence of Anna Donnino and other witnesses.

Those above however are hot interrogations. As legal papers they were supposed to serve investigation purposes but were not supposed to be usable in a trial (§7 of art. 350 of procedure code says spontaneous statements from a suspect given without a defence lawyer can be collected but cannot be used directly in the trial phase).

However, an actual interrogation of Amanda Knox by the prosecutor exists, it is the Dec. 17. 2007 interrogation.

I think it is a rather interesting document because it allows a first glimpse of the structural contradictions in Knox’s story, and because the reader also immediately realizes the points when Mignini perceives contradictions, you can see a bit of the prosecutor’s logical process.

Posted by Yummi on 10/11/14 at 10:13 PM | #

Thanks to the team that put it together, their hard work’s appreciated!

Good to go back to the beginning, where Knox and Sollecito were given every opportunity (I am one of the hardliners who believe the intent was rape and murder and agree with Micheli more than Massei) to mitigate their eventual punishment.

Ironic, indeed, to see their behaviour ending up in positions being hardened against them, and that Rudy Guede might well end up on early release before either ends up back in jail.

Karma works in mysterious ways.

Posted by Ergon on 10/12/14 at 02:20 AM | #

This is wonderful stuff and just shows how disproportionate the Knoxophiles really are.

It amazes me that the forces of stupid can ignore this, but then I’m afraid their collective minds, such as they are, are closed. Their pathetic reasoning always reminded of the George (W) Bush quote when he said.

“We are not against Islam itself or the country of Islamia.”

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/12/14 at 03:52 AM | #

So we see that the first interrogation was properly conducted - respectful, even friendly, asking ordinary factual questions in a straightforward way.

There was no stress induced whatsoever in Mignini’s manner and approach - just the opposite. He is calm and clear and matter-of-fact.

@Ergon. I believe the attempt to enforce rape (with restraint and knives) by Guede was planned - possibly to do with money in some way, as a humiliation out of a drive for power over someone she envied deeply.

I believe the murder then occurred when poor M didn’t yield to their (esp. Knox’s) bad Will, and showed fierce and just resistance and then the scream. Malign Fury burst out when the evil plan was thwarted, and the intent escalated, as well as the deed.

The earlier injuries demonstrate taunting and control (also from the supposed second knife/person); I do believe Knox was responsible for the final deep blow.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/12/14 at 09:03 AM | #

PS. We see something of the vicious anger emerging with the description of the severe bruising to Meredith’s jaw and face - it is obvious they were desperate to stop her screaming, which also of course means they knew full well how wrong they were, and shows actually the beginning of their very strong Denial (of responsibility for their thoughts as well as their criminal actions).

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/12/14 at 09:45 AM | #

I’m very happy this fundamental interrogation is now complete with the translation now being posted.

As others have already pointed out the questioning begins calmly and following the standard rules (as it always was even for the nov.5th questioning). What already emerges from this first part is that she lies about not ever buying drugs and has no concerns about telling on Sollecito and Laura for providing hash. We now know as a fact that it was she who had the phone number of a cocaine dealer who was arrested because of her cell phone contacts.

Then we see that she admits to having about 300 Euros in her desk so “having discovered a burglary” once again why did Sollecito tell the police that nothing had been stolen? Cash is the first thing one would check.

Then she is asked if she perceived Patrick as being bad tempered and she says that no he was calm. Yet we know that she wrote she was “Afraid of Patrick” on November 5th after falsely accusing him.

She then goes on to contradict herself about what she had said on the morning of the 2nd about Meredith locking her door ALL the time. Now she says it was only when she changed or left for England. Still Filomena said that she had never locked her door except for one time when she had traveled. So Knox is trying to find an in between. Very manipulative.

Then, while not mentioned directly, Mignini introduces Sollecito’s diary where he writes that “once when Meredith came to dinner at my house I accidentally pricked her with the knife” and that is why he is making sure that Meredith had never been to his house by asking Knox.

Mignini is well aware of their lies and at the beginning exposes the forensic evidence found in the apartment. Also notable is that Amanda understands Italian quite well as she answers Mignini before the interpreter translates him. This is also clearly seen in her prison diary where her Italian is remarkably at a pretty high level. So no excuses in saying that she was questioned in a language she didn’t understand and in any case we know Donnino arrived shortly after on 6 Nov.

Looking forward to the rest of the interrogation posts because as Nencini would say: But there is more!

Posted by Kristeva on 10/12/14 at 01:13 PM | #

Hi SeekingUnderstanding

Very useful observation on Dr Mignini’s (typical) questioning mode. I am very glad that comes across.

After clear evidence emerged that Preston and Spezi were falsifying evidence to try to become world famous as the solvers of the MOF case, Mignini interviewed Preston in similarly polite and mild terms for about an hour.

To the complete astonishment of everyone at that interview, Preston turned red and wailed and blubbbered while lying throughout through his teeth. Nobody had ever seen a meltdown in a mild interview like that.

In an Atlantic Magazine piece not so long after Preston actually praised Mignini for restraint and admitted he (Preston) had been foolish.

See how Preston’s claims had morphed by 2013. Here is how Preston then described the interview in his chapter in the book “Forgotten Killer”.

On the morning of February 22, 2006, as I was strolling through the streets of Florence, my cell phone rang. A voice, speaking stern, officious Italian, said: “This is the police. Where are you? We are coming to get you.”

I was summoned to an interrogation in Perugia, before a prosecutor named Giuliano Mignini. For almost three hours, Mignini interrogated me in Italian, without the benefit of an interpreter or lawyer present. He accused me of various crimes, including having knowledge of a murder. He told me that if I did not confess, he would charge me with perjury. When I refused to confess to crimes I had not committed, he indicted me for various crimes and hinted that to avoid arrest, I should leave the country. The next day, I left with my family for America.

I had been targeted because I was writing, with the Italian journalist Mario Spezi, a book about the notorious serial killer known as the Monster of Florence. Between 1974 and 1985, the Monster killed and ritualistically mutilated young people making love in parked cars in the Florentine Hills. He was a killer so depraved that even Jack the Ripper pales by comparison. The Monster was never caught, and the case became one of the longest and most expensive criminal investigations in Italian history.

Giuliano Mignini was the chief prosecutor in the Perugian branch of the Monster investigation. In our book, Mario and I criticized Mignini’s investigation. After my indictment, Mignini jailed Mario and charged him with being a member of a satanic cult that ordered the Monster’s murders. The subsequent international uproar over Mario’s unjust incarceration and the absurd charges against him embarrassed Italy, resulted in Mario’s swift release, and eventually led to the indictment of Mignini for abuse of office, illegal wiretapping, and other crimes related to his Monster investigation.

Spezi was NOT jailed at Mignini’s whim for being a member of a satanic cult; a judge jailed him while the falsifying of evidence investigation went on.

Much more on Preston to come when our several series of posts converge on his numerous false claims.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/12/14 at 01:31 PM | #

Excellent work thank you!  It is very interesting to see Knox squirming on the question of whether Meredith kept her door locked or not!  Knox was caught in a nightmare of saying one thing to suit one occasion which she then altered to suit another! Lies will always out.

@Ergon, I also believe the attack was premeditated because the knife was bought to the cottage for good reason and because Knox and Sollecito turned their mobile phones off.  Also, Knox would have had the sense to know that any attack on Meredith would result in Meredith speaking out about it and even possibly going to the police!

It was not a situation that she could control once she started unless she shut Meredith up, and she knew this full well beforehand.

Posted by MHILL4 on 10/12/14 at 02:37 PM | #


Although, possibly, Knox may have had delusions (encouraged by drug use) that she COULD control the situation she initiated, because she has an abnormal view of control and will.

It was, of course,an illusion not thought through…but I am not inclined to over-estimate her thinking abilities, which have been shown to be consistently lacking.

She manipulates, certainly, but ‘on the hoof’...I do believe her mind to be essentially disorganised and emotionally chaotic.

I’m not saying I know or anything, that’s why I used ‘I believe’. Perhaps as Stephanie Kercher said, there are things we will never know.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/12/14 at 02:55 PM | #

Hi Peter

Interesting quote from Preston since almost word for word it is the same scenario used by Knox and those who support her. This obvious piece of garbage was re-introduced, including the satanic guilt idea,

The parallels here or exactly the same. Maybe Gogarty Mariott read Preston/Spezi’s book. for sue it wasn’t Knox since she was/is in deep denial as in all killers who deny.( ie if your going to tell a lie then first believe it yourself)

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/12/14 at 04:44 PM | #

Hi Graham

Unfortunately for Preston theres a transcript of that “three hour” interview which lasted no more than one hour.

Tick tick tick.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/12/14 at 05:24 PM | #

From Pete:  “Spezi was NOT jailed at Mignini’s whim for being a member of a satanic cult; a judge jailed him while the falsifying of evidence investigation went on.”

Spezi and Preston are a sort of “Odd Couple” whose separate needs and actions in their peculiar relationship were and are mutually self-serving. One cornerstone of their shared outward expressions (in their book, in media comments, in “special” relations with lobbies/associations like the Committee to Protect Journalists) has been the use of falsehoods and half-truths to promote their interests.

Mignini’s interviews of Spezi and Preston were really obligatory from an investigative point of view, and they have turned out to be quite useful, as the contradictions and lack of answers have proven.


Might I add a very special and heartfelt thanks to Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva (and all other ongoing posters) for your work and posts here. It’s great, wonderful, illuminating work that is so necessary to put the spotlight on those who prefer shadows and falsehood.

Posted by Kermit on 10/12/14 at 05:27 PM | #

Ah Green One! It was Kermit that “virtually” led me around Perugia by the nose via PMG messages a month after I first heard about how Meredith died (July 2008). 

All of Kermit’s posts and Powerpoints are also in our suggested vital reads.

All here

Main ones here

In that second group see especially this post quoting Dr Mignini correcting Preston’s malicious “satanic” claims.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/12/14 at 05:58 PM | #

If anyone here would like to play “Spot the Lies” in Knox’s lurid version in her book as these 4 posts go up, happy to help.

Here you go. Downloads::


MS Word:

You would aid us a lot in finalizing a masterlist of lies for this chapter in Knox’s book, and also the next post right after this these 4 posts are all up.

You will see that a lot of demonizing of Dr Mignini goes on (brave Knox!) but it is very unlikely her lawyers (friends of Mignini) said to her anything like that.

Obviously, as throughout the book a whole lot of dialogue is simply made up as the devastating transcript shows.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/12/14 at 06:32 PM | #

This is just brilliant! Thank you very much Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. Looking forward to part 2 and more.

So reading this through it made me ask myself where was all her money going? She admits here that she was getting about 400 euros a month from Seattle and that she had a part-time job. Tuition? She was only taking one (1) class and I have read that Curt and Edda also picked up that tab as well. Fashion? Hardly. At the time she was a typical jeans-and-sneakers American college student. She didn’t own a car and she wasn’t doing much sightseeing in the rest of Europe. She went to Italy with about 10k and just over two months or so later she only had half of it left. So where did all that money go?

It has now been established as a fact that she associated with at least two (2) drug dealers in Italy, even sleeping with one of them. It is also widely known that she had some big drug problems in Seattle prior to her going to Italy. So, as we all have known, with this new revelation about her money supply, it is now even more clear that she was very heavily into some really bad drugs, not just the occasional joint here and there. It was more like a daily habit. And her erratic behavior before and after the murder also emphasizes that as well. Thank you all again.

Posted by Johnny Yen on 10/12/14 at 09:04 PM | #

@ Johnny Yen I completely agree with you on her cocaine use. I had suspected it from the beginning not only for the violence of the nature of the crime but especially for the clean up. I was satisfied when we learned about the cocaine allegations as it proved a theory I always had.  Pot would have not given them that kind of lucidity and altered sense of power of thinking they would get away with it. While the clean up in itself is rather sloppy after all the way it was thought out as well as staying up all night for it can only be obtained with that kind of substance. Also in Italy cocaine sells for 100 euros a gram and is a highly immediately addictive drug. Once it’s gone the user wants more as it is difficult to fall asleep or pass out like for alcohol. She was taking out the maximum amount possible in Italy for the cash machines: 250 euros a day more or less and there is no other explanation other than an habitual cocaine user which she had become. Sollecito I believe also had cocaine issues and Perugia is a city with a high rate of cocaine use due to the vast amount of international students on the loose sort of speak. I believe they stole the money from MK to pay off the cocaine that night. In fact my own theory is that if it is actually Knox in that CCTV she had gone to steal the money before Meredith had come home. Then Knox meets up with RS in Piazza Grimana, they buy the cocaine from Guede and then they all go back to the cottage where Meredith has already noticed the missing money and confronts Amanda. it all escalated from there.

Posted by Kristeva on 10/12/14 at 11:07 PM | #

Thank you so much for making this translation available. Like Yummi said, it was very interesting to see Mignini already piecing things together and zeroing in on contradictions.

A while ago, while looking over her bank statement, I wondered why her parents were sending her money if she was supposed to be using her savings.  It’s now become clear that they were paying the better part of her living expenses, which means she had little reason to burn through her own savings as fast as did.  In addition, I remember a transfer from her grandmother for over $2,000, which came at a time when her funds were dropping dangerously fast.

The fact that she was taking out €250 at a time is not particularly strange, due to transaction fees.  What was unusual was that she was taking out money all the time, at a rate which in my opinion far surpassed that of a working adult with a decent income.  Once we account for rent, food, and a little spending money, it’s difficult to see what sort of purchases she was making because there was no evidence of shopping sprees.

Even when people pay cash and throw away the receipts, you can piece together their recent purchase history just by examining their environment.  Someone with her spending habits should have had a pile of new stuff (clothes, decor, books, etc.) or a couple of expensive items (electronics, sporting equipment, etc.).

The fact that she was taking out cash automatically excludes virtual purchases (direct-download games, in-game items, online gambling, etc.).

So that implies that whatever she was buying was consumable and expensive, since she didn’t have a gambling habit and didn’t entertain people at her expense.  It could have only been drugs, and not the occasional run-of-the-mill joint.

I’m kind of fixated on that bank statement because it dispels a carefully cultivated myth - that of the poor, hardworking student who was carefully spending her precious savings so she could get through her year abroad.  In reality, her parents were paying most of her living expenses and she was hemorrhaging money because she had an expensive drug habit.

I think that if this aspect had been revealed a few years ago, it would have made things exceedingly hard for her PR campaign to take off.  It’s difficult to claim being “an innocent abroad” when you’re squandering so much money on hard drugs. 

I agree with Kristeva that she probably stole Meredith’s money that night to pay for drugs.  I’m not so sure, though, that Guede was involved in the transaction since she had her own dealer (but who knows what the circumstances might have been). 

However, I think that Guede’s inclusion is a clue that the assault was planned (maybe not the murder, but they’d have had to be crazy to think that Meredith wouldn’t report it).  She may have randomly bumped into him rather than sought him out, but I think she knew they were going to do something to Meredith and she wanted him there to serve as a scapegoat.  Otherwise, I can’t explain his presence given that the two were supposed to spend the evening and night together.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/13/14 at 04:45 AM | #

very good work, the best has yet to come ...  actually if we compare this interview with Sollecito’s for the validation of arrest and Guede’s in March 08, we see Guede was a better liar than both his partners in crime ...

Posted by Popper on 10/13/14 at 01:31 PM | #

I’m looking forward to the reading the rest of this interview, well done to the translators.

I think I recall some complaint from Knox about the German born interpreter who assisted her at this interview. 

I wonder whether Knox herself actually wanted (at least on Dec 17) to speak in English, or if it was something which her lawyers recommended?

Posted by Sallyoo on 10/13/14 at 03:40 PM | #

Hi Sallyoo.

I dont see any problem here. Nobody was misquoted or misled. It says at the post at the top that Knox spoke in both languages. Her choice.

Knox reflexively complains about, well, everyone, as she tries to wind back things she has said. She had differences with her interpreter at trial, and pushed her aside.

As she could generally understand and be understood, more than one lawyer said she was a real fool to leap in, she should have used the translation time to THINK.

Besides, at trial she was trying to make out she was a tender little thing freaked out of her mind by cops. It didnt work. This arrogant, sneering, sharp-elbowed girl?!!

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/13/14 at 05:18 PM | #

Hi, Sallyoo & Peter,

Yes, I agree with Peter, and, in the pedantic spirit of the Knoxophiles (sarcasm), I would invite Knox to describe *exactly* what was not translated correctly and how that influenced the outcome of the trial.

If she was not happy, she could have shown up at her own appeal back in January to correct whatever misunderstanding could have arisen in the previous proceedings.

And, to quote Prosecutor Mignini above:

So you have the possibility, I invite you to specify what you consider useful for your own defence with the advice that your declarations can be used against you, right?

But in any case you have the right to not answer, you can refuse to answer any question but in any case the Proceedings will take their course. Even if you don’t answer.

Then if you make declarations on the facts that concern the responsibility of others you’ll take on as regards these facts the role of witness with all the… now then, so you intend to answer?

And answer she did, now the mechanical bull is spinning and bucking a little too rough.

Posted by Bjorn on 10/13/14 at 08:18 PM | #

Dr. Julia Clemesh proves her courage and self-confidence to insist on accuracy. She battles during Knox’s interview for an exact translation despite the choppiness of the answers and speed of questions.

Dr. Clemesh is extremely careful to give Knox’s absolute meaning back to Mignini and others present, even at the risk of perhaps frustrating Mignini. The work of interpreting is difficult.

Thank you also to Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva for interpreting this interview.

Knox’s income was questioned by Mignini, as he surely knew how drug users could spend cash.

What if Knox spent some money on Raffaele to impress him that she was not from a rich family but that she was hardly penniless. Might have filled up his Audi with gas a couple of times as he drove her around the countryside, paid for him a shave and haircut, a spa day, some meals out with champagne.

As girlfriends do she might have bought Raffaele a shirt and tie, a nice sweater, perhaps the gold scarf he sported or other items not necessarily clothes. Music cds. Raffaele always had high taste in fashion and wore designer labels. Those are super expensive for a college student. A genuine leather belt, gloves cost a lot if it’s nice brands. Her own clothes seemed inexpensive and she didn’t wear much jewelry of any kind, real gold or other. A student budget, then she gets some relatively bigger bucks and freedom from family scrutiny and goes crazy? possible

She might have felt that buying Raf gifts was quid pro quo for using his apartment, it would set him up for loyalty to herself. She might have bought his drugs temporarily if he was near the end of a month and awaiting the first of November for dad to deposit the usual living expenses.

Knox might have been flashing her cash around trying to compete with Raf or even to show off to Meredith who didn’t seem to have to work.

Knox might have tried to impress even Laura and Filomena who might have bragged on their paychecks from the law office where they worked and said, “It’s so nice to have my own income after all those years being broke as a student”. Maybe Knox wanted the real leather boots, the nice watch, the expensive sunglasses, the better makeup. Conspicuous consumption.

Knox might have secretly desired to be known as the rich American to make up for her lack of refinement.

The cost of clubbing and bottles of alcohol and wines for the cottage or Raf’s place might have come out of Knox’s pocket.

We did not hear many stories of Amanda’s extreme generosity to the Italian roommates or others but maybe she was splashing cash that wasn’t reported.

Drugs were no doubt her chief expense. Knox also bought a plane ticket to China, not cheap. Her spending patterns back in Seattle would be a clue to what she normally did with her money.

She spent a few bucks at the internet café and maybe on her cell phone plan?

It’s possible a rich Italian boyfriend made her self-conscious about her status.

She might have tried to compete with Raf in cavalier spending or even put him under financial obligation to her however minor the debt was, to manipulate him to later do her bidding with anyone such as Meredith.

Maybe he temporarily owed her a few hundred bucks and he said, “Look, I’m a bit short on cash right now but we can still party. Make me a quick loan and I’ll repay you with interest in a week or two when Dad normally tops off my bank account for the month ahead.” Maybe he was stressed about money for November.

Maybe Raf had planned to go back to Bari to spend All Saints Day holiday with his family to honor his mom’s grave and was feeling guilty and needed to use drugs. He might have already been doubting Knox’s sincerity towards him, too, and testing her.

Knox might have said, “Yeah, my dad’s an accountant so I feel your pain. He rubs a penny twice and keeps tabs on his checkbook, that’s why mom and him fought a lot. I had to convince him I’d saved a bundle for this trip before he would even consider saying OK.”

Knox was seen flashing money in a park to James her boyfriend after Raffaele.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/13/14 at 08:23 PM | #

Another reminder of Knox’s behavior in Perugia and possible motive for the crime:

Aside from the unfortunate translation error? he didn’t fire Knox, he demoted her to handing out flyers, and offered Meredith a job.

“Meredith was a natural charmer, a beautiful girl who made friends easily, and effortlessly received attention wherever she went,” Patrick explains, sitting beside his pretty Polish-born girlfriend of six years Aleksandra Kania, 28, and their 19-month-old son, Davide.

“Amanda tried much harder, but was less popular. I didn’t realise it at the time, but now I see that she was jealous. She wanted to be the queen bee, and as the weeks passed, it became clear that she wasn’t. She hated anyone stealing her limelight ? and that included Meredith.”


Amanda, meanwhile, was becoming increasingly erratic. “Her moods started swinging from docile and lazy to hyperactive and flighty.

“I knew she smoked cannabis and it was impossible to predict which one she’d be.

“I told her I’d asked Meredith to come and work for me and her face dropped and there was a big silence. Then she said, ‘Fine,’ and stropped off. I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith. She obviously thought she was invading her territory.”

Getting a call he didn’t need her to hand out flyers that night must have been the final straw.

Posted by Ergon on 10/13/14 at 09:21 PM | #

Hi Hopeful and others staring intently at Knox’s financial sums:

It’s worth remembering that it didnt have to be like this.

Knox was one of the rare students (f you could call her a student, she enrolled in no university-level course) who arrived in Perugia without any scholarship-type financial supply, though it would have been so easy for her to secure.

Her irresponsible parents dont seem to have been remotely curious as to why, or as to what she would actually do.

She still had notional ties to the University of Washington, a potential huge liability, which freaked many US colleges out.

The Knox-inspired wave of college reforms for study overseas made it IMPOSSIBLE now for any American student to retain ties without observing some rules, of which financial supply is one.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/13/14 at 10:39 PM | #

Hi Ergon

In this context a most interesting quote. That was from the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard quoted that and weighed in with more of its own.

All of this seems accurate and good reporting so it is hard to believe it is the “sensationlist tabloid” stuff Curt Knox and so on claimed convicted Knox in advance.

Curt Knox should watch more of Nancy Grace. Scroll down for her much hotter pursuits here:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/13/14 at 10:51 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #2

Or to previous entry Translation Of The Nencini Sentencing Report Explaining The Failure Of The RS & AK Appeal