Thursday, October 16, 2014

Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #4

Posted by Machiavelli, Catnip, Kristeva

Inmate-chefs at Capanne Prison, from which Knox was making a bid for release

1. Getting Up To Speed On This Fourth Post

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.

So these were the first serious questions put to Knox - politely, and Knox is essentially not argumentative throughout

The transcript was in the evidence pile and all judges except Hellmann seem to have studied it hard. This was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini, as prosecutor appointed to the case. He had seen her twice at the house and heard her at her strong insistence early on 6 November.

But they had never before really talked.

Prior to this, Knox had already emanated over a dozen differing versions of what she wanted to claim took place and the police and prosecutors and Supervising Magistrate Claudia Matteini had tried to make sense of those. 

2. Our Translation Of Approximately The Fourth 40 Minutes

This is the fourth 40 minutes of the voluntary interview which lasted in total about three hours. For a full understanding it would really be best to read (1) our first post and comment thread and (2) our second post and comment thread. and (3) third post and comment thread.

Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of Interview Of Ms Amanda Knox (cont)

PM Mignini: After having talked, after you were heard at the Questura, did you go away or did you wait?

Knox: The first day I was questioned I was there for hours”¦ maybe 14”¦

Interpreter: The first time it seems to her that she had been there a very long time, 14 hours

PM Mignini: But questioned

Knox: No, maybe they questioned me for 6 hours but I stayed at the Questura a very long time”¦

Interpreter: It must have been more or less 6 hours that Amanda was questioned but staying in the Questura must have been about”¦

PM Mignini: But was there”¦ were you in the waiting room?

Knox: Yes the whole time together with everyone else we were there in the waiting room”¦

Interpreter Yes, yes together with the other ones

PM Mignini: And who were the other people?


Knox: The housemates, and later others arrived”¦ After quite a long time our neighbors arrived, after a while some people Meredith knew arrived, her friends

Interpreter: Her housemates and then other people who arrived later, the neighbors after a while”¦ and after, Meredith’s friends arrived, the people Meredith knew”¦

PM Mignini: But did you speak to them? Did you exchange any confidences?

Knox: Yes we were all there and I said “it appears that Meredith’s body was found in a closet”

PM Mignini: Who said that?

Knox: I remember talking to her friends and I remember telling them that it appeared the body had been found inside a closet”¦

Interpreter: She remembers having said it to Meredith’s friends

PM Mignini: But friends, who? You must tell us the name”¦ a name even just the name”¦

Knox: I remember having talked to Sophie”¦ But I don’t know the name of the other friends

PM Mignini: A certain Natalie? From London

Knox: The name sounds familiar but I don’t think I could recognize her face

Interpreter: She can’t tie the name to her face but”¦

PM Mignini: And what were you saying? What kind of comments were you making?


Knox: I told them what I knew, I told them that I had arrived home and found the door open, and told them what I knew”¦

Interpreter: She told what she knew that she had arrived home and found the door open

PM Mignini: Did you ever see, did you see in those moments the wound on Meredith’s neck?

Interpreter: Up to the moment?

PM Mignini: In that moment.

Knox: I never saw Meredith dead, I never saw her dead body”¦

Interpreter: No, she never saw her dead

PM Mignini: Ok, but was there anyone that night who said, anyone who said that she had died quickly? Did someone else say that she must have suffered for a long time”¦ was there anyone who said this?

Knox: Nobody of the people I talked to knew what had happened”¦

Interpreter: No, none of the people she talked to said something”¦ knew what had happened

PM Mignini: Did you come to know, did you ever come to know, and if yes, when, in what moment, Meredith had died”¦ that is, if Meredith’s death was immediate or if it was prolonged, if there was a death agony”¦ if yes, when did you find that out?

Knox: The only time when I heard of this was when Luciano [Ghirga] was describing the wound and how deep it was”¦ What kind of wound it was and he said “maybe she died slowly because no big vein had been struck”

Interpreter: So, the first time you had heard talking about the wound and how she died”¦ when was it with Luciano?

Lawyer: The morning of the 8th


PM Mignini: So, after the 6th…

Lawyer: The morning of the 8th

PM Mignini: The morning of November 8th

Lawyer: After the arrest validation [hearing]

Interpreter: And there she found out that no vital vein was directly struck and therefore”¦

PM Mignini: You say that she came to know on the 8th from the lawyer.

Lawyer: From the lawyers.

PM Mignini: From the lawyers, sorry.

Lawyer: We always came all together

PM Mignini: Either one or the other [of you] could have told her”¦ so”¦ [talking to Knox] I formally notify [for the record, a contradiction] that an Erasmus student and a colleague of this student, they said, on this past December 10th that on the night of the second in the Questura, while having”¦ a girl called Natalie, I won’t tell you her last name but she”¦ she was a friend of Meredith, she had noticed that you were talking at length with Sollecito, and at a certain point, in response to a comment made by one of these girls that they hoped Meredith had died without suffering, you instead said ” with those kind of wounds the death would not have come fast and that therefore Meredith must have died after a certain period of time”. I’ll reread it to you if you’d like, ok?

Knox: The police told me that her throat was cut, and what I know about that topic, I mean when they cut your throat, it is terrible and I heard that it’s a horrible way to die”¦

Interpreter: Yes the police had told her that Meredith’s throat was cut and what Amanda knew is that it’s an agonizing way to die”¦


PM Mignini: But this is something we found out after, we too found it out only later”¦ not right away”¦

Knox: The police told me that her throat had been cut.

Interpreter: The police had told her that her throat had been cut.

PM Mignini: Who from the police? Excuse me I’d like to know”¦ cutting the neck, it can happen in many ways, vital veins can be struck and might also not be struck, therefore one thing is about cutting the throat, and another is about the way how to cut it and therefore make it so that the death occurs instantaneously, or cause a death with agony. On the evening of the second, if it’s true, according to these results, on the evening of the second you knew that, with those kind of wounds, she must have suffered an agony”¦ and the police didn’t know that”¦

Knox: I thought that a death by cutting the throat was always slow and terrible”¦

PM Mignini: The autopsy was made on the fourth, two days later

Interpreter: What she thought was that cutting the throat was always a slow death in general

PM Mignini: It’s not like that”¦not necessarily”¦ anyway, who from the police told you about the neck wound? Tell us.

Knox: It was probably the interpreter”¦the first interpreter was the person I talked to the most”¦ all information I had came more or less from him”¦

Interpreter: Probably the translator/interpreter

PM Mignini: Therefore, therefore he told you while you were being heard”¦

Lawyer: She was in there 12 hours


Knox: When I was in there I was talking to the police and they told me that her throat was cut”¦ the whole conversation was between me and the interpreter. It was him who must have told me, a long time has passed but I think it was like that”¦

Interpreter: Directly from the interpreter, indirectly from the police

PM Mignini: So [it was] when you were questioned. Not before.

Interpreter: No, before she was questioned she didn’t know how she was”¦

Knox: No, when I was home the way she died”¦

PM Mignini: Before being questioned”¦ you were questioned until 15:30, until what time have you been heard? You were being heard since 15:30, until what time were you being heard?

Knox: I don’t know it was a long questioning”¦

Lawyer: She had been heard in the presence of an interpreter, maybe the interpreter”¦

PM Mignini: It was D’Astolto”¦ Fabio D’Astolto

Lawyer: The interpreter was present from the beginning or only from the questioning onwards?

PM Mignini: Yes, well he was a policeman acting as an interpreter, translating. Fabio D’Astolto. Assistant D’Astolto. When and how, in what terms did D’Astolto express himself, this translator what did he tell you?

Lawyer: When?

PM Mignini: When and what did he tell you

Knox: I don’t remember when but I asked him how she died

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember when but she asked him how she was killed”¦

PM Mignini: And he pointed out to you the wound on the neck. The wound on the neck and that’s all. Fine. This translator.


Lawyer: [to the Prosecutor] You referred to an Erasmus student who had said that on December 10th.  Ms. Natalie would have said this.

PM Mignini: Yes

Lawyer: And is the Erasmus student indicated [in the records]?

PM Mignini: It is indicated

Lawyer: Do we have a name?

PM Mignini: Capruzzi, Filippo and the other one is a certain, a colleague of his, Chiara, Maioli.

Lawyer: So it was two Erasmus students

PM Mignini: Two Erasmus students who confirmed this confidentiality from this English girl. Some”¦ this is the December 10th hearing report”¦ ok

Lawyer G. She clarified if she had talked with the interpreter, with someone before”¦

Lawyer C. We have clarified that the interpreter was not an interpreter but was a police officer who speaks English and that apparently was present from the beginning and therefore at this point…

PM Mignini: Wait.. one moment”¦ did you, did you”¦ did you see this person who was translating at the house?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Perfect

Lawyer: She was approximately 12 hours in the Questura and at some time she heard the first… let’s call it questioning but it was a long time, and before the questioning she heard of this wound on the neck, is that right?


PM Mignini: During the questioning, you said before, during the questioning so much as this policeman translator was present, therefore”¦ no I’m very sorry, who did you hear this from? The translator? The policeman

Interpreter: About the wound? The first time?

PM Mignini: The wound

Knox: I think so

Knox: The first time?

PM Mignini: Yeah

Interpreter: I think the interpreter the first time

PM Mignini: And it would be this D’Astolto”¦ so this D’Astolto told you, please excuse me you told me this “it was D’Astolto” now”¦ therefore this D’Astolto told you this during the course of the questioning?

Knox: I think so”¦

Interpreter: Yes, she thinks so

PM Mignini: Ok, one more thing, so the”¦ you did, the morning of the”¦ actually no, the night between the fifth and the sixth of November, you did, let’s say partially modify your previous declarations, so then you modified your previous declarations and you made a specific accusation against Patrick Dia Lumumba known as Patrick. You said that you were supposed to meet with Patrick, that you met with Patrick at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana, that you went to Meredith’s house, to your house, and then he had sex with Meredith, then you heard a scream and you accused him even if in terms you say “confusedly” of killing Meredith. Isn’t that so? Why did you make this accusation? “¦ Now remember, I was hearing you, I was present, you were crying, you were


profoundly upset, and you were as if relieved when you made this statement.

Lawyer: Maybe she was stressed?

PM Mignini: Well, stressed or not, in any case she was very   she made these declarations

Lawyer: You asked her a question “Why did you make these declarations”?

PM Mignini: Well I also have to”¦

Lawyer: Eh these are opinions

PM Mignini: I am saying that you made a declaration not in a detached way, in other words in a very involved manner, why did you make these statements?

Knox: I was scared, I was confused, it had been hours that the police that I thought were protecting me, and instead they were putting me under pressure and were threatening me.

Interpreter: She was scared, she was confused, it had been hours that the police were threatening and pressuring her.

PM Mignini: Yes, tell me, go on

Knox: The reason why I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick”¦ they kept saying about this message, that I had sent a message to Patrick”¦

Interpreter: The reason why she thought of Patrick was because the police was asking her who was this Patrick to whom she sent, with whom there was this exchange of messages, they were asking her insistently.

Knox: That was the worse experience of my life

Interpreter: The worse experience of her life


Knox: I had never been more confused than then

Interpreter: She had been so confused or scared

PM Mignini: But in the following memoriale [spontaneous statement around noon 6 November] that you wrote before going to prison, basically you don’t retract this accusation. Even if in terms, still in terms let’s say of uncertainty, between dream and reality, in other words in such a way “¦ still you didn’t “¦ I believe that in this memoriale you say “I still see this image in front of me” and then you see yourself while hearing it, you say that in that first memoriale you wrote “you hear Meredith’s screams and you put your hands over your ears”. Why do you have this image? Your ears”¦ the scream”¦ it’s not like it’s changing much after all isn’t that so?

Lawyer: No, but she says she was very confused”¦ she was under a lot of stress

PM Mignini: Yes, but why does it basically remain the same, this one”¦

Knox: Yes, I imagined these things”¦

Interpreter: Imagined this scene

Knox: I was so scared and confused

Interpreter: I was so scared and confused

Knox: that I tried to imagine what could have happened. The police told me that I was probably not remembering well. So I thought of what could be another answer and therefore I imagined it”¦

Interpreter: She tried to think of what could have happened since the police was saying that probably she didn’t remember well. And therefore she imagined this scene, trying to think how it could have happened

PM Mignini: Well, you, I just tell you, I tell you only that this Dia Lumumba, this Patrick, only comes up in your statements, he wasn’t, he has never been indicated previously in the slightest, I mean why did you, why did you almost feel…


...forced to, so you say, to give this name? While this name had never been, you had never mentioned him previously”¦ in the statements of the 2nd, the 3rd”¦. Why only at a certain point di this Patrick pop up? I’m telling you, do you realize”¦ excuse me, eh? “¦ excuse me”¦.

Knox: They were telling me “why did you send this message to Patrick, this message to Patrick!”

Interpreter: Because they were always insisting about this message to Patrick and because”¦

PM Mignini: Well because there’s the message so [it’s] the message but it’s just that, it’s not that there was an attitude, I mean it’s not like there was any reference to a message according to what emerges from the statements. In fact there was a message that you”¦ since there had been an exchange of messages right before the time of the murder between you and this person it’s normal that the police would want to know why, what this message meant, this”¦ therefore it’s not something”¦ why did you threw yourself in this kind of”¦ ? While you had, you had the possibility to”¦?

Knox: Because I thought that it could have been true

Interpreter: Because she thought it could have been true”¦

PM Mignini: It could have been true?

Lawyer: Why?

Knox: When I was there, I was confused”¦

PM Mignini: [to the lawyers, ed.] No, no, excuse me, at this point no, I’m sorry. Not the lawyers. The defense can intervene against me but against the person investigated…?

Lawyer Ghirga: But there was no question”¦ Prosecutor there was no question

PM Mignini: It could be true. What does it mean?


Lawyer Ghirga: There was no question

PM Mignini: What? I am asking the question.

Lawyer Ghirga: Then ask it.

PM Mignini: What does it mean, how “˜could it be true’? What?

Lawyer Ghirga: What could be true?

PM Mignini: Excuse me, lawyer

Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents

PM Mignini: What could be true

Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents

PM Mignini: “¦Lawyer Ghirga”¦ what”¦?

Lawyer Ghirga: [seems to Knox] What do you want to say then? Let’s ask her”¦

PM Mignini: Excuse me, I am asking the questions, I am asking them now

Lawyer Ghirga Yes of course

PM Mignini: Then after you can”¦ I am asking her”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: Yes of course, we will ask them too”¦

PM Mignini: Lawyer”¦ she is saying “it could have been true””¦

Lawyer: What?

PM Mignini: “it could have been true”. She was telling me why did she accuse Lumumba of this fact? “It could have been true” is what she answered. Gentlemen, here”¦

Knox: I said it because I imagined it and I thought that it could have been true”¦

Interpreter: She said because she had imagined it and therefore she thought it could have been true.


PM Mignini: Look, listen”¦ listen, why did you imagine it?

Knox Why?... Because I was stressed

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you imagine”¦

Lawyer: No she was answering

PM Mignini: Yes; what did you want to say?

Interpreter: Because she was under stress”¦

Knox: Knox: Why? I was stressed, I was scared, it was after long hours in the middle of the night, I was innocent and they were telling me that I was guilty

Interpreter: Because they were saying that she was guilty

PM Mignini: Who was saying it? Guilty who’”¦.

Interpreter: After hours”¦

Lawyer: Excuse me, prosecutor, if we can correctly compile this translation, these words that were said in English at the right moment

PM Mignini: She is crying, we acknowledge, I’m sorry, we acknowledge that the”¦ investigated is crying.

Interpreter: Because she was stressed, scared under pressure after many hours, she was”¦ in the middle of the night, they had reached the middle of the night and because they were saying that Amanda was guilty.

PM Mignini: Who was saying that she was guilty?

Interpreter: The police

Lawyer: The police was accusing her

Interpreter: The police was accusing Amanda


PM Mignini: Why”¦ why did you accuse Lumumba and not others? How many people did you know who could”¦

Knox: Because they were yelling Patrick’s name”¦

Interpreter: She accused Patrick and not others because they were always talking about Patrick, suggesting”¦

PM Mignini: The police, the police couldn’t suggest…

Interpreter: Yelling Patrick’s name

PM Mignini: Excuse me, what was the police saying?

Interpreter: What did the police tell you?

Knox: The police were telling me that “˜we know that you were at the house, we know that you left the house’, and the moment before I said Patrick’s name they put.. someone was showing me the message that I had sent on the phone

Interpreter: The police said that they knew that Amanda was inside the house, and when she went in, when she went out, that she was inside the house, and while they were asking her this someone showed her Patrick’s message on the phone.

PM Mignini: But this is”¦ But this is normal. You”¦ there was this message”¦ I’m sorry, I’m very sorry. There’s a murder here. There’s a girl whose throat is slit, there was a phone number, there was a call that had been made, you were being heard. There was a call that had been made to you on the night of the murder from this person, you replied to this call in a way that could have been interpreted, according to the meaning in Italian “will see you”. Eh, so what is more normal than to insist? The police are doing their job. They insist to know, what did that mean, what was the, what relationship was there between you and Lumumba. This is normal.


Knox: I didn’t understand why they were insisting that I was lying”¦ they kept telling me that I was lying”¦

Interpreter: She didn’t understand why they were insisting that she was lying.

PM Mignini: Why are you”¦?

Interpreter: The police was insisting that she was lying.

PM Mignini: But why did you accuse, then if it was like this….  Again you are, you are crying again, for a long while since you started, I put in the record, I put in the record that”¦ it’s been ten minutes that you have been crying. Why did you accuse a person that, today, you’re telling us he is innocent, but earlier you just told us “it could be true” what does “it could be true” mean? You have told me “it could be true”.

Lawyer: The subject is missing

PM Mignini: No the subject is there, because I asked the question. Why did you accuse Lumumba?

Lawyer: Can we suspend a moment please?

PM Mignini: What reason?

Knox: It means that in the moment when I told Patrick’s name, I thought that it could have been true.

Interpreter: In the moment in which she said Patrick’s name, in that moment, she thought it could have been true.

Lawyer Ghirga: We ask for a suspension”¦ she is calm, you say she is crying, and we think she’s not.

PM Mignini: I put that in the record it because I could see the tears, she was crying and I could hear her too.


Lawyer: It was not ten minutes long

PM Mignini: Well, even more, maybe

Lawyer: maybe, no less

PM Mignini: Let’s interrupt, break off.

Lawyer: You asked her six times”¦

PM Mignini: For Heaven’s sake, let’s interrupt, break off.


[from this point on Amanda declares her right to remain silent]

PM Mignini: So, at 15:12 lawyer Luciano Ghirga resumes the interrogation

Lawyer Ghirga: In the name of the defensive collegium we submit a reason to confer personally, privately, we mean alone together with our client, for a time not longer than ten minutes.

PM Mignini: So, the Public Prosecutor is pointing out that the interrogation had already been suspended and it’s 15: 13 now, pointing out that the interrogation was suspended several times, and the last time for, how long? Ten minutes on request of the defence, and the defence will be allowed to fully have counsel with the person under investigation at the end of the interrogation. [The Public Prosecutor] orders to proceed, orders to go forward with the investigation procedure. So now I would like”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: If you may, ask to the suspect, to the person under investigation, whether she intends to go on or to invoke her right not to answer”¦?

PM Mignini: This is a”¦ it’s a”¦ it’s a”¦ she decided to answer questions at the beginning. Now if she decides to make a statement where she says “I don’t want to answer any more” she’ll be the one who says it, and it’s not that I must ask now, that question was done at the beginning of the interrogation. If now she wants to say”¦

Knox: I prefer not to answer any more”¦


Lawyer Ghirga: What did she say?

Interpreter: She doesn’t want to answer anymore.

PM Mignini: So, at this point, at 15: 15, on a question asked by the defence lawyers, about whether the person under investigation intends to go on answering or not”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: To your questions

PM Mignini: To a question by lawyer Ghirga”¦ yes, well, Lawyer Ghirga asked her that

Lawyer: He didn’t first ask the question

Lawyer Ghirga: But what question did I ask?

Lawyer: We told you to ask her…

PM Mignini: Yes, you asked me, and I did follow the request. But”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: She made a declaration, and we took note, unfortunately, about forbidden suggestions”¦ but on what request”¦?

PM Mignini: Now at this point, at 15: 15 the defence lawyers… Let’s put like this, the defence lawyers ask this Prosecutor about whether he intends to ask the person under investigation if she intends to go on answering questions, but then, after my decision, Lawyer Ghirga said”¦

Lawyer Ghirga: Who said? You said

PM Mignini: You asked her, I put in the record what happened, it’s recorded anyway, this is what I perceived you asked her, and she answered “I do not intend to answer”, she said, and then the interpreter…

Lawyer Ghirga: I asked whether she intended to make a statement, and she made a statement

PM Mignini: You indicated that to her, it changes nothing, doesn’t change”¦ I must only put in the record what happened. The public prosecutor points out that…


...the warning about the right not to answer was explained to the person under investigation at the beginning of the interrogation, as provided by the Code, and that same [person under investigation] declared she wanted to answer. It is not possible now to invoke the duty to inform the suspect about her right, because such requirement has been already fulfilled. Anyway the person under investigation can, if she decides to, declare that she doesn’t want to answer any more. Such option has been shown to the person under investigation by lawyer Ghirga.

Lawyer: the defence lawyers

PM Mignini: By the defence lawyers, to the person under investigation. What do you want to do?

Lawyer: What do you mean by “It was shown?”

PM Mignini: It was shown, because you said”¦ I need to put in the record what happened. The lawyer… Facing my warrant which I described, the notice was provided at the beginning of the interrogation as the code requires. She said “I want to answer, I do not intend to invoke my right not to answer”. That answer had been given already, I informed her, and she answered. Now to this, at this point, however, I said nothing prevents her from wanting, from declaring “at this point I do not intend to answer any more”. I put it in the record and I don’t ask why, at that point, at that point.

Lawyer: You should not put in the record “the defence lawyers have shown”¦”

PM Mignini: “at that point”

Lawyer: We did not show anything, we asked to be allowed to, well”¦ and you said no.

PM Mignini: So”¦ lawyer, lawyer?

Lawyer: And you said no, and we didn’t have the possibility to show her…


PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga”¦ Lawyer Ghirga”¦

Lawyer: that she might invoke her right to not answer. It’s not that it’s we who’ve shown this possibility this is what I want to explain”¦

PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga told her something, so…?

Lawyer Ghirga: No, no, I only said, if you could give us a ten minutes suspension

PM Mignini: You told her something, now come on”¦ I need to put that on record

Lawyer Ghirga: what did I say”¦

PM Mignini: You have shown, I don’t know if the other lawyer did too, you told, Lawyer Ghirga, you told the person under investigation about… You said, if you can, if I remember correctly,  we’ll hear her again”¦

Lawyer Costa: It was me who told her, Mr. Prosecutor

PM Mignini: So I understood Lawyer Ghirga… Lawyer Giancarlo Costa declares he explained that, I didn’t say anything else

Lawyer Costa: ... To Ms. Amanda Knox to use her right to invoke her right not to answer

PM Mignini: ... And she herself declares so, she is supposed to declare what she wants

Lawyer: She has already said that

PM Mignini: Let’s repeat it since with this superimposition of voices”¦ the interpreter will translate faithfully word-by-word what you say.

Knox: At this point I don’t want to answer any more

Interpreter: At this point she doesn’t want to answer any more

PM Mignini: So “at this point I don’t want to answer any more”. We put on record that the current transcript was recorded entirely.


Lawyer Costa: Mr Public Prosecutor, we lawyers may renounce to our own time terms of deposit if Your Honour would give us a copy

PM Mignini: Yes, no problem”¦ at 15: 22. The parties demand a transcription, I mean the defence lawyers request the transcription of the recording.


The last few minutes above made a trial a sure thing. Back to her cell she was led.

What accusations of lying on 5-6 Nov? Other than by Sollecito, off in another wing? Dr Mignini is in obvious disbelief. Our many recent 5-6 Nov posts have shown Knox was merely helping the investigators build a list of seven names.

She was sitting with a mere three investigators, two of who are rather small women, with voices low - the only raised voice many witnesses heard from outside the room was that of Knox. She was gently told RS had just said she made him lie.

The only lie she obviously told in the session (until she fingered Patrick) was that when Patrick texted her not to come to work she hadnt replied - and when her phone showed that she had, she set about framing Patrick in a heartbeat.

In the 1:45 am statement on 6 Nov that Knox had (unwisely for her) insisted upon, she made quite clear that she said goodbye to Sollecito, and headed out. Its that damning heading out in apparent extreme anger claim (with or without RS) that destroys all beliefs that she stayed home with RS and that Patrick and Meredith had not rattled her cage.

Maybe her immense urge to write is driven by a lifetime failure to be convincing face to face. On 5-6 Nov she damned herself in writing and her face to face attempt to wind that back failed here - with a little “help” from RS.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/17/14 at 01:49 PM | #

So. Bets please. Anyone think Knox will be sending this transcript to the European Court of Human Rights in support of her “case”?

Make that “Anyone on Planet Earth” to exclude the Fischers and the Moores.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/17/14 at 03:53 PM | #

The first appeal to ECtHR has to do with the calunnia conviction, Peter, don’t even know if it’s been accepted. Anyone near Strasbourg, let me know? 😊

The next one has already been telegraphed to be about being convicted on Rudy Guede’s testimony and she didn’t get to cross examine him, bleat bleat.

Carlo Dalla Vedova, who has a bridge he needs to sell (the stalled Messina straits bridge project) is only too happy to file another useless appeal, because like Ted Simon, it is free advertising for him.

Ghirga, on the other hand, might heave a sigh of relief when this saga is over.

Posted by Ergon on 10/17/14 at 04:58 PM | #

Once again, thank you so much for the translation.

I had thought Mignini was a good prosecutor before, but this is among the longest transcriptions I have read and I am honestly in awe of how intelligent he is.  It’s not just that he is a trained interviewer and has a lot of experience, but that his ability to think ahead and plan his moves is quite exceptional. 

I am not surprised that Knox’ lawyers warned her about him.  They must have known from prior interrogations that he is obsessively methodical and thorough, qualities which are probably intimidating for someone telling the truth (due to perhaps not being able to remember every small detail), and positively frightening for someone who is lying, because he circles around every lie until he is able to dismantle it.

He is not insidious, though; on the contrary, I find that he’s being quite transparent when he insists on clarifying certain points.  I wonder if the lawyers really called him “insidious,” or if they cautioned her about his ability to zero in on inconsistencies.  I wonder if she ever had a frank conversation with her lawyers or whether they had to navigate her defense relying on her ever-changing “truths.”

In any case, the fact that they warned her about him (assuming they did and she’s not making it up, but I definitely warn a lying, unstable client about someone like him) signals to me that they knew she was lying.  Perhaps the way this interview unfolded played a not-insignificant part in Costa’s departure.

Regarding Costa, he does something interesting at the end: instead of endlessly muddling the matter of who advised Knox to stop talking, the way Ghirga does, he simply takes responsibility for it.  I sense some impatience in that decision, and it’s not impatience with Mignini, but with the BS that this particular job involves.  I don’t know anything about Costa, but I think he’s cut from a very different fabric than Ghirga and might find more satisfaction in being a prosecutor down the line.  Just an observation which could well be wrong, but I think both Knox and Sollecito were quite dismissive of their first lawyers in their respective books, which probably means that those lawyers were onto them just like the police.

It’s nice to see that some people still have morals and that they refused to work for what is essentially blood money.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/17/14 at 07:26 PM | #

Thank you all again. This series is just incredible. Mignini is amazing! In each part we really get to see his brilliant way of interviewing Knox. He just walks her by the hand right into his traps. For sure, if her lawyers had not requested the interruption, she would have broke and told all. IMHO Ghirga and Vedova are pretty good lawyers. And that further proves that she got a very fair trial in a very fair and balanced criminal justice system.

It is well known that the State Department has been monitoring all the proceedings since day one so the “corrupt Italian system” argument has no weight whatsoever. So what can she possibly argue in her upcoming Cassation final and extradition hearing? I think that she is going to run. Some of the FOAKers have hinted at a midnight sailboat escape and we know that they are crazy enough to go for it. Apparently, RS is going completely bananas nowadays too and he’ll probably make another bolt for the border. This is all going to get very exciting very soon for sure!

Posted by Johnny Yen on 10/17/14 at 08:31 PM | #

“Knox: I never saw Meredith dead, I never saw her dead body…”

It is easy to understand why Meredith body was covered by AK with a duvet.

Posted by Annie on 10/18/14 at 02:51 AM | #

A bit off topic but this is a very good English analysis of the Italian criminal justice system:

Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial

Julia Grace Mirabella
Boston University School of Law
January 5, 2012

Posted by Johnny Yen on 10/18/14 at 03:55 AM | #

Johnny, I must disagree.  The paper you mention was linked many times at pmf and is not very good, a better word would be unimpressive.  Below I copy the comment I wrote some time ago on pmf.

“Thanks. Someone had already linked this article as I well remember its mediocre quality.
It contains some interesting elements but they are developed without any real historical and current knowledge of the system. Apart from the “jury” and other mistakes, it says that “rinvio a giudizio” means dropping the case ... an elementary school child could have done better, a first year Law student in Italy would be kicked out of the exam room for that. I wonder if they gave this candidate the undeserved JD. Shame on the professors she thanks as they did not do a very good job and I hope for them they did not read the paper.

[By the way, written motivation report is not a redeeming feature but a superior one, even if it lengthens the trial, and the Knox case has created no debate over any reform, so the writer is victim of some fanatic FOA] “

Posted by Popper on 10/18/14 at 11:20 AM | #

Thanks Popper

Mirabelle is at Boston University Law where Wendy Murphy teaches. An ex prosecutor and half Italian, Murphy is the most informed commenter on the case on TV. I doubt she reviewed Mirabella’s paper, which damns the system with faint praise - though a New Jersey law conference came out with a worse take and there are others.

Alan Dershowitz at Harvard Law just across the river has remarked several times that he thinks Italian law is the fairest and most precise in the world. In that context he sorta damned the US system with faint praise!

Mirabelle fails to say that under the UK and US systems it is very unlikely a US or UK judge would have approved any appeal against Massei.

She also fails to note that New York has gravitated toward the Italian system, which leads to lower incarceration and much lower recidivism.

She also fails to note that the Prime Minister is targeting the system for some reforms to speed things - which will essentially mean dropping some checks and balances.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/18/14 at 01:16 PM | #

A heatrfelt thanks to Yummi, Catnip & Kristeva for their hard & diligent work. Mignini ties her up in knots by simply giving her enough rope to hang herself with her own lies & evasiveness. I find the section where Knox knew precisely how poor Meredith’s throat was cut very interesting. I also find her breakdown very interesting, it’s quite obvious she cracked in no time that night.
Thanks again to the translators for all of their hard work, great job guys. 😊

Posted by Corpusvile on 10/18/14 at 05:14 PM | #

I came across an article (Well really a thesis) written and pasted by no less person than Bruce Fischer. Of course his name is only at the top in very small letters. Underneath the main credit is given to someone called ‘Cheli’ A nice Italian name to give it more weight.
However it is pasted by Fischer and it’s a mile long and in that is the problem, at least for him. Fischer obviously believes that the more copy you write the more believable it is. In other words a ton of words has more meaning than a shortened version, but then Fischer and his ilk have never heard the word editor. Even if they did the meaning would have little impact. I couldn’t believe how stupidly long it was since the average Knox supporter would be lost after the first paragraph.
Check it yourself it’s a hoot since Fischer, as per usual was preaching to the choir.

On another note You may have seen several vitriolic outbursts from someone who fashions herself a ‘KayPea’ This is Karen Pruett/Karen Parker Pruett (Same person two face book pages) from Seattle who works for ground report. She has written many articles saying that the Kerchers are in this for the money. I mention this because, and to quote the Chinese philosopher Sun Szu.
“Know your friends know your enemies a thousand battles a thousand victories.”
Or.. “Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.” The line which was borrowed for inclusion into the Godfather, good advice though.

Finally I believe the Italians, being clever at this sort of thing, have not put all their cards on the table but have retained some damning evidence in reserve to be published later just in case.

No worries though since one fact which people seem to have forgotten is that the US consulate in Rome during all of the proceedings was all this and saw nothing wrong with it.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/18/14 at 05:33 PM | #

Is Doug Bremner really, really Jewish?

ETA: This is apropos since Doug Bremner just offered a $1000 bounty for anyone who could provide him with information about Harry Rag/The Machine’s personal information and identity and this is just one long list of his egregious attacks on the Kerchers, inc. the “Jews and Gypsies” comment he made a while back against them then defended because he himself had Jewish blood. Turns out that is a very long stretch, indeed, and I despised his trying to hide behind that excuse.

As a minor casualty of the internet wars (going after abusers I was tagged as one LOL) there is one thing I want to make clear: I don’t like outing, bullying, harassment or any form of racism, period, and families are sacrosanct. Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions but don’t drag in their families.

That is why many of us here don’t like the many years ongoing campaign of abuse against Meredith Kercher’s family. From passive aggressive expressions of how they were ‘misled’ by their lawyer to outright falsehoods like ‘they’re persecuting Amanda Knox because they’re greedy’ (no they aren’t, nor are they likely to ever collect any civil awards, but it is perfectly reasonable for them to ask she never be allowed to profit from her crime, something the Brown/Goldman families asked of OJ Simpson)

Since that time, one of the most insidious things said against the Kerchers is that they have led an anonymous PR campaign against Amanda Knox, first blaming all negative coverage on John Kercher, then, since he suffered two strokes, it must be his son John Jr. who just happens to work for the BBC.

Letters of complaint were written to the BBC by various friends of Amanda Knox trying to get him fired, which is very sad but also because someone just accused me of calling someone’s employer to get them fired. This is classic projection, but I don’t take it personally, I much enjoy dissecting their minds (the image of frog legs in biology lab always appears, I don’t really think of them as minds 😊

It all blew up recently. Debating with Dr. David Anderson on an ABC News comment section I got him to admit he’d written a letter of complaint to the BBC about John Kercher Jr., since he believed that he was the notorious commenter on the case (sorry!) Harry Rag.

Next thing, John Kercher Jr. himself appeared there to deny ever having been involved in any internet campaign, or that he even knew Harry Rag. He did the same on Twitter, too, replying directly to the worst of the abusers, Doug Bremner, who very conveniently deleted his website including all defamatory comments against the Kerchers and blamed it on Google, lol.

Enough. I know for a fact that Harry Rag is not John Kercher Jr. (An aside: how sexist are these middle aged white knights to not ever consider their nemesis Harry Rag might be a woman, say, Stephanie Kercher? Just asking, I know she isn’t involved either, but these folk are racist AND sexist anyways.)

Failed FBI agents Steve Moore and Jim Clemente continued to snipe the same allegations, along with the ravening MichelleM, who assumed from a Linked In investigation of Harry Rag she’d located him, gosh.

Then Madeleine McCann’s parents embarked on a global jihad against their critics through their media friends, and suddenly it became fashionable for ‘old media’ pundits to discover Twitter and Facebook ‘abuse’ , and the Amanda Knox groupies jumped on THAT bandwagon, not even acknowledging that they’d been leading a campaign of abuse all along.

Even when poor Brenda Leyland’s body was found and it turned out she’d received death threats there was no self-reflection, just more media pandering as the FOAK tried to have their cake and eat it too with Amanda Knox’s spokeswoman lawyer Anne Bremner calling for Twitter and Facebook to curb ‘abuse’ .

But the absolute worst example of abuse was her brother little Dougie Bremner, who famously decreed “what the Kerchers did to Amanda Knox was like what the Germans did to Jews in WWII”. This shocked the Knoxii, so he had to double down by falsely accusing John Kercher Jr. of having written to his sister Anne Bremner’s law firm to get her in trouble.

He also, when told he was trivializing the Holocaust, replied “I’m part Jewish” as if that excused his offense.

Ahem. From Bremner History his father’s family is of Scottish origin and practically came over on the Mayflower, and his mother Madeline Laurnell Cooper Bremner, 1932-1966
was raised by adoptive Christian parents and had a Welsh-Norwegian birth mother, and father Edward Ehrlich, was half-Jewish from his father Jacob’s side Not So Jewish After All so Dougie’s only real connection with Judaism is that his great, great, grand parents were Jewish immigrants from what is now part of the Czech Republic and therefore never experienced the Holocaust.

So Doug Bremner is not even remotely Jewish, and shouldn’t excuse his behaviour in that odious fashion.

Looking at his mother’s obituary above, I see that she was a beautiful person, a Unitarian no less, with a lovely aura and manner. A follower of Eastern spirituality, wow. It is very sad she died at an early age (33) and while this may explain Doug and Anne’s behaviour, that they lost a mother when she was 7 and Doug, 4, it does not excuse that.

They say:
“We still miss her.
We keep her memory alive
through the way we live our lives.”

I would like to remind them to honor that in the way they now live their lives.

Posted by Ergon on 10/19/14 at 07:39 AM | #

We posted on the ultra-hothead Doug Bremner before.

Even his own sister Ann Bremner has groaned that he is way too hot and implied he is off his meds for a bipolar condition.

He is terrible at the hard facts of the case and runs on pure crazed emotion.

There are strong laws in the US against stalking and harassing of families of victims to try to affect the outcome of an ongoing legal process.

A judge could stick him with time inside for this.

He should stop all posting before he takes that pill.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/19/14 at 01:24 PM | #

There are laws in the UK too,Peter and it is so funny to see crazies like Kaypea, Michelle Moore and others accuse us of harassment when they’re the prime doers.

There has been a concerted effort to gather private information about posters on Twitter, of which Doug Bremner’s is the latest, worst example.


Cyber stalking

“Harassment can take place on the internet and through the misuse of email. This is sometimes known as ‘cyberstalking’. This can include the use of social networking sites, chat rooms and other forums facilitated by technology. The internet can be used for a range of purposes relating to harassment, for example:
to locate personal information about a victim;
to communicate with the victim;
as a means of surveillance of the victim;
identity theft such as subscribing the victim to services, purchasing goods and services in their name;
damaging the reputation of the victim;
electronic sabotage such as spamming and sending viruses; or
tricking other internet users into harassing or threatening a victim.”
Funny how they did all that they accuse us of?

Posted by Ergon on 10/19/14 at 07:14 PM | #

So Doug Bremner wants to find out who Harry Rag is?
Woopee! So what’s he going to do if he finds out? Childish idiot. If anybody falls for the $1000.00 and expects to get get paid they are in for a surprise. Of course these loonies know who I am since I have never made much of a secret concerning my identity since I have sent them messages on Facebook from my own account for example. So let Doug Bremner come after me since it will do him about as much good as chasing after Harry Rag.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/19/14 at 10:58 PM | #

Hi Popper and Peter. Thank you for setting the record straight. Sorry for my ignorance.

Posted by Johnny Yen on 10/19/14 at 11:08 PM | #

On the one hand, Steve Moore wants to expose people who post anonymously.

On the other hand, Amanda Knox gets caught posting anonymously:

Posted by Ergon on 10/20/14 at 01:09 AM | #

Thank you Ergon. 100% Jack also has this one too:

Posted by Johnny Yen on 10/20/14 at 02:34 AM | #

These tweets create a clear link between Knox and the stalking and harrasing of the Kerchers for which she could be charged by police and prosecutors in the US and UK. (So could Doug Bremner etc as I mentioned further up.)

Under the strict laws against stalking and harassment of families of victims, Knox should not even be MENTIONING Meredith or the Kerchers in any public forum, or using Meredith’s image (you can see it right there on Twitter) in any attempt to sway the course of justice while the process goes on.

Maybe Italy and the US will end up wondering where to imprison Knox first… A one-person crime wave, that is for sure.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/20/14 at 03:00 PM | #

Yes, Peter, well said!

The sooner Knox goes to prison, the better.

This FOA campaign is the most hideous act after the murder itself (adding insult to injury, and perhaps terror, KGB style), and it keeps the perpetrators busy and well-amused (“Look, these people are harrassing me!” cries the murderer, “and they hate me, too!”).

If I were Harry Rag I would change my screen name pronto, and continue as before, or take a vacation, and resume randomly. Just abandon the old ID completely, it doesn’t matter who we are as long as we say what we mean and what needs to be said. And after 2 weeks I would change it again. And again.

Why are some of us not revealing their true identities? Because we are dealing with the most violent of *convicted* felons and murderers who are roaming the streets free and careless, ready to throw a rock into a car, fire a weapon, or slash someone’s throat (yes, I am talking about Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito).

In a more sinister twist, these murderers now have a gang of followers, some of whom claim to be former FBI agents and such, with an arsenal of violence at their disposal - fortunately, they are inept, but so are the murderers themselves!

These followers only have to gang up on the victim of choice (which is what they do now), and follow the model marketed by legitimate PR firms, an army of incompetent and/or corrupt reporters, and writers of dubious reputation.

Posted by Bjorn on 10/20/14 at 03:12 PM | #

Hi Bjorn

Threatening messages have been received by officialdom in Italy and Italian law enforcement keep an eye out for more crazies like Michelle Moore who screamed at Dr Mignini outside the court.

We are told by disillusioned insiders that Knox, her sister, her mother and her step-dad flood the internet every night under false names. All four could be charged.

Online harassment of Italian officials was actually initiated by Curt Knox and David Marriott nearly a year before a majority on PMF saw a clear case for guilt, and eight months before TJMK came online in response.

By the way, in sharp contrast, no strong laws support Knox and her gang. Claims to the contrary are all smoke.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/20/14 at 03:20 PM | #

The point about these people is quite simple. They believe that they can intimidate and threaten and destroy innocent families of the real victim with impunity in the belief that their sick agenda is inviolate and they cannot be reached which is a woeful mistake on their part. In their believe that they can hide behind freedom of the press to say anything they want is naive in the extreme.

Doug Bremner for example hides and is nowhere to be found just like Chris Mellas and Curt Knox who change their internet identity constantly in the belief that by so doing there will seem to be more FOAKers than in actuality. This confirms what abject manipulative cowards they are. Of course Bremner and others want to find Harry Rag who has never posted anything in other than his name and thereby his true identity because they know that Harry Rag speaks the truth and so they are afraid of him and others such as the posters herein who they see as a threat against their lies.

Of course this is going to get worse as they become more desperate so to quite Shakespeare’s Macbeth…“Screw your courage to the sticking place.”

The rabid animals who support Knox and enable a convicted murder to try to escape will not prevail in their vile attempts because eventually justice will be served. They are of the opinion (and for the sake of argument) that the Knox and Sollecito’s appeal will be successful, and they believe thereby that it will end there. That for them is woefully stupid because this will never end.

There will always be those such as the Bremners Moores Mellas who will continue to insist and threaten but thankfully to no avail. Of course we will be there also to expose just what self serving inferior human breeding stock they are.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/20/14 at 08:04 PM | #

Perhaps I should share a short story on people posting anonymously and who they really are.

I am talking about shills, or people with a vested interest in distorting the truth to mind-bending heights, I believe the story is relevant for a proper perception of the FOA.

A few years ago a bunch of individuals were sharing horror stories about our former employer (a well-known company) on the Yahoo Finance forum of that company’s ticker - total freedom of speech, one would say (the company was and still is public, therefore accountable to investors).

Well, enter a total and complete idiotic shill who starts insulting everybody, calling everybody “sourpusses” and losers, and bragging about his “vision” and impartiality.

Essentially, he was praising the CEO (an XXXXish-American), the company itself (an aggressive, ruthless, law-breaking, financial-fraud-prone joint, given to all sorts of illegalities), and his own abilities in calling stock transactions at just the right time to become rich—such that, you see, it wasn’t the company itself who was breaking the law, it was the stupid people who couldn’t see how great it was, and the sourpusses who had worked for that company and couldn’t do anything else but complain about how crooked it was.

Well, all this abuse went on for a couple of years (indeed, at least 2 or 3), until one fine day our little man posted a reply addressed to him, but using a different ID - kind of like Amanda Knox and Michelle-whats-her-face.

A quick search on the *other* ID revealed a lot more about the guy - he was also XXXXish (!), and was working in an office not far from that company’s HQ.

His alleged “inspired” transactions could have been a case of insider trading (based on his XXXXishness) and the real FBI would have had a lot of fun making kebabs out of these fellers - someone noticed it, posted a video of a popular XXXXish singer in response (in the spirit of: guess what, buddy, you just outed yourself), and the guy was forever gone.

(Epilogue: yes, I still remember who he is, he now has a LinkedIn account 😉).

So essentially he was not so impartial, and in most likelihood broke the law big time.

Lesson: if something looks suspiciously fishy (fischy?), it probably is.

Posted by Bjorn on 10/21/14 at 12:09 AM | #

Doug Bremner has offered $1,000 for The Machine’s true identity. Ha! The Machine has been worth 10,000 times that amount in the work he has done for justice. His comments are always lean and factual without the slightest hysteria. He has never backed down to anyone, friend or foe, if he thinks error is being promoted.

Harry Rag has pressed on for years and years supporting Meredith’s case despite the onslaughts of FOA emotionalism and reactivity. He never backs down but refers back to the facts in persevering and incredibly patient arguments where he does not have to plummet to name-calling and abuse like the clueless persons who debate him. He doesn’t have to. He comes from a position of truth. Facts are his defense. Truth always stands. His style is powerful, hard-hitting but clean and occasionally witty.

The Machine or Harry Rag has been a tireless advocate for a helpless victim’s defense. Meredith deserves just such a cool genius on her side. She was extremely bright herself.

The Machine has done what he wanted to do and kept his anonymity this long. It means he must be one sharp intellect who knows his way around cyber world.

He has bolstered the case for conviction with honest debate and factual proof using not passion and prejudice but logical thinking alone.

This Machine whoever he is has courage and tenacity. Many are jealous of him. His success and flawless reasoning make him the envy and terror of the blind and prejudiced FOA nutters whose only hope is that fuzzy thinking might release their beloved killers unpunished. The tyranny of their lies and low cunning has met its match in The Machine.

I hope nobody ever finds out who he is until he chooses to reveal it, if ever. He has always been the Voice of Reason and the last to compromise. Strength and honor, kudos to him.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/21/14 at 02:09 AM | #

There’s still a lot going on in the background about this case but I want to thank Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva for their excellent job translating the Amanda Knox interview.

We already know so much about Knox’s behaviour and lies. But reading it in detail gives us a feel for what went down:

PM Mignini: ... “Why did you accuse Lumumba?”


Knox: “It means that in the moment when I told Patrick’s name, I thought that it could have been true.”

She is either so divorced from reality that I wonder about her long term mental stability, or, she is a consummate liar. I don’t need to decide though; it seems the courts already have.

Posted by Ergon on 10/21/14 at 03:09 AM | #

Steve Moore, who always comes up with unintended consequences, just posted the following:

“Steve Moore @Gman_Moore   Use the Internet to “annoy, harass abuse or threaten any person” - risk imprisonment for not more than 2 years. 47 USC 223 (2006)
6:43 PM - 20 Oct 2014 “

Didn’t you just harass John Kercher Jr? As your friend Doug Bremner just did? Or another ex-FBI, Jim Clemente, admitting it was based on allegations made by you which he took at face value?

Or your own wife, Michelle, at

“Why not me too, Mr. Mignini, please I publicly DEFAME you.”....“It’s a terrible thing he’s doing and Mignini and his “men” share much RESPONSIBILITY for the death of Meredith Kercher “

“Oh, and because of the deal Mignini made with Guede after his little visit to jail, Rudy then officially implicated Amanda and Raffaele at his Appeal, he’d never even seen Raffaele.”

Before you whine about others…

Posted by Ergon on 10/21/14 at 06:25 AM | #

Hi Ergon

A deal with Guede? All such deals are illegal. If Moore was not so blinded with rage, he would have a few actual facts at his fingertips, such as that Sollecito goes on trial soon for among other false claims suggesting that prosecutors sought a deal with him - which his own father said was untrue.

During the 2009 trial (when the Moores were not around) Dr Mignini rejected, repeat rejected, a suggestion by Guede’s lawyers of testimony in exchange for some sort of break. Guede never got the slightest break from anyone. Recently in Milan Guede got another prison sentence, for being in receipt of stolen property, how does Moore explain that one?

Perhaps quote back at Steve Moore etc the stiff laws relating to stalking and harrassing of a victim’s family during an ongoing legal process, and the stiff laws relating to bloodmoney.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/21/14 at 11:38 AM | #

not only illegal, impossible I would say, as not envisaged by the code for serious crimes, ie not practically possible, there are no exceptions ... in addition 1. a prosecutor cannot promise or decide anything in that system (even if it was a small crime for which plea bargain is possible, judge or court decides and can say no)  2. Mignini was not the PM responsible of the Guede appeal as the groupies should know if they had read the primary documents they publish on their, for the rest, useless website 3. Mignini got a life sentence for RG (decreased to 30 years for fast track discount) I do not believe he appealed this verdict, obviously.

Posted by Popper on 10/21/14 at 07:23 PM | #

so as we said many times (I repeat for newcomers and for the benefit of people in good faith, FoA in bad faith know already) Guede got this reduction as the life sentence (with fast track discount 30 years, this is an automatic formula) became 24 years given the judges of appeal gave generic mitigations equivalent to aggravations, exactly as in the first instance and appeal trials of Amanda and Raffaele.  Once this factor is introduced, the base penalty for murder becomes 24 years (like Amanda and Raffaele) but there is, for Guede, the automatic reduction of 1/3 for the choice of the abbreviated trial.  Result is 16 years of prison.

Amanda and Raffaele got from 24 to 28.5 and 25 for their other crimes in continuation, theft phones, simulation, transportation of a weapon, calumny to Lumumba (only Knox).

Posted by Popper on 10/21/14 at 07:42 PM | #

Thanks for the translations, I have heard parts of them before, but not the whole.

One thing I find very interesting, the fact Amanda says that she didn’t enter the bathroom (Filament and Laura’s). She raised such a ‘stink’ about the poo in the toilet that she even went and told the investigators about it on Nov 2nd outside the house. If Amanda didn’t go into the large bathroom. She couldn’t have seen the poop, she is 5 foot 4 inched tall. PMF has a photo taken from before the door into the room, I doubt the person that took that photo is shorter than Amanda, you can see a bout an inch or two on the far side top of toilet, the seat is down of course.

Also, the hair dryer is on the counter before the room, the mirror she would have used and the electrical plug in is just to the right of the washing machine. She wouldn’t have been anywhere near that toilet, or had a reason to enter that part of the washroom.

PIP’s say she didn’t have to look into the toilet, she would smell it. I say good luck, the poop would have been sitting there for about 14 hours with a window and door open all that time.

Amanda was well aware whose poop that was, and while she wouldn’t give Rudy’s name herself, she sure made sure the police knew about it.

The other thing I got out of this translation concerns the mop and bucket she also made such a fuss over, the pipe did break as they said, just not when they said. She had to go to work that night, so they must of eaten before 8:30. The story about getting a mop tomorrow would be fine, until she found out she no longer had to go to work. It’s a 5 min walk to her place, why wait until morning now. I believe that may have been the real reason she went back home and got into an argument with Meredith over the missing money which started this whole affair. I’d bet also, she didn’t initially take the whole 300, possibly less that she only wanted to borrow, but Meredith wasn’t home so she just took it, with an intention of paying her back the next day. I know Raff didn’t have money in his account, he had a cash transfer on the 2nd done, I’m guessing Amanda didn’t have her rent money yet as well, now that they had the whole weekend off, she needed money to go out where as she didn’t need it if she had been working as planned.

Posted by John on 10/22/14 at 05:40 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 The Hundreds Of DNA Samples Taken And Analyses Done, Shown In Table Form

Or to previous entry Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #3