Sunday, June 01, 2014

Knox Interrogation Hoax #5: Key Witness Monica Napoleoni Confirms Knox Self-Imploded 5-6 Nov

Posted by Our Main Posters

[Above: Deputy Police Commissioner Monica Napoleoni as a witness at trial in 2009]

1. Overview of our series on the Knox interrogation hoax

This is a brief summary. Please read the full series here.

Approximately 10 posts will be devoted to the 2009 trial testimony, including Amanda Knox’s, which did her no good, and then another 10 posts to the escalating hoax propagated by Knox and the conspiracy nuts.

Here is a new example just posted by fervid new conspiracy nut Lisa Marie Basile in the Huffington Post.

We should remember that Knox was interrogated for many hours without food or water. She was slapped and screamed at in Italian—a language she barely understood at the time. When the police found her text message (which said the English equivalent of “goodnight, see you another time”) with Lumumba, they psychologically tortured her and coerced her into confessing that he was involved in the murder.

If her text message was sent to anyone else of any race, the same would have occurred. She named him because they named him. More so, false confessions aren’t rare. According to the Innocence Project, “In about 25 percent of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.”

What total nonsense. None of Lisa Marie Basile’s “facts” here are correct. That leaves nothing of her absurd “she’s innocent but beautiful” theory still standing. This is what actually took place.

2. How Knox helped police with recap/summary 5-6 Nov

Late on 5 November 2007 Senior Inspector Rita Ficarra arrives back at the police station, to find her way blocked by a cartwheeling Knox. She mildly remonstrates. Knox testily responds that she has become sick and tired of the investigation, though she has really been little put-out.

Rita Ficarra suggests she go home and get some sleep. Knox refuses, and stays put.

After a short while Rita Ficarra suggests to Knox that if she really wants to help, she could add to the list of who Meredith knew and who might have visited the house. Knox happily agrees. So they begin on the list.

The entire official team is three often-commiserating ladies, and one man, who holds Knox’s hand.  As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.

During the session, Inspector Napoleoni and a couple of colleagues are seeking facts from Sollecito in a separate wing. Shown conflicts between what he has said and what his phone records show, Sollecito backtracks in a heartbeat and throws Knox under the bus.

Meanwhile Knox calmly produces seven names. No voices were raised until, to the considerable surprise of all others present, Knox has a yelling, head-clutching conniption (the first of three that night). This happens when they come across a text she had sent to someone though she had said she sent no texts. This text said she would see this unnamed person later, at an indefinite time.

Knox in turn throws Patrick under the bus, and later Sollecito. A torrent of accusations against Patrick explodes. The discussion is brought to a halt. Several hours later, Dr Mignini arrives at the police station, and in a second session presides over a reading of Knox’s rights.

At both sessions Knox herself insists on keeping everyone captive while she writes it all out. See the first statement here and the second statement here.  Both times, she is warned she should have a lawyer by her side first. Both times she declines.

In the noon statement Knox included this without any mention of having been coerced: “The questions that need answering, at least for how I’m thinking are… 2. Why did I think of Patrik?”

Here is the relevant part of Inspector Monica Napoleoni’s testimony at the 2009 trial. It was kindly translated by ZiaK. GCM is Judge Massei, who often ensures focus and clarity.

Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini

Dr Mignini [GM]: There, so 6 November, the house was therefore subjected to sequestration, so there were ...

Monica Napoleoni [MN}: Yes, the house, after it was subjected to sequestration, there was Amanda in the Questura when we got back, since the material that was sequestered/confiscated, a lot of it was hers, apart from the keys to the house of the boys on the floor below, that the boyfriend left with Meredith the keys to below, we notified the sequestration to Amanda, at any rate we sequestered the whole building.

GM: There we go; the night between 5 and 6 November. You remember, no?

MN: Certainly.

GM: There now, can you tell us what happened?

MN: We went ahead with the checks. Obviously, of all the depositions [of various witnesses], as I said. No indications of responsibility appeared against [any] others. We took photos from the Internet of the party, for example, of 31 October. We identified the people who we saw in the photos with Amanda. We had begun a series of activities also of telephone interception, obviously.

GCM: Excuse me, in photos with Amanda

MN: Pardon me, yes, with Meredith, yes. We had begun an activity of phone interceptions, in short, against numerous people, also to understand what had happened that night. We had also known, through the consultation of the phone read-outs, for example, that Amanda and Sollecito had had their cellphones inactive that evening. One from 20:35, perhaps Amanda from 20:35 and Sollecito from 20:42. And there was, shall we say, this void of telephone traffic [for] Raffaele Sollecito until 06:02 of the morning.

GM: Of the 2nd [November], therefore?

MN: Of the 2nd. And Amanda, on the contrary, until 12:03, 04 or 07 [PM], I don’t remember [exactly], at any rate when she began trying, shall we say, to catch sight of [sic] or to seek to call Meredith. I don’t know what the first call was. And that, honestly, it seemed strange to us, because Sollecito had always declared that he had woken in the morning, that he had been awoken by Amanda ...

GB: President, excuse me, we are again starting the usual”¦

GCM: Report the declarations only, where they are ...

MN: Well, how should I do, then?

GCM: ... indispensible to do them for the subsequent investigations.

MN: I wanted to say that if Raffaele had slept until ten-thirty or eleven in the morning, how on earth had his telephone been switched on at 06:02?

GCM: So you carried out these investigative activities on the telephone printouts?

MN: That’s why, in the meantime, we had ...

GCM: On the printouts, in relation to these declarations.

MN: Certainly, but on kind of a lot of people, also, obviously, with respect to these declarations, so for that reason even this fact did not add up. Obviously, during those days,  we were always there, we were continuously calling witnesses. That is to say, the English girls, we called them many times. The flatmates, we called them continuously, because [for] every detail we wanted to have a crosscheck, that is, bit by bit, as we advanced with the investigations, it’s normal that we need to re-hear/re-question the witnesses and see if we can manage, in short, to understand/grasp something.

GM: The evening of the 5th [November].

MN: Ah, indeed. In fact, we had decided to call Raffaele Sollecito this time. We had telephoned a colleague from the SCO, it seems to me he called him. Raffaele said he was out to dinner with Amanda, and that he would come to the office after dinner. In fact, he arrived after 22:00 hours, I don’t recall the exact time.

Amanda also came that evening, the evening of the 5th. We said to Amanda that she could go home to rest. Since, during those days, she was always saying, always complaining that she wanted to rest, wanted to eat, we said: “Look, you’ve eaten, you can go and rest yourself. If there’s a need, we’ll call you”.

Instead, she was very nervous, and insisted on staying there, and we kept her ... well, not even in the waiting room, [but] in the entry-hall of the Flying Squad [offices], that is to say, before entering the Flying Squad [offices], outside the lifts, there are some chairs there. The girl sat herself down there.

And I began to examine Raffaele in an S.I.T. [NdT: “sommarie informazione testimone” or brief witness questioning/recap, not full interrogation], together with two colleagues from the SCO in Rome. Then, I remember for example one fact, the same that had struck me [then], that I think I went to get a little bottle of water, something, [and] while I was going out I found Amanda who was doing the splits and cartwheels, in the Questura offices. It’s obvious that all these behaviours, all the contradictions, that is to say, we re-called “¦

GCM: So she was doing”¦

GM: What time was this?

MN: Well, it would be about 11:00 [p.m.]

GM: There you go. And then?

MN: Then we ...

GM: Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele, but especially of Amanda, the night of 5 to 6 [November] in that period?

MN: For one thing, I point out that it wasn’t me who heard her for the minutes/written record, but it was other colleagues [Rita Ficarra plus several] who heard/questioned her. However, it’s obvious that we”¦ some [of us] left, some entered, some were walking by, that is to say. This is normal. She [Amanda] always had an exaggerated manner.

GCM: In this manner, you said, she was doing the splits, cartwheels, there you go.

MN: She was doing the splits, doing cartwheels.

GCM: Others…?

MN: That is to say, she was laughing. She didn’t have the behaviour of a person ...

GCM: Please.

GM: But this behaviour, did it then change? How did it change, and when did it change?

MN: No, that, however ... Afterwards, I again say…  that is to say, I saw her at intervals, however I was not there while they were taking her minutes/written record. A few times, I maybe went in to get, to bring a coffee, to bring something, however it was not me who was present there the whole time.

GM: However you saw that at a certain point she had begun to cry, you said?

MN: It was already almost at the morning.

GM: Towards what time did that happen?

MN: Well, Raffaele Sollecito’s minutes/written record, I think ““ because we also gave him quite a lot of causes [sic: should be pauses/breaks?] ““ I think we finished with him around three-thirty, three-forty. [With] Amanda, on the contrary, it finished much later. Yes, I also saw that she was crying in the anti-theft office, in effect, where they were examining/questioning her.

GM: Do you remember how she was treated by the staff, whether there were “¦?

MN: Amanda was treated very well. Amanda, she was “¦

GM: ... violence, of ...

MN: But absolutely not! Amanda was given something to drink several times. She was brought hot chamomile, she was taken to the bar of the Questura to eat. First she was given brioches from the little [vending] machine. That is all to say, Amanda was treated well.

GM: So, you, later, you continued the investigations, and never returned to Via della Pergola, no?

MN: No, I ...

Civil Party Attorney Pacelli

CP: Lumumba defence. Listen, I’m referring to the evening of 5 November, precisely, when Amanda came to the offices of the Questura. At what time did she arrive?

MN: They had been out to dinner, she and Raffaele, so for that reason they arrived around 22:15, 22:20 ““ after ten o’clock for sure.

CP: After 22:00.

MN: Yes. Certainly.

CP: She remained, therefore, the whole evening, the whole night of the 5th obviously”¦

MN: Yes, yes.

CP: Also the morning of the 6th. During that period of time, does it seem to you that Miss Amanda was beaten/struck?

MN: Absolutely not. I already explained that earlier.

CP: Yes, no, but I however am in cross-examination. I am asking detailed, precise questions, and I have very few.

MN: No, absolutely not.

CP: Was she, by any chance, therefore, manhandled/beaten up, threatened or insulted?

MN: No, she was treated well. Obviously with firmness, because it’s not as though we were at the cinema, in short, or at the circus ““ even if someone else might think that, we don’t.  With firmness, but with courtesy she was “¦

CP: These methods of treatment, how did they translate into practice? With what behaviour/actions [were they carried out] in actual fact? Earlier, you recalled that they actually brought her something to eat”¦

MN: It’s true. That morning, I remember that Inspector Ficarra actually took her to the bar to eat as soon as it opened. But before [that], we have little [vending] machines on the ground floor, and she was brought water, she was brought hot drinks, she was brought a snack. But also Raffaele, he was given something to drink, it’s not as though they were kept “¦ absolutely.

CP: Yes, yes. But thus we have a firm manner, but with great regard and respect?

MN: Absolutely, yes. Because at any rate we were dealing still with young folk of twenty years of age, that is to say, we never forgot this.

CP: Thank you. Thank you, Doctor [NdT: “Doctor” refers also to graduates, and is a term of respect, not necessarily implying a medical or PhD degree]. I have no other questions, President.

Defence Attorney Bongiorno

GB: You said, precisely, that Amanda was treated very well, taken to the bar, chamomile, etc.

MN: It’s true.

GB: During these interrogations in the Questura, I wanted to know, as regards Sollecito, who had these extremely long interrogations: was Sollecito also taken to the bar? Did he eat?

MN: Sollecito was not taken to the bar, because I did not take him to the bar. However, Sollecito was given “¦ he requested water, [and] he was brought water. He was given numerous pauses/breaks.

GB: Was it said to Sollecito, at a certain point, when you challenged/impugned/questioned him… obviously the interrogation, as we know, went on an extremely long time ... that he could have recourse to a lawyer?

MN: I took him in for the recaps/summary information, and I did not suspend/interrupt the minutes/written record against him.

GB: You didn’t think that a lawyer was necessary?

MN: In that moment, no.

GB: How long did this interrogation last?

MN: We started at 10:40 until three-forty approximately.

GB: Were there objections [NdT: “contestazione” can also mean “formal notice”, e.g. of a charge] in the course of the interrogation?

MN: No, I did not make any objections/[formal notices]. We asked him simply to tell us what had happened that day.

GCM: Excuse me. When you say “10:40”, do you mean 22:40?

MN: 22:40, yes.

GB: So during the course of the interrogation, he did not ... reach/join [the status of] suspect by clues/evidence?

MN: He was not?

GB: You did not make any objections/formal notices?

MN: When we hear someone for recaps/summary information, that is to say, it is normal that we ask them questions, it’s normal, that is to say “¦

GB: Questions, yes. I was asking you if you had made any objections/formal notices.

MN: I asked why on earth he had told us up to that point things that did not correspond to the truth.

GB: And after you asked this question, did you not consider that for Raffaele it would “¦ it was necessary to call a lawyer for Raffaele?

MN: Well, Raffaele Sollecito, already from when he came to the Questura at any rate, no-one ever prevented him from telephoning or from doing what he wanted.

GB: I’m not asking you if he was prevented. You know that it is provided ...

MN: No, I no ...

GB: Excuse me. Let me finish. You know that it is provided by law that when there are objections/formal notices or [if] recaps/summary informations turn into interrogations, the minutes/written record must be halted. The subject must be given the possibility, especially if it is the middle of the night, to have the possibility [sic] to call a lawyer and to have a consultation. You are telling me that there were objections/formal notices made, but you did not consider [it necessary/expedient] to stop the minutes/written records.

MN: I am telling you that I took Raffaele Sollecito for minutes/written records [NdT: the witness often uses the term “verbale”, which is literally “minutes/written record”, in the sense of “to question/questioning”] without making any objections/formal notices to him, or asking him things, as one normally does to all the witnesses, and I closed the minutes/written record, concluding the SIT [“sommarie informazione testimoniale”]. That is to say, in that moment I did not object/make a formal notice of anything to him.

GB: However, you asked him the question that you told me earlier, if he was saying things that were not true?

MN: But one asks this of everyone. That is to say, it’s not that it was asked only of him. I don’t understand.

GB: How much later after this interrogation was Raffaele’s detention/provisional arrest made?

MN: It was made the same morning.

GB: What new elements were there with respect to those interrogations?

MN: In the meantime Amanda Knox was being examined for minutes/written records over there, and there are “¦ the contradictions between them were too [far] out.

GB: And these contradictions ... on the basis of these contradictions, you never called the lawyer, neither for the one, nor for the other? Is this correct?

MN: I was not with Amanda Knox, but I don’t believe that she was prevented from calling the lawyer. You must ask this of Inspector Ficarra, not of me, because I was not there in that moment.

GB: The objective elements, starting from the declarations, on the basis of which Raffaele Sollecito was arrested: do you recall that there was a print [footprint] amongst these elements?

MN: He was subjected to provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor, not arrested.

GB: Provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor. Do you remember the print?

MN: For me, the objective elements are all the contradictions and, shall we say, the false alibis that Raffaele, together with Amanda, gave us until they were separated.

GCM: The Attorney is asking: was there, at any rate, a print?

MN: There was a print that was held to be compatible with Raffaele Sollecito by the Laboratory of Forensic Police of Foligno.

GCM: Yes. That’s what you asked, no?

GB: Yes, and I also wanted to know: these contradictions that you’ve talked so much about, so were they contradictions that were given during these minutes/written records that we are talking about, these minutes/written records when there was no lawyer”¦

MN: Taken from the first second when we had begun to hear/question them, and going onwards from there. Because it was scarcely believable all the stories that they told us, and Raffaele knows very well that he told me things, spontaneously, without me having requested/pressed him, for that matter.

GB: On the basis of all [sic]... You are talking to me of contradictions. I am asking you: since there were these contradictions, that you actually hold to be so important that they then led to the provisional arrest/detention, because this “¦

MN: But the decree of detention/provisional arrest does not come from the Judicial Police.

GB: You are telling me of contradictions from the beginning to the end.

MN: It’s true.

GB: Since you are not talking about a contradiction at the very last hour, that is to say at five in the morning, but from the beginning to the end, I am asking myself why a lawyer was not called.

MN: I repeat that the provisional arrest/detention was from the Public Prosecutor, and not the Judicial Police.

GB: No, I’m asking you why the lawyer was not called during the minutes/written record.

MN: Because I did not consider [it necessary] to do so because I closed [the session] as recaps/summary information. The gravity of the fact emerged when Amanda Knox was also heard/questioned, who was examined up to 01:45, it seems to me, of the morning. It’s obvious that afterwards my colleagues reported to me what was happening over there.

GB: Very well. Listen, is there a report in which you speak of Amanda’s cartwheel?

MN: No, me personally, no.

GB: Did someone make a report with this cartwheel of Amanda’s?

MN: The report on the cartwheel, in short, it did not seem necessary to me to make one. However, regarding strange and suspect behaviours there is always “¦

GB: Since, in one of the preliminary hearings you reported it as one of the most significant elements.

MN: It did not seem normal to us.

GCM: Excuse me. Yes, at any rate, there was no annotation.

MN: No.

GCM: We are only doing questions and the answers. Please.

Defence Attorney Ghirga

GCM: Please Attorney.

LG: One very last question: at the same time you say that the night of the 6th, between the 5th and the 6th, “Amanda was treated well, at 4 in the morning ““ [as] this timetable shows ““ she was even, shall we say, quote-unquote refreshed, she began to cry””¦

MN: No, I didn’t indicate that at 4, at any rate.

LG: She began to cry at 4. If you want, I ...

MN: However I have never indicated a timetable.

LG: Nonetheless, when you pinpoint the time, shall we say, [of] this “¦ You report about Amanda and say that, at a certain point, I have it written, at 4 in the morning it indicates, she was calm”¦.

GCM: Yes, please, please.

LG: And that she was nonetheless treated well, when [you] place [this], and then this “treated well” emerges with a tea, it seems to me. Can you place this [event] in time?

MN: Yesterday, at the Public Prosecutor’s request, I answered this, however I also specified that Inspector Ficarra dealt with this matter. I recall exactly how Amanda was treated because we were going in and out, however I can’t give you times of [her] collapse/breakdown, of when she started to cry. I saw her cry, but I don’t recall having been able to give this timetable yesterday. At 4, I don’t remember.

LG: You said that Amanda was in an antitheft room.

MN: She was in the antitheft office.

LG: And that is on which floor? I don’t know this.

MN: Still on our floor, the Flying Squad is the only one. There is a main door, and then there are various offices.

LG: On the same floor where shortly before, shortly afterwards, we shall see, Raffaele Sollecito was also interrogated?

MN: Yes, in a different wing, in effect.

LG: It is in the antitheft room - but perhaps I’m wrong, so don’t get mad straight away ““ that you saw either the splits or the cartwheel and “¦

MN: No, it was in the entry-hall before coming into the Flying Squad [offices], at the exit from the lifts.

LG: So at the lower floor?

MN: No, on the third floor one comes out of the lift, on the left there’s the entry to the Flying Squad. Before that there’s a pre-entry, with little armchairs.

LG: So we’re at the entry-hall of the third floor, where the Flying Squad is.

MN: Yes, but not inside the Flying Squad. There’s another door.

LG: Is this the anti-theft room?

MN: No, the antitheft office is an office where the antitheft squad is, and then advancing there’s the Flying Squad on the left.

LG: But when you, I believe in order to get a bottle of water, go into a place where Amanda is, you see”¦

MN: No, I was passing to go get the water, yes…

LG: If you could clarify this for us better.

MN: I was passing to go get a little bottle of water from the little [vending] machines, by necessity I must exit from the Flying Squad, and I tell you again that she was in the entry-hall, there by the lifts.

LG: Alone?

MN: No, there were colleagues.

LG: Your colleagues?

MN: Colleagues, it seems to me, from the Rome SCO.

LG: She was with policemen, and she was doing a movement, which movements were different, a cartwheel and a split are not two things, so if you remember you were this precise.

MN: I remember.

LG: What was she doing?

MN: For sure it struck me: she did both a splits and a cartwheel.

LG: Both of them. She was doing gymnastics.

MN: Eh.

LG: Thank you.

GCM: There are no further questions.

Defence Attorney Maria del Grosso

MDG: With reference to the night of 5 November, do you remember at what time Dr Mignini arrived?

MN: No, I don’t remember.

MDG: And how long did the gathering of information from Amanda Knox by your colleagues go on? How much time?

MN: Look in the minutes, I did not do it.

MDG: And there is no minutes, there is no time of closing.

MN: So then why are you asking this of me…

GCM: If you remember.

MDG: If you remember, Doctor?

MN: No, I don’t remember.

MDG: If you remember. If you don’t remember, not ...

MN: No.

Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini

GM: Listen, do you recall Amanda’s “memoriali” [NdT: written notes (plural)], do you recall the first “memorial”?

MN: I remember that Inspector Ficarra said to me, after the execution of the detention/provisional arrest, that Amanda had asked her for blank sheets [of paper] because, word for word, she wanted to give a gift, wanted to write things. And I remember too that she was given these blank sheets [of paper], she wrote for some time, so much [time] that I even requested Inspector Ficarra to go [away/home?] because we had to accompany the detainees to jail. At any rate, Amanda was made to finish writing, and she gave to the Inspector this “¦

GM: Were other “memoriali” sequestered?

MN: Yes, later in jail.

GM: At what times?

MN: It seems to me that with the report of 29 November [there were] diaries and manuscripts of Amanda’s [that were] sequestered in jail.


Not much obvious joy for the defense teams in this. It did nothing to impede Knox’s calunnia conviction for framing Patrick, however much Knox tries now to rewrite history.

Here again is Knox refusing to go home and sleep when told she is unwanted, imploding spontaneously over the sight of the text, not being ill-treated, and seemingly literally being stuffed full of refreshments.

Both RS and AK collapse like creampuffs - and they were not even at the top of anyone’s list. Sollecito fingers Knox very readily and Knox in her 3rd statement also fingers Sollecito very readily without backing down over Patrick. 

I doubt Cardiol rates the defense questions very highly though it is a defense minefield with such untrustworthy clients. It never comes out in any of these cross-examinations that Napoleoni or anyone had it in for the pair.

Many others were also being observed and having their phones tapped.  And it does not come out in any testimony or cross-examination of anyone present that night that these two claimed events occurred.

1) From Knox’s book:

Just then a cop — Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa - opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.”

That quote comes after a pages-long description of an interrogation by many cops, one that definitely did NOT take place that night. All Knox and Ficarra were doing were happily-enough building the list of seven names, with warm encouragement from the mere two others present.

The defenses confirmed it was not an interrogation and Knox may have initially enjoyed it, pointing the finger of blame at seven others. 

And in fact Monica Napoleoni did not address Knox directly at any time that night. Rita Ficarra did all the talking. 

2) From Sollecito’s book:

Then came a sound that chilled my bones: Amanda’s voice, yowling for help in the next room. She was screaming in Italian, “Aiuto! Aiuto!”

I asked what was going on, and Moscatelli told me there was nothing to worry about. But that was absurd. I could hear police officers yelling, and Amanda sobbing and crying out another three or four times.

Sollecito was in another wing, not next door. And Knox was actually screaming “He did it! He killed her!” referring to Patrick. No cop raised their voice, in fact an hours-long effort then began, to calm Knox and to stop her babbling, which she herself confirmed at trial.

Sollecito has no explanation at all for why Knox herself in her 1:45 and 5:45 statements said she said goodbye to RS and headed out - to see Patrick. He and Gumbel clearly hadnt read the transcripts.

Not that that will be a defense at their trial. Foolish, both of them.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/02/14 at 12:55 AM | #

Lisa Marie Basile of the Huffington Post seems essentially a featherweight. But if there is more to her she should read this about why Knox makes a poor feminist idol - and why so few women flock to her:


5. That Knox was made a target because timid Italy was scared of her.

Amanda and I certainly made our share of mistakes. At the beginning we were too trusting, spoke too frivolously and too soon, and remained oblivious to the danger we were courting even after the judicial noose began to tighten. Amanda behaved in ways that were culturally baffling to many Italians and attracted a torrent of gossip and criticism.

An inaccurate and xenophobic remark originated by the American Nina Burleigh, who was having severe culture shock of her own and surrounded only by other foreigners with similar mindsets. What EXACTLY was so baffling about Knox to the very hip Italians? That Knox was pushy, obnoxious, humorless, rather lazy, rather grubby, and not especially funny or pretty or bright?  That she put off Patrick, Meredith, her other flatmates, the boys downstairs, the customers in the bar, and just about everybody else except for the distasteful druggie loner Sollecito?

Read this post by the Italian-American Nicki in Milan. To quote from it “As many of us were expecting, Amanda’s testimony has backfired. She came across not as confident but arrogant, not as sweet but testy, not as true but a fake who has memorized a script, an actress who is playing a part but not well enough to fool the public….. Amanda Knox is not on trial because she is American and therefore too “emancipated”....Italians don’t much like Amanda primarily because they perceive her as a manipulative liar, who is suspected of having committed a heinous crime for which there is a whole stack of evidence.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/02/14 at 01:36 AM | #

If I remember correctly, it was the cat that turned on the mobile! And there is a youtube video to prove it!!

Seriously speaking, they have no other way out but to blame the police. You see, neither one is a real hardened criminal and you can’t help that girl broke down first.

Posted by chami on 06/02/14 at 07:50 AM | #

If you examine the mind set of the guilty and compound that with having watched US crime shows featuring the ‘Good Cop Bab Cop’ scenario. You may understand Knox behavior which is based in paranoia.

Given that point she was hyper suspicious of everything that was going on including, and especially those present, who were questioning her.

Any kindness was seen by her to be a trap in order to make her reveal the truth. Therefore, she tried to do things that, in her view, innocent people would do. (The splits for example.)  This was even carried on to the court of course (All you need is love etc)

Therefore when she was trapped she went into overdrive and blamed Patrick since obviously the other red herrings she had suggested didn’t work.

I believe that when requested for the list of others, she grabbed onto that as being a way to muddy the waters which has been her modus oporandi ever since.

Sollecito blowing her alibi proved to be the tipping point and in consequence the reason for her outburst.

As time has gone on more and more people are getting the message that she is guilty and a liar anyway and people eventually will see that they have been duped and then the backlash will commence.

Point is that for the vast majority of the US populous, even if they cared about Knox at all, don’t care about Meredith. They are far more concerned with having been manipulated and lied to aka Susan Smith.

It should be interesting to note that the defenders of Knox on Ground Report (which according to WIKI is a woefully inept source of information), are always the same people. However, they change their identity using each others pseudo-names as though each has a different point of view.

It is obvious that they are all work in the same office since they let slip snippets of information regarding each other of which there are about four or five people Fischer and Moore notwithstanding.

It’s sad that even now they beat the same drum regarding satanic rituals, the bad Mignini plus the credentials of forensic experts plus the vast conspiracy theory which includes all the Italian Court, the Italian Police, The US State Department, The British News, and now even WIKI.

The latest is the blaming of US feminists for not doing anything. They are obviously childish drama queens who enjoy the suspense since they view it as excitement and a contest. In this they are as sick as Michelle Moore. They, like her, are living in an insular environment of their own making only listening to information they just hope is true. 

The difference here is that we have the entree of Italian jurisprudence, of course, plus the insight of people who were actually there. Plus lawyers, psychologists, police experts, doctors, plus these entire court transcripts which they do not even bother to read because it holds a contrary view.

That means we have access to the truth as it happened, whereas all they have is opinion and second or third rate lies, spoon fed to the gullible by such self serving liars as Fischer Moore and before them Sforza, Spezi, Kassin, among others.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/02/14 at 05:24 PM | #

Thank you for more in this series of transcripts.

What a lovely, authentic, generous expression on Monica Napoleoni’s face.

And Rita Ficarra too. I feel I would trust them, and want to cooperate with them.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/02/14 at 07:45 PM | #

RS says “Amanda and I certainly made our share of mistakes. At the beginning we were too trusting, spoke too frivolously and too soon, and remained oblivious to the danger we were courting even after the judicial noose began to tighten. Amanda behaved in ways that were culturally baffling to many Italians and attracted a torrent of gossip and criticism.”

Culturally baffling?” Is there any culture where cartwheeling in a police station after the death of a housemate would NOT be baffling? Where saying “shit happens” with reference to the horrific death of said housemate would be considered a sensitive appraisal of the situation?

Where wearing a t-shirt proclaiming “All You Need is Love” when attending court on a murder charge would be commonplace? Where fingering your boss, who has a sure alibi, would seem a natural thing to do (because that’s what bosses are for in a culture presumably - to be fingered)? God give us strength.

Take them both away please. Like Popeye “That’s all I can stands, cuz I can’t stands n’more”.

Posted by Odysseus on 06/02/14 at 07:59 PM | #


As you say, an authentic, open expression. Compare and contrast with…  err, never mind!

Posted by Odysseus on 06/02/14 at 08:02 PM | #



Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/02/14 at 08:10 PM | #

If anyone, Monica Napoleoni was the one police officer ripe for attack by Amanda Knox.

I initially couldn’t understand why Knox named Rita Ficarra as the torturer who assaulted her until seconds after reading it in her spurious book I realised she had no other option because it was on record that she was talking to Rita Ficarra when she had her first histrionic conniption.

Monica Napoleoni is nice looking, bright, has a good position in her occupation in the police force and is always smart and nicely turned out - just about everything Amanda Knox is not.

I posted an image just after the murder of Monica talking to the deadly duo outside the cottage.
Monica’s appearance and hair was perfect; Knox’s hair was all over the place. So much for the shower and blow-dry Knox told all and sundry she had had.

In my opinion the image perfectly illustrated (busted) the hard to believe fairy story Knox had decided upon.
Sollecito looked the same as Knox - they both looked like they had been dragged through a bush.

It is of no surprise to me that since Knox’s crooked released she has wasted no time in sniping at Monica Napoleoni even though they barely spoke to each other.
Knox was/is scared of Monica Napoleoni - for that there is no doubt.

Why, Amanda Knox?
Do you think she was the first one to see through your lies and see you for what you are?
I suppose that would be scary for you.

Posted by DF2K on 06/02/14 at 11:07 PM | #

It sure seems to confirm my suspicions that Knox was only there to accuse Patrick of murder without any prompting from the police or Sollecito’s withdrawal of her alibi.  I think that they discovered that Hicham Khiri and Sophie Purton were both crossed off the list the day previous and that there was no way now to throw the cops off. 

Why didn’t Sollecito show up earlier when the police asked him in?  Why postpone the inevitable?  Certainly if he was innocent he’d have been there in the bat of an eyelash without any regard for a woman he’d only met the previous week.

My hypothesis is that Patrick was the “Plan B” all along and especially since the police had interviewed Hicham Khiri at Sophie’s prompting.  That really left nobody else for them to interview after the 4th.

Posted by Stilicho on 06/03/14 at 01:12 AM | #

That would make the fact Lumumba last saw her that morning when handing out flyers for Meredith’s memorial that much more poignant, Stilicho. She even kissed him on the cheek, which Carlo Pacelli later called “the kiss of Judas”.

Posted by Ergon on 06/03/14 at 02:57 AM | #

Oggi will be publishing new photographs of the CCTV from the parking garage tomorrow which will be one more kick at the evidence from the Sollecitos.

The problem is they’re repeating the defense’s ‘clock is 12 minutes slow’ mantra, whereas Mauro Barbadori’s testimony was that it was 10 minutes fast.’s_Testimony_(English)

FWIW, I don’t think it’s Knox in the video, and unless I can compare it with the original DVD, then sorry, isolated stills mean nothing. Whare are the stills from after Knox person enters the garage? Where did she go? To the exit leading out towards the iron stairs? To a car or waiting drug dealer? Because there were cameras inside the garage, as earlier stills show.

Posted by Ergon on 06/03/14 at 06:11 PM | #

No doubt that if they exist Oggi will publish them later. What the Knox crowd failed to realize is that the news is more interested in ratings rather than taking sides, that is unless it suits their purpose of course. But Oggi will try to retrieve their standing such as it is and deflect the negative perception thereby stopping any legal process coming their way.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 06/03/14 at 08:47 PM | #

Well, the evidentiary process is over, Grahame, and all that’s left is the finalization of the legal process. No new evidence allowed, esp. as it wasn’t allowed at the trial or appeal.

Though I wouldn’t be surprised to see Bongiorno and Maori try to present the CCTV footage at Cassazione, and muddy the waters just a little bit. Bongiorno, with one of her patented performances, I can hardly wait.

Posted by Ergon on 06/03/14 at 09:24 PM | #

The latest news from Seattle:
Experts: Flawed DNA evidence used against Amanda Knox

Posted by Hungarian. on 06/03/14 at 10:41 PM | #

GB,Your defence of your client is memorable in many ways.

Posted by DF2K on 06/04/14 at 12:31 AM | #

Hi Hungarian

The great DNA Hoax! Hampikian has touted his simplistic demo of DNA transfer for years, but he still cannot show where Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp came from if not from RS direct.

Cassation and Nencini ruled transfer out after minutely examining the processes. No contamination was PROVED. And the bra clasp was the only item the video brought into question. It didnt relate to the extensive Knox DNA at all.

Hampikian has nothing useful to say on the other 95% of the evidence points and has made some laughable mistakes.

All of our DNA posts are here:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/04/14 at 10:46 AM | #

Hi Grahame

“Oggi will try to retrieve their standing such as it is and deflect the negative perception thereby stopping any legal process coming their way.”

Its certainly possible that Oggi could be out to amass a few brownie points in advance. It was not on a winning streak.

Oggi has already been charged for some false claims re the Narducci case.

Oggi enthusiastically published long quotes from Knox’s book.

Sollecito has been charged for his book, and Knox is likely to see the same with Oggi’s quotes one of the exhibits.

Plus Oggi did a number of pieces favoring Knox and sometimes Sollecito.

Up to now I would have thought Oggi more tilted to Knox, but this video does seem to come from the direction of RSs family and Bongiorno.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/04/14 at 11:19 AM | #

Hi Ergon

“Because there were cameras inside the garage, as earlier stills show.”

Interesting. I was not aware. Can you link us to those? I photographed the 2 cameras on the top deck.

Knox’s first 2 “confessions” have her going out of RS’s house on her own. But they read more as if she had a beef (with Patrick) not a need for a fix.

Could AK have had a separate drug habit from RS? It was Knox outside the house displaying the cat-urine smell that comes from crystal meth. Nobody remarked that Sollecito had that smell.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/04/14 at 11:30 AM | #
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 Explaining Why Smart Feminists Have Rightly Been Extremely Wary Of Amanda Knox

Or to previous entry Ted “There Is No Evidence” Simon’s Tired Mantra Misinforms Americans And Provokes Italian Hard Line