Sunday, May 12, 2013

With Diffamazione Complaint Against False Claims In Oggi Knox’s Legal Prospects Continue To Slide

Posted by Our Main Posters

[Above: the Palace of Justice in Bergamo where Knox and Sollecito might spend some time]

Knox’s public relations campaign is starting to look very, very odd.

As many of our recent posts have explained, no really good lawyer in Italy would ever allow their clients to put out an inflammatory book while their legal process is still going on. It hasn’t happened in any other Italian cases in years.

And now in this case it has happened twice.

Sollecito’s book reeked of blood money, arrogance and contempt, it twisted and discounted much of the evidence, made claims which both Sollecito and others had previously contradicted, made accusations of criminal behavior against officers of the court, and separated himself from Knox.

Now guess what?

Despite the fact that Sollecito’s book was promptly dispatched to the Florence and Verona chief prosecutors with diffamazione and vilipendio complaints, Knox’s book too reeked of blood money, arrogance and contempt, it too twisted and discounted much of the evidence, it too made claims which both Knox and others had previously contradicted, it too made accusations of criminal behavior against officers of the court, and it separated her from her co-perp.

In each case there was a shadow writer, respectively Andrew Gumbel and Linda Kulman, who seem to have tired early on of the clients, as all their hired help tends to do, and simply copied the FOA playbook into the books with no sources at all checked beyond that narrow group.

To cool-headed and informed people who really know the case, Gumbel’s sources were rather a joke. PR shills Nina Burleigh and Candace Dempsey and Steve Moore? Really?  And Linda Kulman seems to have fallen into the same trap.

This becomes very obvious when you watch the two “authors” at their interviews. They are both hampered and tongue-tied because for the life of them neither can remember what their shadow writers put in the books. Several interviewers have actually caught them out. 

As we knew the Bergamo lawsuit against Oggi and Knox was headed down the pike, we set out what we consider to be the state of play last Friday. It still stands up, but might be embellished just a bit.

First, here is Andrea Vogt’s helpful description of what’s in the Bergamo complaint..

The 8-page complaint is addressed to the Prosecutor’s Office in Bergamo (near Milan), where the headquarters of the magazine are located. It cites as slanderous the suggestion that Knox was illegally interrogated and maintains that there is no trial or investigation documentation supporting a number of “affirmations that were never made.”  Mignini insists Knox was initially heard by him as a witness with key information relevant to the murder of Meredith Kercher, not as a suspect herself.

“Knox never asked for an attorney. She wanted to talk,” Mignini wrote, adding that he did not contest her statements or question her at that time, because she was making a spontaneous declaration regarding Patrick Lumumba’s alleged involvement. [In other words, not about herself.]

The complaint also questions allegations of prison mistreatment and indicates specific persons and neutral institutions as having knowledge on the matter, including the Capanne prison chaplain, U.S. embassy officials, center-right politician Rocco Girlanda and secretary general of the Italy-USA Foundation Corrado Daclon, all of whom visited Knox regularly in prison.

Also contested are phrases reported by Oggi and attributed to Knox’s memoir claiming he had a bizarre past that included a conviction on abuse of office charges that was pending appeal, when in fact he was fully and definitively acquitted of those charges in 2011 by a Florence court. 

Italy’s high court (Cassation) recently agreed with his office’s request to re-open the Monster of Florence/Narducci case, the complaint notes. That decision has lent new credence to his long-running investigation of the suspicious 1985 death of a Perugian doctor who some investigators believe was involved (Italy’s Cassation Court in March also ordered Mario Spezi, co-author of the Monster of Florence bestseller, to stand trial for allegedly attempting to pin the blame on another man).

While the targets of the suit are stated to be Oggi and Amanda Knox and her publishers, the REAL target appears set to be the FOA playbook as set out in Amanda Knox’s book. And for that matter in Raffaele Sollecito’s book.

The first complainant (there are expected to be others) Giuliano Mignini has advanced a request for a formidable slate of witnesses, which could come to include even the lawyers for Sollecito and Knox.

Won’t that be fun. As they are interrogated on the stand, each witness is going to have to take a position on what crazy stuff the FOA have pushed into the books.

Did the prosecutor offer Sollecito an illegal deal or not? Did Knox get interrogated about Patrick by the prosecutor while denying her a lawyer or not?  Did Knox complain to her lawyers about conditions in prison and if so why do those lawyers and so many others say she did not?

And maybe fifty more sudden-death choices like the above. Gee thanks Oggi and Amanda Knox. This could set some facts straight, in front of the whole world.


Amanda Knox is getting very bad counsel.

Many of the assertions she makes in her book will now be heard in Court.

Americans make a mistake when they believe that the U.S. way of doing things applies around the world.  I find the Italian justice system very interesting, with much to admire.

Media who want to understand this case should read the Massei Sentencing Report.  What you’ll find is that Amanda’s statement is just a part, and in many ways, a very small part, of the overall evidence.  The reason the Defense has focused on it is because there is so much evidence that’s irrefutable, including the cell phone evidence, the mixed DNA evidence, and the evidence of a coverup.

Case in point:  I’ve yet to hear a coherent reason for why Amanda Knox called her mother in the middle of the nght Seattle time before a murder was ever discovered. 

One of the things that’s most galling about the media spin on this is when people say that Amanda was “persecuted” because of her sex life.  No one here cares who Amanda had sex with.  What we care about is that a young woman died under horrible circumstances and another young woman seems to be getting a pass from media who haven’t taken the time to really understand the very strong case evidence that supports the case for her guilt.

As a feminist, I am tired of hearing how Amanda was under duress in the days after the murder.  In the aftermath of a murder, investigators are trying to make sense of what happened.  Amanda put herself at the scene, accused an innocent man, and lied multiple times.  But that’s not all.

The cell phone evidence, the DNA evidence, and the clear evidence of a cover up after Rudy Guede left the scene makes it clear she was involved.  The posters on this site will rest when the media starts paying attention to the body of evidence that was weighed during her original trial.

Posted by Media Watcher on 05/13/13 at 06:12 AM | #

MW, sooo well-said.  Beauty.

Thank you to the Main TJMK Posters for their amazing work, as always.

Posted by all4justice on 05/13/13 at 09:46 AM | #

I would also like to endorse what Media Watcher is saying, as I’m sure other posters here do too.

An ‘Alice in Wonderland’ analogy has already been suggested more than once :
‘Words mean what I say they will mean’..... And,
‘Drink me… And so I did’....

Let’s hope a further scenario may ensue from this fiction of the unconscious - that the ‘court’ of populist, ill-informed opinion will suddenly collapse ‘like a pack of cards’.

Meredith was cruelly murdered by more than one person. These ‘others’ are still at large.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/13/13 at 10:44 AM | #

Great advice by Media Watcher to the media she watches.  Glad they are opening their eyes.

FOA have presumed they could carry on over five years simply making up stuff and posting it, and as career officials have no blogs or TV access of their own the FOA was deluded into thinking they would always have a clear home run.

One of the PR shills, Candace Dempsey, has apparently posted that Mignini is “litigious” and simply reposted the Oggi piece in full without posting any of the 20 factual corrections in the post just below. 

Dempsey absolutely fails to understand what is contempt of court. Even the US First Amendment does not give a licence to defame. Dempsey’s blog like Fischer’s is riddled with contempt of court stuff, in an illegal attempt to make hostile American public opinion lean on the Italian court . 

When Cassation came down against Knox and Sollecito late March the PR shills Nina Burleigh and Doug Preston squealed hard. Now there is just this inaccurate little squeal from Dempsey as the entire justice system which Mignini represents in the Bergamo suit hits back.

A clear trend here. Soon there might be no squeals at all.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/13/13 at 04:45 PM | #

I agree with Media Watcher: no one cares about the sex life of Knox. The only reason it is in the spotlight is that Knox the co-author can’t leave it alone. I suspect this is an attempt to distract the media and public from the evidence.

As for that phone call, it has undergone a curious fate: after insisting in court that she had no recollection of it, in her selective memoir Knox works it back in. There’s just one problem. She has it occurring nearly 45 minutes before it did. I’m looking at the phone records and looking at this story and they don’t match up.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 05/13/13 at 05:00 PM | #

yes saw Candace Dempsey piece in Seattle Post..first time ever red her..bias, slanted and not worth calling reporting. Hopefully there will be better reporting of the evidence for a change.

Posted by Olliebear on 05/13/13 at 05:07 PM | #

I never got a response to my letter to the Times protesting their “by the book” feature with Knox, that was published yesterday.  Unbelievable to me that the Times, without ever having interviewed Knox about Ms. Kercher and Mr. Lumumba, would publish an interview with her about what her favorite books are.  Did anyone else get a response?

Posted by Ceylon on 05/13/13 at 06:33 PM | #

Hi Ceylon,

I did not get a response either. And it upsets me. I’m a long time subscriber and have always felt the NYT was one of the only decent places to get dispassionate and well researched news. I suppose many news organizations are understaffed and looking to conserve resources in order to survive in this twitter-happy world. This story probably wasn’t important enough for them to spend resources on it.

Posted by carlos on 05/13/13 at 06:57 PM | #

The New York Times Margaret Sullivan has published a brief reply that was communicated to her by the newly-appointed books editor.

I find that the response is both telling and leaves much to be desired. The good news is that the NYT is embarrassed to be caught shilling a book by a dubious author; the bad news is that the book editor’s reply totally misses the point. It might be worth sending another letter, to the editor, to the books editor and to Margaret Sullivan, expressing your displeasure with the choice and the negative response of readers to that choice.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 05/13/13 at 10:47 PM | #

This is what Knox herself said about the focus on her sexual activity:

“So people can talk about my behavior and talk about my active sexual life all they want, but it’s irrelevant to the fact that there is no evidence that places me at the murder scene.”

Yes, it is irrelevant but not for the reasons she says.  It is Knox herself who continually raises the spectre of sexual activity to distract from the evidence.

It is probably a surprise to many of her supporters and those in the media to discover that Knox was only asked once, when on the stand, about her own sexual activity and that was a brief question by Maresca which she answered in one sentence.  On the contrary, she was asked to explain why she wrote and signed documents about Meredith’s sex life on several occasions and talked about that during the trial as well.

This is an important point.  Knox may have been portrayed as a ‘sexual deviant’ or other such nonsense in the media at the time but it was not a part of the case against her inside the courtroom. In fact, and this should not be overlooked, Knox wrote about Meredith’s sex life (her version of it) in a spam email on the 4th and signed a statement on the morning of the 6th alleging that Meredith had sex before she was murdered.

Posted by Stilicho on 05/13/13 at 10:50 PM | #

Media Watcher wrote: “As a feminist, I am tired of hearing how Amanda was under duress in the days after the murder. In the aftermath of a murder, investigators are trying to make sense of what happened.”

I agree. As a young person, even in my late teens and early twenties, I too was “under duress” at various times and for various reasons. It’s true, I was never involved in a murder investigation; but I imagine that would have been less stressful than many of the things I did go through. Meredith’s friend Sophie went through similar length of questioning to Knox but has never whined about it. Knox created her own stress by her inability to answer questions clearly and directly.

Posted by Earthling on 05/13/13 at 11:18 PM | #


Agreed. And the more this creepy half-child/half-woman talks as if she’s thoroughly investigated herself and drawn a blank, e.g.“there is no evidence that places me at the murder scene” (wrong), rather than a heartfelt “for crying out loud, I didn’t murder my friend”, the more the sentient reach for their smelling salts (or crucifixes, according to disposition).

Posted by Odysseus on 05/13/13 at 11:23 PM | #

Odd, I don’t recall the NYT doing a “by the book” interview with O.J. Simpson after the publication of “I want to tell you.”  Or “If I did it,” for that matter….

Posted by Ceylon on 05/14/13 at 12:24 AM | #

I think the fact that the Solecito and Knox legal teams did not demand these books be suppressed or delayed is interesting.

It’s rather common for attorneys to have difficulty collecting fees from convicted and incarcerated clients.  Isn’t it possible that they are fairly sure that convictions are inevitable and so they allowed the books to be published so that they can collect something before the final appeal?

Posted by Eodril on 05/14/13 at 08:36 AM | #

Yes, I wondered that. Generally, both books seem to have been economic strategies.
If some of the money could eventually go to Meredith’s family and to poor Patrick, it would be helpful, ( not that it justifies them).

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/14/13 at 10:08 AM | #

WTBH book review in The Daily Telegraph today:

Though he hedges his bets the lame and uninformed reviewer tends overall to be sympathetic to Knox, which is the purpose of the book I suppose. Fictional but aiming to be persuasive.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/14/13 at 10:12 AM | #

Thanks for the link Odysseus. Tobias Jones wrote -

“And in Italy, opinion is divided right down the middle, with many (due to a jaundiced view of Italian justice) convinced of her innocence, while others (due to anti-American prejudice) sure of her guilt. When she was acquitted, thousands of Italians outside the court booed loudly at the perception that justice had kowtowed to American might.”

Actually opinion in Italy is not split down the middle. A majority of Italians think she is guilty despite having, perhaps, a jaundiced view of their own justice system. And the fact that the majority of Italians think that she is guilty has little to do with anti-american prejudice. That is a myth or rather a perception ingrained in the minds of the american media.

I still remember with shocked amusement the american TV reporter covering Knox’s release on acquittal stating that the crowd outside the court-room were booing the police and prosecutors.

That was so absurd he might as well, in another context, have been reporting that the Arab Spring was a manifestation of support for repressive regimes.

Posted by James Raper on 05/14/13 at 11:38 AM | #

Hi Odysseus and James

Yes another highly misleading piece which gives the Knox-Sollecito forces false hope.

The 2009 Massei trial was seen (on TV) to be a very clear win for the state. The appeal was seen to have been bent (as we know it was). At a guess 95% think the guilty verdict was right. Knox was just awful on the stand. And this:

Sollecito was roared at by an angry crowd when he was on his way to Verona several years back to sit his entry exam and is now in Switzerland trying to escape a hostile Italiia public. Insider tales of Knox in prison havent made her look good.

In sharp contrast the police and prosecution do look good. In fact few Italians have a jaundiced veiw of their justice system - most are pretty glad it is there, despite the fact that it may be the most pro-defendant in the world.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/14/13 at 01:42 PM | #

Those who would seek to undermine the Italian justice system include these:

(1) the three regional mafias;
(2) a few defense lawyers and wealthy defendants;
(3) politicians shielding corruption;
(4) in some instances the freemasons.
(5) those wanting the MOF/Narducci investigations to drop dead;
(6) muckraking magazines like Oggi;
(7) some xenophobic foreigners.

Guess how many have been busy here? All seven. Thank goodness the prosecution has been shown to be very brave.

Wittingly or unwittingly, Doug Preston and the FOA have been doing a great job helping out all seven.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/14/13 at 01:53 PM | #

@James Raper

Once the “great unwashed” (as the unthinking masses are sometimes cynically called here in the U.K.) take sides in a cause celebre , anything and everything gets used to explain the opponents wrong-headed behaviour. Thus simple-minded accusations of “anti-Americanism” by those tending to see AK as innocent. It becomes more important to maintain position and keep face than find truth or justice.

The alternative would be to keep an open mind while plunging into the complexity of the case.  Not many want to do that. They’ve nailed their colours to the mast, pinned their rosettes on and boy they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their position even when contrary evidence is staring them in the face. It’s the nature of belief I suppose; still, only a fool clings grimly to a belief to avoid being wrong, rather than welcoming a better explanation!

Posted by Odysseus on 05/14/13 at 02:45 PM | #


You are clearly very well informed about other attempts to undermine the Italian justice system. Fancy posting an appropriate and pithy comment under the Telegraph review?!

Posted by Odysseus on 05/14/13 at 02:51 PM | #

Hi Odysseus

Re pithy comments, help yourself! My own concern in taking the battle to the media websites is I am left doing nothing else. Many who come by and read here do a great job of those comments themselves - even we are in awe of the new insights they often throw up.

On any anti-Americanism in Italy, it is way way less than the ant-Italianism in the US. Many Americans who live there say their reception is just great.

Italians here in contrast especially when the mafia books and movies (Godather) and TV series (Sopranos) were at their peak have been made to look like some of the scariest people on earth. Thats when they are not shown as keystone cops. (On that front Italian comedy movies dont always help!)

Knox and Sollecito are joined at the hip, but in his book Sollecito tried to make out that the authorities were gunning for her as an American not him, so he would loyally stand by her.

Sollecitos book had complicated and confused agendas (not least of which was Gumbel’s own beef) but one agenda seemed to be to assure that America would give him a break if he had to flee from those nasty judges and seek asylum here.

Frank Sforza of Perugia Shock (now on the run from the law on both sides of the Atlantic) played the same game.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/14/13 at 03:26 PM | #

Re : comments.
It’s for the Kerchers sake that I am motivated to comment. They have shown themselves to be the best of British with their dignity, inclusivity and sense of fairness. I am can’t imagine them being ‘anti’ anyone, or to malign someone else out of misguided ‘self-interest.’
They deserve support.

It’s impossible to ‘get over’ the early death of any sibling, even from natural causes, - it affects one for the rest of one’s life. So one can only try and imagine how painful and sorrowful it is for the Kerchers.
And these books appearing must be so very hard to bear.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/14/13 at 04:41 PM | #


Absolutely - for the Kerchers the pain will always be unremitting but it must be particularly hard to bear with each new PR offensive when the media are seemingly so unconcerned with and disconnected from the trial process and what is really going on.

And how come the British media aren’t more interested in hearing from Meredith’s dad, who was a professional colleague?

Posted by Odysseus on 05/14/13 at 06:23 PM | #

Stilicho on 05/13/13 at 03:50 PM

“So people can talk about my behavior and talk about my active sexual life all they want, but it’s irrelevant to the fact that there is no evidence that places me at the murder scene.”

It is a classic application of bad logic.

All your actions immediately before, during and after the murder is subject to scrutiny.

We all are familiar with “absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence”

You fail to provide a convincing alibi for that night.

Her sexual activity on that night should be fair game: I am sure she will say that she did not had sex on that night. And RS will not be able to remember. And someone commented, quite accurately, that this is one of the rare events young people in that age group is likely to forget ever.

You are actually using, quite successfully, your sexual activities around the same time, to paint a slightly different image for yourself. It does work but only to a small extent. It has been used too often in the past.

You cannot decide in advance what is relevant and what is not. Just like a classic jigsaw puzzle, you need to fit all the pieces.

Posted by chami on 05/14/13 at 08:26 PM | #

Odysseus, I have often wondered the same thing. The DM, of course, are all about courting their US readers.

Posted by bucketoftea on 05/14/13 at 08:35 PM | #

Odysseus, I have often wondered the same thing. The DM, of course, are all about courting their US readers.

Posted by bucketoftea on 05/14/13 at 10:27 PM | #

@chami:  Consider also that we’re promised three pages of colour photographs chronicling the life and times of Amanda Knox.  So where are the photographs showing her with Sollecito or Meredith?  She calls Sollecito her boyfriend and Meredith her friend and yet there are no photos to go along with this claim.

There are photographs in existent showing her passed out on trains, sprawled on beds, and chatting up men in pool halls, but absolutely nothing from the key interval leading up to the murder.

That’s ancillary to your observation about what’s fair game and what isn’t.  The Groupiesâ„¢ never tire of labelling K&S “lovebirds” and Meredith and Knox as “friends” or even “good friends”.  There’s no evidence that Sollecito was anything more than another one of Knox’s druggie buddies.  She crashed at his place after the murder and wouldn’t or couldn’t leave.

Posted by Stilicho on 05/14/13 at 11:04 PM | #

Hi, new poster here, though I have been following this story for a very long time and this site for a while.

It seems to me that the vast majority of people, such as readers of the Daily Mail quickly form an opinion on controversial matters like the Kerchner murder in a kind of pink fog. Their minds can never be changed by presentations of logic.

On the other hand, those who have some first hand knowledge of law enforcement, forensics, criminals, etc. will tend to have a different perspective.

For example, what is really more probable—that Knox falsely implicated Lumumba and admitted to being in the house where the murder took place due to the fact that she was confused, starved of sleep and food, and beaten by her interrogators, or could it be that she believed at the time that Sollecito had blown her alibi and that she wanted to give Guede as much time as possible to get away?

In her subsequent vague statements about her inability to distinguish her true memory from fantasies, which is really more likely—that her incredible vagueness is an attempt to cover all bases without directly contradicting any known facts, or that she really does live in a twilight zone where her memories and fantasies are an indistinguishable melange?

To me the answer is bloody obvious, given the obvious benefits of not admitting to participation in the murder and the clean up.

Incidentally the claim of many of her supporters that there is “no evidence” is really a claim that there is little or no forensic evidence that places right her at the murder scene (if you leave out the dual DNA knife, that is), but rather ignores evidence of her having participated in a cover up and the staging of the burglary.

I would like to see more clear evidence of the extent to which Knox and Guede were already acquainted, from whom Knox obtained drugs, etc., but of course we will probably never know. My understanding is that Knox says she never met Guede, but that the Italian boys who lived downstairs testified to them having met and smoked dope together.

Posted by Domingo on 05/14/13 at 11:21 PM | #

bucketoftea: sad really isn’t it? Time was that colleagues in the same industry /profession would feel some fraternity. A tougher world now and it’s every man and woman for themselves: little time for fellow feeling it seems.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/14/13 at 11:21 PM | #

Hi Domingo,

Of course there is plenty of DNA and forensic evidence that places Amanda Knox at the crime scene - which isn’t limited to Meredith’s room. Apart from the double DNA knife, there are the mixed samples of blood in different parts of the cottage which indicate that Meredith and Knox were both bleeding at the same time.

Knox’s bare bloody footprints in the hallway were revealed by Luminol. According to the two imprint experts - Rinaldi and Boemi - the woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body matched Knox’s foot size, but was incompatible with Meredith’s foot size. It should noted that Professor Vinci and Luciano Garofano have both claimed Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra.

Posted by The Machine on 05/15/13 at 12:03 AM | #

Hi Machine

Yes, I am aware of that evidence too, but I think it is just a bit too complex for the average Daily Mail commenter to understand. Bear with me a moment.

I was once the foreman of a jury in a drunk driving case. We, the jury arrived at 9:00 a.m. and didn’t get out until after 6:00 p.m. The evidence was very detailed and the lawyers took the two police officers through every step of their arrest including how they had been trained to tell if someone was drunk.

How much was reported in the local newspaper the next day? Actually nothing, because there wasn’t even a reporter in court, so maybe not a good example, but in reality even in high profile cases almost none of the evidence is ever reported in mass circulation newspapers—you just get the verdict and the sentence.

For example today’s UK newspapers are reporting that a gang of Asian men were convicted of pimping young girls in local authority care to men for up to 600 pounds. That sounds like an awful lot of money to me and I look for more information, but it isn’t there. Is this a group rate for example,  or individual? Is this for an hour or for the whole night? Who WERE these affluent clients.

These are the type of questions I would immediately ask, but the public is never given the details of the evidence.

I am not questioning the conviction of these men, and I am sure the jury heard lots of evidence,  but we the public are just given the executive summary, if that.

It seems to me that a similar dynamic is in play in this Kercher murder case. Those who say Knox is an innocent bystander caught up in police malpractice and denial have never heard all the evidence that the judge and jury will hear, and they will never hear it even if Knox and Sollecito are convicted again.

That is just a fact of life of the way crimes are reported in the media, which is exactly why Knox’s father hired a PR firm to try to confuse media reporting, especially in the US. Will this pay off in the long run? Who knows? I suspect not.

Posted by Domingo on 05/15/13 at 12:36 AM | #


Sadly, that is true - about the nature of reporting, and also perhaps, of the nature of many readers,easily contented with a superficial sound bite.

The details, usually withheld, are nearly always crucial in some respect.

If there is ever a case that one knows about beforehand ( e.g. A friend who was knocked down and killed), then one can be astounded at the reporting.

After I first read the Massei report - finding it here- I too thought the answer was obvious. I concluded that FOA,and similar, maintaining otherwise had to either :

a) not have read the Massei report,nor be acquainted with the evidence and alibis - perfectly possibly given the unbalanced reporting. and/or :

b) be incapable of logic and normal reasoning processes, possibly because of neuroses or personality disturbance of their own, or simply due to low IQ. and/or :

c) actually be aware - either of what had happened that night, or what had probably happened, and were then being purposefully disingenuous or misleading.

Reading the report - even a summary of it - does take some work and concentration . I suspect many can’t be bothered. Heres a great summary.

I just feel I want to keep remembering Meredith, and empathize with her family.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/15/13 at 01:49 AM | #

As MediaWatcher mentions, I find it interesting how Amanda claims she wanted to “help” the police find Meredith’s murderer, and in the next breath claims she was under duress.

I remember Meredith everyday, even tho she wasn’t my roomie for one month.

Posted by Bettina on 05/15/13 at 02:09 AM | #

Here we are.  Convicted felon Miss Knox has just opened fire on Italy. By her official loudspeaker

Posted by ncountryside on 05/15/13 at 03:17 AM | #

Excellent posts, Domingo, I hope we hear from you some more (excellent posts, everybody else, too!).

Lawyer Ted Simon long ago before he became corrupted by Knox money said on NBC that this is a case with many many small point of evidence.

A thousand points of light….

Lawyer James Raper in his much posted Powerpoints with Kermit did amazing work showing what many of those points are - we dont know anyone who saw those who remained unconvinced:

Lawyer SomeAlibi posted that how juries really behave is they often decide guilt (or the opposite) on a single point. In the jury’s eyes, a smoking gun.

There are for sure others too. The Machine above linked to one: the mixed blood, which has always had the defenses running hard the other way.

We’re thinking based on your observation that we must create a one-stop-shop for smoking guns - a new page, which has on it only the smoking guns.

Suggestions here of other smoking guns would help a lot.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/15/13 at 03:02 PM | #

Hi ncountryside

Your link on Oggi.  What are we to make of that? is it Oggi’s Umberto Brindani rather nervously firing back?

We did a search and the best reporting on Mignini’s complaint to the chief prosector in Bergamo (which under Italian law for senior justice officials Mignini is required to make) was Andrea Vogt’s as quoted in the post at top.

For once, on this Castellini and Porta a Porta seem to be behind the curve.  But at the same time, links from other Italian sites to the Oggi piece seem increasingly few and far between.

I really did think there were many more the other day.  I did a search via Google News, and some of the repeats of Oggi that Google threw up are gone.

This extraordinarily stupid false claim by Amanda Knox all by itself is enough to incur Amanda Knox more years in prison (Oggi itself hints she is well on the way to a,life sentence) and huge fines for Oggi.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/15/13 at 03:18 PM | #

Odysseus says above:

“And the more this creepy half-child/half-woman talks as if she’s thoroughly investigated herself and drawn a blank, e.g.“there is no evidence that places me at the murder scene” (wrong), rather than a heartfelt “for crying out loud, I didn’t murder my friend”...”

And that is precisely what makes her seem so obviously guilty.

Why is she not saying something like:

“Look, no matter what Raffaele says now, the truth is that I spent the whole night at his apartment and had absolutely nothing to do with Meredith’s murder, the staged break-in, the clean up of the murder scene, or anything else, that I have been accused of. I never met Rudy Guede in my life, and I unfortunately accused Patrick Lumbumba simply because I was pissed off with him over work-related matters. I know that was very wrong, and I regret it very much, but I have served my time for that and am a changed person now.”?”

And of course the answer is that she cannot say any of this for fear that one of the co-conspirators or forensic evidence, or eye witnesses, or telephone records will definitively contradict her, so she has to stick to these legalistic talking points and say things like “Well, as far as I can see there is no evidence that places me at the murder scene, so I could not have been there. Case closed.”

Which is exactly the kind of thing a defense lawyer would say, but not what an innocent accused of a crime they know nothing of would say.

Posted by Domingo on 05/15/13 at 03:20 PM | #

The single point of evidence!

For me the single point of evidence is not even a point of evidence at all.

It is the fact that Knox had to concoct an incredibly elaborate story about water spillage to explain why she removed the mop from the shared house and took it to Sollecito’s house—possibly tossing the old mop en route and buying a new one, for all we know.

If Sollecito needed a mop and didn’t have one, why not buy one closer to his apartment rather than fetch one from the shared house and return it later? They only cost a couple of dollars.

Posted by Domingo on 05/15/13 at 03:27 PM | #

The single point of evidence. The point about the mop above is that if you don’t believe Knox’s story about the reason for taking the mop out of the shared house, then that undermines everything she has said and you have to look for another reason why she took the mop out of the house.

Another key point is that Sollecito said Kercher’s blood was on the kitchen knife after he accidentally pricked her when cooking—but Kercher had never been to his apartment. Once you have determined that the pricking story was a lie, you (as a juror) have to ask yourself how else her blood might have got onto that knife and there is an inevitable conclusion to be drawn.

Posted by Domingo on 05/15/13 at 03:35 PM | #

Hi again Domingo.

Good one. We need to hunt down what Sollecito’s own cleaner said about that. RS and AK have had major problems in coinciding on a time when the pipe broke and the mop ecame needed.

Okay we have this from our 22 March 2009 post which was straight from the court:

Next Rosa Natalia Guman Fernendez de Calle, an Ecuadorian woman, took the stand. She had been Sollecito’s cleaning lady. She had worked for him about 2 months and would come every Monday around 2:00 to 4:00 pm to clean his apartment. She stated that she used only Lysoform, which is a general household cleaner like Mr. Clean. She would vacuum, mop the floor, clean the bathroom and kitchen, and so on.

The cleaning products were kept under the kitchen sink as in most homes, and there were usually about 5-6 different cleaning products there and other cleaning supplies.She had been told to only ever use Lysoform to clean.

The last time she cleaned the apartment went was on November 5th, and Sollecito and Knox were there then. She went under the sink to get the cleaning products, and noticed a bucket with water in it and wet mop rags. She asked why the wet rags and the bucket, and he said they had had a leak. She did say the bucket had water in it and it was clear.

When asked if she ever used bleach in his home she said absolutely not. When asked if there was bleach among the cleaning products, she said she could not say either way. The 5th of November was the last day she worked for Sollecito as he was subsequently arrested.

Judge Massei wroteas follows:

Fetching the mop to dry the floor also seems to be a scarcely credible action: at Raffaele Sollecito’s there was someone attending to the cleaning; it is therefore considered that everything needed to clean up some water was already there, such that on the morning of November 2, not much could have been left on the floor, as was also reported by Amanda Knox herself.

On more smoking guns, do keep em coming.

I know of two that absolutely convinced the trial jury and from then on for Knox the perception of guilt was baked in.

1) AK as a talky-talky-talky disaster on the stand in mid 2009.

The FOA like to make out it took 18/28/48/54 hours to make her talk. Get real! What the cops all say is that it takes that long to MAKE HER STOP. She herself is the real supertanker in this case.

All the dozens of interruptions by the defense lawyers during her (by agreement limited) interrogation on the stand were not to stop Mignini and Comondi asking “wrong” questions,

They were to make Knox stop.

2) This trial summation video here:

As you can see in this post below, someone (John Anderson?) pro-Knox realised it would be kiss of death to Knox’s prospects if any jury ever again saw that.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/15/13 at 03:50 PM | #

Buy a mop?
More than likely Knox just took a new mop from the shop, and walked-out without paying

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/15/13 at 04:10 PM | #

Hi Cardiol.

That made me laugh. I dont see mops in our images of the Conad stock but they could be there. My own mages are here:

Conad would be an extremely easy store to walk out of with something without paying. The store is two rooms with quite a small arch in between.

The manager is in the deli on the left and he cant see through to the other room.

The cashier is in the room to the right but usually is elsewhere or with head down counting the cash in the till. 

Europeans and especially Italians do very little shoplifting.

But Knox aint from there.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/15/13 at 05:43 PM | #

Interesting about the leak under the sink. If they have the same kind of hand pressure pvc plumbing fittings that we have here in the US and Dominican Republic, it could be that they deliberately disconnected the u-bend tube to make sure that it was cleaned out and that there was no DNA residue trapped there. Perhaps they had difficulty reconnecting it properly, hence the leak. I know it can be difficult to reconnect the pressure washers, especially if you are not used to doing it.

You can see pictures of the type of thing here:

Posted by Domingo on 05/15/13 at 06:57 PM | #

Domingo: Good point. That sounds very possible.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/15/13 at 08:15 PM | #

As the top post says, Ak and RS both seem to have lost the script. Their books say one thing and they say another.

In the Oggi interview that ncountryside links us to above, Knox says Sollecito DIDNT support her alibi.

Wow. So no beating up by police on the interview night. No evil Mignini doing illegal interviewing with no defense lawyer present.

Thats quite a u turn for sure.

And Knox says Guede did it all by himself (as in the book) though her lawyers over 4 years never said that. Did she not understand why defenses thought Aviello and Alessi had to be on the stand?

And HOW did he do it all by himself? And why did he take his shoes off? And how did a bloody footprint get on the bathroom mat, though there are NO other prints between there and Merediths room?

And what possible motive? That was the worst place in Perugia to find anything of value, and that was the worst way in.

And forensic behavior experts at trial said the kind of attack was one of mad and unrestrained anger (a Jodi Arias type of attack) which took 15 minutes and was extremely cruel, not an attack a casual burglar would complete and be gone in 30 seconds.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/15/13 at 09:51 PM | #

Hi Domingo

You’re onto something!

“Knox had to concoct an incredibly elaborate story about water spillage to explain why she removed the mop from the shared house….”

Yes it was too elaborate!

“…it could be that they deliberately disconnected the u-bend tube to make sure that it was cleaned out and that there was no DNA residue trapped there…”

That’s where they cleaned the knife –  how about the leak alsooccurred AFTER they killed Meredith- NOT BEFORE!

Apparently Dr. Francesco Sollecito called his son @  20:42:56 on Nov.1st, 2007(221 seconds duration) and later testified that Raffaele informed him at that time of the problem with the water leak in the kitchen.

If RS’s father is the only source of the timing of the water leak, other than AK and RS, this is most troubling. That time is so crucial.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/15/13 at 10:03 PM | #

So…Rudy Guede held Meredith down still, restraining her, started to undress her, struggled with her bra clasp, cut it off eventually, held two separate bladed knives against her from separate sides of the body, inflicted many cuts with these in many places, oh yes, and began to rape her, all without her being able to fight back at any point or produce any defensive wounds…....all by himself.

Does he have approx 4 or 5 arms?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/15/13 at 10:11 PM | #

The Daily Telegraph is reporting that Amanda says she “broke up” with Sollecito because her undermined her alibi for the night of the murder.

Note to media still supporting the Gogerty/Marriott pro-Knox PR spin:  Do you think the investigators should have ignored conflicting and shifting alibis of a roommate and her boyfriend just after a gruesome murder?  What if the roommate was also first on the scene when police arrived and later, through her own statements, put herself in the flat the night of the murder, describing the screams she heard? 

What about when the evidence showed that Amanda’s DNA was mixed with Meredith’s blood in multiple rooms in the house?

What about when the cell phone evidence showed that both Sollecito and Knox had lied about the events of the night of the murder and the next morning?

I’m just trying to figure out at what point American media will admit they bought a false narrative (the young American co-ed persecuted unfairly).

If there is a young journalist out there who wants to make a name for himself/herself, there is a great story to be told about the false narrative spun by a PR team (paid and voyeuristic) to English-speaking media that is totally at odds with the facts of the case.

Posted by Media Watcher on 05/15/13 at 10:33 PM | #

Nick Squires has made the following false claim in the first sentence of his article.

“Miss Knox has always maintained that she was watching a DVD and having sex with her then boyfriend, computer studies graduate Raffaele Sollecito, on the night that Miss Kercher was murdered.”

He doesn’t seem to have read Amanda Knox’s witness statements:

“I met Patrick soon after at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana and we went home. I do not remember if Meredith was already there or if she came later. I find it difficult to remember those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith with whom he was infatuated but I do not remember well if Meredith had been threatened before. I vaguely remember that he killed her.” (Amanda Knox’s 1.45am witness statement).

“We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. We went to my apartment in Via della Pergola n. 7. I do not clearly remember if Meredith was already at home or if she came later, what I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith’s room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot remember how long they stayed together in the room but I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my hears. Then I do not remember anything, I am very confused. I do not remember if Meredith was screaming and if I heard some thuds too because I was upset, but I imagined what could have happened. (Amanda Knox’s 5.45am witness statement).

Nick Squires can be contacted via Twitter:


Posted by The Machine on 05/15/13 at 11:39 PM | #

Peter or anyone who knows,

Regarding the question of the mop. Why does Massei have to consider or presume that Sollecito had a mop? When his cleaner testified, was this not confirmed one way or another? This whole issue of whether he had a mop or not has never really been cleared up and it is fundamental to the whole story.
It would be so easy to resolve and so vital. Basically, if he had a mop, he is guilty.

Posted by John Forbes on 05/16/13 at 01:26 AM | #

@John Forbes
That makes sense.
I would like to add though, that if I had a leak under a sink or similar, firstly I would mop it up asap - partly to see if it had then stopped - and secondly I would use rags or kitchen towels or cloths, (the sort that are readily available in any Italian store and everyone usually has) because they’re more absorbent/effective. I’ve never found mops on handles work very well.
Not that either A or S did much cleaning, so probably wouldn’t know!
If a leak onto a floor etc is left overnight, it usually leaves a tell-tale stain.

It’s yet another story that seems out of a fairy tale - doesn’t add up.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/16/13 at 01:59 AM | #

If RS’s father is the only source of the timing of the water leak, other than AK and RS, this is most troubling. That time is so crucial.

Is there any reason to think his father is not a straight arrow?

Maybe the leak did occur earlier, but if it is true that Knox went back to the girls’ house to get the mop to clean up Sollecito’s apartment, that rather blows the prosecution case, because if she did participate in the murder and/or spend much of the night cleaning up the murder scene, one would think that cleaning up the water spill in Sollecito’s kitchen would be the last thing on her mind—good little housewife that she is!

Posted by Domingo on 05/16/13 at 02:22 AM | #

Hi John

Good question. Good smoking gun. Rosa Natalia Guman Fernendez de Calle did testify that she mopped Sollecito’s floor. Both Massei and Micheli acted on the presumptioin that for that she had a mop. We can find out more now that we see a need. Theres chat on PMF on this too.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/16/13 at 02:28 AM | #

GHi Domingo

Well… Francesco did a lot behind the scenes to try to twist the outcome, and was even caught on tape. But I think he tried for years to make RS come out straight.

As James Raper has pointed out on our RS book page, in this instance Francesco seems to have unwittingly dropped Raffaele in it:

14. “When Amélie ended, I went into the kitchen to take care of some dishes left over from breakfast before we started making dinner. I soon realized that water was leaking out of the pipe under the sink, and I cursed under my breath……  We cooked a fish dinner, did our best to wash the dishes again, and tumbled gratefully into bed in each other’s arms.”

We may recall that Papa Sollecito telephoned his son at 8.42 pm. Raffaele told his father that the pipe had broken whilst washing up the dishes. Massei determined on this basis that Amanda and Raffaele would have finished dinner by the time of that call.

Amanda and Raffaele place the time of dinner much later as part of their alibi. In the above quote Raffele now has an explanation for why he was washing up dishes at 8.42pm, which also happens to have been what Hellmann suggested off his own bat by way of exculpation. Raffele was washing up dishes left over from breakfast when the pipe broke!

This is not what Amanda said in her trial testimony.

LG : “Yes, and did you eat dinner?”

AK: “Yes. But it was very late when we ate.”

LG : “Fish?”

AK: “Yes. Fish, and a salad.”

LG : “And then something happened to the faucet of the sink?”

AK : “Yes. While Raffele was washing the dishes, water was coming out from underneath. He looked down, turned off the water, and then looked underneath and the pipe underneath got loose and water was coming out.”

GCM : “Can you say what time this was?”

AK : “Um, around, um, we ate around 9.30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes….. Well, he was washing the dishes, and, um, the water was coming out…”

Note: “and then after we had eaten..and he was washing the dishes..the water was coming out.”

Posted by James Raper on 10/01/12 at 07:09 PM | #

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/16/13 at 02:36 AM | #

Hi Pete,

Re. the mop, PMF comments make out that the cleaners used some form of rags or floor cloths. I know from my times in Italy that this can happen - sometimes they use a damp cloth tucked under an ordinary brush. It is an annoying issue which would be so easy to clear up. It reminds me of the whole saga of whether Knox was a frequent showerer or not - why didn’t somebody just ask her Italian flat mates? Maybe you can’t bring up stuff like that in court because of some jurisprudence technicality in Italy - good question for Yummi.

Posted by John Forbes on 05/16/13 at 03:07 AM | #

Hi John:

Scroll up to the maid’s testimony which I posted in the box. That suggested damp cloths. Is that where you got the idea? My guess is no mop travelled anywhere.

I can tell you why not everything was heard in court. There were well over 10,000 pages of evidence, and they are all counted in and the jury reads them.

The purpose of the prosecution is to bring out certain vital points, not to read the 10,000 plus pages out aloud.  They left Massei and his co-judges very, very convinced. Job done.

It was only when the appeal was bent that people everywhere scrambled for accusations to make.

Ask your questions, it might take a few days but our network will find out.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/16/13 at 03:22 AM | #

My 05/15/13 at 03:03 PM purpose was to stimulate re-thinking of the Cause and Time of the water-leak.

Is this story an elaborate, and so-far successful, obfuscation?

What leaked? What stopped the leak? Forget the mop. Think about the Knife. Think about the time-of-death.

The incriminating kitchen-knife was scrubbed-clean? – almost.

Where was it scrubbed? When was it scrubbed?

We know where it was found – in Sollecito’s kitchen-drawer.

Assume the knife was scrubbed in Sollecito’s sink. That would have to be AFTER the murder.

Suppose “they deliberately disconnected the u-bend tube to make sure that it was cleaned out and that there was no DNA residue trapped there…” and that they did have “difficulty reconnecting it properly, hence the leak.”

While trying to eliminate DNA-residue, that residue would now be all over the floor of a place Meredith had never been.

Hence the elaborate obfuscation.

Would Father Sollecito agree to indicate that the water-leak had occurred BEORE the murder? Of course he would.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/16/13 at 06:11 PM | #

Maybe I am missing something,  but since there was ONE bloody footprint at the shared house on the bathmat, it is reasonable to assume that there were others on the floor that had been cleaned away, however the bath mat could not be mopped as it was made of absorbent material.

So I would think that the mop WAS used in the clean up and then taken out of the house, probably to be replaced with another mop. Knox and Sollecito would surely have also had blood stained clothing that needed to be disposed of too, so perhaps the original mop went there too.

The water spill business could just have been a cover story in case any witness said they saw Knox with a mop in the street.

Posted by Domingo on 05/16/13 at 06:57 PM | #

Agree with Domingo, many people assumed that they were collecting the mop from the cottage the morning after the murder, makes more sense that they were returning a clean one to replace the one used in the clean up.

Posted by Urbanist on 05/16/13 at 10:02 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Knox’s Interrogation: A Major Contradiction Between Knox’s Book And Her Trial Testimony

Or to previous entry Demonizations By Knox: OGGI Charged For Article Conveying False Claims To Italy #2