Further down is the text from a Knox site, broken into commentable parts but whole all the same.
As the case falls if I’ve selected only bits of the text, just as the Knox supporter did [see near end of Page 2] in the case of the Supreme Court opinion on Guede:
… then the only option is to present the whole of the passage, from “Amanda” to “factor”, leaving nothing out. As long as nothing is left out and readers are warned, it can be split into constituent sentences, in order to annotate it.
Cherry-picking is a charge made that someone else has taken only the “juicy bits”, often out of context and it’s a tricky one because in academia, one cannot quote a whole tome of 400 pages or so each time – the thing becomes unwieldy.
In fact, academics exhort students to select pieces that support their argument, which is very much cherry-picking. I used to tell students, as a former professor, that I expected a third of their submitted work to be their own argument they are making – not their own evidence and that to build a case, you need to quote reputable people, as it corroborates what you’re saying. On the other hand, you can’t just cut and paste great slabs from the internet. Still, two thirds of the work can be quotes if selectively applied to each point along the way.
Therefore, cherry-picking is not in itself wrong but becomes so when it is dishonestly applied. So if someone says to me: “You’ve been cherry-picking,” I say: “Yes … and what?” If they say my cherry-picking was dishonest, in that it misrepresented the situation, as the Knox supporter did in Part 2 over the SC view of Guede – then that is an entirely different matter.
So in that context, I’ve taken the section on bleach as an academic exercise, not to prove or disprove. To do the latter, one would have to quote far more from both sides. Here is that passage:
Lie. Amanda Knox was seen waiting at the store the morning after Meredith was murdered, waiting to buy bleach.
This was the testimony, as reported by Stewarthome2000 at TJMK on March 22, 2009 and you’ll note that it does mention the defence’s objections:
The next witness was the highlight of the day. This was Marc Quintovalle, the owner of the small grocery store located on Via Garibaldi, the street that Solliceto lived on. Comment: his testimony was very precise, almost too precise for someone who recalls a long-ago incident from memory, but here goes…
On November 2nd he was heading back to his grocery store after lunch. He parked his car, and noticed there were carabinieri, police, etc. on Via della Pergola. He walked past them all, stopped to get a coffee at the bar on the corner, and then headed back to work. He was told at this time there was a murder.
It was not until many days later that he was told that Sollecito, a frequent customer in his grocery store, had been arrested with his girlfriend for the murder. After some time, he had remembered the day of the murder because he encountered the police and carabinieri cars several days after.Then it hit him what had happened that morning.
He said he arrived at his shop at 7:45am to open the security doors to be open for business. His two cashiers and helpers (two women) get there at 7:30am and begin to get ready for customers before opening time.
He said as he was opening the security gate on the store, a girl was standing at the door with him waiting for the store to open. He remembers that she had a hat on, jeans, a scarf and a grey-white jacket. But most of all he remembers that she had blue, really blue eyes. He noticed because her skin was very pale.
He opened the store door and said “buon giorno” but she did not say anything in response, and she headed to the part of the store [second image at top here] where they stock cleaning products, soap, towels, and also cups, coffee, and miscellaneous household items. The cashier is also located there.
He paid her no attention, but he did see her eventually leave and head down the street in the direction of the piazza that connects to Via della Pergola. Since he was not at the cash register he did not serve her and he could not say what she bought, and he did not think to ask the cashier at that time .
Many days afterwards, he saw a picture of Amanda Knox in the paper and said to himself, “OMG that is her, that is the girl that was at my store that morning”. Having seen her various times previously in the store, he was sure that it was Knox. He confirmed that it was some months later that he went to the police to tell them what he had witnessed the morning after the murder.
The courtroom was on edge when the prosecutor asked Quintovalle to identify the person he saw that morning by looking at a picture.
He finally looked directly at Amanda in the courtroom, staring at her in the eye only a few feet away and stated, “era lei, era Knox…” – ”It was her, it was Knox, she was the person I saw that morning”.
Comments: this was quite a climax of a scene. A direct eye witness testifying, without any doubt in his mind, that in effect Knox was lying about not getting up until around 10am on that morning.
Quintovalle had asked his cashiers if they remembered her or what she had bought that morning, but they did not remember anything. Quintovalle stated that detergent bleach is sold in his store for 1.09 euro per bottle and he carries only one kind (ACE), and they are all 1.09 per bottle.
Comment: if the prosecution introduces a till receipt for a 1.09 euro item sold at approximately 8:00am on November 2nd this would be very telling. So far such a receipt has not been introduced. The Police sequestered the till receipts, but have not officially released the findings. A possible problem is that many places don’t even ring up the items on the register to save the taxes and half probably go missing anyway. But overall, this was quite damning testimony.
The defense attempted to discredit Quintovalle, noting that it was all so long ago and how could anyone say in such detail who was there with any certainty? They also drilled him for supposedly violating a gag order, giving interviews for money, appearing on “Porta a porta” and so on.
Comment: that essentially washed away. I must admit he was so certain, and gave so much detail of what happened that morning after so much time had passed, it seemed like a feat of superhuman memory. But Quintovalle prides himself on his excellent memory, and now his statement is in the record.
The Knox supporter text continues:
It was widely reported that the authorities had bleach receipts proving that Amanda purchased bleach. On November 19, 2007, Richard Owen reported for the UK Times that police had found receipts showing purchases of bleach on the morning after the murder. The information was specific: one alleged purchase was made at 8:30, and a second was made at 9:15. No receipts were ever found.
From the 2009 quote above, it was clear that any receipts, if there were any, were not of sufficient quality to pass for evidence or else they were deemed by the prosecution not productive to use in court. Either way, they became a dead issue. Therefore, to establish that the pair “cleaned”, there is the broken DNA trail already mentioned and which crops up the whole time in its anomalies, but this does not seem to help the case:
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.
The Knox supporter continues:
Then, in a November 25, 2007, report, Owen quoted an apparently official source as saying that the entire cottage, except for Meredith’s room and the bathroom she shared with Amanda, had been “thoroughly cleaned with bleach.” It was reported that Amanda and Raffaele were caught by surprise that morning standing on the porch of the cottage with a mop bucket and bleach when the Postal Police arrived.
“It was reported that.” A great deal is made by those opposing the Knox media circus of wild and inaccurate reportage, particularly in the American media and examples appear below on this page. In the early days, for those who recall and I think even Knoxers would agree with this – there were all sorts of things which were apparently found and weren’t or which changed in the light of further evidence.
The press were desperate for scoops and the mood swayed first anti-Knox, then a wave of pro-Knox revulsion, then America basically went pro-Knox and the UK at least had some reportage the other way. Italy, which had the advantage of the reports coming out in their language, was on the whole anti-Knox but perhaps a little indifferent now. When the SC appeal comes out, that might change.
This translation problem beset all in the English speaking world until PMF and TJMK started producing translations which have not been seriously challenged.
There was one Knoxer who did his own translation of the Supreme Court summation but he translated a few pages, saying “we” should not rely on the TJMK translation as source material as it was tainted and biased. I ran his translation of one of the pages against the TJMK Italian translator’s version and aside from some synonym differences, both were pretty consistent with one another.
So no issue on him doing the whole translation. Except that he didn’t and this is further to my charge of intellectual laziness which permeates the Knox camp and which I’ve illustrated some of already on Pages 1 and 2. He didn’t translate the rest. Why not? Any number of reasons – couldn’t be a***ed, felt that there was no substantive difference in the raw material, decided to pursue something else. I don’t think Knoxers would dispute my conjecture on this particular matter.
As time went by – 2009, 2010, 2011 – things became more refined, some claims were played down, some kept cropping up, everyone but America either lost interest or became more even-handed. Unfortunately, the Knox camp journos or pundits kept at their wild inaccuracies and the most recent is Saul Kassin – more below.
Two who have stood the test of time are/were Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt and they didn’t always help the prosecution case. Yet their name is not mud. The Knox supporter continues:
Truth – Amanda never purchased bleach. No receipts were ever presented at trial. Amanda and Raffaele weren’t caught by surprise. In fact, Raffaele had already called the police to report a possible break in. The mop bucket at the cottage was investigated and no evidence was ever presented in regard to any mop bucket. This story was told around the world. This lie is still being told. On December 10, 2009, Anne Coulter repeated this lie on the O’Reilly Factor.
Here is the Knox camp in a nutshell with their shoddy intellectualism. “Truth – Amanda never purchased bleach.” It doesn’t show that at all, nor does it show that Sollecito did not purchase it although it was Knox who was seen at the store. Nor does it establish that they did. If the receipts had been to hand for the prosecution, they’d have used them. Something obviously went wrong there.
The Knox camp makes a big deal of a witchhunt by the prosecution. It’s certainly true that in the first days, opinions on her and on Sollecito hardened, to the point that they were brought in [first time she volunteered to go so as not to be alone, as she stated]. The defence alleges “witchhunt”. The prosecution says in the light of the evidence uncovered and eventually, there were over 140 points and it certainly looked like her and Sollecito, let alone Guede [something Micheli confimred]. It certainly didn’t help the pair that their alibis differed once they were in separate rooms, that she accused an innocent man and that her stories kept changing as she was presented with more and more evidence.
Speaking for myself, if I hadn’t done something, then I’d stick with what I knew and if the police told me that something had happened, either it would be within my experience, in which case I’d be categorically in agreement or against it or else, if it held water, I’d have to be quiet on that point until I could think up a defence. Amanda Knox was never categorical. When told that Sollecito did not support her alibi, it really threw her and thus the new story “under duress” according to her, was concocted. I can say “concocted” as she later withdrew it.
The most charitable thing which could be said is that she was so terrified of being implicated that she’d say whatever was necessary to stay non-implicated. Sure she feared the police but that cuts both ways, does it not? The defence has never nailed the prosecution on abuse, even through the translator and yet the Knoxers still claim she was interrogated throughout the night. The record shows she simply was not. More on that further down.
The alternative to police abuse is that she feared getting caught out in a lie and as she began to get caught out in lies, she was under severe mental pressure to keep the stories straight and consistent. Hence her email to her mum, hence her constant attempts to think things through and write them up. On paper, she could sit back and look at them, deciding which looked best and which not. Except that her brain was addled with drugs, which neither side denies. The defence says all kids do that, as if it’s quite OK.
That last paragraph of the Knox supporter quoted above speaks of what the reporters did, what Ann Coulter did. I write of what the record says and from what is before me [and now you], I put my opinion. I don’t come into this with a fresh opinion and not back it up. For example, when I say that the Knox camp is disingenuous quite often, I point to the latter half of Page 2, not make the assertion and leave it hanging in the air.
What did that Knox supporter buy out of all that above?
He cast doubt on the bleach and the cleaner didn’t really help with that, so fair enough. He cast doubt on Knox being at the store which still stands, along with her being over where the cleaning materials were. The prosecution did not run with these things nor any bucket and mop as primary evidence because there was no need to. The luminol provided rich pickings and so the emphasis moved onto that.
The Knox camp points to the prosecution being thwarted at every turn and moving onto something new, anything which would nail Knox and Sollecito. It is certainly true that they became convinced, as the courts eventually did as well and worked on that basis. Knox, as a particularly callous and nasty person – “she fucking bled to death” delivered to the crying friend of Meredith that afternoon – did not endear her, nor her cartwheeels when she found herself the centre of attention. She was at no time in the early days fully aware of what was being arrayed against her, how serious it was.
She is now.
The defence points to that as evidence of her innocence. WTF? It was evidence of her sociopathy, of her lack of awareness that the particularly gruesome murder of that girl was something to be distraught about. There is zero on the record about her being distraught over the death of her “friend”. That’s been mentioned by so many. Knox’s whole motivation the whole way, as a child would have, was not to be implicated.
Let me just go back to that last paragraph of the Knox supporter again. He casually slips into the paragraph on cleaning/bleach: “In fact, Raffaele had already called the police to report a possible break in.” The time frame is important here. The Knoxer is speaking of them being caught by surprise, which is when the postal police first met them in the garden.
That time has been shown in a few posts quoting the testimony and will be shown again if necessary, that the postal police arrived 12:26 on the 2nd through to a few minutes after. The records show it, there is no dispute over it except by the Knoxers. Same motif all over again – which is why the record is important.
Sollecito did not make that call until advised by his sister and he made two attempts some minutes before the critical 13:00, when the others arrived. The postal police were well there by then. So that is a fabrication the Knoxers are persisting with because to admit what happened shows Sollecito and Knox unconcerned about contacting the police. Even if the timings were in dispute, which they’re not, there is still the point that the sister had to advise him, in a phone call in Amanda’s room, to call the criminal police.
With insertions like that, how can you take anything in that paragraph by the Knoxer seriously?
The Knox camp speak interminably about the character assassination of Amanda but say little about the character assassination of Patrick Lumumba, nor about the orchestrated PR campaign and the book deals.
Then there is Saul Kassin and I’ll quote verbatim:
Who is Dr Saul Kassin?
The Social Psychology Network website states that he is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the John Jay Criminal Justice College in New York City. The website outlines his impressive academic credentials which include a Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut.
Curt Knox’s chief hatchet man Bruce Fischer, himself notoriously unqualified in every field relevant to the case who for a long time masqueraded pompously under a false name, claimed on his website that Saul Kassin gave help to Amanda Knox’s lawyers in Perugia.
Also that his work was presented to the court during the 2011 Hellman appeal.
Many may not know this but Sarah was instrumental in bringing Kassin in to analyze Amanda’s interrogation. His work was presented during the appeal..
The family had asked that we not release Kassin’s work to the public until they received clearance from the attorneys. I know I often state that this case is over but the attorneys rightfully want to keep everything professional until the Italian Supreme Court confirms Hellmann.
Last October, Saul Kassin did speak at length about Amanda Knox’s interrogation in an interview with John Curley on Radio Kiro FM.
In this post we’ll examine ten of the false claims which have long been circulated by Curt Knox’s campaign, with Bruce Fischer’s site as the central clearing house, and which were regurgitated by Saul Kassin in that interview.
False Claim 1: They brought her in for that final interrogation late at night.
No they didn’t.
Neither the police nor the prosecutors brought Amanda in for questioning on 5 November 2007. Amanda Knox herself testified in court that she wasn’t called to come to the police station on 5 November 2007.
Carlo Pacelli: “For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?”
Amanda Knox: “No, I wasn’t called. I went with Raffaele because I didn’t want to be alone.”
Amanda Knox went with Raffaele Sollecito because she didn’t want to be alone. Kassin’s false claim is the first red flag that Saul Kassin is very confused or has been seriously misled when it comes to this well-documented and well-handled case.
False Claim 2: The so-called confession wasn’t until 6:00am.
No it wasn’t.
If Saul Kassin had actually read Amanda Knox’s first witness statement, he would have known that it was made at 1:45am. Knox had admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed some time before this.
False Claim 3: She was interrogated from 10:00pm to 6.00am.
No she wasn’t.
According to the Daily Beast Amanda Knox’s questioning began at about 11:00pm.
Since Knox was already at the police station [in the company of Raffaele Sollecito] the head of the murder squad decided to ask her a few questions. Her interrogation started at about 11 p.m.
After Amanda Knox had made her witness statement at 1:45am, she wasn’t questioned again that evening. That was it.
However, Amanda Knox herself then wanted to make further declarations and Mr Mignini who was on duty on the night sat and watched while Knox wrote out her declarations.
Mr Mignini explained what happened in his email letter to Linda Byron, another who was factually challenged.
All I did was to apply the Italian law to the proceedings. I really cannot understand any problem.
In the usual way, Knox was first heard by the police as a witness, but when some essential elements of her involvement with the murder surfaced, the police suspended the interview, according to Article 63 of the penal proceedings code.
But Knox then decided to render spontaneous declarations, that I took up without any further questioning, which is entirely lawful.
According to Article 374 of the penal proceedings code, suspects must be assisted by a lawyer only during a formal interrogation, and when being notified of alleged crimes and questioned by a prosecutor or judge, not when they intend to render unsolicited declarations.
Since I didn’t do anything other than to apply the Italian law applicable to both matters, I am unable to understand the objections and reservations which you are talking about.
In Amanda Knox’s written witness statement, she explicitly states that she’s making a spontaneous declaration:
Amanda Knox: “I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically.
False Claim 4: They banged her on the back of the head.
No they didn’t.
All the numerous witnesses who were actually present when Amanda Knox was questioned, including her interpreter, testified under oath at trial in 2009 that she wasn’t hit. She has never identified anyone who hit her and on several occasions confirmed that she was treated well.
Even one of Amanda Knox’s lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, confirmed that Amanda Knox had not been hit: “There were pressures from the police but we never said she was hit.” He never ever lodged a complaint.
False Claim 5: All the other British roommates left town.
No they didn’t.
The police also told Sophie Purton that they needed her to stay on in Perugia on precisely the same basis as Amanda Knox. In chapter 19 of Death in Perugia, John Follain states that Sophie Purton was questioned by Mignini and Napoleoni in the prosecutor’s office on 5 November 2007.
Sophie had been counting on leaving Perugia to fly back home as soon as her parents arrived, but the police called to tell her they needed her to stay on; they would let her know when she could leave.
False Claim 6 : Amanda Knox stayed back to help the police.
No she didn’t.
This claim is flatly contradicted by Amanda Knox herself. In the e-mail she wrote to her friends in Seattle on 4 November 2007 she categorically stated she was not allowed to leave Italy.
i then bought some underwear because as it turns out i wont be able to leave italy for a while as well as enter my house
Knox actually knew on 2 November 2007 that she couldn’t leave Italy. Amy Frost reported the following conversation (The Massei report, page 37),
I remember having heard Amanda speaking on the phone, I think that she was talking to a member of her family, and I heard her say, No, they won’t let me go home, I can’t catch that flight.
It’s not the first time that the myth that Knox chose to stay behind rather leave Italy has been claimed in the media. And incidentally, lying repeatedly to the police isn’t normally considered to be helping them.
False Claim 7: Amanda Knox had gone 8 hours without any food or drink.
No she hadn’t.
Reported by Richard Owen in The Times, 1 March 2009
Ms Napoleoni told the court that while she was at the police station Ms Knox had been ‘treated very well. She was given water, camomile tea and breakfast. She was given cakes from a vending machine and then taken to the canteen at the police station for something to eat.’
Reported by Richard Owen in The Times, 15 March 2009.
Ms Donnino said that Ms Knox had been “comforted” by police, given food and drink, and had at no stage been hit or threatened.
John Follain in his meticulous book Death in Perugia, page 134, also reports that Knox was given food and drink during her questioning:
During the questioning, detectives repeatedly went to fetch her a snack, water, and hot drinks including camomile tea.
False Claim 8: The translator was hostile towards Amanda Knox.
No she wasn’t.
Saul Kassin offers no evidence that the translator was hostile towards Amanda Knox and there is no evidence that this was the case. Nobody at the questura has claimed this. Amanda Knox’s own lawyers have not claimed this.
Even Amanda Knox herself has never ever claimed that Anna Donnino was hostile towards her although she had every opportunity to do so when being questioned on the stand.
False Claim 9: The translator was acting as an agent for the police.
No she wasn’t.
Saul Kassin offers no evidence to support this claim, which by the way in Italy is the kind of unprofessional charge that incurs calunnia suits. Do ask Curt Knox.
False Claim 10: The police lied to Amanda Knox.
No they didn’t.
The police didn’t mislead Amanda Knox. They told her quite truthfully that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, and that he claimed that she wasn’t at his apartment from around 9:00pm to about 1:00am.
This also is the kind of unprofessional charge that incurs calunnia suits
Then there is Nathaniel Rich in Rolling Stone and again I quote verbatim:
False Claim 1: There were bloody fingerprints all over the apartment
Nathanial Rich gets his first basic fact wrong in just the second sentence of his article with his claim that Guede left bloody fingerprints all over the apartment. There was in fact not even one. According to the Micheli report, the Massei report and Rudy Guede’s final sentencing report, Guede was identified by a single bloody palm print, not a whole lot of bloody fingerprints:
b) traces attributable to Guede: a palm print in blood found on the pillow case of a pillow lying under the victim’s body – attributed with absolute certainty to the defendant by its correspondence to papillary ridges as well as 16-17 characteristic points equal in shape and position… (page 5, Rudy Guede’s final sentencing report).
It is confirmed that Guede was identified by a bloody palm print in the Micheli report (pages 10-11) and the Massei report (page 43). There was not a single fingerprint of his or Sollecito and almost none of Knox at the crime scene – which consists of the entire apartment.
Rich’s “her killer” in his opening implies there was only one killer but FOUR courts including the Supreme Court insisted there had to have been three. The lone wolf theory has long been dead. This is why the defense had to drag Alessi and Aviello into court two weeks ago, to try to prove Knox and Sollecito were not the other two.
False Claim 2: A provincial police force botched one of the most intensely observed criminal investigations in Italy’s history
A Knox cult myth. Nathaniel Rich attempts to disparage the investigation in Meredith’s murder with the smearing claim that it was seriously botched (it wasn’t) and by a provincial police force. Nathaniel Rich is trying to insinuate that that the police officers involved in the investigation were unsophisticated. However, again he only succeeds in revealing his ignorance of even the most basic facts of the case.
Two separate police departments from the Italian equivalent of the FBI in Rome were heavily involved in the investigation into Meredith’s murder: a forensic team from the Scientific Police led by Dr. Stefanoni, and the Violent Crimes Unit, led by Edgardo Giobbi.
False Claim 3: Sollecito finally stated that Knox could have left his apartment for several hours on the night of Kercher’s murder while he was asleep
Nathaniel Rich’s claim that Sollecito said that Knox “could” have left his apartment for several hours while he was sleeping is simply not true. You can read Sollecito’s various alibis here. Sollecito categorically stated in his witness statement that Knox DID leave his apartment, while he was wide awake. He said she went to Le Chic at 9:00pm and she came back at about 1.00am.
“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”(Aislinn Simpson, The Daily Telegraph, 7 November 2007
“Police said Raffaele Sollecito had continued to claim he was not present on the evening of the murder. He said: “I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think.” (The Times, 7 November 2007).
So Sollecito never said Knox “could” have left his apartment “while he was asleep”. The source for Nathaniel Rich’s embarrassing factual error is almost certainly the conspiracy theorist Bruce Fisher, who has repeatedly made the same false claim on his conspiracy website, a site riddled with invented claims.
Shame on Nathaniel Rich for gullibly believing another Knox cult myth, propagated by the likes of Moore and Fisher, and for being too lazy to independently verify this information.
False Claim 4: Amanda Knox was slapped on the back of the head
Another Knox cult myth. Nathaniel Rich employs the same tactic as the conspiracists Bruce Fisher and Steve Moore who are trying by all possible means to rescue Amanda Knox from those dastardly Italians.
Namely, to give what appears to be a very detailed eyewitness account of what happened at the police station on 5 November 2007 despite the fact he wasn’t even there. He even includes “verbatim” quotes from some unnamed police officers.
Nathaniel Rich goes on to claim that Knox was slapped on the back of the head. All the witnesses who were present when she was questioned, including her interpreter, testified under oath at trial in 2009 that Amanda Knox was NOT hit even once.
Even Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, confirmed that Amanda Knox had not been hit: “There were pressures from the police, but we never said she was hit.” He never ever lodged an official complaint.
Nathaniel Rich should have pointed out that Knox claimed this hitting only long after, when she was trying to explain why she had framed Patrick Lumumba. He should not have repeated it as if it were incontrovertible truth.
And he should have pointed out that both Amanda Knox herself and both her parents are enmeshed in separate trials for doing that.
False Claim 5: Amanda Knox finally broke down and accused Diya Lumumba of murder at 5.45am
Nathaniel Rich clearly does not know the chronology of events at the police station on 5 November 2007. His false claim that Knox finally broke down at 5.45am gives the impression that she had been subjected to a continuous all-night interrogation.
In fact Amanda Knox very rapidly “broke down” and claimed that Lumumba was “bad” and had murdered Meredith when she was still only a witness, not a suspect, and was told Sollecito had pulled the rug from under her alibi. She signed a statement at 1.45am, not at 5.45am, when she repeated the claim voluntarily. (She also repeated it later that same day in writing.)
Amanda Knox’s questioning was stopped at 1.45am when she became a suspect. She wasn’t actively questioned again that evening. However, several hours later she decided to make an unsolicited spontaneous declaration. Mignini was called at 3.30am and he observed her declaration. Knox makes it explicit in her witness statement that she was making her statement spontaneously:
“I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically.” (Amanda Knox’s 5.45am witness statement).
False Claim 6: The knife was selected at random by a detective from Sollecito’s kitchen drawer
Nathaniel Rich regurgitates another prevalent Knox-cult myth with his claim that the double DNA knife was selected purely at random. However, the person who actually selected the knife, Armando Finzi, testified in court that he chose the knife because it was the only one compatible with the wound as it had been described to him.
“It was the first knife I saw,” he said. When pressed on cross-examination, said his “investigative intuition” led him to believe it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound as it had been described to him. (Seattle PI,
False Claim 7: The confession, in violation of Italian police policy, was not recorded
Another Knox cult myth. The police weren’t required to record Amanda Knox’s interrogation on 5 November 2007 because she was being questioned as a witness and not as a suspect. Mignini explained that Amanda Knox was being questioned as a witness in his letter to reporter Linda Byron:
“In the same way, Knox was first heard by the police as a witness, but when some essential elements of her involvement with the murder surfaced, the police suspended the interview, according to Article 63 of the penal proceedings code.”
She came in to the central police station voluntarily and unasked that night when Sollecito was summoned for questioning, and police merely asked her if she could also be questioned as a witness. She did not have to agree, but she did. No recording of witnesses is required, either in Italy or the United States.
False Claim 8: Amanda Knox refused to leave Perugia
This Knox cult myth is actually contradicted by Amanda Knox herself. In the e-mail she wrote to her friends in Seattle on 4 November 2007 she said she was not allowed to leave.
“i then bought some underwear because as it turns out i wont be able to leave italy for a while as well as enter my house”
Knox actually knew on 2 November 2007 that she couldn’t leave Italy. Amy Frost reported the following conversation.
” I remember having heard Amanda speaking on the phone, I think that she was talking to a member of her family, and I heard her say, No, they won’t let me go home, I can’t catch that flight’” (The Massei report, page 37).
False Claim 9: Mignini suggested that the victim had been slaughtered during a satanic ritual
Another Knox cult myth. He did no such thing. Mignini has never claimed that Meredith was slaughtered during a satanic or sacrificial ritual, and that’s the reason why neither Nathaniel Rich – or anybody else for that matter – has been able to provide a verbatim quote from Mignini.
Mignini specifically denied claiming that Meredith was killed in a sacrificial rite, in his letter to the Seattle reporter Linda Byron:
“On the “sacrificial rite” question, I have never said that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a “sacrificial rite”.
Mignini also made it quite clear that he has never claimed that Meredith was killed as part of a satanic rite in his interview with Drew Griffin on CNN:
1’03” CNN: You’ve never said that Meredith’s death was a satanic rite?
1’08” Mignini: I have never said that. I have never understood who has and continues to say that. I read, there was a reporter – I don’t know his name, I mention it because I noticed it – who continues to repeat this claim that, perhaps, knowing full well that it’s not like that.
I have never said that there might have been a satanic rite. I’ve never said it, so I would like to know who made it up.
In fact Mignini has zero history of originating satanic-sect claims despite Doug Preston’s shrill claims. The notion of a secret satanic sect in Florence goes way back into history and many had declared the Monster of Florence murders satanic because of the nature of the mutilation long before Mignini assumed a (minor) role.
False Claim 10: Mignini referred to Knox as a sex-and-drug-crazed “she-devil”
Another laughable wrong fact. It wasn’t Mignini who called Amanda Knox a “she-devil”, it was Carlo Pacelli, the lawyer who represents Diya Lumumba, at the trial in 2009.
Carlo Pacelli’s comments were widely reported by numerous journalists who were present in the courtroom. Barbie Nadeau describes the moment he referred to Knox as a she-devil in some detail in Angel Face:
“Who is the real Amanda Knox?” he asks, pounding his fist in the table. “Is she the one we see before us here, all angelic? Or is really a she-devil focused on sex, drugs, and alcohol, living life on the edge?”
“She is the luciferina-she devil.” (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, page 124).
CNN got into the act many times. One that should have been posted all over the blogosphere and wasn’t was an interview with Mignini himself. He’s been the primary target of Knoxist vilification and not only does he have grounds for defamation but the prosecution has actually brought a calumny case against the parents of Knox on the issue.
He’s been cast as insane, criminal [though he was released in another matter they made much of, the case against him obviously a beat-up] and as having carried out a vendetta against poor Amanda. Check the interview:
You make your own decision as to Mignini’s insanity and to the wrong accusations thrown at him. Much of these points we’ll come back to – it all takes time.