Amanda Knox's Confession

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Revision as of 16:12, 26 March 2017 by Ergon (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search



Amanda Knox was not expected at the police station on the night of Monday, November 5, 2007.[1] This was the day after writing her email home; she had gone to school, had run into Patrick Lumumba sometime that day, and was with Raffaele Sollecito at a friend's house in the evening when he was phoned. The police had requested that Raffaele Sollecito should come to clean up some inconsistencies in his original statement. Knox accompanied Sollecito to the police station, and remained in the waiting room talking on the phone with her roommate Filomena, doing homework, and engaging in some form of gymnastics.[2]

Raffaele, when confronted with the inconsistencies in his original statement, decided to attempt to save himself. He told the police that he had lied at Amanda's request, and that the truth was that Amanda Knox had gone out the night of the murder, and he had been home alone from 9:00pm until 1:00am.[3]

Rita Ficarra, who had been talking with Knox in the waiting room, suggested to her that they should write down an official statement as Knox's information might prove useful later, so they contacted an interpreter for that purpose.[4]. At this point Amanda was still being treated as a witness.

A Word About Definitions

The 1:45am statement, the 5:45am statement, and the handwritten memoriale composed the following day are commonly collectively referred to as a single item, The Confession, due to the similarity of their substance (with minor deviations between them). Both statements were excluded as evidence against Knox for the murder charge and the 5.45 statement also for the calunnia charge while the 1:45am statement was allowed in for the calunnia charge. The handwritten statement was included as evidence against Knox for murder. The result is that "The Confession" was both excluded and included as evidence depending on the version and criminal charge.

Amanda's Statement to the Police

The interpreter, Anna Donnino, arrived and the interrogation started at around 12:30am.[5] [6]

The questioning started with a text message exchange between Amanda Knox and her boss Patrick Lumumba. Amanda had previously told the police that she had not responded to Patrick's text, but her phone records showed she had. The police were also interested in why she deleted this text message. The text message, written in Italian as Ci vediamo più tardi ("See you later"), could be interpreted as Amanda committing to seeing Patrick later that night, and the police wanted to know about this.[7] In her note, memoriale of the 6th of November, 2007, Knox, claiming now to recall responding to Lumumba's text message, stated that she wrote Ci vediamo. Buona serata![8]

At this point Knox was also informed that Raffaele was no longer corroborating her alibi.[9] Knox was told that Raffaele had changed his story to one in which Knox left at 9 pm and did not return until 1 am. Hearing that was the trigger, which led to Knox falsely accusing Patrick. According to Officer Ficarra, Knox "started crying and wrapping her hands around her head, she started shaking it, and then she said: "It was him... Patrick killed her."[10]

Galati relates something similar from the interpreter's testimony:

Ms. Donnino affirms (see the declarations at the March 13, 2009 hearing, p. 137) that Amanda had denied having responded to Patrick’s message but, when the opposite was proved by showing her the reply, she had the emotional breakdown, and began to accuse Lumumba.

In the days following her arrest Amanda also related this same sequence of events to her mother as follows:

Amanda: I said... that what happened was that everyone had left the room, at that moment one of the police officers had said: "I'm the only one that can save you, I'm the only one that can save you. Just give me a name." And I said: "I don't know!" And then they said, I said: "can you show me the message that I received from Patrick?! Because I don’t remember having replied to him," and so they showed me the message and then I had said: "Patrick..." And then I thought of Patrick, of seeing Patrick, and so I thought that I had completely lost my mind, and I imagined him uhm... of seeing him and...
Mom: Seeing him where?
A: Seeing him near the basketball court.
M: OK.
A: And then in my house, I uhmm, imagined that I went like into the kitchen, I mean uhmm... because – I could hear her screaming, but it’s not true. It isn't.
M: So, yes, they are now saying that you were .. OK[11]

Knox now told police a new story. Amanda claims that she met Patrick Lumumba at Piazza Grimana around 9 pm.[12] That is the same time and location that the witness Antonio Curatolo claims to have seen Knox and Sollecito. Knox stated that Patrick was sexually interested in Meredith and that he went into her bedroom while she remained in the kitchen with Raffaele.[13] Later she would change this claim to she was not certain if Raffaele was with her or not.[14] Knox claims that at some point she heard Meredith screaming and that she covered her ears.[15] Amanda then told the police that she was really afraid of Patrick.[16] Mignini the prosecutor was not present for this statement and was called for. When Mignini arrived Knox repeated this statement in his presence and Mignini informed Knox that he could not ask her any further questions but that she was welcome to make spontaneous declarations if she had anything to say. Knox declined and was taken to a cell and given dinner. Later Amanda Knox would change her mind and make a spontaneous declaration.

Amanda Knox's 1:45 am Statement

Knox Statement 1.jpg

Amanda Knox's 5:45 am Statement

Knox Statement 545.jpg

Amanda Knox's Letter to the Police

Transcript of Amanda Knox's Handwritten Statement to Police on the Evening of November 6, the Day She Was Arrested:

Amanda Knox's Statement

All of this is very strange, I know, but really what has happened is just as confusing to me as it is to everyone else. I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible. I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying I left him during the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:
Thursday, November 1st I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.
I also remember now sending the message: "Ci vediamo. Buona serata!" back to him, and this to me doesn't mean I would meet with him immediately. Especially since I said: "Buona serata."
What happened next I know doesn't match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember. I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him. However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange, because I'm not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I'm not sure about and I know they are important both to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much.
One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele, and this may explain how we passed the time. In truth, I don't remember exactly what day this was, but I do remember we showered and cleaned ourselves for a long time. He took care to clean my ears and dry and brush my hair.
In regards to things I know for sure happened the night that Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I thought around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock. After dinner I noticed a little blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).
The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday, November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to bring back dirty clothes to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house wide open and this all began.
In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the veritity [sic] of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am convinced that they unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my mind has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked. But the truth is, I'm unsure about the truth and here's why:
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that proves I was in the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what this proof is, but if it's true, then it means I am very confused be and my dreams must be true.
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I KNOW are not true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie.
What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentile [sic] with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me. Honestly, I understand because this is a very scary situation.
I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:
1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom. The truth is, I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered. I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickley [sic] to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.
2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me than what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.
3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, though contrasting, are the best truth that I've been able to think. Think of it this way, what am I supposed to think has happened when what I think is really true about myself and what I have done is told to me to be a lie? At first I was scared, offended, and confused. But as time, shock, and panic came on, I began to try to think of other explanations, and it is because I have to think in this way that I feel at contrast with myself. There is one thing that I think in myself is true, but there is also another possibility that could be true, and I can't honestly think for sure what is what. I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known, because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.
The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:
1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or, for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemming [sic] Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? → This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemming [sic] testimone [sic] in this instance.
I have a clearer mind than I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.
If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't.
All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

Original handwritten memoriale:

Dissecting Amanda Knox's Note

Anyone reading that statement can tell what Amanda Knox is trying to do. She regrets placing herself at the crime scene. She did that when she was shocked by the news that Raffaele had stopped corroborating their agreed to alibi. Now that she had had time to think about it, she realizes it was a mistake. For one thing the police might have been lying. Lying to suspects is a perfectly acceptable tactic in most jurisdictions. The police were not lying in this case but Knox can't know that. The result is the statement above where she basically tries to keep both options open. She denies that she was at the cottage and attempts to return to the original alibi unless the police have proof that she was at the cottage in which case she'd like to propose the alternative story that Patrick did it.

Another interesting line is when Knox brings up blood on Raffaele's hands. She says she thinks it was from cooking fish but she leaves a little doubt open, and the inclusion of this detail is obviously intentional, just like Raffaele including the unnecessary detail that Knox needed to borrow plastic bags for dirty clothing is included to intentionally cast suspicion on the other. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are entwined in a Prisoner's Dilemma, and you can see other examples of this if you read their respective prison diaries.

The Admissibility of the Statements

The Supreme Court ruled that

1. the 1.45 am statement could be used as evidence for calunnia but not for the murder charge,
2. the 5.45 am statement could not be used at all, and
3. the handwritten memoriale of November 7th would be admissible for both the calunnia and murder charge.
The Supreme Court concluded that Knox was a witness before she made the 1.45 am statement and as a witness she could not incriminate herself, therefore the 1.45 am statement could not be used against her for the murder charge. Immediately upon her accusation against Lumumba, the interrogation was halted and her status changed from witness to suspect. The prosecutor informed her that she couldn't be interrogated any longer without a lawyer but should she want to, she could make spontaneous statements. Knox decided to make a spontaneous statement at 5.45 am. The Supreme Court ruled it unuseable against her and any codefendants as she was a suspect at that time. [17]
On page 6-7 of the Supreme Court ruling, it reads as follows, (quickly and rather literally rendered by a PMF.NET contributor olleosnep):
2. With reference to the second defensive censure, the Court observes that the probative/evidence-bearing declarations are characterized by different regimes of usability under the subjective profile/case. In the case in which these (statements) come from persons against which already existed evidences relevant to the same crime, or more specifically to a crime connected or related with that attribute to the third the same (statements) cannot be utilized, not only contra se but also in connection with codefendants of the same crime (or of defendants of crimes connected or related).
The regime of unusability absolute from which the article 62 second comma criminal code is, instead, to be excluded in the hypothesis in which the declarant is called to respond, in the same or other proceeding, for a crime or crimes attributed to others, which do not have any connection legal/proceeding with that for which is proceeds, respect to which these (statements) assume the qualification of testimony.
In fact, while in the first case, by force of the intimate connection and interdependence between the act itself and that others arises the necessity to guarantee also (page 7) the right to silence of the declarant, in the second case, instead, the position of extraneousness and of indifference of the declarant (with) respect to the facts of cause renders them immune to future instrumentalizations operated on the parts of the inquiring entities (Cassazione, Section Unified, 13 February 1992, Carpanelli).
On the basis/tail of these principles, the declarations rendering by Amanda Marie Knox at the hour of 01:45 of November 6, 2007, at the outcome of which the deposition was suspended and the girl was placed at the disposition of the judicial Authority [translator's note: exactly as indicated in the deposition document itself] proceeding, arising evidences against her, they are useable only contra alios, while the “spontaneous declarations” of the hour of 5:54 (5:45) are not useable neither against her nor against other subjects accused of acting together in the same crime, because they were rendered without the defensive guarantees on the part of a person who had already formally assumed the vestige/dress/contour of a defendant.
On the contrary, the memo written in English language by Knox and translated into Italian is fully useable, according to the sense of article 237 criminal code, because it is a document coming from the defendant, who was the spontaneous material author for a defensive cause. The disposition under examination allows to attribute probatory relevance to the document not only because of its existence and for its representative content, but also by force of the particular connection which ties it to the defendant (or accused), in this way illuminating the syndicate(?)/(authority) of admissibility that the judge is obliged to operate.[18]

Possibility of a False Confession?

The defense has claimed that Knox's confession was a false confession. Unfortunately for the defense Knox's statement has none of the characteristics that are typical of a false confession. False confessions typically occur when the suspect is of abnormally low intelligence or low socioeconomic upbringing, experiences a lengthy interrogation, and the account they give police contradicts known evidence but these discrepancies are ignored by the police. Knox's confession did not have any of these characteristics. Knox is a university student, from an upper-middle class family, who was interrogated for a short period of time, and while her story is short on details, nothing contradicts the evidence and Knox places herself at a location where a witness would later claim to have seen her. If you accept that Knox made up this story out of her imagination placing herself at the exact place and exact time that a witness claims to have seen her is quite a coincidence.

There is substantial literature about false confessions, but it is difficult to find any examples of cases where an innocent person made a false accusation against another innocent party. Repeating and then committing the "false" confession to paper is unheard of.

The Truth About The Confession

Faced with the problem that Amanda Knox's confession did not match what you would normally consider a false confession, Knox's parents set out to simply lie about the interrogation:

(Beginning 1:30) Then what of Amanda's so-called confessions? Her parents say she didn't even know she was a suspect until Raffaele was called in for questioning five days after Meredith Kercher was found murdered. "She was just flat scared to be alone," Curt said. "So she went down to the police station with him and they were split into two rooms and then they started going at them. With physical and mental abuse for 14 hours. No food, water, no official interpreter." Prosecutors say Amanda's accounts swung wildly: She wasn't at the cottage the night of the murder. She was there, but drunk in another room. But her parents say she was coerced by police. "(They said) you know, you're never going to see your family again," Curt said. "You're going to jail for 30 years. You need to come up with something for us, you're a liar. Come up with something for us. Envision something; throw something out there."

The parents, with the assistance of the public relations firm they hired, managed to get the facts surrounding the interrogation to be complete fabrications. The result is that Amanda Knox's parents are facing criminal defamation charges stemming from an interview they gave to the Sunday Times, alleging the same abuse as above but this time for nine hours:[19]

On November 6, five days after Meredith’s murder, Knox was interrogated by police for nine hours until she signed a statement at 5.54am. Her family says that despite her good marks at university, Knox was not fluent in Italian, but no professional interpreter was present, only a police officer who could speak English and who was not always there. She was given no food and no water for all the nine hours. “I’ve never been so scared in my life,” Knox told Deanna later. Curt says: “Amanda was abused physically and verbally. She told us she was hit in the back of the head by a police officer with an open hand, at least twice. The police told her, ‘If you ask for a lawyer, things will get worse for you’ and ‘If you don’t give us some explanation for what happened, you’re going to go to jail for a very long time.’” Edda adds tearfully: “She was told she wouldn’t ever see her family again, and her family is everything to her.” Knox gave them a description of the officer who allegedly struck her, but it cannot be published for legal reasons. The Perugia police have denied striking her and have said she understood what she was signing. Only a small part of Knox’s taped statement has been leaked to the media; the full transcript hasn’t surfaced, but according to Curt, the police asked Knox to “visualise what could have happened”. The family says it was the police who brought up the name of Patrick Diya Lumumba, the Congolese owner of the bar where she worked.[20]

In her trial a year later, Knox would present a very different account of the late-night questioning from that of police and interpreters who were present. Police have also charged Knox with slander for similar statements she made in court.[21]

But these are minor charges that will lead to nothing beyond possible issues with future travel to Italy. That is a small price to pay for convincing all of the United States that the confession was made only under duress. That was important in the PR war because it impugns the professionalism of the police, it deflates the implication of the confession/accusation, and it diverts attention from all the other evidence.

The Interrogation Was at Most Two Hours Long

One of the most common falsehoods concerns the length of the interrogation. Different stories report different lengths: There are stories such as above where the length is reported as 13 or 14 hours, stories where the length is reported as 18 hours, there is even the occasional story where the length is reported as 50+ hours, sometimes consecutive and sometimes broken up over the week. In more recent coverage a specific number is no longer used and instead the more ambiguous claim is made that it was a lengthy interrogation.

If someone were interrogated for those lengths there would be some reason to be doubtful about any statements that the suspect eventually made. In this case though all of that is simply made up. The longest the interrogation could have been is two hours giving Knox all the advantages possible. A realistic estimate would be about an hour. Amanda Knox started a phone conversation with her roommate Filomena at 10:29 pm.[22] Knox's first statement is timestamped at 1:45 am. We have to allow for the phone call and Knox's notorious police station cartwheel. Several police officers testified that at around 11pm Amanda Knox was doing cartwheels and the splits by the elevator.[23] Monica Napoleoni claims that she approached Knox at 11:30 pm. Anna Donnino who was Knox's interpreter also gave a time of about 11:30 pm for when the station called and informed her that they would need her services as translator, and arrived at the station at 12:30 am.[24]. Anna Donnino testified that the serious questioning started at about 12:30am.[25] So assuming an 12:30 am start that would mean there was only 1¼ hours for the interrogation. If one includes the time when Knox was just in the room waiting for the interrogation to start it is two hours. Knox placed herself at the scene and implicated Patrick earlier than when the statement was prepared so realistically it took Amanda less than an hour to confess.

As such, despite claims that the statement was the result of an "obsessively long" (Hellmann) interrogation, the facts are that Amanda changed her statement quickly and pretty much instantly when she was told that Raffaele was no longer corroborating her alibi. The parents, and now Knox on her book promotion tour, intentionally deceive people about the length of the interrogation so as to make the idea that it was a statement made under duress, and thus probably a false statement, more believable.

Amanda's Interpreter

The family had been claiming how smart Amanda is and that she was an honors student[26] so they couldn't now argue that she was of low intelligence with respect to the interrogation. A good substitute for that is explaining that Knox did not speak the local language so she did not understand what was being said. The claim that Knox did not have an interpreter got repeated over and over. Like the length of the interrogation this turned out to be a complete lie. Amanda's interpreter was Anna Donnino. This same interpreter, along with several other translators, continued to work on the case as a translator, translating and summarizing Knox's journal writings and English conversations. You can read her testimony by clicking on Anna Donnino's Testimony (English). The claim that Knox was left to fend for herself in an interrogation where she didn't speak the language was a lie constructed with the purpose of making people unfamiliar with the case doubt Amanda Knox's self-incrimination.

How Many Officers? Just Two

Translator Anna Donnino testified that she arrived around 12:30, and when she took her seat next to Amanda there were only two officers present, Rita Ficarra and an officer Donnino only knows as Ivan:

I had been made to enter a room where in fact there was Inspector Ficarra at a small table, another colleague from SCO, I only remember his first name, he was called Ivano, a police officer, and there was Miss Knox seated, I seated myself beside her, I introduced myself, I had said that I was an interpreter and I was there to assist her , to help her understand and initially I saw that she was sufficiently calm, she was answering the questions that were being put to her.[27]

In the conversation with her mother on November 10, 2007, Knox said:

AK: I said... that what happened was that everyone had left the room, at that moment one of the police officers had said: "I’m the only one that can save you, I’m the only one that can save you. Just give me a name." And I said: "I don’t know!" And then they said, I said: "can you show me the message that I received from Patrick?!" Because I don’t remember having replied to him, and so they showed me the message and then I had said: "Patrick..." And then I thought of Patrick, of seeing Patrick, and so I thought that I had completely lost my mind, and I imagined him uhm... of seeing him and...
Mom: Seeing him where?
AK: Seeing him near the basketball court.
Mom: OK.
AK: And then in my house, I uhmm, imagined that I went like into the kitchen, I mean uhmm, because – I could hear her screaming, but it’s not true. It isn’t.
Mom: So, yes, they are now saying that you were .. OK

Was Amanda Mistreated?

Knox claims that one of the officers interrogating her hit her on the back of the head. During Knox's testimony she was asked about this incident but was unable to give any detail. She can't identify who hit her or even the gender of the officer she claims struck her.[28] Amanda Knox made no formal complaint of abuse against the police nor did she complain of abuse when visited by representatives of the US Consulate two days after the interrogation. The police of course deny that they hit Knox or mistreated her in any way.[29] Knox's interpreter also testified that Knox was not struck or mistreated in any way.[30]As such while it is impossible to make a definitive statement the probability that Amanda Knox is lying about being hit is vastly greater than the probability that she was hit. Knox has an interest in lying and only voiced this complaint much later when it became convenient for her as a possible defense against her slander charge. The fact that Knox can not even offer the vaguest of details about who struck her makes her claim completely unbelievable.

Was She Denied Food and Water?

This claim is not often made because most people realize it sounds ridiculous. We address it only for the sake of completeness. Knox was at the police station at 10:40pm because Raffaele delayed coming to the police station until he had finished dinner with his friends. The interrogation took two hours and happened late at night; offering food under such conditions would be strange. Despite this Amanda Knox was given water, chamomile tea, and stuff from the vending machine.[31] When the cafeteria opened Knox was taken to have breakfast.[32] Police officer Lorena Zugarini testified that she offered Amanda Knox a french pastry.[33] In Knox's own letters to her lawyers, written a few days later, she made no mention of being denied food and water.

Was the Interrogation at Night to Intimidate Knox?

This is a claim made by one Steve Moore, published on Injustice in Perugia.

Of even greater ignominy are the last eight hours of the interrogation. This took place from 10:30 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. All night. Why would detectives schedule an interrogation overnight? Detectives are for the most part different from other policemen in that their regular schedule is 8a-5p or 9a-5p or something similar. Sure, they get called out in the middle of the night, but all things equal, unless you are in a department like NYPD or LAPD where a skeleton crew covers the evening shift; normal schedules for detectives are not overnight.
But that night, Amanda was interrogated all night. And by not just one or two detectives, but by a dozen (12) detectives. Again, the police not only do not dispute this, but they have entered this evidence into court. Perugia has a population of approximately 165,000 people. I live in a town of 100,000 and there are less than ½ a dozen detectives to cover the city, much less work an all-night shift. Perugia had to call in resources from Rome to help that night. It was not a spontaneous interrogation. It was pre-planned, and pre-planned to be an all-nighter.
Why interrogate all night? There are few legitimate reasons:
*It’s a rapidly unfolding case where lives are at risk, such as a bombing spree
*It’s the only time the suspect is available
*There is a deadline
If you are going to have 12 detectives available all night for an interrogation, you need to let them know well in advance. You need to schedule them, to change their days off, etc. You have to pay them overtime. In the real world, 12 detectives all night is something that has to be signed off by higher-ups. What does this tell us? It tells us the interrogation was NOT a rapidly unfolding case where lives were at risk—they planned this interview well in advance, and INTENTIONALLY overnight. They knew Amanda was available all day (as they had interviewed her for 35 hours in the past four days). There was no deadline. The lead detective in the case, Giobbi, had already said they “knew” Amanda was the murderer by this point. So they did not believe there was a murderer on the loose “out there.” (And yet there was).[34]

Despite being incorrect on multiple facts the allegation that the police orchestrated this intentionally is contradicted by Amanda's own testimony.

LG: All right, I've exhausted this topic. Now, I said we were just coming to the evening when you were called in, or rather when Raffaele was called in to the Questura on Nov 5. Where did you come from? Were you having dinner somewhere? Do you remember?
AK: We were at the apartment of a friend of his, who lived near his house, and we were having dinner with them, trying, I don't know, to feel a bit of normality, when Raffaele was called by the police.
LG: Okay. So you went with him in the car, and you came in and they settled you somewhere, and later you were heard.
AK: Yes. What happened is that they weren't expecting me to come. I went somewhere a bit outside near the elevator, and I had taken my homework with me, so I started to do my homework, and then I needed to do some "stretching", so I did some "stretching", and that's when one policeman said something about my flexibility. A comment.[35]

Knox repeats this again.

CP: For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?
AK: No, I wasn't called. I went with Raffaele because I didn't want to be alone.

So Knox herself makes it very clear that the police were not expecting her the night she made her incriminating statement. It was just fortunate for the police that Knox was present when Raffaele decided to tell them that he had lied to them in his previous statement at Amanda's request and the truth is that she was not at his apartment the night of the murder.

The entire defense of Amanda Knox is a public relations activity where individuals like Amanda Knox's parents and Steve Moore lie to the media who accept their lies as factual. It is only now that material is being translated into English that the group of people charged with presenting false information to the public are starting to get challenged.


  1. Amanda Knox's Testimony
  2. We use the term gymnastics because there has been some debate over what exactly Amanda was doing: The police version is that she was doing a cartwheel, the parents claim she was doing yoga and stretching, Knox claims she was doing the splits. It is a trivial issue, and gymnastics covers all three
  3. Raffaele's November 5th Statement to Police
  4. Rita Ficarra's Testimony (English)
  5. Anna Donnino's Testimony
  6. Monica Napoleoni's Testimony
  7. Rita Ficarra's Testimony
  8. Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police (Nov 6, 2007)
  9. Rita Ficarra's Testimony
  10. Rita Ficarra's Testimony
  11. Dr. Galati's Appeal To The Supreme Court of Cassation translation p.88
  12. Staff. How Foxy Knoxy changed her tune about the night Meredith was murdered The Daily Mail 13 Nov 2007
  13. Staff. How Foxy Knoxy changed her tune about the night Meredith was murdered The Daily Mail 13 Nov 2007
  14. Staff. How Foxy Knoxy changed her tune about the night Meredith was murdered The Daily Mail 13 Nov 2007
  15. Staff. How Foxy Knoxy changed her tune about the night Meredith was murdered The Daily Mail 13 Nov 2007
  16. Staff. How Foxy Knoxy changed her tune about the night Meredith was murdered The Daily Mail 13 Nov 2007
  19. Vogt, Andrea Judge delays defamation trial of Amanda Knox's parents Seattle PI 10 Oct 2010
  20. via the Wayback Machine
  21. Vogt, Andrea Judge delays defamation trial of Amanda Knox's parents Seattle PI 10 Oct 2010
  22. Amanda Knox's Trial Testimony
  23. Lorena Zugarini's Testimony Rita Ficarra's Testimony Monica Napoleoni's Testimony
  24. Anna Donnino's Testimony
  25. Anna Donnino's Testimony
  26. Something that appears to not actually be true and just a senseless but also harmless lie on the part of the family
  27. Anna Donnino's Testimony
  28. Amanda Knox's Trial Testimony
  29. On February 27 and February 28 a dozen police officers testified that Amanda Knox was not mistreated. See Rita Ficarra's Testimony in particular.
  30. Anna Donnino's Testimony
  31. Monica Napoleoni's Testimony
  32. Rita Ficarra's Testimony
  33. Lorena Zugarini's Testimony
  34. Moore, Steve.[ "The Interrogation That Never Was" Injustice in Pergia
  35. Amanda Knox's Trial Testimony