Words that Taste of Truth
Florence, December 17, 2013
Amanda solved the problem of her absence by sending a letter.
She had always explained, since November 6, 2007, that she had nothing to do with the crime, but they wouldn’t believe her.
Her texts were always twisted and translated in the right way, and read as a confirmation of her guilt, about the murder and about the calumny. A few days after her arrest, thinking that the prosecutor was there for the truth, she asked to be interrogated. That December 15 she explained everything, showing clearly that the suspicions about her were wrong. But those answers were not heard and that interrogation was, let’s say, not widely advertised…
So the trial arrived, and she asked again to be interrogated (she HAD to ask, because the prosecution, believe it or not, avoided it, and we understand why). During that questioning she was stopped and charged again by the prosecution while telling what happened in that police station.
There was nothing to do, anything she was writing or saying, never mind how clearly showing her innocence, was twisted against her and causing her more charges. That interrogation was public, so it could not be kept under silence. But those who saw it didn’t say, she perfectly explained everything so she must be innocent; they said, she perfectly explained everything because she’s a great actress. Being she is foreign, indeed, to Italians her voice sounded fake.
Could they have said it again if she had taken the stand today in Florence? Probably. That’s why a written statement was the best solution.
It had only one defect — that it’s not legally valid. “People who want to be heard have to come to the trial,” Nencini, technically, reminded the lawyers. “How can we know that she wrote it?” he added.
Amanda’s lawyers didn’t insist, probably wishing not to irritate the judge. “Never mind, President,” Luciano Ghirga said. But then the curiosity and the common sense prevailed. Nencini took the document and read it (for once the procedure has been violated in her favor….).
And while he was reading, a sense of truth spread in the courtroom. You didn’t need a notary to certify it: that writing could come only from Amanda. Only she, her point of view and her desperation, could have written those things. You all have carefully read what she wrote, and you have probably noticed that you wouldn’t be able to write those things if you were really involved in the crime. The things she wrote are really proving, once and forever, not only that she has nothing to do with the crime, but that she never accused Patrick Lumumba. Why should she have accused him?
She explained that the cops coerced her into signing those statements against Lumumba with “psychological torture” and “slaps on the head.” What she experienced at the first trial must have taught her that you can defend yourself only where you shouldn’t — out of the courtroom, because in the courtroom you could be charged and possibly arrested again (she doesn’t know that there’s no obstinacy this time and that prosecutor Crini doesn’t give a damn if she gets convicted or not).
So, she wrote, and that was the perfect solution. Only in that way can she express herself freely and say what is needed to be said. Writing will make her free.
Amanda’s lawyers have had to exercise great patience. Today they had to start again from that November 8, when they went to meet Amanda to represent her in the hearing that will rule her arrest. A hearing in which they had to suggest to her not to defend herself, having zero information about what had happened, who she was, and why she had been stopped and put in isolation two days before.
Ghirga then went directly to last August, when he and Dalla Vedova went to meet her in Seattle: “Despite the contract and the fact that she had gone back to school, we found her emotionally devastated and scared, and together we decided it was not the case that she should appear in court”.
Ghirga then criticized both the Cassation sentence, that “just copied the first degree one,” and the current prosecutor, who “takes everything of that sentence uncritically.”
“Where is the scratch on the blade?” Ghirga asked. Indeed, as we were writing just yesterday, that scratch on the blade that should have retained the DNA, doesn’t exist; it’s just imagination, or false information. Finally someone said that in court!
Ghirga then recalled of all data, which had been kept hidden from the defense for as long as possible. “For months we thought that blood had been found on the knife”. And we understand why in that situation even their lawyers may have thought the pair guilty.
And the continuous adjustments, with the time of death moving, depending on what the witnesses were saying, or the theory of the double knife, introduced only at the trial, after they realized there was a wound too tight for the Marietti knife.
“‘Rudy is totally unreliable’, his Cassation sentence says. So, if we have to consider that sentence, we should take this too, not only when it says that he did the crime with others. Therefore there’s no link between Rudy and Amanda”.
Coming tomorrow: AMANDA KNOX AND HER LAWYERS DEMOLISH THE ACCUSATIONS, PART TWO