Transcript The Monster of Florence - True Justice For Meredith Kercher Front

The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth
Important Questions for Real Reporters to
ask writers Doug Preston and Mario Spezi
“Whale of a Tale”, this
presentation’s theme
song. Click on the
icon to hear it.
(Click to proceed)
Introduction
I received a curious email several days ago from – of all people – Douglas
Preston, co-author together with Mario Spezi of the book The Monster of Florence
and a champion of the cause to free Amanda Knox from being a suspect in the
murder of her housemate Meredith Kercher, in Perugia on 1 November 2007.
He explained that he wanted to write a “piece” about the “Knox case” and that he
would like to do a 10 question email interview with me. I get the feeling from
his words that he and Spezi are going to be active over the next few months in the
media promoting this cause (along with, I suppose, their book and future movie) .
I was surprised that he said he would “quote you accurately, honestly, and in context, and represent your views
respectfully and accurately”. We all have in our memory Preston accusing me of “distortions, falsehoods, and crackpot
opinion presented as settled fact. Kermit's open letter contains many out and out lies”, said Preston in April of 2011,
when he also suggested erroneously that I hide behind a “screen of false IP addresses and various other hacker tricks”
(what, has Preston tried to hack me?) and that I had “demonstrated a long history of falsehood and dishonesty”.
Given that background, would you trust Preston?
Silly me, I’m ready to give anyone another chance, so I suggested to him that the interview be two-way, and that
question by question we each ask the other the issues that we wanted to clarify, and later publish or present the results
where each sees fit.
I replied in an extensive manner to his first question and asked my first question, concerning what appear to be
significant errors and mistruths in the “Afterword” or epilogue chapter of his and Spezi’s Monster of Florence book.
I had hoped that Preston would reply in kind, accepting my offer of a step-by-step mutual interview, and responding in
detail to specific issues I had brought up. Unfortunately, he chose not to. He added, “as for my 'objectivity,' I am a
point-of-view journalist in this case. People know where I stand and they know my bad history with Mignini. I don't
pretend to be objective”.
Should Preston really call himself a journalist or an opinion maker or a lobbyist? Why can’t people just respect the
Italian legal process (which right now is out of the hands of Prosecutor Mignini, Preston’s perceived nemesis)?
Just in case we have to resign ourselves to seeing Preston and/or Spezi on a regular basis, informing us once again of
their opinion of Prosecutor Mignini, I thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at their “truths”, and what
better place to do so, than the book they published together about the serial killer The Monster of Florence.
Introduction (cont.)
The book is sold as a “True Story”, and while parts of it are historical
facts related to the MoF murders in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, the two
authors also personally introduce themselves into the story.
This is going to be an ongoing presentation composed of open
questions and observations, where I periodically extend it by asking an
additional question of those that I was going to propose to Preston by
email.
The objective is to help readers make up their minds about how much
they should take into account Preston’s self-described “point-of-view
journalism”, if that concept actually exists as a part of that profession
(it’s an imaginative euphemism, if you ask me).
The first question I asked Preston (with all the detail sent to him) is the
first question in this presention. Given Preston’s limited and conditional reply, I never got around to sending him the second question.
While The Monster of Florence story is interesting, my own interest is
in the Meredith Kercher murder case (and not in, as Preston calls it,
the “Knox case”).
?
Meredith’s life was cut short in a brutal manner. She seems to have
been a wonderful person, and her family deserve sufficient respect as to
let the wheels of Italian justice turn on, without persons with personal
(often pecuniary) agendas throwing a spanner in the works.
I recommend the following two sites for further information and
debate concerning this case:
True Justice For Meredith Kercher - Perugia Murder File
Any irony or sarcasm which may be encountered in the presentation or our discussions is not meant by any means to
trivialise the pain and suffering, and brutal, senseless murder that Meredith experienced, nor to reduce her memory.
I can only hope that there will be one single ending to this crime, that justice is served to those responsible for each of
the crimes involved in this case.
- Kermit (20 October 2012) email: [email protected]
INDEX – Questions for Preston and Spezi
Introduction
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence
appear to be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith
Kercher murder case?
2. Please return – work in progress
3. Please return – work in progress
……
……
……
n. Please return – work in progress
Possible ANNEX 1
Possible ANNEX 2
QUESTION #1 for Preston and Spezi
Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and
Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear
to be full of errors and insinuations, in linking
the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
“While Carlizzi blogged, Mignini forged ahead with the
case. …..
Preston and Spezi seem to try to link occultist
Carlizzi’s writings about the Meredith Kercher case,
only through insinuation, to Prosecutor Mignini’s
decisions that he made in the investigation.
It’s like me saying: “the day that Kennedy was shot,
Cronkite’s cousin made a large bank transfer.” You
make the connection.
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
“While Carlizzi blogged, Mignini forged ahead with the
case. …..
During the early round of questioning, she and her
boyfriend, Raffaele, told investigators that they had spent
the night of the murder together at his house. But there
was something about Amanda that aroused Mignini’s
suspicions, and on the afternoon of November 5, he
summoned Amanda and Raffaele back to the police
station.
Amanda was not summoned to the police station on
the evening of 5 Nov. 2007, as Preston and Spezi
state. She went simply to accompany Raffaele, as
Amanda herself states in her court testimony:
“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. ”
(CP = Carlo Pacelli, Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer
AK = Amanda Knox)
Preston and Spezi perhaps should have glanced
over the court testimony before writing their rivetting
Afterword. Didn't they follow the trial?
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
“While Carlizzi blogged, Mignini forged ahead with the
case. …..
During the early round of questioning, she and her
boyfriend, Raffaele, told investigators that they had spent
the night of the murder together at his house. But there
was something about Amanda that aroused Mignini’s
suspicions, and on the afternoon of November 5, he
summoned Amanda and Raffaele back to the police
station.
Mignini was not present in the interrogation of
Amanda which led to her incriminating herself and
Patrick Lumumba in the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Again, Amanda’s own courtroom testimony belies
the “best-seller” words out there about Mignini:
Amanda and Raffaele were separated and interrogated in
different rooms, Mignini going back and forth between
them, coordinating the questioning.
“AK: …. everything that I said, was said in confusion
and under pressure, and, because they were
suggested by the public minister [i.e. Prosecutor
Mignini].
CP: Excuse me, but at 1:45, the pubblico ministero
was not there, there was only the judicial police.
AK: Ha. They also were pressuring me.“
(CP = Carlo Pacelli, Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer
AK = Amanda Knox)
I wonder who told Preston or Spezi that Mignini was
"going back and forth"? It certainly sounds colourful,
like something out of a fiction book, or a neat
detective movie script starring George Clooney. I
personally believe that unnecessary or untrue
embellishments always kill the "True Story".
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
“While Carlizzi blogged, Mignini forged ahead with the
case. …..
During the early round of questioning, she and her
boyfriend, Raffaele, told investigators that they had spent
the night of the murder together at his house. But there
was something about Amanda that aroused Mignini’s
suspicions, and on the afternoon of November 5, he
summoned Amanda and Raffaele back to the police
station.
Amanda and Raffaele were separated and interrogated in
different rooms, Mignini going back and forth between
them, coordinating the questioning.
…. Without a lawyer or interpreter present, eight
detectives hammered away at the American student from
Seattle. Exactly what happened during the interrogation is
murky ….
Until Amanda implicated herself at 1:45 a.m., no
lawyer could be present as she was only a witness
who just happened to have accompanied her
boyfriend to the police station, as she herself
admitted.
At 1:45 a.m. Amanda implicated herself in the crime
and she became a suspect. Questioning was
suspended.
As for Preston’s and Spezi’s accusation that Amanda
Knox had no interpreter, this is a claim widely spread
by the PR media campaign around Knox. The truth
is that she did have an intrepreter, Anna Donnino,
who testified in the court trial.
(Did Preston and Spezi research the Afterword to
their book by themselves, or did they have help? If
so, who?)
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
“While Carlizzi blogged, Mignini forged ahead with the
case. …..
During the early round of questioning, she and her
boyfriend, Raffaele, told investigators that they had spent
the night of the murder together at his house. But there
was something about Amanda that aroused Mignini’s
suspicions, and on the afternoon of November 5, he
summoned Amanda and Raffaele back to the police
station.
Amanda and Raffaele were separated and interrogated in
different rooms, Mignini going back and forth between
them, coordinating the questioning.
…. Without a lawyer or interpreter present, eight
detectives hammered away at the American student from
Seattle. Exactly what happened during the interrogation is
murky ….
During a total of fourteen hours of relentless questioning,
threats, shouting, and physical abuse, Amanda reported
that she had a kind of dreamlike vision of being in the
apartment at the time of the murder …. She retracted the
statement a few hours later ….
As we have seen in the court testimony (I urge
Preston and Spezi to read it through), Amanda ‘s
accusation against Patrick Lumumba, and her
admission that she was at the scene of the crime,
came at 1:45 a.m. on the night of 5-6 November
2007. Her questioning had started around 11 p.m.,
after Raffaele had told police that Amanda’s alibi was
not true, and that she had in fact not been present in
his apartment from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m. on the night of
Meredith’s murder.
In total that’s maybe two and a half hours, or two
hours and 45 minutes.
The “14 hour interrogation” (and other even longer
versions) before Amanda admitted to being in the
cottage and accused Patrick have often appeared in
the Knox media campaign.
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
“While Carlizzi blogged, Mignini forged ahead with the
case. …..
During the early round of questioning, she and her
boyfriend, Raffaele, told investigators that they had spent
the night of the murder together at his house. But there
was something about Amanda that aroused Mignini’s
suspicions, and on the afternoon of November 5, he
summoned Amanda and Raffaele back to the police
station.
Amanda and Raffaele were separated and interrogated in
different rooms, Mignini going back and forth between
them, coordinating the questioning.
…. Without a lawyer or interpreter present, eight
detectives hammered away at the American student from
Seattle. Exactly what happened during the interrogation is
murky ….
During a total of fourteen hours of relentless questioning,
threats, shouting, and physical abuse, Amanda reported
that she had a kind of dreamlike vision of being in the
apartment at the time of the murder …. She retracted the
statement a few hours later ….
Mignini also ordered the arrest of a third person whom
Amanda “saw” in her vision as being the actual murderer –
a person who had been suggested to her by her
interrogators.
The pro-Knox media campaign has often reported that
Knox’s accusation that Patrick Lumumba killed Meredith
was due to police pressure and Patrick’s name being
suggested to her. Again, Amanda’s own courtroom
testimony belies what Preston and Spezi have written
about Amanda’s interrogation:
“AK: So, there was this thing that they wanted a name.
And the message -GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?
AK: To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told
me that I knew, and that I didn't want to tell. … I was there
hearing "Remember, remember, remember,“ and then
there was this person behind me who -- it's not that she
actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me...
GCM: "Remember!" is not a suggestion. It is a strong
solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather...
AK: But it was always "Remember" following this same
idea, that...
GCM: But they didn't literally say that it was him!
AK: No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We
know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you
met him."
GCM: So, these were the suggestions.
AK: Yes. “
(GCM = Giancarlo Massei, presiding judge
AK = Amanda Knox)
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
“While Carlizzi blogged, Mignini forged ahead with the
case. …..
During the early round of questioning, she and her
boyfriend, Raffaele, told investigators that they had spent
the night of the murder together at his house. But there
was something about Amanda that aroused Mignini’s
suspicions, and on the afternoon of November 5, he
summoned Amanda and Raffaele back to the police
station.
Amanda and Raffaele were separated and interrogated in
different rooms, Mignini going back and forth between
them, coordinating the questioning.
…. Without a lawyer or interpreter present, eight
detectives hammered away at the American student from
Seattle. Exactly what happened during the interrogation is
murky ….
During a total of fourteen hours of relentless questioning,
threats, shouting, and physical abuse, Amanda reported
that she had a kind of dreamlike vision of being in the
apartment at the time of the murder …. She retracted the
statement a few hours later ….
Mignini also ordered the arrest of a third person whom
Amanda “saw” in her vision as being the actual murderer –
a person who had been suggested to her by her
interrogators.
The Italian courts would later strike down most of her
statement as inadmissible, saying that it had been
improperly obtained.”
Maybe I’m wrong, but Preston and Spezi seem to be
insinuating that Amanda’s statements to the police
were obtained by illegal means. In fact the courts’
considerations concerning the admissibility of
Amanda’s statements in her trial only concluded that
her right to not declare against herself must be
maintained.
This was the case of her 1:45 a.m. statement, when
she changed from being a witness to being a
suspect . However, that statement was “properly
obtained” and was used as evidence in the charge
of falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba of murder, for
which she has been found guilty and has served a
prison sentence.
Amanda prepared another statement at 5:45 but
since she still didn’t have a lawyer assigned, the
courts decided to protect her from having this
statement used in court.
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
(cont’d) From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (SPI) has had some of
Amanda’s two hometown newspapers, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the best, most objective coverage in the USA from
the Seattle Times, did not send a reporter to Italy to cover the case;
the beginning of the Meredith Kercher murder case,
instead, they hired freelance stringers in Italy. These stringers did little
by a journalist today considered an expert on the the
independent reporting, instead digesting and rewriting stories from the
investigation and trials in the murder of Meredith
Italian papers. As a result, inaccuracies, distorted evidence, and outright
Kercher. Her articles are balanced, fact-base
falsehoods leaked by prosecutors and published in the Italian press
reports. Her information is widely read, and the
(where journalistic standards are notably different) were republished in
confidence and trust that the SPI and its readers
Seattle without fact-checking or independent verification. These “facts”
have in her reporting is demonstrated by her
were then picked up by some national news outlets in the U.S., which
continuing articles over the years that this case has
assumed that the Seattle papers were accurately reporting the story. In
lasted. She is one of the journalists who has
this way two respected American newspapers unwittingly subordinated
attended most sessions of the on-going court saga
their journalistic standards to those of a foreign country – and many
and the seattlepi.com was one of the only American
Americans concluded Amanda was guilty.
news outlets to make available original court
documents and other records on the case she
obtained through public records requests online as
downloadable pdf documents. Where are the cutand-paste "stringers" of the SPI if the newspaper
had an Italian-fluent reporter on-the-spot in Perugia,
Additional questions for Real Reporters to Ask Preston and Spezi:
talking to the principals of the case? I get the feeling
this sort
of reporting
jive with
Preston
1a. Do Italian journalists,
1b. Doesn't Preston as a scareythat
monster
fiction
1c.doesn’t
Could any
Italian
or U.S.
and
Spezi
…
what
would
they
prefer,
a
food-blogger
after the support they gave
novelist feel a little shame that on one hand he
reporter count on Preston
or
a
truffle
vendor
instead
a real
Spezi when he was
(apparently) criticizes and accuses trusted
and of
Spezi
tonews
help journalist?
and
How
many
sessions
of
the
trials
for
the
suspects
imprisoned and freed in
reporting as being below standard, yet on at
support him or her if the of
Meredith’s murder did Preston or Spezi attend?
2006, agree with what he
and Preston insinuate in the
Monster of Florence
Afterword about their
professional standards and
the “facts” they report?
least two occasions he has run off to the
journalism guild Committee to Protect
Journalists (on behalf of Spezi and The
Anonymous Perugian Blogger) for
international support?
reporter got into trouble? Or
do Preston and Spezi only
offer support if the journalist
supports their particular
Monster of Florence and
Amanda Knox theories?
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
(cont’d) From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
Amanda’s two hometown newspapers, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and
the Seattle Times, did not send a reporter to Italy to cover the case;
instead, they hired freelance stringers in Italy. These stringers did little
independent reporting, instead digesting and rewriting stories from the
Italian papers. As a result, inaccuracies, distorted evidence, and outright
falsehoods leaked by prosecutors and published in the Italian press
(where journalistic standards are notably different) were republished in
Seattle without fact-checking or independent verification. These “facts”
were then picked up by some national news outlets in the U.S., which
assumed that the Seattle papers were accurately reporting the story. In
this way two respected American newspapers unwittingly subordinated
their journalistic standards to those of a foreign country – and many
Americans concluded Amanda was guilty.
Mignini’s arrest of Amanda Knox proved to be premature. The crime
scene had yet to be analyzed. Crime-scene investigators collected a
great deal of forensic evidence …. When the preliminary crime-scene
analysis came back several weeks later, it did not point to Knox, her
boyfriend, or the third person arrested with them. It incriminated an
entirely new person: a drifter named Rudy Guede …
Again, I wonder where Preston and Spezi got
their information from concerning the early days
of the Meredith Kercher murder case.
If they weren’t following the case at the time and
didn’t know, a fast google today shows that within
days of Amanda’s and Raffaele’s arrest, the
scientific forensic results pointed towards the
young couple, and that this information was
available in news media at the time.
Once again, the best source of information to contradict the an anti-Mignini claim is Amanda Knox herself.
1.
Why
does
Afterword
ofAmanda
Preston’s
andin court:
Spezi’s
book
A weekly
earlier
than thethe
Private
Eye’s statement,
was testifying
(12 June
2009) The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
CP: Good morning, Miss Amanda, I am Carlo Pacelli, I am the defense lawyer for Patrick Diya Lumumba. A little
remark: I will try to keep my questions in simpler Italian. May I start?
(cont’d) From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
AK: Thank you, yes.
CP: You knowtwo
Rudy
Hermann Guede?
Amanda’s
hometown
newspapers, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and
the
AK: Seattle
Not much.Times, did not send a reporter to Italy to cover the case;
instead,
hired freelance
stringers
in Italy. These stringers did little
CP: In whatthey
circumstances
did you meet
him?
independent
reporting,
instead
digesting
rewriting
thelived underneath in the
AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was duringand
an evening
when stories
I met the from
guys that
apartment
underneath
and while
I was mingling with
them, they
introduced me
to Rudy.
Italian
papers.
As us,
a result,
inaccuracies,
distorted
evidence,
and
outright
CP:
So
it
was
on
the
occasion
of
a
party
at
the
house
of
the
neighbors
downstairs?
falsehoods leaked by prosecutors and published in the Italian press
AK: Yes. journalistic
What we did is,standards
they introduced
to him downtown
just were
to say "This
is Rudy, this
(where
aremenotably
different)
republished
inis Amanda", and then I
spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.
Seattle without fact-checking or independent verification. These “facts”
CP: Did
you also
knowup
him,by
or at
least see
him, in the
pub outlets
"Le Chic",in
Rudy?
were
then
picked
some
national
news
the U.S., which
AK:
I
think
I
saw
him
there
once.
assumed that the Seattle papers were accurately reporting the story. In
CP: Listen,
this party
at the neighbors,
it tooknewspapers
place in the second
half of October?
What period, end of October?
this
way two
respected
American
unwittingly
subordinated
2007?
their journalistic standards to those of a foreign country – and many
AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.
Americans
concluded Amanda was guilty.
…….
CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?
Mignini’s arrest of Amanda Knox proved to be premature. The crime
AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.
scene had yet to be analyzed. Crime-scene investigators collected a
CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?
great
deal of forensic evidence …. When the preliminary crime-scene
AK: Every once in a while with friends.
analysis came back several weeks later, it did not point to Knox, her
CP: Which substances were they?
boyfriend,
or the third person arrested with them. It incriminated an
AK: Marijuana.
entirely
new person: a drifter named Rudy Guede …
….[Mignini ignored] the fact that Guede did not know Amanda and
Raffaele
"Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes
on Rudy, never met with him and never
hung out with him... didn't know him.”
CBS Evening NEWS - 19 June 2009
"There’s no connection. So, we have a
big problem. This is all a police
generated fairy tale."
CBS 48 Hours - 10 April 2008
And yet again (and again and again), I wonder
where P&S got their information from concerning
the Meredith Kercher murder case.
The pro-Knox camp has often repeated the
talking point that Amanda didn’t know Rudy
Guede, co-suspect in the murder case. Preston’s
friend (or – if he wishes to deny it – acquaintance)
Chicago Private Eye Paul Ciolino has made a
habit of underlining the absence of prior
interaction between Amanda and Rudy.
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
(cont’d) From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
Amanda’s two hometown newspapers, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and
the Seattle Times, did not send a reporter to Italy to cover the case;
instead, they hired freelance stringers in Italy. These stringers did little
independent reporting, instead digesting and rewriting stories from the
Italian papers. As a result, inaccuracies, distorted evidence, and outright
falsehoods leaked by prosecutors and published in the Italian press
(where journalistic standards are notably different) were republished in
Seattle without fact-checking or independent verification. These “facts”
were then picked up by some national news outlets in the U.S., which
assumed that the Seattle papers were accurately reporting the story. In
this way two respected American newspapers unwittingly subordinated
their journalistic standards to those of a foreign country – and many
Americans concluded Amanda was guilty.
Mignini’s arrest of Amanda Knox proved to be premature. The crime
scene had yet to be analyzed. Crime-scene investigators collected a
great deal of forensic evidence …. When the preliminary crime-scene
analysis came back several weeks later, it did not point to Knox, her
boyfriend, or the third person arrested with them. It incriminated an
entirely new person: a drifter named Rudy Guede …
….[Mignini ignored] the fact that Guede did not know Amanda and
Raffaele
Mignini did not, however, release Amanda Knox and her boyfriend
Raffaele …. Already under indictment in the Monster of Florence
investigation, Mignini was in a precarious position; to admit he had made
such a catastrophic mistake might end his career.
Probably the best indication that Mignini wasn’t
making a “catastrophic mistake” in how he led the
Meredith Kercher murder investigation is found in
the sentencing report written by Judge Giancarlo
Massei following the first trial’s guilty verdict
against Amanda and Raffaele. I urge the reader
to download it and consult it.
What would be “catastrophic” about releasing a
suspect held in detention if the evidence was not
sufficiently strong enough? This happens all the
time. Why, if that had been the correct decision to
make (and it would not have been) might it have
ended Mignini‘s career?
There was and is a case against Amanda, Rudy
and Raffaele. Several independent levels of
judges have confirmed this, starting off with the
decision to keep the suspects in preventive prison
while the investigation was being carried out.
Whatever the final result may be of a possible
final appeal to the Supreme Court following the
appeals court verdict, it is clear that Mignini had a
solid case destined to give rise to a trial.
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
(cont’d) From the Afterword of The Monster of Florence:
Amanda’s two hometown newspapers, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and
the Seattle Times, did not send a reporter to Italy to cover the case;
instead, they hired freelance stringers in Italy. These stringers did little
independent reporting, instead digesting and rewriting stories from the
Italian papers. As a result, inaccuracies, distorted evidence, and outright
falsehoods leaked by prosecutors and published in the Italian press
(where journalistic standards are notably different) were republished in
Seattle without fact-checking or independent verification. These “facts”
were then picked up by some national news outlets in the U.S., which
assumed that the Seattle papers were accurately reporting the story. In
this way two respected American newspapers unwittingly subordinated
their journalistic standards to those of a foreign country – and many
Americans concluded Amanda was guilty.
Mignini’s arrest of Amanda Knox proved to be premature. The crime
scene had yet to be analyzed. Crime-scene investigators collected a
great deal of forensic evidence …. When the preliminary crime-scene
analysis came back several weeks later, it did not point to Knox, her
boyfriend, or the third person arrested with them. It incriminated an
entirely new person: a drifter named Rudy Guede …
….[Mignini ignored] the fact that Guede did not know Amanda and
Raffaele
Mignini did not, however, release Amanda Knox and her boyfriend
Raffaele …. Already under indictment in the Monster of Florence
investigation, Mignini was in a precarious position; to admit he had made
such a catastrophic mistake might end his career.
…. Weeks and even months after the crime … they have (so far) been
unable to recover any trace of Amanda’s DNA at the murder scene or on
the victim’s body, and only the most ambiguous and doubtful trace of
Raffaele’s DNA, on an item that was hopelessly contaminated by the
police.
Again, I refer the reader to the sentencing report
written by Judge Giancarlo Massei following the first
trial’s guilty verdict against Amanda and Raffaele.
There is a summary of an abundant quantity of
evidence, from DNA, to other scientific forensic
evidence, to a large set of circumstantial evidence.
By the way, what Preston calls an “item” is a piece of
Meredith Kercher’s bra strap, ripped off in all
probability after she was already killed, as part of a
staging of the crime scene. Raffaele’s DNA sample
was very strong.
While the court’s experts Conti and Vecchiotti
suggested in a generic manner that contamination
could have taken place at the crime scene, there was
no logical way to take Raffaele’s DNA from a cigarette
butt in the kitchen (the only other identified sample of
his DNA) to Meredith’s bedroom.
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
(cont’d) Finally, let’s take a look at this tale from the Afterword of The Monster of
Florence:
On October 10, 2008, only a week before he was to present the case against
Amanda, Mignini held a hearing in Perugia about the Narducci case …. but the
biggest surprise on that day in October occurred outside the courtroom and did
not involve the Monster case – but Amanda Knox [Kermit: excuse this
interruption, Mr. Preston, but did the surprise of 10/10/2008 involve Meredith
Kercher, or Raffaele Sollecito or Rudy Guede, too?]. A little before noon, during
a break, Spezi left the tribunal in Perugia and crossed the sun-drenched piazza
to grab an espresso at a sidewalk café. A few moments later a timid and
exceedingly nervous young woman approached.
“I’m a fellow journalist here in Perugia,” she said quietly. “Could I speak with you
a moment?”
Spezi invited her to sit at his table.
She looked about furtively, as if to check if she were being followed. Then she lit
a cigarette with a trembling hand and, stumbling over her words, blurted out: “I
hope they don’t see us together!”
“Excuse me,” Spezi asked, “but who is ‘they’?”
This tale about local Perugia reporter
Francesca Bene could start to seem a little
truer to the real facts if Preston and Spezi
had been a little more careful with the
dates. The publishing by her newspaper of
her report of the young man screaming on
the day Meredith’s body was found, was in
May 2008, not July as P&S state.
I don’t know why Preston and Spezi write
here that Bene’s article and any followup on
what it reported was suppressed. In fact, it
was well reported in the Italian press at the
time, and was dismissed as being irrelevant
to the Meredith Kercher case …
“Them, the police. Mignini’s men …. My name is Francesca Bene,” she said in a
rush, “and I work for a small newspaper here, the Giornale dell’Umbria. Last July
I made what I thought was a real scoop about the case of Meredith Kercher. I
learned that the morning of the murder … a young man well known in Perugia as
a drug addict and dealer was seen washing
himself in the
public
fountain
Rough translation:
“The
young
man spoken of in the
because he was all covered with blood
and
also
had
a
big
cut
in
one
He
(Giornale dell’Umbria) newspaperhand.
had been
was out of his mind, screaming, ‘I killed
her. I killed
her.’scrutiny
…. Theand
verya day
I
subjected
to close
number
of
published that story, I was summoned
to
the
prosecutor’s
office
and
interrogated
investigative activities. These verifications allow him
by Mignini’s men – in particular that big
policewoman,
thebeing
samerelated
one who
to be
excluded from
to the crime.”
interrogated Amanda Knox …. She’s violent; she scares me.”
…. The connection, if any, between the bloody man … and the murder of
Meredith Kercher remains largely uninvestigated and unknown. (October 10, 2008)
Reality, May of 2008
Preston and Spezi’s understanding, a few months later
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
(cont’d) Finally, let’s take a look at this tale from the Afterword of The Monster of
Florence:
On October 10, 2008, only a week before he was to present the case against
Amanda, Mignini held a hearing in Perugia about the Narducci case …. but the
biggest surprise on that day in October occurred outside the courtroom and did
not involve the Monster case – but Amanda Knox [Kermit: excuse this
interruption, Mr. Preston, but did the surprise of 10/10/2008 involve Meredith
Kercher, or Raffaele Sollecito or Rudy Guede, too?]. A little before noon, during
a break, Spezi left the tribunal in Perugia and crossed the sun-drenched piazza
to grab an espresso at a sidewalk café. A few moments later a timid and
exceedingly nervous young woman approached.
“I’m a fellow journalist here in Perugia,” she said quietly. “Could I speak with you
a moment?”
Spezi invited her to sit at his table.
She looked about furtively, as if to check if she were being followed. Then she lit
a cigarette with a trembling hand and, stumbling over her words, blurted out: “I
hope they don’t see us together!”
“Excuse me,” Spezi asked, “but who is ‘they’?”
“Them, the police. Mignini’s men …. My
name
is Francesca
Bene,”army
she said
in a
This
is where
the private
legend
rush, “and I work for a small newspaper
here,
Giornale dell’Umbria.
Lastlike
July
starts
…the
“Mignini’s
Men” sounds
I made what I thought was a real scoop
about
the
case
of
Meredith
Kercher.
I
Hogan’s Heros, The Dirty Dozen, The
learned that the morning of the murder … a young man well known in Perugia as
Magnificent Seven, Ocean’s 12, etc.
a drug addict and dealer was seen washing himself in the public fountain
You
to have
to He
because he was all covered with blood
andhave
also had
a big imagination
cut in one hand.
believe
that Mignini
commands
was out of his mind, screaming, ‘I killed
her. I killed
her.’ …. The
very day Ihis
published that story, I was summonedown
to the
prosecutor’s
office and interrogated
police
force beholden
to him,
by Mignini’s men – in particular that big
policewoman,
same
one who
and
that no onetheelse
knows
exists,
interrogated Amanda Knox …. She’s except
violent; she
scares
me.”
for Preston and Spezi.
…. The connection, if any, between the bloody man … and the murder of
Meredith Kercher remains largely uninvestigated and unknown.
This tale about local Perugia reporter
Francesca Bene could start to seem a little
truer to the real facts if Preston and Spezi
had been a little more careful with the
dates. The publishing by her newspaper of
her report of the young man screaming on
the day Meredith’s body was found, was in
May 2008, not July as P&S state.
I don’t know why Preston and Spezi write
here that Bene’s article and any followup on
what it reported was suppressed. In fact, it
was well reported in the Italian press at the
time, and was dismissed as being irrelevant
to the Meredith Kercher case …
… and if Preston’s Italian wasn’t up to snuff
in 2008 (a year before he published the
edition of his book with the Afterword), then
he also could have read of this happening
in the extensive reporting at the time in the
English language press.
(in the Kercher trial it was clarified that the
young man in question on the day after
Meredith’s murder had had a lover’s
quarrel, and was screaming into his mobile
phone: “I will kill the bitch” . It was reported
in these terms by The Times in May 2008)
1. Why does the Afterword of Preston’s and Spezi’s book The Monster of Florence appear to
be full of errors and insinuations, in linking the MoF to the Meredith Kercher murder case?
CONCLUSION:
As I mentioned in the Introduction to this presentation, Preston did provide a brief “answer” to my first
question (so brief and put-offish that it was deeply disappointing).
With all the examples that I provided him of apparent errors or misrepresentations of fact (who knows,
maybe there’s some logical explanation) in his and Spezi’s Afterword to The Monster of Florence, this is all
he could say:
“I am always willing to correct errors in what I've written and I will correct any in the next edition of
Monster. I'll take a good look at each one of your comments here and if warranted make a correction.”
Time will tell if he will keep his word.
I guess I shouldn’t complain, as this reply is an advance from Preston’s stance a year ago, when he proudly
crowed:
“Before publication [The Monster of Florence] was minutely vetted by no less than five attorneys in two
languages in Italy, the U.K., and the United States. Since publication, it has been read by millions of
people in many European languages. In all that time, and with all the millions who have read the book,
not one significant error of fact came to light. Mario Spezi and I stand by every single assertion of fact
in that book today just as strongly as we did when it was first published three years ago.” Source: CPJ
All I can suggest to Mr. Preston is that if he and Spezi used 5 lawyers to do fact checking in the book and
they didn’t google up half the things presented here (concerning only a single chapter!) on their first day of
work, then the authors should fire the lawyers and ask for their money back.
Additionally, my personal advice to Preston and Spezi is that if they want to be considered authors of “True
Stories”, they should not count on their readers to be the ones to discover their errors and set them straight.