Murder in Perugia

Murder in Perugia Hey! You never said we would be talking about Amanda possibly washing the victim’s clothes! But how can I talk about something for which I haven’t yet received my talking points? Okay, we’ll let you off this time. Let’s just hope that Daisyhill soon figures out something to say about the washer. A Lesson in Spin But Paul, you knew the PPT is about spin Italian police photo of girls’ washing machine after the crime

Murder in Perugia A Lesson in Spin Textbook Analysis of How not to Win Friends and Influence People

The first part of this presentation examines an extract of 4 minutes or so from the CBS “48 Hours” program aired on 12 April 2008 where Private Investigator (PI) Paul Ciolino carries out an acoustic test to verify the testimony of an elderly neighbour of the cottage where the murder was perpetrated. The program concludes that the test “raises serious questions about what Nara [the neighbour] really heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as police have suggested." At the end of the day, I don’t think that anyone who is following this murder case really cares about Paul’s test one way or the other. It’s history, it got him 5 minutes of fame and gave a few chuckles to the discussion boards. However, on one hand, his segment of only a few minutes in the 48 Hours show is a lesson in “spin” for the masses, and on the other hand, it gives rise to new discussion about a key prosecution witness who has been notably out of recent pre-trial judicial sessions which have concentrated more on DNA traces and physical evidence. I have used some images and text from this segment of the program for quoting purposes. The last part of the presentation briefly looks at more recent efforts to influence opinion on the case in the USA and in Italy. The situations presented here are related to ideas or event relationships which have arisen from the in-depth multi-point-of-view, multi-timezone, and multi-cultural discussions and information found on the following excellent discussion boards: http://perugiamurderfile.freeforums.org/portal.php http://allofus.invisionplus.net/?mforum=allofus&act=idx http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php http://damiano33.wordpress.com/ 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 butal senseless murder that the victim experienced, nor to reduce her memory. (Since the victim has no means to reply to any comments herein or scenarios described in other presentations, and the repeated use of her name in this context would only further hurt anyone close to her, I refer to her simply as “the victim”.) As we go through the scenarios of what may have happened in the crime, the only moment which is truly important is the day when the evidence is presented in court, like in any other serious crime case. I can only hope that there will be one single ending, that justice is served to those responsible for each of the crimes which have been determined by the Italian judiciary. I am buoyed by the fact that the victim’s family has continued to express confidence in the Italian justice system. Special thanks to Nicki for producing a much better translation of Signora Nara’s testimony. - Kermit (14 October 2008) email: krmt123@gmail.com

Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia I like what Nathan has to say. It’s short, direct and contains no “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s”. There are no caveats or conditions in his call for justice. "She got killed because she said 'No'. She said 'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think that people want to have justice served for Meredith"

Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia Paul the PI, famous American investigator Well … that is one big “BUT”. It seems some people want “justice” done, but on the condition that Amanda is excluded. No one is in a position to say that a priori, Amanda is guilty of anything. However, it is suspiciously imprudent to separate a priori Amanda’s legal fate from justice for the victim, in particular given the evidence that’s out there. "She got killed because she said 'No'. She said 'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think that people want to have justice served for Meredith" Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the expense of Amanda Knox.” Etc. Etc. Etc. I like what Nathan has to say. It’s short, direct and contains no “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s”. There are no caveats or conditions in his call for justice.

Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia Paul the PI, famous American investigator He says the police have no convincing evidence. Don’t you get the suspicion that the persons who are going to get railroaded are the CBS television viewers who aren’t totally familiar with the case? Perfect targets for spin. Well … that is one big “BUT”. It seems some people want “justice” done, but on the condition that Amanda is excluded. No one is in a position to say that a priori, Amanda is guilty of anything. However, it is suspiciously imprudent to separate a priori Amanda’s legal fate from justice for the victim, in particular given the evidence that’s out there. Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been ripped out of everything that she knows and placed in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.” Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, have been in jail since early November. Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino believes the police have no convincing evidence they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.” Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and she's sitting at the end of it right now.” "She got killed because she said 'No'. She said 'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think that people want to have justice served for Meredith" Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the expense of Amanda Knox.” I like what Nathan has to say. It’s short, direct and contains no “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s”. There are no caveats or conditions in his call for justice.

Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia Paul the PI, famous American investigator Not a shred of evidence. I won’t post yet again the photos of the Double-DNA knife, of the knife stain on the bed, of the washing machine, of 3 or 4 coincidental victim-Knox mixes of BLOOD. Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been ripped out of everything that she knows and placed in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.” Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, have been in jail since early November. Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino believes the police have no convincing evidence they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.” Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and she's sitting at the end of it right now.” "She got killed because she said 'No'. She said 'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think that people want to have justice served for Meredith" Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the expense of Amanda Knox.” Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'” Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of evidence putting this girl at that murder scene."

Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia Paul the PI, famous American investigator Not a shred of evidence. I won’t post yet again the photos of the Double-DNA knife, of the knife stain on the bed, of the washing machine, of 3 or 4 coincidental victim-Knox mixes of BLOOD. Edgardo must be one of those dozens (or hundreds?) of investigators and police officers who form part of the Evil Mignini’s terrible secret plan to pervert justice. Or so the spinners would have us believe … Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been ripped out of everything that she knows and placed in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.” Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, have been in jail since early November. Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino believes the police have no convincing evidence they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.” Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and she's sitting at the end of it right now.” "She got killed because she said 'No'. She said 'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think that people want to have justice served for Meredith" Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the expense of Amanda Knox.” Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host Edgardo Giobbi, police lead investigator Narrator: "Edgardo Giobbi is the lead investigator. He told 48 Hours that the case against all three suspects is solid. The DNA found on the victim's bra, he says, DNA which belongs to Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito, proves Rudy didn’t act alone. And if Raffaele was involved, so was Amanda, because they both claim they were together that night." Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'” Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of evidence putting this girl at that murder scene."

Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia Paul the PI, famous American investigator What leaks is he referring to? The “20% match” of the victim’s DNA? Or the state of Rudy’s faeces in the toilet? Or Raffaele telling of the day he pricked the victim while cooking? Or Rudy’s “criminal record”? Etc. etc. etc. Not a shred of evidence. I won’t post yet again the photos of the Double-DNA knife, of the knife stain on the bed, of the washing machine, of 3 or 4 coincidental victim-Knox mixes of BLOOD. Edgardo must be one of those dozens (or hundreds?) of investigators and police officers who form part of the Evil Mignini’s terrible secret plan to pervert justice. Or so the spinners would have us believe … Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been ripped out of everything that she knows and placed in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.” Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, have been in jail since early November. Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino believes the police have no convincing evidence they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.” Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and she's sitting at the end of it right now.” "She got killed because she said 'No'. She said 'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think that people want to have justice served for Meredith" Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the expense of Amanda Knox.” Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host Paul the PI: "I don't believe Raffaele’s DNA is on Meredith's bra.” Narrator: "Why? Because Ciolino says evidence leaked in this case has often turned out to be wrong.” Paul the PI: "They're so desperate to make a case against this kid that they'll do anything. And we know this for a fact, because we've seen it happen in this case already." Edgardo Giobbi, police lead investigator Narrator: "Edgardo Giobbi is the lead investigator. He told 48 Hours that the case against all three suspects is solid. The DNA found on the victim's bra, he says, DNA which belongs to Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito, proves Rudy didn’t act alone. And if Raffaele was involved, so was Amanda, because they both claim they were together that night." Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'” Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of evidence putting this girl at that murder scene."

Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia Paul the PI, famous American investigator “heard stuff”??!! Can’t CBS find a more articulate PI than Paul? Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been ripped out of everything that she knows and placed in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.” Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, have been in jail since early November. Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino believes the police have no convincing evidence they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.” Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and she's sitting at the end of it right now.” "She got killed because she said 'No'. She said 'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think that people want to have justice served for Meredith" Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the expense of Amanda Knox.” Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host Paul the PI: "I don't believe Raffaele’s DNA is on Meredith's bra.” Narrator: "Why? Because Ciolino says evidence leaked in this case has often turned out to be wrong.” Paul the PI: "They're so desperate to make a case against this kid that they'll do anything. And we know this for a fact, because we've seen it happen in this case already." Edgardo Giobbi, police lead investigator Narrator: "Edgardo Giobbi is the lead investigator. He told 48 Hours that the case against all three suspects is solid. The DNA found on the victim's bra, he says, DNA which belongs to Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito, proves Rudy didn’t act alone. And if Raffaele was involved, so was Amanda, because they both claim they were together that night." Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'” Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of evidence putting this girl at that murder scene." Narrator: "A prime example: the witness police say heard three people running from the house that night." Paul the PI: "Peter, high police officials told you they had a witness who heard stuff that night, indicating they had interviewed her and they owned her. Now, we go interview the witness, and what happened?"

Nathan Abraham - American living in Perugia Paul the PI, famous American investigator Okay, this is important: These slightly grainy images of Signora Capezzali are not Paul’s (in spite of the CBS logo). She did this interview with Italian TV in December. She has not received the media since then, perhaps under a gag order. Also, “A scream in the night, then the sound of running” is what Nara told Paul the PI through the shutters (you’ll see it further ahead). She actually told more details on Italian TV. Paul the PI: ""She's a 20-year-old kid who has been ripped out of everything that she knows and placed in jail. Amanda Knox is sitting in a maximum security prison in Italy wondering when she's gonna get out.” Narrator: "Amanda and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, have been in jail since early November. Now, more than five months. Yet Paul Ciolino believes the police have no convincing evidence they had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.” Paul the PI: "This is a railroad job from Hell and she's sitting at the end of it right now.” "She got killed because she said 'No'. She said 'No' to something she didn't want to do. I think that people want to have justice served for Meredith" Narrator: "Private Investigator Paul Ciolino wants justice for Meredith as well ... BUT not at the expense of Amanda Knox.” Peter Van Sant, “48 Hour” show host Paul the PI: "I don't believe Raffaele’s DNA is on Meredith's bra.” Narrator: "Why? Because Ciolino says evidence leaked in this case has often turned out to be wrong.” Paul the PI: "They're so desperate to make a case against this kid that they'll do anything. And we know this for a fact, because we've seen it happen in this case already." Edgardo Giobbi, police lead investigator Narrator: "Edgardo Giobbi is the lead investigator. He told 48 Hours that the case against all three suspects is solid. The DNA found on the victim's bra, he says, DNA which belongs to Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito, proves Rudy didn’t act alone. And if Raffaele was involved, so was Amanda, because they both claim they were together that night." Peter: "The police chief of Perugia looked me in the eye and said, 'We have evidence.'” Paul the PI: "He knows, there's not a shred of evidence putting this girl at that murder scene." Narrator: "A prime example: the witness police say heard three people running from the house that night." Paul the PI: "Peter, high police officials told you they had a witness who heard stuff that night, indicating they had interviewed her and they owned her. Now, we go interview the witness, and what happened?" Narrator: "A scream in the night, then the sound of running. That's what Nara Capezzali, said she heard from her apartment across the street from the crime scene on the night of the murder. She told her story in this Italian television interview.

I heard a loud scream. Paul! You may want to take note.

I heard a loud scream. Paul! You may want to take note. Here’s further messy research by Paul the PI (or conscious spin?). “Tabloids” include The Times, The Telegraph, Il Messaggero, Corriere della Sera, the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, and many more papers which don’t have Page-3-Girls. But more importantly, independently of mainstream papers’ reporting on the crime, Nara was already known to police within the first days following the crime. And while persons close to Amanda were becoming aware of the investigation focusing in on her (like the cousin who alerted Edda, who suggested to Amanda that she “come home”), until November 6 following Amanda’s arrest, neither the newspapers nor Nara would have known that “three people, including Amanda, were all involved in the crime”. Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been reporting the police theory that three people, including Amanda, were all involved in the crime." Italian TV reporter’s question:

Do you think Paul wanted to jot down what those three different things were? I heard a loud scream. Paul! You may want to take note. Here’s further messy research by Paul the PI (or conscious spin?). “Tabloids” include The Times, The Telegraph, Il Messaggero, Corriere della Sera, the Seattle Times, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, and many more papers which don’t have Page-3-Girls. But more importantly, independently of mainstream papers’ reporting on the crime, Nara was already known to police within the first days following the crime. And while persons close to Amanda were becoming aware of the investigation focusing in on her (like the cousin who alerted Edda, who suggested to Amanda that she “come home”), until November 6 following Amanda’s arrest, neither the newspapers nor Nara would have known that “three people, including Amanda, were all involved in the crime”. Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been reporting the police theory that three people, including Amanda, were all involved in the crime." Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply:

Here “one” and “one” aren’t specific references to two of the three sounds she heard, but to two persons’ movements. Maybe that’s a fine distinction, but let’s make a mental note of that. Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been reporting the police theory that three people, including Amanda, were all involved in the crime." Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply:

Oops! Paul! You have to be careful with those Freudian slips. Didn’t your cameraman allow you various ‘takes’? Or maybe the the old Sony Betamax camera was low on batteries, after all those wistful images of you looking over the Umbrian hills. Here “one” and “one” aren’t specific references to two of the three sounds she heard, but to two persons’ movements. Maybe that’s a fine distinction, but let’s make a mental note of that. Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been reporting the police theory that three people, including Amanda, were all involved in the crime." Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply: Narrator: "Ciolino wanted to talk to this key witness himself.” Paul the PI: [at base of metallic staircase, with interpreter] "We're going up to try to talk to the witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself] heard something the night of the murder."

Oops! Paul! You have to be careful with those Freudian slips. Didn’t your cameraman allow you various ‘takes’? Or maybe the the old Sony Betamax camera was low on batteries, after all those wistful images of you looking over the Umbrian hills. Here “one” and “one” aren’t specific references to two of the three sounds she heard, but to two persons’ movements. Maybe that’s a fine distinction, but let’s make a mental note of that. Isn’t there a law against the harassment of witnesses? Doesn’t the Michigan Association of PI’s have a Code of Conduct? Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been reporting the police theory that three people, including Amanda, were all involved in the crime." Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply: Narrator: "He took our translator, Giulia Alagna, to the woman's door.” Giulia [into interphone]: “Signora” Nara [through interphone]: “Si?” Paul the PI: “Tell her that it's a VERY important issue, okay? It concerns somebody's life. It's very serious.” Narrator: "Ciolino wanted to talk to this key witness himself.” Paul the PI: [at base of metallic staircase, with interpreter] "We're going up to try to talk to the witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself] heard something the night of the murder."

Can’t Paul understand that this woman either doesn’t want to talk to him, or has been told not to, and therefore that what she tells him may not be complete or accurate? Doesn’t he ask himself why Signora Nara’s words through the shutters to him are different from the more extensive description she gave to the Italian TV cameras? I suppose that when you’re grand-standing, anything goes. Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been reporting the police theory that three people, including Amanda, were all involved in the crime." Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply: Narrator: "He took our translator, Giulia Alagna, to the woman's door.” Giulia [into interphone]: “Signora” Nara [through interphone]: “Si?” Paul the PI: “Tell her that it's a VERY important issue, okay? It concerns somebody's life. It's very serious.” Narrator: "Ciolino wanted to talk to this key witness himself.” Paul the PI: [at base of metallic staircase, with interpreter] "We're going up to try to talk to the witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself] heard something the night of the murder." Giulia [translates Nara's words to English for Paul]: “She heard a scream and somebody ran away.” Paul the PI: “Were her windows opened or closed?” Giulia: [translates Paul's words into Italian for Nara]

In editing Signora Nara’s sparse comments, is this the juiciest thing that Paul could come up with …? Narrator: "TV and tabloids had already been reporting the police theory that three people, including Amanda, were all involved in the crime." Italian TV reporter’s question: Signora Nara’s reply: Narrator: "He took our translator, Giulia Alagna, to the woman's door.” Giulia [into interphone]: “Signora” Nara [through interphone]: “Si?” Paul the PI: “Tell her that it's a VERY important issue, okay? It concerns somebody's life. It's very serious.” Narrator: "Ciolino wanted to talk to this key witness himself.” Paul the PI: [at base of metallic staircase, with interpreter] "We're going up to try to talk to the witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself] heard something the night of the murder." Nara: [Italian] Giulia: “They were closed” Paul: “So, the windows were closed?” Giulia: “Si, yes” Paul / Giulia [to the shutters]: “Grazie.” Giulia [translates Nara's words to English for Paul]: “She heard a scream and somebody ran away.” Paul the PI: “Were her windows opened or closed?” Giulia: [translates Paul's words into Italian for Nara]

Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for himself.” Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the house where the homicide happened.” Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.” Christine: “So am I.” Paul the PI: “Are you really?” Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into her apartment to find out what he could hear.” Christine from Chicago appears to live in the same building as Nara, two floors above the witness, on the top floor.

Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for himself.” Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the house where the homicide happened.” Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.” Christine: “So am I.” Paul the PI: “Are you really?” Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into her apartment to find out what he could hear.” Those windows look like they insulate both polar cold and rock concert sounds. In any case, we’ll see that Christine’s windows aren’t the issue. Christine from Chicago appears to live in the same building as Nara, two floors above the witness, on the top floor.

Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for himself.” Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the house where the homicide happened.” Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.” Christine: “So am I.” Paul the PI: “Are you really?” Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into her apartment to find out what he could hear.” Don’t even think about attempting to analyse Paul’s grammar. (note to non-English speakers: it’s perfectly normal if you can’t understand what Paul is trying to express. I’m not quite sure myself.) Peter Van Sant: “We've now closed the window, which we believe was the situation that night because it was a very cold night, and let's see what they can hear. Are you guys ready to go?” Paul the PI: “We got a bunch of local kids we got to do some running to see if we could hear them running” Peter Van Sant: [into cell phone] "Okay are you ready outside?”

Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for himself.” Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the house where the homicide happened.” Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.” Christine: “So am I.” Paul the PI: “Are you really?” Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into her apartment to find out what he could hear.” Peter Van Sant: “We've now closed the window, which we believe was the situation that night because it was a very cold night, and let's see what they can hear. Are you guys ready to go?” Paul the PI: “We got a bunch of local kids we got to do some running to see if we could hear them running” Peter Van Sant: [into cell phone] "Okay are you ready outside?” 48 Hour team member perched on concrete corner of carpark: "Three, Two, One, Go."

Narrator: “Ciolino wanted to see - or hear - for himself.” Paul the PI: “We're looking directly on top of the house where the homicide happened.” Paul the PI: “Christine, I'm Paul. I'm from Chicago.” Christine: “So am I.” Paul the PI: “Are you really?” Narrator: “Nara's upstairs neighbour let Paul into her apartment to find out what he could hear.” PAUL!!!! TURN AROUND!!!! LOOK OUT THE WINDOW!!!! Peter Van Sant: “We've now closed the window, which we believe was the situation that night because it was a very cold night, and let's see what they can hear. Are you guys ready to go?” Paul the PI: “We got a bunch of local kids we got to do some running to see if we could hear them running” Peter Van Sant: [into cell phone] "Okay are you ready outside?” 48 Hour team member perched on concrete corner of carpark: "Three, Two, One, Go."

Narrator: "At the very least, our unscientific test raises serious questions about what Nara really heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as police have suggested." [Nara speaks in Italian through the shutters again] Giulia the translator, to Paul: "She didn’t know what it … she couldn’t tell if it was one or 2 or 3.” Paul the PI: "So she didn't know if they were 2 or 3.” Giulia: "No." Well, Mr. Narrator should ask his scriptwriter to write better lines … “serious questions about what Nara really heard” ... We’ll see in a minute that Paul’s test had absolutely nothing to do with Signora Nara’s testimony. As for Paul’s questions through the shutters, I hope no television viewer believes that Nara is offering complete or necessarily accurate information to the uninvited chubby bard below her window. Paul the PI: "Right now I hear something.” Peter Van Sant: "What did you hear?” Paul the PI: "I heard something but I couldn't tell if it was footsteps. Did you hear anything?” Christine: "No"

Narrator: "At the very least, our unscientific test raises serious questions about what Nara really heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as police have suggested." [Nara speaks in Italian through the shutters again] Giulia the translator, to Paul: "She didn’t know what it … she couldn’t tell if it was one or 2 or 3.” Paul the PI: "So she didn't know if they were 2 or 3.” Giulia: "No." Well, Mr. Narrator should ask his scriptwriter to write better lines … “serious questions about what Nara really heard” ... We’ll see in a minute that Paul’s test had absolutely nothing to do with Signora Nara’s testimony. As for Paul’s questions through the shutters, I hope no television viewer believes that Nara is offering complete or necessarily accurate information to the uninvited chubby bard below her window. Do I bite my tongue? Do I remind them that just in the last frame they refer to the police and Signora Nara together? Do I point out basic Google research from well before Paul’s trip which refers to the December decision to keep the suspects in jail basing itself in part on Signora Nara’s testimony? Paul reminds me of Tattoo in the TV series “Fantasy Island”, or of Lennie in “Of Mice and Men”: will there be rabbits? … he seems to think that if you dream hard enough that Nara didn’t provide testimony to the police, then maybe it will be true. Narrator: "Nara also didn’t know what time it was when she heard the sounds. But she is very clear about one thing: ...” Giulia the translator to Paul: "... she says she was never interviewed by the police.” Narrator: "As hard as it is to believe, police only saw the witness on television." Peter Van Sant: "Now wait a second. We're being told that this is one of the pillars of this case against Amanda Knox. Pretty weak pillar.” Paul the PI: "This is fascinating to me because not one cop in this town has ever knocked on this woman's door, not one time." Paul the PI: "Right now I hear something.” Peter Van Sant: "What did you hear?” Paul the PI: "I heard something but I couldn't tell if it was footsteps. Did you hear anything?” Christine: "No"

Narrator: "At the very least, our unscientific test raises serious questions about what Nara really heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as police have suggested." [Nara speaks in Italian through the shutters again] Giulia the translator, to Paul: "She didn’t know what it … she couldn’t tell if it was one or 2 or 3.” Paul the PI: "So she didn't know if they were 2 or 3.” Giulia: "No." Narrator: "Nara also didn’t know what time it was when she heard the sounds. But she is very clear about one thing: ...” Giulia the translator to Paul: "... she says she was never interviewed by the police.” Narrator: "As hard as it is to believe, police only saw the witness on television." Peter Van Sant: "Now wait a second. We're being told that this is one of the pillars of this case against Amanda Knox. Pretty weak pillar.” Paul the PI: "This is fascinating to me because not one cop in this town has ever knocked on this woman's door, not one time." Paul the PI: "Right now I hear something.” Peter Van Sant: "What did you hear?” Paul the PI: "I heard something but I couldn't tell if it was footsteps. Did you hear anything?” Christine: "No" Okay, let’s take a break from the 48 Hours show, as we’ve seen what was most of interest to me, the interaction with Signora Nara, and Paul’s “test”. I don’t doubt the sound levels he detected in his test, although we should keep in mind that Nara has simple frame windows, while Christine’s windows have multiple panes and glazings. VS.

Narrator: "At the very least, our unscientific test raises serious questions about what Nara really heard that night, and even she isn't as certain as police have suggested." [Nara speaks in Italian through the shutters again] Giulia the translator, to Paul: "She didn’t know what it … she couldn’t tell if it was one or 2 or 3.” Paul the PI: "So she didn't know if they were 2 or 3.” Giulia: "No." Narrator: "Nara also didn’t know what time it was when she heard the sounds. But she is very clear about one thing: ...” Giulia the translator to Paul: "... she says she was never interviewed by the police.” Narrator: "As hard as it is to believe, police only saw the witness on television." Peter Van Sant: "Now wait a second. We're being told that this is one of the pillars of this case against Amanda Knox. Pretty weak pillar.” Paul the PI: "This is fascinating to me because not one cop in this town has ever knocked on this woman's door, not one time." Paul the PI: "Right now I hear something.” Peter Van Sant: "What did you hear?” Paul the PI: "I heard something but I couldn't tell if it was footsteps. Did you hear anything?” Christine: "No" Okay, let’s take a break from the 48 Hours show, as we’ve seen what was most of interest to me, the interaction with Signora Nara, and Paul’s “test”. I don’t doubt the sound levels he detected in his test, although we should keep in mind that Nara has simple frame windows, while Christine’s windows have multiple panes and glazings. VS. Oh! And there’s another problem … mmmmhhhhh, well, actually it’s an area of agreement with Paul: I believe that - even taking into account the different windows - that the CBS runner or runners would not have been heard from Nara’s place, because they were running on asphalt.

Careful editing cut off Paul’s cameraman filming of the full concrete parapet at the left end of the carpark. Nevertheless, we see just a speck of the CBS team person, or the corner of the parapet. or Now, where did the runner go? But if he had looked out the window, what would he have seen? If Paul had looked out the window, he would have seen clearly both the CBS team member on the parapet as well as the kid running. My point isn’t that Nara would have seen this - she can only see the roof of the cottage. My point is that this place is extremely well illuminated and, within the angles of vision that her flat permits, she would have been able to see all movements. In any case, we’ll soon see that probably no one ran there, on Via Sant’Antonio, on Nov. 1, 2007. All that effort for naught, Paul. Let’s forget about the asphalt business for a moment. I’ve decided that I actually LIKE Paul’s test. Remember when I told him to LOOK OUT THE WINDOW? Well he didn’t. I guess he didn’t because he wanted his test to be strictly an acoustic test. But if he had looked out the window, what would he have seen?

The Location of the Eye Witness’s Flat Where does Signora Nara live? Situating her perch above the carpark is an important question, as it permits us to evaluate - together with her testimony to police (and not a few forced words to a pushy American PI through the shutters, hoping he’ll just go away …) - exactly why her testimony is considered so important both to the prosecution and the defence teams Those who have been following the discussion boards have probably seen the image collages on the next couple of screens which identify her balcony and window, so you may want to click through them.

These same curtains and plants are seen from the inside on the next screen. 4 1 5 9 2 13 6 10 3 7 14 11 17 8 15 12 18 20 16 23 19 21 24 22 25 26 27 It seems that Sra. Nara lives in flat #11. The CBS 48 Hours show used Italian TV footage, showing her unique “window within a framework”. The Italian interview with her shows her built-in balcony- hers is no light iron structure. We see that ground floor from Via del Melo (on the other side of her flat) is not level with the top terrace of the carpark.

This is the reflection of the bathroom ceiling lamp. 4 1 5 9 2 13 6 10 3 7 This is the reflection of the cameraman’s floodlamp. 14 11 17 8 15 12 18 20 16 23 19 21 24 22 25 This is a carpark streetlamp with a round globe. 26 27 It’s almost directly in front of Nara’s window (off to the side by a couple of metres). This carpark streetlamp with a round globe is just below and right next to Nara’s place.

Nara’s testimony from Italian TV interview segment: "I heard a loud scream” “You heard three movements” “Yes, three different things” “One went up, one went over there” More detail Additional detail “… chilling scream …”, doesn’t that ring a bell? Do you also remember Paul’s faux-pas when he started to say that he was going to talk to “the witness who allegedly sa.. [he corrects himself] heard something the night of the murder.” Maybe poster Funnycat is right and Paul the PI is a source for information on the Perugia crime. The problem is that if he did have access to additional information he didn’t provide it to us the public, nor did he base his report or his test on it. CBS 48 Hour web page: "I heard a big scream, a chilling scream". (this is only on the web page, not in the televised 48 Hour show) The Eye Witness’s Testimony From the television show we have partial tidbits of Signora Nara’s testimony: Nara’s testimony from Paul’s point of view: “A scream in the night, then the sound of running”

The Eye Witness’s Testimony TITLE: "An Agonising Scream" SUBTITLE: The Victim's Cry and the Escape of the Assassins "I heard a scream ...and what a scream.... an agonising scream that made my skin creep ... right so .... it was the voice of a woman ... a woman ". Amongst the evidence that the prosecution intends to present to establish the time of the murder and the simultaneous escape of more than person- thereby supporting prosecution theories- there is also the transcript of the declaration of a 68 year old Perugian woman who resides in Via del Melo (from the window of her house she can see the roof of Mez's house - ndr.) (the woman says she heard screaming around 23.30 - ndr.),,. Here are some excerpts: PM Mignini: "Are you able to tell where the scream came from?” Witness: "From the cottage" PM Mignini: "From the house of Via della Pergola 7" Witness: "Yes. Because it is true that people are always always joking and playing around, and there are cars on the piazzale [top level of the carpark] and very often even below they spin their tires [now back to the night of the crime] so I looked out from my bathroom window, I looked up and down, but ... because I see the end of the carpark and the beginning of the carpark, but I didn't see anyone on the upper level ... at the moment that I was withdrawing from the window I heard the trampling of gravel, of leaves ... that came from the "vialetto” [access ramp to the cottage] …we don’t have leaves there below us... then I heard running ... running to escape." This La Nazione article excerpts some of Signora Nara’s testimony. “agonising scream” makes me think of “chilling scream” from the CBS site. When she said ”and then I saw … ”, does anyone really think that Mignini interrupted her? (it would be like a bad detective novel - She: “and the killers are …” He: “hmm, excuse me but is Capezzali spelled with one “z” or two?”). I think in fact that’s where one excerpt ends and another starts. PM Mignini: "How long after the scream?" Witness: "Eh oh God it could have been two seconds, a minute and then I saw ... “ PM Mignini: "But did you actually lean out of the window to look? Witness: "No because I have plants, but I could see through the window pane which doesn't have ... shutters or anything but is only glass, double paned, but only glass. Then I could hear running on the iron stairway ... " PM Mignini: ".... this iron stairway where does it lead to?" Witness: "Well it goes from the carpark and ends up at the Via del Melo, where there is an iron gate. And shorty afterwards to Via Pinturicchio" PM Mignini: "Someone was climbing these stairs, this iron stairway.” Witness: "Running" PM Mignini: "Running, a single person or more than one?" Witness: "At that point I heard a single person" PM Mignini: "And someone else .... but was there someone else? Witness: "Well, someone else ran away from the driveway toward Via del Bulagaio." Via Bulagaio is a long way off to hear things from. The pro-Amanda lobby desperately refer to Signora Nara as an “ear” witness, however, it is clear from her testimony that she saw things as well. (from La Nazione, 12 September 2008)

Would someone literally screaming for their life in the centre of this natural amphitheatre be heard by at least some of the neighbours? I think so. The iron stair is bolted to the old wall, of which Nara’s and her neighbours’ homes form a part. Any running on the stairs at night would be noisy. Why didn’t Paul try that as a test? Maybe there’s an honest explanation, like there wasn’t any time, or the Betamax batteries finally went dead. Or … maybe he actually did do the test, but didn’t get the results he desired. I estimate about 40 metres of gravel from the front door of the cottage to the gate in the street. That would be perhaps 6 seconds of running for each of the perpetrators. The Eye Witness’s Testimony From an acoustic point of view, there were three elements to what Signora Nara witnessed: 1. A blood curdling scream 2. More than one person running hard on gravel 3. A person running hard up the iron stairs Paul the PI didn’t recreate or even attempt to recreate any of those. All he did was to try to hear a couple of kids running down Via Sant’Antonio on asphalt - a kilometric route which nobody running away from the cottage would ever follow.

What Could the Eye Witness See From Her Flat? • We don’t know what text fills the blanks in between the excerpts of Signora Nara’s testimony. Maybe the key points to her testimony only make reference to identifying the number of suspects and the direction they ran in by the noise they made. • However, from my reading of the excerpts, there are a number of references to visual aspects of her observations: • Just after the scream but before hearing the running on gravel • ” … I looked out from my bathroom window, I looked up and down, but ... because I see the end of the carpark and the beginning of the carpark, but I didn't see anyone on the upper level …” • She didn’t lean out the window because of the plants, but looked through the glass • “ ... I could see through the window pane which doesn't have … shutters or anything but is only glass, double paned, but only glass …” • She detected directional movement - from right to left, beyond the west end of the carpark - at a distance which would be impossible to detect only audibly, and she could state a specific street which one of the two perpetrators ran towards • “ ... someone else ran away from the driveway toward Via del Bulagaio."

In spite of the network logo, these images aren’t directly from CBS. It’s the Italian television interview with Signora Capezzali. The different conversions and compressions that the video suffered don’t allow the viewer to make out much, with resolution and contrasts rapidly degrading into washed out pixels.

However, the CBS images demonstrate that the area is well illuminated at night. And that dwellers in the houses above the carpark can clearly see those areas whose views are not obstructed.

Let’s highlight what Nara could really see at night from her window. I’m interested in details in this area of the already over-pixelated and poor-contrast image. Let’s look more closely here … We’ve seen that the area is well illuminated. Those big square windows on top look like they belong to the San Agostino church. The lights on the slope illuminate the lower part of Via del Bulagaio. Of course, she could see the roof of the cottage.

Down-slope from corner of Vias Pergola, Sant’Antonio, and Scortici Up-slope to carpark top level Let’s wander over to the edge of the parapet in daylight, to see what that cluster of objects could be … Nara’s View (photo taken from here - angle slightly different from Nara’s) X Ramp up to top open-air level of carpark First of all, let’s mark the concrete parapet, as well as the carpark globe-lamp beyond the parapet. Ramp down to lower (inside) level of carpark Level access to middle (inside) level of carpark That looks like a vehicle, perhaps a truck, turning onto Via Sant’Antonio. The garbage containers are almost at the same height as the top level of the carpark. This is the exit that the CCTV images are from, just in front of the girls’ gate. That cluster of objects looks like an upside-down triangle, a circle and something tall and round.

What’s the point? Simply that Signora Nara has an unobstructed view of the corner of Vias Pergola, Sant’Antonio and Scortici (the road that winds down from Piazza Grimana) Signora Nara’s balcony and bathroom window.

What’s the point? Simply that Signora Nara has an unobstructed view of the corner of Vias Pergola, Sant’Antonio and Scortici (the road that winds down from Piazza Grimana) Signora Nara’s balcony and bathroom window. And, of course, the whole area is well illuminated at night, at least enough to see persons moving about.

Let’s highlight what Nara could really see at night from her window. Via degli Scortici (Piazza Grimana) Via del Bulagaio Via della Pergola Viale Sant’Antonio Let’s add that missing bit of detail … We’ve seen that the area is well illuminated. Those big square windows on top look like they belong to the San Agostino church. The lights on the slope illuminate the lower part of Via del Bulagaio. Of course, she could see the roof of the cottage.

Nara’s field of vision includes these rooftops and the south-east wall and windows of the San Agostino church These yellow surface areas are in Signora Nara’s field of vision Piazza Grimana is nearby, but obviously out of her field of vision Here’s an overhead image of the streets around Signora Nara’s home. One perpetrator runs across the gravel of the girls parking area and crosses Viale Sant’Antonio. He or she either runs up to and across the top level of the carpark in full view of the neighbours, or he or she runs through the enclosed middle level, coming up to fresh air RIGHT UNDER Nara’s window, or through another internal carpark stairwell by the base of the iron stairs. He or she makes alot of noise climbing the metal stairs, then possibly runs through Via Melo or Via Pinturicchio to Piazza Grimana.

Nara’s field of vision includes these rooftops and the south-east wall and windows of the San Agostino church These yellow surface areas are in Signora Nara’s field of vision Piazza Grimana is nearby, but obviously out of her field of vision Here’s an overhead image of the streets around Signora Nara’s home. The other perpetrator also runs across the gravel of the girls parking area and crosses Viale Sant’Antonio, in full view of Signora Nara. He or she either runs along Via della Pergola towards Via del Bulgaio, from which point it is possible to run up to Piazza Grimana, or he or she runs directly up to Piazza Grimana (Nara referring to the high end of Via della Pergola as Via del Bulagaio).

Well, this presentation set off to see what was useful in Paul the PI’s test (conclusion: nothing). Then I wanted to review Signora Nara’s testimony to verify if there were visual aspects to it, and not just audible (conclusion: yes). Finally, I wanted to “illuminate” the view from her balcony, to see if she could have seen persons running across the intersection of Via della Pergola and Via degli Scortici, or towards Via del Bulagaio (conclusion: definitely) When we were talking so much about illumination, I thought of an additional point of light, visible to all who lived in the area. This light may not have been a witness to the crime, but certainly would have been a flashing beacon during the night of Nov. 1-2, signaling that all was not well in the cottage.

Would-be detectives aren’t the only voices of spin. Would-be legal pundits are too. No, I’m not talking about Joe the Sleuth (who deserves a whole presentation to himself and his “20% DNA match”) but rather to this lady called Anne Bremner. http://www.kirotv.com/news/17611206/detail.html What’s interesting to me is that almost a half of the document she signed (which appears to have been written by a certain Puget Sound hermit with the moniker of a certain sea-farer - Alpha BRAVO CHARLIE!! - given the verbatim use of that discussion board poster’s comments) is dedicated to either denying the presence of more than one perpetrator, or to demonstrating that Rudy was the lone-wolf killer. These people get nervous shakes about anything which points to more than one person being involved in the crimes of 1-2 November 2007 in Perugia.

This is known as the TIHBB defense (The Investigation Has Been Botched). It often accompanies the IWSSICRAETIWT alibi (IWas So Stoned ICan’t Remember Anything Except That IWasn’t There). Under the heading “Incompetence at the Crime Scene”, Bremner writes: “This whole investigation would be laughable if it weren't for the underlying facts -- a woman has been brutally murdered, and two innocent people and their families have had their lives devastated by a botched investigation.” Here’s someone who accepted poster Chris Mellas’ invitation on Internet for a private viewing at his home of publicly available videos. Anne, is this investigation report photo of a shoe print on the pillow the “unique specimen”? Bremner continues: “I have reviewed the crime scene video, which shows how the police went about collecting evidence. The problems are are obvious.They weren't careful with the way they handled evidence inside the room … … or are you talking about the footprint marked by ILE marker “A” as the “unique specimen”? … or are you talking about the footprint marked by police marker “C”? … But it gets worse than that. They actively destroyed evidence inside the victim's room.The media have all seen pictures of one bloody footprint, found near the body. The authorities presented this footprint as a unique specimen, but it was actually one of several. I quickly dug up those 3 different footprints documented by police in the victim’s room. I think there are more. Anne, before publicly embarrassing yourself by signing your name to text, maybe you should check it out to see if it’s full of falsehoods. For some inexplicable reason, one of the officers at the crime scene systematically scrubbed away these footprints until no trace was left. By doing so, they made it nearly impossible for the authorities to establish their source.” Further spin which isn't spin, but a big falsehood. This is an example of "if you repeat a lie enough times, someone might start believing it". Bremner is stating in text what Telenorba visually insinuated: the Telenorba video was dedicated to showing that the "botched investigation" was based on incompetent evidence gathering in the victim's room. It refers to the Nike print and then splices in video images of an ILE investigator making circular movements over a floor tile where nothing is visible. The combination of video images and narrators comments make the viewer assume that the investigator is erasing a Nike print in the victim's room. In fact, the Telenorba image is of an investigator examining a non-visible item of evidence (Marker “3” is perhaps the location of one of the luminol barefoot footprints) in the hallway, not the Nike prints in the victim's room.

Under the heading “The Weak Case Against Amanda”, Bremner writes: “This should not matter, because the evidence against Amanda is so weak. In fact, this evidence has been contrived by putting a negative spin on information that has a completely innocent explanation …. here's what happened: - Amanda came home after spending the night at Raffaele's place. - She took a shower. - She left these footprints after she got out of the shower.And that fits 100 percent with what she told the police.” Okay, Anne, I guess there’s a “completely innocent explanation” to Amanda’s footprint perpendicular to the victim’s door. “The police have also found Amanda's DNA at various places in the bathroom. They have tried to make that sound incriminating, but she lived there and her DNA would have been all over the bathroom. That kind of so-called evidence means nothing.” Anne, in your “completely innocent explanation” of Amanda’s DNA mixed with the victim’s DNA, you make it sound like there was a hair mixed with a flake of dandruff … I hear the SPIN alarm ringing!!! Why don’t you offer fuller information to readers of your opinion-making piece? The DNA is mixed because in different parts of the bathroom Amanda’s BLOOD is mixed with the victim’s BLOOD. These are not normal places for menstrual blood to be found (the tap and drain are from the sink), as Amanda’s mother has suggested. Another suggestion her mother made in an interview to The Times is that Amanda’s blood came from recently pierced ears. Keep trying. Regarding the Double-DNA Knife, Bremner states: “Everyone agrees that Amanda's DNA is on the handle.” Now we’re getting places. So, Anne, do we agree that Amanda held the knife which made this bloody print on the victim’s bed?

Murder in Perugia