Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[NoZed Avenger]

But there is the problem of pre-trial exposure, of course. This can be very extensive and it can be long lived. If the proposition is that juries cannot but be influenced while the trial is going on I can see absolutely nothing sensible in the idea that those same processes do not have the same impact before the trial. The americans here have argued (in several threads actually) that this is met by the system of questioning jurors. They seem to be shocked that this system is not universal and I infer that they consider it very valuable. But it makes little sense. If the processes are unconscious then they are unconscious. Asking someone who is not conscious of bias if they think they can be fair, is not going to get you anywhere; it looks like a chocolate teapot to me.

You misapprehend the questioning. If an attorney asks "does everyone think they can be fair," gets 50 people nodding, and then quits, he or she has not done her job in voir dire.

You question about attitudes, you question about the press reports the people have been exposed to and their attitudes about different matters so that the attorney gets a better idea of whether the person can truly be fair, or not. Most jurors want to be fair and want to be honest at the same time. While they think they can be fair, they will be willing to say whether certain facts, or circumstances, or anything else about the case makes them uneasy, or worried about their own ability to be fair. Don't dismiss voir dire questioning of the jury panel. It is possibly the most important part of the trial; it is certainly one of the best ways to obtain the fairest jury possible in the common law system.

The other problem I see, is that this system is based on acknowledgement of some parts of human nature: but it is curiously blind to others. So jurors are told not to talk to anyone else about the case outside the court: not even each other. I am confident that most jurors will make every effort not to do so, because jurors approach their task seriously for the most part. But we are to believe that a group of people can spend all day focussing on evidence which is very far from their day to day experience: which may be very confusing and very emotionally taxing; and which is extremely interesting to the public they are part of; and can then be shut up in a hotel together without access to the news media and with nothing else in common: and successfully avoid the topic altogether. As I said, I think they probably succeed quite often: but if they can do that they are all grown up and trustworthy: so why are we treating them like children in the first place?

Juries are not sequested in most cases; they are trusted to be "grown up." And after 14 years of trial work, I am more impressed today with juries -- and their efforts to follow the courts' instructions -- than when I began as an attorney.

And again, I think you emphasize the wrong elements. Sequestering is used, generally, only for high-profile cases where the court expects inflammatory press or where information that would be considered unreliable and strongly emotional might reach the news. In those situations, it is considered safer to try and keep the jury from having to work at keeping their outside knowledge from influencing their decision.

The Italians obviously face the same conflict of principle and the same aim of fair trial and press freedom. They have found a different solution, as I understand it.

In the Italian system the juror is not seen as untrustworthy or as incapable of dealing with bias generated by the press. He is seen much more as a responsible adult. The way they have chosen to deal with this problem is to compose the jury of a number of lay people who sit with professional judges. The professional judge is expected to be educated in the working of bias and its sources: and I think we assume this of our own judges too. They are still human and they will also be affected, if the theory of unconscious influence is valid: but less so because of their training.

I think that is a reasonable view to take: but it is not all. The Italians do not exclude evidence in the way we do: much is admitted which we would exclude. The thinking here is that people weigh different content all the time, and that they are capable of giving proper value to different kinds of evidence. In Italy the jury gets a fuller picture, both in court and in the media. Since they are the decision makers I think there is some merit in that: and I think it limits the kinds of power ARubberChickenWithAPulley rightly identified: the prosecutor and the court cannot control what is presented nearly so well. In other areas of life we tend to think that more sources of information are a good thing: why not here? It is not obvious to me: and of course it preserves the freedom of the press more than the uk system does.

I cannot say whether this aspect of the system is as good, better, or worse without a lot more study. I will not, however, sign on to a statement that "more sources of information are a good thing" in general. That depends entirely on the reliability of the information and the ability of the accused to answer back.

Information is not excluded from evidence in the US or UK on a whim; there is an effort to see that the jury gets access to all relevant and material information, but not information that is considered unreliable or which has no bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence. For example: hearsay statements are excluded because there is no effective way for the jury to evaluate what some person not before them said and how they said it -- no way for the jury to accurately judge the credibility of a speaker not before them. But many exceptions exist in situations where the statement is one expected to be "generally" reliable -- medical records, business records, etc. So before I can sign on to more information is superior, I need to know a *lot* about where the line is drawn and what 'extra' information we're talking about.

N/A

Oh, and to be clear: I have no real opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused. I am only commenting on the procedural points above. I'd need to look a low closer at the evidence to have a good opinion one way or the other.

 

[quadraginta]

Sorry, Fiona, but can you expand on this? When and where did Knox admit that she lied about the interrogation, and in what specific details did she lie?

See posts #275 and #343

Post 275:

Knox alleged that her statement that she was at the scene the night Kerchner was murdered was coerced. But she wrote a note in which she made the same statement later when there was no possibility of coercion and that note was deemed admissible for Lumumba's case because she had given it voluntarily.

Now, Jane, you're cherrypicking again. Tut, tut.

Not only does that snip not fully represent the quoted post, it also ignores the other excellent post Fiona cited.

Further to the coercive interrogation

In the context of Knox's appeal to the Supreme Court for release (1/4/09), this exchange is reported at PMF

Amanda
They used the statements I made at 1.45 am on November 6 when I didn't not have the presence of an attorney to defend me.
I was questioned again at 5.45 am and gave "spontaneous statements,...

The 1.45 time is in line with the evidence given by the senior police officer, Faracca, in her testimony: that is when she said she stopped the interview and alerted the judicial authorities.

​

The controlling effects of good coercion, like good torture, can last quite a while after it is applied.

That is, indeed, pretty good coercion. Lasted fourteen months.

Amanda Knox may also be a compulsive liar. Why believe anything she says?

Well. If we're agreed on that why are you struggling so hard to paint her as blameless?

 

[Micromegas]

Since when did it become inappropriate for skeptics to discuss the flaws in evidence presented at a trail?

There's a difference between discussing the flaws and speculating wildly about them.

There seems to be a belief among Knox's supporters that any evidence that links her to the murder scene (the knife, footprints in Kercher's room, their blood mixed in the bathroom) has to be the result of either shabby police work or an insidious plot to frame her. Is it conceivable that these Italian forensic scientists aren't inept or corrupt? Considering the evidence of extensive efforts to clean up parts of the crime scene afterward, can you blame the police for getting suspicious when Knox and Sollecito's testimony changed with every new discovery?

-Mike

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lack of evidence

Quoting nine DNA forensic experts is not speculating wildly. If you dispute what they said, let's hear it. And unless one is privy to the deliberations by the jury, comments on which evidence was most important in obtaining the conviction lack support.

Chris

 

[Micromegas]

Quoting nine DNA forensic experts is not speculating wildly. If you dispute what they said, let's hear it. And unless one is privy to the deliberations by the jury, comments on which evidence was most important in obtaining the conviction lack support.

Chris

All the forensic experts said in the letter quoted by New Scientist is that "contamination cannot be ruled out." Do you (or they) have any evidence that the sample WAS contaminated, apart from the fact that it seems to implicate Knox in Kercher's death? Uh, then it's speculation, isn't it?

And the letter from the forensic experts said nothing about the footprints recovered (via Luminol) by the police that indicated Knox's presence in the room, as well as the efforts to clean up incriminating footprints in the first place. The letter also said nothing about the way that the blood of the two women was mixed in the bathroom. Again, forensic experts in Italy claim this indicates Knox's presence at the crime scene, not just that she lived in the house and used the sink. Is there a credible forensics expert who disputes this conclusion, or is there just a lot of amateur speculation that the forensics experts don't know what they're talking about?

-Mike

 

[Skeptic]

It seems odd to me that people are trying to decide this case from 5000 miles away, based on internet posts, without being in the courtroom or hearing the actual evidence. I am not saying, of course, that it is impossible for them to have been railroaded, but I doubt the ability of folks on an internet board to find it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hello Everyone,

Here is a discussion of low copy number DNA and some of the things that were done in a nonstandard way in this case: world wide web sciencespheres com. Without the flawed DNA evidence, where is there physical evidence against the two defendants?

Chris

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Juries are not sequested in most cases; they are trusted to be "grown up." And after 14 years of trial work, I am more impressed today with juries -- and their efforts to follow the courts' instructions -- than when I began as an attorney.

<snip>

Great post. Thanks.

I'm not sure, because I may have misunderstood some of your emphasis, if you were following Fiona's interest in "sequester".

The failure of the Italian court to sequester the Knox/Sollecito jury has been loudly touted by Knox partisans as an example of the fundamental failures of that court to provide a fair trial to Knox. This has been done in a disingenuous comparison to 'American justice' as a gold standard.

I tried to make the same point as you, although not as well or as thoroughly, that even in the U.S. the treatment of jurors as (as you put it) "adults" is more the rule than the exception, and that the indictment of Italian justice, at least on this basis is contrived at best.

 

[Symbol]

I find Amanda's body language interesting in her trial statement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gW67Fj9RWY.

When she faces unexpected but ordinary questions about the events, she often glances to the right. This is documented, although not conclusive, evidence of making up stories, appealing to the right brain. Lies, if you will.

While telling her version of these events she sometimes talks over her interpreter, sometimes seemingly impatient at being interrupted.

However, at key parts of the testimony involving things like the deletion of her cellphone records, she looks straight ahead while speaking and then pauses frequently to look at her interpreter to translate, buying herself time to continue her story.

I believe that Amanda Knox is innocent of weilding the murder weapon, but guilty of knowing a LOT more about the events of the night than she is revealing.

 

[Kestrel]

When she faces unexpected but ordinary questions about the events, she often glances to the right. This is documented, although not conclusive, evidence of making up stories, appealing to the right brain. Lies, if you will.

May I suggest that this theory just reeks of woo?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm not sure, because I may have misunderstood some of your emphasis, if you were following Fiona's interest in "sequester".

The failure of the Italian court to sequester the Knox/Sollecito jury has been loudly touted by Knox partisans as an example of the fundamental failures of that court to provide a fair trial to Knox. This has been done in a disingenuous comparison to 'American justice' as a gold standard.

I tried to make the same point as you, although not as well or as thoroughly, that even in the U.S. the treatment of jurors as (as you put it) "adults" is more the rule than the exception, and that the indictment of Italian justice, at least on this basis is contrived at best.

I think the sequestration part of it is is a minor point and I tend to agree with you.

I do have a concern about the attorneys not being allowed to question potential jurors about what they've read and been exposed to -- because it is easier to fight potentially bad or inflammatory information if you know what it is. So I am not as fond of that part of the equation. I am not willing to say that fundamentally means the trial is unfair, but I'd prefer being able to determine what the jury already knows or, more importantly, what it thinks it knows about the case before anby evidence has been presented. Especially with the prior prss talking about ritual killings and etc., it would concern me. Of course, my opinion contains the inherent bias of being an attorney; I am looking at it from mny point of view and the point of view of the client.

And that is more my point: While I think I can control for that bias, I think it is important that my background be disclosed so that the people reading my opinion can determine for themselves how well I am doing it. That's the concern I have with the Italian system as described, because I think it would be valuable (perhaps not absolutely essential, but better) if the attorneys could question the potential jurors in order to weed out any who may have problems evaluating the evidence fairly.

 

[Symbol]

May I suggest that this theory just reeks of woo?

LOL! I kind of considered that as I wrote it. Thought, should I find scientific proof or just throw it in the pot?

There really is some evidence of specific eye movement during mendacity, but perhaps that's for another thread.

 

[Symbol]

For the record, I have now addressed the cartwheel issue in at least 10 different posts including the OP:

1, 34, 37, 39, 42, 44, 99, 108, 111, and post #120.

Sorry in advance for beating a dead horse, but I just feel a compulsion to state that I honestly couldn't be arsed to refer to someone's specified post numbers. My brain doesn't work that way once I've followed the logic of a thread.

I think rather recap your argument if everybody is misunderstanding you?

Specious homework lessons can be tedious.

 

[Micromegas]

BTW on the cartwheel thing - pics or it didn't happen.

Knox's lawyers are claiming it was tampered with:

-Mike

 

[Symbol]

I think the best other narrative is that Guede, and only Guede, did it. His DNA was all over the scene, including on the victim's body, toilet tissue, and tampon. His footprints and handprints were at the scene. There is no doubt he was there and had plenty of physical contact with the victim. By contrast, they had to stretch quite a bit to tie Knox or her boyfriend to the scene at all. The victim was supposedly held down, sexually assaulted, and stabbed in the throat, yet they found no DNA on her body from anyone but Guede, nor in the room itself, save for a tiny bit on a bra clasp that had been left at an active crime scene for 40+ days before being tested. And Guede had a history of burglary, including breaking and climbing in through a window higher than the one in this case.

Certainly it is a much simpler and far more common crime: a man sexually assaulted and then murdered a young woman. It is definitely a simpler scenario when contrasted with the prosecution theories, which included a Satanic rite, a sex game gone wrong, and then no real theory at all.

I'm not going to claim that narrative is what happened. I have no idea if she is guilty or not. But, IMO, it seems like a reasonable narrative that fits the evidence.

I can't fault this.

It seems, from all the evidence, that Guede committed the actual murder.

But Amanda Knox knows something that she isn't telling.

 

[JihadJane]

Well. If we're agreed on that why are you struggling so hard to paint her as blameless?

I think you've painted me the wrong color there!

(I thought this was a discussion rather than a trial with only two sides.)

That is, indeed, pretty good coercion. Lasted fourteen months.

With a well-chosen, credible threat, coercion can last a lifetime.




Amanda Knox may also be a compulsive liar. Why believe anything she says?

That is true: but there is not one shred of evidence that there was any coercion.

What kind of evidence would you expect?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on the DNA

Mike,

The length of time and especially the fact that the bra was moved around allow for greater opportunities to transfer DNA, as discussed in the full text of the letter. Speaking only for myself, I would like to know the identities of the other people who contributed to this DNA. If DNA were found to originate from a person who was never in the house, then DNA transfer or some type of contamination would seem difficult to deny. If you are looking for an introductory discussion of DNA forensics, I suggest that the textbook I use in two of the classes I teach is a good place to start: Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 5th ed., by D. L. Nelson and M. M. Cox.

Chris

 

[dasmiller]

If I can weigh in on the jury sequestration thing, I thought one important aspect was that it let the judge exclude evidence that was inappropriately obtained. True, that may make the jury less likely to convict because they don't have some terribly incriminating evidence, but it gives the police and prosecutor a very strong incentive to make sure that they go by-the-book on high-profile cases.

Without sequestration, excluded evidence is easy to leak to the press, where it can get wide distribution.

It's easy to say that jurors should be able to ignore things that the judge tells them to ignore, but suppose that you were on a murder trial jury, and the only things linking the victim to the accused were a few shakey witnesses and a blurry photograph of a car that might belong to the accused? Now, suppose that you had exactly the same data, but also happened to know that the blood-covered murder weapon was found under the seat of the accused's car but was excluded from evidence because of some impropriety. Wouldn't the shakey witnesses and blurry photograph seem more convincing?

 

[Micromegas]

Chris,

As has been discussed throughout this thread, it's a combination of things that make the case against Knox stronger than her adherents will admit. If the evidence of the knife is supposedly so weak, the desperate rationalization of Sollecito concerning how Kercher's DNA supposedly got on it (whether or not it actually was on it) doesn't add up to a coherent alternate scenario. Same with the two women's blood mixed in the bathroom; the bloody footprints; the evidence of a rushed cleanup; the effort to make it look like there was a break-in; the mind-boggling series of contradictory statements Knox and Sollecito have made throughout the investigation; and Knox's elaborate scheme to blame an innocent man.

I don't think that any one of these details necessarily implicates Knox and Sollecito. But taken altogether, they add up to a reasonably reliable case for me. I was initially doubtful about Knox's guilt, but the more I read, the more I think she was involved.

-Mike

 

[Fiona]

I've looked at those posts and I can't see where Knox has admitted that she lied. What were her exact words when she did this?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3216708/amanda_knox_the_interrogation_in_her_own_words/

This is what Knox said happened in her interview, with accompanying commentary. She says a police officer hit her. She alleges threats and bullying. She says that she gave them a name because she was confused. The commentary says that the interrogation lasted 14 hours, with a very strong implication that that was continuous: and paints a very touching picture of her concern for Lumumba after she implicated him.

It does not mention the details of Lumumba's involvement that she gave. It does not mention that she told her mother later that he was not involved. It does not mention that she did not tell the police that, and that her mother did not either. It does not mention that Lumumba was only freed because his alibi was confirmed, in part at least by the man he had been with, and who was in Geneva and happened to see a report of the case in the paper. Lumumba was in serious difficulty before that and Knox did nothing to assist him in the two weeks before his alibi was proved.

In June 2008 an interview with her parents was published It forms the basis of the case brought against them by Napoleoni and other members of the Perugia police force.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4113087.ece

On November 6, five days after Meredith’s murder, Knox was interrogated by police for nine hours until she signed a statement at 5.54am. Her family says that despite her good marks at university, Knox was not fluent in Italian, but no professional interpreter was present, only a police officer who could speak English and who was not always there. She was given no food and no water for all the nine hours. “I’ve never been so scared in my life,” Knox told Deanna later. Curt says: “Amanda was abused physically and verbally. She told us she was hit in the back of the head by a police officer with an open hand, at least twice

On 28/2/09 the court heard evidence from Napoleoni, head of the Perugia homicide team, and from Ficarra, head of the "flying squad" and one of the people who interviewed Knox on 5/6 of November 2007.

She testified that the interview was firm but cordial: and specifically stated Knox was not mistreated and that she had the chance to rest, to go to the bathroom and to eat. She stated specifically that Knox was never subjected to threat or violence.

Napoleoni confrimed the impartial handling of Knox

As it allowed in Italian courts, Knox then made an impromptu statement to the court in Italian. I cannot give you her exact words but they have been translated as:
“They did offer me drinks and food, but they started treating me as a person only after I made those declarations”. She did not elaborate any further."

Sollecito also made an impromptu statement in which he said that he had asked to call his father and a lawyer in the course of his interview on 5/11/09; and that this was denied. He did not allege any mistreatment or physical or psychological abuse from the police.

On November 5th both were witnesses and were interviewed as such. The arrived at the police station at about 10 pm. Sollecito had been asked to attend and so Knox's interview started some time after his, as she acknowledges in the link above. I do not know what time it started, but at 10:40 Filomena Romanelli told the court she was on the phone to Knox discussing whether they would continue to share a flat.

In the course of the interviews the police became suspicious of them. Sollecito changed his story and in so doing he undermined Knox's alibi.She was told of this. The police then showed the text from Lumumba and she made her accusation against him, placing herself at the scene when the murder was committed. Ficarra then stopped the interview, at 1.45 am, and informed the judicial authorities. She also told Knox in english that she was now a suspect.

This interview can only have lasted a maximum of 3hours and 5 minutes: and probably less. The "14 hours" is a complete fabrication.

The point when the judicial authorities were informed that the police considered her a suspect is the official point when Knox became a suspect. Her statement about Lumumba was deemed inadmissable because it was made when she was still a witness. I have misunderstood this till now and I thought it was because there was doubt about when her status changed. But it seems that all witness statements are inadmissable: only statements while formally a supect can be allowed

This issue was addressed at the various hearings in connection with her application for release. For example in the hearing before judge Matteini in June 2008 there was this:

Amanda Knox
-The so-called "memoir" was itself a defensive statement written to explain the "confessions." It was admitted only through Article 237 CPP ['documents from a suspect can be admitted'], but it has only the same value as the previous statements. It was made at the same time and in the same place; if the other two statements are not admissible then neither is the memoir.

The events and threatening outcomes put me in a state of anguish and terror; this written statement is merely the expression of it."

<snip>

Claudia Matteini
"The reasons that led you to write the memoir, as you explain them now, lack substance, because the only thing that counts for the purpose of using it for the process is that it comes from the suspect. And it was deliberately written by the suspect, so any violation of defensive rights is excluded.
There are no doubts as to whether this document was delivered spontaneously to the police. Indeed, on November 7 the director of the House of Detention writes that you spontaneously delivered to the Vice-Commander of your section two manuscript sheets, which were about the memoir.
Finally, looking at the content of the memoir itself, we must admit that its content is very careful. It is certainly not "a fantastic and imaginary delirium."

She makes no mention of being hit: she does mention the police "threatening outcomes" and I take this to mean their telling her that she could be jailed if she did not tell the truth. Of course it may be that they said she could be jailed for 30 years if she did not name Lumumba, but I personally doubt it.

In testimony Knox said:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165&p=17371&hilit=ghirga+hit#p17371 (audio 3)

" AK: They hit me twice, before I said the name of Patrick, to make me say a name that I couldn't give."

But 4 hours later she spontaneously asked for a pen and paper and she wrote a statement about Lumumba's involvement.

"In court she said
CP: Did you, on the morning of November 6, ask the agents of the judicial
police for paper to write on?

AK: Yes.

CP: Did you also spontaneously ask for a pen?

AK: Yes.

CPL In what language did you write your memorandum?

AK: In English.

CP: When you wrote it, were the contents suggested to you by the police?

AK: No. It wasn't. I wrote it to explain my confusion to the police. Because
when I told them that I wasn't sure, and that I didn't want to sign their
declaration, and that I thought it was all a big mistake, they didn't want
to listen. When I told them that I wasn't sure, they said that I would
remember everything later, that I should be patient, and keep trying to
remember. I was feeling uncomfortable about these declarations that I
had made, so I asked for paper to explain my confusion, beacuse I really
wasn't sure.

CP: When did you write the memorandum? More or less?

AK: I don't remember.

CP: In the late morning? After you were served with an arrest warrant?
Towards midday?

AK: Well, I was still in the Questura.

CP: Yes, but in the late morning? Of the 6th?

AK: You know, there was so much confusion during the night, and so many hours
of interrogation, that my sense of time was gone.

CP: When you wrote the memorandum, were you hit by police?

AK: When?

CP: When you wrote the memorandum. Were you hit by police?

AK: No.

CP: Mistreated?

AK: No.

CP: Did the police suggest the contents?

AK: No.

CP: You gave it to them freely?

AK: Yes.

CP: Voluntarily?

AK: Yes.

CP: Listen, in this memorandum, you say that you confirm the declarations you made the night before about what might have happened at your house with Patrick. Why did you freely and spontaneously confirm these declarations?

AK: Because I was no longer sure what was my imagination and what was real. So I wanted to say that I was confused, and that I couldn't know. But atthe same time, I knew I had signed those declarations. So I wanted to say
that I knew I had made those declarations, but I was confused and not sure.

CP: But in fact, you were sure that Patrick was innocent?

AK: No, I wasn't sure.

CP: Why?

AK: Because I was confused! I imagined that it might have happened. I was
confused.

CP: Did you see Patrick on November 1, yes or no?

AK: No.

CP: Did you meet him?

AK: No.

CP: Then why did you say that you saw him, met him, and walked home with him?

AK: Because the police and the interpreter told me that maybe I just wasn't
remembering these things, but I had to try to remember. It didn't matter if
I thought I was imagining it. I would remember it with time. So, the
fact that I actually remembered something else was confusing to me. Because
I remembered one thing, but under the pressure of the police, I forced myself
to imagine another. I was confused. I was trying to explain this confusion,
because they were making me accuse someone I didn't want to accuse."

As I noted above this was in the presence of an interpreter; she had had a break of about 4 hours.

There is also the testimony of her mother

http://www.kirotv.com/news/19800356/detail.html

In prison – 10 Nov
If that’s the date of the first visit.
Did you speak about Patrick then?
Yes.
Did she tell you she accused him?
No.
She said she was very upset that Patrick was dragged into this horrible situation. She felt terrible. Who dragged him into it? She said that when she was interrogated all night long and told that she was going to jail for the rest of her life, she said she was lying, and they screamed at her and hit her.

<snip>

Well, she said, maybe I imagine that Patrick was there. She said, I know that’s not true but maybe it could have happened. And they said its OK, we’ll write it down.
She was pressured to come up with possibilities.
Do you remember she said something ugly about Patrick.
She said that she said something under extreme pressure from the police and she felt terrible that she did not have the courage to stand up to them.

<snip>Do you know she wrote some pages about what happened in prison on Nov 6.
I have not read any memorandum that she wrote.
Do you know whether she wrote it?
Did you ask your daughter to say Patrick had nothing to do that after your Nov 10 conversation?
No, I know she was speaking to her lawyers and listening to their counsel and those were the people she was speaking to.
Did you go to the police to say that Amanda said Patrick was innocent.
No, I do not speak Italian.
Did you go to the prosecutor? No.
Did you tell anyone? No.
Not even her lawyers? I did not speak too often at that time, in the very beginning, to Amanda’s lawyers.
And after did you tell them?
Well they knew, they knew from Amanda.

I think it is perfectly clear that Knox lied about the circumstances of her "interrogation". I think her admission in court about the fact she was indeed offered food and drink; and that the questioning did indeed stop at at 1.45 am etc, while not saying the words "I lied" is a tacit admission that she did

I am sorry to say I cannot now find the link showing that her lawyer denied that she had ever claimed to be hit: I did see, and I will have another look tomorrow, but I need a break from this