Sunday, May 30, 2010

Questions For Knox And Sollecito: Ten From Daily Beast As Knox Calunnia #2 Trial Starts

Posted by Peter Quennell





This Daily Beast report indicates that the cancelled jailhouse TV interview with Amanda Knox was a lot more firmed-up than Knox’s stepfather, Chris Mellas, seems to have claimed.

And it outlines the first phase of Knox’s Calunnia #2 trial which is based on charges brought by the interrogating police, all of whom testified at her trial that she was treated well during her interrogations as a witness and suspect. .

Click the image or link above above for the fine reporter Barbie Nadeau’s full article on some issues Knox has never been able to account for, including Knox’s callous skipping of Meredith’s memorial service.

The ten questions are all very tough, and each would also have been asked by the jury. Here they are:
.:

It’s back to court for Amanda Knox, the 22-year-old Seattle native currently serving 26 years in prison in Italy for sexually assaulting and murdering her British roommate, Meredith Kercher.

This week, Knox is expected to attend a preliminary hearing on slander charges lodged against her for accusing Perugia police of abuse. During her testimony at her murder trial last June, she accused the cops of slapping her on the back of the head during an interrogation just days after Kercher’s body was discovered in November 2007.

The police deny hitting her, and Knox’s own lawyers have never filed charges for the alleged abuse. If she is convicted of slander, a judge could add six years to her sentence….

Knox’s resurgence in the headlines was to coincide with a joint jailhouse interview she had granted to ABC News and the Italian broadcaster Mediaset’s Matrix program. But the bureau of prisons denied the interview in the final hour, effectively silencing Knox indefinitely.

A high-profile jailhouse interview with Knox is considered the Holy Grail by journalists covering the case, and the American and Italian networks have been vying for a chance to ask Knox a few questions on camera. Now it is unlikely anyone will get an interview before Knox’s appeal hearings this fall.

But if we did, there are a few questions we’d want her to put to rest.

1. Why did you and Raffaele Sollecito turn off your cell phones at the same time the night of November 1, 2007 and on again at the same time the next morning? You told the police that you and Raffaele slept late the morning of November 2, 2007, but phone records show that you both turned your phones back on very early that morning. How could that be?

2. Why were you bleeding? Your lawyers agree with the prosecution’s findings that at least one of the spots of Meredith’s blood found in the house where she was killed had your blood mixed with it. Your mother told me that you had your period. Your stepfather told others that your ear piercings were infected. Which was it?

3. Once you realized your mistake in blaming Patrick Lumumba for Meredith’s murder, why didn’t you tell the authorities? You told your mother that you felt bad about it, so why didn’t you alert an official so Patrick could be set free?

4. Why did you go with Raffaele to the police station on November 5? You were not called in for questioning. Did you realize at that time that you were both under suspicion?

5. Why weren’t your and Raffaele’s fingerprints found in your house after the murder if the two of you had spent time there that morning and the day before? Only one half-print on a glass in the kitchen has been attributed to you, yet you have claimed that you took a shower there that morning. How did you spend so much time there and leave virtually no trace?

6. Why did you take the mop and bucket from your house over to Raffaele’s house? You told the prosecutor during your testimony in June 2009 that you took the mop and bucket to his house to clean up a leak under his kitchen sink. But by your own testimony, the leak was miniscule and could have been easily cleaned up without it. What were you really doing with the mop?

7. What would you do differently if you had a chance to rewind the clock back to November 3, 2007? Would you go to the memorial service for Meredith? Would you still have gone to the police station with Raffaele? Would you have left for Germany when your aunt asked you to?

8. What do you think happened the night Meredith was killed? You have professed your innocence. Who do you think killed her and under what circumstances?

9. What do you really think of the Italian justice system? You told an Italian parliamentarian that you got a fair trial, and you even thanked the prosecutors for trying to solve the mystery of Meredith’s death, but your supporters at home in Seattle maintain that the Italian system is corrupt and unfair. What is your real view?

10. Is there anything you wish you would have said in court during your trial? You talked about your vibrator and about how you did not want an assassin’s mask forced on you. But in your final appeal after the closing arguments on December 4, 2010, why didn’t you say the words, “I did not kill Meredith Kercher?” Raffaele did when it was his turn to speak. Why didn’t you?

Our posting soon of the judges’ sentencing report will open up dozens of new questions for Knox. Such as: “How did you track Meredith’s blood into your own room and leave three traces revealed by luminol?”




Comments

A nice set of 10 questions to start.  There are many more that could be asked, I agree that the sentencing report throws up many more, more than I expected.

I am always chilled by the fact that AK & RS did not attend the memorial held for Meredith; so many who never knew her personally did, just to quietly hold Meredith and her family in their thoughts…but not AK & RS.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 05/30/10 at 04:14 PM | #

I have some sympathy with the “everyone reacts to grief differently” argument made by the Knox Groupies. They’re right, in a sense, they do. But the way that Knox reacted - the lies, the snide insensitivity, the behaviour in the police station, the confession, the necking with her boyfriend outside the house where Meredith was killed, and so on and so forth - is SO far removed from any level of genuine grief displayed by a genuinely innocent person, that the “she’s a bouncy young woman and she’s from Seattle and they do things differently there etc etc etc” BS..just doesn’t fly.

These ten questions alone are damning. There are numerous other ones, of course. They are the sort of questions a jury wants to hear answered. If the defense can’t do so, they are in serious trouble.

I was looking at some pro-Knox blogs from a few years ago. I see that when Amanda was charged, many of her fans thought she would be released before trial. Then she went on trial and many of her fans thought she would be aquitted. Then she was convicted and now many of her fans are confident she will be acquitted. One would hope they would learn from their previous errors.

Posted by Janus on 05/30/10 at 06:01 PM | #

¨Perhaps the most telling action by Amanda after the murder was her accusation of Patrick¨

I found a website about unjustice in Perugia. It could have been about Patrick Lumumba.

But no, no match found.

Posted by Helder Licht on 05/31/10 at 01:23 PM | #

What I find very telling of Amanda, is the fact that she has been clearly enjoying the fact that she is in the center of everyone’s attention.

To start, she made sure she was present at her house when Meredith was found. Of course she didn’t want to miss out any of the sensation that finding a dead person would cause.

Then, she spends days at the police station. Of course, with the pretext that she is one of the persons of interest, but at the same time clearly enjoying herself, showing off her flexibility and making cart wheels at the police station. Again, being at the center of the attention, having the full attention of one or more Italian police officers and numerous members of the Perugia community.

Also, being at the police station all that time and accompanying Raffaele on November 5th, was her way to be as much in the loop as possible. It was of extreme importance to her to know exactly where the investigation was going. Who were they suspecting of the murder? What evidence was collected?

All of this supports my idea that she was living her dream. A morbid dream to actually be part of real life drama, maybe even having been the master mind of it.

Then when she went of trial, of course she chose to take the stand herself. She knew that her only chance of defeating the forensic and circumstantial evidence against her, was to win the hearts of the jury with her personality. She had a lot of confidence in herself, her presence, her verbal skills and knew that she would only benefit from taking active part in the trial and on top of that, couldn’t possibly turn down an opportunity to, again, be at the center of everyone’s attention, have the eyes of the world on her and play the leading part in the drama that she herself had authored.

Most telling is the fact that, as Barbie Nadeau points out, she did not say the words “I did not kill Meredith” in her final appeal on December 4th 2009. Why not?
It is almost as if she wants the whole world to know that she DID take part in the murder of Meredith. She almost seems to intentionally cast doubt on her own innocence, by pushing it as far as she can. She is the subject of two extremely powerful forces from within her: the first one is the need she has to associate herself as much as possible with Meredith (think about the prank note she most likely authored and put on a wall at her university, her comments at the police station about how Meredith was found, etc.) and the second one is her need to stand out as an attractive, intelligent and capable young woman that we all need to know, but that can’t possibly be co-responsible for the death of an even more beautiful, intelligent and capable woman, called Meredith Kercher.

Amanda Knox managed to eliminate the woman she thought was standing in her way and taking away attention from her. She did, however, not foresee that she would condemn herself to live forever in the shadow of the amazing personality that Meredith Kercher was.

Fortunately, Amanda Knox was not a seasoned psychopath yet, although she was well on her way of becoming one, had she gotten away with this one. I am sure that Amanda Knox will continue to try to capture the attention of all of us, as long as she is alive. From within, or outside prison, at some time in the future. She seems to be addicted to attention, especially male attention, and we are all giving her exactly that.

She has provided her family and “friends” with a full time occupation: milking the story of her innocence. A definite sentence, that will, hopefully, be a substantial one, will decrease the audience, willing to listen to the same repetitive mantra over and over again. It will be interesting to see if and when Amanda Knox’s family and friends will accept the fact that she is a convicted killer and whether that will make them lower their profile or continue their milking of the story. No doubt Marriott and other PR figures and lawyers will try to convince them to continue. She has become an income generating property and will most likely continue to be one the years to come.

Posted by saskia on 05/31/10 at 08:13 PM | #

5/31/10

saskia,
This totally resonates with every feeling I have. Thanks so much.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/31/10 at 11:40 PM | #

saskia, I agree. I also think Knox’s use of words in one instance is very illuminating. When she said “Meredith was my friend, and I would never have killed her”. She didn’t say “I didn’t kill her”. She said “I would never have killed her”. As an English teacher, I tend see a “would” sentence as the first part of a Conditional sentence. There’s a clause missing in her speech.

“Meredith was my friend and I would never have killed her, if I hadn’t been on drugs”

“Meredith was my friend and I would never have killed her, but I got caught up in the event”

“Meredith was my friend and I would never have killed her, on my own”

Etc, etc, etc.

Of course, A Knox Groupie would say I am reaching with this analysis. Maybe so, but to me, “I would never have killed her” is more like an admission than a denial.

Posted by Janus on 06/01/10 at 05:34 PM | #

Or, as opposite to ¨she was my friend¨

¨Meredith was not my friend so I eventually would have killed her¨

Posted by Helder Licht on 06/01/10 at 07:03 PM | #

Good point, Helder Licht. “IF Meredith was my friend, I would never have killed her”.

Posted by Janus on 06/01/10 at 07:42 PM | #

How about her logic:

“I didn’t want to accuse anyone. I only described how things went¨

“I didn’t want to . . . . . . . . . . . . I only described how things went¨

Posted by Helder Licht on 06/01/10 at 10:22 PM | #

6/21/10

Barbie’s 10 questions are so good. The first one brings up the lovebirds’ phones. Like synchronicity a bomb hoax was phoned into the home of the Biscaini family at Via Sperandio. This bizarre phone call sparked the speedy find of MK’s Ericsson brand mobile phone in the garden. Her 2 phones might have lain there in the bushes for weeks.

Mrs. Lana’s daughter and the maid took a shovel (I assume to keep phone at arm’s length to pick it up). They were afraid it might be used to activate the bomb. The hoaxster was a boy from Rome who dialed on a dare. He made the bomb threat and told them not to use their bathroom.

Seems strange coincidence that a phone was being used by RS & AK to hoax the police while the bathroom held evidence of a bloody crime.

Posted by Hopeful on 06/22/10 at 12:19 AM | #

I enjoy your syncronicities, Hopeful.
Of course it was Rudy who really left a bomb in the toilet. And Amanda, who noticed it, was too enamoured of it to flush it down the pipes, and indeed so fascinated by it that she chose to describe it to 35 friends and aquaintances in her infamous pre-arrest email.

If she’d had any sense, or even a shred of imagination (the lack of which explains why she is such a crap writer) she could have explained her nonchalance about blood smears in the bath by tying it in to her comment about Meredith still having the previous night’s vampire “blood” on her chin. That stuff makes a mess of the lav, but it never occurred to her the blood might be phony.
Instead, she lathered on the shampoo, despite the “long time” she and Raf had spent washing eachother . She must have felt awfully dirty. OUT, DAMN STAIN!

Posted by mimi on 06/22/10 at 05:30 AM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Knox Hearing On Calunnia Charges Technicality, Then Trial Set To Be Under Way June 16

Or to previous entry How Tough Are Perugia’s Prosecutors? Well, They Sure Are Shaking Italy’s Ruling Party