Monday, February 28, 2011

Andrea Vogt: Supreme Court Report Highlights Amanda Knox Mention To Mom She Was There

Posted by Peter Quennell



[Above: Amanda Knox and her mother in courtroom when Edda Mellas testified 19 July 2009]

Andrea Vogt in the Seattle PI translates from the Cassation Report described in our two previous posts.

A sentencing report just released by the highest Italian appeals court sheds new light on why so many Italian judges have maintained Amanda Knox was involved in her roommate’s murder.

The document, among others, cites a conversation Knox had with her parents while under surveillance during a prison visit in which she said “I was there,” apparently referring to the night of the murder.

Amanda Kox’s remark was recorded at Capanne Prison and was long public knowledge, but that the Supreme Court listed it among other evidence of involvement in this report is significant.  The report summarises what is the evidence against all three, especially that against Rudy Guede.

The court…said that based on the 43 wounds to Kercher’s body (and the time it would take to inflict them) that it was… probable that Guede and two others forcibly held Kercher down, threatened, taunted and eventually fatally stabbed her.

The Court’s quoted language is extremely hard and gives a sense that the judges were appalled. The Court’s report has been out in Italy for over four days now - but the Seattle PI’s is the first extensive US or UK media summary.

The US and UK media have a pretty consistent habit of ignoring these inconvenient reports.




Comments

Staggering to think her mother could sit in interview after interview and lie so easily, slam the Italian justice system and continue this cynical charade. Everything about this family seems to be appalling. Where are the supporters now?

Posted by mojo on 03/01/11 at 01:48 AM | #

Hi Mojo. Yes that recorded conversation on 11 November 2007 between Edda Mellas and Amanda Knox conveyed four vital bits of information each of which could seriously hurt both of them.  They were:

1) That Amanda said she knew Patrick had nothing to do with it; that in effect she had framed him.

2) That this had not been beaten out of her by any cops; she made no mention of any maltreatment, and did not claim it as her excuse.

3) That she confirmed she really was present at the crime scene as she already claimed in her two written notes of 6 November..

4) And the weird exchange described in this post where Amanda denied waking Edda in the wee hours of the morning in Seattle merely to tell her there was a possible break-in.

Maybe in some people’s minds there is an okay reason for a mother to keep quiet about her daughter seemingly admitting to a murder, frame-up and cover-up. But Edda then launched into a vicious media campaign, which wandered further and further from the truth.

Some legal commentators in the US, including Elliot Spitzer just last week on his own legal show, have said the Italians are meanies for suing Edda Mellas for “slander” because she merely repeated what Amanda had said to her.

She didn’t. Please see above. She “repeated” exactly the opposite.

And Edda Mellas’s Sunday Times statements which the Perugia investigators are suing her for on a calunnia charge (not slander or libel) were that Amanda was seriously maltreated.

Not that Amanda had claimed to her that she was maltreated - we doubt Amanda did that - but that she actually WAS maltreated. Implying there was some hard evidence.

Edda may be lucky to escape a charge for lying under oath on the witness stand. And the supporters seem headed for the exits.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/01/11 at 02:39 AM | #

Hi Peter.

This is just a further glimpse, in my view, of where Amanda’s warped personality originated. This family is just extremely unlikable.

Posted by Barry on 03/01/11 at 03:27 AM | #

These reports are so messed up, Knox’s “I was there” statement was dealt with by Massei (pp. 71-72):

The report states that Amanda said “I was there I have no interest in lying, I’m not afraid of the truth‛ and ‚It’s stupid, I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there, I mean, I can’t lie there’s no reason to [62] do it,”

Then the report states that “she explained that the reference to the fact that ‚she was there‛ meant that she was in Raffaele’s apartment.”

Now that the media tables have turned - the misinformation is going the other way! The media is dealing with this as though it is new damning information, its clearly not! Also Knox’s explanation is completely ignored. Only two months ago reports would have made excuses for Knox, had she not come up with her own - now they ignore her excuses and are swinging to the guilty side. What a change!

Though I agree Knox is GUILTY as hell! A little bit of unbiased media reporting with full disclosure, would be nice.

Posted by Giselle on 03/01/11 at 04:19 AM | #

Hi Giselle. The Supreme Court of Cassation was looking at all the Micheli court evidence and transcripts and I believe Amanda’s excuse was made to the Massei court?

Cassation may buy into that excuse when it gets the Massei trial report and Hellman appeal report but so far of course they have not been party to them.

Sounds like they might not buy in to AK’s weak excuse when they ARE party to them - though as you say most of the media sure did. Strongly encouraged by the PR.

No wonder Elliot Spitzer is confused. It seems the media’s next act is a prolonged period of just shutting up. For now we still seem pretty alone in trying for a correct final record.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/01/11 at 05:17 AM | #

Thanks Peter, I was actually referring to the media - as for the Supreme Court, without having the document I couldnt make a comment. Are you planning on having a link to that report here?

I have read several reports that take this “I was there” comment as a confession from Knox and as new information - claiming this was not commented upon in the first trial, which is not correct.

Posted by Giselle on 03/01/11 at 05:43 AM | #

Hi Giselle. Yes we’ve asked our Rome friends for a copy of the report and should be able to translate more than has appeared in English so far. Of course AK had no chance to comment in the Guede trial.

As we know Micheli took a firmer line than the Massei court - we have no idea what Judge Massei’s own conclusions were, and it may be that his report seemed to show leniency to Knox and Sollecito because several of the lay judges wanted it that way.

Judge Hellman’s court now gets the outcome of both those courts, and of Cassation on Guede’s final appeal endorsing Micheli, so they can split the difference or lean one way.

Or come up with a third point of view, though the Supreme Court sure wont like that. There seems no possible rabbit still to be pulled out of the hat, even with the (unlikely) testimony of all Guede’s “friends”.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/01/11 at 05:55 AM | #

Thank you again for all your efforts Peter, I look forward to reading the Supreme Court’s report.

Posted by Giselle on 03/01/11 at 06:44 AM | #

Giselle wrote: “The report states that Amanda said “I was there I have no interest in lying, I’m not afraid of the truth‛ and ‚It’s stupid, I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there, I mean, I can’t lie there’s no reason to [62] do it,””

When did that taped conversation between Knox and her mother take place? Because in one of Knox’s original statements (as we know she made several conflicting ones) she said she was in the cottage, and held her hands over her ears as she heard Meredith screaming.

That was in one of the statements in which she accused Patrick, and that was her original line of defense - that she sort of remembers being there as if it were a dream but her memories are confused, and trying to pin it on Patrick as the only other black man she knew in town.

So if this statement to her mother was made shortly after that and before she started to retract it and claim she “can’t really remember but she was with RS all night in his flat” - an alibi which RS has not backed up - then I would say her later excuse of “I was there” meant “I was at RS’s flat” is backpedalling, because she had to come up with some explanation for that statement.

Without that explanation, she’s pretty much admitted her involvement right there. Remember she didn’t know anyone was listening when she said that to her mother.

Posted by lilly on 03/01/11 at 08:31 AM | #

This “I was there” statement seems to have no context. It could hardly have come out of the blue. Is the context not revealed by the rest of the recorded conversation and knowing exactly when the conversation took place?

Posted by James Raper on 03/01/11 at 11:34 AM | #

That look by Edda. What is it? Amazement?  Disappointment? Displeasure? A not good enough look or a warning?
Like a teacher with her pupil.

Posted by James Raper on 03/01/11 at 01:17 PM | #

Knox is so full of bullshit she is actually quite literally beyond belief.

Why does almost everything she utters have to be accompanied with an explanation and/or an excuse by her groupies and fans?

Just cut the bullshit out and it is perfectly clear she is telling her mother she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

Why would anyone speak in such a way to their mother during a very short prison visit simply to to say she was at her boyfriends house - when surely there is more serious and important things to discuss in this short time?
It just doesn’t make sense.

Knox is a squirming snakepit of duplicity and obfuscation; the investigating officers picked up on this part of her character almost immediately.

Who would describe in the printed word concerning their movements on the night of the murder that PERHAPS I checked my email, PERHAPS I made love to Raffaele; then in the same sentence she says in fact I DID make love with Raffaele?

You either did or you didn’t so why the perhaps?
What nonesense.
She is without a shred of a doubt telling her mother she was at the house when Meredith was murdered and lying to her mother too, regarding her involvement in the actual murder.

Posted by Black Dog on 03/01/11 at 01:53 PM | #

Sorry, this should have been added to my above comment:


Why would anyone speak in such a way to their mother during a very short prison visit simply to to say she was at her boyfriends house, WHEN SHE HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY TOLD HER MOTHER AND THE POLICE THIS - when surely there is more serious and important things to discuss in this short time?

Posted by Black Dog on 03/01/11 at 01:59 PM | #

@James Raper

Interesting, your response to Edda’s look because this telling photo struck me at once.

I see surprise in her wide-open eyes while for the moment her face is noncommittal.  There is a quality of distance in this unguarded look.

The accidental candor is reinforced by Edda’s dowdy appearance, so inappropriate to her status in that courtroom.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 03/01/11 at 02:13 PM | #

ah, Black Dog…tell us how you really feel!

Posted by mojo on 03/01/11 at 03:18 PM | #

Lilly asked “When did that taped conversation between Knox and her mother take place? Because in one of Knox’s original statements (as we know she made several conflicting ones) she said she was in the cottage, and held her hands over her ears as she heard Meredith screaming.”

And James asked “This “I was there” statement seems to have no context. It could hardly have come out of the blue. Is the context not revealed by the rest of the recorded conversation and knowing exactly when the conversation took place?”

I mentioned the place and the date in a comment earlier; 11 November 2007 at Capanne Prison. The Supreme Court would be looking at the full transcript of the recorded conversation to draw its conclusion, but except for a few excerpts at the trial it has never been made public.

AK at trial mid-2009 in answering a question by Della Vedova did try to paint her “I was there” as a claim that she was there at Sollecito’s all night.

But it reads much more like a follow-through from her two written statements on 6 November 2007 stating that she was there at Meredith’s home. They are summarized by the Machine as Alibis 3 and 4 here.

The first written statement AK made early in the morning while Mignini looked on. It is 5 1/2 pages long. The Supreme Court disallowed that statement because AK did not have a lawyer present. 

However it is worth noting that AK actually asked to make that statement, which was why Mignini was brought in, and Mignini has said he believes it was disallowed wrongly and is actually still quite legal because he did not ask any questions of her. 

Scroll down and read Mignini’s letter here. He could repeat that when the Supreme Court gets the appeal from Judge Hellman.

The second statement was briefer and it was written out late in the day. Peter Hyatt takes it disbelievingly apart here.

AK seems to attempt to make her memory of the night more of a dream while still placing her rather hazily at the scene, perhaps as a precaution against any physical evidence that would prove her there.

Alibi 5 that she was unequivocally at Sollecito’s apartment all night (which is still not backed up by Sollecito) only emerged mid-2009 when she was on the witness stand at her trial - nearly 20 months later.

The new “I was there” interpretation was a part of that fifth alibi. Under the terms of her testifying (it was only to do with her framing Patrick) the prosecution could not cross-examine her on that alibi or this claim.

One other thing. From my first comment above: “Amanda said she knew Patrick had nothing to do with it; that in effect she had framed him.” She would have needed to be there to be sure to know that.

The Supreme Court has all of this above and more, and they decided in their statement on Guede’s final appeal that AK’s statement “I was there” put her at Meredith’s on the night, and not at Sollecito’s.

Seems sound.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/01/11 at 03:48 PM | #

Peter,

Thanks. This then was the first meeting at Capanne between Edda and Amanda.

Edda had already met with Ghirga and it seems that at his bequest she was to clarify certain issues with Amanda. Was this because Ghirga could not talk to Amanda directly? Anyway Ghirga does not appear to have warned Edda that her chat with Amanda might be taped. We have him to thank for that. Or perhaps he did and I can imagine that Edda sat there with panic, horror and bewiderment on her face as Amanda proceeded to shoot herself through both feet, all for the benefit of the tape.

Placed in a conversation in which Amanda admits to her mum that Patrick was not involved, then the statement “I was there” does become potentially very damaging indeed, but what “there” means is a matter of construction for the courts to decide.

They do have to take into account Amanda’s much later explanation but may discount it because it does not fit the context in which “I was there” was said and, if that context was vague, because it was surely important at the time for Amanda to stress that she meant Sollecito’s place, if that was what she meant.

My reading of the situation is that the Court of Cassation has not ruled definitively on it’s construction but having listed it as an item of evidence clearly the judges are saying that it is important and that it needs to be addressed by the lower appeals court before the issue comes back to them.

Black Dog pulls no punches and if, as I expect, the DNA review comes back with all the original results intact, and perhaps more, then no one is going to quibble with a ruling that Amanda meant the crime scene anyway. Certainly not me.

Posted by James Raper on 03/01/11 at 07:09 PM | #

By Storm Roberts (Innai)

James,

The following from The Machine’s post of 18th August 2009:

’ It seems that Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, really had no choice but to acknowledge the fact that Knox had made conflicting statements. In remarks to the press:

“All of the lawyers have imposed on Amanda the gravity of her situation, and the gravity of accusing other people. They have all told her that she needs to tell the truth because there have been differences in the statements.”

“We have asked her family to persuade her in the hope that her parents will ask her to tell the truth. There have been differing statements.”  ‘

(The Machine’s post examines Knox’s conflicting alibis - link: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/our_take_on_the_case_for_the_prosecution_4_amanda_knoxs_multiple_confl/#comments )

Posted by Nolongeramember on 03/01/11 at 08:09 PM | #

...“I am not afraid of the truth.”
well, if the truth is that you were NOT at the scene of the murder, why should you be AFRAID of that truth? Idiotic doublespeak. She is truly addled. Or maybe she is afraid of her own addled brain, and the best truth she can think? She’s probably lucky Teachermom didn’t home-school her.

Posted by mimi on 03/02/11 at 03:41 AM | #

Something really bothers me here. Why was AK told she had HIV when she didn’t and why has this issue gotten little discussion on this board? What other underhanded tricks were the authorities up to? People know who have read my posts that I am no FOA, but at the same time there is no black and white here either. If the authorities can play games with HIV tests to get a list of AK’s lovers to leak to the media for their smear campaign , why can’t they play games with the interrogation process or any one of the other legal processes? Yes I think she was involved to the point where she deserves to go to prison (I do however think RS was the perverted mastermind) but at the same time, let’s be fair here and stop making the Italian prosecuters look like saints who do no wrong by only making the “correct” assumptions of the hows and whys regarding this case.

Posted by Kazwell on 03/02/11 at 06:39 AM | #

By Storm Roberts (Innai)

Re: HIV testing in general - it takes about 3 months from infection before a blood test can be used as a diagnostic tool.  It is common practice to do repeat tests i) after an unclear results; and, ii) 3 months after last possible exposure.

I am sure that, as part of the prison system’s medical care, Knox would have been tested at least twice, and if one test were inconclusive an additional test would be necessary.  In my experience the requirement for a second test requires careful patient management as it can cause stress and belief that the patient is infected when the truth is simply that a test was inconclusive and further testing is needed.

Re:“authorities….leak to the media for their smear campaign” - I’ve not seen evidence of this.  Can you show me evidence of “leaks”?

The majority of things that have been claimed as “leaks” were actually items of evidence introduced to the legal process in one of the many hearings (15 plus) that were held during the course of the investigation.  The Italian legal process is very open and transparent, with the reports from hearings being made public, and the majority of hearings being public too.

The prosecution have a reputation for playing their cards close to their chests, and I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise in this case.

Your question: “why can’t they play games with the interrogation process or any one of the other legal processes?”

Defendants have legal representation - if, in any case, the authorities were to overstep the mark the defendant’s legal team would be all over it.
 
Knox has a brilliant legal team led by two very well qualified and highly respected layers - if there were issues with regards to the way the prosection worked the case or with the investigation they would have brought this to the world’s attention.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 03/02/11 at 10:34 AM | #

Hi Kazwell,

Like you it’s in my nature to always approach things with what I consider to be a healthy dose of scepticism.

However I have no reason as yet to believe that the leak regarding AK’s positive HIV result and list of lovers was anything to do with the prosecutors or any senior police officers.

The leak probably came from the lower orders and furthermore as she was in prison at the time the leak may have come from there.

Having spent time in police custody suites and prisons (visiting clients of course) I am aware of the mentality of some of these underpaid, rules and regulations bound, people. Knowing what they do some are just aching to kick off with a bit of tittle tattle and sensation.

Journalists know this full well and having got the information then invite the authorities to comment.

I think this is just another example of cock up theory rather than conspiracy theory as the best explanation.

Furthermore it is quite possible that the first test was just wrong but who knows why? They do these tests in prison as a matter of routine.

Anyway what is the relevance of this regarding guilt or innocence? None.

Miss Represented thinks that there was a sadist present the night Meredith died. If I had to pick out a possible sadist, yes it would be Raffaelle.

Posted by James Raper on 03/02/11 at 11:32 AM | #

And then of course there is also Innai’s above explanation!

Posted by James Raper on 03/02/11 at 11:41 AM | #

By Storm Roberts (Innai)

If I might also suggest that one of the first posts here at TJMK is also essential reading on this point.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_perugia_shock_blog_coming_clean/

I think it is also important to recognise that, even with the reports made by the Judges, we have only a tiny proportion of the full evidence to read.  The file presented before the onset of Knox and Sollecito’s first trial was around 10,000 pages of evidence. 

I’m sure the actual trial produced many more (with transcripts, submitted documents etc).

Returning to the few words picked up by the Court of Cassation - I am sure they have been analysed and that the confidence level that Knox was referring to the crime scene is extremely high.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 03/02/11 at 12:23 PM | #

Sollecito the mastermind? I don’t think so.

The “pizza killing, my family killed your family” cold blooded narcistic sociopath would not not accept to be involved in and hurt by any low level sadistic driven/passionate person.

People tend to feel for her. Because they are human. In a very classical way sociopaths feel/know/detect this as a traction point. Okay, let’s say “detect”.

“Why should I lie?” - nonsense
“I was there.” - nonsense (here, there, everywhere)

“underhand actions” - nonsense (how dare people to suggest)

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/02/11 at 01:05 PM | #

Hi Kazwell.

1) With regard to any smears and abuse. 

Amanda Knox was asked on the stand in June 2009 if she was treated well and she herself said yes. As Innai noteds, Amanda Knox had lawyers with her at absolutely all times except for that first witness interview late on 5 November where she turned up unannounced with Sollecito and agreed to make herself available.

Her lawyers have never ever complained about let alone filed complaints about smears and abuse.  That goes for the HIV “leak” too - the defense lawyers never investigated or complained, and some posters on PMF have said the HIV leak might have come from someone on the Knox side in a misfired bid for sympathy. It simply is unclear what happened there and it was not any part of the trial [It is clear now, see Michael’s explanation posted below with the diary image]

Most of the smear campaigns we have observed seemed to be addressed more against Mignini and the investigators. Several lawyers here in the US have told us they have never seen anything like it. And no way that it would have happened if the crime had taken place in the US because the media would have investigated rather than reprinting PR handouts and the prosecutor would have been on TV to explain his case.

To their credit, the defense lawyers (all of whom we rather like) have come to the defense of Mignini on various occasions and asked for the vilification to stop.

2) With regard to any leaks.

Mignini is actually rather famous among the Rome reporters for not leaking and for granting very few interviews. I agree with Innai just above, that we have only ever seen the tip of the iceberg of the material in this case compared to what could have been leaked or made publicly available.

One obvious example of what was not ever leaked was that transcript we were talking about above of the Amanda Knox/Edda Mellas discussion in Capanne. It is possible that the reason it was not leaked because the prosecution wanted to take it easy on Edda Mellas and not have to place charges against her as well.

Another example of what we know was investigated but not leaked and not fully presented at trial was AK’s and RS’s involvement in the drug scene in Perugia and what drugs they were on. At trial, drug use was not one of the charges, and the prosecution simply did not choose to go that route.

Our broad sense is that there have always been rather more leaks from the defense side. One example is the evidence video the Sollecito family leaked from the 10,000 plus pages to Telenorba for which they are now on trial.

During the late phases of the trial in 2009 a lot of material including images leaked out about the knives and the wounds to Meredith’s neck and was reposted on the internet in an attempt to show the large knife did not match any of the wounds. (It did, as even defense experts conceded.) 

And as Innai mentioned AK herself had to be cautioned to not be quite so public all the time with her various sayings and writings. It was her own choice to get on the witness stand for two days where in our view she did herself no favors.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/02/11 at 01:53 PM | #

Hi Kazwell,

You’re assuming that the medic lied to Amanda Knox. It’s not uncommon that first time results fall in what is called the “grey area” or even reveals a clear positivity to HIV antibodies due to cross-reactions or other reasons. When this happens, medics are obliged to tell the person that the result turned out ambiguous or positive and the analysis must be repeated, but that the first result might turn out to be a mistake and HIV infection might not be confirmed by further testing.

Posted by The Machine on 03/02/11 at 03:19 PM | #

Just recently people have been talking about the “I was there” prison recording and wishing they could hear or see the full transcript so as to take the statement of Knox in its proper context.

I myself would like to see the ‘media kit’ available at the time to all and sundry issued by Marriot and co. from early on in the case when they were first employed by Curt and his ex wife.

Perhaps then we could understand why the American media have presented a rather skewed representation of this case.
Has anyone here seen it?

Posted by Black Dog on 03/02/11 at 03:53 PM | #

mimi makes a subtle point above but easy enough to overlook:

[...“I am not afraid of the truth.”
well, if the truth is that you were NOT at the scene of the murder, why should you be AFRAID of that truth?]

My further questions reflect an imperfect grasp on the facts of the case.

(a) Had Amanda already then accused Patrick Lumumba? If so, she must attest to her presence (“I was there”) to make the accusation stick.

(b) Hadn’t she already written following interrogation that she’d covered her ears for the screams?  If mindful of this, she saves herself from an embarrassing retraction.

(c) Had Sollecito by that time already denied her presence at his apartment for that whole evening?

Further context (of a sort) from Andrea Vogt in the SeattlePI:

[...the “I was there” prison conversation reference is tucked into a long paragraph… pointing to Knox’s involvement… Included are Knox’s DNA on a knife… used in the murder; Guede’s own statements about Knox’s presence that night; Knox’s bare footprint revealed by Luminol… mixed genetic traces of Kercher and Knox in the sink and bidet; and the testimony of neighbors… and homeless man Antonio Curatolo.]

Posted by Ernest Werner on 03/02/11 at 04:30 PM | #

Hi Ernest,

I did not overlook the point [...“I am not afraid of the truth.”
well, if the truth is that you were NOT at the scene of the murder, why should you be AFRAID of that truth?]

But: please explain to me what Mimi and you see as the subtility, because I don’t understand.

When is the truth why to be afraid of?

Is it a girl, just comforting her mother (“I am not afraid, mum”)

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/02/11 at 04:44 PM | #

She who reliably manages to get everything 180 degrees wrong manages to do it again.

Amanda Knox’s claim that she was referring to herself being at Sollecito’s house all night did not happen for another 20 months. The only circumstance she could possibly be referring to were those in her two written notes, where both times she said she was present at the crime scene but not a participant - hence, no reason to be afraid.

And the Supreme Court had every right to point to the fact that two others beside Guede were at the crime scene. That was the conclusion of the Micheli court and Guede’s first appeal court (as well as the Massei court) and the Supreme Court was endorsing the findings of those two courts.

 

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/02/11 at 05:05 PM | #

By Storm Roberts (Innai)

Ernest,

Answering your questions to the best of my knowledge:

a) Yes. She had implicated Mr. Lumumba as being involved.

b) Yes.  She had written the document you refer to.

c) Yes.  Sollecito was no longer providing an alibi (a situation unchanged to this day.)

Posted by Nolongeramember on 03/02/11 at 05:36 PM | #

Hi Innai. All correct. All three things happened on the night of 5-6 November and later that same day.

She had been told that Sollecito had whipped the rug out from under her in no uncertain terms (the Lifetime movie included this as a stark scene) and said she was not at his house all night.

Her accusation of Patrick in the two written notes (while saying she had no part in it and so no reason to be afraid) appear to be her spontaneous Plan B.

It would be extremely risky to revert to Plan A for her mom a mere 4 days later when Sollecito had so recently destroyed it and when she had no idea if evidence at the house implicated her.

That she reverted to Plan A 20 months later was probably the safest move she could make then, as there was no indication Sollecito would take the stand to refute her.

Of course he didnt take the stand to endorse her alibi either, so she is still in alibi limbo.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/02/11 at 05:49 PM | #

Hi Kazwell again.

The Lifetime movie misled a lot of people on the HIV test matter and it endorsed the conspiracy theory notion that the HIV test result and the leaking of the list of sex partners was a conspiracy.

Michael on PMF has now posted a correct take on TJMK on the HIV test and the leak of the list of sex partners which should help to set the record straight.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/02/11 at 07:02 PM | #

I want to thank you all for clearing this up. I guess I am still sifting through the US media’s falsehoods. One program not mentioned so far, or at least I have not seen mentioned was the documentary shown after the premiere broadcast of the Lifetime movie. Despite the fact that it definitely leaned toward AK’s defense, there was some remarkable video footage of landmarks vital to the case including in depth views of the cottage, good outdoor views of the police station, interiors of the bar that AK worked at, as well as some great courtroom footage. Worth a look for these reasons alone. Peter, I am looking forward to your review of the movie, but also hope that someone dissects the documentary as well. I am sure it will be a long post considering Steve Moore is featured as well as AK’s parents. Did I mention it was a bit slanted?

Posted by Kazwell on 03/02/11 at 07:23 PM | #

Hi Kazwell. We have been gathering comments for reviews of both the Lifetime productions. You have the movie and documentary recorded? If not please email and I will send you and anyone else who asks some download links.

I agree that some of the images in the documentary were really useful. As I missed photographing the questura I am grateful for those new images.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/02/11 at 08:35 PM | #

The Seattle cameraman and wannabe Meredith case expert Bruce Fisher is sounding distinctly unhinged in light of the devastating Supreme Court report on Guede, and the rolling success of TJMK and PMF, and the fast fading of his website and his “book”.

With a widespread reputation of not being very bright, he was laughed off PMF for pure incompetence, and we seem to have have rendered his chief ally in xenophobic stupidity, Steve Moore, blissfully silent, hopefully for the duration.

Now he has launched into a childish diatribe on his site against some of the PMF women posters (he sure goes gunning for women) and also against myself. Skeptical Bystander and I have provided a few comments and corrections on PMF <a href=“http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?>here</a>

Fisher certainly seems to know how to paint a calunnia target on his back (calunnia is false criminal accusations in Italy) and it will come as no surprise to see him one day cooling his heels in the cell between Guede and Sollecito.

Amanda Knox herself has remarked about obsessive white-knight perverts like Fisher that she finds them distinctly scary. She sure got that one right. Again and again Knox’s own lawyers have asked his lunatic fringe to please shut up and stop hurting her.

If anyone cares, my biography and image are on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000630793879&sk=notes  My main Italy connection is I ran UN meetings there. A nice gentle place which will be keeping an eye out for the idiotic Fisher. .

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/02/11 at 08:57 PM | #

We now have the Cassation Report on Rudy Guede in Italian, and our friends on PMF are translating it into English.

If you would like to see the report in Italian you may read or download it here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/CassationGuedeSentencingReport.pdf

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/02/11 at 09:21 PM | #

Reply to Innai:

Many thanks. Your triple yes greatly reinforces mimi’s point, to my mind.

Reply to Helder Licht:

Helder, I wasn’t thinking of you or of anyone in particular—except myself.
Where’s the subtlety in mimi’s remark? Simply in suggesting that the inner logic of Amanda’s statement does of itself refute the idea that she was safely out of it all, at Raffaele’s place.
Also, I agree with you: Amanda is the originator of the whole ghastly scheme. Sollecito although indulging a low & vicious imagination I see as a weakling.

Apropos Peter: Valuable posts & helpful.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 03/02/11 at 10:32 PM | #

Hi Ernest,

Thanks for your kind answer! (btw: I did not think you was thinking of me 😊

But still I would like you to explain further, as I don’t see the inner logic of Amanda’s statement.

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/02/11 at 11:36 PM | #

Thank you Peter for providing the Cassation Report - it should be an interesting read giving further insight into the evidence.

I would like to ask for a link to the documentary which aired after the Lifetime movie. I have seen the movie itself and I was not impressed by the acting nor the representation of the facts. I have read that the producers had ‘lawyers’ that made sure the movie was based on the facts. But this begs the question, where did they find such uninformed and incompetent lawyers? If it was entertainment that they were after - I have to say, they failed again - there were no emotions provoked for the tragic death and there was no suspense for Amanda’s trial. All in all, my vote is the movie was a big failure.

Posted by Giselle on 03/03/11 at 02:49 AM | #

Hi Giselle. Okay the link is emailed. Very interested to know what you think.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/03/11 at 03:12 AM | #

Footnote on the footnote that is the conspiracy theorist Bruce Fisher, who set about attacking Skeptical Bystander etc yesterday in highly personal terms.

I see now why he is increasingly sounding unhinged.

TJMK is consistently in the top million websites out of 50 million in the world, and has three times broken into the top 100,000 - thanks to all of you! Right now according to the website tracker Alexa it is at about 800,000th with PMF not far behind.

Fisher’s Injustice-in-Perugia website in sharp contrast has never even broken into the top one million, and right now is at around 3.5 million, a place that is often exceeded by personal sites run by cheerleaders.

If a site with a mission is that low, it is failing on all counts. Hopefully he packs in his obsession with Knox in light of this and gets back to his family and an actual career instead.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/03/11 at 07:40 PM | #

Candace Explains it All                                                 My final comment (on this particular topic,then I’ll let it collect some more dust)
for Heider Licht: a verbatim excerpt from Murder in Italy—(which I acquired on Amazon for one dollar U.S).—( by self-acclaimed Author an Italianesque Person, Candid Dumpster):pg 215

  * Then, on November 17th, She got more bad news.The police insisted that she’d told her parents, during a bugged visit in Capanne, that she h a d n ’ t been in Raffaele’s flat on the night of Meredith’s slashing.
  ” I cannot lie, I was t h e r e ,” she’d said. The press ran with this story, even though the police had leaked it out of context, so that the antecedent form"there” wasn’t apparent. And in fact, when the police had to produce the entire intercept in court, even Judge Paolo Micheli, no friend to Amanda, would accept that she’d meant ” I cannot lie. I was at Raffaele’s when my roommate’s throat was slashed.” *

So there you have it, from the pen of a sworn Friend of Amanda, Facebook Friend of Amanda’s Mom and award-winning expert on things Italian-like. Does this make things any clearer? About as clear as bolognese.

When is the truth why to be afraid of? Perhaps when you know the truth will displease your parents?
Is it a girl just comforting her mother (I am not afraid mom)?
I think it is a girl who is accustomed to playing cat and mouse games with her mother, playing various parents and steps against eachother and habitually adjusting her ‘truths” to protect her own best interests.

Posted by mimi on 03/08/11 at 08:22 AM | #

It is a very long time ago, my math teacher announced his several final comments on subjects, before collecting dust. In his case it was a matter of assuming false intentions among us children.

He could have used your retoric, self answered question: “Is it clear? Clear!!” (and: “There you have it”)

I guess, I have to live with your final verdict, collecting dust

(btw it’s still not clear, despite the effort :-(

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/08/11 at 09:58 AM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry In The US Political Commutations Of Judicial Sentences Are Rarely Greeted With Public Approval

Or to previous entry Five Sleepers For The Knox And Sollecito Defenses That Could Make Matters Even Worse