Friday, October 16, 2009

Reporters: Seven Areas To Pinpoint With Curt Knox, Edda Mellas And Chris Mellas

Posted by Kermit




Tough questions for reporters to get beyond the incessant spin

Area To Pinpoint #1

Don’t you think that Amanda’s latest of several defence positions is weakened by the fact that her new alibi - that she was with her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito all night - does not coincide with the alibi of Raffaele?

He has used his right to not declare in their trial but stated just after the crime that he was at his apartment all night, and that Amanda left between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. on the night of the murder?

(Raffaele’s defence lawyers and his father have confirmed to journalists covering the trial that while they have some defence issues in common with Amanda - for example, questioning the DNA analysis - Raffaele’s defence is not necessarily supportive of or in line with Amanda’s.)

Area To Pinpoint #2

Why did Amanda cut short a questioning session (where she was accompanied by her lawyer) in December 2007, near the beginning of the investigation, and maintain silence - as is her right under Italian law - until the trial was well underway in 2009?

Area To Pinpoint #3

Why do you need a costly, professional PR campaign aimed at an American audience, when your daughter is in an Italian trial? Some observers feel that since the legal case against Amanda is strong, your only hope is to influence the State Department and obtain its political intervention in this case.

However, American diplomats - beyond providing basic, standard consular support - don’t want to touch this case with a ten-foot pole.

Area To Pinpoint #4

Why do you question the honor and professionalism of the Prosecutor of Amanda’s murder trial through your Amercian focused PR campaign, when Amanda’s Italian defence lawyer had to apologise to Prosecutor Mignini for this campaign?

This campaign extrapolates the slight that an American fiction author (Douglas Preston) felt when he was momentarily arrested after ensnaring himself in a police sting operation to do with planting false evidence when he was using a false name.

This arrest was recently rejected for separate legal action against Mignini. On the basis of Preston’s bad feelings, the PR campaign tells us that Mignini has a “history” of inappropriate behaviour.

Do you agree that this smells of “spin”? Why can’t you fight Amanda’s legal battle on the basis of a solid, coherent alibi?

Area To Pinpoint #5

Why would Amanda call you in the middle of the night in Seattle to tell you about what was still supposedly only a break-in in her house (before Meredith Kercher’s door was broken down by the police who soon arrived), when Amanda was accompanied by her Italian boyfriend who would know better than her how to react?

Why to your great surprise at Capanne Prison could Amanda not even remember making that call? And why on the witness stand did it take you many minutes to summarize that 88-second call?

Area To Pinpoint #6

Before the trial started, Amanda’s Italian defence lawyer publicly stated that Amanda had not been hit by police during her questioning on 5 November 2007.

During that session she stated she was in the cottage when Meredith was murdered, and she falsely accused Patrick Lumumba of being the murderer - an accusation which has given rise to an additional charge against her).

Once the trial had started, and coinciding with the arrival of Amanda’s stepfather Chris Mellas in Perugia, Amanda made a spontaneous statement in court that she had been slapped on the back of her head during this questioning, and her Italian lawyer had to incorporate these statements into her testimony.

Are you satisfied with the Italian defence team? Are they aligned with the talking points of the PR campaign?

Area To Pinpoint #7

The justification that Amanda has been held in preventive custody since she became a suspect is due to the possibility that she may flee Italy (in addition earlier on in the investigation to the possibility that evidence may be tampered with).

On various occasions you have publicly regretted not getting Amanda out of Italy before she was arrested.

Also, Seattle King County Judge Heavey (associated with the “Friends of Amanda” campaign) sent a letter to the Italian judiciary on State of Washington letterhead where he decried alleged irregularities and illegalities in the investigation (nobody knows what he based these allegations on).

Such an official letter would suggest to Italian authorities that were Amanda ever to find herself in the United States before her legal processes have finished, that it could be difficult or impossible to extradite her back to Italy.

Are some of the public statements made on behalf of Amanda counterproductive to obtaining her early freedom?




Comments

You can submit questions at:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/

Posted by Sierra1049 on 10/16/09 at 02:24 AM | #

Re : your last question. AK was not allowed to leave town as soon as the investigation started, because she was a witness, just like the other friends and roommates.

Thus, she couldn’t have possibly “gotten out”.  But the other people were all free to go after they were interrogated, while Knox was not. Why not?

Posted by Nicki on 10/16/09 at 02:53 AM | #

And why did she say she WANTED to stay in Perugia to help solve the case - when really, she had zero choice?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/16/09 at 03:27 AM | #

Was this tonight (Thursday) or tomorrow night?? I swore that on CNN yesterday they said it was today… but it was balloon boy when I turned it on this evening. The CNN Larry King Live site says Friday… so I dunno what’s going on but am very curious to see what they say (as if they’ll do anything but defend her innocence).

Thanks guys!

Posted by Autumn Stinar on 10/16/09 at 08:10 AM | #

LK needs to ask these bullshitters tough questions.

Like, what about the witnesses who disproved their alibis (neighbor hearing screams; storekeeper who saw Amanda buying cleaning supplies; student who saw Amanda leave the apt at 8:40). 

Also how did Amanda know details of the body position and Meredith dying a slow, agonizing death before it became public knowledge? Why did she suggest there was sexual violence before that was known?  Why did she accuse the only black Italian man she knew of the crime?

What about the phone and computer records disproving their alibis and the fact that they didn’t call the police until AFTER the cell phone cops had appeared?  How about their inappropriate behavior after the murder (buying a G string?  talking about having wild sex? ) plus Amanda’s affect (doing splits and cartwheels in the police station?)

Bottom line is their alibis don’t fit.  Also there is way too much forensic evidence against them. They are going down and now the parents have got to face the reality that their sweet faced daughter is a brutal killer.

Must be tough. But Larry, don’t pander to them and their PR spin.  It only postpones justice for Meredith.

Posted by LReik on 10/16/09 at 08:54 AM | #

I would ask them who do they think is the victim in this case?

I would love to hear their answer as I’m not sure they even recognise Meredith or know her name and we here all know that this should be about Justice for Meredith.

Posted by Ginny on 10/16/09 at 11:42 AM | #

Did Curt Knox and Edda Mellas freak out at the thought of Larry channeling Kermit’s questions?!!

They were definitely scheduled to be on on thursday.

And although CNN have not yet been in touch with us or vice versa for deep background, all the rest of the main American media have.

Here was CNN’s last foray into the case. A pretty disastrous one.

CNN could clearly use our help. For our new permanent collection of tough media questions, more questions would really be welcome.

From the Machine’s series on the case alone there are probably several dozens. Great questions above LReik.

Added. The CNN schedule for Larry King now has Knox and Mellas showing up on Friday. His show is seen on CNN Europe, right?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/16/09 at 11:52 AM | #

larry’s the king of the softball interview. this needs the nancy grace touch—LOL. she’s a ball breaker but she doesn’t mince her words! looks as though the knox show got bumped for the boy in the balloon….no doubt under the guise of breaking news.

Posted by mojo on 10/16/09 at 12:02 PM | #

Kermit:

Excellent questions! I especially like questions the second, and the last questions - they are quite telling.

Is there any chance you could email these to Larry King before the show and request he takes liberty in asking Edda Mellas as many as possible?

Posted by Scooby on 10/16/09 at 12:43 PM | #

The ONLY questions which need to be asked is “If Amanda was with Raffeale all night, why doesn’t Raffaele agree and why does he say Amanda left the apartment just after 9pm not returning until 1am” and “Why have you and your ex husband stated repeatedly that Amanda did not know Rudy Guede when there is clear undeniable evidence that they had been acquaintences for some time, did Amanda tell you she did not know Guede?”

For me, those two questions will expose the Knox/Mellas family as the liars they are and destroy the PR campaign in one swoop.

Posted by daisysteiner on 10/16/09 at 01:07 PM | #

Yea, right, daisysteiner! I can imagine Edda Mellas’s verbal kneecapping of Larry King after that one.

Edda Mellas has a behind-the-scenes reputation among all the reporters and in all of the networks for being intensly vicious when crossed. She seems to have no limits at all to what she will say. Worse even than her husband Chris Mellas when he’s online. 

Perhaps the rudest two Americans on the planet! Pity Amanda at least for growing up with them. Curt Knox must wonder at times how he ever got related to those two.

Who knows? If Amanda Knox had spent her formative years living with Curt Knox poor Meredith might still be alive and he might have saved himself a million dollars and growing.

Come to think of it, that might make a pretty good question. Over to you, Larry King.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/16/09 at 02:32 PM | #

Larry should ask them if AK ever mentioned the time RS pricked Meredith’s finger with the knife and apologised. Presumably even the fantasist RS does not claim to have been having a cosy cook in with Meredith without AK. No doubt her selective amnesia will come into play again and she will get all confused. What a pair of bad fairies they are.

Posted by pensky on 10/16/09 at 03:52 PM | #

I did email CNN - Larry King a question, however, I have another question I’d like to ask Mr King.
Is it usual and customary to interview only the relatives of the accused in murder trials?  Perhaps more of a balance would present more of the facts in a case.

Posted by jodyodyo on 10/16/09 at 05:18 PM | #

Maybe Larry King will ask why the Knox/Mellas families haven’t had the decency to offer condolences to the Kerchers. Why would their apology depend on if Amanda is guilty or innocent? If she is innocent it would be the decent thing to do. If she is guilty then they should be even more willing to offer their condolences and ask forgiveness for Amanda’s part in this brutal and senseless murder!

Posted by Mama P on 10/16/09 at 06:57 PM | #

I’d like Larry to ask Knox/mellas if they believe in ‘Out-of-Body’ experiences?

If so, could this explain why Antonio Curatolo (among several others) seem to be under the imprression that they saw AK & RS on November 1st 2007 near Via Dela Pegola (this was merely an out-of-body apparition; they were, in actual fact & physical form, at Sollecito’s flat all night)?

I know this is too much for Larry to ask, but I really wish someone could ask them that. How else can they continue to believe their daughter’s innocence, unless they have postulated some supernatural explanation capable of contradicting several eye-witness accounts?

Posted by Scooby on 10/16/09 at 07:32 PM | #

I would ask why they think it is that neither Amanda nor Raffaele attended Meredith’s memorial service.

Also, if the explanation for Amanda’s “false” confession was the rough treatment and stressful experience of being interrogated in a foreign country, what is their explanation for Sollecito’s frequently changing alibi? He is an Italian citizen, after all.

Finally, wasn’t Amanda’s mother shocked that Amanda admitted both in a recorded prison visit as well as on the stand that Amanda didn’t remember her first call to her mother in the early morning ours (Seattle time) of the day after the murder. This occurred well before the police arrived. What did Amanda do in the meantime and why did she not call police until much later?

Posted by devorah on 10/16/09 at 08:29 PM | #

Why, on the FOAK site, they present the case in a nutshell that says:

“...The authorities were under intense pressure to solve the crime immediately and put the citizens of Perugia at ease.  So they jumped the gun.  Before they knew about Guede, they arrested three innocent people:

Amanda, who was Meredith’s housemate
Raffaele Sollecito, who was Amanda’s boyfriend
Patrick Lumumba, who ran a bar where Amanda worked part-time  
...
Lumumba was released after about two weeks because he had an airtight alibi”.

They arrested 3 innocent people, one of which was arrested on Amanda’s declaration!!! They “forgot” to specify that detail…

One more thing this bunch of people did not remember, huh?

Posted by Patou on 10/16/09 at 09:06 PM | #

as much as i dislike nancy grace’s approach and as much as i don’t like FOX News, i think nancy grace and greta van susteren would do much more probing interviews of amanda’s family than larry king.

Posted by gramjan on 10/16/09 at 09:20 PM | #

Darn, darn, darn! I will be out tonight when it is broadcast here! I hope someone will post a transcript with all the “high points”! I also hope Larry King doesn’t waffle and asks them the really tough questions!

Posted by tigger34 on 10/16/09 at 09:20 PM | #

Judy Bachrach has another lengthy piece in Vanity Fair on the case linked to CNN:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/perugia200806?currentPage=1

Posted by Sierra1049 on 10/17/09 at 12:39 AM | #

If you think that Larry King is going to ask any of the tough questions you suggest you probably have never seen Larry King’s interviews. He’s no Chris Matthews, so all you’ll hear is just Amanda’s side with no tough questions and a lot of victim playing by the parents. Not much different from what we saw in Italy with Kurt Knox when he appeared on Matrix (an Italian TV program on Berlusconi’s network) with Alessio Vinci (a former CNN Rome bureau chief).

The question I have is not for the Knoxes, but rather for Larry King himself. And it would be:

“Dear Larry: In 1995 did you invite O.J.Simpson’s relatives to your program while the trial went on? And if not, why? Wasn’t he also a victim of the justice system? He was innocent after all!”

Posted by Commissario Montalbano on 10/17/09 at 01:21 AM | #

watching larry king now and in the first 10 minutes am frustrated at the lies amanda’s parents have already spewed.

Posted by gramjan on 10/17/09 at 04:45 AM | #

I just read a recap of the interview on CNN.COM.
Not worth watching, so I will be deleting my recording of it. 

Pity all the people who watch only a few selected shows such as this.  If these were the only places I got my information, I would believe she was being framed too.

Posted by BARBM on 10/17/09 at 06:09 AM | #

Actually feel sick to my stomach after looking on the CNN website- nothing has changed in these people’s minds and the way it is reported- they are still focusing a whole years worth practically of trials on the ‘fact’ the Italian Justice system didn’t want to lose face after accusing Amanda and Raff, even when they’d found the real killer.
That’s a lot of effort just to not look like you made a mistake (though they were happy to admit they had made an error with Patrick- hmm).
Again Amanda is portrayed as the innocent victim and SHOULD have left straight after the murder was found, they seem to forget she wasn’t legally allowed to.
Sorry for ranting but it is just ridiculous that this is prime time and it is lie after lie being publicized as truth when enough evidence is available to the general public to prove the opposite.

Posted by Ginny on 10/17/09 at 12:40 PM | #

the transcript can be found at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/16/lkl.01.html

the amanda knox part begins about halfway down the page.

Posted by mojo on 10/17/09 at 12:42 PM | #

Glad I fell asleep before the 2nd showing. The transcripts made me ill this morning. I cannot believe Judy Bacharach’s comments. I am also wondering what will happen to these naysayers if the truth comes out. Can’t believe they’re actually saying there’s “no evidence” period…..

Posted by tigger34 on 10/17/09 at 02:49 PM | #

10/17/09

I saw the Knoxes on Larry King last night. Yawn. Edda looks nervous.

Larry seemed mystified by the girl’s detention. Maybe his instinct kicked in: something fishy, if Amanda seen as SO guilty in Italy.


I thought both Knoxes squirmed the most on questions about Rudy. “Did you know the boy?”, Larry asked Curt. Curt went into a low mumble. Edda sang fast in tone of G sharp (guilty), as she morphed from saying Amanda did not know Rudy at all, to having known him slightly, but Amanda had not known his name. Well, as Edda knows, Amanda does forget a lot, like frightened phone calls to her mom in dead of night.

At least Edda covered her arms, she wore brazen red. Curt seems frightened to death of her and tense as a wire fence. No doubt he knows firsthand what a loose cannon she is, highly emotive and explosive. They seem stellar opposites. Ah, marriage!

Big media interviews must terrify him. Edda seems like Amanda, blissfully unaware of consequences. Call it courage? but Curt knows loose lips sink ships. Edda delights to mention her new husband. Dig, scratch. Curt gets a trophy for self-restraint.

Curt does seem sincere and sad and baffled about sensing a vast amount of hostility against Amanda. I’m sure as a father that frightens him.

His daughter does have the power to make people dislike her. Maybe it’s a response she has courted a lifetime. She’s known for irritating others, exasperating her boss, singing loud in restaurants, plunking guitars as people watch TV. To me, she’s hostile and stupid, a real pain in the…

I agree with Tigger about Bachrach’s silly words about a corrupt Italian justice system, one system for the rich and one for the poor. Cheap shot. Judy’s clueless. She claims no shred of proof Amanda is connected to the crime. Shot in the dark. She hopes to bristle public, rich against poor. “Vanity Fair”, vain, useless.

Her magic act is to make DNA and bloody footprints disappear by throwing a beige duvet over them.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/17/09 at 04:58 PM | #

It was a shame, a real shame. Yes, Commissario Montalbano, you were right!

Larry did not even dare to ask why, if all was only about Amanda’s behavior that Italians could not understand, Raffaele was co-accused and tried together with her? Is it all only about her, as always?

And this horrible woman insulting Italy, corrupted country, brutta figura, childish people who could not face to loose face, and a narrow mided little town. You stupid woman (I do not event want to remember her name…), Perugia has de Università per gli stranieri, what does that say to you? That they are, actually, well accustomed to foreigners and different behaviors! Get a bit of culture and education before stating sillinesses on TV…

Posted by Patou on 10/17/09 at 05:21 PM | #

i am still seething.  if larry king had done any research or looked at the court transcripts, he would not have taken at face value the remarks of edda, curt, john kelly and judy b.  it was as if he was learning about the case for the first time.  and i kept thinking that professional coverage would have included some form of rebuttal.  where is the outrage?  i can only hope that somehow one of the other cable news channels will do their homework and present a balanced account.  how could edda say that the ONLY DNA in the cottage was that of rudy and get away with it?  there is just so much that has been reported on this site that gets NO attention in the american media.  sheesh.

Posted by gramjan on 10/17/09 at 06:17 PM | #

Another thing that really bothers me is the fact that Judy Bacharach said there are 2 justice systems, correct? If so, hasn’t it been widely reported that Amanda’s legal team is one of THE top defense teams in Italy? They cannot come cheap. Therefore, does this not place Amanda and Raffaele within the “rich” portion? After all, I know that Papa Sollecito is paying through the nose for his legal team and the Knox/Mellas Clan have been crying to every outlet possible about their outlay of cash. This then makes Ms. Bacharach’s statement truly moronic. Doesn’t the American media realize that even without Meredith’s murder, Amanda broke the laws in Italy by buying/having/ingesting illegal drugs. Had she been on a UW sponsored exchange, they would have made clear to her the consequences of her actions.  She is involved with Meredith’s murder because of the fact that she lived in the same house. Ok, that doesn’t imply guilt but, the LACK of dna in a home where other roomates indicated that Amanda was not the epitome of cleanliness certainly become a puzzlement as well as perhaps an indicator of involvement. I believe the judges sifted through all these indicators thoroughly before rendering their decision to bind them to trial. I admire them for the tough job they must have had and are still having through this lengthy procedure. The one thing the FOAKers have yet to acknowledge is that Amanda will still be able to live some sort of life while Meredith’s was savagely snuffed out.

Posted by tigger34 on 10/17/09 at 08:23 PM | #

Who wiped Amanda’s prints from the cottage?  Why?

Posted by Professor Snape on 10/17/09 at 11:47 PM | #

true that, professor snape.  a simple question larry king could have asked when edda said the ONLY prints were those of rudy:  “but if amanda lived there, why were there no prints of amanda’s?” i just don’t get larry king’s format.  a waste.

Posted by gramjan on 10/18/09 at 07:27 AM | #

Yeah Peter I was wishing a bit with my questions! I would have been right if these two could be trusted to answer honestly!

The interview was laughable if it wasn’t discussing the death of a young woman. The only comfort is that Knox/Mellas will be eating those words by the end of December, we will have heard the magic words “guilty”, Amanda, Raffaele & Rudy will all be in prison and poor Meredith will be one more step closer to justice being done in her name.

Posted by daisysteiner on 10/20/09 at 03:36 PM | #

It’s quite interesting that Amanda stated that she wanted to stay to ‘help’ the police. She has a twisted conception of helping. Leading them up the garden path (to another man’s door), being as forgetful and confused as she was. Even if she was innocent they needed her help like a hole in the head. And on Larry King, her parents stated that although they are not in a relationship any more, the 2 young lovers are still friends. A serious lack of judgement then, on Amanda’s part seeing as RS is selling her down the river.

Posted by pensky on 10/20/09 at 05:55 PM | #

But now, if like we all hope, the verdict is guilty, what could happen? They will appeal. But I guess ... separately, non? In this case, Raffaele might say his version to save his own skin… Can we hope that?

Posted by Patou on 10/20/09 at 06:36 PM | #

I didn’t (and don’t) watch Larry King. Mainstream media in general leave me feeling that our society is in the toilet. I would not have expected much, beyond another opportunity for the ObKnoxes to make a spectacle of themselves.

Peter said Edda had a reputation for being intensely vicious when crossed. This woman is Amanda’s professed “hero”. You can clearly see who had the balls in that marriage, and that all that matters to Edda is that her progeny be on top, at any cost. To be the Winner (at soccer, and in any contest!) means someone else has to be the loser. If that is the lens through which you look at life, then there is no room for sharing space with better-liked flatmates.

I don’t think that, at this stage, the parents honestly believe in thier daughter’s innocence. I think they can actually imagine what she is capable of, but are still desperate to keep her from the fate of a lengthy imprisonment abroad. As they have no value for Meredith ( a stranger to them, not an adoring fan of their golden girl, and, after all, a “brown” person)  how could they recognise her violent departure as having any significance on their closed-minded event horizon, apart from the inconvenience and expense it has brought them?

Madison Paxton is a twat (sorry; had to throw that in.)

My biggest question for AK; why was ‘special time” with your boyfriend more important than making even a brief appearance at Meredith’s Memorial, attended by many who knew her less well than you did?

Posted by mimi on 10/21/09 at 10:04 PM | #

I have a question, not exactly to Knox but in general as I m getting some conflicting info. I have read on this site that DNA of Knox has been found mixed with Meredith’s blood. I haven’t found it in many other articles, how come such a big thing was passed under silence like that? Also, I am a bit confused regarding the knives. Was there Meredith’s DNA on the blade at the end or was it refused as a proof by the court? Was there an other knife, because I have read somewhere there were two knives found with DNA of Knox and Meredith on it. Thanks

Posted by AnnaH on 02/25/14 at 03:21 PM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Meredith’s Perugia #18: Yet Another Wonderful Weekend Destination That Meredith Might Have Loved

Or to previous entry Croydon Guardian The Kerchers’ Hometown Paper Continues To Report Objectively