Saturday, July 29, 2017

Yet More American Lawyers Get Duped By Knox: Now Los Angeles’s Westside Bar Association

Posted by Hopeful

Duped? WBA founder and Beverley Hills lawyer Daniel Forouzan

The previous instance of this - in front of the Kentucky Bar Association - occurred only one month ago.

We shot Knox’s anticipated false claims down very extensively.

There may have been an effort to have this one fly under the radar - there was no advance media notice that we could see, only this Facebook notice which may soon scroll (or be deleted) away.

This new instance is reported by Ann Schmidt in the Daily Mail today 7/29/17. Headline: “˜Prison changed me forever’: Amanda Knox speaks about how the murder trial and four years in prison defined her

Knox spoke Thursday in Los Angeles to the Westside Bar Association, about her “two wrongful convictions” for the 2007 murder of her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, before she was acquitted. She spoke about the pain she went through.

Knox: “I went into prison as not yet a woman and I came out an adult woman, and that period defined me, “ she told KTLA Thursday.

In her appearance the Seattle native was also promoting her memoir and the Netflix documentary about her trial. “I realized the courtroom was actually a battleground for storytelling where the most compelling story and not necessarily the most truthful wins, “ she said.

Zohreen Adamjee of Fox 11 reported her saying,

Amanda Knox, sharing her story of how two wrongful convictions for the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher in Italy have changed her.

“I realized the courtroom was actually a battleground for storytelling. Where the most compelling story and not necessarily the most truthful wins,” said Knox.

In a rare L.A. appearance, Knox confronted the image the world has painted of her - addressing a room full of lawyers who fight for the wrongly convicted.

“The truth doesn’t fit in a headline or a tweet or a fairytale format,

At one point, she says prosecutors lied, telling her she tested positive for AIDS, making her make a list of every person she had ever slept with.”

“The unfortunate thing about this case is that the prosecution decided before the evidence came in, that I had to be guilty,” she said.

“Everyone in my family suffered, and the worst thing of all””they didn’t feel like they could share that with me, because I was in trouble.”

She told the L.A. law panel that she wants to use her experience to help the wrongly convicted and the Innocence Project. From the Daily Mail:

“I have to tell my story so that the echo of it can reach people.”

“I just want to show that it’s not this distant, difficult to understand thing. It’s a human thing that can happen to anyone at anytime. No one is safe, but we can understand it.”

The article is accompanied by a photo of Curt Knox wearing a black leather jacket inside the courtroom in 2009; a selfie of Knox and new beau Chris Robinson wearing matching gray felt hats during their recent trip to the Black Forest in a quaint European tourist town, I think.

There’s a stock photo of Rudy being escorted by four blue beret wearing Italian policemen in dark navy blue uniforms.

The Daily Mail comments are vitriolic, with only a few fans rooting for Knox.

“Guilty as H”¦”

“I get really bad vibes from this woman.”

“I am still not sure about her. I suspect she was involved but I’m not clear how.”

“no, committing murder changed her forever.”

The current photo of her assuming it was taken at the Los Angeles Westside Bar Association speech, was grainy and small.

It appeared she had teased her hair into a more sophisticate upswept style for the event, seemed to wear a white collared blouse, was hard to tell from bad tiny photo or maybe just my laptop distortion.

My main reaction to the blah blah blah Foxy usual speech, is that she is so wrong to condemn the prosecution for what amounts to criminal bias against her before evidence came in.

She’s a branded liar as the duped lawyers could very easily have found out. Click on the link at the top for our disparagement.

Posted by Hopeful on 07/29/17 at 10:25 PM in


Dear duped LA lawyers:

Join the company. Follow the first link at top. The evidence is actually immense. Knox is a serial liar and defamer, and your audience is only the latest to be lied to by her.

No prosecutor prejudged the case. They cant - judges monitor every step of the way and make all decisions - as EIGHT did here pre-trial.

She was given a number of opportunities to exculpate herself before trial, and failed them all (she left that out?!?!).

And KNOX FINGERED HERSELF.  She broke and “confessed” when her associate Sollecito threw her to the wolves, and several times she herself told police that she went out that night from his place and was present at the murder scene.

The Supreme Court confirmed her presence as a final finding. She was not “convicted twice”.

But she is a felon for life having served a confirmed three year sentence for calunnia.

And the prosecution did not play a trick with the HIV possibility.  They had no involvement at all.

A doctor, repeat, a doctor told her it was probably a false positive. It was solely her own people who put out the false claim that she repeated to you.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/29/17 at 11:46 PM | #

Knox at L.A. Westside Bar Association also quoted Monica Lewinsky. Knox said something to the effect that once the shame is branded to you like the scarlet letter, it is *$#@%! hard to remove. She used profanity. This was at the podium speaking to the bar association.

The clip of her Lewinsky quote was shown on local TV coverage.

I can’t imagine a worse analogy for Knox to use. Monica Lewinsky truly disgraced the White House, disrespected the marriage relationship of a man and dishonored herself and his wife (Bill and Hillary Clinton). She probably did so as a ruthless social climber willing to do anything that might advance her. She disrespected the Oval Office and deserved her shame.

Knox’s crass mention of the Monica Lewinsky scandal seems the poorest choice to use in a talk about defining herself. It seems she has fallen to new depths.

Knox is also fighting to end the death penalty, the video news coverage said.

These points were not covered in the Daily Mail, I saw them later on a link to Fox news.

More lawyers duped and the liar delighted. I cannot believe they invite Knox to these groups and take her seriously; or is it for twisted entertainment, a barrel of laughs?

Posted by Hopeful on 07/30/17 at 06:42 AM | #

Here is a brief clip of Knox at that show, playing the victim in very shrill mode. Sarcastic comments underneath.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/30/17 at 01:50 PM | #

Now we know who is promoting these appearances by Knox. See page 5 of this doc.

Here is her page:

Please could someone email use the device at left to check out her fee?

These are her “speech topics”.

Truth Matters

When 20-year-old Amanda Knox travelled to Perugia, Italy to study abroad in 2007, she looked forward to the year of her life: making friends, eating gelato, and studying Italian. She never dreamed that a month into her stay one of her roommates would be brutally murdered, and that she would be accused and convicted of that terrible crime. During her eight years on trial and four years suffering wrongful imprisonment, it seemed like the truth of her innocence didn’t matter. She had every reason to give into rage and despair. But she didn’t. This is the story of how she survived and what she learned in the process.

Waiting to Be Heard

In Waiting to Be Heard, Amanda Knox shares the truth about her terrifying ordeal. Drawing from journals she kept and letters she wrote during her incarceration, Amanda gives an unflinching and deeply personal account of her harrowing experience, from the devastation of her friend’s murder to the series of mistakes and misunderstandings that led to her arrest. She speaks intimately about what it was like, at the age of twenty, to find herself imprisoned in a foreign country for a crime she did not commit and demonized by the international media, and about the impact on her family and loved ones as they traveled back and forth to be at her side so that she would not be alone.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/30/17 at 02:10 PM | #

Re that final claim directly above. Where WAS all this demonizing by the press? The Italian media was always very restrained. The US pretty well hit the ground pro-Knox. The key legal events late 2007 and 2008 were properly reported by very few in very few outlets outside Italy.

I happened on Meredith’s case in mid 2008, pointed to it by a Duke lacrosse-team rape site (rightly) claiming innocence there. At that point the pro-Knox PR was in full roar. The defenses and families in Perugia worked on every reporter they could find. Michael Heavey and Ann Bremner had long been in full warcry in the US. Candace Dempsey too.

Even by late 2008, when Frank Sforza was bought out by the defense, those who founded PMFs predecessor were unsure if there was guilt. In fact there was an instant when Chris Mellas could have split the group. They moved pro guilt during trial but only as the evidence implacably came out.

The REAL rabid press was in the US. It was pro-Knox, anti-Italian, anti-police, and anti-Mignini almost from Day One. It quietened through trial - but only because Knox did such a terrible job. Her arrogant stint on the stand mid 2009 was the clincher for many in Italy and those well-informed in the US for guilt.

And the 2009 trial jury did a very good job. Media reports in the US and UK meant nothing to them. Read the Massei Report. They stuck to the facts.

If the defenses hadnt found a way to push Judge Chiari aside and get the total bumbler the bent Judge Hellmann to head the appeal, the pair would be locked up still.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/30/17 at 06:56 PM | #

Guilty Knox talking has been uploaded to YT: 

(if you go to settings you can speed it up (it helps in getting through it (I did x2)).

At 11 mins Guilty Knox points the finger directly at Guede.
At 28 minutes and 30 secs Guilty Knox even disrespects Meredith.
At 42 mins she says the pro Knox supporters were the ones who were kind.
At 52 mins she attacks Mignini for his tunnel vision.

The absence of any supportive words for Meredith is stark.

If only someone who knows what we know were present.

Posted by DavidB on 07/31/17 at 02:35 PM | #

Thank you DavidB for posting the link to Knox’s address to the LA Westside Bar Association.

Despite the fact that she told a whopper almost from the moment that she opened her mouth, I forced myself to listen to the whole address and to let myself go with what she was saying. I think anyone can empathize with what it must be like to be wrongly convicted. The unimaginable unfairness of that. Even now I acknowledge that there is a remote possibility that she had never envisaged nor had a direct hand in the murder of her flatmate. But then one can also say the same about Guede if one is prepared to credit his account of the night when the murder happened.

As to the performance Knox started out living up to her billing as being a nervous and inexperienced public speaker: the hesitations, embarrassed laughs and choking back on the emotion etc.

By the middle she was giving full rein to her creative writing skills as she took her audience through her introduction to Capenne prison. Who could fail to be moved? It was like a Chapter from “The Man in the Iron Mask”. Next there was sobbing, tears and anger as she professed her innocence.

By the end, however she was soaring, the audience completely under her spell as she became amusing, witty, uninhibited and self-assured.

Now this could all be regarded as the genuine response of somebody who was innocent and wrongly convicted, but I don’t think so.

We know that Knox is something of an actress and certainly not, as she was billed, inexperienced at public speaking. This was the performance of someone who is now a consummate public speaker, and deceiver, at home on the stage and in front of the television camera, though the audience was being led to believe otherwise. Like all audiences being told this they were preconditioned to will her success on her debut.

The whopper at the outset was her reference to the usual 53 hours of interrogation meme. That immediately put my back up but the audience probably didn’t know this was arrant nonsense.

Knox knows what she can get away with because she knows that most americans, even lawyers, know very little about the case.The 53 hours interrogation seems to have become a firmly embedded myth.

She told us that she had been specifically asked, when invited to address the bar association, to say what she thought had been the reason for the injustice to which she had been subjected.This came after she had already talked about Mignini, the media, character assassination etc and so in response she criticised the “tunnel vision” of the prosecutor ie Mignini.

In other words she personalized the issue, ignoring the fact that there was evidence on which she was twice convicted, laying the blame on an individual who she was yet prepared to describe as a noble and genuine individual with four daughters of his own. Pause. Laughter. Yes, deliberate and quite contrived.

It really is that simple. The PR has won. Americans really are that gullible and really do believe they know it all. To believe otherwise one has to think that they are willing conspirators in a giant fraud.

Who amongst the audience knows that in acquitting her the Italian Supreme Court stated that it was a proved fact that she was present in the cottage when her flatmate was murdered? No mention of that by Knox. An indisputable fact as referenced by the court that recently rejected Sollecito’s claim for compensation.

No mention of another accepted fact, that the break-in at the cottage had been staged. I could go on as to the mound of other evidence but of course you only have to read my book.

Knox always talks about stories. The prosecution case was a story concocted by a prosecutor with tunnel vision.

Yes, of course, if she had not been prosecuted she would not have convicted in the first place.That is obvious, but she was, because there was evidence against her and there are many, guilters such as myself, who are quite sure that the evidence was sufficient.

Instead it is Knox who has become a story teller and she has become rather good at that because, as ever, it is all about her. That is terrain she will walk over for the rest of her life. She has become her own career and the rest of it, her professed concern for the wrongly convicted, is just a means to that end.

Posted by James Raper on 08/01/17 at 12:39 AM | #

@DavidB @James Raper.THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, for the link to Knox the viper choking her audience with lies, and to James Raper for acute and Solomonic wisdom in interpreting her contrived emotions and false narrative that she honed so well for the discerning (ahem, right) Los Angeles Westside Bar Association.

How refreshing it was to see Raper’s insightful analysis of a practiced actress who was given the microphone. Outrageous lies. Appalling omissions of truth. Total falsehoods.

Knox the ingénue pose starts with the halting, shy, almost stammering faux nervousness, moves on to her indignation with the one person who was trying to destroy her, Giuliano Mignini, failing to mention the many other judges and juries who ruled against her.

She moves then to the crescendo of arrogance with her pretended gracious tip of the hat to her noble adversary, Mignini. She compliments him, false though her sentiment is, lest she be seen to have been pitted against a lightweight.

No, she wrestled for years against a Titan and prevailed of course. She battled the most highminded, staunch Catholic prosecutor who had good intentions but refused to look at exculpatory evidence, ran at her like a bull to a red caped matador in his intransigence of moral outrage, but of course in the end she prevailed over him because of her purity and factual innocence and superior virtue.

She faults him for his Catholic Biblical concept of right and wrong, sin and evil, and pities him that his outraged fatherhood having 4 daughters himself made Mignini lean in wrongheaded bias toward the Kercher family who lost a precious daughter to death.

Of course earlier in the speech she blames Mignini alone for the Kercher’s disappointment in not seeing their daughter’s killers all caught. She evades her part in the lies, and forgets the endless appeals her lawyers waged. She omits any mention of her paid Marriot PR juggernaut paid by her daddy and a probably more Sollecito arranged “bought judge Hellmann”, she forgets all these things as having delivered an unsatisfactory result to the Kerchers in the hunt for justice. No, Mignini alone failed them by pursuing Knox wrongfully. Weep, weep.

She did bring the tissue out during her speech. Drama drama, while laughing behind her mask. What fun to dupe the wise.

Knox is a piece of work. She is hardened, callous and absolutely a boldfaced liar who is not daunted by a roomful of perhaps skeptical and worldly wise lawyers who surely have seen lying defendants by the dozen. Have they learned nothing?

Knox is really over the top and should teach classes in lying for a living. She lies with impunity and without blinking.

A clue: However, follow her SNIFFS.

In the early part of her speech, she sniffs quite audibly after several of her biggest offensive lies.

Listen to the sniffs, the timing of them, what was said immediately preceding the sniff.

Then not wanting to wear out that tell, and perhaps suddenly aware of the sniffs, she later moves to lowering her eyelids a long time after telling her lies the big whoppers.

The sniffs and the long lowered eyelids that delay her returning gaze onto listeners has given her away to the well-informed.

She is a blueribbon fibber, a shameless decepticon. Truth is nowhere in her life or speech, but she’s fine with that. All she wants is the microphone and the high platform to sway and dance. She is Kaa the rock python and will squeeze her listeners to death once they are mesmerized by her poor pitiful me song.

She is weaving left and right and ready to strike the truth down like a cobra with its poison. She weaves and nods and smiles and grimaces and flatters and prevaricates and plays timid little girl who was held to impossibly high moral standards then skewered for having been merely normal, oh the inhumanity.

The media was against her but now the media Netflix is for her. Her speech tries to poison the truth. What a serpent, an unparalleled serpent to borrow a quote.

She was greatly disrespectful to the bar association when she barely even mentioned, much less thanked, her two exhausted industrious lawyers, Ghirga and Dalla Vedova, for all their hard work on her behalf to pull her out of her hellish pit.

Surely an audience of lawyers would have appreciated her discussing more of the legal angle and not merely the soap opera sob story of her having to ‘come to the window’ when ordered by a guard in Capanne. Remember the dark figure holding the umbrella at the window in Knox’s morbid Hands of Time video, and the jail guard swinging his keys?

Does Knox not have a clue that the lawyers are more than familiar with jail cells and the tragedy of life wasted in them?

If anyone innocent is behind bars of course it’s dreadful, horrible. Knox would have her audience think she was one of those rare birds. Knox says she was a special case (a foreigner and not like the ladies in Capanne with a long rap sheet for thievery, prostitution, etc.) Knox egomania always at the forefront. Narcissism incorporated. She is a special case: the wrongly accused.

She almost seems to laugh at her mother for expecting her to keep smiling after her first conviction. In same breath she tries to lionize her weeping father who warned her of a five year wait for freedom, as told to him by her lawyers. Of course her “Help me daddy, help me,” plea coupled with her tears to Daddy Curt effected his tearful sobbing breakdown, which blessed her soul. Yes, she’s powerful. Yes, he was the only one who could impress her with the legal danger she was in, her mother’s wisdom meant nothing. She prefers to receive from the divorced father whose years of neglect and emotional distance probably caused her downfall in the first place.

She only mentioned Meredith in a positive way when saying Meredith shared cookies with Knox and went grocery shopping with her, they shared a wall between bedrooms, and Meredith read “thrillers” with her on the sunny cottage balcony. She segued fast from that to Meredith’s brutal rape and murder and into indignation at having received the blame for it.

We don’t hear too much from Knox about what a marvelous precious person Meredith was. She seems to be mentioned almost as briefly as Laura and Filomena and with the same degree of interest; yet Meredith is front and center of the case.  Meredith receives short shrift, only the usual lament that Knox might have met the same fate, and in the end Knox’s (is it with hidden glee?) statement that Meredith’s family received no closure. How delightful for a murderess to crow about having escaped justice and gotten back on her feet to talk about justice to those most interested in it: lawyers. Will the tongue in cheek of Knox ever end? It is veil after veil hiding the true self.

Later when discussing the Netflix ads, she got very loud and silly nearly joking about the trailer descriptions of the documentary that used bold brassy terms to advertise like ‘VICTIM’ versus ‘MONSTER’.

Knox was grinning, almost laughing at the term victim and monster. Of course she doesn’t see herself as a monster, nor does she see Meredith as a victim she seems to imply from the lighthearted arm waves and mockery of the Netflix use of the words to shock and pull in viewers. (Then to disappoint viewers as the docu is more nuanced and not like the ads suggest, Knox titters.)

We know Knox took the real victim very lightly, and has proceeded to put herself in the position of victim. She has left Meredith as distant history.

I couldn’t agree more with James Raper that the speech is a prepackaged performance by a very capable and born actress. Do not be deceived.

She is incorrigible, defiant. She’s a complete hoax.

Raper sums up a lot of truth as he says “it is Knox who has become a story teller and she has become rather good at that because, as ever, it is all about her. That is terrain she will walk over for the rest of her life. She has become her own career and the rest of it, her professed concern for the wrongly convicted, is just a means to an end.”

Amen, brother. You got her pegged. She’s a pretender and always was and now always will be because now it’s her paycheck. Lies define her. It will get old with time, very old.

“The backslider in heart will be filled with his own ways.”

And DavidB, I couldn’t agree more. You totally nailed it with the apt and concise chart of Knox’s plotpoints in her devious speech: early on at 11 minutes she points the guilt at Guede fast, accuses him at very beginning of speech. She wants to get the “truth” of who did the crime out of the way so handily.

Next she smears Meredith by equating Knox’s own promiscuous man chasing with Meredith’s lifestyle to lessen Knox’s feelings of guilt caused by her own self debasement.

She doesn’t even realize she’s being unfair to Meredith, who was not like Knox at all. No way.

Meredith had gently turned down a marriage proposal long before Perugia.

Meredith was loyal in heart and exclusive when in a relationship. Even the distant David who had gone to Australia recalled her fondly after her death although they had broken up before she went to Italy.

Meredith was caring for Silenzi’s plants at the very beginning of their short and uncertain relationship, thus showing Meredith had a servant’s heart unlike Knox who was merely using Sollecito to the max and cheating on him within a few days of their first love. And what about Daniel in the downstairs apartment, what about Shakey? who knows?

Knox gave Sollecito a false sense of unity because she was communicating with David Johnsrud in China and planning to fly to China to see him, even while dating Sollecito and almost living at Sollecito’s apartment. She had moved in with him almost within days of meeting him, a stranger she met at a music concert.

Something Meredith Kercher would never have done, I imagine, was the pattern of Knox’s relationship games. Knox gave Sollecito’s family nothing but nightmares in the end, ramped up his drug use and got him involved in her domestic disputes with female roommates. She destroyed his wealth and his family’s bright hopes for their only son. Now he is selling cemetery service online and plodding about Italy lying to groups like Knox does. A continued lapdog. And kicked to the curb when he tried to visit Seattle after their mutual prison release.

Meredith like all of us is not perfect, but Knox wanted to equate her wild, speed dial sex-for-coke life with Federico Martini, her guy of the one night stand, she wanted to compare her highjinks such as the rockthrowing drunk orgy party she celebrated her trip to Perugia with, all her drug use witnessed at UW, with the studious, more family oriented Meredith, who was much more cautious and more loyal to relationships. She was the beautiful Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher. Get real. She and Knox were nothing alike.

And then in the end Knox blames the entire wrongful conviction on one man, a zealous but misguided user of psychics (Knox recently dated a ghost-chaser herself). She blamed her wrongful conviction on a fanatic opener of closed cases and refuser of obvious facts who preferred to chase his gut instinct and his vague suspicions of Halloween, the eccentric Sherlock Holmes, pipe-smoking Mignini. She even says at end of her speech that she is grateful to get a closer look at Mignini through the Netflix documentary.

She builds him up as her esteemed competitor. Made him esteemed then laughs at him, blames his Catholic devotion for having hounded her without cause. Right.

She evidently fails to inform the audience that her own mother is a Catholic and that she attended a Catholic school per her request or rather insistence (only to flout the Catholic rules once a student, rebellious as ever.)

Knox claims Mignini is a good man underneath all his mistakes. Is that a bone she threw to Edda and Seattle Prep? What a poseur and false prophet Knox is.

Most egregious: Knox completely skips over the main question the Bar Association asked her to address, the question of what could have been done differently in her case to avoid a “wrongful” conviction?

She dodges it. She refuses to reply in any meaningful way to that question. Why? because it might force her to discuss the real hardcore evidence of the case instead of making sweeping generalizations about Mignini.

She paints Mignini as following his overzealous Catholic instincts when he should have been weighing hard facts. These facts before him she is afraid to mention of course, not even slightly in passing, facts that Mignini was shown by labs and investigators, not psychics: the bloody footprint of hers, her DNA mixed with the victim’s blood, a knife with her DNA embedded in the blade and Meredith’s DNA also on the knife, her multiple lies (lies she airbrushes away as misunderstandings spoken under duress, or coercion; later she names the false confession expert Saul Kassin).

Knox didn’t discuss in her speech how the specific evidence against her was either wrongfully processed or inadequate, nor to the bar association did she give any innocent explanation for such evidence being found in the cottage or why the knife found with Meredith’s and Knox’s DNA on it was over at her lover’s apartment.

The evidence the prosecution brought against her? Nope, she wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole, no sir. Wonder why? There was no room in her speech for that.

But the informed know that there was much evidence against Knox other than behavior and lies (which prove much by themselves) but of the DNA evidence this website knows all too well.

None of that is in Knox’s defensive speech.

Not one mention of a broken window with glass on top of clothes that had been riffled through before any glass fell on them, a window broken after a supposed thief had searched, not before if he broke the window first to enter. And valuables lying in full sight that he didn’t touch.

And whoa and wow, did she ever eliminate Raffaele from the equation! No room for him in the speech.

Knox made only the slightest mention of Raffaele and then only to call him a nerd and equate him and all nerds with the lawyers who sat to listen to her esteemed self!!!

Knox compares laughingly the bar members to Sollecito. No joke, perhaps Knox was right. She had the bar association all cheering for her and for her lying Netflix docu. In this they seem like Raffaele, like her modern accomplices in furthering her lies.

Their honored guest speaker, a total con artist laughing at all of them yet wishing to be one of their club. If she can argue that black is white and white is black, that one and one equals seventeen, then maybe she is in the right place.

Let’s hope there were a few better informed listeners in her audience who could draw the same conclusions of guilt and her chutzpah and goldplated insolence that we have drawn from her ridiculous fairy tale speech of her brave actions in Perugia, helping the police only to be betrayed by them.

The weepiness she used for her false show of sorrow for what her family suffered, that’s rich, considering she caused them all the misery. I doubt she has ever fully regretted it. She’s probably just angry that after eight or ten years it is finally dawning on her, finally getting through her thick skull how much she did injure her own family (nothing compared to injuring Meredith, but that doesn’t compute with her at all, she feels nothing for Meredith, never did).

No, my guess is that after Knox was out of legal danger and back home enjoying her notoriety the Mellas and Knox clan finally began to unload on her some complaints and criticisms for what her Italian disaster had done to them, and that Knox heartily resents having to face it, and barely has. So she throws a bone to them in public speeches, applauding how heroic they were to support her and thanks them for their quiet suffering (which she caused, duh). She said Deanna dropped out of college due to the stress, but doesn’t update as to Deanna’s upcoming autumn 2017 nuptials.

She is a spin doctor that’s for sure, David Marriott would be proud.

Posted by Hopeful on 08/01/17 at 09:27 PM | #

Hopeful, thankyou for your current brilliant comments.
re “The evidence the prosecution brought against her? Nope, she wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole, no sir. Wonder why? There was no room in her speech for that.
But the informed know that there was much evidence against Knox other than behavior and lies (which prove much by themselves) but of the DNA evidence this website knows all too well.
None of that is in Knox’s defensive speech.”

I update an old perspective:
{August 1st, 2017, further analysis of the illogical Sollecito/Knox law-results in Italy, posted beginning on April 10, 2015:
Whereas the Supreme Court (SC) choices in the UK and US are limited to 1 SC, each with a panel of 9 Justices, the choices in Italy are from 396 Justices, divided into panels of 5 Justices!
Therefore, in Italy, a dispute, criminal or civil, has 78 panels available for SC assignment.

How is it decided in Italy to which of these 78 panels a given dispute is assigned? Is the composition of these 78 panels determined in advance? If not, then there would be 100s of possible combinations or permutations of panel compositions available.

Even if there are only 78 possible panel compositions, it is inevitable that politcal biases intrude.
Even in the UK and US SCs political biases regularly intrude.
The intrusion of “political biases” seems to be the explanation of the illogical Sollecito/Knox results in Italy.
On the actual facts Sollecito & Knox would almost certainly have been found guilty of Meredith Kercher’s murder if the events had occurred in the UK or the USA.}

Posted by Cardiol MD on 08/03/17 at 12:21 AM | #

Excellent comments above, it was a pleasure reading insightful and interesting takes from the very bright contributors at this beacon of truth site.

Conversely though, I find Knox to be a dreadful public performer and find her presenting style to be so obviously put on as to have zero credibility. There is nothing natural in her delivery, the timber of her voice or the faux emotions. The only time she ever appears genuine is when she smirks or laughs; these seem like real emotions to me. Everything else is false to its core.

In fairness though, she has now had many years to rehearse and retell this hoary old tale that she’s concocted and has admittedly honed her skills more than her numerous and disastrous YouTube appearances of yesteryear.

I suppose if you’ve lived as a hermit in a cave these last ten years and came to this case knowing nothing, you might, just might, be taken in. I’d be interested to know just how many of the assembled legal fraternity at her latest outpouring of fantasy were fooled. I wish they’d done an anonymous poll. Surely none were stupid enough to believe her completely?

Meanwhile, here’s a link to her latest attempt to appear relevant and remain in the public eye. Risible.

I remain ever hopeful that I’ll awaken to a notification on my IPad some day that something dreadful has befallen her. It couldn’t possibly happen to a more deserving person.

If only Madison could be convinced to tell what she knows….....

Posted by davidmulhern on 08/05/17 at 03:09 AM | #

Nice catch, Hopeful.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone at these Bar Association events ever call Knox on her obvious B.S.?

I have met a lot of lawyers, and many are the B.S. type of people, but this really is over the top

(1) Being traumatized by Mignini, but remembering it all in minute detail. 

(2) Claiming not to speak Italian in 2007, but remembering quotes verbatim—in Italian.

(3) The CSI staff who screwed up the scene where she is concerned, but put together a great case against Guede.  Perhaps they “selectively” contaminated the scene.

(4) Trying to portray herself as “respectful”, yet sliming others for dishonesty and drug use.

(5) Mignini persecuted her, yet was quite fair dealing with Guede

(6) Judge Paolo Micheli bungled her pre-trial (which she calls a “farce”) but handles Guede’s short term trial properly

(7) If Guede is known to Perugia Police as a knife wielding burglar—as Knox claims he was—how come the police didn’t immediately seek him out?

(8) AK claims she was harassed and sexually assaulted by prison guards, but no one seems to ask if she ever lodged a formal complaint.  You’d think Dalla Vedova and Ghirga would be shown as great advocates.

(9) Guede gets to “appeal” his 2008 conviction, while AK gets “new trials”.

(10) And I am guessing none of the lawyers at the Westside Bar Association or the Kentucky Bar Association ever read Knox’s book for logic or coherency

(11) While claiming to be forced into the spotlight, there are probably at least 60 interviews and articles AK did ....

Spring 2013—AK’s book media tour
Fall 2013—AK’s “I’m afraid to go back tour”
Winter 2014—AK’s “they’ll have to drag me kicking and screaming tour”
Fall 2014—AK’s “Im getting married tour”
Spring 2015—AK’s “I was definitively acquitted” tour
Summer 2015—AK’s “re-release of her book” tour
2015—AK’s “Im a journalist” tour
2016—AK’s “I’ll save the wrongfully accused” tour
Fall 2016—AK’s Netflix tour
2017—AK’s Bar Association tour

So .... did “anyone” at the Kentucky or Westside Bar Associations ever call her out on any of this?

Posted by Chimera on 08/05/17 at 03:20 AM | #


Thanks for spotting this.  It also seems contradictory to how people should act.

(a) AK claims to be horrified by what happened to “her friend” and that that Meredith’s “lone-wolf” killer deserves to be in jail.  However ....

(b) With this case, AK seems to be urging for “mercy” towards something who helped set a death in motion.

If one were to put a personal touch on it .... should we conclude AK should receive mercy for setting Meredith’s death in action?  Maybe Raffy or Rudy actually did it.

AS for the link you submitted, so far there is 1 comment on it.

Amanda Knox offers support, I wonder why, maybe these 2 women have something in common, they are pure evil.

Posted by Chimera on 08/05/17 at 03:44 AM | #

That’s a common theme @Chimera; Knox’s comments’ sections rarely attract a majority of positive comments.

I think human beings have evolved fairly well to spot deception as crashingly obvious as hers. It’s just a shame that the Italian final conviction bar has been set so ludicrously high. In most other western countries, she’d still be languishing in prison, where she belongs.

And, of course, I meant “timbre” of her voice in my original comment rather than “timber”. You could probably make a case for my mistake right enough given how wooden her acting is!!

Posted by davidmulhern on 08/05/17 at 12:12 PM | #

Edited the Wiki mission statement to add the following:

“It is also our mission to counter the misreporting that has characterized this case, fueled by PR agency spin, Knox family misrepresentations, and political interference in a judicial process. Justice, and the victims of crime, deserve no less”.

Posted by Ergon on 08/06/17 at 06:50 AM | #

Grrr!! The YouTube that DavidB first pointed to has gone dead.

Maybe Knox is trying to preserve her “intellectual copyright” for future fees? Did anyone download it first? I was in Washington all week and was really hoping to watch it carefully this weekend.

Here are a couple of short clips still up. The unaware compere is Lou Shapiro, who is a lawyer in LA.

<iframe width=“560” height=“315” src=“” frameborder=“0” allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width=“560” height=“315” src=“” frameborder=“0” allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width=“560” height=“315” src=“” frameborder=“0” allowfullscreen></iframe>

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/06/17 at 08:06 PM | #

Whenever she puts on that voice cracking act and pretends how upset she is, invariably she still can’t manage to summon up a single tear. Never. Her whole performance is utterly transparent.

Reminds me of the famous case we had in the UK not so very long ago of an animal called Mick Philpott who burnt some of his many children to death in a staged fire and then proceeded to do one of those Police appeal type things where he did his level best to seem upset. He employed a similar technique to Knox with the whole voice cracking thing but, like Poxy, he too found it impossible to summon up tears. He just couldn’t feign the emotions that should have gone along with his words. Knox has precisely the same problem.

Both psychopaths, both devoid of feelings, other than for themselves, and neither capable of genuine empathy with other human beings.

Philpott languishes in prison where he belongs whilst Knox is still trying to carve herself a niche in the media business. I still feel sick to my stomach when I see Knox’s poorly dressed frame and hear her obnoxious voice. I suffer gag reflex at that rictus grin she sports when she thinks she’s being funny or is smiling maniacally, usually at some totally inappropriate moment during an interview.

I have no doubt that she’s motivated in large part by a desire to continually torture Meredith’s dignified family by staying in the public eye. She seems devoid of self awareness the vile creature.

Bravo to each and every one of you here who continually expose Knox for what she is. My oh my how we shall celebrate when her luck runs out. As it surely must.

Posted by davidmulhern on 08/07/17 at 02:23 AM | #

I do keep making additions to my book where there are further developments or if I feel that a topic has not been adequately covered.

I am thinking of adding the following to Chapter 20.

“A factor that may have also played a part in negative perceptions abroad, and in particular in America, was that in the same month that Knox and Sollecito were sentenced, Guede lost his first appeal but had his sentence reduced from 30 years to 16. How could that be fair when Knox had been sentenced to 26 years even after the grant of extenuating circumstances? We know why, of course. That is how the fast track system works but it played to notions of inherent unfairness and that there was a conspiracy against Knox because she was an american.

Much was also made of certain issues propagated in the media purportedly to show the unfairness of how suspects are treated by the police, and how the accused is treated by the judiciary, in the Italian system, by comparison with the american equivalent. Much of this relied upon misinterpretation and ignorance.

The picture painted in the US media and online was that Knox had been subjected to days of harsh interrogation and ultimately her “confession”, involving tag teams of police officers, had been coerced by police misbehaviour amounting to torture. She had been given no warning that she was a suspect and had been denied the right to a lawyer – all Miranda violations that in the USA would have resulted in the evidence against her (the admission that she was at the cottage at the time of the murder), being excluded. The interrogation had been illegal and without the evidence arising from her confession she would not have been convicted.

In addition character evidence had been admitted which was clearly prejudicial and which would not have been admitted in a US court.

Furthermore, her trial for murder was corrupted by hearing the charge of calunnia, and the civil claims for compensation by the Kercher family, and by Lumumba for the defamation against him, at the same time.

The trial had occurred against a backdrop of media assassination by the media and the jury had not been sequestrated.

Some of this I have already shown is false, but it is surprising how much of it all is still accepted by talking heads.

It has taken some time but there is quite a good article by Danielle Lenth, presented to the Kentucky Bar Association Annual Convention in June 2017, a comparative study in the Amanda Knox case, in which she argues that the Italian system actually has more safeguards for an accused than in the USA, and that most of the above concerns would be misplaced had the same trial occurred in America.

In the States not all police questioning triggers the need for a Miranda warning, any more than it does in the UK for a police caution. In both cases there has to be a formal arrest or a restriction of free movement comparable to a formal arrest. The question is whether Knox would have felt, at any juncture whilst being interrogated, that she was not at liberty to leave. That is doubtful given that she attended the police station and submitted to questioning voluntarily, and after all she had made it clear on numerous occasions that she was eager to assist in the investigation. She had been questioned at the station on prior occasions and been allowed to leave.Why should this be any different?

In Oregan v Mathiason, the Court found that a Defendant invited to come to the station by the police, did so voluntarily, therefore Miranda warnings were not triggered (even though the Defendant was later arrested for incriminating statements).

In the event, and as we saw in Chapter 4, the fact that Knox placed herself at the crime scene and accused Lumumba of murder, came as something of a surprise to the police who, up to that point, and whatever suspicions they may have had, were treating her as a witness, but who was being less than co-operative about text messages on her phone. It is arguable whether the texts alone could have made her a formal suspect necessitating a formal warning and arrest though of course the police by then had prior knowledge that her alibi was in doubt due to Sollecito’s admissions. According to Knox she had already been told that. Nevertheless it is likely, in America, that she would have been given a Miranda warning for that reason. However one’s “rights” can be waived and it may have been that Knox would have done so and the evidence is (see Anna Donnino’s testimony) that she did indeed waive her rights (to a lawyer) before her first written statement to the police. Certainly, once she had named Lumumba the need for a formal warning was requisite, but not given as the police needed context as grounds for pulling Lumumba in for questioning.

To say that the interrogation was illegal is of course nonsense. What was an issue was whether her “confession”, oral and in two signed statements, was admissable in evidence and it was ruled that it was not as far as the charges connecting her to the murder were concerned. In large part this was because waiver of rights is not an option under Italian law once the person being questioned is deemed a suspect.

All her statements to the police were in evidence as far as the charge of calunnia was concerned.This offence was a stand alone matter in that one can commit the offence whilst being entirely innocent of anything else.Whether being tried on this charge at the same time as that for murder and other linked offences was prejudicial, we can look to the Motivation of the trial judge and note that he did not motivate her conviction for calunnia until after he had motivated the reasons for her convictions for the murder and related charges. It did not receive anything like the prominence ( a page at most) that the evidence in the rest of the trial had.

It is also fairly obvious that the lack of a Miranda type warning can not in any way excuse, or exclude the evidence for, the offence which she then committed; naming and blaming Lumumba, effectively as a witness, for a horrible murder.

There was quite a lot of character evidence against Knox at the trial. I mentioned some of this in my background on Knox, and on Sollecito, in Chapter 1, as well as elsewhere. What was mentioned in the media was not, of course, evidence. I should start by saying that all such evidence produced by the prosecution is relevant unless the probative element of such evidence is outweighed by it’s prejudicial element. It could, for instance, be relevant to propensity and motive. In America, and in the UK, it is a matter for the trial judge to determine. In Italy, as a general rule, it is admitted, to be heard but not to form the jury’s verdict. The difference lies in each system’s safeguards against the jury’s improper use of the prejudicial evidence. In America, if admitted, it is usually accompanied by a jury instruction, which juries can have a tendency to disregard. In Italy, any mention of character evidence in the Motivation for the verdict can be reviewed by the Appellate Court to ascertain whether it was considered in it’s proper light in relation to the evidence as a whole.

In the trial verdict Motivation there was no mention of any prejudicial character evidence.”

Any mistakes?

Posted by James Raper on 08/11/17 at 12:54 PM | #

Any mistakes?:
Oregon v. Mathiason

Posted by Cardiol MD on 08/11/17 at 07:13 PM | #

Excellent article! It’s very interesting to note that since Amanda Knox has publicly humiliated herself with her support of Michelle Carter, many of her previous supporters are now turning against her! For sure the Westside Bar Association has now heard about that and has to be scratching their heads. So, in an effort to rescue her waning credibility, she doubled down on her support for Carter and wrote this truly insane quote:

“I’m going to go out on a limb now, but…maybe nobody deserves punishment. Not even the worst criminals. Everyone in society deserves to be safe from wrongdoing. Victims deserve to have their wounds cared for and acknowledged.”

Amanda’s View: More on Michelle Carter 08/05/2017 by Amanda Knox

Posted by Johnny Yen on 08/11/17 at 07:48 PM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Meredith’s Perugia #38: Popular Beaches In Italy’s Deep South She Will Never See

Or to previous entry Where Should You Have Invested This Year? The US Or Italy?