Sunday, August 12, 2018

Kidnapper Of UK Model In Italy Gets 16 Years, His Claims “It Was A Hoax” Don’t Sway Italians

Posted by Peter Quennell

Prosecution recording of re-enactment entered into evidence

More hoaxes bite dust in Italy

Kidnapper Lukasz Herba’s intent according to model Chloe Ayling was to auction her for $300,000.

He claimed otherwise, and that she was complicit. Numerous English-language YouTubes probably not watched much in Italy (see one below) attempted to poke holes in her story and to bash Italian justice yet again.

The Italian court and media simply brushed this aside as ill-informed attention-seeking. In Italian (surprise, surprise) they got to hear about many more holes in Herba’s story, including recordings from jail of his calling his mother to get her to destroy evidence.

The court heard how Herba portrayed himself as a “mythomaniac adventurer” who claimed to have kidnapped and killed before in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the email he sent to Chloe’s agent he attached pictures of her lying semi naked on the floor in an unconscious state.

The court accepted that Chloe (who is from Coulsdon, Meredith’s home town) had acted smartly, in ways most proven to see kidnappees gain freedom and come out alive. Case closed for Italians.

In ways reminiscent of Elizabeth Smart she has repeatedly given interviews in English explaining the way out that worked for her.

in June the Italian court sentenced Herba to 16 years and 9 months. His brother is next in line.

With Italian and now UK opinion seemingly strongly behind her, Chloe Ayling is a popular draw on British TV.

She may sue some of the hoaxers. Now there is an idea.

Posted on 08/12/18 at 12:53 AM by Peter QuennellClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (2)

Thursday, August 02, 2018

The DNA Hoax: Ways To Rebut The Drive-By Critics Of The Case On The DNA Dimension

Posted by The Machine




1. Post Overview

There were two starkly contrasting takes on the DNA evidence in Italy. The zombie hoax version still somewhat persists in the US and UK. 

In fact, Dr Stefanoni’s team in 2007-2008 and the Carabinieri labs in 2013 did absolutely impeccable work - with defense observers always looking on, and never, ever complaining or intervening.

The misrepresenting of the DNA evidence in 2011 by the illegal “independent” consultancy of Conti & Vecchiotti was shot down in all points in this court presentation which, amazingly, was seemingly unknown to the 2015 Supreme Court.

But too many people do not know that Judge Chieffi from the Supreme Court said there was no evidence of contamination in his report. Or that Dr Biondo carried out a peer review of Dr Stefanoni’s forensic investigation.  Or that a world-renowned DNA expert said the DNA evidence against Sollecito was “very strong”.

For lawyers and others here seeking to understand the real case at courtroom depth an overview of all our posts is now being assembled in our little factory.  I do recommend these posts as prior reading.

Click for Post:  The Hundreds Of DNA Samples Taken And Analyses Done, Shown In Table Form, by Olleosnep

Click for Post:  Netflixhoax 13: Omitted - How The DNA Processes And Evidence Points Were Deliberately Misrepresented, by KrissyG

Click for Post:  Despite Disinformation From Apologists And Even Supreme Court, Law & Science Support Damning DNA, by James Raper

2. Effective Points Worth Hammering

1. Is LCN DNA evidence fit for purpose and scientifically robust?

Amanda Knox’s supporters have lambasted the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito because included LCN DNA evidence, but a number of G7 countries have accept LCN DNA evidence as valid, including America, for years.

So is it robust? In a word: yes. LCN DNA evidence was first used by the Forensic Science Service in England in 1999. Professor Brian Caddy carried out an independent review of LCN DNA evidence in 2008 and concluded it was fit for purpose and scientifically robust.

“I am satisfied low template DNA is fit for purpose within the criminal justice system.

“I found that the technique, as developed by all the forensic suppliers, is scientifically robust and appropriate for use in police investigations.”

Andrew Rennison, the Forensic Science Regulator, said: “I’m satisfied the science is safe and fit for purpose, but there is work to be done around collection and interpretation.”

The Crown Prosecution Service has listed the countries where LCN DNA evidence has been used as evidence.

“LCN methods have been used as evidence in a number of countries, ie; United States (New York), New Zealand, Holland, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Austria and Switzerland.”

2. Is there any evidence the bra clasp ane knife were contaminated?

No. Judge Chieffi - who is an equal counterpart of Judge Marasca - pointed out in his Supreme Court report that the claim of contamination is an unproven hypothesis and there is no evidence of contamination:

“The unproven hypothesis of contamination was taken as an axiom, once again despite the available information, to nullify the probative value of the data collected by the consultants as per article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, although the data acquired did not support this conclusion.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 94).

3. Was Dr Stefanoni’s forensic investigation peer-reviewed?

Yes. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings in 2008. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

He also praised the work of Dr. Stefanoni and her team: “We are confirming the reliability of the information collected from the scene of the crime and at the same time, the professionalism and excellence of our work.”

4. Was Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp?

Yes. This wasn’t disputed by any forensic scientist in court. Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests.

“Both by the quantity of DNA analyzed and by the fact of having performed the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit; an exhibit that was therefore handled by the defendant on the night of the murder.” (The Nencini report, page 267).

David Balding, a professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London, analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded that the evidence was “strong”

“…because Sollecito is fully represented in the stain at 15 loci (we still only use 10 in the UK, so 15 is a lot), the evidence against him is strong…”

In Andrea Vogt’s excellent BBC documentary, he said the bra clasp evidence against Sollecito was “very strong’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erla7Ley4Tw&t=1892s

DNA expert Luciano Garofano said the result of the DNA test on the bra clasp was “perfect”. He is a former Caribinieri General and has more than 32 years of forensic experience

5. Could the bra clasp have been contaminated in the laboratory?

Dr Stefanoni last handled Sollecito’s DNA 12 days before she analysed the bra clasp. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory.

Judge Chieffi noted that Conti and Vecchiotti had excluded contamination in the laboratory.

“Laboratory contamination was also excluded by these experts [Conti and Vecchiotti].” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 92).

Judge Chieffi also noted in his report that the negative controls to exclude laboratory contamination had been carried out:

“…since all the negative controls to exclude it [contamination] had been done by Dr Stefanoni…” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 93).

When the defence experts observed the DNA tests being carried at Dr Stefanoni’s laboratory in Rome, they had no objections::

“…the probative facts revealed by the technical consultant [Stefanoni] were based on investigative activities that were adequately documented: sampling activity performed under the very eyes of the consultants of the parties, who raised no objection…” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 93).

6. Could the bra clasp have been contaminated in the cottage?

Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, excluded environmental contamination at the Massei trial because “DNA doesn’t fly.”

Professor Francesca Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it

Professor Novelli also ruled out environmental contamination. He pointed out in court there’s more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perugia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust at the cottage.

“The hook contaminated by dust? It’s more likely for a meteorite to fall and bring this court down to the ground.”

He also ruled out contamination in the laboratory.

“Prof. Novelli said that the origin or vehicle of any contamination must be demonstrated: he added that at the Scientific Police laboratory he had seen the 255 samples [68] extracted, had analysed all the profiles, and had not found any evidence of contamination; he ruled out in an absolutely convincing manner that a contamination agent could be present intermittently, or that DNA could remain suspended, and later fall down in a specific place.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 94).

7. Could a forensic investigator have contaminated the bra clasp?

Highly unlikely. As far as I’m aware, there is still not one peer-reviewed scientific study published in a prestigious journal demonstrating tertiary transfer of touch DNA.

Why should a judge or juror favor a lower probability transfer scenario - tertiary transfer via sloppy forensic technicians - over a higher probability transfer scenario - primary transfer in the course of murder and/or staging - given the fact Sollecito also gave multiple false alibis and lied repeatedly to the police, the bloody footprint matched the precise characteristics of his foot, one of the bare bloody footprints revealed by Luminol matched his foot and Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade of his kitchen knife?

8. How did Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA get onto Meredith’s bra clasp?

Judge Chieffi pointed out that Sollecito’s DNA was never found alone at the cottage. The only trace of his DNA was mixed with Knox’s DNA on the cigarette butt in the kitchen. This means the mixed DNA sample could not have been the source of the DNA on the clasp because Knox’s DNA would also have been found on it.

Sollecito’s DNA was found on the exact part of Meredith’s bra clasp that had been bent out of shape during the attack on her. It is far more plausible that his DNA ended up on the deformed clasp because he applied enough pressure to bend it out of shape than to believe his DNA was carried by a gust of air or floated on a speck of dust and landed on it by some incredible coincidence.

9. Were there several other male DNA profiles on Meredith’s bra clasp?

Professor Balding and Luciano Garofalo both said there was the DNA profile of one unknown male on Meredith’s bra clasp.

“...in some cases we have peaks that correspond to a fourth person.” (Professor Balding).

“The fourth person is not Guede, it seems. This mystery fourth person hasn’t been mentioned much.” (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending).

There wasn’t a full DNA profile for this unknown male. Professor Balding didn’t attach any importance to it and explained these extra peaks are routine:

“The extra peaks are all low, so the extra individuals contributed very little DNA.  That kind of extraneous DNA is routine in low-template work: our environment is covered with DNA from breath and touch, including a lot of fragmentary DNA from degraded cells that can show up in low-template analyses.  There is virtually no crime sample that doesn’t have some environmental DNA on it, from individuals not directly involved in the crime.”

10. Was Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade of Raffaele Sollecito’s kitchen knife?

Yes. Undoubtedly. A number of forensic experts - Dr Stefanoni, Dr Biondo, Professor Novelli, Professor Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson, Greg Hampikian and Bruce Budowle - have all confirmed that sample 36-b, which was extracted from the blade of the knife, was Meredith Kercher’s DNA.

“In his report submitted on 6 September 2011 to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia, Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant of the Prosecutor, wrote the following observations on this point: “[...] the consultant [Stefanoni] also did a statistical calculation with the purpose of determining the probability that the profile could belong to someone other than the victim. The calculation of the Random Match Probability came to 1 chance in 300 million billion. This value computed in this manner makes it possible to attribute the analyzed trace with absolute certainty to exactly one person, which the consultant holds to be the victim Meredith Kercher.” (Page 11 of the above-cited report) (The Nencini report, page 230).

11. Could the knife have been contaminated?

Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means laboratory contamination can be ruled out.

As I’ve already pointed out, Conti and Vecchiotti ruled out contamination in the laboratory.

Judge Micheli ruled out contamination during the collection phase because the knife was sequestered from Sollecito’s apartment on Corso Garibaldi by a different police team to the one that collected evidence from the cottage on Via della Pergola on the same day.

12. Could Meredith’s DNA got onto the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen knife by accident?

Sollecito claimed in his prison diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking:

“The fact there is Meredith’s DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem.”

Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. He later admitted that the above account isn’t true.

13. Didn’t new tests on the knife prove Meredith Kercher’s DNA wasn’t on the blade?

A further DNA sample 36-b was tested by the Carabinieri RIS DNA experts Major Berti and Captain Barni in 2013. The sample was attributed to Amanda Knox. A different test on a different DNA sample doesn’t invalidate the test result of sample 36-b.

14. Did Dr. Stefanoni and the forensic technicians break international protocols?

No. There is no universally accepted set of international standards for the collection and testing of DNA evidence. DNA protocols vary from country to country, and in America they vary from state to state. For example, New York state accepts LCN DNA tests in criminal trials.

The Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI - the European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr. Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:

“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.

Conti and Vecchiotti cited obscure American publications such as the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook and the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Physical Evidence Handbook, not international protocols. The Scientific Police are under no obligation to follow the DNA protocols of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory.

Posted on 08/02/18 at 12:20 AM by The MachineClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (10)

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Two More Shockers The Pro-Knox Trashers Of Italian Justice Prefer That You Don’t Know

Posted by Peter Quennell



Most are not even charged - where have you heard that before?!

Shocker One: Too Many Women

Worldwide, female inmates have increased 600% in thirty years. Who leads that growth? The United States.

As for Italy there’s hardly been any growth at all (even despite this) and the total of female inmates is only HALF the US female rate.

Under pressure, now that the facts are out, the US government is scrapping plans to build even more female prisons. Nevertheless

Although men comprise over 90% of inmates, and commit about 80% of violent crime, the United States has a much higher percentage of incarcerated women in jail than other developed countries.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines jail as follows:

“A place of confinement for persons held in lawful custody; specifically :such a place under the jurisdiction of a local government (such as a county) for the confinement of persons awaiting trial or those convicted of minor crimes.”

There are far too many women in jail (not convicted of any crime) waiting for trial—because they cannot afford bail. Studies have indicated that women in jail had an approximate annual median income of $11,000. Minority women had an even lower annual median income.

With such a low income, how could a woman afford even a $10,000 bail bond. Although a bail bondsman would accept 5-10% of the ordered $10,000 bail, most low income women do not have $500—$1,000. The majority of the jailed women are the only parent contributing the only financial support for their children.

Because many of the jailed women are the primary caretakers of their children, they are not usually considered flight risks.

The painful conclusion–incarcerated women (not convicted) are held in jail waiting for their court date, because they are poor. This shameful condition can be easily cured by judges acting humanely, when imposing bail.

The plight of poor women in jail, waiting for trial, is another example of our broken system of justice.

Shocker Two: Too Many Men

Justice systems of other countries take Italy’s humane pioneering very seriously.

Not least because the rate of released Italian inmates rearrested, known as recidivism, is among the world’s very least.

In part because of treatment for mental health issues and the serious in-demand skills training in Italian prisons for when they emerge.

At the opposite end of the scale? Yes, again. The United States.

Though you never ever hear this from the American trashers of Italian justice, the US is now at the very opposite end of this scale.

Overall, 68 percent of released state prisoners were arrested within three years, 79 percent within six years and 83 percent within nine years.  The 401,288 released state prisoners were arrested an estimated 2 million times during the nine years after their release, an average of five arrests per released prisoner.

On an annual basis, 44 percent of prisoners were arrested during the first year after release, 34 percent were arrested during the third year and 24 percent were arrested during the ninth year.  Five percent of prisoners were arrested during the first year after release and were not arrested again during the 9-year follow-up period.

All the proposed solutions would in effect move the US closer to Italy.

One is to simply stop putting so many people in prison in the first place. We have noted a few times that over 200,000 are wrongly there through forced plea-bargains right now.

Not much action on that. The money-grubbing Innocence Project turns a blind eye to that.

The one large initiative in the country is to decriminalize drugs. Proposition 64, which was endorsed by 56 percent of California voters 20 months ago, made marijuana legal.

And drug-related arrests are through the floor. There has been a slight uptick in some crimes but no sign the overall mood is hardening.

Posted on 07/24/18 at 04:30 PM by Peter QuennellClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (25)

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Single-Attacker/Lone-Wolf Hoax #1: How It Is Annihilated By The Forensic Evidence

Posted by Cardiol MD



Judge Micheli in 2008 first ruled impossible Guede did crime alone

1. Series Overview

Our Interrogation Hoax Series currently rests with the posts here and here.  In particular for documentation and translation reasons, that series took us three years.

In contrast, this series nailing the Single-Attacker/Lone-Wolf Hoax and its many associated hoaxes (about the crime-scene, about Guede, etc) should take just a few weeks as the evidence against has been massive and stark all along.

Despite almost daily smears of Guede, the hapless defense counsel never made a telling case for him alone. They themselves abandoned their hoax attempts in 2010 and 2011 when (as a post here will show) they wheeled out witnesses Avielo and Alessi to show… that Guede did NOT act alone!!

And the ever-feuding Sollecito and Knox were themselves of zero help in nailing Guede. 

2. Availability Of Forensic Proof

This post launching the series is about what the telling forensic evidence says. Summaries of it occupy large parts of the translated Micheli, Massei, Nencini, and Supreme Court reports and all those courts conclude that Meredith did succumb to a pack attack.

Author’s note: The original sources were all in the Italian language, including both non-medical Italian and medical Italian. TJMK relied on a valiant team of unpaid translators which generally used non-medical English.

None appeared to use medical English, such as that used in Dorland’s Dictionary of Medical Acronyms & Abbreviations e.g. Dorland adheres to the International Nomina Anatomica Convention which uses the word Superior, as in the term Superior Thyroid Artery. Non-medical translations into English call that structure the Upper Thyroid Artery. Here I use medical English.

Details of the Fatal Sequence have been somewhat masked, over the years for humanitarian considerations (key parts of the trial were closed to the press), but such details should be available to readers who wish to more-objectively assess culpability.

3. The Final Fatal Sequence

In my opinion the most decisive fact excluding the single attacker theory is the fact that 2 different knives unquestionably were used to murder Meredith on the night. 

There were 2 major, penetrating knife-wounds into Meredith’s neck; one entering on the left-side, and one entering on the right-side, which was made by a pocket-knife of the size Sollecito customarily carried.

The latter wound could not have been made by whatever knife entered on the left-side as the size discrepancy was huge. Two knives had to have been used.

Here is what I have deduced:

Massei disagreed with the Reconstruction proposed by the Prosecution, which depicted Meredith on her knees, facing the floor: Massei concluded that Meredith was in a standing position, facing her attackers:

MASSEI PAGE372-373: “…considering the neck wounds sustained, it must be believed that Meredith remained in the same position, in a standing position, while continuously exposing her neck to the action of the person striking her now on the right and now on the left. Such a situation seems inexplicable if one does not accept the presence of more than one attacker who, holding the girl, strongly restrained her movements and struck her on the right and on the left because of the position of each of the attackers with respect to her, by which it was easier to strike her from that [ End of p372; Start of p373: ] side. …”

Meredith’s autopsy was performed by Dr. Luca Lalli, but his detailed findings are not included in Massei’s report, they still await their translation into English.The Massei report includes only a limited paraphrase of Lalli’s findings.

Here I reiterate the relevant certainties which I first posted in Those Pesky Certainties Cassation’s Fifth Chamber May Or May Not Convincingly Contend With #3 on Wednesday, May 20, 2015.

4. Certainties re Final Fatal Sequence:

Meredith‘s torture & murder was perpetrated by 3 people, took place in her room at ‘Number 7, Via della Pergola.’ in Perugia, Umbria, Italy on the night of November 1-2, 2007. This room measured eleven by nine and a half feet, contained a single bed, a bedside table, and a cupboard. The space was small but enough for Meredith and three perpetrators.

CERTAINTY ONE re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

In “Darkness Descending - the Murder of Meredith Kercher” Paul Russell (Author), Graham Johnson (Author), and Luciano Garofano (Author) give clearer, more detailed descriptions of Dr. Lalli’s findings than Massei does.

On pages 72-74 of DD it emerges that the cut (Stab A) made by A large knife in Meredith’s neck was on the left-side, ran obliquely from left-to-right, almost parallel to her jaw, and slightly Upwards.

CERTAINTY TWO re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

DD does state that the knife entered 8cm vertically below her left ear, 1.5cm horizontally towards the front of her neck, but does not specify the cut’s length.

CERTAINTY THREE re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

A large knife created a gaping wound, visible only through the opened-skin of the Left-Side, continuing its travel under the skin, traveling across the mid-line plane, towards the right-side, exposing the oral cavity, fatty tissues and throat glands. Important jaw muscles were also severed.

CERTAINTY FOUR re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

As DD states, there was another stab wound (Stab B) on the right-hand side of Meredith’s neck, 1.5 cm long, penetrating 4 cm subcutaneously.

CERTAINTY FIVE re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

Stab B was made by a Knife smaller than the above large knife.

CERTAINTY SIX re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

The wound was shallow, did not create a gaping wound, did not cut important subcutaneous structures, but did create a route to the exterior through which blood from Stab A, then created by the large knife on Meredith’s left side could also exit to Meredith’s right side.

CERTAINTY SEVEN re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

The large knife had damaged no significant vessels of the Left-Side.

CERTAINTY EIGHT re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

Blood also flooded the subcutaneous tissues around the breech in the right-hand side of Meredith’s airway caused by the knife-stab on the left-side of her neck.

CERTAINTY NINE re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

This resulted in Meredith’s inhalation of her own blood.

CERTAINTY TEN re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

Meredith stops screaming, but now her blood seems to be everywhere, including over her attackers, and they quickly abandon her, already evading the accountability they are fully aware is theirs.

CERTAINTY ELEVEN re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

As DD comments, during Meredith’s Autopsy surprise was expressed that the Jugular Veins and Carotid Arteries (of both right and left sides) were intact.

Others who read about this murder, had concluded-then that the killers must have known about the major blood vessels (MBVs), but not about branches-of-Carotid-branches such as little RSTA.

5. Beyond Any Reasonable Doubts re Final Fatal Sequence:

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT RE FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

The 3 murderers were AMANDA KNOX. RAFFAELE SOLLECITO, & RUEDE GUEDE.)

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT ONE re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

Accepting Massei’s conclusion, Knox and Sollecito were standing-up and facing Meredith in Meredith’s room. Knox, Sollecito and/or Guede, were participating in the restraining of Meredith.

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT TWO re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

Sollecito (or Guede) was holding the smaller Knife, probably in his right hand. This smaller knife made Stab B.

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THREE re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

Stab B preceded Stab A, and caused Meredith’s scream.

When Meredith screams Knox plunges Knife36 into Meredith’s neck in the above long-axis direction, from left to right, transecting Meredith’s Hyoid bone, first opening Meredith’s airway to the atmosphere, then transecting Meredith’s Right Superior Thyroid Artery.

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT FOUR re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

Knox was holding Knife36, probably in Knox’s right hand, against the left side of Meredith’s neck with Knife36’s point directed slightly upwards the right side of Meredith’s neck, the blade-label facing towards Knox, the palm of Knox’s right hand also facing towards Knox and the long-axis of Knife36 angled a few degrees above horizontal.

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT FIVE re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

When Meredith screams Knox plunges Knife36 into Meredith’s neck in the above long-axis direction, from left to right, transecting Meredith’s Hyoid bone, first opening Meredith’s airway to the atmosphere, then transecting Meredith’s Right Superior Thyroid Artery.

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT SIX re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

A thin stream of bright-red blood spurted from this artery to its exterior environment, probably through the cuts made in her skin to the outside by both knives.

(Consistent with bleeding from both cuts, Follain, in his book “A Death In Italy” states that Guede saw that blood was coming out of the left side of Meredith’s neck. Follain also states that Francesco Camana of the Rome forensic police, in Camana’s written report, that spurts of blood in the middle of Meredith’s chest made her sweatshirt more bloody on the right side than on the left side)

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT SEVEN re FINAL FATAL SEQUENCE

The large knife was Knife-36, which had been brought to the murder room from Sollecito’s kitchen.

6. Other Essential Facts Corroborating Roles of AK & RS

1. AMANDA KNOX admitted she was present at place and time of Meredith’s murder.

2. AMANDA KNOX’s DNA was found on the top of the handle of the Knife-36

3. MEREDITH KERCHER’s DNA was found on the blade of Knife-36.

4. AMANDA KNOX admitted that MEREDITH had never been in Sollecito’s apartment.

5. A second sample of Knox’s DNA was also found on Knife-36, where the blade goes into the handle. This second sample was an LCN sample of mixed DNA, and was statistically determined to be Knox’s DNA. (RIS Berti & Barni 2013 report)

6. A DNA mixture compatible with Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA was found on another stained pocket knife that Sollecito had.

7. Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. 

8. 7 samples yielded DNA mixtures compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s DNA, Sollecito’s DNA or Guede’s DNA.

9. A DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s   DNA and Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse near the zipper.

10. A DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was found in three blood traces in the bathroom- on the bidet drain plate, in the sink and on a plastic container containing cotton swabs.

11. A DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was also found in a Luminol-revealed blood stain on the floor of Romanelli’s room, and in a Luminol-revealed bloody footprint in the corridor.

12. A second Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

13. A sample of blood from the small bathroom faucet yielded ONLY Knox’s DNA.

14. Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse, the left sleeve of her sweat jacket, her bra strap, in Ms. Kercher and on the toilet paper in the large bathroom.

7. Forensic Conclusions

In Common Law Jurisdictions, such as U.S. Federal Courts, U.K., Canada, & Australia, etc, Knox and Sollecito, as well as Guede would surely have been found Guilty.

The decisions in Italy widely suggest to Italians the influence of Sollecito‘s Mafia connections of which Knox is a lucky collateral beneficiary.

Posted on 07/11/18 at 08:45 AM by Cardiol MDClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (11)

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Knox v Knox 8: How She Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #70 To #90

Posted by Chimera





(Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.)

1. The Full Series And What It Proves

And so we conclude this expose of yet another 90 Knox lies.

This series demonstrates how Knox, testifying for two days on the stand in 2009, was blatantly contradicted by Knox herself 90 times in her 2013 book.

The extended-version 2015 paperback corrected NOT A SINGLE LIE despite the numerous obvious defamations. Italy still has another several years to charge Knox, just as Sollecito was charged and put on trial in a Florence court.

In that Florence court Sollecito of course lost. He himself conceded he had maliciously made things up. He could really offer no defense.

Knox’s book is much, much worse. Her malicious stalking knows no bounds.

1. Click for Post:  How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies OVERVIEW

2. Click for Post:  How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #1 To #16

3. Click for Post:  How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #17 To #26

4. Click for Post:  How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #27 To #34

5. Click for Post:  How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #35 To #38

6. Click for Post:  How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #39 To #52

7. Click for Post:  How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #53 To #69

8. Click for Post:  How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #70 To #90

2. Telling Contradictions 70 To 90

70 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  You underwent pressure, as you said, from the police who were asking you for information. Was that also true in your interrogations of the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th, or only for the one from the 6th?
AK:  The police repeated their questions and wanted, above all, for me to tell them who could have done this, but I didn’t know how to respond. I told them about all the people that I knew. The most intense pressure was in the Questura between Nov 5 and 6, because I never lived through anything like that. Before that, they would ask me and then say “Okay, fine.” They wouldn’t say, for example, “Maybe you don’t remember well” or “Maybe you’re a liar”, for example. The didn’t say those things.
GCM:  So, there was a difference. All right. Go ahead.
FM:  So the other statements were made in a more natural, a lighter way.
AK:  Lighter, yes. But still always repeating.
FM:  Who was present, the same policemen or different ones?
AK:  There were so many policemen…
FM:  When you say “so many”, what do you mean? Five, ten, fifteen, twenty?
AK:  Well…
FM:  For you, “so many” means how many?
AK:  In the sense that I didn’t recognize the policemen from one time to another. There were some who were always there, for example, like the person who led the interrogation on the 5th. That was a person who was already there the first days that I was there. But in the sense that one person said they were from Rome, one was from Perugia, one from Cabria that was going to arrive, so it was difficult to know them all.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] AK in one sense seems to be backtracking on the number who were actually there.  Of course, no explanation as to why they would all be there to spring this trap on AK.  Remember, she showed up: (a) uninvited; (b) unannounced; and (c) refused to leave

71 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  In your room in via della Pergola, was there a central light?
AK:  There was one but it didn’t work, so I used the little bedside lamp.
FM:  The lamp.
AK:  The little lamp, yes.
FM:  And you previously stated that you didn’t look for the lamp either; you only looked for your computer when you went into your room. You didn’t look for your money, you didn’t look for your lamp.
AK:  So, I saw the window only the second time that I entered the house. The first time I went into the house I didn’t even think of looking to see if anything was missing, because I saw going into the living room, it really looked like someone had just gone out of the house, everything was in order, just as I had left it. But the second time, I didn’t even think of looking for the lamp: the computer was the important thing for me. All my documents were in it.
FM:  But the first time, when you took your shower and then you returned to your room, first you undressed and then you dressed, all this, you did it without any light?
AK:  It was the middle of the morning, there was already light.
FM:  Did you open your shutters or were they already open?
AK:  I don’t remember.
FM:  To get to your room, to get to the window, you walked in the dark?
AK:  But it wasn’t dark in my room. Often—
FM:  I don’t know, I wasn’t there.
AK:  All right. Usually I only turned on that little lamp at night. Really at night, or in the evening, when I wanted to…So I didn’t even think of turning it on. It really wasn’t dark in my room when I went in.
GCM:  It wasn’t dark, but where was the light coming from? Natural light?
AK:  Natural.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] No mention of any of this.  The missing lamp is only a red flag, and despite repeated questioning, AK dances around it

72 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  You mentioned to your friends in the Questura that according to you, Meredith died slowly.
AK:  They said…
FM:  How did you come to say that?
AK:  I heard that her throat was cut, and from what I saw in CSI [Crime Scene Investigation] of these things, these things are neither quick nor pleasant. So when they said “We hope she died quickly,” like I don’t know, in some other way, I said “But what are you saying, her throat was cut, good Lord, bleargh.” I had remained at that point, that brutality, this death that was really blechh, that made a horrible impression. That was what really struck me, that fact of having your throat cut. It seemed so gross, and I imagined that it was a very slow and terrifying death. So when they said “We hope it was like this,” I said “No, I think it was really gross, disgusting.”
FM:  And do you know if, when Meredith was murdered, she screamed or shrieked?
AK:  I don’t know.
FM:  Did someone tell you?

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] This also is missing from the book.  Aside from being cold, there is no innocent way Knox could actually have known.

73 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

AK:  Tell me? No, uh, no. No, I didn’t know if she screamed or not.
FM:  Did you talk about it with someone immediately after?
FM:  Did you talk about it with someone immediately after, when you were there at the house, about whether she screamed or shrieked?
AK:  Not about that, no.
FM:  And did the police talk to you about the scream or not, when they interrogated you on the 2nd, the 3rd or the 4th. Did they talk to you about the fact that she screamed?
AK:  I don’t remember.
FM:  Why did you say yesterday that they did? If I’m not mistaken.
GCM:  Not on the 4th.
AK:  The 2nd, 3rd and 4th…..On the 5th and 6th, they asked me if I heard the scream.
FM:  So on the 5th and the 6th, the police told you that she screamed.
AK:  They asked me if I had heard her scream. I said no. They said, but how is it possible that you didn’t hear her scream, if she was killed so near you? I said, “I don’t know, maybe I had my ears covered.”

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Text missing on this topic

74 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  On November 4, at 3:24 in the morning, you wrote a very long e-mail to 25 people. Okay?
AK:  Yes.
FM:  All right, but why did you write it at 3 in the morning, after having been in the Questura, where you said you were very tired, nervous, stressed and so forth. I mean, how did you come to write such a long e-mail instead of going to bed. This is the question.
AK:  Precisely because I was stressed and felt exhausted because of the police, I had to somehow let off steam, because the whole situation was so heavy that I couldn’t even sleep. So I needed to write. I needed to let off steam by writing, especially to the people who were worrying about me. So I addressed it to all the people whose e-mail addresses I had in my e-mail. I wrote down everything and sent it to them. Then I felt better.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 8, Page 96] As many answers as the police had demanded of me, they weren’t giving up much information. Then I wrote a long e-mail, which I sent to
everyone at home, explaining what had happened since I’d gone back to the villa on Friday morning. I wrote it quickly, without a lot of thought, and sent it at 3:45 A.M.
It was another night of fretful sleep.

[Comments] Knox does admit to sending a long email, but doesn’t include it in her book.  Read for yourself

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

75 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

AK:  Yes.
FM:  You told your mother that you were very worried.
AK:  I didn’t understand why there would be Meredith’s blood on a knife that was found in Raffaele’s house. Because [tense laugh] for me that was impossible.
GCM:  Excuse me, but with respect to the knife, which knife did they talk about? I saw that it remained a little general.
FM:  Because she—oh, no, sorry, Presidente.
GCM:  Yes? Which knife did they talk about?
AK:  We were talking about a knife that had Meredith’s blood…on this knife. And for me, I couldn’t understand it because it was impossible.
GCM:  So, with reference to that knife. Please go ahead, avvocato.
FM:  Why did you say to your mother “I’m worried because there is a knife of Raffaele’s.”
AK:  Well, I was worried because to me that was impossible. I didn’t understand how that could be.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comment] This is omitted from the book

76 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

AK:  Yes, he came into my bar once, for example, but there was always this fact that I had to work there, he came in, I don’t think I even gave him a drink, because—I don’t remember the situation that well, but I think he came in and then went out. I don’t remember. But really, I didn’t know him at all.
GB:  Did you exchange telephone numbers? Did you call each other?
AK:  No.
GB:  Listen. A witness came here, whose name was Kokomani.
AK:  [Tiny snigger]

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH] No mention of Bongiorno at all in the book questioning AK at all

[Comments] Nothing says professionalism like snickering at someone’s name.

77 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GB:  Were you wearing that suit that we saw that the police was wearing? With the shoe covers, the gloves?
AK:  No, no, I was still wearing my own clothes. They gave me those—things that you put on your shoes.
GB:  The shoe covers. And gloves?
AK:  They gave me gloves when I went upstairs to look through the knives.
GB:  Yes, but excuse me. The day you went downstairs with the police and entered into the apartment downstairs, you went in together with the police and you didn’t have gloves?
AK:  No, I didn’t have gloves.
GB:  Did you see, during all these police operations every time you went there—but in the end, how many times did you go to the house? The day of the 2nd, of the finding, and on the 4th?
AK:  Mhm.
GB:  On those occasions, did you see whether the police all had on these shoe-covers, gloves, suits all the time?
AK:  I saw that the people I was with had things on their feet. I don’t know if they all had gloves.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 25, Page 304/305]
When she answered Prosecutor Mignini’s questions, she was clear, straightforward, and self-serving. She was smarter than her fellow officers. She knew the court was looking for police slipups. “We did our jobs perfectly, all the time,” she testified. “We didn’t hit Amanda.” “We’re the good guys.”
When the defense questioned her, Napoleoni’s manner switched from professional—albeit dishonest—to exasperated, incredulous, and condescending. For instance, when Raffaele’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno asked if the gloves police used at the crime scene were sterilized or one-use gloves, Napoleoni took a snarky tone, saying, “It’s the same thing.”
“By one-use gloves you mean that they are gloves that can be used only once, right?” Bongiorno asked.
“Obviously, yes,” Napoleoni said haughtily.
“Therefore it means that every time you touched an object you changed gloves?”
“No, it means that I put them on when I enter before I touch objects, and that’s what I did.
“But therefore with the same gloves, without changing gloves, you touched the various objects in the room in the course of the search?” Bongiorno asked.
“It’s obvious, yes.”
I knew it was the police’s job to analyze the scene of a crime, gather dues, and determine who did it. But here in Perugia the police and the prosecutor seemed to be coming at Meredith’s murder from the opposite direction. The investigation was sospettocentrico—“suspect-oriented” - they decided almost instantly that Raffaele and I were guilty and then made the clues fit their theory. Instead of impartiality, the prosecution’s forensic experts were relentless in their drive to incriminate us. Their campaign was astonishing for its brashness and its singleness of purpose.

[Comments] While AK doesn’t directly mentioning being questioned in the book, it appears that Bongirono is attempting to lay the groundwork for a contamination claim.  Funny… in spite of not meeting any “international standards” when investigating AK/RS, the Italian CSI still did a great job against Guede.  Odd…..

78 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GB:  Listen, it has been asked by the lawyer for the civil plaintiff if you had ever before experienced strange episodes with your imagination, or superimposing of memories. So, I wanted to complete that. Has it ever happened in your life before this to be interrogated with the methods that you have described?
AK:  Absolutely not.
GB:  So you connect this episode of your imagination with those methods?
AK:  Certainly.
GB:  When you refer to the fact that this famous interpreter told you an episode about her personal life, to solicit a memory from you, I wanted to understand: this interpreter, was she an interpreter that was speaking aloud and everyone was listening, or was it between just the two of you? And in what language did all this happen?
AK:  Oh no, it was really just between the two of us. She was right here, and she was really talking right into my ear the whole time, saying “Come on, stop it,” because I was saying the truth because I wanted to go home, “come on, maybe you just don’t remember”, it was like this the whole time. It wasn’t like she was translating what I saw saying to them. Well yes, she also did that, but she was talking in my ear the whole time.
GB:  So, it is correct to say that during the interrogation, this interpreter was having a conversation with you that could not be heard by third parties.
AK:  Yes.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH] Text missing here

[Comments] Bongiorno is attempting the baseless and dishonest suggestion that Anna Doninno (Knox’s interpreter on November 5/6) was actually deliberately misrepresenting what AK was tell the police, and also what the police were telling AK.

79 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

AK:  No. They wrote; they asked me: “Okay, what do you imagine?” And I said “Maybe I imagine this,” and they said “Okay, let’s write this, and then you tell us if it’s all right or not. So they were writing, saying “Okay, you met Patrick at Piazza Grimana, for example, you saw this, you covered your ears.” “Okay, fine, fine.”
GB:  Okay. But when they made you sign the statement, you didn’t explicitly ask to reread it or to change anything?
AK:  They gave it to me to read, but…well, I did like this and then I just signed.
GB:  Did you ever have any judicial experiences when you were in America?
AK:  Absolutely not.
GB:  From the telephone call we heard about yesterday, you had a friend who was consulting a lawyer. You never thought in those days, seeing that you were constantly called to the Questura, about calling a lawyer?

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH] Text missing here

[Comments] It is still never explained: the police have all this very abundant evidence (according to AK/RS), and it proves guilt against Guede is rocksolid.  However, the police have to ask AK to imagine what happened, and they apparently “selectively contaminate” the crime scene.

80 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GB:  When you, on the morning of the finding of the body, when before that you went to take a shower, you said: “I got out of the shower and didn’t have any shoes, so I jumped on the bathmat.”
AK:  Yes.
GB:  This bathmat that we’re talking about is the bathmat that you saw projected here in court in a video?
AK:  Yes.
GB:  Do you remember how you slid with the bathmat? When you took it from the bathroom to your room, did you have both bare feet on it or just one foot.
AK:  Sometimes I…heh heh…by mistake, I put my foot on the floor like this, but I tried—I slid along trying to kind of make little jumps with the bathmat, but I didn’t quite succeed.
GB:  But it can be said that you were pressing on the bathmat with your foot?
AK:  Yes.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH] Text missing here

[Comments] Bongirono is lobbing softballs, but AK still doesn’t make sense

81 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

LM: Just a couple of details. Luca Maori, Raffaele Sollecito’s defense. Referring to the moment in which you found yourselves, you and Raffaele, in front of the house in via della Pergola, at the moment in which you discovered that there were some problems, and then Raffaele called his sister. Did you hear Raffaele’s telephone conversation with his sister?
AK:  No, they were talking between themselves on the telephone, and I was nearby, but I wasn’t listening.
LM: And do you know what Raffaele’s sister advised him to do?
AK:  I didn’t hear her words, but she advised him to call the police or—as I understood it, to call the police.
LM: Then, did you hear Raffaele’s next telephone call, to the police or carabinieri? Did you hear it?
AK:  Yes, Raffaele called the police, yes. I was there, nearby.
LM: Okay. What did Raffaele say? Do you remember?
AK:  Mm…it was in Italian.
[WTBH] Text missing here

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comment] No mention that Lucas Maori asked AK any questions either

82 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

CP:  They, who they? Sorry, but could you give names or titles? You were giving your statement to the PM.
AK:  The PM and the policemen who were there. But when I made that declaration, also the PM was one of the people who said to me, “So, you did this, you followed this person, you heard this, but why?” That’s how it was.
CP:  So it was the pubblico ministero who put the words “I heard thuds” into your mouth?
AK:  He wanted to know how come I hadn’t—
CP:  I asked you a question.
[WTBH] Text missing here

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comment] Carlo Pacelli (Lumumba lawyer) asks AK about yet another incriminating comment—that she admitted to hearing “thuds”, but that doesn’t appear in the book

83 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

CP:  She won’t answer me, Presidente. Ahh. You said that you had good relations with Patrick.
AK:  Yes.
CP:  Then why, in your statement of Nov 6 2007 at 5:45, did you say you were very frightened of Patrick.
AK:  Because, imagining him as being capable of murdering someone, at that moment I was scared.
CP:  Did someone suggest this to you? The PM?
AK:  They asked me what Patrick was like? Was he violent? I said no, he’s not violent. But are you scared of him? And I said yes, because thinking that he was the person who killed her, I was scared. Also because in those days I was thinking generally that there was a murderer, and I was frightened.
CP:  Why didn’t you say this to the police in the statement of 1:45?
AK:  Say what?
CP:  That you were afraid of Patrick.
AK:  Because they hadn’t asked me yet.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH] Text missing here

[Comments] More B.S. on the witness stand.  Perhaps AK means “(If) I imagine PL as the killer (it will get me off the hook)”

84 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

CP:  When you gave your declaration to the examining tribunal, you confirmed the memorandum of Nov 6. Why didn’t you exonerate Patrick?
AK:  I wrote in the memorandum that I was trying to express my doubts. So I was confirming the fact that I wrote those things to say that what I had said before was an error. Including what I had said about Patrick.
CP:  Listen, in your memorandum of November 6, you explicitly say—you were writing in English?
AK:  Yes.
CP:  And you wrote it freely, yes?
AK:  Yes.
CP:  You say “I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick.”
AK:  In my memorandum, I recognized the fact that I had made those declarations, but that I had a lot of doubts as to the facts that were in my declaration.
CP:  Do you know what the word “confirm” means in Italian?
AK:  I wrote in English.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH] Text missing here

[Comment] Pacelli again trying to get a straight answer from AK as to why she didn’t retract the false accusation

85 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

AK:  Okay.
CDV:  I read on page 6 that you said in that conversation: “Yes, when I was in the room with him, I said something,” between parentheses ‘laughs’, “and then when I went back into the room, I was crying. I was very, very worried about this thing with the knife, because there’s a knife from Raffaele’s…” First question: this was on November 17. What knife were you talking about, and how could you know about this knife at this date?
AK:  I heard for the first time about the knife from a police inspector while I was in prison. He showed me an internet article which said that there was blood on a knife that they had found in Raffaele’s house. And I said that for me, I was worried because for me, that was just impossible. I didn’t understand how such a thing could be.
CDV:  So, when you’re talking about there being a knife from Raffaele’s, you meant this knife that you had heard about in this way, from Raffaele’s house.
AK:  Yes.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Carlo Dalla Vedova is trying to get Knox to explain away get another incriminating remark: that she knew the knife came from Sollecito’s home

86 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

AK:  They’re very—
INT:—very agitated.
AK:  Yes. Raffaele also. I am angry. First I was scared. Then I was sad. Then I was confused. Then I was angry, and now I don’t know. I can’t [murmurs in English to interpreter: “I can’t really wrap my mind”. Interpreter helps her.] really wrap my mind around this. I didn’t see her body. I didn’t see her blood. It’s almost as though it hadn’t happened. But it did happen, in the room right next to mine. There was blood in the bathroom where I took a shower today. The door of the house was open to the wind and now I am without a house and forever, without a person who was a part of my life. And I don’t know what to do or think.
CDV:  Perfect. I request the acquisition of this document for the dossier.
GCM:  All right. Do you have any other questions, avvocato?
CDV:  There is another document extracted from the same diary, I’ll call it that. Also this one, if I could ask you to confirm it and to read it? And in between, I’ll ask this question. When you were in the Questura, you were writing this?

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Again, nothing of this in AK’s book, but here AK is trying to dial back the callous remarks she keeps making

87 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

AK:  Yes I said “hit”, which means hit (punched).
CDV:  No, you had clearer ideas compared with other times? When you wrote, you felt less confused?
AK:  Yes, I felt less confused.
IVTO: (inaudible)
GCM:  Please. The defence has asked you, when you wrote, if you found yourself in a calm situation, composed, attentive, alert basically?
AK:  I did this precisely to calm myself.
CDV:  So, when you say: “I have clearer ideas than before, but I’m still lacking some details and I know this isn’t helpful to me”, what did you mean exactly? That you felt more sure at that moment about what had happened?
AK: 
I felt that the truth of the situation wasn’t that which had happened in the questura. So I felt it necessary to write these things because for me that was the truth.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] F my life.  Are we going to start with the “best truths” again?

88 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GCM:  You have said that you meant to go to Gubbio the day after, at what time had you planned to leave?
AK:  Only for a day, we’d thought of …
GCM:  Yes, but in the morning, after lunch? [156]
AK:  When we woke up, we’d go there and usually …
GCM:  Go where?
AK:  To Gubbio.
GCM:  As soon as you woke up you would have gone to Gubbio.
AK:  Yes, it was very relaxed this …
GCM:  How would you have gone there?
AK:  He has a car.
GCM:  And so you would have left for Gubbio as soon as you had woken up, is that right?
AK:  Yes, get ready, then leave …
GCM:  However, you have said that as soon as you woke up you went to the house in via della Pergola.
AK:  Yes.
GCM:  You didn’t leave immediately for Gubbio why this change of plan?
AK:  It wasn’t really a change of plan, he was still asleep, so I thought I’d take a shower before leaving because I also wanted to change my clothes

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] In the book—at least in parts of it—AK claims she wasn’t alarmed by what she saw.  So why not just: (a) flush; (b) wipe up the blood; (c) close and lock the door; and (d) head out to Gubbio?

89 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GCM:  Were you at Raffaele’s house?
AK:  Yes, I think I was …
IVTO: (inaudible)
GCM:  What?
AK:  Yes, I had returned to Raffaele’s house, I asked him what I should do and he said ring my flatmates. So I called her when I was in Raffaele’s apartment. But then I think she called me again while we were walking to the house, my house.
GCM:  So, you called Romanelli when you were at Raffaele’s house?
AK:  Yes.
GCM:  That’s how it was?
AK:  Yes. [163]
GCM:  The first call was mde from Raffele’s house.
AK:  From Raffaele’s, yes.
GCM:  I put it to you that, at least from Romanelli’s statements, it happened differently.
AK:  Okay.
GCM:  “She told me that she had taken a shower, that it seemed to her that there was blood, and that she was going to Raffaele’s”.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Judge Massei picks up on a serious discrepancy.  AK claims in court to have made the call from Sollecito’s house.  Yet, Filomena told the Court that AK told her she was heading to Sollecito’s house.  Very observant of the Judge.

90 Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

AK:  What happened is that we were … he had called the police. While he was talking to them we were there and then we went out of the house and immediately the police arrived, the two of them together.
GCM:  Now, I’d also like to ask you, it has emerged that, when they searched Raffaele Sollecito’s house, perhaps on November 6, but I don’t want to err, there was strong smell of bleach. We also have the testimony of the lady who cleaned the apartment of Raffaele Sollecito, who says that bleach was never used.
AK:  I never used bleach in Raffaele’s house.
GCM:  Did you ever see Raffaele use it?
AK:  No.
GCM:  How do you explain the presence of the smell, which is a smell …
AK:  I have never smelled bleach in Raffaele’s house

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Again, missing from the book, but AK is asked about the smell of bleach.

Posted on 06/30/18 at 06:00 PM by ChimeraClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (7)

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Knox v Knox 7: How She Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #53 To #69

Posted by Chimera




(Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.)

1. Series Context

Knox lies?! Anyone who reads here for a while is left in no doubt of that.

Anyone who watched the trial in Italian concluded that. Even her own lawyers concluded that. They publicly requested in 2008 that she stop all her lying.

Numerous sworn witnesses in court, with no dog at all in this fight, contradicted her. Easily identifiable lies now number up in the thousands. They tend to be malicious (how she hates other), and they tend to be narcissistic (how she loves herself).

To close case-watchers they stand out a mile. 

And yet amazingly more than four out of every five critics who reviewed her book on the Amazon site accepted what she said, word for word. And more than four out of every five critics who reviewed the Netflix report accepted what she said, word for word.

Past posts in this series and other series addressed Knox lies at (1) the time of arrest and 2007 hearings, (2) the 2008 hearings, (3) Knox at trial, (4) Knox in prison, (5) Knox at the Hellman appeal, (6) Knox back in Seattle, when (7) she wrote her book, (8) Knox emailing Judge Nencini, (9) Knox in recent paid presentations, and (10) Knox on US media and especially Netflix (with more to follow).

This further 8-part series puts (3) above along side (7) above to show further how it is a really, really bad idea to believe anything at all in Knox’s book.

It was illegally targeted to derail the Nencini appeal. Both Knox and Sollecito took numerous panic actions in 2013-14.

2. Telling Contradictions 53 To 69

53. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

(See here for all full names}

GM:  Now, what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?
AK:  Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn’t tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of “Patrick”, I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn’t agree, that maybe could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick’s face, then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted to know everything I had done. But I didn’t know how to say. So they started talking to me, saying, “Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?” I don’t know, maybe in Piazza Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. “Okay, fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the door?” Well, with my key. “So you opened the house”. Okay, yes. “And what did you do then?” I don’t know. “But was she already there?” I don’t know. “Did she arrive or was she already there?” Okay. “Who was there with you?” I don’t know. “Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?” I don’t know. It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me: “Excuse me, I don’t understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?” No. “But how could you not have heard the scream?”. I don’t know, maybe my ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don’t know, maybe, imagining…

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 105] ‘’ .... There was a bloody handprint smeared on the wall and a bloody shoeprint on the floor. A blood-soaked handkerchief was lying in the street nearby.’‘

[WTBH, Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... “Amanda, the investigators are in a conundrum,” Carlo said. “They found so much of Guede’s DNA in Meredith’s room and on and inside her body. But the only forensic evidence they have of you is outside her bedroom. Raffaele’s DNA evidence is only on the bra hook. If you and Raffaele participated in the murder, as the prosecution believes, your DNA should be as easy to find as Guede’s.” “But Carlo, no evidence doesn’t mean we cleaned up. It means we weren’t there!” “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede. I know it doesn’t make sense. They’re just adding another link to the story. It’s the only way the prosecution can involve you and Raffaele when the evidence points to a break-in and murder by Guede.”

[WTBH, Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... Guede’s lawyers must have realized that he was better off in a separate trial, since the prosecution was intent on pinning the murder on us. The evidence gathered during the investigation pointed toward his guilt. His DNA was all over Meredith’s room and her body, on her intimate clothing and her purse. He had left his handprint in her blood on her pillowcase. He had fled the country. The prosecution called Guede’s story of how he “happened” to be at the villa and yet had not participated in the murder “absurd”—though they readily believed his claims against Raffaele and me. One of the big hopes for us was that with so much evidence against Guede, the prosecution would have to realize Raffaele and I hadn’t been involved….’‘

[WTBH, Chapter 23, Page 274]  ... He didn’t look like a murderer. He was wearing jeans and a sweater. It was almost impossible to imagine that he had cut Meredith’s throat. But if he hadn’t, his DNA wouldn’t have been everywhere in Meredith’s room.”

[WTBH, Chapter 27, Page 339] ”Copious amounts of Rudy Guede’s genetic material had been found in Meredith’s bedroom, on her body, in her purse, and in the toilet.”

[WTBH, Chapter 27, Page 342] ‘’ .... Had Raffaele been in the room, his DNA would have been as abundant as Guede’s. It would be illogical to suggest that it was left on a single small hook on Meredith’s bra and nowhere else.’‘

[WTBH, Chapter 28, Page 352] ‘’ ... Guede had stolen! He had killed Meredith! He had left a handprint in Meredith’s blood! He had fled! He had lied!’‘

[Comments] It makes no sense to get AK to “imagine” what could have happened.  And, if as AK says is true, then with all the abundant evidence present, what happened should be pretty clear, they would just need a suspect.  If only police knew who what men visited upstairs…. perhaps Knox could make a list for them ....

[Comments] Just to clarify, all that evidence proves beyond any doubt that Guede did it.  And that evidence was gathered by .... oh right, those CSI who failed to meet those international standards regarding AK and RS.  Makes sense to me.

54. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GM:  An image of Piazza Grimana, that’s right. Now listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary…

[Start of 6:54 minute video segment] ...I asked this question: Why did you throw out an accusation of this type? In the confrontations with Mr. Lumumba (I was continuing and you answered right away): “I was trying, I had the possibility of explaining the message in my phone. He had told me not to come to work.” Perfectly normal things. So, faced with a perfectly normal circumstance, “My boss texted me to tell me not to come to work and I answered him,” you could have just stated that. End of response. Instead, faced with the message, and the questions of the police, you threw out this accusation. So I am asking you, why start accusing him when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why did you think those things could be true? }}
AK:  I was confused.
GM:  You have repeated that many times. But what does it mean? Either something is true, or it isn’t true. Right now, for instance, you’re here at the audience, you couldn’t be somewhere else. You couldn’t say “I am at the station.” You are right here, right now

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] A very valid point by PM Mignini.  AK can calmly explain a message, yet gets so worked up she imagines other things…..?!?!

55. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

AK:  My confusion was because firstly, I couldn’t understand why the police was treating me this way, and then because when I explained that I had spent the whole time with Raffaele, they said “No, you’re a liar”. It was always this thing that either I didn’t remember or I was lying. The fact that I kept on and on repeating my story and they kept saying “No, you’re going to prison right now if you don’t tell the truth,” and I said “But I’ve told the truth,” “No, you’re a liar, now you’re going to prison for 30 years because either you’re a stupid liar or you forgot. And if it’s because you forgot, then you’d better remember what happened for real, right now.” This is why I was confused. Because I didn’t understand. I didn’t understand why. I didn’t understand anything any more. I was so scared and impressed by all this that at some point I thought What the heck, maybe they’re right, maybe I forgot.
GM:  So, and then, you accused Lumumba of murder. This is the conclusion

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] It is always this thing or that, and you are either forgetting, or lying?  Well, having read Linda Kuhlman’s book (which has your name on it), I believe that most of what you say is bullshit.

[Comments] So AK would go to jail for 30 years because she is either: (a) a stupid liar, or (b) you forgot?  So is AK claiming she was threatened with false imprisonment for not remembering something

[Comments] Maybe you forgot being a party to a murder?  Not likely.

56. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GM:  Lapses of memory. Moments where you couldn’t remember things that you had done. “What did I do yesterday? I don’t know.”
AK:  [Laughing] I’ve had that problem all my life.
GM:  What?
AK:  I’ve had that problem all my life. I can’t remember where I put my keys.
GM:  So it happened to you at other times? Explain it to me. You previously mixed up things, didn’t know whether you had dreamed things or they were real?
AK:  No, not that part about the imagination! I would forget for example what I ate yesterday for dinner, yes, that happened to me, but not to actually imagine things.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Page 459, Author’s Note]

The writing of this memoir came to a close after I had been out of prison for over a year. I had to relive everything, in soul-wrenching detail. I read court documents and the transcripts of hearings, translated them, and quoted them throughout. Aided by my own diaries and letters, all the conversations were rendered according to my memory. The names of certain people, including friends, prisoners, and guards, have been changed to respect their privacy….

Now that I am free, I’ve finally found myself in a position to respond to everyone’s questions. This memoir is about setting the record straight.

[Comments] AK jokes in Court that all her life she has problems mixing up and not remembering things, yet this book, written 6 years after the fact is supposed to be accurate.

[Comments] What court documents does she refer to?  AK does reference the Matteini decision (fairly accurately) which saw PL locked up, but it was her frame job that caused it.

[Comments] What transcripts does AK refer to?  TJMK has done several, but none are referenced in WTBH

Click for Post:  Dr Mignini’s Very Telling Interview Of Knox Dec 2007 #1
Click for Post:  Dr Mignini’s Very Telling Interview Of Knox Dec 2007 #2
Click for Post:  Dr Mignini’s Very Telling Interview Of Knox Dec 2007 #3
Click for Post:  Dr Mignini’s Very Telling Interview Of Knox Dec 2007 #4

[Comments] Names have been changed to protect privacy?  Really, AK accuses prison staff of harassment and sexual assault, yet changes the names?  And remember, even though Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga leave her in that hell, she still thanks them in her book.

[Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... Still, what came next shocked me. After my arrest, I was taken downstairs to a room where, in front of a male doctor, female nurse, and a few female police officers, I was told to strip naked and spread my legs. I was embarrassed because of my nudity, my period—I felt frustrated and helpless. The doctor inspected the outer lips of my vagina and then separated them with his fingers to examine the inner. He measured and photographed my intimate parts. I couldn’t understand why they were doing this. I thought, Why is this happening? What’s the purpose of this? ....’‘

[Chapter 12, Page 149] ‘’ .... I was hit on the head, twice.” I said.  The doctor gestured to the nurse, who parted my hair and looked at my scalp.  Not hard,” I said. “It just startled me. And scared me.”  “Ive heard similar things about the police from other prisoners,” the guard standing in the background said.

[Chapter 16, Page 191] Doctor-patient confidentiality didn’t exist in prison. A guard was ever-present, standing right behind me. This bothered me so much that, as time went on, I skipped a needed pelvic exam and didn’t seek help when I got hives or when my hair started falling out. Whatever happened in the infirmary was recycled as gossip that traveled from official to official and, sometimes, back to me.
How each visit went depended on the doctor, and I was grateful for any gesture that wasn’t aggressive or disdainful. A female physician liked to talk to me about her trouble with men. And one day, when I was being seen by an older male doctor, he asked me, “What’s your favorite animal?”
“It’s a lion,” I said. “Like The Lion King—Il Re Leone.”
The next time I saw him he handed me a picture of a lion he’d ripped out from an animal calendar. I drew him a colorful picture in return, which he taped to the infirmary wall. Later, when he found out that I liked the Beatles, one of us would hum a few bars from various songs to see if the other could name the tune.

[Chapter 16, Page 194] ‘’ ... Luciano looked revolted, and Carlo urged me, “Anytime Argirò calls you alone into an office, tell him you don’t want to speak with him. He could be talking about sex because Meredith was supposedly the victim of a sexual crime and he wants to see what you’ll say. It could be a trap.”

[Chapter 17, Page 197] ‘’ ... Vice-Comandante Argirò broke the news. Instead of his usual greeting—a lecherous smile and a kiss on both cheeks—he stayed seated behind his desk. His cigarette was trailing smoke. His face was somber. Something was wrong….’

[Comments] Read some of this and this and this and this  and decide for yourself how reliable she is as a narrator.and

57. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GM:  The knives… You started to tremble and cry and covered your ears with your hands. Suddenly. Can you explain why?
AK:  As I said…
GCM:  Tell him if the episode is true, if it happened, how and why.
AK:  All right. The fact that I cried in the house when I saw the knives is true. I cried, because when I entered the house, I had to look around to see if anything was missing that could have been used to kill someone, it made a strong impression on me. It was as if all that time, I hadn’t been able to even accept the fact that she was really killed, Meredith, and then having to actually be inside the house, looking at knives, being actually there, it was as though the people around me…I was there, and they were asking me to look if there were any knives missing. I said “Okay”, but the situation was so heavy, I don’t know, it really hit me.
GM:  So when you looked at the knives, you felt disturbed.
AK:  Yes, I was disturbed, it made such an impression on me.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 9, Page 100/101]
“Everything looks okay,” I said, my voice small and quavering. I felt like a kid who’s terrified to go down the hall in the dark. Distraught, I forgot to check if my own rent money was still in the drawer of my desk.
“Now come back to the kitchen.”
I did.
“Open the bottom drawer and look through the knives. Do you see any missing?”
This is where we kept our overflow utensils, the ones we almost never needed. When I pulled open the drawer, stainless steel gleamed up at me. “I don’t know if there’s one missing or not,” I said, trembling.
“We don’t really use these.”
I reached in, pushed a few knives around, and then stood up helplessly. I knew the assortment in the drawer might include the murder weapon—that they were asking me to pick out what might have been used to slash Meredith’s throat. Panic engulfed me.

[Comment] The crying and ear covering discussed at trial is not listed in the book.  And Knox   knew the assortment in the drawer might include the murder weapon?  Wow….

58. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GM:  Okay. Okay. Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith’s room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith’s room, at the foot of the bed. Was it yours?
AK:  I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.
GM:  So the lamp was yours.
AK:  I suppose it was.
GM:  Was it missing from your room?
AK:  You know, I didn’t look.
GM:  Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?
AK:  I don’t know.
GM:  Now, another question. You told us before, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now, I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn’t by any chance try to break down the door to get back the lamp we talked about?
AK:  [perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn’t know the lamp was in there.
GM:  You didn’t know that your lamp was in there?
AK:  In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn’t even noticed it was missing. I tried—
GM:  You didn’t see that it was missing?
AK:  No, I didn’t see that it was missing.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comment] The topic of the lamp is left out of the book.

59. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

MC:  But from the records, we see that you called your mother—not only from the records but also the pings [?] that you first called your mother at 12. At midday.
AK:  Okay?
MC:  What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in Perugia it is midday?
AK:  In Seattle it’s morning. It’s a nine hour difference, so three in the morning.
MC:  Three o’clock at night?
AK:  Yes.
MC:  So your mother was surely sleeping.
AK:  Yes.
MC:  But at 12:00 nothing had happened yet. That’s what your mother also said—
AK:  I told my mother—
MC: —during the conversation you had with her in prison. Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o’clock at night, to tell her that nothing had happened.
AK:  I didn’t know what had happened. I just called my mother to say that we had been sent out of the house, and that I had heard something—
MC:  But at midday nothing had happened yet in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet.
AK:  Hm. Okay. I don’t remember that phone call. I remember that I called her to tell her what we had heard about a foot. Maybe I did call before, but I don’t remember it.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 6, Page 66]
My skittering brain pulled up my mom’s mantra: when in doubt, call. Forgetting the nine-hour time difference between Perugia and Seattle, I pressed the number sequence for home. My mom did not say hello, just “, are you okay? What’s wrong?” It was in the middle of the night in Seattle, and she was worried.
“I’m on my way back to Raffaele’s,” I said, “but I just wanted to check in. I found some strange things in my house.” I explained my reasons for worrying. Then I asked, “What do you think I should do?”
“Call your roommates,” she said. “Go tell Raffaele, and call me right back.”

[Comments] So AK didn’t remember the call in court in 2009, but does remember it 4 years later, in 2013?

60. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

GCM:  So either you had a particular motive, or it was a habit.
AK:  Yes. Well, since I don’t remember this phone call, because I remember the one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it’s because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele’s place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn’t know what to think. But I really don’t remember this phone call, so I can’t say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then—
MC:  It’s strange. You don’t remember the phone call, but do you remember the conversation with your mother in prison?
AK:  I had so many. But yes.
MC:  This conversation must have been the one of the 10th of November. Do you remember when your mother said “But at 12, nothing had happened yet.”
AK:  I don’t remember that.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 6, Page 66]
My skittering brain pulled up my mom’s mantra: when in doubt, call. Forgetting the nine-hour time difference between Perugia and Seattle, I pressed the number sequence for home. My mom did not say hello, just “, are you okay? What’s wrong?” It was in the middle of the night in Seattle, and she was worried.
“I’m on my way back to Raffaele’s,” I said, “but I just wanted to check in. I found some strange things in my house.” I explained my reasons for worrying. Then I asked, “What do you think I should do?”
“Call your roommates,” she said. “Go tell Raffaele, and call me right back.”

[Comments] So AK didn’t remember the call on November 10, 2007, yet she still does remember it for the 2013 book?

61. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

MC:  And in the morning you went out around 10:30.
AK:  Around then.
MC:  You went to get the mop.
AK:  Yes. To take a shower and change, and get the mop, yes.
MC:  But hadn’t you taken a shower the evening before, at Raffaele’s place?
AK:  Yes, but then we made love. So I wanted to take another shower.
MC:  The next day. Not right away after. But the next day.
AK:  Well, we made love and then I fell asleep. Then, the next morning, I wanted to take a shower

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Yes, a woman smelling of cat-piss is every man’s dream

62. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  Of November. November 2.
AK:  Sorry. Dates…
FM:  So, you called your mother three times. Do you remember that?
AK:  I remember calling my mom. I don’t remember how many times. There was so much to think about right then.
FM:  Fine. Do you remember speaking to your mother in prison on November 10th about this very phone call?
AK:  I don’t remember specifically, but probably we talked about it, yes.
FM:  Do you remember how surprised your mother was that you didn’t even remember about this phone call?
AK:  I remember her being a bit surprised that I didn’t remember very well. But in the end I explained to her that there was just so much movement going on right then, so much confusion, and the whole morning was so emotional, and so all the specific things got mixed up.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH] Text not found.

[Comments] Again, AK says that she was mixed up about the November 2007 calls, and that she is still mixed up about it (in June 2009).  Yet her memory is clear in April 2013.

63. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  Yesterday, you mentioned having a lot of friends, both in the US and in Perugia. Did you consider Meredith Kercher to be a friend?
AK:  Yes.
FM:  Did you suffer from the loss of this friend?
AK:  Yes, I was very, very shocked by it. I couldn’t even imagine such a thing.
FM:  Do you think about her in your daily life, do you think about this friend who was with you in your house?
AK:  Yes, I remember her. But in the end, I only knew her for one month, and more than anything, I am trying to think how to go forward with my own life, so yes, I remember her, and I am so upset about what happened, and sometimes it seems to me that it can’t be real. I don’t really know what to think of this thing. But yes. I suffered.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH] Text not found.

[Comments] AK only knew MK for a month, and she’s trying to get on with her life.  Yet, in WTBH, it comes off as an emotionally devastating loss.

64. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  And Patrick Lumumba, did you consider him as a friend, or not?
AK:  I saw him, yes, pretty much as a friend, for the short time I had spent around him. I had a good relationship with him.
FM:  In the days spent at the Questura—later we’ll look at them one by one in order—did you ever think that Patrick Lumumba might be guilty?
AK:  Before I was interrogated on Nov 5th/6th, I never thought that.
FM:  So you thought it for the first time on the 5th and 6th?
AK:  Yes, yes.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH] Text not found.

[Comments] With friends like these .......

65. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  I’ll ask you later about imagination. Now tell me when you changed your mind about Patrick Lumumba.
AK:  I changed my mind when I realized that my imaginings were not really memories, but just imagination.
FM:  When? When?
AK:  The more time passed, the more I felt sure. But definitely, when I was in prison and alone in my cell, I had so much time to rethink about all the facts I remembered, and about the fact that I remembered not having been with him on that night. The more I thought, mamma mia, he’s probably innocent.
FM:  How many days later?
AK:  How many days?
FM:  Weeks, days, hours, I don’t know. The question is: when?
AK:  I already had a doubt when I was in the Questura. But I became completely sure when—at least I was completely sure that I had never been with him, so what everyone was thinking, that it was him, was only because I myself had said something, and that convinced me that he was innocent. But in the end, I just couldn’t know for sure. I could only know that what I myself had said was not the truth.
FM:  And when did this happen?
AK:  When I was in prison, I guess, but I already had doubts—
FM:  But when in prison?
AK:  —while I was in the Questura…
FM:  But when? Can you tell me? A few days later? A few weeks later?
AK:  No, but even this feeling of doubt starting getting stronger, already on the very next day. As soon as I had time to get paper and try to remember things—

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Francesco Maresca (the Kercher lawyer) is trying to get a clear answer from AK (as did Lumumba lawyer Carlo Pacelli) as to when exactly AK knew that PL was an innocent person.  And like his predecessor, he gets the runaround.  Interestingly though, his questions are not appearing anywhere in WTBH

66. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  What do these words mean to you: state of confusion, and imagination?
AK:  The sense I had at that moment, when I was trying to remember things that I didn’t remember—
FM:  I’m not talking about that moment. I am asking you in general. In general, for you, what is a “state of confusion” and what is “imagination”?
AK:  According to me, it depends on the situation. I can only talk about my own experience, which was, that I had to, forced myself—because they told me that I had to remember something else—to recall something else, so I forced myself so hard, that I was trying to imagine the reality that I had apparently forgotten, and I got confused as to whether the things I had imagined were really memories or just imagination. Because they were fragmentary. They were just images of things I had seen in my life, for example Piazza Grimana, that I saw every day, Patrick, whom I saw almost every day. These things, which were fragmented, I didn’t know if they belonged to that evening, to that sequence of events, or that line of reasoning. I didn’t know, and not knowing what was reality and what was my imagination, this was the state of confusion.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Wow…..

67. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  But have you had other moments in your life in which you were in a state of confusion like this?
AK:  No.
FM:  So you’ve had only this experience.
AK:  Yes.
FM:  So this mechanism of the imagination, you only lived through it in this experience.
AK:  Yes.
FM:  And so, only in this experience did you separate and then mix up reality with imagination and fantasy.
AK:  Yes.
FM:  You also mentioned frustration yesterday.
AK:  Yes.
FM:  For your interrogation by the pubblico ministero and by the police.
AK:  Yes.
FM:  What does frustration mean to you?
AK:  I was frustrated because I felt that even if I was giving, it wasn’t being received. For instance, I felt that I was giving and giving, but they always wanted something—always more, and they didn’t want to listen to me. They asked me something and I answered, it was never enough, never the thing that they wanted to hear. So I was frustrated. I didn’t know how to answer any more, because I had already said, repeated, repeated—

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] so AK only has these moments when she risks being implicated in a murder?  Good to know

68. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  Yesterday, you said you saw the drops of blood in the sink, in the bidet.
AK:  I didn’t see them in the bidet.
FM:  I’m sorry. Okay. In the sink. And on the bathmat, right?
AK:  Yes, but after I got out of the shower.
FM:  When you used it to get back to your room?
AK:  Yes.
FM:  All right. On the bathmat, you saw drops like on the sink, or…
AK:  No, it was a larger stain.
FM:  A larger stain. Did it look like a footprint to you?
AK:  No. I just saw a stain.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 6, Page 65/66]
I wasn’t alarmed by two pea-size flecks of blood in the bathroom sink that Meredith and I shared. There
was another smear on the faucet. Weird. I’d gotten my ears pierced. Were they bleeding? I scratched the
droplets with my fingernail. They were dry. Meredith must have nicked herself.
It wasn’t until I got out of the shower that I noticed a reddish-brown splotch about the size of an orange on
the bathmat. More blood. Could Meredith have started her period and dripped? But then, how would it have gotten on the
sink?

[Comments] So seeing blood in your bathroom is no biggie?  Okay

69. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009

FM:  So the idea of returning to the house to check your friends’ things, was given to you by Sollecito if I understood correctly.
AK:  He…
FM:  He invited you to clarify matters by telephoning?
AK:  I asked him advice about what to do, because I didn’t know what to think. He said “Call your roommates to see if they know anything, if anything happened to them.”

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 6, Page 66/67]
My mom did not say hello, just “, are you
okay? What’s wrong?” It was in the middle of the night in Seattle, and she was worried.
“I’m on my way back to Raffaele’s,” I said, “but I just wanted to check in. I found some strange things in
my house.” I explained my reasons for worrying. Then I asked, “What do you think I should do?”
“Call your roommates,” she said. “Go tell Raffaele, and call me right back.
Hearing Mom’s voice calmed me. It can’t be that bad, I thought.
Pm out of the house. Nothing happened. Pm safe. No one’s in danger.

[Comments] At trial, AK says that Sollecito came up with the idea to call the others.  In the book, her Mother did.

Posted on 06/26/18 at 05:00 AM by ChimeraClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (5)

Friday, June 15, 2018

Extreme Superficiality, Achilles Heel Of The Pro-Knox Hoaxers #2: Steve Moore

Posted by Peter Quennell



Steve Moore

1. Steve Moore’s Interrogation Hoax

You can see proofs of mafia poodle Steve Moore’s multiple misstatements of the case in Part 2 below.

What Moore is really, really short on is hard proofs. Instead he makes things up. No court has ever sided with him. Not even the defense teams sided with him. Some claims are at flat-out variance with what Knox herself conceded on the stand.

Moore has never released his curriculum vitae, despite prodding, and we have questioned before whether he has any training or experience at investigations. Tellingly, he seems to know nothing of the extensive FBI/Italy cooperation he puts at risk. See the posts below and previously.

Here is a key claim from Steve Moore. 

Amanda Knox was interrogated for 8 hours.  Overnight.  Without food or water.  In a police station.  In a foreign country.  In a foreign language.  By a dozen different officers.  Without being allowed a lawyer…

The Inquisition Amanda Knox experienced in Perugia was no more legally or morally defensible than the Salem Witch Trials.  No rational person should believe that the results of what she went through are reliable evidence.

What 8 hours? What dozen officers? She was there against the wishes of police. She had an interpreter. She refused a lawyer.  And at trial (long before Moore wrote) she confirmed she was given refreshments, and treated well.

So none of those claims is correct. Moore made them all up.

To nail this hoax that Moore has propagated hardest, one of our truth promoters (we are not sure who) has kindly put together this timeline for Knox at the Questura the first week.

It is now being tweeted. Greatly appreciated.

However, from recent translations, we can now with great confidence go beyond that on the first week.

We know more of the four session timings, and precisely what was discussed, and precisely who were the few investigators that were present at each of the four.

And that Knox signed every page of the record of all four sessions, so every one of those quite short discussions of leads WAS recorded.

And that Knox’s status along with that of many others was a simple “person with possible useful information”. She was not even a witness, let alone a suspect, as the defenses conceded at trial.

So, day by day, despite the numerous contradictory claims first initiated by Knox herself, this was her highly provable situation at Perugia’s central police station.

  • Only on the first day was Knox and the others in the house asked to hang on late at the Questura until the questioning of all of them was done

  • On the second and third days Knox was asked to be there for the questioning periods and visits to the house but at all other times she was free to leave.

  • On the fourth day Knox was not even required. She turned up very late with Sollecito and then, contrary to police advice, insisted on remaining there.

  • The ONLY officer in discussion with Knox when she framed Patrick was Rita Ficarra - and she is smaller than Knox (see posts 2 to 4 and 12 here).

All the Italian courts had those same documents. They had THAT picture. Not one, including the Supreme Court, accepted Knox’s version or Steve Moore’s.

Accordingly Knox is a convicted felon for life for maliciously framing Patrick, with no chance of reversal, and she rightly served three years.

Those translated documents blow right out of the water Moore’s endless shrill promotion (see also numerous YouTubes) of “54 hours” and “tag-teams of interrogators” and “premature targeting of Knox” and “forced confession” and “no sleep” and “no bathroom breaks”.

Moore always leaves out Sollecito’s arc that led to him turning against Knox on the record at least twice in the early days. Media should push him to explain that.

2. How Steve Moore Misleads

These posts are in chronological order over more than seven years, pointing to how unaccepting of numerous corrections Steve Moore has been in his unsound flame wars against Italian justice.

1 Click for Post:  Steve Moore Is Baffling Informed Case Observers On Both Sides Of The Atlantic

2 Click for Post:  Steve Moore Really, Really Believes Amanda Knox’s Alibi #5! Or Was That Alibi #7?

3 Click for Post:  Newsweek Report From Italy On Damage From Knox/Marriott Campaign To Knox Interests & US Image

4 Click for Post:  Ten Examples Of How The Former Campus Cop Steve Moore Serially Mischaracterizes The Case

5 Click for Post:  Michelle Moore Lets Slip How Conspiracy Nut Bruce Fischer Brainwashed Steve Moore

6 Click for Post:  Scientific Statement Analysis: Claims Made By Steve Moore About The Investigations In Italy

7 Click for Post:  Scientific Statement Analysis #5: Analysis Of Steve And/Or Michelle Moore’s Attempt At Rebuttal

8 Click for Post:  The Seattle University Panel: Some Of The Ways In Which Steve Moore Got His Analysis Wrong

9 Click for Post:  Why The FOA’s Increasingly Hapless Steve Moore Should Probably Stay Well Away From TV

10 Click for Post:  “Million Dollar Campaign” To Try To Influence The Jury Is Being Widely Reported To A Startled Italy

11 Click for Post:  With Diffamazione Complaint Against False Claims In Oggi Knox’s Legal Prospects Continue To Slide

12 Click for Post:  Dr Mignini Pushes Back Against His Demonizers Trying To Ascribe Non-Existant “Satanic Theory”

13 Click for Post:  Knox Apologists Attempt To Bend Congress; But Nobody Important Turns Up

14 Click for Post:  Fifty Of The Most Common Myths Still Promoted Without Restraint By The Knox PR Campaign

15 Click for Post:  Netflixhoax 22 Omitted - State Department Monitored Knox 2007-11; Zero Ill Treatment Reported

16 Click for Post:  Why Did The Mainstream Media Enable A Takeover By The Conspiracy Nuts?

17 Click for Post:  Trashing Of Italian Justice To Bend Trial Outcomes And How The Republic Pushes Back

18 Click for Post:  With Sollecito’s First Plea For Mitigation Seen As A Flop, His Behavior Seems Extremely Suspect

19 Click for Post:  Being Reported: Significant Developments In The Sollecito Crime Family

20 Click for Post:  “Americans Are Paying Knox $10,000 A Gig To Trash Italian Cops - Smart Move Liberating Her”

Posted on 06/15/18 at 10:52 AM by Peter QuennellClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (16)

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Italy: The Only Country To Host THREE of the UN’s 12 Global Anti-Crime Nodes

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences, Siracusa

1. How Italy Cooperates With The US Etc Etc in Crime Fighting

We have long observed that Italy cooperates in numerous ways with other nations, especially the US.

The US’s FBI has a well-staffed office in Rome working with its Italian counterparts on espionage and terrrorism among other common interests and hosts the Carabinieri in the US.

These 15 posts go to show why Italy is universally regarded in official circles as an excellent anti-crime partner to work with.

1 Click for Post:  Harvard Political Review Writer Alex Koenig Reproaches The Sliming of Italy’s Justice System

2 Click for Post:  Italian Justice System Efficient And Uncontroversial In Other Prominent International Cases #1

3 Click for Post:  Italian Justice System Efficient And Uncontroversial In Other Prominent International Cases #2

4 Click for Post:  Italy Handles Wrongful Death of An American With Usual Efficiency And Real Respect For The Victim

5 Click for Post:  The Considerable Number Of Suspected Perps That Countries Extradite Daily To Other Countries

6 Click for Post:  Italy’s Advanced, Effective, Humane Law & Order System Also Adopted By City Of New York

7 Click for Post:  FBI Reporting Close Co-operation With Italy In Arresting And Soon Extraditing A Fugitive Swindler

8 Click for Post:  Involvement Of The Formidable Carabinieri Shows How Italian Justice Will Not Be Leaned Upon

9 Click for Post:  How Many Extraditions Do The US And Italy Refuse? Approximately Zero, When It’s To Each Other

10 Click for Post:  Relevance Of The Ship Which Has Sunk In The Yangtze To National Justice System Upgrades?

11 Click for Post:  Counterterrorism: Another Way Italian Law Enforcement Is An Effective Model For Everywhere Else

12 Click for Post:  National Justice Systems Learning From One Another Tho Far From “International Standards”

13 Click for Post:  Italian Justice & The Telling Status Of Extraditions To And From Italy

14 Click for Post:  Knox’s Nasty-Prisons Hoax: NY Times Describes How Italy Leads The World In Rehabilitation

15 Click for Post:  Italian Police Again Work Hard On A Murder Where Victim And Main Suspect (Her Husband) Are Foreign

2. How Italy Is Perhaps THE Global Leader In Knowledge-Spreading

There’s been much vague and ill-informed commentary on Italy’s crime fighting, as if it is somehow way back there (“not observing international standards” and “complaints to the ECHR are epic”) and somehow pales in comparison to the US in this.

It is somewhat the reverse in reality.

We have posted series on the Italian and American systems showing that Italy very much has the edge these days. Italian reforms are in the wind but they relate to speeding up the system (with a diminishment of perps’ rights) and not to more justice, or fairer justice, which are hardly lacking.

And globally Italy matters MORE than the US to the enhancing of justice worldwide. This post describes how the gobal justice bodies are organized. A UN division in New York and 12 global development nodes around the world.

This is a description of it all posted by the one American node, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which is an arm of the Federal Department of Justice (as is the Federal Bureau of Investigation).

The United Nations (UN) is the principal source of comparative crime and justice statistics. The UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP) promotes research and collaboration, studies new and emerging forms of crime, and produces documents to assist in the global fight against crime and drug abuse.

Within the ODCCP, the Centre for International Crime Prevention (CICP) maintains the Internet-based United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network (UNCJIN), which includes crime statistics and publications. This site provides an extensive list of links to the United Nations agencies and other research organizations and universities.

The Center also supports the work of intergovernmental bodies which set out an international strategy and measures to prevent crime and promote stable criminal justice systems. United Nations documents relating to these intergovernmental commissions and congresses are available online.

Italy hosts and financially supports fully a quarter of all the 12 global UN nodes, with Canada’s two nodes second. Seven other countries host one node each. .

Italy

International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences, Siracusa (ISISC), Italy

International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council (ISPAC), Milan, Italy

United Nations Interregional Crime & Justice Research Institute (UNICRI), Turin, Italy

Canada

International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (ICCLR), Vancouver, Canada

International Centre for the Prevention of Crime (ICPC), Montreal, Canada

Australia

Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), Canberra, Australia

Costa Rica

Instituto Latinoamericano de las Naciones Unidas para la Prevenci?n del Delito y el Tratamiento del Delincuente (ILANUD), San Jose, Costa Rica

Finland

European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control (HEUNI), Helsinki, Finland

Japan

United Nations Asia and Far East Institute For the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI), Fuchu, Japan

Sweden

Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lund, Sweden

Uganda

United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFRI), Kampala, Uganda

United States

National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Washington, USA

3. In Conclusion

If you want to know something about “global standards” and the state of the art in nations around the world in crimefighting, where would you probably want to look first?

To professionals, it is obvious. To Italy. 

Posted on 06/10/18 at 11:00 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (5)

Monday, June 04, 2018

Yet Another American Black-Box Jury Makes People Wonder “What DID Go On Inside?”

Posted by Peter Quennell


1. Italian v Common-Law Juries

We have posted previously that, as is not the case in Italy, in the US jury trials are becoming rare.

  • Unlike in Italy prosecutors can bargain and as there is usually a lot more stick than carrot and a crapshoot as the alternative a lot of innocent people simply cave.

  • Unlike in Italy, common-law juries don’t have to write it all out. Jurists can later explain if they want, but many don’t, and what went on within the “black box” may never leak out.

  • Unlike in Italy the US mostly has no education standards to end up on a jury, and there is a belief that only those too dumb to get themselves waived end up in a jury of one’s “peers”.
  •  
  • [Usually] Unlike in Italy if scientific tricks especially on DNA and psychology are played upon juries they can result in guilty clients walking free, and predatory firms saving millions in fines.

Dummies like Heavey and Moore and Fischer sure took the wrong system to task.

2. After The Waldroup Case

In both the US and the UK surprise jury outcomes happen frequently. In the US the Ethan Crouch case was one. The Casey Anthony case was another. The Bradley Waldroup case was yet another.

After 11 hours of deliberation, the jury had reached a decision: voluntary manslaughter, not murder. Others in the courtroom were astonished. “I was just flabbergasted. I did not know how to react to it,” prosecuting attorney Drew Robinson said later in an interview with NPR.

It had looked like an open and shut case. Following a dispute, Bradley Waldroup shot his wife’s friend eight times. Then he attacked his wife with a machete. His wife survived. Her friend did not.

Waldroup admitted responsibility for the crimes; prosecutors in Tennessee charged him with murder and attempted first-degree murder. If guilty, a death sentence looked likely.

But then his defence team decided to ask for a scientific assessment. It turned out that Waldroup had an unusual variant of the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene – dubbed the “warrior gene” by some in the media because of its association with antisocial behaviour including impulsive aggression.

A forensic scientist testified that Waldroup’s genetic makeup, combined with the abuse he had experienced as a child, left him at greater risk of violent behaviour.

To many outside observers, it seemed that this evidence played a significant part in Waldroup’s case. This perception was compounded after some on the jury said later that the genetics influenced their decision to find Waldroup guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. “A bad gene is a bad gene,” one juror told NPR.

A flood of research (hardly necessary in Italy) was then turned on.  But (contrary to the above) it could suggest that a lot of courtroom science may - may - leave many juries cold.

It’s easy to get the impression that dangerous criminals are routinely escaping harsher punishments because defence attorneys are using genetics and neuroscience as a trump card.

The reality may be a lot more mundane. Far from revolutionising the criminal justice system, Denno thinks genetics and neuroscience are simply slotting into a pre-existing arsenal of scientific tools that defence or prosecuting attorneys can use to build a case.

The general public may be more resistant to the allure of science than many people might typically assume.

Over their heads? Suspicion of experts? Natural smarts? Who knows?  Other than in Italy, the black-box crapshoot still rules.

3. More Reading On Jury Issues

1 Click for Post:  It Is The Jury That Ultimately Matters: How They May Be Seeing The DNA Here

2 Click for Post:  A Common View In Legal Circles: Knox Campaign Often Talks Legal Nonsense

3 Click for Post:  Interesting Tilts Of Marcia Clark And Alan Dershowitz Toward Educated, Informed Italian-type Juries

4 Click for Post:  Casey Anthony And Sollecito/Knox Outcomes Spark Discussion Of The CSI Effect

5 Click for Post:  Outcry In England At Evidence And Jury-Briefing Requirements Which Make Convictions Much Harder

6 Click for Post:  In Trial For Killing Of 77, Norway Very Complexed Whether Perpetrator Is Barking Mad

7 Click for Post:  Reasonable Doubt In Italian Law: How Sollecito, Hellmann, And Zanetti Seriously Garbled It

8 Click for Post:  Obstruction Of Justice? How The Guardian Poisons Public Opinion Against The Italian Courts

9 Click for Post:  Italy Pushes Back On Dirty Tricks And Frame-Ups: Examples Of What Sollecito Must Defend In Court

10 Click for Post:  See Sollecito’s & Gumbel’s Myriad Defamatory Attacks On Italian Justice; Charges Are Expected

11 Click for Post:  Why Numerous American JUDGES Favor The Supremely Neutral Italian Kind Of System

12 Click for Post:  Why Italy Doesnt Look For Guidance On Its Justice System From What It Sees As Foreign Smartasses

13 Click for Post:  How The Italian “Justice Tortoise” Is The Likely Winner Compared To For Example the US System

14 Click for Post:  So Where Would YOU Want To Go On Trial? In Italy Or In The U.S.?

15 Click for Post:  Netflixhoax 6: Omitted - The Almost Unique Carefulness Of Italy’s Justice System

Posted on 06/04/18 at 11:00 PM by Peter QuennellClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (5)

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Knox & ECHR: How Abysmal Researcher Avrom Brendzel Raises False Hope In The Knox Sheep

Posted by The Machine




1. The Real ECHR Context

Our previous post explained Knox’s slim-to-zero chances of winning at the ECHR.

Her lawyers, knowing how much and how inconsistently Knox lies, and with zero paper trail in support of her claim that she was forced to frame an innocent man, had really only pulled a PR stunt. As thousands of Italian lawyers are known to do every year. 

But ignorant of the highly documented facts, and the ECHR’s admission rules, and Cassation’s final ruling which shut the ECHR out, the gullible Knox sheep still spend hours and hours misleading themselves into thinking their cherub is home free.

And that her three-year felony conviction will be wound back.

2. Avrom Brendzel’s False Claims

The non-lawyer Avrom Brendzel promotes Knox ardently on Twitter. And he has written at enormous length, very misleadingly, twice on Knox and the ECHR.

That second one (The Next Legal Step in the Amanda Knox Case: The European Court of Human Rights) is again riddled with rudimentary errors and PR myths.

Brendzel clearly hasn’t read many or even any of the official court reports and court testimonies - as of course the ECHR will have done.

Instead he has bought into the lies and misinformation by Amanda Knox’s supporters and, too lazy to do any fact-checking, has regurgitated them with bells and whistles here. 

He has relied only on these people for his information for way too long, and it explains why he gets so many basic facts wrong.

1. Wrong on conviction overturn

His long rambling article addressed at them explains why he thinks it’s highly likely that an advisory from the ECHR will result in

...the eventual revision of Knox’s conviction for false accusation, meaning an acquittal or other dismissal of the conviction.

He doesn’t seem to understand that the ECHR has zero power to reverse or quash any convictions, let alone that they will recommend that to Italy.

“The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.”

(The European Court of Human Rights)

Judge Marasca stated in his Supreme Court report that Amanda Knox’s conviction for calunnia is protected as a final judgement:

“On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which earned her [Amanda Knox] a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement.”

In other words, Amanda Knox’s conviction for calunnia is final and can’t be changed.

2. Wrong on rights violated

Brendzel also falsely claims:

...the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation agreed that Knox’s rights under Italian law had been violated during the questioning and ruled that her statements from the questioning could not be used against her.

The Italian Supreme Court has never stated that Amanda Knox’s rights were violated. That’s the reason why he is unable to substantiate his claim with a verbatim quotation from the Supreme Court.

Amanda Knox’s witness statements could be used against her in the slander trial. They couldn’t be used against her at the murder trial because she wasn’t represented by a lawyer when she made them.

She was warned repeatedly about that but chose to press on. That was not her rights being violated. She chose that.

3. Wrong on Knox “questioning”

Brendzel also repeats the PR lie that Amanda Knox was continually questioned until about 6:00 am:

“The questioning of both lasted until the morning of November 6. Knox’s statements, written out by computer printer in Italian by the police, were indicated as generated at 1:45 am and 5:45 am.”

In fact she was barely questioned all night. She herself insisted on both statements, and she signed. She wasn’t ever questioned after she had made her spontaneous, unforced statement at 1:45am.

She chose to make another witness statement at 5:45am, but she wasn’t questioned at that time and had even been warned she should have a lawyer present at all statements, which she chose to ignore.

4. Wrong on Knox coercion

Brendzel also claims that Amanda Knox was ”seemingly being subjected to some form of physically or emotionally painful coercion”. But there is no credible evidence that she was beaten or coerced.

On the contrary, according to the corroborative eyewitness testimony of the two women who were present throughout (Rita Ficarra and Anna Donnino) and one who looked in (Monica Napoleoni), when Amanda Knox was helping them by listing possible perps she wasn’t hit or threatened. At trial Knox admitted this.

5. Wrong on prior suspect

In line with his kneejerk blaming of the investigators, Brendzel also claims this:

The Italian police and prosecutor did not disclose to Knox during the November 5/6, 2007 questioning that she had become a suspect prior to the beginning of the questioning.

But no, Knox had not.

The police didn’t have anywhere enough evidence to make her an official suspect when she voluntarily showed up at the police station that evening and they were still hunting hard for others.

Amanda Knox was there co-operating only as “a person with possible useful information” or possible witness - not as an official suspect - on 5 November 2007. On that night she built a list of visitors to the house at Rita Ficarra’s request. A mere list. Which is in evidence. That’s hardly a request for a suspect - and the list pointed away from her.

Giobbi’s gut feelings about Amanda Knox being guilty were quite frankly irrelevant, and they conflict with every other testifier at the trial. (He was from Rome and seemingly grandstanding as Knox’s conniption had had nothing to do with him.)

It wasn’t until Amanda Knox spontaneously admitted she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and claimed she brought the killer back to the cottage that the investigators had anything to provisionally charge her for - and then only of withholding evidence, not murder or calunnia.

6. Wrong on court findings

Brendzel doesn’t mention any of these damning findings of the Supreme Court: (1) she had said she went out multiple times and Sollecito repeatedly said she did; (2) there was overwhelming proof of multiple attackers, (3) it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed, (4) she washed Meredith’s blood off in the small bathroom, (5) she knew specific details about the murder, (6) she provably lied to the police, and (7) the break-in was staged.

Cassation also concluded Raffaele Sollecito was present when Meredith was killed. It’s not difficult to work out who Rudy Guede’s co-attackers were - there is no evidence of anyone else being at the cottage on the evening of the murder.

7. Wrong on trustworthiness

The gullible Brendzel regards Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as credible and trustworthy witnesses and quotes them a lot. That is despite the fact they have both admitted lying to the police.

Amanda Knox’s numerous lies have been noted in multiple official court reports by the judges who presided over her trial in Perugia and her appeal in Florence and by the Supreme Court.

Judge Massei and Judge Nencini both noted that the computer and telephone records prove that Knox and Sollecito lied repeatedly.  Judge Chieffi and Judge Marasca both noted that Amanda Knox lied in their Supreme Court reports.

Judge Martuscelli comprehensively detailed Raffaele Sollecito’s numerous lies and false alibis in his report - which explained why Sollecito was denied compensation:

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s multiple false alibis and numerous lies remain an Achilles heel of their supporters. Nobody has ever provided a plausible innocent explanation for their lies.

Brendzel, like Peter Gill - another unworldly academic - has chosen not to address them. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s not even aware of them.

3. My Conclusions

There is no justification for Brendzel’s absolute certainty that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. There is no exculpatory evidence whatsoever e.g. verified alibis or CCTV footage that proves Amanda Knox and Sollecito were not at the cottage at the time of the murder.

Surely, as a scientist he should want proof of their innocence. Brendzel is clearly a good academic and intelligent. His scientific contributions are listed here,

However, he clearly lacks emotional intelligence. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would unquestioningly believe and trust two self-confessed liars. This naivety and gulliblity is too common a denominator amongst the Knox sheep.

Posted on 05/30/18 at 11:05 AM by The MachineClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (11)

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Telling Non-Development For Knox Re The European Court Of Human Rights In Strasbourg

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters


1. New Non-Development

This is about Knox’s still unpublished “complaint” to the ECHR of 22 November 2013.

Knox apparently tried to claim to that court that Italy had violated one or several of her human rights.  As all legal power in Italy has moved to those Knox demonized, and as she has zero shot at a damages award, this is the one prospect Knox apologists still crow about.

This past Tuesday, under Chimera’s Burleigh post, Ergon posted this deflating message from the ECHR Press Unit (our emphasis added).

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your message and please find here the information we can provide in response.
1. Both parties’ observations have been received by the Court’s Registry.
2. No decision as to the admissibility of the application has been taken yet.
We hope this helps.
With best wishes,
ECHR – Press Unit

For ease of linking-to and continuity, we have moved the telling comments by James Raper (2), KrissyG and Peter Quennell that followed Ergon in the Burleigh thread to Part 5 of this new post.

2. Note The Big Media Fail





Ergon found out what all of the media could have found out via a single email. Sorry, BBC, but that is flat-out wrong. No excuse, though you are far from alone in this.

Knox apologists still repost Dalla Vedova’s wrong claim that the ECHR has already “accepted” Knox’s case. It has not.

Some even argue (as Avrom Brendzel tries to, with numerous errors of fact) that Knox’s felony conviction for life for framing Patrick will certainly be annulled. But it seems that was not even the subject of a Knox request (see Part 5 below for reasons why).

3. What’s Most Damaging To Knox?

Most damaging if the court does take the case would seem to be their figuring this out.  They could readily get there by analyzing the same documents we used for the Interrogation Hoax series (currently 21 posts) which are all now in English on the Case Wiki.

This is Italy’s trump card. ALL courts agreed that, charged and warned in front of witnesses that she should say no more without a lawyer, and under NO pressure, Knox pressed on and again framed her boss. 

4. Prior Posts Of Relevance

This post joins this group which are most of the series under the right-column link 24 ECHR Appeal Hoax.

1. Click for Post: Proof Released That In 5-6 Nov Session Knox Actually Worked On Names List

2. Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Lies Again To Get Herself Into Another European Court “But Really, Judge, Its Only PR” (Kermit)

3. Click for Post:  Note For Strasbourg Court & State Department: Knox Herself Proves She Lies About Her Interrogation (James Raper)

4. Click for Post:  Multiple Provably False Claims About “Forced Confession” Really Big Problem For Dalla Vedova & Knox (Finn MacCool)

5. Click for Post:  Knox Demonizations: Multiple Ways In Which Her Email To Judge Nencini Is Misleading (Finn MacCool)

6. Click for Post:  Supreme Court Confirms All Three Were There And Lied, RS & AK Apologists Desperate To Downplay That (Machiavelli)

7. Click for Post:  Knox’s Unsound Appeal To The European Court Of Human Rights Slapped Down By Cassation (Main Posters)

8. Click for Post:  Carlo Dalla Vedova, Is ECHR Made Aware Italian Law REQUIRES Lawyers To First File Local Complaints? (Main Posters)

9. Click for Post:  Carlo Dalla Vedova: Is ECHR Advised You Condoned Malicious Defamation By Knox Of Chief Prosecutor? (Main Posters)

10. Click for Post:  Bad News For Knox -  Buzz From Italy Is Spurious ECHR Appeal Will Probably Fail (Main Posters)

5. Comments Imported From Previous Thread

#1. By James Raper

Four and a half years down the line and still no decision as to the admissibility of Knox’s ECHR application.

Dalla Vedova argued two rather contradictory positions at the final appeal.

“How can we tolerate in Italy that trials can go on forever?” he asked the Court. Another was that he requested an adjournment of the appeal pending a decision from the European Court of Human Rights on his client’s complaint of a violation of her basic human rights ensured by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Had the court acceded to the request for an adjournment, we would still be waiting.

Was Bongiorno keeping the Knox camp in the dark as to the fix, or using him for cover?

Posted by James Raper on 05/24/18 at 04:51 AM | #


#2. By KrissyG

Delaying a trial is an old trick.  We saw that with Henri Van Breda: it took a year for police to even charge him (for the murder of his mother, father and brother with an axe) and he has remained free for another two years as the trial dragged on, adjourning for medical reports, etc.,etc.

The Knox ECHR hasn’t even reached the admissible stage.

(a) she applied too early.  You are not supposed apply until all channels are closed.

(b) she didn’t complain about supposed violations and torture at the time.

Her great hope is in Boninsegna’s MR.  However, that doesn’t really deal with her claims, but is in fact to do with police claims.  It was them who brought the charges, which was mandatory, given the press were told and still are being told of illegal ‘53 hour interrogations’ and being swatted across the back of the head.  But she didn’t report it so there is no third party verification it ever happened.

Boninsegna criticised the police for being ‘maternal’ and for hugging her in sympathy with her sorry plight.

AIUI the ECHR decision as to the admissibility of a case can coincide with their coming to a verdict at the same time.  However, as this is quite complex, it would likely be listed for another date, if admissible.

If it fails the admissibility test (whether it qualifies for their jurisdiction) then that will be the end of the matter.

Posted by KrissyG on 05/24/18 at 05:56 AM | #


#3. By Peter Quennell

Hi Ergon, James R and Krissy G:

Yes, strong signs of passive aggression against Knox and especially her PR (1) seemingly by the ECHR, (2) pretty well definitely (long-term) by her own lawyers, and seemingly even (3) by Boninsegna himself (see below for who he is) and (4) by the Supreme Court’s Marasca & Bruno, who bluntly labeled this ECHR appeal dead on arrival right there in their report.


On (1) the ECHR is very tired of the enormous flow of frivolous complaints from Italy at the appeal stages designed to lean on future courts. They back-burner almost all complaints from Italy.


On (2) here is the defense lawyers’ problem. None of them have really profited from this case, as the outcome was unpopular and the bending of three courts pretty obvious. In their books RS and AK hardly did them any favors. Bongiorno has pretty well given up law for politics. Guede’s lawyers walked away from him; Viterbo Prison legal help and a Rome group took over. Mignini was able to take a tremendous swipe against Maori in a complaint against him.

In 2009 they had publicly complained against the Seattle PR; back in 2008 they had publicly complained about Knox herself incessantly lying - possibly sparked by the fact that (as Chimera has long shown) she cannot lie CONSISTENTLY. (Passive aggression even by Knox against Knox? Our psychologists think so.)

So it has long leaked out of their chambers that this ECHR appeal is really a big fat nothing.  There could be no mention of the claim of hitting and not only because of the reason KrissyG mentions (no paper trail at the time) but also because:

(a) They had made those public complaints about Knox and the PR back in 2008 and 2009.

(b) If they had ever taken Knox’s claims seriously, under law they would be required to report them; if not done, both Knox herself and Italian prosecutors could charge them and at minimum their law licenses would be history.


(3) On Florence Judge Boningsegna. We know the ECHR asked for information on his ruling so this is the context. It’s complicated.

(a) This was a mandatory investigation and trial of allegations against the police Knox made on the stand in 2009 - KrissyG is right, only the police, Knox tried to include Mignini but had to concede he was not present.

(b) Knox would have lost in a heartbeat if the trial was held in Perugia. Knox lawyers shopped judges till they found one foolish enough to order that the trial should be held in Florence and Mignini (for no obvious reason) should be attached to it.

(c) Boninsegna is known as a mafia judge; he is actually in the Florence courts for that reason, having been moved from Calabria where he had way too many mafia chums.

(d) Sign of a leaned-on Italian judge, Boninsegna seemingly quite deliberately wrote nonsense. The transcripts of all Knox’s pre-arrest questionings we finally finished posting recently strongly dont support him.

(e) So as KrissyG noted, in the Boningsegna report the police (actually the Republic of Italy) lost because the police were accused of being too NICE to Knox! How exactly do they take THAT with a straight face through the appeal stages to the Supreme Court?! And how does that ruling help Knox with the ECHR?


(4) On Marasca & Bruno. Another sign of leaned-on judges (apart from their placing RS & AK at the scene of the crime). Marasca & Bruno essentially told the ECHR to piss off as the case had evolved beyond their mandate.

The defenses (not sure if Marasca & Bruno would give them a win) had tried to delay the final outcome until after the ECHR ruling. Bizarrely, this would have created a Catch-22 situation as the ECHR cannot rule until all legal processes are done with, thus placing RS & AK in legal limbo. The defense lawyers would have known that. More passive-aggression?


So there you have it. Passive aggression against Knox, in Perugia, Florence, Rome, and seemingly Strasbourg. Nice going.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/24/18 at 08:38 AM | #


#4.  By James Raper

On the 25th November 2013, just as the Prosecution were preparing to present their closing argument to the Court of Appeal in Florence, Knox presented the media with the following announcement -

“Today my lawyers filed an appeal of my slander [sic] conviction with the European Court of Human Rights.” (ECHR)

The appeal was in fact lodged on the 22nd November.

It was not, of course, a slander conviction but something far more serious. The Calunnia conviction was due to the fact that, and before officials charged with an investigation and bringing to justice those who had been responsible for Meredith’s murder, Knox had fabricated evidence against Lumumba knowing him to be innocent. She had blamed Lumumba for the murder, effectively as a witness present at the time.

She appealed her conviction to the Hellmann court and it dismissed the appeal and increased her sentence.

She appealed the conviction again, this time to the Supreme Court, and the 1st Chambers dismissed her appeal at the same time as annulling the Hellmann outcome. Her conviction for calunnia was therefore definitive.

The 5th Chambers nailed that conviction down even further, not only in a passage effectively telling the ECHR to piss off but by also by it’s finding that Knox was indeed present at the time of the murder. That disposes of any argument that Knox could not have known that Lumumba was innocent.

So what are we left with? The ECHR does not have the power to quash her calunnia conviction and the Italians are not going to re-open it. It is extremely unlikely that the ECHR would even suggest this.

So what was the point of the application? Given the timing of the application I have no doubt that it was an extra-judicial PR strategy to undermine, in the event of the Florence court dismissing her appeal against her murder conviction, any attempt to have her extradited back to Italy, particularly were there to be any ruling by the ECHR that her human rights had been abused.

In the event of any such ruling she might get some compensation (so as to be compliant with the Convention) but given what happened to Sollecito’s application for compensation for wrongful imprisonment, I can’t see it as being anything other than nominal, and there is still the not insignificant matter of her not having paid, as ordered, the compensation due to Lumumba.

On the matter of Knox’s acquittal on the long-standing charge of defamation concerning her allegation of mistreatment by police officers, there was not in fact any finding of fact as to mistreatment by Boninsenga. He acquitted her on the grounds, he said, that the correct procedure had not been used at the police station; that she was already a suspect and the law required her to have a lawyer present. Had that happened then no allegation of mistreatment during her questioning would have surfaced anyway. She was therefore immune from prosecution concerning defamation of the police officers.

Knox, of course, repeated the same allegations (being cuffed a couple of times) during her trial testimony, but she wasn’t on oath and the reason for that is that defendants can be expected to lie to save themselves. They are immune from prosecution there as well.

One might ask whether the Boninsenga rationale would also apply to the calunnia conviction as well. An interesting point but clearly, under Italian law, the answer is no, and I don’t think any sane legal system would countenance that.

I can’t see that the Boninsenga judgement, which is contentious anyway (Knox repeated her allegations of mistreatment and regarding Lumumba, in her Memorial, written when not being questioned), will help at the ECHR.

Posted by James Raper on 05/24/18 at 06:44 PM | #

Posted on 05/24/18 at 09:13 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (8)

Friday, May 18, 2018

Extreme Superficiality, Achilles Heel Of The Pro-Knox Hoaxers #1: Nina Burleigh

Posted by Chimera



Nina Burleigh, over-exposed and under-informed, not a serious reporter

1. The Fatal Gift Of Superficiality

This may come to be seen as the best-documented murder investigation and court process in legal history.

In any country. For example the Wiki archive now exceeds 2500 documents, with a large fraction now in English, and a further 1000-plus other files, and even those will not be the final totals. In the first week of the investigation alone many dozens of reports were done.

Recent posts on TJMK have started showing how, when one adopts a birds-eye view of any area of the case, evidence points now seen together as a whole become impossible to argue with. Those series are increasingly making the army of case critics nervous and quiet. 

I recently found mafia poodle Nina Burleigh’s Fatal Gift of Beauty (FGOB) on the used book shelves, and decided to give it a read. This is her 2011 book with a very Pro-Knox slant. and it is a great Exhibit A of superficiality.

2. Comparing FGOB with the Knox Book

To be fair, Burleigh’s book is nowhere near as excessive in making the false and malicious accusations as Knox’s did, nor is it as grotesquely illogical.

So I am not going into the detail as I did with Revenge of the Knox. That 2013 book was both (1) extremely accusatory; and (2) extremely non-sensical. For comparison here are a few commentaries on the Knox/Kulman book.

Click for Post:  How Knox’s Tide Of Malicious Demonization Now Threatens Real Pushback #1

Click for Post:  How Knox’s Tide Of Malicious Demonization Now Threatens Real Pushback #2

Click for Post:  How Knox’s Tide Of Malicious Demonization Now Threatens Real Pushback #3

Click for Post:  Revenge of the Knox, Series 4: Exposing The Tortured Logic That Permeates Her Book #1

Click for Post:  48 Tortured Logic Instances In Knox’s Book #21 To #48

3. TJMK Heavily Criticized Burleigh

Burleigh’s amateurism and bias - she is neither a career reporter or crime expert or Italian speaker - have been rebutted repeatedly here on TJMK.

The sloppy style of reporting in US weeklies and on TV of Burleigh paled in comparison with the excellent reports of the Italian-speaking Rome group of foreign reporters.

Click for Post:  Knox Groupie Nina Burleigh Posting The Nastiest And Least Accurate Reports

Click for Post:  How The Strongarm Public Relations Resulted in Most Of The Media Getting It Wrong

Click for Post:  Nina Burleigh: View From A Broad Who Doesn’t Seem To Like Broads Or Being Abroad

Click for Post:  Media Starting To Take A Closer Look At The Knox PR Shills With Nina Burleigh Exhibit One

Click for Post:  What’s Nina Burleigh Got Against Women? A Bizarre Time Report Suggests Deep Problems In Her Psyche

Click for Post:  More On The Ill-Considered Campaign of Vilification By The Knox Adulator Nina Burleigh

Click for Post:  One Final Word On Nina Burleigh In Response To Those Still Hoaxed By Her

Click for Post:  Why Claim Rudy Guede Did It Alone When So Much Proof Against?

Click for Post:  Mignini And Giuttari Win Final Round In Spurious 2010 Conviction By Rogue Prosecutor And Judge

Click for Post:  Much-Admired Feminist On Knox As Ice-Cold In Capanne And Media’s Mixed Performance On The Case

Click for Post:  Why Smart Feminists Much Prefer To Keep Amanda Knox At Arms Length

4. General Problems With Burleigh’s Book

(a) The Fatal Gift Of Beauty was actually written in 2011

True, this fact alone is not enough to discredit the book, as much did happen from 2007 to 2011.  However, so much has happened since then with zero updates that the book feels extremely incomplete.

There is no mention of (I) the Hellmann/Zanetti ruling; (II) the Cassation 2013 annulment of H/Z; (III) Knox’s media campaign(s); (IV) New appeal at Florence 2013 and Nencini’s report 2014; (V) Bruno/Marasca throwing the case out against AK/RS 2015, while still placing them at the scene; (VI) Sollecito’s 2017 failed attempt at compensation; (VII) Book trial against Sollecito; (VIII) Guede’s attempts to re-open his case.

(b) Despite claims, Burleigh didn’t interview authorities on the facts

See FGOB, Notes, Page 307. There Burleigh claims to have consulted Italian authorities, and Italian legal experts on the matter, but does not list any of them.  Almost all the names given are American.

She also claims to have listened to wiretaps and read through the ‘‘digital archive’’ but avoids specifics.  In the acknowledgment section (Page 317), AK and RS lawyers are listed as contributors, but given that they are paid to promote their innocence, they are hardly objective.

Burleigh does list American books and media, and US ‘‘experts’. But what is really lacking is hard information from the Italians.

Burleigh does list Mignini and Comodi, which is surprising.  However, FGOB does more to give PR-filtered background on them than to actually address Meredith’s case

(c) Most of the book has nothing to do with Meredith’s case

Burleigh goes on at length about the backstory of Knox, historical information about Italy, and much of the media attention.  In fact, is fair to assume that Burleigh has little to no grasp of the actual factual record.  It is flowerly and exotic, but largely irrelevant.  FGOB could have been written as a brochure and no hard facts would have been left out. 

(d) Burleigh glossed over the hard truths of the case

Burleigh does include bits and pieces of the case, like how the police suspected a break in, and how Knox did act differently.  However, it is lacking in the hard facts and evidence and truth that would have totally stood her slant and conclusions on their head.  Better idea would have been to dump the filler (which was most of the book), and go with some of those facts.  See Part 5 below.

(e) Burleigh more or less accepts wholesale the PR version

She does this without doing much in the way of critically analyzing anything.  She also promotes the myths that police and prosecutors jumped to conclusions, and suspected Knox because she was different.  Of course, if Burleigh had more hard truths, then the book would look quite different.

5. Hard Facts Missing From Burleigh’s FGOB

It is difficult to whittle down a list of Burleigh’s omissions, but these in particular permitted her superficiality and bias.

(1) Multiple False Alibis

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox… Trapped, In Her Own Words

Click for Post:  Raffaele Sollecito… Trapped, In His Own Words

(2) False Accusation of an Innocent Man is Minimized

Click for Post:  True Justice Is Rendered For Patrick Lumumba (Sort Of)

(3) The ‘‘Interrogation’’ Really was a Hoax

Click for Post:  The Knox Interrogation Hoax #1: Overview Of The Series - Multiple Knox Versions v One Stark Truth

(4) Minimization of How Bad Knox was on Witness Stand

Click for Post:  Knox Testimony Does Not Seem To Have Gained Much Traction Here In Italy

Click for Post:  Italy Shrugs: Why Amanda Knox’s Testimony Seems To Have Been A Real Flop

(5) The Actual Transcripts of Knox’s Questionings

Click for Post:  Interrogation Hoax #19: ALL Knox Q&A Sessions 2-6 November 2007 WERE Recorded #1

Click for Post:  Interrogation Hoax #19: ALL Knox Q&A Sessions 2-6 November 2007 WERE Recorded #2

Click for Post:  Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #1

Click for Post:  Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #2

Click for Post:  Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #3

Click for Post:  Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #4

(6) How Conclusively Footprint on the Bathmat Nails Sollecito

Click for Post:  The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s

(7) The Break in Was in Fact Staged

Click for Post:  A Visual Guide To The Staged Break-In Via Filomena’s Window

(8) Staged Break In by Knox in April 2007 Just 7 Months Earlier

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Confirms She Staged A Break-In in Seattle Long A Sore Point To Previous Victims

(9) Cellphone Activity Disproves What AK/RS are Saying

Click for Post:  Those Pesky Certainties Cassation’s Fifth Chambers May Or May Not Convincingly Contend With #1

(10) Burleigh Subscribes to No-Evidence Claim But Ignores This

Click for Post:  Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #3

(11) Knox’s Lamp Locked in Meredith’s Room, Because….

Click for Post:  How The Clean-Up And The Locked Door Contribute To The Very Strong Case For Guilt

(12) Knox’s Statements Reek of Guilt

Click for Post:  A More Detailed Analysis Of Knox’s Statement 6 November 2007 Points Even More Strongly Toward Guilt

Click for Post:  Scientific Statement Analysis: Amanda Knox’s Statement To The Appeal Court On 11 December

Click for Post:  Scientific Statement Analysis: Analysis Of Amanda Knox’s Email To Seattle Of 4 November 2007

(13) Innocent People Don’t Repeatedly Attack Each Other

Click for Post:  Multiple Examples Of How RS And AK Have Tried To Apply More Blame To The Other

6. Overall Impression of FGOB

Burleigh’s book is not nearly as bad as Knox’s, and in fact a bit less so than Sollecito’s.

Too much is spent on irrelevant backstory of Knox, Sollecito, Italy and others, rather than discussing the actual case.  It is difficult to be harsh to a book when there is so little material to work with.

While NB does ‘‘get her feet wet’’ with the facts, her coverage is so superficial that it really makes the case look light on evidence, heavy on prejudice and speculation.

If Burleigh was actually to read the facts omitted in part 5 above (any of them), her views would have no choice but to adjust.  I don’t think Burleigh actually is a PR shill, but rather an extremely poor and lazy reporter.

Posted on 05/18/18 at 03:48 PM by ChimeraClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (22)

Friday, May 11, 2018

Overview Of All Our Powerpoints For Those Many On Media Threads Praising Them

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Perugia from the Rome direction; railway station at center-left

1. Post Overview

These brilliant Powerpoints have been getting effusive praise online and in emails by many who began with them.

Others have posted asking how to find them.  We are very grateful for their interest. Here they all are, the complete set. One is by James Raper, one by Fly By Night, two by Nikki, and the others by that indefatigable frog Kermit.

They are often very funny, mostly bothersome to the humorless Knox attack-sheep, and always technically excellent. But their main draw appears to be that they are so explanatory, so highly compelling.

Watch a few and the sense that the Italians got things right can get to be unshakable.  While videos can be telling, Powerpoints look to be even more telling. Other victim sites might well benefit from this model.

2. All Our Powerpoints

1. Click for Post:  A Witness Trashed By Paul Ciolino For CBS In Fact Looks Very Credible (Kermit)

2. Click for Post:  A Comprehensive Guide To The Relevant Locations (Kermit)

3. Click for Post:  A Minute By Minute Visual Guide To The Events On The Night (Kermit)

4. Click for Post:  A Very Odd House, In A Very Odd Location (Kermit)

5. Click for Post:  A Graphical Tour Of The Crime Scene Itself (Kermit)

6. Click for Post:  Trace Evidence Seems To Confirm More Than One Perpetrator At Scene (Kermit)

7. Click for Post:  DNA Evidence - A Very Clear Intro To A Vital Subject Here (Nikki)

8. Click for Post:  Forced Entry Via Filomena’s Window Fails The Giggle Test (Kermit)

9. Click for Post:  Defense Claim AK & RS Couldn’t Have Disposed Of Meredith’s Phones Is Wrong (Kermit)

10. Click for Post:  The DNA Evidence May Be A Tough Mole To Whack (Nikki)

11. Click for Post:  Countering The Spin By The Defenses On The Recent Cottage Break-in (Kermit)

12. Click for Post:  Telling Evidence Against Sollecito The Experts Seem To Have Got Absolutely Right (Kermit)

13. Click for Post:  150 Questions For The Defendants They Have Incessantly Avoided (Kermit)

14. Click for Post:  The Telling Case Of The Doctored Footprint (Kermit)

15. Click for Post:  Justice For Meredith - The Thoughts Inspired By Two Mountains (Fly By Night)

16. Click for Post:  We Now Examine The Compelling Evidence For The REAL Railroading From Hell (Kermit)

17. Click for Post:  Total Evidence Suggests Knox And Sollecito Guilty As Charged (James Raper with Kermit)

18. Click for Post:  Katie Couric Interviews Raffaele Sollecito! We Already Have A Sneak Preview!! (Kermit)

19. Click for Post:  Placing The Noisy Claimant Doug Preston In The Hot Seat (Kermit)

20. Click for Post:  On Contradictions, Here Preston Contradicts Preston (Kermit)

21. Click for Post:  Diane Sawyer’s Very Tough Interview With Amanda Knox: ABC’s Sneak Preview! (Kermit)


Sunday, May 06, 2018

Curt Knox PR Manager David Marriott’s Legacy; Did He On Balance Help Or Hurt AK?

Posted by Peter Quennell



A shrill Knox on ABC’s Good Morning America

1. What Ticks Off Knox Most?

In a single line the Seattle PI reports that Knox PR heavy David Marriott has passed on.

How has he left Knox? People are remarking that she is increasingly shrill. On YouTube now there is a new unhinged rant. A real desperation setting in?

Her state does not appear pretty. We’d guess that apart from the growing proof of her illegal release, these chronic irritations are what are fueling her rage.

  • The chasm between Knox and the Sollecito camp, who still strongly resent her for dropping Raffaele in it, bringing heat upon them, and creating a need to bend the courts in, ah, subtle ways.

  • More generally, Italians continue to despise Knox (actually Knox 1.0, the crude and abrasive one of 2007-09), and now more Brits and Americans are, too, for a racist money-grubbing PR campaign.

Did David Marriott play the primary role in creating both? Strong cases, but you decide. Here are some of the relevant posts.

2. Sollecitos Distance From Abrasive Knox PR

1. Click for Post:  Oct 2008:  Sollecito Turns On Knox? This Is Extraordinary…

2. Click for Post:  Oct 2011: Is The Raffaele Sollecito Defense Team About To Separate Him From A Radioactive Amanda Knox?

3. Click for Post:  May 2013: Seeds Of Betrayal: In Interview Knox Reveals To Italy Her Considerable Irritation With Sollecito

4. Click for Post:  June 2014: Sollecito Suddenly Remembers He Wasnt There But Cannot Speak For Knox Who (As She Said) Went Out

5. Click for Post:  July 2014: Overkill Of Knox/Marriott PR Causes Sollecito-Camp Reaction And Seeming Hurt To Knox Herself

6. Click for Post:  July 2014: Seeds Of Betrayal: Multiple Examples Of How RS And AK Have Blamed The Other Ever Since 2007

7. Click for Post:  Sept 2014: Sollecito Posting Of Knox’s Diary: Is He Again Prodding Knox Closer To The Fire To Help Himself?

8. Click for Post:  Feb 2015: Sollecito On Italian TV: Seems RS And AK Selling Out One Another Is Gravitating To A Whole New Plane

9. Click for Post:  Dec 2017: Knox & Sollecito: How From Their Very First Questionings The Cracks & Fissures Start To Appear

10. Click for Post:  Dec 2017: Knox & Sollecito: How From Their Very First Questionings The Cracks & Fissures Start To Appear #2

3. Abrasive PR Sparks Reactions Negative To Knox

11. Click for Post:  Feb 2009: Knox PR Campaign: Have The Dishonest Talking Points Now Become A Trap?

12. Click for Post:  Nov 2009: We Now Examine The Compelling Evidence For The REAL Railroading From Hell

13. Click for Post:  April 2010: How The Strongarm Public Relations Resulted in Most Of The Media Getting It Wrong

14. Click for Post:  Sept 2010: Newsweek Report From Italy On Damage From Knox/Marriott Campaign To Knox Interests & US Image

15. Click for Post:  Dec 2010: The Toxic Pro-Knox PR Campaign And Media Circus That John Kercher So Rightly Complained About

16. Click for Post:  Sept 2011; “Million Dollar Campaign” To Try To Influence The Jury Is Being Widely Reported To A Startled Italy

17. Click for Post:  Oct 2011: Million Dollar Campaign And American Media Come Under Intense Ridicule By An Influential Italian

18. Click for Post:  Oct 2011: Knox Public Relations Manager Starts Premature Crowing Years Before Legal Process Ends

19. Click for Post:  May 2012: An Associate Of Knox PR Heavy David Marriot Has Been Bullying Meredith’s Father Online

20. Click for Post:  Oct 2013:  How Did The Knox-Mellases Engineer Their PR And Legal Shortfall? David Marriott Analysed

21. Click for Post:  Feb 2014: The Hubristic, Meanspirited Campaign: What Sort Of Life Has It Left Knox And Sollecito Now?

22. Click for Post:  Jan 2015: From David Marriott’s Parrot: Latest Talking Points To Be Beamed At The Unbelieving

4. More On Fake News By Marriott™

Printed out, these posts may average three pages for a total of about seventy-five. There must be 1000 pages or more on the PMF forum if you do some keyword searches there.

Much of PMF’s news and commentary are in real-time. PMF and its predecessors for the first few months (linked to there) are especially good on the very early days. Those are when Doug Preston and Michael Heavey and Anne Bremner (founders of FOA) and Frank Sforza and New York lawyer Joe Tacopino all came alive in a heartbeat.

Marriott always used others to front his effort and was rarely interviewed or caught on camera. At least two lawyers (Anne Bremner and Joe Tacopino) indicated that they were available to Curt Knox. But he chose instead the most hardline PR exponent in Seattle.

An early instruction to Marriott seems to have been to keep Curt Knox’s brutality toward Knox in her early days well hidden.

Posted on 05/06/18 at 11:46 AM by Peter QuennellClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links: Hoaxes Knox & team14 Got on w RS hoax20 No-PR hoaxHoaxes Sollecito etc26 Got on w AK hoaxNews media & moviesMedia news
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (15)

Thursday, May 03, 2018

Demonizations By Knox: How A Mismanaged VICE Media Failed To Check Out The Facts

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters


1. VICE Media’s Back To The Wall

Things seemed to be going so well for VICE.

This is the Brooklyn-based media conglomerate of Canadian origins which is beamed at a hip demographic and does do some good reporting at BBC and Al Jazeerah levels.

But now VICE finds itself in the middle of all of this mess.

Click for Post:  A Media Company Built on Outlandishness Unable to Create “A Safe and Inclusive Workplace”

Click for Post:  Dozens Of Female Vice Employees Coming Forward With Terrifying Sexual Harassment Claims

Click for Post:  Amid Sexual Harassment Claims, Top Editors, Executives Out At Vice Media.

Click for Post:  Vice Media Reportedly Missed its 2017 Revenue Target by More than $100 Million.

Click for Post:  Vice Investors Getting Antsy for Company to Turn a Profit as Cable TV Struggles

Click for Post:  Vice Media’s Shane Smith out as CEO, Being Replaced by Nancy Dubuc

Welcome to the notorious Scourge of Knox. Wait till VICE finds out that it is being used as a mafia tool….

2. Failed Due Diligence On Knox

With lawsuits and firings also ongoing, the turbulence is still playing out.  Maybe getting worse. So maybe its no surprise that VICE’s journalistic principles really took a back seat in Knox’s case. 

No checking out at all of Knox’s demonization claims when she was offered a gig on VICE’s Facebook Video interviewing women who were genuinely demonized?

No realization that there are few people on the planet who have done more demonizing than Knox herself? Why did three years in prison for felony demonization not ring a bell at VICE?

Knox’s demonizing record (much of it still chargeable; the legal process has not yet played out, as Sollecito recently found) could fill a book. In fact her demonizations and stalkings do fill much of a book!

The one by Knox herself. Some of those 90 instances will be checked out in future posts.

3. Summary Of Knox Demonization Trial

Given every chance over more than two years, Knox monumentally failed to explain at trial, with half of Italy tuned in, why she spontaneously framed Patrick for murder and had shrugged that off for two weeks.

By that time the evidence assembled with zero help from Knox was overwhelming that she had lied. And so Patrick finally walked free - to face the havoc in his business and life which Knox had maliciously rained down on him. .

Knox had no Italian work permit, and Patrick was in fact risking his business in kindly hiring her.  But in Knox World it seems no kind deed goes unpunished - and so she wrecked his business anyway.

4. Explanation Of Demonization Charge

Knox was prosecuted by the Republic of Italy, not by Lumumba, for FELONY demonization. Machiavelli explains. 

The charge of calunnia (art. 368) has been commonly translated as “slander” in the English/US media. This translation is incorrect, however, as calunnia is a crime with no direct equivalent in the respective legal systems.

The equivalent of “criminal slander” is diffamazione, which is an attack on someone‟s reputation. Calunnia is the crime of making false criminal accusations against someone whom the accuser knows to be innocent, or to simulate/fabricate false evidence, independently of the credibility/admissibility of the accusation or evidence.

The charges of calunnia and diffamazione are subject to very different jurisprudence. Diffamazione is public and explicit, and is a more minor offence, usually resulting in a fine and only prosecuted if the victim files a complaint, while calunnia can be secret or known only to the authorities. It may consist only of the simulation of clues, and is automatically prosecuted by the judiciary.

The crimes of calunnia and diffamazione are located in different sections of the criminal code: while diffamazione is in the chapter entitled “crimes against honour” in the section of the Code protecting personal liberties, calunnia is discussed in the chapter entitled “crimes against the administration of justice”, in a section that protects public powers.

5. Knox Guilty At Trial & Served 3 Years

Over the next several years Knox butted her head against a brick wall in trying to get the guilty verdict and sentence reversed. No luck. Her appeal failed on this front in 2011 and the Supreme Court closed the books in 2013.

So Knox served her time. And although the Fifth Chambers knew they had no further jurisdiction in 2015 the European Court of Human Rights was tartly told they could have no further role.


Tuesday, May 01, 2018

Good Balanced Debate On A Controversial Case, No Too-Frequent Victim Stance For Accused

Posted by The Machine


Above, the trailer for the crime debate program discussed here

I have previously written a post about the Adnan Syed/Hae Min Lee case and Sarah Koenig’s biased and one-sided Serial podcasts.

She presented the case primarily from the defence’s perspecitve. She didn’t interview the prosecutor or any of the police officers involved in this case, but instead relied heavily on Adnan Syed as well as relying on his chief advocate in the media Rabia Chaudry and Asia McClain, who claims she is an alibi witness.

To be fair to Sarah Koenig she also interviewed Jay Wilds who was the key witness for the prosecution. However, her bias towards Adnan Syed is clearly evident in the number of people she spoke to who think he is innocent compared to those who think he is guilty.

In the post, I also expressed the hope that the mainstream media would provide balanced and factually accurate reports on the case - which is something they didn’t do when covering the Meredith Kercher case.

Predictably, most of the media coverage of the case hasn’t been balanced. The narrative of an innocent person being convicted of a crime they didn’t commit is more sensational and melodramatic than that of someone being rightfully convicted and American public relations takes advantage of this to the hilt. .

Rabia Chaudry has written a number of advocacy pieces in the media for The Guardian and Time (both of which were also riddled with Knox PR shills) in which she presents the defence’s claims as if they are established facts.

She brushes any inconvenient facts under the carpet. For example that an FBI expert claims the mobile phone evidence that places Adnan Syed in Leakin Park on the day Hae Min Lee disappeared is reliable.

Rabia Chaudry is also one of the contributors to the Undisclosed podcasts which are even more biased and one-sided than Serial - which is no mean feat. Adnan Syed’s supporters unquestiongly believe whatever Rabia Chaudry, Susan Simpson or Colin Miller tell them.

Incidentally, Susan Simpson believes Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent and the DNA evidece was “staged”. She also resorts to ridiculous conspiracy theories in the Adnan Syed/Hae Min Lee case by claiming the police coached Jay Wilds by tapping.

So it was refreshing to see no-nonsense former prosecutor Nancy Grace discussing the Adnan Syed/Hae Mine Lee case with legal commentator Dan Abrams on the new series GRACE v ABRAMS in a programme that allowed both sides to present their opinions and let the audience make up their own minds.

Sarah Koenig, The Guardian and Time please take note. It should go without saying there are two sides to every story and your job to inform the public about the facts of murder cases - not persuade people that convicted killers are innocent.

Posted on 05/01/18 at 08:56 PM by The MachineClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links: News media & moviesGreat reportingMedia newsOther legal processesThose elsewhere
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (9)

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #6

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Right: Ryan Ferguson, a REAL exoneree, to present at IP Kansas City fundraiser 

1. To REAL Exonerees: Knox Falsely Claims She Is One Of You

At this week’s gala the Midwest Innocence Project is seriously misleading its sponsors and real exonerees about Amanda Knox.

Amazing that Tricia Bushnell and her Midwest staff are having Knox present yet more dangerous anti-Italy trashing in the keynote speech.  For starters, Knox is not even an exoneree! That was NOT her final status.

And there’s more. We previously explained how Knox is walking free when she should not be, and how the Innocence Project and the mafias illegally interfered in the judicial process.

And how the Innocence Project has been ferociously touting Knox with zero serious questioning for seven years now.

2. What Knox Will Seek To Convince You

If Knox is true to form, she will attempt to convince you that she is one of you, for two reasons, both of them untrue: (1) that her four years in prison should not have been; and (2) that her conditions in prison were at least as nasty as yours were.

Out of a possible 200-plus reports here that go toward disproving these claims, we are linking below to 25 of the most telling.

3. Knox’s Four Year In Prison? Fully Justified

Knox’s four years in Capanne Prison outside Perugia (for which tellingly she is not suing for compensation) consisted of:

(1) a year in 2007-08 during which she was repeatedly given chances to convince courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, in the face of ever-mounting evidence described in previous posts, that she should make bail or house arrest or be released entirely. She failed at all of them (oh, she didn’t tell you?)

(2) a three-year sentence for spontaneously and without provocation framing an innocent man for murder; the Supreme Court has ruled that her appeals are all exhausted, the European Court of Human Rights will therefore not touch it, and so Knox is a convicted felon for life (oh, she didnt tell you?).

4. Knox’s Nasty Experiences In Prison? All Mythical

1. First, note conditions in American prisons.

We have posted most recently on the extraordinary fact that an estimated 200,000-plus are there only because they were frightened into a plea-bargain. (Despite the hullaballoo, those released with Innocence Project help are only a small fraction of one percent of that.

1. Click for Post:  Why Italy Doesnt Look For Foreign Guidance On Its Justice System.

2. Click for Post:  The Vital Context Of A Genuine, Huge US Justice Problem.

3. Click for Post: More On A Genuine, Huge Justice Problem In The US

4. Click for Post:  Yet More On A Genuine US Justice Problem.

2. Now note the contrast of Italian prisons.

The prisons Knox and IP maliciously trash include some of the most modern and humane in the world - Knox even had a bathroom, kitchen and TV in her cell, she was able to wander around the prison pretty freely, and she was given a job and attended concerts.

5. Click for Post: A Famous Black Widow Confirms Italian Prisons Are Pretty Nice

6. Click for Post: NY Times Describes How Italy Leads The World In Rehabilitation

7. Click for Post:  With Not Many Prisons Italy Decides To Build More

8. Click for Post:  “Human Rights Watch” Gives An Approving Nod To Italy

9. Click for Post: Italy’s Advanced, Effective System Adopted By City Of New York

3.  Knox had numerous ways to complain

Knox had direct access to the media, and Sollecito actually ran a blog from prison. She could write letters and make phone calls. Her family visited her at least weekly when they were in Perugia. Her lawyers visited her at least weekly.

Also an Italian MP, Rocco Girlanda, made several dozen visits to “monitor her conditions”. And an American Embassy staffer checked upon her conditions every month and reported them to the State Department.

What actually happened? Knox reported NO complaints. Nor did her parents. Nor her lawyers. Nor the Italian MP. Nor the US Rome Embassy staffers. Italian lawyers under law MUST pass on complaints of ill-treatment from clients, so the fact that they didn’t is very telling.

10. Click for Post:  State Department Monitored Knox 2007-11; Reported Fine

4. The HIV complaint? A defense trick

Knox was checked out medically on arrival in prison. An HIV test returned a false positive. She was told not to worry as this is not uncommon, and a second test was negative. There was nothing malicious about this and neither prosecution nor prison staff leaked to media.

11. Click for Post:  Felony Charge Of HIV Leak Was From Knox Defense-Team.

5. Knox herself did raise eyebrows in prison

Media were essentially benign while Knox was inside and she used them often to seek support. They actually showed her having good times. But staff and cellmates saw a darker aspect suggesting all was not well. Her hygiene issues came up again. She was under incessant pressure from Sollecito, who never confirmed any of her alibis in court. 

12. Click for Post:  Much-Admired Feminist On Knox As Ice-Cold In Capanne.

13. Click for Post: The Hands Of Time Video With Screenplay By Amanda Knox.

14. Click for Post: The Milestone Book By Dr Hodges On Knox’s Driving Psychology.

6. Knox’s 2013 book explodes with surprise charges

Knox’s book was published after the Nencini appeal court confirmed her guilt. Desperation was setting in. It was her first blast against Italy for her prison term and it sure conned a lot of Americans. As Knox finds it harder and harder to maintain the interrogation hoax and the false-confession hoax, she falls back on the nasty-prison hoax more and more despite strong proof she was treated well.

15. Click for Post: Knox’s Smear-All Revenge Book #3

16. Click for Post: Knox’s Smear-All Revenge Book #4

17. Click for Post: Knox’s Smear-All Revenge Book #6

18. Click for Post: Knox’s Smear-All Revenge Book #9

19. Click for Post: Knox’s Smear-All Revenge Book #11

Plus many shown to be stabbed in the back by Knox in the demonization series were in Capanne.

7. Italy reacts to Knox’s malicious claims negatively

The book was withdrawn at the last moment from publication in Italian in Italy in 2013. Why? Because the publishers’ lawyers considered it highly defamatory. Italian reactions are to the English language version and to long excerpts in the weekly Oggi (see part 8 below).

20. Click for Post:  In Italy Knox’s Malicious Demonizations Spark Anger

21. Click for Post:  Book Claims About Prison Contradicted By Many Sources

22. Click for Post:  Good Reporters Surface Amanda Knox’s False Claims In Droves

23. Click for Post:  Callous Attacker Who Smirked At Trial Turns Into A Whiny Victim

8. Oggi lost in court for republishing Knox claims

The Italian weekly tabloid has a kind of a pro-mafia anti-justice slant and delights in showing justice officials up. It was the only publication in Italy to translate lurid passages from Knox’s book and it lost in court for this. The passages are rebutted in the second post.

24. Click for Post: (1) The Knox Article Oggi Is Now Charged For 1

25. Click for Post:  (2) The Oggi Article: Our Claim By Claim Rebuttal

26. Click for Post: Diffamazione Complaint Against False Claims In Oggi Article

5. And Knox’s Biggest Hoax Of Real Exonerees?

Fake exoneree Knox is not out of the woods on this matter. Recently Sollecito faced charges in a Florence court for defamations in his book - and he lost. The Statute of Limitations on the myriad defamations in Knox’s book has several years to run still.

27. Click for Post:  Sollecito Loses Supreme Court Appeal On $0.55M Damages Claim

6. Afterthought

Knox may have gained backing from a foolish IP but at a high price and a great risk for both. Many despise her, especially those dozens she has defamed. She would be given no peace if she visited Italy. She has lost all prospect of any reversal via the ECHR “appeal” and all prospect of any compensation for “false” imprisonment. And the black mafia cloud over her grows larger. Thanks not least to Sollecito’s dead uncle.

For those still in the process of clicking through, this is the Breaking News box that sat at the top for the past several days.

7 Breaking News Box Of Past Few Days

Breaking news. There seems deliberate intent to make Thursday night IP fundraiser in Kansas City with Amanda Knox all but invisible to the press. This might explain that. Quick reads: (1) On why Knox was rightly in prison and was not exonerated. (2) On Knox’s real experiences in prison, by witnesses and Knox herself. (3) And much more.


Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #5

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Joint press conference of American and Italian prosecutors

1. Perverse Denigration Of Italian Justice

The stance of Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project on Amanda Knox is not only opportunistic and dishonest. It is perverse in terms of their main mission.

We don’t approve of their broad-brush undermining of forensic science. Statistics show that forensic science has made quantum advances since most of their cases were sent to prison, and these days very few new cases of bent science are showing up. The CSI Effect is a defense device not based on current reality.

But we do approve of any highlighting of how the American system rains massive unfairness, such as the huge tilt toward plea-bargaining by hard-line and mostly elected prosecutors (in Italy only highly-trained career judges can enter into their restrained form of plea-bargaining) and to push for much-needed reforms. And of any learning from other, better, justice systems.

They are not too far down the road on the latter, but seem sincere about it - and there is a great deal that they could learn from Italy. 

So the Innocence Project’s incessant use of Amanda Knox, a FAKE exoneree who for big bucks is demonizing perhaps the world’s FAIREST system, is not helpful to either the Italian or American situations.

Here below from our numerous comparison posts are some that highlight the many pluses and several minuses of the Italian justice system.

In essence: it is an extremely effective system. it is widely respected by competent counterparts (as contrasted with the wildly incompetent Steve Moore, Michael Heavey, and so on), it works very closely with the FBI and exchanges officers, it keeps Italian crime at a very low level, it very bravely takes on the mafias despite over 100 assasinations, and it gives an exceptional list of breaks to perpetrators. Recidivisms - repeat crimes - are among the world’s lowest. 

2.  Main Pluses And Minuses Of The Italian Justice System

1. Plus: Italy Has Little Crime, Few Murders, Small Prison Population

Click for Post: Compared To Italy, Say, Precisely How Wicked Is The United States?

2. Plus: The Well-Trained Well-Equipped Italian Police Are Also Well-Liked

Click for Post: Italian Police Long Known As Among Europe’s Coolest, Now Also Being Remarked Upon As…

3. Plus: Italian Cops, Judges, Labs Work Exceptionally Closely With US’s FBI

Click for Post:  FBI Reporting Close Co-operation With Italy In Arresting And Soon Extraditing A Fugitive Swindler

4. Plus: Italy And United States Cooperate Daily On Effecting Extraditions

Click for Post: Italian Justice & The Telling Status Of Extraditions To And From Italy

5. Plus: Italy Has Implemented Perhaps World’s Best Anti-Terrorism System

Click for Post: Counterterrorism: Another Way Italian Law Enforcement Is An Effective Model For Everywhere Else

6. Plus: The Career Prosecutors Are Well-Trained, Straight, Very Hard to Bend

Click for Post: Why The Italian Judiciary’s Probably Less Prone to Pressure Than Any Other In The World

7. Plus: Those Charged Get Repeated Chances To Walk Free Before Trial

Click for Post: “They Were Held For A Year Without Even Being Charged!!” How Italian Justice REALLY Works

8. Plus: The Courts Take Reasonable Doubt At Trials Very, Very Seriously

Click for Post: Reasonable Doubt In Italian Law: How Sollecito, Hellmann, And Zanetti Seriously Garbled It.

9. Plus: The Appeal System Is Ponderous But Its Fairness Exceptional

Click for Post: How The Italian Appeals Process Works And Why It Consumes So Much Time

10. Plus: The Italian System Learns Fast And Seeks Incessantly To Improve

Click for Post: Meredith May Not See Justice (Yet) But She Will Leave At Least Three Legacies

11. Minus: Mafias And Corrupt Politicians Have Somewhat Bent a Good System

Click for Post: Trashing Of Italian Justice To Bend Trial Outcomes And How The Republic Pushes Back

12. Minus: The System Is So Fair To Perps, Victim’s Families Can Suffer Terribly

Click for Post: The Terrible Weight On The Victim’s Family Because The Italian System Is So Very, Very Pro Defendant

13. Plus: Still, A Fine System Continuously Improving, Already Good As A Global Model

Click for Post:  Italian Justice: Describing A Fine System And How To Improve It

14. Plus: And The System Really Has Gone The Extra Mile In Meredith’s Case

Click for Post: From Shortly Before Last December’s Verdict: Our Poster Hopeful’s Moving Tribute To Italian Justice

3. Next post

The American justice system. Thereafter: both prison systems. 


Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Knox v Knox 6: How She Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #39 To #52

Posted by Chimera



Jason Flom, Barry Scheck, Greg Hampikian

(Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.)

1. Series And Post Overview

Does even this series on Knox in court v Knox in book relate to the Innocence Project’s plight?

Sure it does.

Had Barry Scheck & company done some due diligence, before adopting and touting Knox for a dangerous serial orgy of Italy-bashing, they would have checked some trial transcripts and the judges’ report and avoided Knox’s terrible book.

Maybe even read a bit here. With that done, as it should have been, they would not now be in the legal soup:

But instead?

Instead they have let themselves be led by the nose, by a grandstanding and pathetic sycophant of Knox.

A quack who is utterly incompetent in the forensics of the case, and whose motives are fishy to say the least.

2 Telling Contradictions 39 to 52

39. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

GCM:  And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
AK:  Thank you. So, here is…how I understood the question, I’m answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I’m sorry, I don’t know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I didn’t do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men.

So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.” So I said okay and went with them, and they started asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening. At least, they kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything about what I did.

Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times and schedules, and time segments: “What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this.

Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember. And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.”

And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn’t there? I was there! Maybe I can’t say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because I didn’t look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And she would say “No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the house.” And I said, no, that’s not how it was. I was always in Raffaele’s apartment.

40. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me,

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 108]
They gave me a chair outside the waiting room, by the elevator. I’d been doing drills in my grammar workbook for a few minutes when a silver-haired police officer—I never learned his name—came and sat next to me.

[Comments] So in the book it is “grammar drills”, but in Court it is “paragraphs of reading”

41. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.”

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 108]

“Why don’t you keep talking about the people who’ve been in your house—especially men?” he suggested.
I’d done this so many times in the questura I felt as if I could dial it in. And finally someone there seemed nice. “Okay,” I said, starting in. “There are the guys who live downstairs.”

[Comments] in both the trial testimony and in the book, AK leaves out the fact that she was giving names and numbers (and addresses) in her “list”.  See here. See here. See here.

42. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

“What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember. And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 113/114]
Just then a cop - Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa - opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.” My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded, devastated. What? I couldn’t believe that Raffaele, the one person in Italy whom I’d trusted completely, had turned against me. How could he say that when it wasn’t true? We’d been together all night. Now it was just me against the police, my word against theirs. I had nothing left.

[Comments] AK had been building her “list of 7” until she had been informed that she no longer had an alibi.  THEN she had to come up with someone—anyone—and she did.  The June 2009 testimony and book and surprisingly consistent (for Knox), yet it does not in any way reflect what actually happened.  Reread these posts

See Posts 1 to 9.

[Comments] And again, to repeat from before, how exactly could this “sting” be planned for that night?  Knox showed up to the Questura: (a) unannounced; (b) uninvited; and (c) refused to leave when told to do so?

43. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

I was always in Raffaele’s apartment

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] RS has repeatedly thrown AK under the bus on this.  To this day, he refuses to provide an alibi. See here.

44. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

GCM:  [taking advantage of a tiny pause to slip in without exactly interrupting] Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the cuffs, who gave them to you.
AK:  All right. What it was, was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started to little by little and then more and more these remarks about “We’re not convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not remember another thing. We don’t understand how you could take a shower without seeing…” And then, they kept on asking me “Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.” Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that I had gone out of the house. I said look, it’s impossible. I don’t know if he’s really saying that or not, but look, I didn’t go out of the house. And they said “No, you’re telling a lie. You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.” Sure, take it. “All right.” So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling “We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?” But I kept saying no, no, I didn’t go out, I’m not pro-pro-pro—-
“Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.”

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]
People were shouting at me. “Maybe you just don’t remember what happened. Try to think. Try to think. Who did you meet? Who did you meet? You need to help us. Tell us!” A cop boomed, “You’re going to go to prison for thirty years if you don’t help us.”

[Comments] Notwithstanding the fact that this browbeating was made up, it is told differently.  At trial, AK says she was threatened because she wasn’t sure of what she was saying, while in the book she claims it was due to not remembering at all.

45. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

“Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.”

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114]
“Where did you go? Who did you text?” Ficarra asked, sneering at me. “I don’t remember texting anyone.” They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history. “You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” “My boss at Le Chic.”

[Comments] Again, aside from the fact this “interrogation” didn’t happen, these events change as well.  In the Trial testimony, AK says she handed over her phone since the police wanted to verify that she had received such a message from Patrick.  In the book, the police seem to be searching for people AK may have talked to.

[Comments] And, as mentioned before, if this really was a sting, why wouldn’t the police have pulled AK/RS phone and text records beforehand?  Why would the police set up such a sting on the offchance AK would show up:  (a) unannounced; (b) uninvited; and (c) refuse to leave when told to do so?

46. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114]

“My boss at Le Chic.” “What about his text message? What time did you receive that?” “I don’t know. You have my phone,”
...........................

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114]
They said, “Why did you delete Patrick’s message? The text you have says you were going to meet Patrick.” “What message?” I asked, bewildered. I didn’t remember texting Patrick a return message. “This one!” said an officer, thrusting the phone in my face and withdrawing it before I could even look. “Stop lying! Who’s Patrick? What’s he like?” “He’s about this tall,” I said, gesturing, “with braids.”
...........................

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]
“Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?” The questions wouldn’t stop. I couldn’t think. And even when it didn’t seem possible, the pressure kept building. I said, “Patrick is my boss.”
...........................

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]
The interpreter offered a solution, “Once, when I had an accident, I didn’t remember it. I had a broken leg and it was traumatizing and I woke up afterward and didn’t remember it. Maybe you just don’t remember. Maybe that’s why you can’t remember times really well.” For a moment, she sounded almost kind. But I said, “No, I’m not traumatized.” Another cop picked up the same language. He said, “Maybe you’re traumatized by what you saw. Maybe you don’t remember.”
...........................

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]
That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head. “Why are you hitting me?” I cried. “To get your attention,” she said. “I’m trying to help,” I said. “I’m trying to help, I’m desperately trying to help.”
...........................

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 117]
People were shouting at me. “Maybe you just don’t remember what happened. Try to think. Try to think. Who did you meet? Who did you meet? You need to help us. Tell us!” A cop boomed, “You’re going to go to prison for thirty years if you don’t help us.”
...........................

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 118]
me. I didn’t understand that I was about to implicate the wrong person. I didn’t understand what was at stake. I didn’t think I was making it up. My mind put together incoherent images. The image that came to me was Patrick’s face. I gasped. I said his name. “Patrick—it’s Patrick.” I started sobbing uncontrollably. They said, “Who’s Patrick? Where is he? Where is he?” I said, “He’s my boss.” “Where did you meet him?” “I don’t remember.” “Yes, you do.”

[Comments] This sequence makes little sense (and yes, it is in sequence).  Even as an “abbreviated” writing it makes no sense.  According to AK, (a) she received the message fro Patrick, and that he is her boss; (b) AK is asked about this specific message, and why she deleted it; (c) AK confirms that PL is her boss; (d) the interpreter suggests that AK can’t remember anything, despite dropping the name; (e) AK gets hit by Ficarra to “get her attention”, even though she told the Court it was to get the name in the first place; (f) the police insist on asking who AK went to meet, despite the message which supposedly said who she was going to meet; and (g) the police revert back to asking who Patrick is, even though she had told them twice who he is.

[Comments] And of course, the police already have Patrick’s name, general address and telephone number.  AK gave it to them, but ignore that. See here.

[Comments] And of course, the police couldn’t have expected to launch this brutal interrogation give, AK showed up: (a) unannounced; (b) uninvited; and (c) refused to leave when told to do so

47. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

“We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?”

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comment] This question, if it actually was posed, seems rather odd.  AK is being accused of lying to them, and protecting the real murderer.  Seems that killing MK would be the reason AK went to meet him.

48. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said “Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick”, and I said I don’t think I did, and they yelled “Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here’s your message saying you wanted to meet him!” And I didn’t even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was telling me “Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you’re not able to remember anything you’ve done.” So I said, how could that be? And she said, “Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can’t remember it. Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg…”

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Read the above book quotations.  AK gives the name PL, tells police he is her boss, repeats that he is her boss, (and remember, she already included him in her “list”), but police seem to think she has trouble with her memory.

49. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  It’s difficult for me to say that one specific person said one specific thing. It was the fact that there were all these little suggestions, and someone was saying that there was the telephone, then there was the fact that… then more than anything what made me try to imagine something was someone saying to me “Maybe you’re confused, maybe you’re confused and you should try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking, what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting “Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember,” and boom! on my head. [Amanda slaps herself on the back of the head: End of video segment] “Remember!” And I was like—Mamma Mia! and then boom! [slaps head again] “Remember!”
GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me, please, excuse me…
AK:  Those were the cuffs.
[Voices: “This is impossible!” “Avoid thinking aloud!” “Or suggestions”]
GCM:  So, the pubblico ministero asked you, and is still asking you, who is the person that gave you these two blows that you just showed us on yourself?
AK:  It was a policewoman, but I didn’t know their names.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 103]
Police officer Rita Ficarra slapped her palm against the back of my head, but the shock of the blow, even more than the force, left me dazed. I hadn’t expected to be slapped. I was turning around to yell, “Stop!“—my mouth halfway open—but before I even realized what had happened, I felt another whack, this one above my ear. She was right next to me, leaning over me, her voice as hard as her hand had been. “Stop lying, stop lying,” she insisted. Stunned, I cried out, “Why are you hitting me?” “To get your attention,” she said.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114]
“I don’t remember texting anyone.” They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history. “You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” “My boss at Le Chic.” “What about his text message? What time did you receive that?” “I don’t know. You have my phone,” I said defiantly, trying to combat hostility with hostility. I didn’t remember that I’d deleted Patrick’s message.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]
“Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?” The questions wouldn’t stop. I couldn’t think. And even when it didn’t seem possible, the pressure kept building. I said, “Patrick is my boss.”

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]
They pushed my cell phone, with the message to Patrick, in my face and screamed, “You’re lying. You sent a message to Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head. “Why are you hitting me?” I cried. “To get your attention,” she said.

[Comments] At trial, AK is saying she was hit because she: (a) couldn’t remember.  But in the book she claims it was because she was: (b) lying; and to (c) get her attention.  But to restate from before, at this point AK has already given the name PL, and his phone number (from her list of 7).  However, for some inexplicable reason, the police apparently need to beat the name out of her, even though they already have it.

[Comments] And of course, what better way to launch such an interrogation by not calling in the suspect and hoping they arrive: (a) unannounced; (b) uninvited; and (c) refuse to leave when told to do so

See here. See here. See here.

50. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

GCM:  Go on, go on. The person who was conducting the interrogation…
AK:  Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don’t know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?” Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept
moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn’t see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] More of the same, but in the book, AK claims to have given the name, and only after is smacked on the head

51. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  All right. It seems to me that the thoughts of the people standing around me, there were so many people, and they suggested things to me in the sense that they would ask questions like: “Okay, you met someone!” No, I didn’t. They would say “Yes you did, because we have this telephone here, that says that you wanted to meet someone. You wanted to meet him.” No, I don’t remember that. “Well, you’d better remember, because if not we’ll put you in prison for 30 years.” But I don’t remember! “Maybe it was him that you met? Or him? You can’t remember?” It was this kind of suggestion.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[Comments] Okay, this appears to be a new version entirely.  In this one AK claims that the police have the message, and are asking (a) about multiple names to see who it belonged to.  But it directly contradicts what AK says earlier this day, that (b) they wanted to confirm the message from PL, telling AK not to work

(from earlier in trial testimony)
Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.”

(despite AK saying PL is her boss)
Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out

[Comments] I know I’m repeating this, but if AK/RS really were targeted in a sting, why wouldn’t phone and text records have been pulled before launching the interrogation?  Why wouldn’t the police have these answers before breaking the 2 of them?  Also, if you were trying to lure someone, wouldn’t asking them to arrive be a good idea, instead of telling them to go home?

52. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message—
GCM:  You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?
AK:  To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew, and that I didn’t want to tell. And that I didn’t want to tell because I didn’t remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying “Look what a stupid liar you are, you don’t even remember this!” At first, I didn’t even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying “Maybe you don’t remember, maybe you don’t remember, but try,” and other people were saying “Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing “Remember, remember, remember,” and then there was this person behind me who—it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me…
GCM:  “Remember!” is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather…
AK:  But it was always “Remember” following this same idea, that…
GCM:  But they didn’t literally say that it was him!
AK:  No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him.”
GCM:  So, these were the suggestions.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 114]
“I don’t remember texting anyone.” They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history. “You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” “My boss at Le Chic.” “What about his text message? What time did you receive that?” “I don’t know. You have my phone,”

[Comments] According to the book, AK tells the police instantly who PL is.  And once more, they have his phone number from the list she wrote.  No argument at all
See here. See here. See here.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 116]
“Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?” The questions wouldn’t stop. I couldn’t think. And even when it didn’t seem possible, the pressure kept building. I said, “Patrick is my boss.”

[Comments] So not only does AK immediately give PL’s name—in contradiction to her trial testimony—but the police still want to know who he is.  And then, after the police repeatedly accuse her of not remembering (or was it not paying attention), we have this.

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 118]
I didn’t think I was making it up. My mind put together incoherent images. The image that came to me was Patrick’s face. I gasped. I said his name. “Patrick—it’s Patrick.” I started sobbing uncontrollably. They said, “Who’s Patrick? Where is he? Where is he?” I said, “He’s my boss.”

[Comments] That’s right, after twice telling the police who PL is, the police still .... want to know who PL is.

[Comments] And the book floats 2 conflicting narratives, that (a) the police want to know who Patrick is; and (b) who AK went off to meet.  Keep in mind AK already said that PL is her boss (and they do have the list).  This seems to be the most redundant interrogation in history.


Saturday, April 07, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #4

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



One of two Sollecito footprints matching in EXACT dimensions

1. What Hampikian Omits In Misleading The American Audience (2)

Hampikian’s illegal nonsense on the DNA in the case is quite obviously worse than useless.

It actually came to HURT the defenses rather than helped them, and drew the mafias in (see Part 2 below). Do please feel free to purge your mind of it, and take in our forensic Powerpoints.

Click each image below, and keep clicking.

1. DNA: A Very Clear Intro To A Vital Subject By Nicki


2. DNA Evidence May Be A Tough Mole To Whack By Nicki


3 Telling Forensic Evidence Against Sollecito By Kermit


4. How Pro-Knox Mafia Tools Doctored A Sollecito Footprint By Kermit


5. Total Evidence Suggests AK & RS Guilty By James Raper w/Kermit




2. Tip For IP Contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Monday, April 02, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #3

Posted by Peter Quennell



Knox enablers Jason Flom, Barry Scheck, Greg Hampikian

(Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.)

1. What Hampikian Omits In Misleading The American Audience (1)

Think of the evidence in the case as a giant jigsaw puzzle. Say it consists of 1000 pieces.

We at TJMK and PMF and the Wiki are finally on top of nearly all of them. Thanks especially to Italy’s amazing habit of documenting and its open-process juries and our fine translators.

In the US and UK there would be few such documents. And no reasoning at all from any black-box jury. No surprise really that the Innocence Project has many cases here - and none in Italy.

Hampikian in his frenetic marketing of Knox, in sharp contrast to our full picture, leaves out pretty well everything. The previous post by KrissyG showed this for us first.

Amazingly, Hampikian revealed he is not even clued up on the full extent of the DNA.

Now in the prosecution phases of the trial back in 2009 the judges and lay-judges were presented with all 1000 pieces of the puzzle, in 20 day-long sessions (a quarter in closed court and not reported by media in detail). Also they did voluminous side-reading of the case files.

Plus of course staring at the telling Knox and Sollecito reactions for hours and hours.

Knox obviously preferred to be daffy and her version of likable, and to try to warm up a hostile Sollecito. He was obviously sulky and angry at Knox, refusing to look at her or to speak in favor of any of her alibis. Both grimly sat through the hard-to-take closed sessions.

For us and many in Italy, the case came to be a convincingly strong one about midpoint in the trial.

That was when a defiant Knox was on the stand for two days, doing herself no good, incessantly contradicting herself and causing this typical reaction and this one.

Knocked back by this, the defenses used up only a very few court days to attempt rebuttals and attempt to squeeze nice opinions out of character witnesses. Pretty well all Italy could see the defenses were outgunned, listless, and demoralized.

Back in 2008 there had been talk of RS and AK admitting to heavy drug use or psychological issues but the parents would have none of it.

So other than incessantly beating up on Guede (an easy “out” as he was not present to defend himself) it was hard for them to find things to talk about. Some court days were cancelled because of this and Sollecito lawyer Bongiorno skipped several sessions.

This all matters. It explains things. But Hampikian omits all of it in his simplistic and ridiculous bid for glory.

He misrepresents a small fraction of the DNA evidence, reveals himself ignorant of a much bigger and equally damning fraction, and ignores all other evidence as if everything other than DNA is of lower importance.

So here below from the Wiki Evidence Masterlist is all of the forensic evidence made public by the end of 2009. (Although very extensive, this is still only about 50% of all the evidence items on the Masterlist. Hampikian hid that half also.)

Again, this was all known to the jury as of the end of trial - which like any jury anywhere can convict on ONE item if it speaks guilt to them. This was the only jury to hear the whole case. The one that voted for guilt unanimously.  As any American or British jury would have done.

Part 3 at bottom summarizes the damning court take and the Knox shills’ spin.

2. Forensic Evidence In The Public Realm By Late 2009

Area 1: The Wounds

11-01   Meredith Kercher sustained 43 wounds during the assault that killed her. (Perna closing arguments 2009)

1-02   She had 10 knife wounds and 33 other wounds. (Lalli 2009)

1-03   She had at least 15 bruises: on her mouth, nose, cheeks, jaw, neck, elbows, right forearm, small of her back, left thigh, and right lower leg. The bruises indicate she was not only restrained, but also kept from screaming for help. (Lalli 2009)

1-04   Some of the bruising on Ms. Kercher was in the shape of fingertips, with some fingertips being smaller, of a woman’s size. There were no ligature marks. (Lalli, Marchionni, Codispoti 2009)

1-05   Some of the neck bruises indicate Ms. Kercher was being choked at some point during the assault. (Liviero 2009)

1-06   The internal vaginal bruising suffered by Ms. Kercher happened before her death and was violent. (Lalli, Marchionni 2009)

1-07   She had only 2 major knife wounds, one on each side of her neck. The remaining knife wounds were minor. (Lalli 2009)

1-08   The wound on the right side of her neck was narrow and deep. The wound on the left side of her neck was wide, large, gaping and fatal. These two wounds were likely made with two different knives. (Bacci, Politi, Codispoti, Mignini 2009)

1-09   She had another knife cut just below the gaping wound on the left side of her neck. (Lalli 2009)

1-10   She had 3 other glancing knife wounds on her neck and cheeks. (Lalli 2009)

1-11   She had 3 small cuts on her right hand and one small cut on her left hand. (Lalli 2009)

1-12   Her defensive wounds were virtually non-existent, especially when compared with other single-attacker knife attacks, where knife wounds on the hands and arms are prevalent. (Cingolani, Codispoti 2009)

1-13   The wounds were compatible with an assault by multiple persons (Cingolani, Codispoti, Lalli, Liviero 2009).

1-14   Bacci, Lalli and Liviero testified that the wounds could not be ascribed with 100% certainty to a single person or multiple person assault. However Lalli and Liviero preferred the multiple person assault scenario, given the quantity and different types of wounds. (Bacci, Lalli, Liviero 2009)

1-15   Lalli confirmed under questioning by Judge Massei that if the rape happened during the assault, then the assault had to be carried out by more than one person. (Lalli 2009)

Area 2: The Blood traces

2-01   Blood traces were found all around Ms. Kercher’s bedroom, not in one specific area. (crime scene photos)

2-02   In Ms. Kercher’s bedroom, blood was found by the far wall, on and inside the closet, under the desk, by and under the bed, on the walls above the bed, on the mattress cover, on the floor in large quantities and on the door into the bedroom. (crime scene photos)

2-03   Blood was also found on the floor in the form of partial shoeprints leading out of the cottage. Blood traces were also found on the small bathroom door, in the small bathroom (on the light switch, sink, bidet, bathroom floor mat, etc.), possibly on a few items in Knox’s bedroom, and also in Luminol-revealed traces found on the floor in the corridor, in Knox’s bedroom and in Romanelli’s bedroom. (crime scene photos, Codispoti 2009)

2-04   No blood traces were found near, leading to or in the large bathroom where Guede defecated. (crime scene photos, Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test report)

2-05   Blood pattern analysis indicates Ms. Kercher was fatally stabbed around 40 cm above the ground, near to the closet door. (Camana 2009)

2-06   Blood traces on the floor indicate objects were shifted or removed after Ms. Kercher had started bleeding from the fatal wound. (crime scene photos)

2-07   Ms. Kercher’s body was moved after she was stabbed, as can be seen from the blood smears on the floor. (crime scene photos)

2-08   Blood traces on the mattress cover indicate that one or more knives used in the assault were placed on the mattress cover. (Politi 2009)

2-09   Blood traces under the bed indicate someone was likely searching under the bed for something after the assault. (Codispoti 2009)

Area 3. Clothing traces

3-01   Blood was found on her sweat jacket, bra, jeans and socks. (crime scene photos)

3-02   Ms. Kercher’s bra and sweat jacket indicate she bled on the right side, likely from the knife wound on the right side of her neck, for some time before these were removed. (evidence item photos in Dr. Stefanoni’s slide presentation)

3-03   The sleeves on her sweat jacket were pulled inside-out. (Stefanoni 2009)

3-04   Blood stains on her sweat jacket and shirt indicate these were pulled up around her neck after she had been wounded. (Codispoti 2009)

3-05   Her jeans were also inside out, with blood spots inside her jeans. (Stefanoni 2009)

3-06   Her panties were found near her body, and had no blood stains. (Stefanoni 2009)

3-07   Ms. Kercher’s bra was removed after she was dead, as can be seen from blood speckles on the bra that were not found on her chest. (Micheli Motivation report, Codispoti 2009

3-08   Her body was covered with a duvet, and she only had an undershirt on. (Micheli Motivation report)

3-09   Police found a pillow, a bed sheet, a sock and two towels under her body. (Nencini Motivation Report- citing Lalli’s site report)

3-10   Guede’s bloody handprint was found on the pillow. (Sbardella 2009)

3-11   Guede’s bloody shoeprint was found on the pillow right under Ms. Kercher’s leg. (Sbardella 2009)

3-12   Police found Ms Kercher’s bra clasp under the pillow, and then later found it again under a carpet in the bedroom, 46 days after initial discovery. (Cantagalli, Codispoti, Stefanoni 2009, crime scene photos)

3-13   A sock was found around one of Ms. Kercher’s purse handles on the bed. (crime scene photos)

3-14   Ms. Kercher’s purse was found on the mattress cover, indicating it had been placed there after the duvet had been used to cover her body. (crime scene photos)

Area 4. Ms. Kercher’s room

4-01   Only the mattress cover remained on the bed. After the assault, someone removed the duvet, pillow and bed sheet from the bed, and placed Ms. Kercher on the bed sheet, two towels and pillow on the floor, then covered her body with the duvet. (Codispoti 2009, crime scene photos)

4-02   Someone took Ms. Kercher’s wallet and credit cards from her purse and placed the purse on the mattress cover on the bed. (Profazio 2009, Nencini Motivations report, crime scene photos)

4-03   Someone left receipts on the duvet covering Ms. Kercher’s body. (Codispoti 2009, crime scene photos)

4-04   Someone took Ms. Kercher’s cell phones and tossed them over a roadside wall, inadvertently into the garden of another villa, some 950 meters from the cottage. (Nencini Motivations report)

4-05   Someone took Ms. Kercher’s room and house keys. (Napoleoni 2009)

4-06   An empty jar of Vaseline was found on her desk. (crime scene photos, Napoleoni 2009)

4-07   The wall shelf by her closet had been knocked around, and objects on the shelf were tipped over. (crime scene photos, Codispoti 2009)

4-08   Ms. Kercher’s nightstand lamp and Knox’s nightstand lamp were both on the floor next to the bed. (crime scene photos)

4-09   Knox’s lamp was partially under Ms. Kercher’s bed, and it was the only functioning light Knox had in her room. (crime scene photos, Nencini Motivations report)

4-10   Someone closed and locked Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door, and took her bedroom door key. (Battistelli, Romanelli, Altieri, Zaroli, Napoleoni 2009)

4-11   Romanelli testified Ms. Kercher rarely closed and locked her own bedroom door, while Knox claimed Ms. Kercher normally locked her door. (Battistelli, Zaroli, Altieri, Romanelli 2009)

4-12   Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door had a small crack in it before it was broken down. (Altieri 2009).

Area 5: Shoeprints

5-01   Guede’s bloody left shoeprints were found in Ms. Kercher’s room.

5-02   Guede’s bloody left shoeprints were also found leading down the corridor, into the kitchen/dining room and out the front door, without any trace of prints indicating he turned to close and lock Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door.

5-03   Five different papers and cards, most smudged with blood, were found on the floor in Ms. Kercher’s room. These papers and cards had at least two different types of shoeprints which did not match any of Ms. Kercher’s shoes.

5-04   A similar card was found in Romanelli’s room, with a shoeprint not matching those on the cards and papers in Ms. Kercher’s room.

5-05   A smaller shoeprint similar to Guede’s shoe type was found on the pillow found under Ms. Kercher. Police consultants estimate this was a female sized shoe.

Area 6: Footprints

6-01   Half of a bloody footprint was found on the bathmat. The heel of this footprint, which should have been on the floor, was missing, suggesting it was cleaned away. (crime scene photos, report)

6-02   The bloody footprint matches Sollecito’s right foot size and characteristics.

6-03   Five Luminol-revealed footprints were found on the floor in the corridor and in Knox’s bedroom.

6-04   One of these Luminol-revealed footprints was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot.

6-05   Two others were compatible with Knox’s right foot.

6-06   None of the Luminol-revealed footprints were compatible with Guede’s feet.

Area 7: Fingerprints

7-01   Ms. Kercher’s fingerprints were found on Knox’s closet door.

7-02   Knox’s fingerprints were only found on a glass in the kitchen. None of her fingerprints were found in her own bedroom, or elsewhere in the cottage.

7-03   Sollecito’s fingerprints were on Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door and on the inside face of Laura Mezzetti’s door.

7-04   Guede’s fingerprint was found in Ms. Kercher’s bedroom.

Area 8: DNA testing general

8-01   227 evidence items were sampled or bagged. 30 of these were not analyzed.

8-02   From the remaining 197 evidence items, over 480 DNA and Y haplotype tests were prepared from liquids, solids or hairs. Many objects were sampled in multiple places.

8-03   Out of the over 480 DNA and Y haplotype tests, only 193 of these tests actually yielded DNA useful for comparison. (40%)

8-04   24 tests were from samples taken from Ms. Kercher’s body. Of these, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s Y haplotype, 17 tests yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s, and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-05   11 tests were from samples taken from the exterior of the cottage. Of these, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown female, 2 tests yielded cat DNA and the remainder did not yield useful DNA.

8-06   21 tests were from samples taken from the basement apartment at the cottage. Of these, 16 tests yielded cat blood, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-07   221 tests were from samples or items taken from the upper apartment at the cottage. Of these, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA or Y haplotype, 82 tests yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Guede’s DNA or Y haplotype (both tests from the same sample), 5 tests from 5 different samples yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Sollecito’s DNA or Y haplotype (both tests from the same sample), 4 tests yielded DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown female, 3 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-08   4 tests were from samples taken (from bloodied tissue papers) found in the vicinity of the cottage, yielding DNA compatible with an unknown male or an unknown female.

8-09   16 tests were from samples taken from Sollecito’s car and no DNA useful for comparison was found.

8-10   102 tests were from samples taken from Sollecito’s apartment. Of these, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Knox’s DNA, 7 tests yielded DNA compatible with a combination of Knox and Sollecito’s DNA, 7 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Sollecito’s DNA, 3 tests yielded DNA of 3 unknown males and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-11   29 tests were from samples taken from Guede’s apartment. Of these, 14 tests yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-12   6 tests were from samples taken from the pub Le Chic and no DNA useful for comparison was found.

8-13   50 tests were from samples taken from the defendants or defendant’s items during arrests or likely at the police station. Of these, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Guede’s DNA, 8 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Knox’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with a combination of Knox and Sollecito’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Lumumba’s DNA, 4 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Sollecito’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA of an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-14   Of the 82 tests yielding DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA at the cottage, 4 samples were taken from the corridor floor, 5 were taken from the kitchen/dining floor, 66 were taken from Ms. Kercher’s room and clothing, 1 was taken from the floor in Romanelli’s room and 6 were taken from the small bathroom.

8-15   17 tests yielded unmatchable DNA, with 6 tests yielding DNA compatible with 3 different females and 11 tests yielded DNA compatible with 7 different males. 13 of these samples were found in tissue paper outside the cottage and on cigarette butts in the ashtray in the cottage kitchen.

Area 9: DNA testing- specific

9-01   Ms. Kercher’s DNA was found on the kitchen knife at Sollecito’s apartment. Her DNA was found in a groove towards the cutting edge of the blade. The grove is part of a series of noticeable scratches running parallel along the blade.

9-02   Knox’s DNA was found on the top of the handle of the same knife.

9-03   A second sample of Knox’s DNA was also found on the same knife, where the blade goes into the handle. This second sample was an LCN sample of mixed DNA, and was statistically determined to be Knox’s DNA. (RIS Berti & Barni 2013 report)

9-04   DNA mixture compatible with Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA was found on another stained pocket knife that Sollecito had.

9-05   DNA mixture compatible with Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA was found on a cigarette butt in the cottage kitchen. Except for the bra clasp, no other samples at the cottage yielded Sollecito’s DNA.

9-06   7 samples yielded DNA mixtures compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s DNA, Sollecito’s DNA or Guede’s DNA.

9-07   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Sollecito’s DNA was found on the metal bra clasp. Sollecito’s Y haplotype was also on the metal bra clasp.

9-08   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse near the zipper.

9-09   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was found in three blood traces in the bathroom- on the bidet drain plate, in the sink and on a plastic container containing cotton swabs.

9-10   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was also found in a Luminol-revealed blood stain on the floor of Romanelli’s room, and in a Luminol-revealed bloody footprint in the corridor.

9-11   A second Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

9-12   A sample of blood from the small bathroom faucet yielded ONLY Knox’s DNA.

9-13   Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse, the left sleeve of her sweat jacket, her bra strap, in Ms. Kercher and on the toilet paper in the large bathroom.

Area 10. Other biological traces

10-01   3 samples of presumed blood traces were found in Knox’s bedroom, on a pillow, on the night stand and on the wall by the head of the bed.

10-02   No semen was found in Ms. Kercher.

10-03   Guede left his feces in the toilet in the large bathroom.

10-04   3 fragments of toilet paper were found on Ms. Kercher’s desk; all three yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

10-05   2 tissue papers were found in Sollecito’s bedroom; both had blood that yielded DNA compatible with Sollecito’s DNA.

10-06   A glass on Ms. Kercher’s night stand yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

10-07   A strand of hair and a trace of blood were found on Romanelli’s window frame. The blood trace did not yield human DNA; the hair color was dark chestnut.

10-08   5 samples of blood traces on a towel and faucet in Guede’s bathroom all yielded Guede’s DNA.

10-09   4 samples of blood stains on Guede’s jeans and a museum ticket in his jeans also yielded Guede’s DNA.

10-10   The range of digestive timing is, under normal circumstances, 3-5 hours. This range could easily be expanded depending on any number of factors, including stress and alcohol, both of which slow digestion. (Ronchi 2009)

10-11   Based on body temperatures and the digestive process, the time of death range was estimated between 20:00 of November 1st and 04:00 of November 2nd, with the probability that the time of death occurred around 23:00 of November 1st. (Lalli 2009)

Area 11. Luminol traces

11-01   1 sample of a Luminol-revealed blood trace was taken from Guede’s apartment.

11-02   9 samples of Luminol-revealed blood traces were taken from the cottage, including Knox’s room, the corridor and Romanelli’s room.

11-03   Knox’s and Ms. Kercher’s DNA was found on the Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room.

11-04   Knox’s and Ms. Kercher’s DNA was found mixed in a Luminol-revealed bloody right footprint in the corridor.

11-05   14 samples of Luminol-revealed blood traces were taken from Sollecito’s apartment.

11-06   6 samples were taken from Sollecito’s bathroom, including the door, floor and shower basin.

11-07   3 samples were taken from Sollecito’s bedroom, including the door and floor.

11-08   5 samples were taken from the floor of Sollecito’s kitchen.

11-09   2 of the Luminol-revealed samples taken from Sollecito’s apartment yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Sollecito’s and Knox’s DNA. 1 sample yielded DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA.

11-10   1 sample yielded an unknown male’s DNA (unmatchable).

Area 12: Hairs

12-01   Of the over 480 tests prepared on samples, 93 of these constituted hairs or fibers. 86 were human hairs of varying length, in varying colors. The most significant colors noted were black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut and red chestnut.

12-02   Only 3 hairs yielded DNA; all 3 hairs yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA. All 3 hairs were chestnut colored and over 15 cm long.

12-03   35 hairs were chestnut in color; the vast majority of these were found in Ms. Kercher’s room. 2 were also found on a kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.

12-04   7 hairs were black in color. 6 of these were 4 cm long or less, and so likely Guede’s hair. 4 of these were on the duvet and 1 was on the mattress cover, both in Ms. Kercher’s room. 1 was also on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.

12-05   21 blonde hairs were analyzed, and were likely Knox’s hairs. Most were found at Sollecito’s apartment, 10 on a sponge in the kitchen and 5 on a sweater.

12-06   Of the 6 blonde hairs found at the cottage, 2 were on the duvet, 1 was inside the small bathroom sink, 1 was on Ms. Kercher’s purse and 1 was on her mattress cover.

12-07   4 light chestnut hairs were found. 3 of these were 9 cm long or less. 1 was found on the kitchen sponge; 1 was found on the bra and one was found on Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket. Sollecito had light chestnut colored hair.

3. Court Assessment & Knox Spin

Judge Micheli was the first judge to make something of all this evidence, late in 2008. Unsurprisingly, if one has actually studied it, one of his major findings was this.

The pack attack, and the crime-scene rearrangement. Led by Knox. She could have escaped trial right there by rebutting it. But she and her team had pretty well zero comeback.

Oh, Hampikian, you didn’t know that?!

The “counter-case” of Hampikian, and other such shills of the PR campaign as Heavey, Fischer, Douglas, and Moore, is like a three-legged stool, with all the rest of the case simply ignored.

  • One leg is the Interrogation Hoax and we have shown in 20 posts that Knox always lied about that.

  • One leg is the supposedly “flawed” DNA analysis that actually wasn’t, which KrissyG took first new whack at last week.

  • The third leg is that there was no pack attack and that Guede somehow did all of the above on his own.

Including taking off a shoe to make ONE imprint in blood on the bathmat in a footprint several sizes smaller than his own…

On Planet Earth, nobody has ever come close to making all of the above fit a Lone Wolf. The defenses only listlessly went through the motions when they tried. Then they seized on Alessi and Aviello when they came along.

That was the defenses proving a pack attack!!

4. Tip for IP contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Thursday, March 29, 2018

Bizarrely Jubilant And Way Too Exposed Amanda Knox Again Fails Liar-Analysis Tests

Posted by The Machine



Pamela Meyer, a highly respected liar spotter and fraud spotter, explains how she knows if someone is lying. TED Talks applies the telltale signs to Amanda Knox.

This brilliant video needs to be promoted as much as possible on social media websites. Most people can’t be bothered to read the official court reports, but they will watch a fascinating TED talk that last a few minutes.


Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #2

Posted by KrissyG



Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments

1. Post Overview

Previously main poster Hopeful showed up the intensely superficial grasp of the case by an Innocence Project founder who is a lusty huge booster of Knox.

We see no sign that anyone in the Innocence Project (IP) has ever done due diligence, or has any better grasp of the case than Jason Flom. We certainly don’t see any on video or in print. We see only appallingly misleading and illegal work…. and nothing else. As Hopeful said in that post:

Anyone who thinks Idaho IP representative Greg Hampikian’s seemingly illegal involvement in the court-ordered DNA re-testing was somehow competent and truth-based should read KrissyG and James Raper for two blasts of reality.

This may come as a surprise. In ten years nobody whatsoever has ever landed the slightest blow on the huge (though not pivotal) DNA component of the case.

The defenses and many others have seriously misrepresented it, yes, but that is something else.

2. Chief IP Misleader Hampikian

Nearly a year before Knox ever turned up at her first Innocence Project meeting in Oregon, we had highlighted IP Idaho rep Greg Hampikian’s very misleading work here.

Our main poster the Machine had acidly remarked about Greg Hampikian in that post:

    1. He is ignorant of most of the basic facts of the case.

    2. He hasn’t read the official court documents in their entirety, but has instead relied on Amanda Knox’s family and supporters for his information without bothering to do any fact-checking.

    3. He incessantly downplays or misrepresents the hard evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and overstates that against Rudy Guede.

    4. He doesn’t limit himself to his own narrow area of expertise, but speaks about other aspect of the case and gets basic facts wrong.

    5. Like so many in the seedy defense operation he ridicules his counterparts in Italy, most of whom are much better qualified in criminal-case DNA than he is.

Do please read all of the Machine’s very damning post. Note that Hampikian has never ever tried to answer back, though he is still as much of a self-infatuated rooster as before. I would add to the Machine’s profile of Hampikian these further revealing points:

    1. In an aura of personality cult he incessantly proclaims that he is the founder and director of the Idaho Innocence Project.

    2. He took quite a shine to Amanda Knox and went white-water rafting with her.  He broke with his wife, shortly after.

    3. This absurd claim appears on his Wikipedia page - those are often written by the “celebrities” themselves:

    During the high-profile case of Amanda Knox, on May 23, 2011, Greg Hampikian announced that, based on its independent investigation and review, DNA samples taken at the crime scene all pointed to African drifter Rudy Guede and excluded Knox and Sollecito. Upon reexamination of the DNA, he concluded that the evidence is unreliable and contaminated. Hampikian’s findings are one of the main reasons that Knox and Sollecito were set free.

    Really?! The mafias had no role? Hard to believe from this that Hampikian was never an official witness put under cross-examination at the trial or appeals. He had zero official role, and the very extensive DNA evidence really proved nothing of the sort. More DNA samples of Knox than of Guede were at the scene. No contamination was ever proven.  In fact, it was categorically ruled out by the courts.

    4. He has appeared in numerous Youtube clips in especially prepared tv shows, in which he presents himself as “the objective scientist” not letting on that he is essentially only a PR shill.

    5. Hampikian was claiming a government grant for his department at Boise State University.  Journalist Andrea Vogt suspected he was using the funds to promote Amanda Knox’s marketing.  Vogt applied for information under the Freedom of Information Act.  Hampikian evaded the demand by claiming his work was a top trade secret. Academic scientists are supposed to be transparent and make their work replicable and peer-reviewed by other scientists.  So Vogt’s instincts seem correct, given the unlikely reason.

    6. He praises himself on his wiki page as “Prof. Hampikian is also an accomplished amateur folk singer and songwriter.” Indeed, he appears on a Youtube video, sounding like a hundred cats in pain singing about his d-i-v-o-r-c-e., after his rafting expedition with Knox.  She appears grinning by his side in pictures.

    7. He has given evidence under oath in court several times (though never in Italy) claiming he was THE expert who got Amanda Knox “exonerated”.  Knox has never been exonerated, certainly not on the DNA evidence, and the mafias clearly had a role in springing the pair. So, Hampikian is not someone who takes solemn oaths seriously, although his illegal interference was real. 

    8. The defence lawyers for Paul Jenkins and Fred Lawrence are currently in court to try to pin the DNA evidence on another convict, David Wayne Nelson, with Hampikian as the ‘expert DNA witness’ claiming,

‘“I do a lot of cases,” said Hampikian. “This is the second time I can remember one of my cases where it cleared two men and someone else is a hit to the database.”

He doesn’t say to whom he is referring in this absurd claim, but no doubt it is Knox and Sollecito with Guede as the ‘hit’.  Hampikian, thus, is a stranger to the truth, as Knox and Sollecito’s DNA at the crime scene is legally sound.

Comment by Ergon

Examples of typical dishonesty from Greg Hampikian in this article

1. “We asked the Italian lab to supply validation of such a sensitive measurement, but they never complied”.

Yes they did, though maybe not to the professor from Idaho.

2. “a new study on the knife was then ordered in Italy. This failed to repeat the DNA finding”.

They didn’t retest the ‘DNA finding’.

3. “This finding was never repeated, despite many attempts”.

There was only one attempt, which the defense accepted as all that could be done.

4. “As DNA consultant for the defence in the Amanda Knox case”.

You weren’t hired ‘by the defense’ but inserted yourself in your personal capacity using public funds.

5. “but when fingerprints and DNA from the scene were analysed, only two profiles were identified: those of the victim and Rudy Guede”

Also Raffaele Sollecito’s, and Amanda Knox’s blood DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s.

6. “Calls followed for global standards on use of low copy number DNA”.

Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA profile on the bra clasp wasn’t LCN DNA, nor was contamination proven against any of Stefanoni’s findings.

7. “a kitchen knife at Sollecito’s house. It didn’t match many wounds on the body and tested negative for blood.”

Because there were two knives, and it tested negative for blood because it was rigorously washed in bleach.


3. Who Manages Or Crosschecks Hampikian?

Hampikian seems to have a pass to claim whatever he wants in the name of the Innocence Project. No quality control, no peer review, no reporting, no accountability at all. Just a near-endless stream of lies.

If Hampikian was to be checked out and made to stop lying and acting as a PR shill, and to stick only to the truth, whose job in the IP would be that? Presumably the man at the top. Barry Scheck.

Has Barry Scheck been asleep at the switch? If so, not for the first time. .



4. Ten Quick Facts About Barry Scheck

1. Born 1949, at Yale Scheck was a ‘fervent anti-war demonstrator’.  In Los Angeles he was a key member of OJ Simpson’s ‘dream team’, which got OJ off a murder rap in 1995.

2. Barry Scheck, as a law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, is a forensic and DNA evidence expert. He joined the “Dream Team” to help them ‘harness the power of forensic and DNA evidence’ to assist in Simpson’s defence.

3. Scheck is also known for his work as co-founder and co-director of the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization that uses DNA evidence to ‘clear the names of wrongfully convicted inmates’.

4. Scheck co-founded the Innocence Project in 1992 with Peter Neufeld, also his co-counsel on the O.J. Simpson defence team.

5. The Project claims it is ‘dedicated to the utilization of DNA evidence as a means to exculpate individuals of crimes for which they were wrongfully convicted’.

6. To date, it claims 343 wrongful convictions have been overturned by DNA testing ‘thanks to the Project and other legal organizations’.

7. The Innocence Project claims ‘it does not use legal technicalities to challenge convictions; the Project accepts only cases in which newly discovered scientific evidence can potentially prove that a convicted person is factually innocent’.

8. Scheck unsuccessfully defended British baby sitter Louise Woodward against a charge of killing a baby in her care, shortly after the OJ acquittal, leading some to perceive a ‘backlash’ against his defence methods.

9. Scheck and Neufield were heavily criticised in 1999 in a case where eight cops were charged with abusing Abner Louima or shooting dead Amadou Diallo-to benefit their own civil cases on behalf of those victims, putting the police at risk of an unfair trial.

10. Scheck and Neufield called a press conference before the criminal trial, revealing potentially incriminating evidence against the four policemen from an autopsy report, which revealed Diallo was shot in his foot and legs whilst already down. Their ethics were questioned.  Outside the press conference, 1,000 Scheck supporters chanted, ‘“No justice, no peace, no more racist police.”

5. So The Bottom Line On Scheck Is?

Thus, we have a picture of someone who sees himself as a warrior for social justice, and anti-establishment.  Scheck uses his privileged position as a lawyer and DNA expert to help the disadvantaged and oppressed.

However, after the OJ Simpson trial, which saw Scheck shoot to fame, and not necessarily in a good way, but as a silver-tongued crafty defence lawyer who could persuade a jury that night is day by any means at his disposal, regardless of ethics, there emerges a hint of a ruthless man driven by an urge to get the better of his perceived opponents.

So far so good, this is 100% of what we the public have cynically come to expect of a winning-at-all-costs lawyer.  We want them to write our ‘strong letters’ for us, or to win our compensation; perhaps get us off a rap.

We want them to ‘be on our side’, and when you are poor, dispossessed and otherwise ‘invisible’ to the establishment, finding such a high-profile lawyer to champion your case, then fawning gratitude transforms into hero-worship and cult following.

Such is the effect of Scheck’s Innocence Project, thousands of prisoners in the USA claiming to be ‘wrongfully convicted’, whether they are or not, flock to sample the ‘exoneration’ he holds out as the prize for joining up.

Add to the pot US attorneys who as part of their standards are expected to devote a substantial part of their time towards ‘pro bono’ work (free representation), then the ready pool of the poor and deprived that make up the Innocence Projects are ready made clients for them.

6. IP Does Indeed Do Some Good Work

We have shown again and again that American law enforcement, justice and incarceration systems, not their Italian equivalents, are the systems where injustices are off the charts.

Read for example the series of three posts starting here.  An estimated 200,000-plus sitting in prison because prosecutors scared them into a plea-bargain.

Barry Scheck’s target group and release rate is absolutely miniscule compared to this 200,000, but it is not a net negative on the whole. Every little bit of pushback can help. Scheck’s interviews and speeches are often good.


 

7. But Things Do Go Badly Wrong.

The Medill Innocence Project Case

There seems plenty of evidence that the Innocence Project is only loosely managed from the top. Other grandstanders and corner cutters and law-breakers like Hampikian are far from unknown.

And to IP host institutions like lawschools “mistakes” like this one below can bring major harm.

In the Medill Innocence project, a professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, David Protess, was picked to head this.

His work had overturned convictions in a number of high-profile cases that won freedom for the ‘wrongfully imprisoned’ and earned him fame and prestige that included a TV-movie deal and a new post. From the start, Protess got his law students to were acting as amateur gumshoes, Protess dispatched them to interview witnesses and dig up new evidence.

Protess was looking for wrongful convictions.  He thought he had found one in Anthony Porter, who had narrowly escaped execution for a 1982 murder and had since served fifteen years, after winning a last minute reprieve.

Protess was keen to highlight that the State had been prepared to execute an innocent man, and he and his private eye students pinpointed an ‘alternative perpetrator’ in Alstory Simon.

“This investigation by David Protess and his team involved a series of alarming tactics,” the Cook County State’s Attorney, Anita Alvarez, said in her statement after Simon’s eventual release.  The Medill Innocence Project’s tactics, “were not only coercive and absolutely unacceptable by law-enforcement standards, “they were potentially in violation of Mr. Simon’s constitutionally protected rights.”

From the Daily Beast in 2014:

Perhaps the worst of those alarming tactics were used by Paul Ciolino, a private investigator working with Protess who got Simon to confess to the murder. According to Alvarez’s findings, Ciolino threatened Simon, promised him a short sentence and financial rewards for cooperating, and used an actor to play a witness who accused Simon of the shooting.

Finally, Ciolino volunteered a lawyer, Jack Rimland, to represent Simon in court. Rimland, a personal acquaintance of Ciolino, may have had a conflict of interest defending a man that his associate was trying to prove guilty, but that didn’t stop him from taking the case.

At the time, it did the trick. Alstory Simon confessed to the murder on video and within days, after more than a decade on death row, Porter walked free.

The State prosecutors then had to spend time and money retrying Porter and reaffirming the seemingly overwhelming evidence of his guilt (six eye witnesses named him).  However, the case against Porter was dropped a month later.  Following on from this case, Illinois banned the death penalty, in 2011.

More from the report in the Daily Beast.

After initially defending the program, Medill launched an investigation of its own. In the end, it was found that students working under Protess had used false pretenses in trying to elicit witness statements.

More damningly, the professor’s claim that the records from his class’s work were protected by journalistic privilege was undermined by the discovery that he’d altered an email instructing that the project’s findings should be turned over directly to defense counsels without any copies retained.

When it was all over, Protess had negotiated his retirement and left the school. His reputation bruised but with legacy of his central victory—winning Anthony Porter’s freedom—still intact.

After Simon’s release last month and the accusation that Protess helped put an innocent man in prison for 15 years, possibly freeing a killer in the bargain, his legacy may be the least of his concerns.


The IP Role

This is a perfect illustration of what can happen when badly supervised lawyers try to solve a case outside of a courtroom.  Delusion, fanaticism and a disregard for due process can blind an Innocence Project lawyer or law student to the truth of culpability.  In other words, they find themselves fighting the establishment, whatever that is, rather than true injustice.

The State prosecutor, Alvarez, said at the time:

“The bottom line is, the investigation conducted by Protess and private investigator Ciolino as well as the subsequent legal representation of Mr. Simon were so flawed that it’s clear the constitutional rights of Mr. Simon were not scrupulously protected as our law requires.”

In 2016, Alstory Simon filed a $40m lawsuit From the Chicago Tribune.

A federal judge on Tuesday gave the green light to a $40 million lawsuit alleging Northwestern University and former star professor David Protess conspired to frame a man for an infamous double murder that became one of the most significant wrongful conviction cases in Illinois history.

The lawsuit brought by Alstory Simon alleges Protess and private investigator Paul Ciolino manufactured bogus evidence, coaxed false statements from witnesses, intimidated Simon into confessing and set him up with a lawyer, Jack Rimland, who coached him to plead guilty.

In denying a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Robert Dow said that it was plausible the money and publicity Protess had brought to Northwestern had allowed a culture of lawlessness and unethical conduct at the university.

The Bombshell Twist

In June 2017 Chicago Tribune reported a ‘bombshell’ twist.  It was revealed that in 2014 at the time of Simon’s release a 28-page internal report wherein the deputies of the then State Attorney Alvarez had concluded, ‘there is not sufficient evidence to seek to vacate Simon’s convictions’. 

Many High-profile Innocence ‘Exonerees’ Earn $’000’s

Simon is like so many prisoners released early, whether or not there is an ‘Alford’ deal – where release is on condition the prisoner accepts the State does not accept liability that the conviction was wrongful and no ‘certificate of innocence’ is provided.

This type of deal is true, for example, for ‘Sunny’ Jacobs, released from death row and finally prison for her role in the murder of two policemen in Florida, and the notorious WM3 which includes Damien Echols, who has since made millions from books and tours on the back of ‘innocence’.

Amanda Knox, Damien Echols and the other two WM3 are listed by All American Entertainment as exonerated ‘speakers’ charging up to $10,000 a time.  Yet none have had a ‘certificate of innocence’.  Thus, by Ciolino’s own words, they cannot be classed as ‘exonerated’.

Cook County ‘Wanted to Prosecute David Protess and Paul Ciolino’

The reason Cook County gives for refusing to vacate Simon’s conviction is because he failed to come clean on the deception a taking a rap for another man’s crimes in exchange for a shorter sentence.  The reports states:

Simon was not a child or inexperienced at any relevant time. As of 1982 he had accumulated an extensive criminal history. He had been arrested for robberies or armed robberies five times between 1966 and 1977. He had three felony or armed robbery convictions. ... He was 47 when he (pleaded) guilty. This certainly complicates his claims regarding coercion and being misled.

The report criticises the ‘less than ideal circumstances’ in which Ciolino tricked Simon into confessing the first time, after which Simon continued the masquarade by spontaneously admitting to firing the fatal shots for some time after his conviction.  For example, in a letter to his lawyers.

However, in spite of these reservations, Alvarez had called a news conference and announced there was ‘no other conclusion’ than that Simon should be freed.  Pointedly, she indicated that if it were not for the statute of limitations (time limit for bringing a charge) she would have prosecuted Protess and Ciolino.

Subsequently she declined to send representatives to contest Simon’s effort to win a “certificate of innocence,” a document that allows wrongfully incarcerated, factually innocent persons to collect cash damages from the state.  It was because whilst Simon probably did not commit the murders, he was part of the innocence fraud which put him in prison and which freed Porter.

Paul Ciolino Hits Back

The latest news, as of January 2018, leading on from the supposed ‘leaked’ document of 2014 which showed Simon’s convictions were merely ‘vacated’ is that Paul Cionlino is suing Simon, Alavarez, and a couple of the ‘Park’ filmmakers, a Chicago Tribune journalist and policemen for damages for ‘defamation’.

The 66-page petition mirrors the counterclaim Ciolino filed before and which was dismissed last year.  He claims his reputation and career were destroyed by the allegations in the Simon case.  Ciolino claims Simon was ‘paid thousands of dollars’ and witnesses interfered with by these anti-Innocent Project forces. 

The Murder in the Park documentary, asserts there are many other cases where ‘the wrong man is imprisoned and the right one was freed, which Ciolino claims is defamatory.  He highlights the letter to Simon’s lawyers in which he states he killed Hillard in self-defence and Green by accident.  Ciolino’s new lawsuit is described as ‘frivolous and without merit’ (Prieb) and ‘so false as to be sanctionable’ (Ekl)

Simon had alleged Ciolino impersonated a police officer and used actors as fake eye witnesses.  He claims Ciolino said if he confessed, he’d get a shortened sentence by claiming ‘self defence’ and avoid the death penalty.  He was also ‘promised large sums of money from book and movie deals’ if he played along, the suit alleges.

Paul Ciolino Acknowledges a Vacated Conviction Does Not Mean ‘Exoneration’

If this illustrates anything, it’s that Innocence Projects running parallel to the US legal system can cause all sorts of chaos and confusion.  In effect, Alvarez the State Prosecutor having freed Simon, is now refusing to vacate his conviction.  The Innocence Project does not see a vacated conviction as an ‘exoneration’ as evidenced by Ciolino suing for defamation on the grounds that ‘Simon is guilty after all’.

If a vacated conviction does not mean exoneration to people like Ciolino, then people like Ryan Ferguson, the West Memphis Three and Amanda Knox, whom the Innocence Projects spearhead as their ‘Star Exonerees’ are gods with clay feet standing on a false pedestal.

It calls into question the integrity of Innocence Project lawyers, such as Kathleen Zellner, who is said to earn more than $12m per annum as a conservative figure.  The last published Annual Report of the Innocence Project shows a turnover of $26m, with a surplus gain of >$3m in the ‘not-for-profit’ org in 2016.  Zellner is famous for obtaining ‘death bed’ confessions from prisoners on Death Row taking the rap for the alleged crimes of her clients, thus securing their release.

8. My Conclusion About This Above

Given these pressures and these possibilities for mismanagement, what of the IP’s illegal intervention into the case in Italy? What of the false touting of an “innocent” Knox? What of the trashing of Italian justice, in witting or unwitting harmony with the mafias?

Another IP trainwreck waiting to happen. And happen it did.

9. Tip For IP Contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Monday, March 12, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #1

Posted by Hopeful



Jason Flom, Amanda Knox

1. Series Overview

Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project quite openly admits to bending the 2011 appeal via collaboration with the “independent” DNA consultants.

Anyone who thinks Idaho IP representative Greg Hampikian’s seemingly illegal involvement in the court-ordered DNA re-testing was somehow competent and truth-based should read KrissyG and James Raper for two blasts of reality.

Beginning early in 2014 (soon after the Florence Appeal Court reaffirmed Knox’s guilty verdict and a whole year prior to the Supreme Court outcome) the Innocence Project clutched Knox firmly and propelled her onto the elite speakers’ circuit. It has repeatedly used her since as a keynoter and potent draw for attendees and presumably for funding too. 

Knox’s speaking career would have gone absolutely nowhere if Barry Scheck & Co had not promoted her with such manic enthusiasm. They still remain unencumbered by comprehensive due diligence or a fact-based narrative. Much simply seems unknown. Trashing Italy is apparently just fine.

Late next month at an Innocence Project “gala” in Kansas City Knox will yet again be an IP keynote speaker.

2. The Jason Flom Podcast

Jason Flom is a founding board member of the Innocence Project. As the sharp eyes of our main poster Guermantes picked up, Flom interviewed Knox in January 2017 for a podcast: The Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox.

Flom seems to have done little or no homework. Most of these posts predate this interview. So an open-minded interviewer not toeing the self-serving IP party line could have avoided the naivety and manipulation we can see here.

Knox tells Flom the Perugian investigators (actually the highly respected national elite) were like children pretending to process a crime scene but making major mistakes. Her tone of voice suggested mockery and ridicule of them playing at being forensic scientists.

Flom laps up this nonsense unquestioningly. However Knox’s lies to Flom were mainly of omission, so much that she didn’t want to speak of and that Flom could not even comprehend.

When he asked her why she was targeted when several other people were at the cottage the morning the police arrived (Filomena, her boyfriend, Raffaele) Knox explained that her behavior didn’t impress police as that of an innocent person because she was kissing Raffaele and being comforted in the yard of the cottage.

There is no special sign that she was targeted. And she omits a mountain of other behavior. She refuses to tell Mr. Flom of her highjinks in the Questura, her tongue sticking out, her cartwheels, or her thong-buying visit to Bubbles, nor of her skipping the memorial service for Meredith in the days after the death. None of that escapes her lips.

She does pretend some indignation about Rudy Guede the “real killer”. Mostly she talks of every single sad emotion she endured in the 8 months of incarceration before she was charged with murder.

She mentions Meredith throughout the interview very little. She seems to be mostly swept up in memories of how she was robbed of hope behind bars, and she revels (this was 2017) in how a few persons who first thought her guilty have been convinced by more recent media that she is innocent and have apologized to her. She ascends skyward on such thoughts.

Her main concern seems to be with her public image and her power to con the world.  It becomes evident when she narrates to Flom her morning at the cottage in the hours before Meredith’s body was discovered, when she first entered the cottage saying the door was wide open and she was there alone to take a shower before proceeding to go to Gubbio for the weekend with loverboy, that she was in a deep mental quandary as to the meaning of the open door, the small bits of blood in the sink (she emphasized to Flom how small the specks were) and the dirty toilet in a nearby bathroom that she was so greatly alarmed enough to want to slow down her trip out of town and instead bring Raf back over to see about things at the cottage and give his opinion.

She was so worried, she pretends. So terribly worried, but not worried enough to walk a few feet down the hall and open a bedroom door to see if a roommate were present and hadn’t heard her “hello, is anybody there?” Ridiculous. She also mentions that her computer was safe in her own bedroom and hadn’t been stolen but not one word that her lamp was missing… as if she wouldn’t have noticed that.

She talks much of her own humanity, that people who meet her will not judge her but will find her innocent, but if they haven’t met her in person they will assume guilt. She seems to feel that they need to be blinded by her “humanity” and give her a pass on having destroyed Meredith’s life. She says very little to Jason Flom about Raffaele, depicting him as a non-threatening puppy and their relationship before the murder as one of sweetness and a juvenile thing.

Mr. Flom suggests it was like a high school relationship between two college students, she half-way assents to his description. She said that the language barrier circumvented them from discussing deep issues, that it was mostly hand-holding and him wanting to give her perfume like Italian women wore and to show her some new store or market he had discovered.

Knox seems to hold her greatest anger and disdain (well-hidden of course unless you know this case backwards and forwards and have seen Knox’s wiles) toward Philomena. It was Philomena’s hysterics and shouts of “a foot, a foot” and the general screaming and shouting of spontaneous anguish and grief over knowing it was Meredith’s body in the bedroom, that seems to antagonize Knox the most. Imagine that, some people actually GRIEVED for Meredith and thought her worthy of a display of emotion and concern.

Knox tells Jason Flom that it was Philomena’s SIM card inside the cell phone that Meredith was using, that tied the phone to the cottage. It was Filomena’s SIM card that enabled the first police to rush to the cottage so fast, and who interrupted Knox in her little last minute cleaning scheme and that threw her out of her rhythm and almost tripped her up by arriving so quickly, perhaps that was why Knox despised Filomena so much. Also it was Filomena’s boyfriend who kicked open the door and thus sent Knox out of the cottage quickly and permanently. She seemed to show irritation with Flom when she spoke of being rousted from her house in Perugia.

She tells Flom that she believed the police when they said she was being sent to prison for her own protection, thinking she was a witness (untrue: grounds for arrest were fully explained by Dr Mignini). She said she should have realized when they put her in handcuffs that this was ludicrous, but she was naïve and idealistic.

She said she went to Japan and to Germany when she was 14 years old, and that her beloved Oma, her German grandmother, had wanted her to be an exchange student to Germany. She was taking German and Italian language classes before she went to Perugia, she said.

She seems to imply slightly that it was her father’s fault that she took the language courses rather her first love of creative writing. She said she felt she couldn’t have sold Dadddy on the usefulness of a creative writing degree, so she detoured and took the languages degree hoping to become a translator. She said that the University for Foreigners in Perugia was not demanding or rigorous at all and she was disappointed at that. (Hint hint, is she suggesting she had too much free time from studies and thus went wild due to “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”? She could easily have enrolled at the main university and gained course credits for her degree back in Seattle - as her parents believed she was doing.)

She bristles with rage at the thought of friends who suggested she change her name to deflect publicity. Never. Her ego is limitless and she wants to be herself, that is paramount.  She said her biggest fear was that she would forever have to cower in a corner. She speaks of her determination to do the opposite now that she has her freedom back and is safe to speak.

She seems sincerely grateful to people who spent their energy and time in trying to get her free from prison, and feared she might have been forgotten and left to languish behind bars. She seems sincerely moved that people who didn’t have to care about her, did so. No doubt this is the natural reaction of anyone sprung from prison cells, whether guilty or innocent.

Her main beef behind bars was that she could not sway the entire world with her words alone.  She talks a smooth line and certainly had Mr. Jason Flom in her sway. She also claimed that Meredith’s DNA had been thought to have been on the knife but that it was not (Carabinieri labs confirmed it was, so there’s another lie from Knox).

It irks me that people who question Knox won’t take time to read up on the case.

Why can’t they ask Knox about the 5 spots of her DNA mixed in Meredith’s blood throughout the cottage? Knox also laughs with Jason Flom about the impossibility of her cleaning up the crime scene, when it’s proven without question that a bloody footprint was erased that led to the footprint on the blue bathmat. Knox is lying about the cleanup.

And when Knox explained to Flom her discomfort at discovering the unflushed toilet, she tells him that Laura and Filomena were neat freaks (liked to keep a very clean house). She did not say the same for Meredith, but only mentioned Laura and Filomena being clean freaks. She did not tell Mr. Flom of her normal unflushed toilets that the long-suffering Meredith Kercher had to face daily.

Knox omits much of the truth, and twists the rest of the truth. Her best truth is whatever she can think up for the occasion. And the daffy Mr Flom swallows it.

3. Tip For IP Contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Monday, March 05, 2018

Knox’s War Of Aggression Against Italy: Questions For Media To Nail Her Once And For All #1

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.

1. Series Overview

First, whither Sollecito? At last he seems subdued.

Why? Well many Italians have connected a lot more dots, many are realizing how their courts were bent (most blame US pressure and they were not entirely wrong), and many know that to a Florence court he has admitted his book lied: prosecutors never asked him to rat on Knox. He was never honor-bound.

In fact each incessantly stabbed the other in the back. Sollecito sold Knox out from the time of arrest in 2007 (“I never want to see Amanda again”) right through to Cassation in 2015, during which time he never once told any court he verified her alibi. Despite her numerous pleas.

After 2011 Sollecito had several brief spasms of lust for Knox, his father repeatedly trampled that, he was snubbed elsewhere on the marriage front, and he is finally back to his usual sullen self. 

And what of Sollecito’s damages appeal (he sought the equivalent of half a million dollars, valuing himself at $125,000 a year for time inside)? After Cassation stopped rolling on the floor, they sharply shot that down

All this would indeed tend to shut a fellow up. No so much luck yet with Amanda Knox.

Knox has long been widely despised in Italy. Now some pushback to her ludicrous war of aggression is mounting in the US and UK. That war (unprecedented except perhaps for Doug Preston and Bruce Fischer) seems to be driven by pure spite. Oh and of course by big bucks.

This is who she is now. Generating for cash millions of new bigots in America every year. That is her career. And on all possible occasions projecting herself as serial victim, with dozens of supposed victimizers in her past. 

Give us a break! Does she forget the kindly employer she put in prison for several weeks? The drug dealer she also put inside? The polite cops she framed? The prosecutor about whom she criminally lied? The Perugia landlady who lost the value of her house? The kind people she encountered in prison? The supporters who tithed millions for her defence? The supporters (think Frank Sforza) who ran afoul of the law because of her? The supporters (think Steve Moore) who got bounced out of their jobs?

And the 90 demonizations in Knox’s book?

We know so many in the media would be happy to nail her if they could. Below are the right questions to ask.

The PR has created a tough wall: the selected interviewers are all pussycats, questions for audiences can only be on postcards. But put all the open questions in one accessible spot and interviewers and audiences will increasingly understand they are being sold a dog.

We start this series with our own questions long unanswered here on TJMK. Some are for the media, and some for Knox direct.

2. Questions For The Media From SomeAlibi

Please Read Conclusions To Massei Report

Consider as you read it what is your own possible explanation for each of the following:

  • the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom?

  • the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede?

  • the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records?

  • the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife in Raffaele’s flat which Raffaele himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally “pricking” Meredith’s hand in his written diary despite the fact Meredith had never been to his flat (confirmed by Amanda Knox)?

  • the correlation of where Meredith’s phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guedes’s flats?

  • the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele’s computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer?

  • Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body?

  • the utterly inexplicable computer records the morning after the murder starting at 5.32 am and including multiple file creations and interactions thereafter all during a time that Raffaele and Amanda insist they were asleep until 10.30am?

  • the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed?

  • the accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox?

  • the fact that when Amanda Knox rang Meredith’s mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the “missing” Meredith, she did so for just three seconds - registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world

  • the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal porn at his university – so far from the wholesome image portrayed?

  • the fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn’t break down a flimsy door to Meredith’s room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren’t martial artists could?

  • the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox?

  • the fact that Amanda knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered?

  • the lies of Knox on the witness stand in July 2009 about how their drug intake that night (“one joint”) is totally contradicted by Sollecito’s own contemporaneous diary?

  • the fact that after a late evening’s questioning, Knox wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks *highly* like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi?

  • the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele both said they would give up smoking dope for life in their prison diaries despite having apparently nothing to regret?

  • the fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn’t celebrate the “true” perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn’t know would “make up strange things” about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people?

  • the fact that both an occupant of the cottage and the police instantly recognised the cottage had not been burgled but had been the subject of a staged break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes?

  • that Knox and Sollecito both suggested each other might have committed the crime and Sollecito TO THIS DATE does not agree Knox stayed in his flat all the night in question?

  • the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime?

  • the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening?

  • the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up?

  • the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged?

  • Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head?

Posted February 2011


3. Questions For Knox From The Machine

The various alibis

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave at least three different alibis, all of which have turned out to be false. Nobody has ever provided a plausible innocent explanation for the numerous lies that Knox and Sollecito told before and after 5 November 2007.

Amanda Knox told Filomena that she had already phoned the police. Knox’s mobile phone records proved that this was untrue.

She told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked. Filomena strongly disagreed with her, and told the postal police the opposite was true.

And in her email to friends in on 4 November 2007, Amanda Knox says she called Meredith’s phones after speaking to Filomena. Knox’s mobile phone records prove that this was untrue and that she had called Meredith’s phones first.

Question for Knox: Why did Amanda Knox lie to Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007 and to her friends in her e-mail on 4 November 2007?

Sollecito’s alibi lies

On 5 November 2007, Raffaele Sollecito admitted to the police that he had lied to them and said that Amanda Knox had asked him to lie for her. He claimed that Amanda Knox had left his apartment at around 9.00pm and returned at about 1.00am on the night of the murder.

Question for Knox: Why did Sollecito stop providing Amanda Knox with an alibi and why does he still refuse to corroborate her alibi?

Sollecito’s further alibi lies

After admitting he had lied, Sollecito was given another opportunity to tell the police the truth. However, he decided to tell the police even more lies. These lies were exposed by his computer and mobile phone records.

Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

He claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. There was no human interaction on his computer between 9.10pm and 5.32am.

He claimed that he had slept until after 10.00am on 2 November 2007. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and played music for about 30 minutes. He turned on his mobile phone at about 6.02am and received three phone calls at 9.24am (248 seconds long) and at 9.30am and at 9.29am (38 seconds long).

Question for Knox: Why do you think Sollecito deliberately chose to tell the police more lies? 

The DNA on the bra clasp

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

Question for Knox: Bearing in mind that DNA doesn’t fly, how would you account for the abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA being on Meredith’s bra clasp?

The DNA on the large knife

Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli - categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

Question for Knox: How would you account for Meredith’s DNA being on the blade of the double DNA knife?

The traces of mixed blood

A number of criminal biologists testified at the trial that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood. Independent DNA expert Luciano Garofano stated that this was undoubtedly the case and even Amanda Knox’s lawyers conceded that her blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood.

Question for Knox: Why was Amanda Knox bleeding on the night of the murder and why was her blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in four different parts of the cottage?

Sollecito claims to cut Meredith

Sollecito claimed in his diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking.

Question for Knox: Why do you think Sollecito lied about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking?

Sollecito on Filomena’s room

Sollecito told the police that nothing had been stolen from Filomena’s room.

Question for Knox: How did Sollecito know nothing had been stolen from Filomena’s room?

Knox accuses Patrick

According to the corroborative testimony of multiple witnesses, including Knox’s interpreter, she voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith.

Question for Knox: Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily accuse an innocent man of murder?

Knox refusal to recant

She acknowledged that it was her fault that Diya Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007, but she didn’t retract her allegation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison.

Question for Knox: Why didn’t Amanda Knox recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba when he was in prison?

Knox at crime scene

Amanda Knox state on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed

Question for Knox: Why did Knox repeatedly claim to be there?

Knox’s Seattle call

Amanda Knox called her mother at 4.47am Seattle time before Meredith’s body had been discovered.

Question for Knox: Why did she phone her mother when it was in the middle of the night in Seattle and before anything had happened?

Knox forgets that call

Knox told her mother and the court that couldn’t remember making this phone call.

Question for Knox: Do you think Amanda Knox can’t genuinely remember phoning her mother at in the middle of the night?

Knox involvement

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted her involvement in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007.

Question for Knox: Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith’s murder?

Knox calls Meredith

Knox claimed that when she called Meredith’s Italian phone it “just kept ringing, no answer”. Her mobile phone records show this call lasted just three seconds.

Question for Knox: Do you think Amanda Knox made a genuine attempt to contact Meredith on 2 November 2007?

Posted May 2011


4. Questions For Knox From James Raper

1. Why did you not mention in your e-mail the 16 second 12.07 phonecall to Meredith’s English phone on the 2nd November?  When explaining why you made this call, please also explain why it was to the English phone rather than Meredith’s Italian phone which you knew Meredith used for local calls?

2. Why did you not mention this call when you phoned Filomena immediately afterwards?

3. Why did you make so little effort to contact Meredith again after being told by Filomena to do so. Remember the logged 3 and 4 second phone calls?

4. Why did you tell Filomena that you had already phoned the police when neither you, nor Raffaele, had.

5. Can you and will you explain the contradiction between your panic at the cottage (as described in the e-mail) and the testimony of all the witnesses who subsequently arrived that you appeared calm, detached and initially unconcerned as to your friend’s whereabouts or safety?

6. Why did you tell the postal police that Meredith often locked her bedroom door, even when it came to taking a shower, when this was simply not true, as Filomena testified?

7. Can you and will you explain why you did not try either of Meredith’s phones at the cottage if you were indeed in such a panic about Meredith’s locked door?

8. Can you and will you explain how you knew that Meredith’s throat had been cut when you were not, according to the witnesses’s testimony, a witness to the scene in Meredith’s bedroom after the door had been kicked in and, with the exception of probably a postal police officer or the ambulance crew, no one had looked underneath the duvet covering the body when you were there?

9. What made you think that the body was in the cupboard (wardrobe) when it was in fact to the side of the wardrobe? Were you being flippant, stupid, or what, when you said that? Do you think it just a remarkable coincidence that the remark bears close comparison to the crime scene investigators conclusions, based on the blood at the scene, that Meredith had been shoved, on all fours, and head first,  at the door of the wardrobe? She was then turned over on the floor and moved again. How did you know that there was any position prior to her final place of rest?

10. Will you ever be able to account for the 12.47 pm call to your mother in Seattle ( at 4.45 am Seattle time)? Do you remember this now because it was not mentioned in your e-mail nor were you able to remember it in your court testimony?

11. Why do you think Raffaele told the police – contrary to your own alibi that you had spent the whole time with Raffaele at his apartment – that you had gone out at 9 pm and did not return until 1 am?

12. Did you sleep through the music played for half an hour on Raffaele’s computer from 5.32 am?

13. Were you telling the truth when you told the court that you and Raffaele ate dinner some time between 9.15 and 11 pm? Can you not narrow it down a bit more? The water leak occurred, you said, whilst washing up dishes after dinner. Why then did Raffaele’s father say that Raffaele told him at 8.42 pm about the water leak whilst washing up dishes?

14. What was the problem about using the mop, rags, sponges etc already at Raffaele’s apartment, to clear up a water spill? Why was the mop from the girl’s cottage so essential and if it was, why not collect it immediately since it was just a short distance away?

15. Why, when you knew that you were going to Gubbio with Raffaele on the 2nd November, did you not take a change of clothing with you, if needed, when you left the cottage on the afternoon of the 1st?

16. Why did you need a shower at the cottage when you had already had one at Raffaele’s apartment the previous evening?

17. If you had needed one again why not have it at his apartment, in a heated apartment, before you set off, or on your return, rather than have a shower on a cold day, in a cold flat?

18. Why did you not notice the blood in the bathroom, and the bloody footprint on the bathmat, until after your shower? If the blood you then observed was already diluted and faded, how do you explain this?

19. Do not ignore your blood on the faucet. In your own testimony you said that there was no blood in the bathroom when you and Raffaele left the flat on the afternoon of the 1st.  What is your considered take on this now? Did your ear piercings bleed when having that shower or drying afterwards? If so, why were you not perfectly clear about the matter in your e-mail?  But then again you said that the blood was caked dry, didn’t you?

20. Why did Raffaele say that, on entering the flat with you, Filomena’s door was open and he saw the damage and mess inside, but you said, in your e-mail, that Filomena’s door was closed when you returned at 10.30 am? Did you subsequently look inside on that occasion, or not? It’s just that if you did, then why did you not mention the break in to Filomena prior to you and Raffaele returning to the cottage?

21. You are a creative writer so please explain. What is the point of the word “also” in the following extract from your e-mail? “Laura’s door was open which meant that she wasn’t at home, and Filomena’s door was also closed”.

22. In your trial testimony you mentioned shuffling along the corridor on the bathroom mat after your shower. From the bathroom to your room.  Because there was no towel in the bathroom. You had left it in your bedroom. Then back again. Why is this not mentioned in your e-mail?

23. In your e-mail you stated that you changed for your shower in your bedroom, and then afterwards dressed in your bedroom. That makes sense. What you don’t explain is why, if you towelled and dressed in your bedroom, there was any need to shuffle back to the bathroom on the bathmat. Why not just carry it back?

24. But why, in the same testimony, did you then change your mind as to where you had undressed for your shower? Not in your bedroom - saying so was a mistake you said - but you did not say where. Some people might think, uncharitably, that your change of mind was necessary to incorporate the double bathmat shuffle.

25. Were there any things that you disliked about Meredith? Be honest because we know from her English friends and other sources that there were things that she disliked about you.

26. Why are pages missing from your diary for October?

27. Once again, and this time so that it makes some sense, please explain why you permitted the police, on your say so, to believe that poor Patrick Lumumba was involved in Meredith’s murder.  Clearly, had you been at the cottage you would have known that he was not, and had you not been there you could not have known that he was.

Posted April 2012


5. Questions For Knox From Mediawatcher


  • Why did you call your mother in the middle of the night Seattle time prior to the murder having been discovered?  What was it you wanted to tell her?

  • You tried calling Meredith the day after the murder took place and yet phone records show that two of the calls you made to her cell numbers lasted only three and four seconds and you left no messages.  How diligent were you in trying to reach her?

  • Why do you think you falsely accused your boss Patrick Lumumba? 

  • Why didn’t you withdraw your accusation against Patrick Lumumba in the light of day, once you’d had time to rest and reflect? 

  • You have said - though never under oath - that you were treated terribly – can you summarize for us what happened the night you voluntarily gave your written statement and very specifically, any circumstances in which you were treated poorly?

  • Were you given food and drink on the night you were questioned?

  • Were you bleeding on the night or morning of the murder in any way that could have left DNA in the bathroom or in Filomena’s room?  If so, why were you bleeding?

  • You’ve said that went back to your apartment to take a shower and to retrieve a mop to clean up some water at Raffaele’s apartment from the night before.  Why didn’t you simply use towels at Raffaele’s apartment to clean up the water - why wait until the next day?

  • Reports indicate that Rudy Guede was a frequent visitor to the flat below yours.  How well did you know Rudy Guede prior to the night of the murder? 

  • Do you stand by the statement you made on the day the murder was discovered that Meredith always locked her door? 

  • You emailed to friends and family that you were panicked about what might have happened to Meredith given the locked door.  Did the two of you try to break the door down?  If not, why not?  And if Meredith always locked her door, why did the fact that it was locked worry you?

  • Have you read the Massei report? 

  • Raffaele Sollecito said during his book tour that no one asked him to testify during the original trial.  Do you believe this is true? 

  • If your conviction is affirmed by the Supreme Court, do you think you should be extradited to Italy.  If not, why not?

Posted April 2013


6. Questions For Knox From The Machine

1. Multiple false alibis

You and Raffaele Sollecito gave completely different accounts of where you were, who you were with and what you were doing on the night of the murder. Neither of you have credible alibis despite three attempts each. Sollecito told Kate Mansey from The Sunday Mirror that you and him were at a party.

He told the police that you and him were at his apartment. He then told them that he was home alone and that you weren’t at his apartment from around 9.00pm to about 1.00am. You first told the police that you were at Sollecito’s apartment. After you were informed that he was no longer providing you with an alibi, you repeatedly claimed that you went to the cottage with Diya Lumumba.

You changed your story yet again and claimed that you were at Sollecito’s apartment, but he might have gone out. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified.

Extract of Sollecito’s witness statement.

“I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think.

Question 1. Why did you and Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly tell the police and others a pack of lies?

2. False accusation

You falsely claimed that Diya Lumumba killed Meredith in two witness statements and you repeated the false accusation in your handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. You served three years in prison for this felony and your appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.

Question 2. Why did you repeatedly accuse Diya Lumumba of murder when you knew full well that he was completely innocent and why didn’t you or your mother retract your accusation when he was in prison?

3. The Double DNA Knife

According to a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor, Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian - Meredith’s Kercher’s DNA was found on the blade of a knife from Raffaele Sollecito’s kitchen.

He falsely claimed in his prison diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking. Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory.

Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment, so contamination away from the laboratory was impossible.

Question 3. How do you think Meredith’s DNA got onto the blade of the kitchen knife?

4. The bra clasp

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s on the exact part of Meredith bra clasp that was bent out of shape during the attack on her.  His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Professor Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it.

Professor Novelli analysed the series of samples from all 255 items processed and found not a single instance of contamination, and ruled out as implausible that a contaminating agent could have been present just on one single result. David Balding, a Professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London, recently analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded it was strong.

Question 4. How do you think Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp?

5. The bloody footprint on the bathmat

According to two imprint experts - Rinaldi and Boemi - the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house which indicates that he didn’t go into the bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

See our past posts on this here and here.

Question 5. Who do you think left the bloody footprint on the bathmat?

6. Mixed samples of Amanda Knox’s DNA or blood and Meredith Kercher’s blood

According to the prosecution’s experts, there were five instances of your DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. Even your lawyers conceded that your blood had mingled with Meredith’s blood. In other words, Meredith and Amanda Knox were both bleeding at the same time.

Question 6. Why were you bleeding on the night of the murder and is it a coincidence that only your DNA was found mixed with Meredith’s blood?

7. The Luminol Enhanced Footprints

Bare bloody footprints were revealed by Luminol at the cottage. Three of them are compatible with your foot size and one of them is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s foot size.

Question 7. What do you think the Luminol was reacting to - Meredith’s blood or some other substance?

8. The staged break-in

There is absolutely no evidence that anyone stood outside Filomena’s window and climbed up the vertical wall on the night of the murder. There were no marks from soil, grass or rubber soles on the wall. The earth of the evening of 1 November 2007 was very wet, so if anybody had climbed the wall, they would have left some marks on it.

The glass on the window sill and on the floor show no signs of being touched after the window was broken, which would have been the case if the intruder had gained entry through the window.

There was not a single biological trace on any of the shards of glass. It would have been very likely that an intruder balancing on the window sill would have suffered some kind of injury or cut because of the shards of glass.

If the window had been broken from the outside, there would have been shards of glass outside, but there wasn’t even one.

Judge Massei and the panel of judges at the Italian Supreme Court specifically mentioned the shards of glass on top of Filomena’s clothes which had been tossed onto the floor in her room and regarded it as proof that the break-in was staged.

Question 8. Who do you think staged the break-in at the cottage?

9. Knowledge of the crime

Umbria Procurator General Galati’s pointed out in his appeal that you knew specific details of the crime that you could have only known if you had been present when Meredith was killed.

According to multiple witnesses at the police station, you said you were the one who had found Meredith’s body, that she was in the wardrobe, that she was covered by the quilt, that a foot was sticking out, that they had cut her throat and that there was blood everywhere. But you weren’t in a position to have seen anything at all when the door was kicked in.

In your witness statement you described Meredith’s scream. Other witnesses have corroborated your claim that there was a loud scream.

Question 9. How did you know so many precise details of the crime?

10. Shower and the “bathmat shuffle”

The Scientific Police found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom that Meredith and you shared. Prosecutor Mignini and Filomena have both expressed their surprise that you showered in a blood-spattered bathroom.

Filomena told Mignini during cross-examination:  “I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place.”

You told Mignini that you used the bathmat to shuffle to your room.

Question 10. Why did you shower in a bathroom that was splattered with blood, and did you notice the visible bloody footprint on the bathmat when you used it to shuffle to your room? And why so soon after did the police notice that you were stinking?

Posted September 2013


7. Questions For Knox From Marcello

    1) Rudy Guede had been to the apartment at least twice already on prior occasions and knew the boys who lived in the lower story. Why did Guede choose to NOT break-in to the lower story where he knew (or could ascertain) that all four boys were away on holiday, and therefore could break-in and rummage with some certainty of not getting caught?

    2) Why did Guede choose to break-in to the upper story of the villa when he surely knew Knox and Kercher would be staying at the villa for the holidays and could have returned at any time to “catch him in-the-act”?

    3) Why did Guede not check the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in? Surely he would have verified that no one was present by circling the cottage and checking if any lights were on in the windows.

    4) If Guede did circle the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in, why would he then choose the most visible and more difficult path of entry through a second story window, as opposed to the more hidden and easier path of break-in at the back of the villa, which he would have noticed while circling the villa?

    5) Why would Guede choose to break-in through a second story window that was highly exposed to the headlights of passing cars on the street as well as exposed to night lighting from the carpark?

    6) Ms. Romanelli testified that she had nearly closed the exterior shutters. Assuming her memory is correct, there is no way a burglar could easily verify if the windows were latched and if the inner scuri were latched to the window panes, which would make access to the window latch impractical unless one was armed with a core drill or an ax. Why would Guede, who was certainly familiar with such windows, choose to attempt the break-in through a window that he could not easily verify would allow him quick access?

    7) Assuming the shutters were closed, Guede would have to climb up the wall and open the shutters before smashing the window with the rock. The night of the murder, the grass was wet from rain the previous day. Why was there no evidence of disturbed grass or mud on the walls?

    8) Guede had Nike sneakers, not rock climbing shoes. How did he manage the climb up the wall with that type of footwear?

    9) If the shutters were closed, or somewhat closed, how did Guede manage to lift himself up to the sill with only an inch of sill available to grab onto?

    10) Assuming Guede opened the shutters, how did Guede verify if the inner scuri where not latched to the window panes, which would prevent access to the window latch? There was no light inside Ms. Romanelli’s room to reveal that the scuri were ajar.

    11) Assuming Guede managed to check that the inner scuro behind the right-hand window was not latched, how did he manage to break the glass with a 9 lb rock with one hand while hanging on to the sill with the other?

    12) Assuming Guede managed check that the right-hand inner scuro was not latched, how did he break the glass with the rock without having glass shards fly into his face?

    13) If Guede climbed down to lob the 9 lb rock at the window from 3 meters below, how would he do so to avoid glass shards raining down on him?

    14) If Guede climbed down to the lob the rock at the window from below, why would he choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to lob up to a window 3 meters above him, with little chance of striking the window in the correct fashion?

    15) If Guede climbed down again and climbed back up to the carpark (up a steep slope with slippery wet grass and weeds) to lob the 9 lb 20 cm wide rock from the car park, why is there no evidence of this second climb down on the walls?

    16) Why did Guede choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to throw from the car park, given that a large, heavy rock would be difficult to lob with any precision? Especially considering that the width of the glass in the window pane is only 28 cm wide, surely anyone, experienced or not, would have chosen a smaller, lighter rock to throw with greater precision.

    17) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Guede would have been roughly 11-12 feet away from the window, in order for the lob to clear the wood railing at the carpark. If the rock was thrown with some velocity, why is the upper 1/2 of the glass in the window pane intact, without any fracture cracks at all?

    18) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Why is there so little damage to the scuro the rock hit, so little damage to the terrazzo flooring impacted by the rock, and so little damage to the rock itself, which surely would have fractured more on impact with a hard terrazzo floor?

    19) Why was there no evidence of glass shards found in the grass below the window?

    20) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window, how does he manage to hoist himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill?

    21) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, hoisted himself onto the sill, tapped the glass with a 9 lb rock to lightly break the glass in a manner more consistent with how the window was broken, why did he throw the rock into the room, rather than let it fall into the grass below?

    22) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found on the window sill?

    23) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found in Romanelli’s room?

    24) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window again, hoisted himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill, unlatched the window and stepped inside Filomena’s room, how did he manage to get glass on top of Romanelli’s clothing that was found under the window sill?

    25) Why would Guede, who would have spent a good 10 minutes trying to break and enter with the climbing up and down from the carpark, waste valuable time throwing clothes from the closet? Why not simply open the closet doors and rifle through the clothes without creating more of mess?

    26) Why did he disregard Romanelli’s laptop, which was in plain view?

    27) Why did Guede check the closet before checking the drawers of the nightstand, where surely more valuable objects like jewelry would be found?

    28) Why were none of the other rooms disturbed during the break-in?

    29) Assuming Ms. Kercher arrived to the cottage after Guede’s break-in, presumably when Guede was in the bathroom, why did she not notice the break-in, call the police and run out of the cottage?

    30) Assuming Guede was in the bathroom when Ms. Kercher returned, why go to the extent of attacking Ms. Kercher in her room rather than try to sneak out the front door, or through the window he had just broken, to avoid if not identification, at least more serious criminal charges?

    31) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, why did she not call the police the moment she heard the rock crash through the glass, loudly thud to the terrazzo floor and investigate what was happening in Romanelli’s room while Guede was climbing back down from the car park and climbing back up to the window?

    32) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, Guede could have been on the sill already because he had tapped the glass with the 9 lb rock to break it. Therefore perhaps Guede was already partially inside Romanelli’s room when he was discovered by Ms. Kercher. In this case Guede follows Ms. Kercher to her room in an attempt to dissuade her from calling the police and the assault ensues. But then, if this scenario is correct, when does Guede have time to rifle through Romanelli’s clothing and effects?

    33) Why is there a luminol revealed footprint in Romanelli’s room that has mixed traces of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA ?

    34) Why does this footprint not match Guede’s foot size?

    35) If multiple attackers were required to restain Ms. Kercher, holding her limbs while brandishing two knives and committing sexual violence, then who else was with Guede and why no traces of this 4th (or more) person(s) were found, either in shoeprints, footprints, fingerprints, DNA or otherwise?

    36) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why has Guede not acknolwedged them, and instead consistently hinted that, and finally admitting that Sollecito and Knox were with him during the assault?

    37) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why do the other shoeprints, footprints, DNA traces and fingerprints all point to Knox and Sollecito being present during the assault, in one way or another?

Posted October 2013

But wait!!

There’s more. Another post soon.

Posted on 03/05/18 at 01:05 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links:
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (3)

Page 1 of 68 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »