Collection: Nasty-prison hoax

Monday, March 07, 2016

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

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



A classy restaurant in an Italian prison which inmates in training fully run

1. The Knox Picture Of Italian Prison Conditions

Three years ago Amanda Knox devoted 200 pages of her book to an extended horror story about her stay in prison.

Knox provided zero proof. Knox has never published her charges in Italian in Italy, so the rebuttals by those Knox maligned are not (yet) in.

But almost immediately English-language corrections and rebuttals started to flow.  See also all these rebuttals here.

Knox was contradicted by her own lawyers who had visited her often and heard no complaints. She was contradicted by the US Embassy in Rome which monitored her often and heard no complaints. She was contradicted by Rocco Girlanda, an Italian Member of Parliament, who checked her conditions over 20 times (and then wrote a loving book) and reported no complaints. Her own parents reported no complaints.

Even so, one year ago, Knox reissued her notoriously dishonest book. It had been added-to, but not even one of the malicious claims was withdrawn.

Our main poster Chimera highlighted the lies throughout the entire book (over 400) and Posts #3 to #9 here are devoted to Knox’s prison lies.

2. The Real Picture Of Italian Prison Conditions

The Italian prison system was historically always very humane - bathrooms and sometimes kitchens attached to cells; TV in all cells; walk-around rights during the day; numerous group activities such as concerts and games; hair-dressing for women and even massage; and skills training for inmates in an occupation of their choice (Guede and Sollecito both completed degrees).

Around five years ago, largely because of immigrant crimes, the prison population (previously below 100,000 - in the US, California prisons alone hold almost twice that) began to balloon.

New prisons were built, with no expenses spared, and in these images you can see the result.

Stories of extreme over-crowding have gone away, and the New York Times profiles the new prisons and their programs of today.

For years, Italy has struggled with its prison system, as well as how to balance punishment with rehabilitation. Overcrowding had become such a problem that in January 2013 the European Court of Human Rights ordered the country to fix the system. [Actually the ECHR cannot “order” anything, and anyway the building program was already well under way.]

Italian lawmakers responded with more alternative measures for minor crimes. In 2014, Italy also repealed harsh drug sentencing laws enacted during the 1990s, similar to the “three strikes” laws in the United States. In 2014, Italy began releasing 10,000 inmates (of roughly 60,000) who had been convicted of minor offenses.

But the issue of how best to rehabilitate offenders — and lower the recidivism rate — remained difficult. Italy has long allowed inmates in medium-security prisons to move around the facilities during the day.

“The main problem has been that they do little during the day, which doesn’t help them at the present, nor for their future outside prisons,” said Alessio Scandurra, who works for Antigone, a nonprofit group focused on the rights of detainees.

The Bollate prison was at the vanguard of experimentation even before opening the restaurant. Under the director, Massimo Parisi, the prison offers an array of programs. Companies have work programs on prison grounds. Volunteers teach theater and painting. Carpentry skills are taught in workshops equipped with power drills and saws. Inmates maintain a stable of horses in the prison yard.

There is also an initiative involving a carefully vetted group of 200 inmates who are allowed to leave each day for jobs with an outside firm. Inmates travel without supervision on public transportation; they must check in upon arrival at work, and at other points during the day.

Mr. Parisi said only one inmate had failed to return at the appointed time, and he showed up a few days later.

The Times reporter follows this with what has to be a global first - a topnotch restaurant run by inmates right inside one jail.




Posted on 03/07/16 at 09:11 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Justice systemsItalian systemHoaxes by KnoxNasty-prison hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (4)

Thursday, January 07, 2016

A Stretch Inside Not Only Protects Society: For Perps It May Be Best Shot At Coming Right

Posted by Peter Quennell

Video 1: Very good analysis by psychologist Dr Drew Pinsky on Tuesday 5 January 2016


As we posted Ethan Couch killed four and maimed a fifth for life while drunk-driving in Texas two years ago.

He is now in a Mexico City lockup for illegal immigrants seeking to avoid extradition to the US where he has violated his highly controversial probation. Many or most think this was a travesty for the families of the victims. The judge retired early. Justice was not seen to be done.

Now he is reported to have run up a $1000 tab at a Mexican strip club which his mother paid. That $1000 apparently went in part toward drinks. He had skipped out of the US mid-December because he was videoed at a party with drinks.

Sources say Ethan Couch and his mother Tonya went to a strip club called Harem in Puerto Vallarta on the night of Dec. 23. According to club employees, the pair had drinks before Tonya Couch left the club. Ethan stayed at the club and employees told ABC News that he went off to a VIP room with two women who worked at Harem. Hotel and club employees said Couch was extremely drunk.

Few if any other criminal psychologists ever came out in support of Couch’s defense’s psychologist who convinced the judge two years ago that the affluence of the family was somehow a primary cause.

In the past few days there have been various psychology panels on cable TV discussing the case. Articles too.

From them Ethan Couch did not exactly get a lot of love. A term inside to remove him from his family and choke off his dependencies is what the psychologists incline towards, as Dr Drew in the top video highly recommends.

Video 2: Dr Drew two years ago (this video was previously at the top)

Posted on 01/07/16 at 12:12 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Justice systemsItalian systemOther systemsCrime hypothesesThe psychologyHoaxes by KnoxNasty-prison hoaxOther legal processesThose elsewhere
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (12)

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #9

Posted by Chimera



Implacable nastiness in Star Wars. Anakin is about to kill his wife here. Click for Comments.

1. Overview Of This Series

My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either.

Four more quick posts and the series will be done here. Then we will post everything on a new Knox Lies page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The eight posts before this one can all be read here.

Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

2. Dissection Of Pages 355 to 394

[Chapter 28, Page 355]  “I’d like to show the court a visual prop we’ve constructed to demonstrate our theory of the murder,” Comodi said. This introduced the most surreal moment of my nightmarish trial: a 3-D computer-generated animation with avatars representing me, Raffaele, Rudy Guede, and Meredith.  Carlo and Luciano were apoplectic. They shouted their objections, insisting that the film was unnecessary and inflammatory. Judge Massei allowed it. I didn’t watch it, but my lawyers said the avatar of me was dressed in a striped shirt like one I often wore to court. Raffaele, Guede, and I were depicted sneering.  Meredith’s avatar had an expression of horror and pain. The cartoon used real crime scene photos to show the blood splatters in Meredith’s room.

  • Trying to use a video simulation to explain a crime?  Happens regularly in U.S. courts.

  • So, should Meredith be sneering, and Knox, Sollecito, Guede have horrified expressions?

[Chapter 28, Page 356]  I kept my head down, my eyes on the table. My stomach was churning. The courtroom was suddenly hot. I was boiling with anger and near tears. How are they allowed to make up what happened? I tried to block out Comodi’s voice as she narrated the imagined event.

  • Angry, why?  For having the brutality of it finally shown?

  • Was she supposed to narrate you in the kitchen covering your ears while Lumumba kills Meredith?

  • Was she supposed to narrate the one where Guede uses his 6 arms and spider-strength to overpower Meredith?

[Chapter 28, Page 356] The cartoon couldn’t be entered as evidence, so no one outside the courtroom saw it. But the prosecution had achieved their goal. They’d planted an image in the minds of the judges and jury.  When the lights came up, Comodi closed with a straightforward request: Give Amanda and Raffaele life imprisonment.

  • Nobody outside the courtroom saw the cartoon since it “couldn’t” be entered as evidence?  In fact it was purely a choice of the prosecution and judge to stop it leaking to the media.

  • The points of clearing the court are to protect the dignity of the victim, and to prevent word of it from inflaming the public via the media.

  • The point is not to ‘‘plant an image’‘.  It is to provide the best interpretation of what happened.

  • Finally a truthful statement.  Yes, they did ask for life in prison.

[Chapter 28, Page 357]  Then he [Pacelli] descended on me as if I were a witch on trial in the Middle Ages. “So who is Amanda Knox? In my opinion, within her resides a double soul—the angelic and compassionate, gentle and naive one, of Saint Maria Goretti, and the satanic, diabolic Luciferina, who was brought to engage in extreme, borderline acts and to adopt dissolute behavior. This last was the Amanda of November 1, 2007 ... It must be spelled out clearly: Amanda was a girl who was clean on the outside because she was dirty within, spirit and soul.. .”

  • Pacelli didn’t descend on you as if it were the middle ages.  He descended on you for having committed heinous acts.

  • Extreme, borderline acts?  I guess sexual assault and murder, then framing someone are ‘‘mainstream’’ ....

[Chapter 28, Page 357]  How can any girl defend herself against a guy armed with a knife? “It’s a very long list of lesions: to the face, neck, hands, forearms, thighs. Try to understand the terror, the fear, the pain this girl suffered in the last seconds of her life in the face of the multiple aggression, an aggression brought about by more than one person.” Maresca didn’t mention that the prosecution’s own coroner—the only person who’d analyzed Meredith’s body—had said it was impossible to determine whether one or more people attacked Meredith.

  • How can any woman defend herself against a guy armed with a knife?  Many have before.

  • This is disingenuous.  The coroner is NEVER able to make the determination of multiple attackers based solely on injuries.  They can make reasonable assumptions and say things are likely, but few things are 100% certain.

  • That said, that many injuries with so few defensive marks leads to two possibilities: (1) The victim had been restrained; or (2) Multiple attackers were present.

[Chapter 28, Page 358]  Maresca, like Mignini, criticized any media that had questioned his work. But what most enraged me was the false contrast he set up between the Kerchers and my family. “You’ll remember Meredith’s family for their absolute composure. They taught the world the elegance of silence. We’ve never heard them on the television ... in the newspapers. They’ve never given an interview. There’s an abysmal difference between them and what has been defined as the Knox Clan and the Sollecito Clan, which give interviews on national television and in magazines every day.” Thank God for my “clan,” I thought. They’re the only ones on my side.

  • Meredith: likeable, ambitious, driven student.

  • Knox: crass, lazy, does drugs and brings home strange men.

  • Kercher family: kept a low profile during the trial.

  • Knox family: parents hired a PR firm to rail about how Knox was being railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor, and ancient judicial system

[Chapter 28, Page 358]  Meredith’s family is grieving, but my family knows that Pm not the cause of the Kerchers’ grief. Just as Meredith’s family came to Perugia to seek justice for their daughter, mine have come to seek justice for me. Both families are good. Both families are doing the best they can, the best way they know how..

  • Meredith’s family is grieving?  So that’s what grief looks like?  Good to know.

  • Well, your mother knew you were the cause of PATRICK’S grief, and did nothing about it.

  • If your family were here to seek justice, they would have let things play out.

  • The way they know how?  Oh, Judge Hellmann .....

[Chapter 28, Page 358]  “Raffaele and Rudy Guede never met, went out together, or saw each other,” Maori said. “The two young men belonged to completely different worlds and cultures. Raffaele comes from a big and healthy family. Rudy rejected his family. Raffaele has always been a model student. Rudy was never interested in school or work. Raffaele is timid and reserved. Rudy is uninhibited, arrogant, extroverted.” “Accomplices who don’t know each other . Bongiorno said, drawing out the words to emphasize the paradox that they couldn’t have been accomplices if they didn’t even know each other! Raffaele, she told the court, was “Mr. Nobody"—put in by the prosecution as an afterthought.  “There was no evidence of him at the scene.” The prosecution had contradicted themselves. “He’s there, but he’s not. He has a knife, but he doesn’t. He’s passive, he’s active.”

  • Vanessa losing her job while interfering with the case is ‘‘healthy’‘?

  • Since we are talking about ‘‘work ethic’‘, Sollecito is the only one of the 3 who never held a job.

  • Rudy is uninhibited, arrogant, extroverted?  Umm…. so is Knox.

  • People with different personalities can still know each other.  Sollecito knew Knox.

  • And despite the claim Sollecito didn’t know Guede, they both knew Knox.

  • Sollecito wasn’t put there as an afterthought.  He was Knox’s alibi witness, until he said she made him lie.

[Chapter 28, Page 359] In defending Raffaele, she also defended me. “If the court doesn’t mind, and Amanda doesn’t mind, the innocence of my client depends on Amanda Knox,” she said. “A lot of people think that she doesn’t make sense. But Amanda just sees things her way. She reacts differently. She’s not a classic Italian woman. She has a naive perspective of life, or did when the events occurred. But just because she acted differently from other people doesn’t mean she killed someone….

  • Sollecito’s innocence depends on Knox?  Wasn’t his ‘‘official’’ position that she went out?

  • She reacts differently?  Yeah, shit happens.

  • Her reactions don’t mean it, but false alibis, false accusations, turning off phones, mixed blood, etc ... do mean it.

[Chapter 28, Page 359]  “Amanda looked at the world with the eyes of Am6lie” she said, referring to the quirky waif in the movie that Raffaele and I watched the night of Meredith’s murder.  Amelie and I had traits in common, Bongiorno said. “The extravagant, bizarre personality, full of imagination. If there’s a personality who does cartwheels and who confesses something she imagined, it’s her. I believe that what happened is easy to guess. Amanda, being a little bizarre and naive, when she went into the questura, was truly trying to help the police and she was told, ‘Amanda, imagine. Help us, Amanda. Amanda, reconstruct it. Amanda, find the solution. Amanda, try.’ She tried to do so, she tried to help, because she wanted to help the police, because Amanda is precisely the Am6lie of Seattle.”

  • Knox looks at the world with the eyes of Amelie?  Are you arguing innocence or insanity?

  • Knox didn’t ‘‘confess’’ to anything.  She falsely ‘‘accused’’ Patrick of something.

  • Knox didn’t ‘‘imagine’’ anything, except a possible way out after Sollecito pulled his alibi.

  • She didn’t go to the Questura to ‘‘help the police’‘.  She claimed she went because she was scared to be alone, and told to go home.

  • Knox wasn’t told to ‘‘imagine’’ how anything went.  She started writing a list of possible males who visited.

  • Sorry to pick up an old topic, but Knox is remembering all this as it was said?  Or did she get the trial transcripts?

[Chapter 28, Page 360]  “At lunch hour on November 2, 2007, a body was discovered,” Luciano began. “It was a disturbing fact that captured the hearts of everyone. Naturally there were those who investigated. Naturally there were testimonies. Naturally there was the initial investigative activity. Immediately, immediately, especially Amanda, but also Raffaele, were suspected, investigated, and heard for four days following the discovery of the body. There was demand for haste. There was demand for efficiency. There was demand.

  • Knox has frequently claimed she was ‘‘interrogated’’ for days, but this is the first time, I am hearing about it happening to Sollecito.

  • ’‘ALL’’ of the residents of the house were detained, as Knox admits earlier in the book.  She was not targeted.

  • There was no ‘‘demand for haste’‘.  On November 5, 2007, the police asked him to come in to clear up his alibi.  Knox was not invited, and when she did show up, was asked to leave.

  • Again, how does Knox remember this summation, more than 3 years before she would write her book?

[Chapter 28, Page 360]  “Such demand and such haste led to the wrongful arrest of Patrick Lumumba—a grave mistake.”  Carlo picked up the thread. “There is a responsible party for this and it’s not Amanda Knox. Lumumba’s arrest was not executed by Amanda Knox. She gave information, false information. Now we know. But you couldn’t give credit to what Amanda said in that way, in that moment and in that way. A general principle for operating under such circumstances is maximum caution. In that awkward situation there was instead the maximum haste.”  Having heard what they wanted to hear and without checking further, the investigators and Prosecutor Mignini arrested Patrick—bringing him in “like a sack of potatoes,” Luciano said.

  • Knox admitted in her June 2009 testimony that she was the one to bring Patrick’s name up.

  • She did this because Sollecito revoked his alibi, and she was suddenly desperate for a new one.

  • Caution?  Knox claimed to be a witness to the rape and murder.

  • Lumumba’s arrest WAS executed by Knox.  Judge Massei (2009), Judge Hellmann (2011), and Cassation (2013) all said it was.

  • They did check the facts.  Patrick was released once they investigated.

  • You guys are taking pot shots at the cops in your summation?  Somehow I doubt it.

[Chapter 28, Page 361]  Maria Del Grosso criticized Mignini for the fiction he’d invented. “What must be judged today is whether this girl committed murder by brutal means. To sustain this accusation you need very strong elements, and what element does the prosecution bring us? The flushing of the toilet. Amanda was an adulterer. l hope that not even Prosecutor Mignini believes in the improbable, unrealistic, imaginary contrast of the two figures of Amanda and Meredith.”

  • The prosecution brought hard evidence to the trial.  What did you bring?

  • [I haven’t seen the trial transcript on this. Defence lawyers spin and distort things, but this may actually have been said.]

[Chapter 28, Page 362]  Then Raffaele and I made our final pleas. Raffaele talked about how he would never hurt anyone.  That he had no reason to. That he wouldn’t have done something just because I’d told him to.  I’d spent hours sitting on my bed making notes about what I wanted to say, but as soon as I stood up, every word emptied from my brain. I had to go with what came to me, on the few notes I had prepared.

  • Yes, Sollecito, gave speeches about how he had no reason to hurt her, but refused to actually testify.

  • Likewise at the Nencini appeal, Sollecito gave speeches, but wouldn’t answer questions.

  • You have to make notes?  I guess it just doesn’t come naturally.

[Chapter 28, Page 362]  “People have asked me this question: how are you able to remain calm? First of all, I’m not calm.  I’m scared to lose myself. I’m scared to be defined as what I am not and by acts that don’t belong to me. I’m afraid to have the mask of a murderer forced on my skin.

  • You were VERY calm after Meredith’s murder

  • Scared to lose yourself?  You mean, yet your cold-blooded side slip out?  Okay, probably true here.

  • Scared to be defined as something?  This is a murder trial.

  • Mask of a murderer?  Sweetheart, it’s not a mask.

[Chapter 28, Page 362]  “I feel more connected to you, more vulnerable before you, but also trusting and sure in my conscience. For this I thank you ... I thank the prosecution because they are trying to do their job, even if they don’t understand, even if they are not able to understand, because they are trying to bring justice to an act that tore a person from this world. So I thank them for what they do ... It is up to you now. So I thank you.”  My words were so inadequate. But at least I remembered to thank the court again. Now I had to put my faith in what my lawyers and our experts and I had said month after month. I had to believe that it was good enough.

  • While I’m at it, I’d like to thank the director, the producer, and the supporting cast.

  • One more time people.  I don’t yet have the feel of this character.

  • Dammit guys!  We are shooting this film just great.

  • Your words are inadequate?  You should have hired Linda Kuhlman to ‘‘ghostwrite’’ your speech.  No, it would still suck.

[Chapter 28, Page 364]  My head pounded as I shot from excitement to terror and back again—and again. My brain bounced between Please, please, please and Finally, finally, finally—THE END.

  • Yes, sequels are lame.  Like the sequel (or paperback) of this book.

[Chapter 28, Page 364]  After dinner Tanya turned on the TV. Every channel was talking about my case: The big day! The world is hanging on, waiting to see what the decision will be in the “Italian trial of the century.”  Raffaele and Amanda have been charged with six counts. Meredith’s family will be there to hear the verdict. Amanda’s family is waiting in the hotel. The Americans believe there’s no case, but the prosecution insists that Meredith’s DNA is on the murder weapon and Raffaele’s DNA is on Meredith’s bra clasp. The prosecution has condemned the American media for taking an incorrect view of the case.

  • Well, the whole world wasn’t watching until Dad hired a PR firm.

  • Americans believe there is no case.  Probably due to a biased media that doesn’t bother to check their facts

  • Meredith’s DNA on the knife and Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp were only just 2 pieces of evidence, yet you try to portray it as about the only evidence.

  • Actually the prosecution condemned the US media notion that he was framing 2 ‘‘kids’’ for his career.

[Chapter 29, Page 370]  My life cleaved in two. Before the verdict, I’d been a wrongly accused college student about to walk free. I was about to start my life over after two years. Now everything I’d thought I’d been promised had been ripped away. I was a convicted murderer.

  • Well, before the conviction Marriott portrayed you as the ‘‘wrongly accused’’ college student.

  • You were only taking the one course, so is that really a college student?  Not a full time load.

  • Everything you had been promised?  What kind of deal did you make?

[Chapter 29, Page 370]  Carlo stopped us just before we started down the stairs. He was breathless. “I’m so sorry! We’re going to win! We’re going to win. Amanda, we’re going to save you. Be strong.”

  • You’ve got the business judge directory?

[Chapter 30, Page 377]  “Can you possibly put me on the list for a two-person cell instead of the five-person cell?” I asked, sniffling. “That would mean a lot to me.” It was all I had. Begging for a better cell. It had come to this. This was my new life. I was in a position to ask. Twenty-six-year sentences were uncommon in Italy, especially at Capanne, which usually housed petty criminals and drug dealers serving sentences of a few months to a few years. After twenty-five months, not only had I earned seniority—I’d been there longer than almost everyone else—but I had a reputation as a model prisoner.

[Chapter 30, Page 384]  As Lupa said, my lawyers would obviously appeal my conviction. But I couldn’t count on the Court of Appeals to free me. My case, tried daily in the media, was too big and too notorious. It was awful to hear that strangers believed I had killed my friend. That feeling was compounded when, about three weeks after Raffaele and I were convicted, the appeals court cut Rudy Guede’s sentence nearly in half, from thirty years to sixteen. Meredith’s murderer was now serving less time than I was—by ten years! How can they do this?! I raged to myself. It doesn’t make sense! The unfairness of it burned in my throat.

  • Cases are tried by the courts, not the media.

  • It was awful to hear stranger thinking you killed your friend?  Why so obsessed with what people think?

  • Your friend?  Meredith I assume?

  • Didn’t make sense?  Did you read this quote from pages 273/274 of this book?  Fast track trial ... ?

  • “The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third.”

[Chapter 30, Page 384]  But when the emotionless guard pushed the paper across the desk, I saw, to my astonishment, and outrage, that it was a new indictment—for slander. For telling the truth about what had happened to me during my interrogation on November 5-6, 2007.  In June 2009, I testified that Rita Ficarra had hit me on the head to make me name Patrick.  I also testified that the police interpreter hadn’t translated my claims of innocence and that she’d suggested that I didn’t remember assisting Patrick Lumumba when he sexually assaulted Meredith.

  • Actually, it was a ‘‘long haired woman’’ you testified against.  Ficarra wasn’t named until this book came out.

  • You ‘‘didn’t remember assisting’‘?  Well, after days of lying, you admitted you were present.

[Chapter 30, Page 385]  According to Prosecutor Mignini, truth was slander.  All told, the prosecution claimed that I’d slandered twelve police officers—everyone who was in the interrogation room with me that night—when I said they’d forced me to agree that Meredith had been raped and pushed me into saying Patrick’s name.  It was my word against theirs, because that day the police apparently hadn’t seen fit to flip the switch of the recording device that had been secretly bugging me every day in the same office of the questura leading up to the interrogation.

[Chapter 30, Page 385] Mignini and his co-prosecutor, Manuela Comodi, had signed the document. The judge’s signature was also familiar: Claudia Matteini, the same woman who’d rejected me for house arrest two years earlier because she said I’d flee Italy.  I hadn’t expected this maneuver by the police and prosecution, but it now made sense. They couldn’t admit that one of their own had hit me or that the interpreter hadn’t done her job. Above all, they couldn’t admit that they’d manipulated me into a false admission of guilt. They had their reputations to uphold and their jobs to keep.

  • Judge Matteini was right.  You refused to attend the 2013 Cassation appeal, your own 2013/2014 Florence appeal, your own 2015 Cassation appeal, and are skipping the September 2015 calunnia trial.

  • So, the interpreter is refusing to translate properly .... to help frame you?

  • A police officer (whom you only now identify as Ficarra), assaults you, and everyone covers it up?

  • So, police and prosecutors are framing you to retains their jobs and reputations?

[Chapter 30, Page 385]  I’d calculated that I could be released in twenty-one years for good behavior. Now this looked unlikely. If I were called to testify in the slander trial, I’d have to restate the truth: I had been pressured and hit. They’d say I was lying. If the judges and jury believed the police, that would wipe out my good behavior and add three years to my jail time.  Could Mignini, Comodi, and the whole questura keep going after me again and again? Would I be persecuted forever?

  • So which is it?  You will (a) Tell the truth; or (b) Restate that you had been hit?

  • Yes, ‘‘aggravated calunnia’’ has a tendency to add years to jail sentences.

  • Mignini, Comodi and the Questura are not ‘‘going after you again and again’‘.  They are obligated to report such complaints.

  • Not ‘‘persecuted’’ forever, but if you keep this pattern up, you may be ‘‘prosecuted’’ forever.

[Chapter 30, Page 386] The indictment was a dark reminder of how completely vulnerable I was. Not only had the prosecution successfully had me convicted for something I hadn’t done, but also legally, my word meant nothing. I was trapped.

  • Yes, the word of someone convicted of making false accusations generally means nothing.  Quite true.

[Chapter 30, Page 387] As I did for Mina’s mom, Gregora, I helped prisoners write letters, legal documents, grocery lists, and explain an ailment to the doctor. The Nigerian women treated me as an honored guest, setting me up at a table and offering tea and cake as they dictated to me. This was my way of being part of the prison community on my own terms, of trying to find a good balance between helping others and protecting myself. No matter how much I was hurting, I didn’t think it was right to ignore the fact that I could help other inmates with my ability to read and write in both Italian and English.  At bedtime each night, I made a schedule for the next day, organized task by task, hour by hour. If I didn’t cross off each item, I felt I’d let myself down. I wrote as much as I could—journals, stories, poems. I could spend hours crafting a single letter to my family.

  • The writing part is true.

  • The touching details about helping other inmates is not.  Knox kept to herself almost exclusively.

[Chapter 30, Page 387]  The ways other prisoners had tried to kill themselves were well known—and I imagined myself trying them all.  There was poisoning, usually with bleach. Swallowing enough and holding it in long enough was painfully difficult. Usually the vomiting would attract the attention of the guards too soon, and then they’d pump your stomach. It seemed an agonizing way to go if success wasn’t guaranteed.  There was swallowing shards of glass from a compact mirror or a broken plastic pen, hitting your head against the wall until you beat yourself to death, and hanging yourself.  But the most common and fail-safe method of suicide in prison was suffocation by a garbage bag—two prisoners on the men’s side did this successfully while I was there. You could even buy the bags off the grocery list. You’d pull the bag over your head, stick an open gas canister meant for the camping stove inside, and tie the bag off around your neck. The gas would make you pass out almost instantaneously, and if someone didn’t untie the bag immediately, that was it.  Less effective but, I thought, more dignified was bleeding yourself to death. I imagined it would be possible to get away with enough time in the shower. The running water would deter cellmates from invading your privacy, and the steam would fog up the guard’s viewing window. I imagined cutting both my wrists and sinking into oblivion in a calm, quiet, hot mist.  I wondered which straw would need to break for me actually to do any of these. What would my family and friends think? How would the guards find my body?  I imagined myself as a corpse. It made me feel sick, not relieved, but it was a fantasy I had many times—terrible, desperate recurring thoughts that I never shared with a soul.

  • Not sure why Knox is telling us this.  Is it for shock value? Is she reveling in it?

[Chapter 30, Page 387]  I thought about how much I wanted to get married and have kids. If I get released on good behavior when I’m forty-three, I can still adopt.

  • Yes, adoption agencies won’t have an issue with a 43 year old woman who spent nearly her entire adult in jail for rape and murder now adopting a child.

[Chapter 30, Page 388] My mom couldn’t accept my sadness. She wrote, and talked to me, many times about how scared she was for me. “You’re changing, Amanda,” she said. “You’re not sunny anymore. I hope when you get out you can go back to being the happy person you were.  “Mom,” I wrote back, “good things don’t always work out for good people. Sometimes shit happens for no reason, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

  • You’re not sunny anymore?  Well, after Massei didn’t buy it, I’d be pessimistic too.

  • Shit happens for no reason?  Sorry, Meredith.

[Chapter 30, Page 388]  I desperately didn’t want to be forgotten. But more than worrying about the logistics of such a life, I was terrified that we were coming to a point where we wouldn’t understand one another. They still had the right to choose what to do with their lives; they had freedom. I didn’t. I was at the mercy of my wardens. I worried that my new prison identity wouldn’t make sense to them, and my mom was evidence of that. If enough time passed, we’d be speaking two different languages—and it would have nothing and everything to do with their English and my Italian.

  • The first statement seems truthful, you really are desperate to not be forgotten.

  • But if you wanted to lessen the burden, you could have just come clean, and gotten a much lighter sentence.

[Chapter 31, Page 393] Sitting beside me in the visitors’ room at Capanne, my friend Madison reached over and brushed my cheek. I flinched. “Baby, don’t worry. It’s just an eyelash,” she said.  My skittishness horrified me. “I guess I’m just not used to people touching me anymore!’

  • Too easy.  I won’t even try with this one.

[Chapter 31, Page 394]  After I was convicted, my family, my lawyers, my friends, other prisoners—even, bizarrely, prison officials—tried to console me by telling me that I’d surely have my sentence reduced, if not overturned, on appeal. Rocco and Corrado assured me that in Italy about half the cases win on appeal.

  • Not true at all.  Very few cases are overturned on appeal.

  • You’d surely have your sentence reduced?  Are you working on those fake tears?

[Chapter 31, Page 394]  But I’d been burned so often I was terrified. Why would the Court of Appeals make a different decision from the previous court? Or from the pretrial judge? Both had accepted the prosecution’s version. With my case, the Italian judicial system was also on trial. My story was well known, and the world was watching. It’d be difficult for the judicial authorities to back down now.

  • Good question.  Why would they make a different decision?

  • So, Mignini/Comodi’s case that you were involved in Meredith’s death was just a ‘‘version’‘?  Was it their version of the truth?

  • The judicial system is always on trial.  Judgements have to be able to withstand public and legal scrutiny.

  • You won’t get a fair appeal because their is media attention?

[Chapter 31, Page 394] One thing had changed: me. I was different. In the year since my conviction I’d decided that being a victim wouldn’t help me. In prison there were a lot of women who blamed others for their bad circumstances. They lived lethargic, angry lives. I refused to be that person. I pulled myself out of the dark place into which I’d tumbled. I promised myself I’d live in a way that I could respect. I would love myself. And I would live as fully as I could in confinement.

  • Are you kidding?  Being a ‘‘victim’’ got you all this fame, I mean notoriety.

  • There are a lot of women who blame others for their circumstances?  Others like Mignini, Ficarra, Guede….

  • They lived lethargic, angry lives?  Your book is dripping with rage.

  • You refused to be that person?  How exactly?

  • Live in a way you can respect?  You seem to have pretty low standards.
Posted on 11/24/15 at 05:00 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (3)

Friday, October 23, 2015

Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #8

Posted by Chimera



Implacable nastiness - in NYC’s Central Park. Click here to go directly to Comments.

1. Overview Of This Series

My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. In the first seven posts there are 350, many with several lies bundled together, and in this post I identify another 60 making the total 410 so far with more pending.

None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

This series is previewed and it’s explained why the “Revenge of the Knox” motif in this post here. The seven posts before this one can all be read here.

Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

2. Dissection Of Pages 313 to 354

[Chapter 26, Page 313]  After I was accused of murder, people read new meaning into everything about me. A hickey on my neck became a scratch from Meredith in her last, desperate moments. An awkward encounter about a dirty toilet became a murder motive. Male friends I brought home became mysterious lovers of questionable character. Rudy Guede’s aside to the guys downstairs about my being cute became proof that he would do anything to earn my attention and approval.

  • Okay, what did Sollecito use to give you that hickey?  His mouth?  Fingernails?  Knife?

  • Disingeuous, the toilet was just one thing in many of you being messy?

  • So who were these ‘’ male friends’’ if they weren’t lovers?  What were you doing?  Do you even know their names?

  • Guede thought you were cute.  Did you know this ‘‘before’’ Meredith’s murder?

[Chapter 26, Page 314]  It wasn’t necessary for any of these people to be right. It was enough for them to raise doubts, to make it seem that I was lying. They had to be only marginally convincing.  The thought that these witnesses might wow the jury and judges terrified me.

  • So Judge Massei writes up a 400 page report, and Judge Nencini a 350 page report of ‘‘marginally convincing’‘?

  • Wtnesses are not supposed to ‘‘wow’’ a jury and judge.  They are supposed to present what they saw or heard.

  • Why would it terrify you?  Do they know things you wish they didn’t?

[Chapter 26, Page 314]  But when he saw my picture in the paper a few days later, his memory was precise. “I recognized her as the same girl,” he said. When asked if the girl was in the courtroom, Quintavalle pointed at me. “It’s her,” he said. “I’m sure of it.” I’d gone to the little store once to pick up milk and cereal. Once. I’d never been in the back, where the cleaning products are apparently shelved.

  • So, you are accusing police of ‘‘coaching’’ a witness?

  • He spoke up and said it was you?  Was he speaking Italian?  Sorry to keep beating this dead horse.

  • You have such a poor memory about the time of Meredith’s murder, yet you are absolutely certain you only went there once—for cereal?  And you are absolutely certain that you only went to ‘‘certain parts’’ of the store?

[Chapter 26, Page 314] He [Quintavalle] hadn’t wanted to get involved in the murder case and had come forward only at the urging of a journalist friend in August 2008. I relaxed a little. The jury would see what was true and what wasn’t. The media purposely did not. “A New Hole Appears in Amanda Knox’s Alibi” and “Witness Contradicts Amanda Knox’s Account.” News stories like this infuriated my family and friends. But strangers, no doubt, would think, There goes Amanda, lying again.

  • That is not true at all, it was not a journalist friend that urged him to get involved?

  • Stories like this infuriated family and friends?  How?  Do any of them speak Italian?  Although present in court, could your family understand what was said?

  • Strangers would think you were lying?  Your own lawyers thought you were lying about being hit by police.

  • If people might think you are lying, was that the reason to hire a PR firm?  To set things straight?

[Chapter 26, Page 315]  Nara Capezzali was a widow in her late sixties who lived in an apartment building behind the parking lot across the street from our villa. She testified that she heard a scream between 11 and 11:30 P.M. “It made my skin crawl, to be honest,” she said.She was certain of the time because she took a nightly diuretic and always woke up around 11 P.M. to use the bathroom.

  • Interesting that you try to discredit her, but you and Guede (2 co-accused) had both confirmed Meredith screaming.

[Chapter 26, Page 315]  Before falling back asleep, she said she heard footsteps running up the metal stairs by the parking lot. “At almost the same moment,” she heard the crunching of feet on gravel and leaves coming from the direction of our driveway. Never mind that our driveway wasn’t gravel; it was mostly dirt. Meredith’s room was on the back of our house, as far as possible from Capezzali’s. The defense doubted that anyone could have heard these noises across a busy road and behind closed windows with double panes. But the prosecution clung to Capezzali’s account, which was a linchpin used to approximate Meredith’s time of death.

  • Yes, because after hearing a ‘‘skin-crawling’’ scream, most people would just head off to bed.

  • You say Meredith’s room was ‘‘at the back, as far as possible from Capezzali’s’‘.  Yet, you also say that she was ‘‘across the road’‘, so your qualifier doesn’t do much to discredit her.

  • Really?  The road was busy at 11PM on a holiday?  Interesting.

  • Of course the ‘‘defense doubted’‘.  It is their job to doubt things.

  • The scream was ‘‘the linchpin’‘?  I guess hearing screams that ‘‘make your skin crawl’’ are common there.

[Chapter 26, Page 316]  One of the few points on which the prosecution and defense agreed was that the police had made an inexcusable blunder shortly after the body was found. They prevented the coroner from taking Meredith’s temperature for hours, squandering the best chance to gauge her time of death. The second option—analyzing the contents of Meredith’s stomach—was far less reliable. The third—Capezzali’s memory—wasn’t reliable at all.

  • Body temperature can give a rough estimate of T.O.D., based on the ‘‘1 degree an hour’’ guideline.  But far from exact, regardless of what C.S.I. says.

  • Stomach contents, and analysing digestion, can give an estimate on how long since a person last ate until death.  A guideline, once again.

  • No medical examiner with any integrity, would ever give an exact T.O.D., but rather a range, or an estimate.  Scientists are not supposed to make claims they do not know for certain.

  • Capezzali’s memory is not reliable?  So, she frequently hears screams that make her skin crawl and forgot the date?  Or she could not have heard a scream from across the street that you and Guede both confirm happened? 

  • And, did Capezzali testify to ‘‘things her mind made up?’’  Wait, you make those types of claims.

[Chapter 26, Page 316]  There were many bad days during my trial. The worst was the afternoon when evidence was presented to establish the time of Meredith’s death. Since the judge had ruled that to protect Meredith’s privacy the press and public couldn’t see her autopsy photos, he cleared the courtroom of everyone who wasn’t directly involved in the trial. Pictures of Meredith’s dissected stomach were projected onto a screen like the kind used for home movies. I knew that if I looked, I’d have the same reaction as the juror who bolted for the ladies’ room. Even more devastating than the actual image of the stomach was knowing it was my friend’s.

  • Yes, the court was cleared when Meredith’s autopsy photos were shown.  Damn those courts to show the victim and her family a little consideration.

  • Considering that you publish personal details of Meredith’s sex life, I can see why this would bother you?

  • Were these ‘‘bad days’’ as there was less chance for scrutiny, or did you really want Meredith ‘‘put out there’’ like that?

[Chapter 26, Page 316]  Throughout the display, the prosecution delivered a primer on the human digestive system. We learned it takes about two to four hours to digest a meal. Meredith’s friends had said that they’d started dinner around 6 P.M. Since the food hadn’t yet passed into Meredith’s small intestine, my lawyers said she died between 9 and 9:30 P.M.-10 P.M. at the latest.  Any later and her stomach contents would have shown up in her small intestine. According toMeredith’s friends, she had gotten home at around 9 P.M.

  • ’‘Meredith’s friends’‘?  You really don’t like dropping names, do you?

  • The digestion rates are only estimates, not exact.

  • ’‘Around 6PM’’ is not exact, and could be 6:30, or 6:45 for all we know before she actually ate.  When you order meals, do they actually arrive right away?

  • Meredith had ‘‘partially digested’’ her meal, so your claim is a red herring

  • Of course ‘‘your lawyers’’ say things like that.  Doesn’t mean they are true.

  • Also, do you have an interpreter or are you following the trial in Italian (in real time)?

[Chapter 26, Page 316]  On the only computer the police hadn’t fried, Raffaele’s laptop, the hard drive showed that we’d finished watching Amelie and clicked Stop—the last “human interaction” th the computer—at 9:15 P.M. The tight timing gave us an alibi that even the prosecution didn’t try to disprove.

  • An alibi how?  Even by your ‘‘version’’ of events, your last ‘‘human interaction’’ on the computer is 9:15PM, and Meredith could have been killed as late at 10:00PM.

  • Your flat is a few minutes away from Sollecito’s.

  • And in Sollecito’s November 5th/6th statement, he says he went out from 9PM to 1AM, and he doesn’t know where.

  • You yourself write statements saying you were at your home, covering your ears to drown out Meredith’s screams.

[Chapter 26, Page 317]  What made their theory even weaker was Capezzali herself. She testified that the morning after she heard the scream, some kids ran by while she was cleaning her apartment and told her a girl in the villa had been killed. Then, at around 11 A.M., when she went out to buy bread, she saw posters with Meredith’s face at the newsstand.

  • The problem: Meredith’s body wasn’t discovered until after 1 P.M. on November 2. When Mignini asked Capezzali if she might have heard the scream on Halloween and not on November 1, she snapped, “I don’t remember these things, these hours, these things. I don’t remember them anymore.”

  • I was sure there was no way the jury would put their faith in someone who said she didn’t remember.

  • Knox is trying to smear Capezzali as unreliable, and Mignini as coaching her, but misses the point. 

  • Obviously the poster wasn’t up PRIOR to Meredith being discovered, but if Mignini were to lead the witness, it would have made far more sense to ask if Capezzali had seen the poster on November 3rd or 4th, to have the story make sense

  • Juries are not supposed to believe witnesses with memory problems, just defendants?  Okay ....

[Chapter 26, Page 317]  The basketball court was made to order for the prosecution. The most direct walk from Raffaele’s apartment to my villa was through Piazza Grimana. It was also the place where Rudy Guede was known to play pick-up games and hang out. It was where Id once tried to shoot hoops with the guys from down-stairs and ended up watching from the sidelines. I hadn’t argued with anyone there, and I’d never been back, but what if the jury bought this guy’s story?

  • The most direct walk to your ‘‘boyfriend’s’’ home is through Piazza Grimana where Guede plays?

  • You admit you have been there with the men from downstairs?

  • Oh, wait, you have never crossed paths with Rudy Guede

[Chapter 26, Page 320]  I dreaded Patrick Lumumba’s testimony for his civil trial. It still gnawed at me that I’d never apologized to him. I was sure the man I’d wrongly named would rail against me. He had told the media that he would never forgive me, he’d lied about firing me, and he had called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.” His lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, had called me “Luciferina” and said I had “an angel’s face with a demon’s soul.”

  • He didn’t lie about firing you.  He was going to replace you for being lazy

  • You never apologized to him?  Did you ever try?

[Chapter 26, Page 320] He was also far more forgiving than I’d expected. I wasn’t the best waitress, but I was a fine person, he said.I can only guess why Patrick had decided to tone down his anti-Amanda commentary. Either he felt he had to be honest under oath or his lawyer had advised him to act meek and likeable—and let the venom be rained down by Pacelli himself. Whatever the reason, Patrick told the court, “We always had a good relationship.”

  • You weren’t acting like a waitress at all?  You were flirting with everyone instead of working.

  • You always had a good relationship?  Was that before or after you had him falsely arrested?

  • He had ‘‘to be honest under oath’‘, so now he suddenly starts saying nice things about you?

[Chapter 26, Page 321] Then it was my turn. At first my lawyers said letting me testify was a risk. I could be provoked.  They worried the prosecution would push me to unwittingly say something incriminating. I’d fallen for Mignini’s word-twisting when he interrogated me in December of 2007. I’d dissolved into tears at my pretrial.

  • But I was adamant. “I’m the only one who knows what I went through during the interrogation,” I told Luciano and Carlo. “Having you defend me isn’t the same as defending myself. I need to show the court what kind of person I am.”

  • I felt it was crucial that I testify. I wanted to talk about my relationship with Meredith. I needed to explain my behavior in the wake of her murder.

  • Raffaele didn’t testify. That may have been the right choice for him. Most of the media attention had landed on me-Raffaele was seen as someone who had gone along with his evil girlfriend.

  • Yes, your lawyers don’t want you to say anything (else) incriminating?  Good call.

  • ’‘Showing the court what kind of person I am’’ isn’t the reason people should testify.  It is to have your version of events heard.

  • You wanted to talk about your relationship with ‘‘your friend’‘?  You mean, it hadn’t soured, as others testified to?

  • Yes, conflicting alibis, lies, false accusations, etc .... do need to be cleared up

  • Sollecito didn’t testify.  In fact, he would never take the witness stand.

  • Knox however, did not agree to full cross examination.  The questions (agreed in advance), were limited to the ‘‘calunnia’‘.

[Chapter 26, Page 322]  In testifying, I wanted to make a point: You guys make me sound like I was crazy that I found three droplets of blood in the bathroom sink and didn’t call the police immediately. But I was a twenty-year-old who handled the situation the same way a lot of inexperienced people would have. It’s easy to look back and criticize my response, but when I went home that day I didn’t know there had been a break-in or a murder. To me, it was a regular day. Yes. The door was open. But I’d known since I moved in that the lock was broken. Maybe it was a cause for concern, but I just figured one of my roommates was taking out the trash or had run to the corner store. I was focused on getting ready for our romantic weekend in Gubbio. My thoughts were mundane. I’ll grab a shower. I’ll pack. I’ll get back to Raffaele’s, and we’ll go.

  • It was not ‘‘3 droplets of blood’‘.  The bathroom was soaked in blood.

  • And what about the ‘‘unflushed toilet’’ you wanted everyone to know about?

  • And that broken window (Filomena’s), facing you as you walk towards the house?

  • You were excited for Gubbio, but then just forget all about it?

  • This is all academic though.  The questioning was restricted to the police interrogation (Nov 5th/6th).

[Chapter 26, Page 323]  I knew Mignini liked to intimidate people. I gave myself a pep talk. He scared and surprised you the first and second times. But three times? I don’t think so!

As the date got closer, I slept little and talked less. Journalists reported that I was pale and had dark circles under my eyes.

True. I was wearing my anxiety on my face. The day before I had to testify, a nasty cold sore appeared on my lip. My mantra for myself ran through my mind. You are not afraid. You are not afraid of Mignini. This is your chance.

When I saw the prosecutor in court, Mignini seemed like a blowhard in a silly robe. I wished I had felt that way when he questioned me before.

  • Yes, Mignini intimidated you by telling you to seek legal advice before answering potentially incriminating questions.

  • The second time?  Is that when you had legal counsel, and the ever elusive Giancarlo Costa was one of your lawyers?

  • Mignini seemed ‘‘like a blowhard in a silly robe’‘?  Good to know you take this seriously?

[Chapter 26, Page 323] The first person to question me was Carlo Pacelli, Patrick’s lawyer. Lawyers technically aren’t allowed to add their own commentary at this point, only to ask questions. But he made his opinions known through pointed questions like “Did you or did you not accuse Patrick Lumumba of a murder he didn’t commit?” and “Didn’t the police officers treat you well during your interrogation?’‘

The lawyer looked disgusted with me. I sat as straight as I could in my chair and pushed my shoulders back—my I-will-not-be-bullied stance.

Within a few minutes I realized that the interpreter hired to translate my English into Italian—the same useless woman I was assigned earlier in the trial—wasn’t saying precisely what I was saying.

  • Pacelli isn’t giving commentary.  He is asking pointed questions.  This is a murder trial.

  • Looking disgusted qualifies as ‘‘bullying’‘?  Okay.

  • Useless?  She was hired by the court to help you.

  • The interpreter isn’t saying precisely what you are saying?  Do you mean her translation isn’t word for word, or she is off of the content?  Or is she not being as evasive as you hoped she would be?

  • And when asked questions in Italian, you answer in English, and have the translator go English-to-Italian in return?  Why do this?  Are you hoping for mis-communications to be made?

  • If you don’t need her, why not just have the questioning completely in Italian?

  • Note: 323-327 is Knox’s account of her testimony.  In reality, she was on the stand June 12th and June 13th.  Notice that she is never questioned about the evidence of the murder.  The scope of the questioning was limited beforehand.

[Chapter 27, Page 329] Carlo [Dalla Vedova] leaned across the table in the visitors’ room. “Amanda,” he said. “They’re wrong!”  His customary pessimism had vanished. “There was no blood on the knife,” he said. “And there was so little DNA present they didn’t have enough to get valid results. We have everything we need to overturn the case!”

  • This conversation likely never took place, and if so, Dalla Vedova is truly incompetent.  There was plenty of evidence, both forensic and non-forensic to tie Knox and Sollecito to the crimes.  This knife was not a make-or-break.

[Chapter 27, Page 330]  That had been in September 2008. By then it was July 2009. Ten months had passed. On the day the court recessed for the summer, Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to give us the data. They still held back some information, but within the papers they did give us, our forensic experts found the prosecution had failed to disclose a fact that should have prevented us from ever being charged. There was no way to tie this knife—and therefore, me—to Meredith’s murder. I’d always known that it was impossible for Meredith’s DNA to be on the knife, and I’d long known that the prosecution had leaked assumed evidence to the media. Now I knew that these mistakes weren’t missteps. Stefanoni and her team had made giant, intentionally misleading leaps, to come up with results designed to confirm our guilt.

  • Knox claims the prosecution withheld evidence that would exonerate her.  Serious charge to make.

  • How do you know that it was impossible to have Meredith’s DNA or it?  Did you clean it, or use a different knife?

  • It had Meredith’s DNA on the blade, yours in a groove in the handle, (the double-DNA knife).  Seems pretty conclusive.

  • So, Stefanoni commits misconduct, lies about, and leaks false results?  Did you ever file a complaint?

[Chapter 27, Page 330]  Carlo, who’d never sugarcoated my situation, said, “These are small-town detectives. They chase after local drug dealers and foreigners without visas. They don’t know how to conduct a murder investigation correctly. Plus, they’re bullies. To admit fault is to admit that they’re not good at their jobs. They suspected you because you behaved differently than the others. They stuck with it because they couldn’t afford to be wrong.”

  • Earlier you quote Dalla Vedova as saying the detectives don’t know what to do, as they haven’t had a murder to investigate in 20 years.  Yet, you refer to your home and town as a ‘‘deathtrap’‘.

  • Dalla Vedova claims they are incompetent, and withhold information to cover up their mistakes?  Did he ever say this publicly?

[Chapter 27, Page 331]  And for Mignini, appearing to be right superseded everything else. As I found out that summer, the determined prosecutor had a bizarre past, was being tried for abuse of office, and had a history of coming up with peculiar stories to prove his cases. His own case is currently pending on appeal.

  • Update on that: the appeals court (and Cassation), ruled that the charges were baseless and threw them out.

[Chapter 27, Page 331]  Mignini had a habit of taking revenge on anyone who disagreed with him, including politicians, journalists, and officials. His usual tactic was to tap their telephones and sue or jail them. The most famous instance was the arrest of Italian journalist Mario Spezi, and the interrogation of Spezi’s American associate Douglas Preston, a writer looking into the Narducci case, who subsequently fled Italy.

In the hour we had each week to discuss my case, my lawyers had never thought there was a reason for us to talk about Mignini’s outlandish history. Carlo and Luciano told me only when it became apparent that, for Mignini, winning his case against Raffaele and me was a Hail Mary to save his career and reputation.


“The whole story is insane!” I said. I couldn’t take it in. It struck me that I was being tried by a madman who valued his career more than my freedom or the truth about Meredith’s murder!

  • Mignini is required to file complaints about people who make false accusations.  Otherwise the prosecutor’s office could easily be pushed around.

  • Doug Preston was interrogated by Mignini?  Explains a lot about one of your ‘‘allies’‘.

  • Yes, lucky for Mignini’s career that Meredith happened to come along and get killed.

  • ’‘It struck you that you were being tried by a madman’‘?  Did telling all those lies ever strike you as the reason for being tried?

[Chapter 27, Page 332]  Giulia Bongiorno made a speech that gave me even more cause for optimism. Keeping the raw data from us until July 30 had violated our rights as defendants. If we’d had it earlier—when we first requested it—it would have altered the trial from the beginning. “The question for the court,” Bongiorno said, “is the DNA evidence decisive or not? If you believe it’s not, then there hasn’t been an injury to the rights of the defense. But if the DNA is decisive, you have to ask yourselves: Did the defense have the possibility to examine the data to be able to counter the conclusions? Did the defense have the diagrams, the electropheragrams, the quantity of DNA, the procedures? You have the answer.

  • So, either the DNA is conclusive or it is not.

  • If it is conclusive, then, it must be contaminated.

  • If it is conclusive, then the defences should have been able to examine it, and to witness

  • Reality: defence lawyers WERE given the chance to be present, but chose not to, so they could later claim contamination.

[Chapter 27, Page 332]  Our lawyers’ arguments stirred up all my outrage. The prosecution had kept Raffaele and me in jail for twenty-one months for no reason. If the judges and jury were fair, they’d see that the prosecution had tried to thwart us.

  • Yes, the prosecutors are trying to thwart you by having defense lawyers choose to not attend DNA testing.

[Chapter 27, Page 332]  Adjusting his glasses, Judge Massei droned in his unassuming voice, “There will be no annulment.  We’ll hear both sides discuss the forensic evidence.”  I swallowed hard and closed my eyes, willing my tears back in their ducts.

  • Massei droned?  Way to take pot-shots at the lead judge.

  • Silly Massei.  Wanting to hear both sides before making a decision.

[Chapter 27, Page 334]  No one was contesting the brutality of Meredith’s death—only how it had happened and who was responsible. Everyone believed that Rudy Guede had been there and that he had killed Meredith. He was already serving a thirty-year sentence for her sexual assault and murder.

The goal of the prosecution was to prove that I had been there, too.

  • Originally you, Sollecito and Guede were to be tried together.  But Guede asked for a short form trial when you and Sollecito teamed up against him. 

  • For some reason, short-form trials go quicker than full trials.

[Chapter 27, Page 334]  During the testimony phase, from January to July, witnesses discussed everything from my housekeeping habits to my character and sexual activity. It was intensely personal, and sometimes mortifying.

  • Mortifying?  Really?  Have you read your own book?  You splash around everyone’s secret’s true or false.

[Chapter 27, Page 334]  Picking up after the summer break, the forensics phase lasted only three and a half weeks, but it was still interminable: hour after hour of examination and cross-examination. Witnesses were called to talk about the knife, the bra clasp, my “bloody” footprints, how my DNA could have mixed with Meredith’s blood in the bathroom, and our alleged cleanup of the villa. Each expert explained how the evidence was found and documented, how results were calculated and interpreted. They were dissecting a crime I hadn’t committed, blaming me using terminology I didn’t know. I felt like an observer at someone else’s trial. The experts would say things like   “Amanda’s DNA was on the knife handle,” and I would think, Who is this Amanda?

  • Huh?  I thought there was no forensic evidence against you.  Okay.

[Chapter 27, Page 334]  I’d rest my chin in my hand, trying to look contemplative—a skill I’d developed during boring college lectures. But no matter how hard I tried to focus, my attention would wander, my head.  would bob, and the agente standing behind me would awaken me to the nightmare. More than feeling embarrassed, I was terrified that my inattention would be interpreted as my not caring and become another mark against me—even though some of the jurors also habitually dozed off.

  • Wow, you are comparing your murder trial to college lectures

  • Why are you having trouble focusing?  Is it that boring to hear about these things?

  • You are terrified about being seen as not caring?  Your behaviour in court would contribute more to that (All You Need Is Love?)

  • The jurors dozed off regularly?  Can I assume that you put that in your appeal?  No ... ?!

[Chapter 27, Page 335]  When testimony wasn’t dull, it was disturbing. I couldn’t stand thinking about Meredith in the starkly clinical terms the scientists were using to describe her. Did her bruises indicate sexual violence or restraint? What did the wounds to her hands and neck suggest about the dynamics of the aggression? What did the blood splatter and smears on the floor and armoire prove about her position in relation to her attacker or attackers?

  • Turn that first sentence around.  ‘‘When testimony wasn’t disturbing, it was dull.’‘

  • You can’t think of Meredith in those terms?  In May 2014, you told Chris Cuomo Meredith was a ‘‘corpse’’ and a ‘‘body’‘.

  • Yes, bruises indicating ‘‘restraint’‘.  Kind of suggests there were ‘‘multiple attackers’‘.

  • You seem rather interested in blood spatter and smears. 

[Chapter 27, Page 335]  The hearings were tedious, gruesome, and enormously upsetting. But we were no longer at the crippling disadvantage we’d been at for two years. Now that the prosecution had been made to show their notes, testing, and some of the raw data, we finally had facts. And the facts supported what I had always known: Raffaele and I had had nothing to do with Meredith’s murder. Meredith had never come into contact with Raffaele’s kitchen knife. I hadn’t walked in her blood.

  • The hearings were upsetting?  To you or to the Kerchers?

  • You know, the defence lawyers could have had the data and seen the testing, but they refused to attend.  Makes it difficult to claim ‘‘contamination’’ if it is done in front of them.

  • So, the evidence and facts were never shared with you?  So what information did Cassation rely on in 2008 to deny house arrest?

  • You say that the facts supported you and Raffaele having nothing to do with the murder.  Which facts in particular?

  • Meredith never came in contact with Raffaele’s knife?  Why did he invent a story about Meredith pricking her hand while cooking?

  • You hadn’t walked in Meredith’s blood?  Were you hopping?  Bathmat shuffling?

[Chapter 27, Page 335]  On the witness stand, Marco Chiacchiera of the Squadra Mobile had explained that “investigative intuition” had led him to the knife. That flimsy explanation did not help me understand how the police could pull a random knife from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer and decide that it was, without the smallest doubt, the murder weapon. Or why they never analyzed knives from the villa or Rudy Guede’s apartment.

  • Okay, let’s hear this ‘‘flimsy explanation’’ that you refer to, and we can decide for ourselves.

  • One of the knives had left a distinct imprint on Meredith’s bedsheet.  Police were looking for knives that could possibly match.  Why lie?

[Chapter 27, Page 336]  Then we heard the prosecution’s hired forensic experts describe the knife as “not incompatible"with Meredith’s wounds.  I wasn’t the only person who was perplexed. The experts debated the meaning of this phrase as intensely as they did the physical evidence being presented. During cross-examination, Carlo demanded, “‘Not incompatible?’ What does that even mean? If the knife was compatible, wouldn’t you have written ‘compatible’? You wouldn’t have bent over backward, twisting words around to create this ambiguous meaning. ‘Not incompatible’? Am I to understand, perhaps, that the confiscated knife is ‘not incompatible’ if only because it’s a pointy knife with a single sharpened edge? Am I to understand that any pointed knife with a single sharpened edge—most knives—would equally qualify as ‘not incompatible’ with Meredith’s wounds? Yes?”

  • Knox is being facetious here, at best.  It is virtually impossible to conclusively tie a specific knife to am injury, especially if the body had undergone any decomposition.  You can however, exclude potential weapons.  What was being testified to was that the smaller knife (Sollecito’s) could not be ruled out

[Chapter 27, Page 336]  The third and fatal wound was a gash to the throat. The pathologist said Meredith had been stabbed at least three times in the same spot.

  • This is extremely confusing.  The 3rd wound was fatal, meaning that the first 2 would not have been.  So, if Meredith was stabbed at least 3 times in the same spot, would these not be the 3rd, 4th, 5th (and possibly 6th or 7th stab wounds)?

  • Or does Knox mean that Meredith was stabbed 3 times in the exact same place, and that the third time was fatal?

[Chapter 27, Page 336]  Under Carlo’s questioning, Professor Torre, a serious man in his sixties who favored lime-green glasses, explained that in a moment of homicidal frenzy, it would be highly unlikely for a killer to plunge a knife in only halfway, to 3.149 inches. And the odds would rise to impossible when you considered driving a knife in, to precisely the same depth, measurable to a thousandth of an inch, three times in a row.

  • Why refer to Professor Torre as a ‘‘Serious Man’‘?  Is that praise for him, or insults at other experts?

  • Actually, as a knife goes deeper it does get harder to push in.  More surface area in contact with knife means more resistance.  Would you like to borrow a physics textbook?

  • Seriously?  The killer plunged the knife 3 times the exact same depth in the exact same location?  The killer has that level of control, yet wasn’t able to drive the knife in deeper?

  • Can you refer to where the police/prosecutors claim 3 identical stab wounds?  That information is news to me.

[Chapter 27, Page 337]  Torre brought in a foam bust and an exact copy of the knife to demonstrate how implausible this feat would be. I thought it was a good idea, but I couldn’t watch anyone stab anything—even a dummy. The notion that anyone thought I could have done that to a person—to my friend—made me not just heartsick but feeling like I might throw up. I squeezed my eyes shut.

  • Again, why are you trying to simulate 3 identical stab wounds?  That was never claimed by the prosecution.

  • Besides, a knife doesn’t have to go it all the way.  It can strike a bone, or the killer could be new to killing.

[Chapter 27, Page 337]  At the next hearing Manuela Comodi, the co-prosecutor in charge of forensics for the trial, swept into the courtroom triumphantly carrying a flat cardboard box, a little smaller than the ones used for carryout pizza. After opening it, Comodi paraded it in front of the court, as though she were displaying the queen’s jewels. Her pride showed on her face as the jurors and experts stood up, straining in her direction to get a good look at what was inside—the knife that had been confiscated from Raffaele’s apartment was wrapped in a baggie. Only Comodi was allowed to touch it, to pick it up and hold its plastic-shrouded blade up to the light.  Her theatrics were exasperating.

  • Is this a strange attempt at humour?

  • ’‘A box a little smaller than the ones used for carryout pizza’‘?

  • Comodi ‘‘paraded it in front of the court’‘?

  • As if ‘‘she were displaying the Queen’s jewels’‘?

  • ’‘The pride showed on her face’‘?

  • ’‘Only Comodi was allowed to touch it’‘?

  • Comodi’s theatrics?

[Chapter 27, Page 338]  During the pretrial, Stefanoni testified that she had tested enough DNA from the knife to get an accurate reading. But now, a year later, Dr. Gino had seen the raw data, including the amount of DNA that was tested. If there was any DNA there at all, it was too little to determine using the lab’s sensitive instruments, Gino said. Stefanoni had met none of the internationally accepted methods for identifying DNA. When the test results are too low to be read clearly, the protocol is to run a second test. This was impossible to do, because all the genetic material had been used up in the first test. Moreover, there was an extremely high likelihood of contamination in the lab, where billions of Meredith’s DNA strands were present.

  • So, DNA tests are conducted, but now your expert claims (if there is any DNA), it is too little to be tested?

  • So, which international standards were not met?  This sounds impressive, but please be more exact.

  • If there is little DNA, the protocol is to run MORE tests?  Makes sense

  • You claim contamination is the lab.  Any precise information on the exact route of contamination?

  • Dalla Vedova/Ghirga and Maori/Bongiorno could have been present during previous testing, but then, how would they explain ‘‘errors’’ going on under their noses?

[Chapter 27, Page 339]  What I couldn’t understand was why this infinitesimal, unconfirmed sample found on a random knife that didn’t correspond with Meredith’s wounds or the bloodstain on the bedsheet—the murderer’s signature— held any sway. 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.

  • Well, bleaching a bloody knife tends to destroy most of the DNA.

  • And a knife doesn’t have to ‘‘go in all the way’’ to be the murder weapon.

  • Yes, why bother with this small DNA amount, when there were 5 large mixed blood samples of you and Meredith.  Oh wait, you lived in that house for a month.

  • And of course, the police found Guede’s DNA in Filomena’s room (the break in point)?  No, just yours mixed with Meredith’s.

  • Correct, Rudy’s crap was found in the toilet, the toilet that anyone else in the world would have flushed immediately.

[Chapter 27, Page 339]  The situation was similar to the prosecution’s claim throughout the investigation, the pretrial, and now the trial that my feet were “dripping with Meredith’s blood.” My lawyers and I had spent hours trying to figure out why they thought this. We knew that investigators had uncovered otherwise invisible prints with luminol. Familiar to watchers of CSI, the spray glows blue when exposed to hemoglobin. But blood is not the only substance that sets off a luminol reaction.

Cleaning agents, bleach, human waste, urine stains, and even rust do the same. Forensic scientists therefore use a separate “confirmatory” test that detects only human blood, to be sure a stain contains blood. Had the Polizia Scientifica done this follow-up test? Under cross-examination during the pretrial, Stefanoni was emphatic. “No,” she responded.

  • Okay, even if it were another substance, why is it in the shape of your feet and Sollecito’s feet?  What was on the floor that you were tracking from Meredith’s room?

  • If it was a cleaning agent, or rust, why weren’t other people’s footprints found in it?

  • Why is this ‘‘other substance’’ limited to 2 of your footprints, and 2 of Sollecito’s?

  • If Guede left, as his shoeprints indicate, why did he leave a bare bloody print on the bathmat?

  • Also, how did Guede leave the footprint on the mat, but none in the hall?  Can ‘‘Spider-Man’’ fly?

[Chapter 27, Page 340]  As with the knife, it turned out that Stefanoni’s forensics team had done the TMB test and it came out negative. There were footprints. But they could have come from anything—and at any time, not necessarily after the murder. What matters is that there was no blood.

  • With a good ‘‘scrubbing’‘, the TMB tests would have been irrelevant anyway.

  • Yes, but they were your footprints, and Sollecito’s, and there were no one else’s that reacted.  So, you 2 had stepped in something, very recently.

[Chapter 27, Page 340]  November 2. Of course my DNA would be mingled with Meredith’s in the common hallway between our bedrooms—we’d lived in the same house and walked on the same floor tiles for six weeks.

The prosecution had no evidence against us, and worse yet, they’d withheld information likely to prove our innocence.

More infuriating was that Stefanoni continued to argue the prosecution’s inaccurate points during cross-examination.

  • So, the forensic evidence is irrelevant because you and your lawyers say it is?  Let’s get you out right away then.

  • Things like repeated false alibis, making false accusation, and repeatedly lying are not evidence against you?  Most think it is.

  • Yes, it is frustrating that prosecution witnesses do not automatically agree with half-truths from the defence.

[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.  Furthermore, one of Raffaele’s defense experts pointed out that the genetic profile was incomplete, and could have matched hundreds of people in Perugia’s small population.

  • Merely being in a room doesn’t result in an abundance of DNA

  • It doesn’t mean everything was tested for DNA.  If an area was dusted for fingerprints, DNA testing would not be possible on that spot

  • The result was 17 of 17 loci, which was very conclusive

  • Interesting argument.  There is none of Raffaele’s DNA.  If there was, it was due to contamination.  And even if so, it could have been anyone’s.

  • And contaminated from what?  If DNA was trekked in, it would have been everywhere.  From your own words, this was the only place.

[Chapter 27, Page 342]  One morning, Manuela Comodi, the co-prosecutor, told the court that to show her dedication to the case, she had brought in her own bra.  She was carrying a white cotton underwire bra, the closest match in her drawer to what Meredith had been wearing, although, she said, chuckling, it was larger than Meredith’s. Comodi hung the bra on a hanger to mimic a person wearing it. Using her index finger, she showed the mesmerized court how Raffaele could have hooked his finger to pull the back strap of Meredith’s bra (somehow leaving DNA on the clasp but not the cloth) and then sliced off the fastener section with a knife.

  • Prosecutors trying to explain how DNA is present?  Go figure.

  • Well, to cut someone’s clothing off, holding it at some point seems reasonable.

[Chapter 27, Page 343]  Another day, the prosecution said that finding my DNA in the bathroom was proof I’d been involved in the murder. They didn’t consider that I had lived in the villa and used that bathroom every day for weeks. Even rookie forensic scientists know that roommates leave DNA in bathrooms, but the prosecution insisted it was incriminating evidence. They claimed that the only way my DNA could have been collected with the samples of Meredith’s blood was if I’d been washing her blood off my hands.

  • While DNA in your own bathroom is very common, mixed blood is not.  You omit that detail.

  • You also leave out that you had said before that the blood was not there the day earlier.

[Chapter 27, Page 343]  The prosecution said they were certain the murder had been a group attack. Why, then, was none of my DNA or Raffaele’s DNA in Meredith’s bedroom? Their answer: because Raffaele and I had scrubbed the crime scene clean of our DNA, leaving only Guede’s.  That theory gave me super powers. DNA is not something you can cherry-pick; it’s invisible. Even if I could somehow magically see DNA, there is no way I could tell one person’s DNA from another’s just by looking—no one can.

  • You’re right, you can’t always see DNA.  That is how your blood was left (mixed with Meredith’s) in 5 places

  • And footprints, even if invisible to the naked eye, can be raised—via luminol

  • DNA is just one type of evidence to consider.  The real world is not a C.S.I. episode.

[Chapter 27, Page 344]  The prosecution contended that, as representatives of the state, they were the impartial party and maintained that their conclusions were legitimate. Our experts, they said, couldn’t be trusted because they were being paid to defend us. And our critiques, objections, and conclusions were just smoke screens created to confuse the judges and jury.

  • Your experts are just trying to throw up smoke screens.  Screaming ‘‘contamination’‘, and ‘‘too small to test’’ without some basis is just creating noise.

[Chapter 27, Page 344]  It distressed me that Meredith’s family thought I was guilty, but I always had huge empathy for them.

  • It distressed you enough to write this nasty book?  To include details of Meredith’s sex life?

  • The woman you only knew for a month must have suffered, since she had her fucking throat cut?  Well, shit happens, but you need to move on with your life.

[Chapter 27, Page 345]  But I was still so blinded by hope, and my faith in my own innocence, that I actually read this news as positive. I could be accused, but they couldn’t possibly convict me of something I hadn’t done. There was only one honest outcome. I couldn’t imagine that the jurors would side with the police without question. They couldn’t ignore everything that our defense had put forth. “They must think we don’t need the review because there’s already enough reasonable doubt,” I said to Luciano.

  • They didn’t convict you for something you didn’t do.  They convicted you for murdering Meredith and framing Patrick—things you actually did.

  • Again, you need some basis to make these claims.  Merely objecting without offering something isn’t helpful.

[Chapter 27, Page 347]  In the weeks leading up to the closing arguments, I put our chances of winning at 95 percent.  Carlo gave us fifty-fifty. “Judge Massei challenges the defense a lot more than he does the prosecution,” he said. “And the judges and jury nod whenever the prosecution or the Kerchers’ lawyer talks, but look bored when it’s our turn.” Still, I held tight to optimism. Not without reason. Journalists told Mom and Dad they weren’t convinced by the prosecution’s arguments. Even the Italian media, uniformly negative since the beginning, seemed to be turning around. A show I saw on the second anniversary of Meredith’s death replayed Rudy Guede’s first recorded conversation, in which he said that I wasn’t at the villa. If the press can see the truth, surely the judge and jury can, too.

  • You put your chances at 95%?  Any reason, or just a number you made up?

  • The Italian media was with you?  Maybe the misinformed American media.

  • Yes, Guede’s conversations are so reliable.  Did they play the ones where he accused you and Sollecito of the murder?

[Chapter 27, Page 347]  A public opinion poll on TV said that more than 60 percent of Italians thought I was guilty. The people who only watched television reports most likely sided with the prosecution. That realization spawned a deep-down fear that I’d be convicted, my innocence be damned. Prisoners gossiped about my case all the time, behind my back and to me. “Come on, Amanda. You can tell me.”

  • This is confusing.  You said that the media was now with you a few pages back, yet you claim that people who only watch television reports most likely sided with the prosecution

  • The media is with you, but they report negative things?

  • And if the people watching at home think your’re guilty, (which is about 60%), does that mean the other 40% of Italy attended the trial?


[Chapter 28, Page 350]  One day I got up the courage to ask Chris, who was in Perugia leading up to the closing argumentsand verdict, “What would a conviction mean?” So afraid to acknowledge that uncharted, dark place, I could only whisper. “There would be an appeal, and if you didn’t get acquitted, then the Supreme Court would exonerate you. At the most, Amanda, it would take five years,” Chris explained. “Five years?!” That was way more than I wanted to know. Chris jumped in to reassure me. “If that happened, Amanda, we’d find a way to save you! But don’t worry! It’s not going to happen! And if for some utterly bizarre reason it goes the wrong way, I’m moving to Italy.”

  • Well, finally some truth.  Convicted defendants get an automatic appeal, then a Cassation (Supreme Court) hearing.  2 automatic appeals.

  • A huge cry from the ‘‘put on trial again and again’’ that we keep hearing about.

[Chapter 28, Page 351]  Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini gave his closing argument first. Alternating between a calm, almost quiet recitation of the “facts” and the fiery rants of a preacher at a tent revival, Mignini summarized Raffaele’s and my part in the savagery that took Meredith’s life. He started with the idea that Filomena’s window was too high to be a credible entry point into the villa and ended with our tossing Meredith’s stolen British and Italian cell phones over the garden wall.  Raffaele and I had accused “this poor Rudy,” as Mignini called him, of “being the only one” to attack Meredith. “He has his own grave responsibility, but the responsibility is not only his own,”  Mignini intoned.

  • Wow, you call his closing the ‘‘rants of a preacher at a tent revival’‘.

  • Not only was Filomena’s room too high, there was nothing to grab onto, and it was the most visible point of entry.  Lousy place to break into.

  • Tossing the phones was seen as a way to divert attention, though it ultimately backfired.

  • Knox and Sollecito did try to pin it all on Guede as the ‘‘lone wolf’‘.

[Chapter 28, Page 351]  I couldn’t believe what the prosecutor was saying. He, who was championing himself as the bearer of truth for Meredith’s family, was calling the murderer “Poor Rudy”? Evidence of Rudy’s crimes was everywhere, and his history of theft matched the burglary. Poor Rudy? Guede had stolen! He had killed Meredith! He had left a handprint in Meredith’s blood! He had fled! He had lied! Poor Rudy?

  • Interesting how you knew about Guede’s prior break in.  It’s almost as if you knew him.

  • And what of Guede’s ‘‘staged burglary’’ on his roommates as an April Fool’s Day prank?  Oh, that was you.

  • Yes, we know he left the handprint.  You were careful not to remove it.

  • Guede fled to Germany.  According to your November 4, 2007 email, you wanted to flee Italy, but weren’t allowed to.

  • Guede has lied.  However, he never claimed to be in the kitchen with his hands over his ears, vaguely remembering Patrick killing Meredith.

[Chapter 28, Page 351]  “By now it was an unstoppable game of violence and sex. The aggressors initially threatened her and demanded her submission to the hard-core sex game. It’s easy to imagine Amanda, angry at the British girl for her increasing criticism of Amanda’s sexual easiness, reproaching Mez for her reserve. Let’s try to imagine—she insulted her. Perhaps she said, ‘You were a little saint. Now we’ll show you. Now you have no choice but to have sex.”’  He’s perverse! How did he come up with such a twisted scenario? He’s portraying me as a psychopath! Is Mignini allowed to put words in my mouth, thoughts in my head? I would never force anyone to have sex. I would never threaten or ridicule anyone.

  • You say you want Meredith’s family to read your book, and you include this?

  • How perverse to stage a burglary as a joke, or to throw rocks at cars.

  • You wouldn’t force anyone to have sex, you just write rape stories (like Baby Brother)

  • You are ridiculing just about everyone in this book.

[Chapter 28, Page 354] Then he recalled from earlier in the trial, when Judge Massei questioned me about my interrogation. “Your Honor asked, ‘But a suggestion in what sense? Did they tell you, ‘Say that it was Lumumba?’ Because a suggestion is just that ... And Amanda said, ‘No. They didn’t tell me that it was him.’ And so what suggestion is it? “Amanda said, ‘But they told me, Ah, but we know that you were with him, that you met with him.’ The police were doing their job ... they were trying to make this person talk ... These are the pressures, then. Completely normal and necessary investigative activity. There were no suggestions because a suggestion is: Say it was Lumumba.” Mignini knew how my interrogation had gone. The police were yelling that I knew who the murderer was, that I had to remember, that I’d gone out to meet Patrick that night. They made me believe I had trauma-induced amnesia. They threatened me if I didn’t name the murderer—even though I said I didn’t know who the murderer was! How is that not suggestion? How is that not coercion?

  • Where to begin with this?

  • There were no pressures.  You went the police station uninvited when Sollecito was called in.

  • You were told to go home but refused.  You agreed to draw up a list of potential contacts.

  • The only pressure came when Sollecito pulled your alibi

  • You were not yelled at.

  • You were not threatened.

  • You were not hit either.  Oh, you forgot to include that.

  • It is not coercion because none of the above happened.

[Chapter 28, Page 354]  Mignini’s rant lasted one day, from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M.

  • Show the ‘‘Mayor’’ some respect, you stupid liar…

[Chapter 28, Page 354]  “I’d like to show the court a visual prop we’ve constructed to demonstrate our theory of the murder,” Comodi said. This introduced the most surreal moment of my nightmarish trial: a 3-D computer-generated animation with avatars representing me, Raffaele, Rudy Guede, and Meredith.  Carlo and Luciano were apoplectic. They shouted their objections, insisting that the film was unnecessary and inflammatory. Judge Massei allowed it. I didn’t watch it, but my lawyers said the avatar of me was dressed in a striped shirt like one I often wore to court. Raffaele, Guede, and I were depicted sneering.  Meredith’s avatar had an expression of horror and pain. The cartoon used real crime scene photos to show the blood splatters in Meredith’s room.

  • Trying to use a video simulation to explain a crime?  Happens regularly in U.S. courts.

  • So, should Meredith be sneering, and Knox, Sollecito, Guede have horrified expressions?

  • Posted on 10/23/15 at 09:30 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

    Thursday, September 17, 2015

    Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #7

    Posted by Chimera



    The Dark Force: evil for evil’s sake? This is a long post, click here to go straight to Comments.

    1. Overview Of This Post

    My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone she ever encountered, while falsely making the notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed Knox look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

    Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

    I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207. Post #5 dissected pages 207 to 243.  Post #6 dissected pages 243 to 291.

    2. Dissection Of Pages 291 to 327.

    [Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... Some evidence, including my 5:45 A.M. “confession,” when I confusedly described Patrick as the murderer, wasn’t allowed to be introduced in the criminal case. At that moment I had already officially became a suspect and had a right to a lawyer. The same evidence could be, and was, discussed in front of the jury in the civil cases….’‘

    • It was not a confession.  You claimed to witness Patrick, and it was a false accusation.  Big difference.

    • You weren’t confused.  You were stressed that Raffaele took your alibi, and this accusation was your ‘‘solution’‘.

    • Your 1:45am statement was also thrown out, but you neglected to list that.

    • Your line about becoming a suspect is the correct reasoning (for once).  However, it is undermined by your claims that you were mistreated.  You were not abused, and the only reason the first 2 statements were suppressed was because your status changed from ‘‘witness’’ to ‘‘suspect’‘.

    [Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... The way the Italian justice system works is that during deliberations, each of the judges and jurors gets to say what he or she believes the sentence should be—from nothing to life imprisonment. Unlike in the United States, where the decision has to be unanimous, what’s required in Italy is a majority consensus—the maximum sentence supported by at least five jurors….’‘

    • You say this in an insulting way.  A 5 juror minimum is still a significant burden to meet.

    [Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... It took hearing only a few sentences for me to know that the interpreter was giving me the condensed version. The one plus to prison was that my Italian had improved so much that I could think in the language. I decided not to use her anymore. My lawyers could explain what I didn’t understand….’‘

    • This is touching, but you spoke Italian quite well before ever being arrested.

    • Now you are getting cocky, and saying you think in the language?

    • You didn’t use her anymore?  There was an interpreter when you testified.  She was in the photo ‘YOU’ provided (page 200)

    • Your lawyers could explain what you didn’t understand?  Like the prosecution having a strong case?

    [Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... The first thing discussed was the motive. The prosecution’s simple story was absolutely false, but it apparently rang true for the authorities. They added flourishes in the course of the trial—Meredith was smarter, prettier, more popular, neater, and less into drugs and sex than I was. For some of or all these reasons, she was a better person, and I, unable to compete, had hated her for it. I had cut her throat in rage and revenge. It was idiotic….’‘

    • Meredith wasn’t into drugs at all.  You are lying on this point.

    • Less into sex than you?  Well, Meredith didn’t seem to need to write and talk about it all the time.

    • People have killed out of jealousy before.

    • Their theories are not idiotic, but it was idiotic to kill her in the first place.

    [Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... Mignini relied heavily on the testimony of Meredith’s British girlfriends. Robyn Butterworth testified that my unconventional behavior had made Meredith uneasy. The others agreed—they said I brought male friends over, didn’t know to use the toilet brush, and was too out in the open about sex. Small details built up to become towering walls that my defense team couldn’t scale. I was done in by a prank gift and my unfamiliarity with Italian plumbing….’‘

    • You are being disingenuous here. These issues may have been brought up, but they are not what convicted you.  There is plenty of actual evidence.

    [Chapter 25, Page 293] ‘’ ... My frustration doubled when Robyn talked about the bunny vibrator. I had to clarify this. When Brett gave it to me, TV shows like Friends and Sex and the City were an American obsession, with characters using vibrators as gags. The prosecution put the emphasis on sex—and me. The vibrator was proof that I was sex-obsessed—and proof that my behavior had bothered Meredith….’‘

    • You frustration doubled?  Being wrongly accused isn’t too bad, but misrepresenting the situation with your vibrator is?

    • The prosecutor’s emphasis is on sex?  Did you read chapters 2, 3, 4 of your own book? 

    • Did you write about your strip search, and include questions about Meredith liking anal in your emails?

    • The vibrator isn’t proof you are sex-obsessed, but this book might be.

    [Chapter 25, Page 294] ‘’ ... I stood. “Good morning, Judge,” I began. I was suddenly burning up, even on that cold February day. “I want to briefly clarify this question of the beauty case that should still be in my bathroom. This vibrator exists. It was a joke, a gift from a girlfriend before I arrived in Italy. It’s a little pink bunny about this long . . .”

    I held up my thumb and index finger to demonstrate.

    “About this long?” Judge Giancarlo Massei said, holding up two fingers to clarify.

    “Yes,” I said, turning red with embarrassment.

    “Ten centimeters [four inches],” he said for the court record.

    “I also want to say that I’m innocent, and I trust that everything will come out, that everything will work out. Thank you.”

    I remember thinking while I was speaking, Oh my God, I hope I don’t sound as stupid as I think I do. I sat down fast….’‘

    • Funny, I can actually picture Knox saying something like this.

    • The vibrator’s a joke.  Hope it all works out?  Okay ....

    [Chapter 25, Page 295] ‘’ ... It did seem I’d won a small victory when Mignini questioned my former housemate Filomena. She insisted that Meredith and I got along fine and hadn’t had a falling-out —only that we’d “developed different personal interests.” She didn’t make a big deal over the friends I brought home…. Other parts of Filomena’s testimony irked me. When Mignini asked how we divided up chores in the villa, she said that we took turns. “Turns were not always respected,” she added….’‘

    • So, you are okay with Filomena implying you are a slut, but offended when she says you neglected your housework?

    [Chapter 25, Page 296] ‘’ ... Smoking pot was one of the ways we socialized together. But when Raffaele’s lawyer Luca Maori cross-examined her about her drug use, Filomena rewrote our shared history. “To tell you the truth, I sinned once,” she said, looking down at her lap. “I sinned.”

    • Knox is trying to minimize her own drugs problems and smearing others in the process.

    [Chapter 25, Page 296] ‘’  ... During her testimony a week later, Laura also avoided eye contact—and it was every bit as hurtful. But I was pleased that, at least under questioning, she didn’t make it seem that my behavior had been out of step with the rest of the house. When Mignini brought up names of guys who’d come over, Laura replied, “Those are my friends.” When he asked if anyone in the villa smoked marijuana, she said, “Everyone.”

    • Your behaviour WAS out of step with the others.  Meredith was on a serious student exchange, and Laura and Filomena were working in their careers.  You just wanted to sleep around and do drugs.

    [Chapter 25, Page 297] ‘’ ... Then the prosecutor mentioned the hickey Raffaele had given me when we were fooling around the night of November 1. “Did you see if Amanda had an injury, a scratch, some wound?” he asked her. “I noticed that Amanda had a wound on her neck when we were in the questura,” Laura answered, “precisely because Meredith had been killed with a cut to her neck. I was afraid that Amanda, too, might have been wounded.”

    • Photos of the ‘‘hickey’’ are widely available, and it doesn’t look like a hickey—AT ALL.

    [Chapter 25, Page 297] ‘’ ... I liked Laura and had looked up to her. She’d lent me her guitar and thought it was cool that I practiced yoga. There was only one reason why she would turn a love bite into a sign of my involvement in the murder. My stomach plunged to my knees. I can’t believe Laura, of all people, thinks I’m guilty…’‘

    • Lending you her guitar and practicing yoga doesn’t make someone blind to what is staring them in the face.

    • You looked up to Laura?  Perhaps if you were a better person, she would look up to you as well.

    • Again, it was not a hickey.  It doesn’t not look like a hickey at all.

    [Chapter 25, Page 298] ‘’ ... Still, I wished I’d pushed my lawyers to let me speak more often. Luciano and Carlo’s intentions were good, but I believe they underestimated the power of my voice and the damaging effect of my silence. Even with my clumsy efforts to defend myself—and with other people describing me as the girl with a vibrator, a slob, a girl with a “scratch” on her neck—what did the most damage in those early weeks was a simple T-shirt, and that was my own fault…’‘

    • When are we going to hear the good stuff, like false alibis, and bloody footprints, or the double DNA knife?

    • You have that all wrong.  Your lawyers (and Patrick) understand full well the power, and damage caused by your voice.  If only you had kept silent.

    • Clumsy efforts to defend yourself?  Like writing accusatory statements that could easily be disproved?

    • The Beatles T-Shirt is not what did the most damage.  You are trying to deflect the hard evidence.

    [Chapter 25, Page 298] ‘’ ... I’m glad I didn’t wear a cross, but in hindsight I do wish someone had told me that my clothes should reflect the seriousness of the setting and my situation—that they were another way to convey my respect to the court. So when I wore the “All You Need Is Love” T-shirt, the press dwelled on what I meant by it. Is Amanda trying to say all she needs is love from the jury? One British newspaper headlined its story about that day’s hearing, “Obnoxious: Murder Trial Girl’s Love-Slogan T-Shirt. “Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality,” the article said….’‘

    • You really didn’t know that clothes reflect the seriousness of the setting and situation?  Wow.

    • Attention grabbing + Nonchalance = Psychopath?  Maybe.

    [Chapter 25, Page 299] ‘’ ... The press wrote that I had to be the center of attention. In reality, prison had taught me I was nothing. Nothing revolved around me. Nothing I said mattered. I had no power. I was just occupying space. I wanted to disappear. I didn’t want to be me anymore….’‘

    • Well, you definitely want to be the center of this book.

    • Nothing revolves around you?  You mean it revolved around that young woman who got her f***ing throat cut?

    • You didn’t want to be you anymore?  As in, facing a possible life sentence?

    [Chapter 25, Page 303] ‘’ ... I expected the prosecution to call police officers who’d been at the villa and those who were in the interrogation room, but initially I didn’t recognize Officer Monica Napoleoni. I’d never seen her dressed to suit her title—head of the Division for Homicide Investigation. Usually she wore skin-tight jeans, form-fitting shirts, and flashy sunglasses. Wearing a dark blue jacket adorned with medals the size of silver dollars, she now looked so unlike herself that it seemed she was playing dress-up to convince people of her authority. Everything she did and said—her choice of words, the content, and the emphasis—was to impress the judges and jury with her professionalism. She defended the shoddy work of her investigators. She was repellent. She was in control of herself, sitting in a court of law and lying without a second’s hesitation. 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.”

    • Impress the judges with her professionalism?  Do I detect some jealousy here?  Please don’t kill her.

    • Lying without a second’s hesitation?  You are accusing her of perjury?  You already falsely accused Patrick of murder, falsely accused Rita Ficarra of assault…. your track record is not encouraging.  Be careful, you have enough calunnia charges already.

    [Chapter 25, Page 304] ‘’ ... 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.”

    • Funny, even with the best lawyers, you were never able to prove or even demonstrate contamination.

    [Chapter 25, Page 305] ‘’ ... I knew it was the police’s job to analyze the scene of a crime, gather clues, 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….’‘

    • This is contradicted in your own book. Chapter 7, you write that EVERYONE from your house was detained until 3am: Yourself, Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, Marco, and the other 2 men downstairs.  They did not focus on you.

    • You were not even supposed to be at the police station.  Raffaele was called to come —alone—to clear up inconsistencies with his alibi.  You say, in this book, you had to beg them to let you into the police station, as you were afraid.

    • Their ‘‘drive’’ is to find out the truth, and to let the forensic clues lead them to it.

    [Chapter 25, Page 305] ‘’ ... Napoleoni added that, later, at the questura, we “were absolutely indifferent to everyone. They sprawled in the waiting room, sprawled on the seats, kissed each other, made faces at each other the entire time . . . They talked to each other under their breath. I noted their behavior because it seemed impossible that these two kids thought to kiss each other when the body of their friend had been found in those conditions.” My housemates and their friends reacted more appropriately, Napoleoni said. They “were all crying,” she told the court. “Some despaired.” To Napoleoni, Raffaele and I were self-centered narcissists. We lacked basic compassion. And we were liars through and through….’‘

    • Meredith’s British friends, and the other housemates, including Giacomo, all corroborated this.  Were they all lying?

    • You are a liar through and through .... ironically, a very true statement.

    [Chapter 25, Page 306] ‘’ ... I was surprised but didn’t doubt her. Realizing that someone had broken in, I’d been afraid when I went back in the villa with Raffaele. I looked at the toilet from a distance and, not seeing anything in the bowl, assumed someone had flushed it. Clearly, I was wrong. Apparently the feces had slid down farther into the bowl. But Napoleoni acted as if, in discovering the unflushed toilet, she’d caught us in a lie and that we’d ineptly scrambled to come up with a cover…’‘

    • A cover?  As in why not just flush day old poop?

    [Chapter 25, Page 306] ‘’ ... Napoleoni went on, twisting each aspect of the case. “I immediately noted that the house couldn’t have been broken into from the outside. It seemed to have been done after the room was made a mess. I immediately noted that there was glass on the windowsill, and if a stone came from the outside, the glass should have fallen below.” She also said that when the Postal Police came to the villa with the phones Meredith had been using, “they asked Amanda if it was normal that Meredith locked her door. Amanda said Meredith always locked her door, even when taking a shower.”

    • Yes, the police saw signs the break in had been staged.

    • That is what you told the police.  The ‘‘clarifications’’ you try to add later in this book are deceptive.

    [Chapter 25, Page 307] ‘’ ... The homicide chief added that by checking telephone activity tables, the police discovered that both my cell phone and Raffaele’s had been inactive the night before Meredith was found. “Amanda from 8:35 P.M. and Sollecito from 8:42 P.M.” That fact meant nothing, but Napoleoni presented it as if, in turning off our phones, we had had an ulterior motive. That we’d wanted to watch a movie without being interrupted did not come up. “We looked for contradictions,” Napoleoni told the court, “and the contradictions always came from Amanda and Raffaele, because the account they gave us was too strange. It was improbable.”

    • Knox says this in a defiant way, but police did wonder why the phones were turned off, as they never had been before.

    • When the police have suspects, they do look for contradictions, and improbabilities.  It is called ‘‘DOING THEIR JOBS’‘.

    [Chapter 25, Page 308] ‘’ ... On the stand, my chief interrogator, Rita Ficarra, seemed much smaller than she had at the police station. Middle-aged, with dull, shoulder-length brown hair, she came across as reasonable. Who would believe that she’d been ruthless, questioning me for hours, refusing to believe that I didn’t know who’d murdered Meredith? I wondered how this woman, who now struck me as average in every way, had instilled such fear in me. Like Napoleoni, Ficarra insisted, “No one hit her.” She was serene and straight-faced as she testified. Ficarra elaborated. “Everyone treated her nicely. We gave her tea. I myself brought her down to get something to eat in the morning,” she said, as if she were the host at a B&B. Then she added, “She was the one who came in and started acting weird, accusing people.”

    • Ficarra can say things straight faced.  Amanda, are you jealous you can’t lie like that?

    • We don’t believe that she was ruthless and grilled you for hours .... because it never happened

    • Yes, falsely accusing an innocent person is a bit weird.

    [Chapter 25, Page 309] ‘’ ... She told the jury that when she had returned to the questura at around 11 P.M., she and her colleague came through the door and into the hall. “I found Amanda . . . My astonishment was that I found her demonstrating her gymnastic abilities. She did a cartwheel, a bridge, she did splits,” Ficarra said. “It honestly seemed out of place to me.”

    • On her May 1, 2013 interview with Diane Sawyer, Knox clarified that she only did the splits.

    [Chapter 25, Page 309] ‘’ ... The longer Ficarra testified, the more she made it seem that the pressure the police exerted on me to confess was all in my head, that I’d blown the interrogation out of proportion. “In the end it was a calm dialogue, because I tried to make her understand that our intent was to seek collaboration,” she said…’‘

    • They weren’t pressuring you to confess.  Since you insisted on being there, they asked if you could think of anyone else who might have visited the house.  You made a list of 7 men (including Patrick, Rudy, Spyros and Juve), and drew maps.  However, this ‘‘list’’ is not mentioned in your book

    [Chapter 25, Page 310] ‘’ ... Judge Massei asked Ficarra if I spoke to her in English or Italian.

    “In Italian,” Ficarra answered. “I repeat that she speaks Italian. She spoke only Italian with me. I don’t understand a word of English.”

    I remembered my interrogation, when they yelled that if I didn’t stop lying and tell them who had killed Meredith they would lock me up for thirty years. That was still their goal. I was terrified now that I was the only one who saw through them….’

    • You did speak Italian, even in 2007.  Read the December 2007 transcript with Mignini.  You understood most of his questions.

    [Chapter 25, Page 310] ‘’ ... The gossip at Capanne was that Guede had found God in prison, and when he walked to the witness stand, looking less cocky and more disheveled than during the pretrial, my hope surged. Maybe he’d been seized by his conscience. I imagined that he’d face Raffaele and me and say straight out that neither of us had participated in the murder. But after Guede was sworn in, he uttered just six words: “Riservo il diritto di non rispondere”—“I reserve the right not to respond.”

    Then he stepped down. He didn’t look at me or anyone else as he was led through the double metal doors in the back of the courtroom, flanked by guards just as Raffaele and I always were. He wore an expression of blank indifference.  Guede knew his silence could cost us our freedom. But there was no way to make him tell the truth. People have the right not to incriminate themselves—and in protecting himself, he helped to damn us…’‘

    • You only testified in the 2009 trial because the scope of questioning was limited.

    • You refused to testify at the 2011 Hellmann appeal

    • You refused to even attend the 2013/2014 Nencini appeal

    • You refused to even attend the 2015 Cassation appeal

    • Sollecito refused to testify at the 2009 Massei trial

    • Sollecito refused to testify at the 2011 Hellmann appeal

    • Sollecito refused to testify at the 2013/2014 Nencini appeal

    • Yet, it is Guede’s silence that damned you?

    [Chapter 26, Page 313] ‘’ .... After I was accused of murder, people read new meaning into everything about me. A hickey on my neck became a scratch from Meredith in her last, desperate moments. An awkward encounter about a dirty toilet became a murder motive. Male friends I brought home became mysterious lovers of questionable character. Rudy Guede’s aside to the guys downstairs about my being cute became proof that he would do anything to earn my attention and approval….’‘

    • Turn these things around, and they do explain your PR attempts somewhat.

    • A scratch, a wound from Meredith was explained away as a ‘‘hickey’‘.

    • A motive for wanting to kill Meredith, could be explained away as a ‘‘dirty toilet encounter’‘.

    • Lovers of questionable character, could be explained away as ‘‘just friends’‘.

    • A jealous male wanting your attention and approval, could be explained as ‘‘just thinking that you’re cute’‘.

    • Okay what did Sollecito use to give you that hickey?  His mouth?  Fingernails?  Knife?

    • So who were these ‘’ male friends’’ if they weren’t lovers?  What were you doing?  Do you even know their names?

    • Disingenuous on the dirty toilet, the toilet was just one thing in many of you being messy?

    • Guede thought you were cute.  Did you know this ‘‘before’’ Meredith’s murder?

    [Chapter 26, Page 314] ‘’ ... It wasn’t necessary for any of these people to be right. It was enough for them to raise doubts, to make it seem that I was lying. They had to be only marginally convincing…’‘

    • So, are you accusing the prosecution of suborning perjury?

    • If there is no evidence, as you repeatedly claim, what exactly were they all testifying about?

    [Chapter 26, Page 314] ‘’ ... Marco Quintavalle, a storekeeper who lived near Raffaele’s apartment, told the court that he saw a girl waiting for the shop to open at a quarter to eight on the morning of Friday, November 2. “She had a hat and scarf obscuring much of her face but what struck me was how pale she looked and the color of her blue eyes . . . she went to the section at the back of the supermarket on the left, where there are the cleaning products. I can’t remember if she bought anything.”

    • You imply that Quintavalle is lying.  Any thoughts as to why that may be?

    • His description is quite detailed, but then again, your ‘‘interrogation with Mignini’’ November 6th, was quite detailed too.

    • Silly question, you didn’t just shoplift some bleach, did you?

    [Chapter 26, Page 314]  But when he saw my picture in the paper a few days later, his memory was precise. “I recognized her as the same girl,” he said. When asked if the girl was in the courtroom, Quintavalle pointed at me. “It’s her,” he said. “I’m sure of it.” I’d gone to the little store once to pick up milk and cereal. Once. I’d never been in the back, where the cleaning products are apparently shelved.

    • You have such a poor memory about the time of Meredith’s murder, yet you are absolutely certain you only went there once—for cereal?

    •  
    • And you are absolutely certain that you only went to ‘‘certain parts’’ of the store?

    • Little store?  Is this an insult, or were you there enough to remember what it looks like.

    • Apparently stored? A pretty weak denial.

    [Chapter 26, Page 314] He [Quintavalle] hadn’t wanted to get involved in the murder case and had come forward only at the urging of a journalist friend in August 2008. I relaxed a little. The jury would see what was true and what wasn’t. The media purposely did not. “A New Hole Appears in Amanda Knox’s Alibi” and “Witness Contradicts Amanda Knox’s Account.” News stories like this infuriated my family and friends. But strangers, no doubt, would think, There goes Amanda, lying again.

    • That is not true at all, it was not a journalist friend that urged him to get involved?

    • Stories like this infuriated family and friends?  How?  Do any of them speak Italian?  Although present in court, could your family understand what was said?

    • Strangers would think you were lying?  Your own lawyers thought you were lying about being hit by police.

    • If people might think you are lying, was that the reason to hire a PR firm?  To set things straight?

    [Chapter 26, Page 315] ‘’ ... Nara Capezzali was a widow in her late sixties who lived in an apartment building behind the parking lot across the street from our villa. She testified that she heard a scream between 11 and 11:30 P.M. “It made my skin crawl, to be honest,” she said. She was certain of the time because she took a nightly diuretic and always woke up around 11 P.M. to use the bathroom…’‘

    • Interesting that you try to discredit her, but you and Guede (2 co-accused) had both confirmed Meredith screaming.

    • In your own (false accusation) statements, you include this detail about Meredith screaming.  Oops.

    [Chapter 26, Page 315]  Before falling back asleep, she said she heard footsteps running up the metal stairs by the parking lot. “At almost the same moment,” she heard the crunching of feet on gravel and leaves coming from the direction of our driveway. Never mind that our driveway wasn’t gravel; it was mostly dirt. Meredith’s room was on the back of our house, as far as possible from Capezzali’s. The defense doubted that anyone could have heard these noises across a busy road and behind closed windows with double panes. But the prosecution clung to Capezzali’s account, which was a linchpin used to approximate Meredith’s time of death.

    • Yes, because after hearing a ‘‘skin-crawling’’ scream, most people would just head off to bed.

    • You say Meredith’s room was ‘‘at the back, as far as possible from Capezzali’s’‘.  Yet, you also say that she was ‘‘across the road’‘, so your qualifier doesn’t do much to discredit her.

    • Really?  The road was busy at 11PM on a holiday?  Interesting.

    • Of course the ‘‘defense doubted’‘.  It is their job to doubt things.

    • The scream was ‘‘the linchpin’‘?  I guess hearing screams that ‘‘make your skin crawl’’ are common there.

    [Chapter 26, Page 316] ‘’ ... One of the few points on which the prosecution and defense agreed was that the police had made an inexcusable blunder shortly after the body was found. They prevented the coroner from taking Meredith’s temperature for hours, squandering the best chance to gauge her time of death. The second option—analyzing the contents of Meredith’s stomach—was far less reliable. The third—Capezzali’s memory—wasn’t reliable at all…’‘

      • The prosecution agreed that there was a blunder made?  Show us a transcript that says that.

      • Body temperature can give a rough estimate of T.O.D., based on the ‘‘1 degree an hour’’ guideline. Meredith had been dead at least 14 hours at that point.  Even if the police had waited a few hours more, they still could have gotten an approximate T.O.D.  Body temperature (of living people) has a very small range, and you can still work backwards to get it.

      • Stomach contents, and analysing digestion, can give an estimate on how long since a person last ate until death.  A guideline, once again.

      • Stomach content analysing is far less reliable?  It is used in the U.S. as well.  However, in the next page you say that it is far more reliable than the scream Nara heard.

      • No medical examiner with any integrity, would ever give an exact T.O.D., but rather a range, or an estimate.  Scientists are not supposed to make claims they do not know for certain.

      • Capezzali’s memory is not reliable? Read any of your own statements or emails?

      • So, she frequently hears screams that make her skin crawl and forgot the date?  Or she could not have heard a scream from across the street that you and Guede both confirm happened? 

      • And, did Capezzali testify to ‘‘things her mind made up?’’  Wait, you yourself make exactly those types of claims.

      [Chapter 26,Page 317] ‘’ ... Instead they glossed over these facts and used Capezzali’s testimony to determine what time Meredith had died. Based on the scream, they decided that she died at 11:30 P.M. Even though Meredith’s digestion indicated an earlier time of death, they were fixated on that scream. Meredith had been murdered by 10 P.M., based on her stomach contents, but the prosecutors invented a scenario in which Meredith was home alone between 9:30 P.M. and 11:30 P.M. According to their argument, the sphincter between the stomach and the small intestine tightens at the moment of trauma, and digestion temporarily stops. Left unanswered was what trauma in that two-hour space interrupted her digestion—the same two hours when the prosecution said she was relaxing on her bed with her shoes off, writing an essay due the next morning. They were ignoring basic human physiology and hanging Meredith’s time of death on an older woman’s urination habits….’‘

      • So you say that stomach digestion should have been the determining factor, even though you acknowledge that body temperature was taken, and you yourself say it is reliable.

      • You say that stomach digestion should be used, but it the last page you say it is far less reliable that body temperature.

      • They weren’t hanging Meredith’s T.O.D. on Nara’s bathroom habits, but on when she heard Meredith scream

      • So you are able to keep up with a medical examiner’s testimony (in Italian)?  Impressive.

      • You think you know more than the actual professionals?  Okay….

      [Chapter 26, Page 317] ‘’ ... The problem: Meredith’s body wasn’t discovered until after 1 P.M. on November 2.  When Mignini asked Capezzali if she might have heard the scream on Halloween and not on November 1, she snapped, “I don’t remember these things, these hours, these things. I don’t remember them anymore.”

      I was sure there was no way the jury would put their faith in someone who said she didn’t remember….’‘

      • Not true.  She was sure when she heard the scream.

      • Put their faith in someone who doesn’t remember?  Like someone whose mind makes things up?  Hypocrite.

      [Chapter 26, Page 318] ‘’ ... The basketball court was made to order for the prosecution. The most direct walk from Raffaele’s apartment to my villa was through Piazza Grimana. It was also the place where Rudy Guede was known to play pick-up games and hang out. It was where I’d once tried to shoot hoops with the guys from downstairs and ended up watching from the sidelines. I hadn’t argued with anyone there, and I’d never been back, but what if the jury bought this guy’s story?  And why was the prosecution bringing it up? If the story was true, we would have had an alibi. If Curatolo had seen us in the piazza that early, we couldn’t have committed the murder between 9:30 P.M. and 10 P.M., when the defense believed Meredith died. And if he’d seen us as late as midnight, we couldn’t have made Meredith scream at 11:30 P.M., as Nara Capezzali had reported. His account undermined the prosecution’s theory….’‘

      • You tried shooting hoops at the piazza before?  Another time you met Rudy?  You say he was known to play there.

      • The most direct route between your route and your boyfriend’s, but you’d only been through once?

      • You are being disingenuous.  There was not an ‘‘exact’’ T.O.D., but rather the range of a few hours.  Whether Curatolo saw you before or after the murder does not give you an alibi.

      [Chapter 26, Page 320] ‘’ ... I dreaded Patrick Lumumba’s testimony for his civil trial. It still gnawed at me that I’d never apologized to him. I was sure the man I’d wrongly named would rail against me.  He had told the media that he would never forgive me, he’d lied about firing me, and he had called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.” His lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, had called me “Luciferina” and said I had “an angel’s face with a demon’s soul.”

      • It gnawed on you that you never apologized?  Did it ever gnaw on you for doing it in the first place?

      [Chapter 26, Page 321] ‘’ ... At first my lawyers said letting me testify was a risk. I could be provoked. They worried the prosecution would push me to unwittingly say something incriminating. I’d fallen for Mignini’s word-twisting when he interrogated me in December of 2007. I’d dissolved into tears at my pretrial.

      But I was adamant. “I’m the only one who knows what I went through during the interrogation,” I told Luciano and Carlo. “Having you defend me isn’t the same as defending myself. I need to show the court what kind of person I am.”

      [Chapter 26, Page 321] ‘’ ... Raffaele didn’t testify. That may have been the right choice for him. Most of the media attention had landed on me—Raffaele was seen as someone who had gone along with his evil girlfriend…’‘

      • Really, Raffaele is ‘‘falsely’’ accused of a gruesome sex killing, and he doesn’t want to clear things up?

      • He doesn’t want to at the Hellmann appeal either?

      • Or at the Nencini appeal?

      [Chapter 26, Page 322] ‘’ ... In testifying, I wanted to make a point: You guys make me sound like I was crazy that I found three droplets of blood in the bathroom sink and didn’t call the police immediately. But I was a twenty-year-old who handled the situation the same way a lot of inexperienced people would have. It’s easy to look back and criticize my response, but when I went home that day I didn’t know there had been a break-in or a murder. To me, it was a regular day. Yes. The door was open. But I’d known since I moved in that the lock was broken. Maybe it was a cause for concern, but I just figured one of my roommates was taking out the trash or had run to the corner store. I was focused on getting ready for our romantic weekend in Gubbio. My thoughts were mundane. I’ll grab a shower. I’ll pack. I’ll get back to Raffaele’s, and we’ll go…’‘

      • Where to begin with this one?  You found ‘‘smears’’ in the sink, not droplets.

      • You also found ‘‘an orange shaped lump’’ of blood on the bathmat.

      • You then do the bathmat shuffle to your room.

      • Open door?  Totally normal.

      • Right, and that rank smelling toilet you still never flushed.

      • You are going for a trip to Gubbio, but you never do pack, and just forget about it.

      • Inexperienced people ... in what context?  First time killers?

      [Chapter 26, Page 323] ‘’ ... The first person to question me was Carlo Pacelli, Patrick’s lawyer. Lawyers technically aren’t allowed to add their own commentary at this point, only to ask questions. But he made his opinions known through pointed questions like “Did you or did you not accuse Patrick Lumumba of a murder he didn’t commit?” and “Didn’t the police officers treat you well during your interrogation?  The lawyer looked disgusted with me. I sat as straight as I could in my chair and pushed my shoulders back—my I-will-not-be-bullied stance.

      Within a few minutes I realized that the interpreter hired to translate my English into Italian—the same useless woman I was assigned earlier in the trial—wasn’t saying precisely what I was saying…’‘

      • You are facing civil and criminal charges for calunnia (making false accusations), and you are annoyed about being asked it directly?

      • The interpreter hired to translate your English into Italian?  Wait, you said you didn’t have an interpreter. (Photo on page 200).

      • Useless woman?  Was she not good at spinning your B.S. the way you wanted her to?

      • Why not answer in Italian?  You said your language improved so much ...

      • Even in English, you are not clear and precise.

      [Chapter 26, Page 324] ‘’ ... Pacelli tried to insinuate that I’d come up with Patrick’s name on my own in my interrogation. “No,” I said. “They put my cell phone in front of me, and said, ‘Look, look at the messages. You were going to meet someone.’ And when I denied it they called me a ‘stupid liar.’ From then on I was so scared. They were treating me badly, and I didn’t know why. “It was because the police misunderstood the words ‘see you later.’ In English, it’s not taken literally. It’s just another way of saying ‘good-bye.’ But the police kept asking why I’d made an appointment to meet Patrick. ‘Are you covering for Patrick?’ they demanded. ‘Who’s Patrick?’ ”

      • Pacelli didn’t insinuate you came up with Patrick’s name on your own.  The police all said you did

      • You didn’t understand that a simple, common expression from English means something different in Italian?  Some language student.

      [Chapter 26, Page 324] ‘’ ... I’d purposely tried to forget the emotional pain of the slap to my head. Other memories had become muddled by time. For instance, I remembered calling my mom only once after Meredith’s body was found, but cell phone records indicated that I’d made three calls while Raffaele and I were standing in my driveway….’‘

      • You have spent the better part of 2 years preparing for this, but your memories are muddled by time?

      • Aren’t you harshly critical of Capezzali and Quintavalle for having ‘‘muddled memories’‘?

      • The phone records contradict your account.  Which is more reliable?

      [Chapter 26, Page 325] ‘’ ... “One time, two times?” Luciano asked. “Two times,” I said. “The first time I did this.”  I dropped my head down as if I’d been struck and opened my mouth wide in surprise. “Then I turned around toward her and she gave me another.” “So you said what you said, and then you had a crisis of weeping. Then they brought you tea, some coffee, some pastries? When did this happen? If you can be precise,” Luciano asked. “They brought me things only after I made declarations”—depositions—“that Patrick had raped and murdered Meredith, and I had been at the house covering my ears….’‘

      • Again, you were not hit, not even once.  You still have outstanding calunnia charges for this.

      • Tea, coffee, pastries?  So much for being starved.

      • You made these declarations freely, and then were hungry afterwards.

      • You made these declarations .... and corroborated the ‘‘scream’’ detail.

      [Chapter 26, Page 325] ‘’ ... “Before they asked me to make other declarations—I can’t say what time it was—but at a certain point I asked, ‘Shouldn’t I have a lawyer or not?’ because I didn’t honestly know, because I had seen shows on television that usually when you do these things you have a lawyer, but okay, so should I have one? And at least one of them told me it would be worse for me, because it showed that I didn’t want to collaborate with the police. So I said no.”

      • You were advised of your right to a lawyer, after you admitted witnessing a crime you didn’t report.

      • You had previously collaborated, drawing up maps of ‘‘other suspects’‘, to divert attention.

      [Chapter 26, Page 326] ‘’ ... When Mignini told me I still hadn’t proved that the police had suggested Patrick’s name, my lawyers jumped up. The exchange was so heated that Judge Massei asked if I wanted to stop….’‘

      • Silly Mignini, mentioning that you have no evidence to back up your accusations.

      [Chapter 26, Page 327] ‘’ ... Carlo said, “Amanda, you nailed it. You came across as a nice, intelligent, sincere girl. You left a good impression.” I took this to mean that I didn’t come across as “Foxy Knoxy.”  For a while during the trial, the guards would let my parents say hello and good-bye to me in the stairwell just before I left the courthouse for the day. My mom, my dad, Deanna, Aunt Christina, and Uncle Kevin were waiting for me there that day. They hugged me tightly. “We’re so proud of you,” they said. I hadn’t felt this good since before Meredith was murdered. After another few days in court, the judge called a two-month summer break.

      Posted on 09/17/15 at 11:11 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
      Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followupNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (30)

      Saturday, September 12, 2015

      Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #6

      Posted by Chimera



      Also Implacably Nasty… Click here to go straight to Comments.

      1. Overview Of This Post

      My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

      Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

      I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207 and Post #6 dissected pages 243 to 289.

      2. Dissection Of Pages 243 to 291.

      [Chapter 21, Page 244] ‘’ ... At twenty, I still had a childlike view of people. I looked for the saving graces in everyone. I thought people were naturally empathetic, that they felt ashamed and guilty when they mistreated someone else. That faith in humanity was being picked away, but I held to the belief that people were basically good. And that good people would believe me and set me free….’‘

      • You look for the saving graces in everyone, yet you assume everyone thinks you are a monster?

      • People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T tell someone that their friend had ‘‘their throat fucking slit’‘?

      • People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T say that ‘‘shit happens’’ regarding a murdered friend’?

      • People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T claim someone is a friend, then that you want to get on with your life?

      • Why would being good have anything to do as to whether you are believed or not?  Murder cases hinge on evidence, not feelings.


      [Chapter 21, Page 244] ‘’ ... Part of the growing up I did in prison was learning that people are complicated, and that some will do something wrong to achieve what they think is right. Since my second interrogation with Mignini, I knew the prosecution was intent on undermining my alibi. Over the coming weeks and months, I would learn just how far they would go to try to prove me guilty….’‘

      • Some will do something wrong to achieve what they think is right?  So, falsely accusing PL, because getting away was right?

      • Which alibi was Mignini intent on undermining? The one that Raffaele refused, the party that he made up, or the one that he was alone on his computer while you went out?  Or was it your alibi (statements), that you were a witness to PL killing Meredith?  Or the one where you and Raffy were at his apartment?

      • 2nd interrogation?  It was his first ‘‘interrogation’‘.  To recap:

      • Mignini was not present at your 1:45 statement.  Chapter 10 in your book is 100% fiction.

      • Mignini was present (he was called from home), at your 5:45 statement, but asked you no questions.

      • You seem to remember your number of interrogations the way you remember how many times you met Guede

      • How far Mignini would go?  You mean, present your lies, false statements, phone records, DNA evidence .... that is what prosecutors DO.  There are these things (both in Italy and in America), called TRIALS.  You will learn more.


      [Chapter 21, Page 245] ‘’ ... The prints couldn’t have been made by Raffaele’s newer Nike Air Force 1s, he said. “They had just seven concentric circles.” By show’s end he had removed the possibility that Raffaele had been at the murder scene and put another strike against Guede. Raffaele’s family must have felt euphoric….’‘

      • Well, the shoes might not implicate Raffy, but those bare feet, and that ‘‘hammer toe’’ will

      • Euphoric, at another strike against Guede?  Hmmm…. were you trying to frame him or something?


      [Chapter 21, Page 245] ‘’ ... I knew this “evidence” could hurt us. I also knew that Raffaele had as much chance of coming into contact with Meredith’s bra as Meredith had meeting up with a knife from Raffaele’s apartment. Neither could be true, but the prosecution would use both these findings to tie us to the crime….’‘

      • Well, this is true, but in a manipulative way.  Yes, Raffaele would have as much chance, namely both incidents would only happen, if Raffaele were involved in the killings.

      • Victim’s DNA on suspect’s knife, and suspect’s DNA on victim’s bra?  Why would the prosecution see that as evidence?

      • Yes, they do tie you to the crime.  No need to be sarcastic.

      [Chapter 21, Page 246] ‘’ ... I wasn’t implicated by the clasp, but I knew that the prosecution would never believe that Raffaele had acted without me. They’d say I gave him access to the villa. I was the reason he’d met Meredith. We were each other’s alibis. If they could show that Raffaele was directly connected to the crime, I would, at the very least, be charged as his accomplice…’‘

      • You are being disingenuous again.  While the DNA conclusively links Raffaele to the scene, you are implying that the police would leap to conclusions to connect you as well.

      • While you present these as fantasies, they are quite reasonable.  Raffaele’s connection to the house was you, his ‘‘girlfriend’‘.  You claimed you were with him, yes, you were each other’s alibis.  Yes, disproving the alibi of one would cast suspicion on the other.

      [Chapter 21, Page 248] ‘’ ... This new claim was another barricade separating me from my real life—one more accusation on a growing list. Too many impossible things were being served up as “truth”—Meredith’s DNA on Raffaele’s kitchen knife, Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, and now Meredith’s blood on the soles of my feet….’‘

      • Separating you from your real life?  What, you just want to get on with your life?

      • Did you see the crime scene photos?  There was a lot of blood in Meredith’s room.  Yes, you could have stepped in some.

      [Chapter 21, Page 248] ‘’ ... It was crazy enough to be told that “investigative instinct” had convinced the police I was involved in Meredith’s murder—that I was dangerous and evil. Now forensic science—the supposedly foolproof tests I was counting on to clear me—was turning up findings I knew were wrong. I, like most people who get their information from TV crime shows, was unaware that forensic evidence has to be interpreted, that human error and bias can, and do, upend results…’‘

      • It wasn’t investigative instinct.  It was those damn false accusation statements you insisted on writing.

      • Well, innocent people don’t write such things, and they tend to have just one (1) alibi.

      • The foolproof tests you were expecting to clear me ... and implicate Guede?

      • You are unhappy and surprised that TV and CSI lied to you?  Okay ....

      • Human error and bias can upend results.  So can falsely claiming to witness someone doing the crime.

      [Chapter 21, Page 249] ‘’ ... I always liked seeing my lawyers, but now I had to brace myself for each visit. I didn’t have to wait long before they brought more devastating news. Less than a week later, investigators reported that they’d found my DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood ringing the drain of the bidet in our shared bathroom. The implication was that I’d rinsed my hands and feet in the bidet after slashing her throat. They said that my skin cells had shown up—not Raffaele’s or Rudy Guede’s—because I was the last person to wash up in that bathroom…’‘

      • You are unhappy because the lawyers only bring bad news?

      • Mixed DNA in the bathroom?  What about the mixed DNA in Filomena’s room—you omit that.

      • You know, for all your TV interviews, you claim ‘‘no evidence’‘, but your own book lists quite a lot of it.

      • You were the last person to wash up there?  Finally, another truthful statement.

      • You sure didn’t ‘‘shower’’ in that blood soaked bathroom the morning after, did you?

      [Chapter 21, Page 250] ‘’ ... The pictures of the chemical-stained bathroom did what, I have to assume, the police wanted. The public reaction proved that a picture—especially a “bloody” picture from a crime scene—is worth a hundred thousand words. At least. I knew what people were thinking. Who but a knife-wielding killer would take a shower in a “blood-streaked” bathroom? Who but a liar would say there had been only a few flecks of blood? The answer? Foxy Knoxy….’‘

      • You are trying to be flippant and sarcastic here, but most people would draw the same conclusions.

      [Chapter 21, Page 250] ‘’ ... My lawyers complained to the judges that the prosecution was using the media to our disadvantage, but the judge said that whatever was reported in the press wouldn’t be held against us. The flow of information between the prosecution and the media was an accepted but unacknowledged fact….’‘

      • Using the media to your disadvantage?  Did the prosecution hire a PR firm or something?

      • The PR didn’t convict you, the evidence, which you have been listing so well in your book, does.

      [Chapter 21, Page 251] ‘’ ... The denial, fear, and bafflement I felt in the beginning of this nightmare had turned into quiet indignation and defiance. I finally accepted that I was my only friend inside Capanne. I clung to my dad at every visit. The rest of the time, I used the only coping tool I knew: I retreated into my own head….’‘

      • You are your only friend?  What about the bisexual Cera, or Lupa, who believes in you?

      • Retreating into your head is okay, just please don’t sign any more statements.

      [Chapter 21, Page 251] ‘’ ... Cera’s sense of control came from cleaning. When I moved in I liked that her cell was spotless. I didn’t understand that it was her obsession, until she demanded that I dry off the walls of the shower before I dried myself; place the shampoo and lotion bottles in a perfect line on the counter, equally spaced apart; tuck in my bedsheets with military precision; arrange the apples in the fruit bowl stem up; and avoid using the kitchen sink. I tried hard to get along with Cera. I helped her with her schoolwork and either cleaned alongside her or stayed out of the way. My job, after she was done mopping and drying the floor, was to take a panno spugna—a spongelike cloth—and clean the baseboards on my hands and knees. I complained bitterly to Mom about these things when she came to Italy over her spring break…’‘

      • Why include any of this?  It doesn’t help clear anything up.

      • You are falsely imprisoned, and you are complaining about having to clean?

      [Chapter 21, Page 252] ‘’ ... One morning, when I was walking into the bathroom to put something away, I bumped into Cera, and she kissed me on the lips. I just stood there staring at her, too surprised to know what to say. “Your face is telling me that was not okay,” she said quickly. “I’m really sorry.”  She never made physical advances after that, but she did once ask if I was curious what it was like to have sex with a woman, like her. My stock answer—an emphatic no —made her feel bad…’‘

      • So, you proudly announce (and publish) that you are a random slut, but being a lesbian puts you off?

      • Even if any of this is true, why include it?  Are you just trying to humiliate Cera, they way you publish personal details about Meredith?

      [Chapter 21, Page 253] ‘’ .... My only hope and constant thought during that winter and spring was that the judge might allow me to live with my family in an apartment, under house arrest. My first plea had been rejected, but my lawyers had another hearing scheduled for April 1. Even though Carlo and Luciano weren’t confident about the outcome, I was sure it would happen. I was counting the days….’‘

      [Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... Luciano and Carlo came to see me the next day. They reassured me that no one, not even the prosecution, believed Guede. “He ran away, he’s a liar, a thief, a rapist, a murderer,” Carlo said. “No one could ever consider him a reliable witness, because he has everything to gain from blaming you. The prosecution is making a big deal about it because it incriminates you.”  “Please, Amanda,” Luciano said. “This is not what you need to worry about. You need to stay strong.” Still, I couldn’t be consoled. With Guede’s testimony against me, there was absolutely no chance a judge would free me from prison….’‘

      • Knox is distorting things once again.  Yes, accomplices turning on each other is powerful, but prosecutors usually suspect that the one is minimizing his own involvement for a reduced sentence.

      • And it is not Guede that got house arrest denied.  There was PLENTY of other evidence.

      • There was also those psychiatric evaluations, which were a large factor, yet you don’t publish them

      • http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_17

      [Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... In early April, Carlo came to Capanne. His face gave away his worry. “Amanda,” he said, “the prosecution now says there’s evidence of a cleanup. They contend that’s why there’s no evidence that you and Raffaele were in Meredith’s bedroom—that you scrubbed the crime scene of your traces.”

      • No evidence of you in Meredith’s room?  What about that size 37 shoeprint, which was NOT Meredith’s?  Or Raffy’s DNA (which you describe), or the bra clasp?

      • This is a twist of what the prosecutors believe.  They thought you tried to selectively clean up, but that there was still evidence there.

      [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.”

      • This is once again twisting things.  Five (5) spots of mixed DNA Amanda/Meredith were found, including in Filomena’s room. Guede’s DNA was NEVER found in Filomena’s room, even though it is where he ‘‘supposedly’’ broke in.

      • Just because these 5 mixed spots were not in the bedroom, does not mean they must be ruled out.

      • And what about your shoeprint in Meredith’s room?  Wait, that is not on Meredith’s body.

      • Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the bathroom mat, should that be excluded simply because it was not in the ‘‘murder room’‘?

      • Should that bathroom in general be excluded, simply because Meredith was not killed in the bedroom?

      • Should Filomena’s bedroom be excluded, despite the (alleged) burglary point of entry, simply because Meredith wasn’t killed there?

      • Should the other bathroom, where Guede left his poop be excluded, since Meredith was not killed there?  Wait, that is evidence against Guede ....

      • Should the hallway, where the luminol revealed bloody footprints be excluded, just because Meredith was not killed in the hall?

      • Should Sollecito’s kitchen, where the murder weapon was found, be excluded, simply because Meredith was not killed there?

      • So, there may be no evidence here… but only if you redefine what the crime scene is.

      [Chapter 21, Page 255] ‘’ ... Judge Matteini sent me her decision about house arrest on May 16: “Denied.” By then the prosecution had stacked so much against me that Guede’s testimony hadn’t even figured in her decision. Even though I hadn’t left the country before my arrest, the judge was certain that Mom would have helped me leave when she was to have arrived in Perugia on November 6. That, she said, is why the police planned to arrest me before Mom could get to me. It turned out that they’d gotten her itinerary the same time I did—by bugging my phone….’‘

      • Judge Matteini send the decision about house arrest on May 16th?  That long?  Matteini is the Judge who you saw back in November 2007, and it was the Ricciarelli court in Noivember 2007 and the Italian Supreme Court (Cassation) in April 2008 who heard the appeal and denied house arrest.  You are mixing these up, either accidently, or on purpose.

      • The police planned to arrest you?  Okay, so when they called Raffaele about his alibi, they knew you would show up?  They knew you would beg to be let in (after they told you to go home)?  They knew you would bring your homework, and start doing guymnastics?  They knew that after some questioning, your mind would suddenly imagine an innocent man committing the crime?  They knew you had such communication problems, that your statements would only get more confusing?  Wow, these cops are diabolical.

      • If they knew your Mother was coming, wouldn’t they have ‘‘set the trap’’ sooner, to make sure you were locked up in case Mom came early?

      [Chapter 21, Page 256] ‘’ ... This new setback conjured up all the desperation, the nauseating helplessness, I’d felt that morning. I could hardly breathe thinking about it. I remembered how relieved I’d been that my mom was flying over, how much I needed her. As soon as she said she was coming to Italy, I realized I’d been stubbornly, stupidly insistent that I could help the police find Meredith’s killer on my own.  I’d been tricked…’

      • You could help the police find Meredith’s killer?  Well, you did, you just layered it in total B.S.

      • After days of claiming to know nothing, you had a vision, or conniption, that you witnessed someone else do it.

      • In your later statement, you said that Raffaele ‘‘might’’ be there.

      • In the statement after that, you say you don’t know what is true, and you made things up

      • You helped, in that you left some of Rudy’s forensic traces behind.

      • You’d been tricked?  You mean CSI and TV lied to you?

      [Chapter 21, Page 256] ‘’ ... Cera started trying to prepare me for the chance of another fifteen years in prison. “I think you should say you’re guilty,” she advised me one day, “because it will take years off your sentence.” “I will not lie!” I yelled, spitting out one word at a time. “I’m not scared of Guede or the prosecutor! I’m ready to fight! I don’t know anything about this murder, and I will go free!”

      • You will not lie?  Wow, that is a first.

      • You’re not scared of Guede?  More likely he is scared of you.

      • You’re not scared of the prosecutor?  You found out he’s not the Mayor?

      • You don’t know anything about the murder?  Ummm…. those statements you signed….

      [Chapter 22, Page 261] ‘’ ... Oh my God. I’ve been formally charged with murder. I wanted to scream, “This is not who I am! You’ve made a huge mistake! You’ve got me all wrong!”  I was now fluent enough in Italian to see how ludicrous the charges were. Along with murder, I was charged with illegally carrying around Raffaele’s kitchen knife. It was galling. Real crimes had been committed against Meredith; the police owed her a real investigation. Instead, they were spinning stories to avoid admitting they’d arrested the wrong people…’‘

      • Not who you are?  That is irrelevant, it is what you did on one day.  Why do you seem so concerned with how you appear?

      • No, I think they have it pretty right.

      • Police did owe Meredith an investigation, and it overwhelmingly concluded that you, Sollecito, and Guede were involved.

      • They arrested the wrong people?  Well, Lumumba was innocent, but who was it who got him locked up?

      [Chapter 22, Page 262] ‘’ ... Finally we could combat all the misinformation leaked to the media. We could explain that the knife had never left the kitchen, the striped sweater had never gone missing, the receipts weren’t for bleach, the underwear I bought wasn’t sexy. We could describe how the prosecution had come up with the bloody footprints. We’d explain why Meredith’s blood had mixed with my DNA in our shared bathroom, how my blood got on the faucet, and correct the notion that the crime was a sex game gone wrong. We could object to the prosecutor painting me as a whore and a murderer. My lawyers would finally get to see the prosecution’s documents. No more surprises….’‘

      • Yes, you could combat the misinformation leaked to the media.  You still have Marriott’s number?

      • You could ‘‘explain’’ the knife never left the kitchen, but you aren’t actually saying here that it never did.

      • You could ‘‘describe’’ how the prosecution came up with the bloody footprints?

      • You would ‘‘explain’’ Meredith’s blood mixed with your DNA, how your blood got on the faucet?

      • The prosecution never claimed it was a sex game gone wrong.  It was a ‘‘misinformation leaked’’ by your own people

      • Objecting to the prosecutor calling you a whore might be difficult, as he never did that.

      • Objecting to the prosecutor calling you a murderer… well, that is what trials are for.

      • Your lawyers would get to see the prosecution’s documents.  It is called ‘‘discovery’’ and is standard in Western courts.

      • For all your ‘‘no evidence’’ claims, you oddly seem to be listing a lot of evidence here.  I am confused.

      [Chapter 22, Page 263] ‘’ ... “We’re taking you off your restricted status.” Just like that. While I was being investigated, I was under judge’s orders to be kept separate for my own safety. But now, as an accused criminal, I passed from the judge’s responsibility to the prison’s…’‘

      • Like much of the book, this makes little sense.

      • If you were being kept separate, it would be for your protection, or because you were deemed to be a threat to other inmates.  The state of your investigation would be irrelevant.

      • Once you entered Capanne, you were the responsibility of the prison.  The judge is responsible for reviewing the legal case, but the prison monitors your welfare.  Are you being deliberately deceptive?  (And am I being rhetorical)?

      [Chapter 22, Page 263] ‘’ ... Prison officials had always claimed I was kept separate—I had cellmates but, with the exception of a few prescribed events, couldn’t interact with the broad population —because other inmates would probably beat me. Now, with only the mildest caution —“Be careful of the other girls!”—Argirò opened a second door. Instead of having passeggio by myself, I was in the company of fifteen sweaty women.

      • As soon as I walked outside, the gaggle of prisoners started hooting and hollering, “She’s out! She’s with us! Way to go!”

      • You were in danger of being beaten up?  Did you report this when you had representatives from the state department visiting?

      • Really?  You got a cheering for being out with other women?  Ego tripping here?

      [Chapter 22, Page 265] ‘’ ... Wilma’s behavior wasn’t that different from that of other prisoners—most were manipulative and liked to stir up drama—but she wasn’t smart enough to recognize this and to fake loyalty to the other women. People were able to see through her actions….’‘

      • Most are manipulative and like to stir up drama? It’s a shame you didn’t fit in better here.

      • People can see through her actions?  Too bad you didn’t realize that people can see through yours.

      [Chapter 22, Page 266] ‘’ ... As soon as I read the letter, I realized it was real. I was shocked that he was writing me. I’d felt betrayed by the months of silence and by his comments in the press distancing himself from me. And of course there was the issue of his previous claim that I had left his apartment the night of the murder and asked him to lie for me. He wrote that he’d been aching to contact me, and that it was his lawyers and family who hadn’t permitted him to get in touch. He said everyone had been afraid when we were first arrested, but that now he realized it had been a mistake to abandon me and wrong to submit to police pressure and acquiesce to their theory. “I’m sorry,” he said. “I still care about you. I still think about you all the time.”

      • You feel betrayed by Raffaele’s ‘‘distancing’’ comments?  But isn’t he serving time rather than throw you under the bus?  Hell that was the whole premise of ‘‘Honor Bound’‘.  Wait, it was all a crock.

      • So, you acknowledge Raffaele ‘‘did’’ say you asked him to lie. So you are admitting evidence of a false alibi exists?

      • He realizes ‘‘now’’ that abandoning you was a mistake?

      • He submitted to police pressures? You told Oggi that you broke up with Sollecito after he withdrew your alibi, yet considering you were ‘‘pressured’’ as well, you think you would be a bit more understanding.  Wait, the ‘‘pressures’’ never happened.

      • Raffaele is in this mess largely due to Amanda.  He likely DOES think about her a lot.

      [Chapter 22, Page 266] ‘’ ... I felt completely reassured by his letter. It wasn’t lovey-dovey, and that suited me fine. I no longer thought of us as a couple. Now we were linked by our innocence. It was a relief to know we were in this fight together. It was only much later that I learned how his interrogation had been as devastating as mine. I wrote him back the next morning. I was explicit about not wanting a romantic relationship anymore but added that I wanted the best for him and hoped he was okay. I knew I shouldn’t write about the case, so I only said I was optimistic that our lawyers would prove the prosecution wrong….’‘

      • You are fine with not seeing Raffaele and yourself as a couple?  Guess you moved on with your life.

      • You were linked by your innocence, or in the hollow claims of your ‘‘innocence’‘?

      • If you wanted the best for Raffy BEFORE Meredith’s death, you would not have involved him in your scheme.

      • If you wanted the best for Raffy AFTER Meredith’s death, you wouldn’t have dragged this court case for 7+ years.

      • You were in the fight together?  Good to know Raffaele would corroborate your alibi at trial, and wouldn’t ask to sever the Florence appeals, or say on American TV that he has questions about your behaviour, or hold a press conference to denounce you, or go on Porta a Porta to denounce you….

      [Chapter 22, Page 269] ‘’ ... All this happened while Luciano and Carlo were preparing the defense for my pretrial. They didn’t have everything they needed to break down the case completely —Meredith’s DNA on the knife and my “bloody” footprints were going unanswered. Two days before the pretrial started, we got news that was both heartening and unnerving. Police investigators revealed that they’d found an imprint of the murder weapon in blood on Meredith’s bedsheets, making it clear the weapon wasn’t in fact the knife with the six-and-a-half-inch blade the prosecution was claiming. The imprint was too short to have been made by Raffaele’s kitchen knife….’‘

      • You are omitting a lot here.  Forensic evidence is not the only thing the defence needs to ‘‘break down’‘.  There is also those false accusation statements you insisted on writing, your false alibis, you and Raffaele turning off your phones, the details you knew (such as Meredith screaming and having her throat cut).  These things have not been successfully challenged EVER.

      • Actually, the knife imprint WAS quite clear, so the police knew exactly what kind of knife they were looking for.

      • And the impression doesn’t have to be for the ENTIRE knife, if it is fairly distinctive.

      [Chapter 22, Page 269] ‘’ ... I reminded myself that we also had common sense on our side. There was no motive. I had no history of violence. I’d barely met Rudy Guede. Raffaele had not met him at all…’‘

      • Common sense is telling me that it is odd, you keep saying you had no history of violence, rather than just saying you didn’t do it.

      • You had barely met Guede ... but the details on that are very ... flexible.

      • Raffaele and Guede lived 100m apart, yet never met.

      • Speaking of motive: Raffaele is your ‘‘boyfriend’‘, and from this book, Guede has the hots for you.  Coincidence?

      • Speaking of motive: While it is useful to be able to explain a crime, motive is not required to prove in any country.

      [Chapter 22, Page 270] ‘’ ... Carlo, the pessimist, said, “Don’t get your hopes up, Amanda. I’m not sure we’ll win. There’s been too much attention on your case, too much pressure on the Italian legal system to think that you won’t be sent to trial.”

      • So, your lawyer is telling you that the justice system is being leaned on to prosecute you?  If someone called Carlo Dalla Vedova, would he confirm this?

      [Chapter 23, Page 272] ‘’ ... “You’re going to be a good girl so we don’t have to handcuff you, right?” another guard said. I had always been so polite and docile that a guard had once said to me, “If all the inmates were like you, we wouldn’t need prisons.”

      • True, Knox and Sollecito were not handcuffed going into court, but there is speculation this was a visual in order to seem ‘‘less harsh’‘

      • This seems a bit illogical, if all inmates were like you, we wouldn’t need prisons?  Yet you need to go to prison to be an inmate.

      • Yes, Knox was polite.  The guards also called her controlled and manipulative.

      [Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... My first thought wasn’t They think I’m a murderer. It was Meredith’s parents? I finally get to meet them…’‘

      • Well you are charged with their daughter/sister’s killing. They probably do think you are a murderer.

      • You finally get to meet them?  Surely, they would delighted to get to know you.

      [Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... I was devastated. I’d anticipated meeting them for a long time. I’d written and rewritten a sympathy letter in my head but had never managed to put it on paper. Now I felt stupid. How had I not anticipated their reaction? Why are you so surprised? What do you think this has been about all along? My grief for Meredith and my sadness for her family had kept me from thinking further. Of course they hate you, Amanda.  They believe you’re guilty. Everyone has been telling them that for months….’‘

      • You anticipated meeting them for a long time?  Killing Meredith is an odd way to expand your circle of friends.

      • A sympathy letter?  Saying sorry for your loss?

      • Your grief for Meredith?  Didn’t you say at trial that you only knew her for a month, and you were trying to move on with your life?

      • They hate you?  Well, they might hate you less if you told the truth about what happened, and showed actual remorse.

      [Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third…’‘

      • Guede requested the abbreviated trial because he feared you and Sollecito would pin it all on him, yet you omit that part.

      • Of course witnesses are called.  Who do you think has to testify about the evidence?  However, all least some facts have to be agreed upon to go short-form.

      • If he is guilty, his sentence is cut by 1/3. Absolutely right.  THAT is why Guede got those deductions, not from any deal, or testifying against you.

      • Out of curiosity, why didn’t you or Raffaele opt for the short form trial?

      [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….’‘

      • In your book, your lawyers say there is no evidence against you.

      • No evidence against you?  Did you read your own book?

      • In your book, you reference the missing sweater (Filomena saw you wear that day), but it still was never found.

      • In your book, you mentioned the writings (you said you would kill for a pizza)

      • In your book, you claim the blood on the faucet was from your pierced ears.  (According to Barbia Badeau, your mother said the blood was from your period).

      • In your book, you acknowledge Raffaele took away your alibi.

      • In your book, you claim that Guede backs your alibi, but refutes Sollecito, which doesn’t make sense if you were together.

      • In your book, you say you were there. (You claim it meant RS apartment), yet you let PL remain in prison.

      • In your book, you admit writing a letter (you claim it was misinterpreted), claiming that Raffaele killed Meredith and planted your fingerprints.

      • In your book, you sarcastically admit you were the last person to wash up in a bloody bathroom.

      • In your book, (the Matteini decision) you say that the prosecution had stacked so much evidence Guede’s testimony wouldn’t have mattered.

      • In your book, you mention the police arresting the wrong people, but hypocritically, omit your false accusation of PL

      • In your book, you reference Meredith’s DNA on the knife (which RS claimed was during a cooking accident)

      • In your book, you reference your bloody footprints

      • In your book, you reference the bra clasp having Raffaele’s DNA

      • In your book, you acknowledge claims of a partial crime scene cleanup.

      • And we still haven’t gotten to those pesky statements you wrote and signed.

      • No evidence against you?

      [Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... I felt the way about Guede that Meredith’s family felt about me. As soon as I saw him, in a subsequent hearing, I thought angrily, You! You killed Meredith! 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. And he wouldn’t have lied about Raffaele and me. The other thing I noticed: he wouldn’t look at me….’‘

      • Why would you feel angry?  You said in court you only knew her for a month.

      • He didn’t look like a murderer?  Don’t you keep repeating that you are not the type of person to do this.

      • It is difficult to imagine he cut Meredith’s throat?  Right, because you knew before the police did that her throat was cut.

      • There were traces of Guede’s DNA, but it was not everywhere.  And you omit your own DNA mixed with Meredith’s

      • He wouldn’t have lied about you? Well, you lied to Judge Nencini in your email, and claimed you never met Guede.

      [Chapter 23, Page 275] ‘’ ... The prosecution spun this assumption further. According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that? In their scenario, I hated Meredith because we’d argued about money. Hearing Mignini say that I told Guede to rape Meredith was upsetting. He added that I was the ringleader, telling Raffaele to hold her down. When he said that I threatened Meredith with a knife, I felt as if I’d been kicked. Even worse was hearing him say that when Meredith refused to have sex, I killed her…’

      • Again, prosecutors never said it was a sex game.

      • Who thinks like that? Well, who stages a break in on her Seattle roomies for fun?

      • Hearing Mignini say you told Guede to rape Meredith was upsetting?  Didn’t you publish a rape story on MySpace?

      • You were the ringleader?  Well, you arranged the ‘‘break-in’’ in Seattle.  You have leadership skills

      [Chapter 23, Page 276] ‘’ ... Starting right after we were indicted, Raffaele’s and my lawyers had requested the raw data for all Stefanoni’s forensic tests. How were the samples collected? How many cotton pads had her team used to swab the bathroom sink and the bidet? How often had they changed gloves? What tests had they done—and when? Which machines had they used, at what times, and on which days? What were the original unedited results of the DNA tests?

      • Her response was “No. We can’t give you these documents you continue to ask for, because the ones you have will have to suffice.”

      • If this were actually true, it would be grounds to open up the case.  Did you actually appeal on these grounds?

      • Interestingly, lawyers for you, Sollecito, and Guede all refused to attend the testings, but later claimed contamination.

      [Chapter 23, Page 279] ‘’ ... I was morbidly curious about Guede and simultaneously completely repulsed. Mostly I was disappointed. I had thought we’d have the chance to confront him. But he let his lawyers do all the talking…’‘

      • You only testified at trial with strict protections as to what topics would be covered.  Your lawyers constantly interrupted.

      • Raffaele never took the witness stand at trial.

      • You never took the stand at the 2011 Hellmann appeal

      • Raffaele never took the witness stand at the 2011 Hellmann appeal.

      • You refused to attend the 2013/2014 Florence appeal.

      • Raffaele refused to take the witness stand at the 2013/2014 Florence appeal.

      • You were refusing to attend the 2015 Cassation appeal.

      • Yet… Guede let his lawyers do all the talking?  Pot, meet kettle.

      [Chapter 23, Page 279] ‘’ ... “Isn’t that possible?” Biscotti asked. “Isn’t that what the evidence shows? It shows him being there, and he’s admitted to that. He says he left because he was scared. Of course he was scared! He’s a young black man, living the best he could, abandoned by his parents. He stole sometimes, but out of necessity. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say that he killed. The knife has Amanda’s DNA, and the bra clasp has Raffaele’s. Rudy admits that he was there, he tells what happened, and I believe him.” No witnesses were called for Guede. His lawyers could only interpret the evidence the prosecution had provided. They argued that his DNA had been found at the crime scene because he was scrambling to help Meredith and that he left because he was afraid. I remember his lawyer saying Guede didn’t go to the disco to give himself an alibi but to let off steam. He escaped to Germany because he was worried that he’d be wrongly accused….’‘

      • It’s too bad Guede didn’t have the money and PR to proclaim his innocence the way you did.

      [Chapter 23, Page 280] ‘’ ... Still, there were reasons to be worried. Because the prosecution was withholding information, there was evidence I couldn’t refute: the knife, my “bloody” footprints, Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp. And how would we fight the prosecution’s claim that we’d cleaned up the crime scene? I went to sleep every night telling myself that it would work out because we were innocent—and because it was so clear that Guede was guilty and lying. My lawyers argued exhaustively that Meredith and I had been friends—that there was no animosity between us. They argued that we had no connection to Guede, that Kokomani was a lunatic. But the case hinged on DNA, not on logic…’‘

      • What is the prosecution withholding?  It seems they released very powerful evidence.

      • Accusing prosecutors of withholding evidence, if false, is calunnia.  Don’t you ever learn?

      • It was so clear Guede was lying?  Well, you would know better than anyone, except maybe Raffy.

      • Your lawyers argued exhaustively you and Meredith were friends?  Why wouldn’t you just testify to that? Oh, right, cross examination.

      • Also, why wouldn’t any of Meredith’s other friends testify to how things were between you?  Oh, right, they did.

      • Murder cases often do hinge on DNA, and not lawyerly logic.  Good point.

      [Chapter 23, Page 281] ‘’ ... When the prosecution rested their case, Mignini demanded a life sentence for Guede and a full trial for Raffaele and me. After the judge retired to his chambers, we were each taken to a different empty office in the courthouse to wait for his decision. Raffaele folded a page from that day’s newspaper into a flower, which the guards brought to me. But I was focused on Guede, who was being held in the room next to mine. I could hear him talking with the guards, cracking jokes, and chuckling. I was fuming! I wanted to beat on the wall and tell him to shut up. His nonchalance incensed me. I thought, Does no one else feel this?...’‘

      • His nonchalance?  Were you not the one flirting with people in court?

      • Were you not the one wearing the ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt to court?

      • Rested their case?  Listening to ABC or CNN, I thought there was no evidence against you.

      [Chapter 23, Page 282] ‘’ ... I entered the courtroom. I could barely walk. Judge Micheli read Guede’s verdict first: Guilty for the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher, with a sentence of thirty years. The verdict didn’t surprise me at all—for a second, I was enormously relieved. I thought, He’s the one who did it. The judge’s delivery was so flat he could have been reading the ingredients off a box of bran flakes. Still, my chest clenched when I heard “thirty years.” Not because I pitied Guede. I’d been so focused on whether he would be found guilty or innocent, I hadn’t thought about the length of his sentence. I was twenty-one; thirty years was more time than I’d been alive—by a lot. I breathed in. “The court orders that Knox, Amanda, and Sollecito, Raffaele, be sent to trial.” I broke down in huge, gulping sobs. I’d made a heartfelt plea—“I’m telling you I’m innocent! I’m sorry for any of the confusion I’ve contributed.” The judge hadn’t believed me….’‘

      • Just to be clear on this: Guede’s 30 year sentence was the MAXIMUM the judge could hand down in a short-form trial.

      • Was your chest clenched, because you weren’t sure how merciful the judge(s) might be in this case?

      • Maybe if you had actually testified, you might be believed a bit more.

      • The confusion you caused?  Getting an innocent man locked up is more than just confusion.

      • It surprised you that the judge didn’t believe you?  You listed so much evidence against you just in this book.

      [Chapter 24, Page 286] ‘’ ... “Spiegare che cosa?” I asked, baffled. “Explain what?” I could see that the headline said something about me. “It’s an interview,” she said. “It talks about Cera.” “You know I don’t give interviews!” I said. The inspector turned the paper around so I could read the article. The reporter claimed to have interviewed my mother, who talked about things I’d said. “You need to tell your mother to refrain from speaking about the inner workings of the prison,” the ispettore said sternly. “My mom would never do that!” I screeched. “She only gives interviews to talk about my innocence. She would never reveal our private conversations.” But the article was full of insider information. They’d gotten Cera’s name and certain details right. They said she kissed me once and that I feared further sexual harassment. They knew she was a cleaning fanatic and that she wouldn’t let me make coffee because it would leave water spots on the sink….’‘

      [Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... Cera had been the one to tell me how mean, how crazy, how awful, prisoners could be to one another. I hadn’t wanted to believe her, and I’d promised myself that I’d never become bitter like she was. But I was getting closer. I refused to become so cynical and angry that I felt spite, but my natural hopefulness was flagging….’ The only place I found peace was inside my own head. I started expecting nothing. The one thing that surprised me was the occasional time another prisoner, like Fanta, treated me kindly. As excruciating as this was, it forced me to develop a sense of independence, a faith in myself.

      • Really?  You claim you are innocent, yet you have been in jail a year, have just had Judge Micheli (at pretrial), send you off to trial, and you’re hopefulness is flagging?  Why is that?  You thought you’d be able to lie your way out of it?

      • Innocent people wrongfully in jail would be pissed off.  You aren’t.  Why?

      [Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... Don Saulo was the one person who cared about any of us. In spite of the awful way the other prisoners treated me, he restored some of my faith in humankind. “It doesn’t matter what people think you did,” he told me. “What matters is what you did do.  Don’t worry if people can’t see your goodness. The only important thing is your conscience. You have to take heart and strength in that.”

      • Father Saulo, normally that is good advice, but what happens if the person doesn’t have a conscience?

      [Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... We held onto the belief that the law would be on my side when my trial started. I was innocent. No matter how the prosecution misconstrued things, there would never be evidence enough to convict me. And I had the great consolation of knowing that prison wasn’t my world. In time, I’d be set free. I could survive this as long as it took.  But I never thought it would take years….’‘

      • The law on your side?  The law isn’t supposed to be on anyone’s side.  It is supposed to apply to all.

      • The prosecution didn’t twist anything.  They gave you every chance to explain things.

      • There would never be enough evidence?  Did you read any of the earlier chapters in your book?

      • (Chapter 13) you mention a LONG list of what you and Raffaele talked about, but don’t remember if you read or had sex?

      • (Chapter 17) you reference the missing sweater (Filomena saw you wear that day), but it still was never found.

      • (Chapter 17) you mentioned the writings (you said you would kill for a pizza).

      • (Chapter 18) you claim the blood on the faucet was from your pierced ears.  (According to Barbie Nadeau, your mother said the blood was from your period).

      • (Chapter 18) you acknowledge Raffaele took away your alibi.

      • (Chapter 19) you claim that Guede backs your alibi, but refutes Sollecito, which doesn’t make sense if you were together.

      • (Chapter 19) you acknowledge the knife with your DNA on the handle, Meredith’s on the blade—the infamous double DNA knife.

      • (Chapter 20) you say you were there. (You claim it meant RS apartment), yet you let PL remain in prison.

      • (Chapter 20) you admit writing a letter (you claim it was misinterpreted), claiming that Raffaele killed Meredith and planted your fingerprints.

      • (Chapter 21) you reference RS DNA on the bra clasp but saying it does not implicate you directly.

      • (Chapter 21) you admit (and I believe this), that much of your knowledge comes from crime TV.

      • (Chapter 21) you sarcastically admit you were the last person to wash up in a bloody bathroom.

      • (Chapter 21)—the Matteini decision—you say that the prosecution had stacked so much evidence Guede’s testimony wouldn’t have mattered.

      • (Chapter 22) you mention the police arresting the wrong people, but hypocritically, omit your false accusation of PL.

      • (Chapter 22) you reference Meredith’s DNA on the knife (which RS claimed was during a cooking accident).

      • (Chapter 22) you reference your bloody footprints, and mentioned Raffaele’s

      • (Chapter 23) you reference the bra clasp having Raffaele’s DNA

      • (Chapter 23) you acknowledge claims of a partial crime scene cleanup.

      • (Chapter 25) you acknowledge Filomena testifies you brought other ‘‘friends’’ to the house.

      • (Chapter 25) you acknowledge the cut on your neck, which you claim was a hickey.

      • (Chapter 25) you acknowledge telling the police Meredith always locked her door, though you try to spin it.

      • (Chapter 25) you acknowledge your cellphone and Raffaele’s were turned off, though you give different reasons why.

      • How much evidence does the prosecution need?  These notes all came from YOUR book. THIS BOOK.

      [Chapter 24, Page 288] ‘’ ... The only place I found peace was inside my own head. I started expecting nothing. The one thing that surprised me was the occasional time another prisoner, like Fanta, treated me kindly. As excruciating as this was, it forced me to develop a sense of independence, a faith in myself….’‘

      • You developed a sense of independence?  By relying on your family to clean up your mess?

      • You could find more peace if you would own up to what you did to Meredith.

      [Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... The pretrial had been like the first reading of a play. No costumes, no audience, no reporters, and very few players. It was held in chambers and closed to the press. The lawyers wore suits. Only two witnesses—the prosecution’s DNA analyst and a man who claimed to have seen Rudy Guede, Raffaele, and me together—testified….’‘

      • I hope you are being sarcastic here.  The pretrial was like the first reading of a play?  This is a murder case, not some theatre production.

      • Really?  None of the police officers (whom you accused of police brutality), testified here?

      • Really?  None of the CSI’s from the home, only the DNA guy, testified?

      • You still could have testified on your own behalf, if this was a misunderstanding. Why didn’t you?

      [Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... The full trial for Raffaele and me was like opening night. I wasn’t prepared for the spectacle…’‘

      • Again, this is a murder case, not a theatre.

      • Although, if you are this detached from reality, is that why you wore the ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt?

      [Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... Three no-nonsense guards—one in front of me and one on either side—led me in through the door in the back of the packed courtroom. Police officers, including some who had interrogated me fourteen months before, were lined up against the back wall. I knew that almost every observer thought I was guilty and wanted me to suffer….’‘

      • The police didn’t interrogate you.  You were giving a witness summary, until you were informed Raffaele removed your alibi.  You then proceeded (without provocation), to try to frame Patrick, and it backfired.

      • 14 months ago, and now you are at trial?  Wow, that seems a bit faster than the U.S. and Canadian systems.

      • They don’t want you to suffer, they want to know exactly what happened to Meredith.

      [Chapter 25, Page 290] ‘’ ... I knew I wasn’t alone. I gave them a little wave and a big smile to let them know how glad I was they were there. I never anticipated that that smile would be reported as “Amanda Knox beamed as she was led into an Italian court.” And the Daily Mail amped up my regular walk: “She made her entrance like a Hollywood diva sashaying along the red carpet.” I don’t know if the reporting was skewed to sell papers or if the presumption of my guilt colored the way the reporters saw me. Anyone reading or watching the TV reports would have come away believing the girl called Foxy Knoxy was amoral, psychotic, and depraved…’‘

      [Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... In the United States, civil and criminal trials are held separately; in Italy, they’re combined. The Italians clearly believe their jurors can compartmentalize—the same eight people decide all the verdicts. Moreover, jury members are not screened for bias, nor guarded from outside influence. The government was trying Raffaele and me for five crimes: murder, illegally carrying a knife, rape, theft, simulating a robbery, and a sixth just for me: slander. The Kerchers, believing Raffaele and I had killed their daughter, were suing both of us for €5 million—about $6.4 million—€1 million for each of Meredith’s five family members, to compensate for their loss and emotional anguish. Patrick Lumumba was suing me for slander for a yet to be determined amount. The owner of the villa was suing me for €10,000 for damages and lost rent….’‘

      • You are insulting, but there is a logic to it.  In the U.S., if someone were found guilty in a criminal case, often a civil one would follow.  Of course, not being convicted would make the civil case harder.

      • Jurors are screened for bias.  You are being blatantly dishonest—again.

      • You are being sued by the family of the woman you murdered, the man you tried to frame, and the homeowner whose property you damaged, and had turned into a crime scene.  Makes sense.

      Posted on 09/12/15 at 08:09 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
      Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followupNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (36)

      Friday, September 04, 2015

      Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #5

      Posted by Chimera



      Also Implacably Nasty…Click here to go straight to Comments.

      1. Overview Of This Post

      My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

      Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

      I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. And Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207.

      2. Dissection Of Pages 207 to 243.

      [Chapter 18, Page 207] ‘’ ... “Foxy Knoxy” also helped sell newspapers. The tabloids mined my Myspace profile and drew the most salacious conclusions. I resented that they took my posts and pictures out of context, emphasizing only the negative. A photo of me dressed in black and reclining provocatively on a piano bench, a shot my sister Deanna had taken for a high school photography class, circulated. They published parts of a short story I’d written for a UW creative writing class, about an older brother angrily confronting his younger brother for raping a woman. The media read a lot into that. There were pictures of me at parties and in the company of male friends, and a video showing me drunk. These were snippets of my teenage and college years. Not shown were the pictures of me riding my bike, opening Christmas presents, playing soccer, performing onstage in my high school’s production of The Sound of Music. Looked at together, these latter images would have portrayed a typical American girl, not as tame as some, not as experimental as many, but typical among my age group—a group that had the bad judgment to put our lives online. Now, at twenty, all I could think was, Who’s writing these articles? Is no one being fair? ...’‘

      • You post this stuff online, and HOW EXACTLY is it taken out of context?

      • Yes, posing on a piano bench.  Good impression

      • You are charged with sexual assault, and previously published a rape story?  Go figure.

      • You posted a video of yourself drunk?  Great idea.

      [Chapter 18, Page 208] ‘’ ... My supposedly obsessive promiscuity generated countless articles in three countries, much of it based on information the police fed to the press. It seemed that the prosecutor’s office released whatever they could to bolster their theory of a sex game gone wrong. They provided descriptions of Raffaele’s and my public displays of affection at the questura and witness statements that portrayed me as a girl who brought home strange men. Whatever the sources, the details made for a juicy story: attractive college students, sex, violence, mystery…’‘

      • Supposed obsessive promiscuity?  You published accounts of 4 random sexual encounters IN THIS BOOK.

      • Supposed obsessive promiscuity?  You were known for random and casual sex BEFORE leaving for Italy.

      • Prosecutors never claimed it was a sex game gone wrong, that was something your PR people fed the press.

      • Yes, boning your boyfriend is an odd way of showing grief over your dead ‘‘friend’‘.

      • Funny, you don’t seem to detail all the actual evidence that would be listed at trial.

      [Chapter 18, Page 209] ‘’ ... Soon after I got to Capanne, I started getting fan mail—some from people who thought I was innocent, and some from strangers who said they were in love with me. I appreciated the encouraging letters and was shocked, and baffled, by the others. It seemed to me that these men—often prisoners themselves—had written me by mistake. Their passionate, sometimes pornographic scribbling had nothing to do with me and everything to do with the media’s creepy, hypersexual creation. I’d never imagined that I would be bombarded with such perverted attention. And if I was drop-dead sexy, it was news to me….’‘

      • People who thought you were innocent?  Good job, Dave Marriott.

      • All these people write to you by mistake?  Care to explain?

      • Their pornographic scribbling?  What about the book I am reading now?

      • You never imagined such perverted attention?  You flirted with people in court. You wore a ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt.

      • Agreed, you are not drop dead sexy, but in your prison writings you compare yourself to Helen of Troy.

      [Chapter 18, Page 209] ‘’ ... I felt terrible that my mom and dad had abandoned their regular lives to come to Italy, and that their spouses back home were being hounded by journalists and paparazzi, who staked out their houses, waiting for them to come or go, knocking on the door and phoning them incessantly…’‘

      • Do you feel bad for the Kerchers?  Or for Meredith?

      • Do you feel bad for Patrick and his family?

      [Chapter 18, Page 211] ‘’ ... The idea that Meredith and I had been at odds ramped up quickly in the press. A couple of weeks after Robyn’s statement came out, investigators announced they’d found my blood on the faucet in the bathroom that Meredith and I had shared. Prosecutor Mignini hypothesized that the two of us had gotten into a fistfight and I’d wound up with a bloody nose. The truth was far less dramatic—and less interesting. I’d just gotten multiple piercings in both ears, and I took out all eleven earrings so that I could wipe my ears each morning while the shower water heated up. When I noticed the tiny droplets of blood in the sink the day Meredith’s body was discovered, I thought the blood had come from my ears, as it had on another day, until I scratched the porcelain and realized the blood was dry. That must have been what was on the faucet….’‘

      • It wasn’t just an idea. Meredith’s friend’s testified that she was growing to dislike you.

      • Why take out fresh earrings?  That is how the holes close up.

      • Really, that amount of blood from ear piercings isn’t normal?  Why were there no visible signs of infection?

      • You scratch the porcelain and realize they are dry ... why not just remove the blood?

      • Well, the blood could have come from the scratch on your neck, I mean hickey.

      • And the ‘‘orange shaped’’ lump of blood on the bathmat, you thought that was Meredith ‘‘dripping’‘?

      • Makes sense in a way, you see day old poop in the toilet and don’f flush it.

      [Chapter 18, Page 212] ‘’ ... Meredith had been dead for just three weeks. I still could barely process the loss of my friend. It infuriated me that the media were rewriting our relationship to fit their storyline. I was a monster. Meredith was a saint. The truth was that we were very much alike. She was more contained than I was, but we were both young girls who studied seriously and wanted to do well, who wanted to make friends, and who’d had a few casual sexual relationships…’‘

      • Give it up. Meredith was not your friend.

      • The media was not ‘‘rewriting’’ anything.

      • You were not alike.  Meredith was a serious student, and a kind, caring person to be around.  You were a loud, unfocused, slob who did drugs, and brought random strangers home for sex.  You took 1 simple language course.

      • Meredith did not have any casual encounters.  This was completely made up.

      [Chapter 18, Page 212] ‘’ ... I didn’t know what to think about Raffaele. Hearing that he’d destroyed my alibi was as baffling as it was incensing. Saying I’d put him up to lying was inexcusable and painful. And now this, I thought. Did I misjudge him? I didn’t think so, but I wasn’t at all sure what to make of him. One day we were really close, and the next he announced that he’d dropped me. Had this come from him? His lawyers? Journalists? I rationalized that I wasn’t the Italian girl he needed. I tried to be forgiving. If Raffaele doesn’t want to talk to me again, I’ll understand. This has been traumatic for everyone…’‘

      • You didn’t know what to think about Raffaele?  Because you couldn’t control him

      • Why was it baffling that he destroyed your alibi?  After all, if you were ‘‘beaten’‘, wouldn’t it make sense that he was?  Wait….

      • Yeah, dragging him into a murder tends to be ...(murder) on relationships. Pardon the pun.

      • He needs an Italian girl?  More likely he needs a stable girl, regardless of nationality.

      • Forgiving, you don’t seem to be the type.

      [Chapter 18, Page 213] ‘’ ... Argirò was standing a foot behind me when I got the news. “Maybe you should have thought about that before you slept with lots of people,” he chided. I spun around. “I didn’t have sex with anyone who had AIDS,” I snapped, though it was possible that one of the men I’d hooked up with, or even Raffaele, was HIV-positive.

      “You should think about who you slept with and who you got it from.”  Maybe he was trying to comfort me or to make a joke, or maybe he saw an opening he thought he could use to his advantage. Whatever the reason, as we were walking back upstairs to my cell, Argirò said, “Don’t worry. I’d still have sex with you right now.

      Promise me you’ll have sex with me.” But sometimes I was just angry….’‘

      • Yet another entertaining tale of sexual harassment ... that you did not report.

      [Chapter 18, Page 215] ‘’ ... I got out my diary to think this over rationally, imagining who could have infected me, replaying my sexual experiences in my mind to see where I could have slipped up. I wondered if a condom had broken, and if so, whose. If it had, did he know? I’d had sex with seven guys—four in Seattle and three in Italy. I tried to be logical, writing down the name of each person I’d slept with and the protection we’d used. Writing made me feel a little better. I knew I needed to get out of prison and get checked by someone I trusted before I started thinking and acting as if my life were over. I forced myself not to anticipate the worst.

      That Saturday, I told my parents what the doctor had said. My mom started crying immediately. “But I haven’t had unprotected sex,” I said, trying to reassure her. “I’m sure it’s going to be fine.”  My dad was skeptical. He asked, “Do you even think they’re telling you the truth?” That possibility hadn’t occurred to me. But when I told them, Luciano and Carlo seconded that idea. “It could be a ploy by the prosecution to scare you into an even more vulnerable emotional state so they can take advantage of you,” Carlo said. “You need to stay alert, Amanda, and don’t let anyone bully you.”

      • Okay, this ‘‘list’‘, while amusing on some level is quite irrelevant to a murder case.

      • 4 guys in Seattle, 3 in Italy?  In THIS BOOK, you list Cristiano/Frederico, Mirko, Bobby and Raffaele.  That is 4 just in Italy.  Can’t you count?

      • Your roommates complained you brought MANY men home.  So it was more than 3 in Italy.

      • You have random sex with drug dealers, but it’s okay because you used protection?

      • Wow, you think this was all a ploy to scare you?  That is paranoid.  Are you sure you’re not doing coke anymore?

      • You tried to be logical?  Then why do this at all?

      [Chapter 18, Page 216] ‘’ ... I wondered what they were hoping to find. Did they want to search my clothing for traces of Meredith’s blood? I felt almost smug, because I knew they wouldn’t find anything incriminating, and I hoped it might convince them that I truly had nothing to hide….’‘

      • You knew they wouldn’t find anything incriminating?  Wow.

      • You felt almost smug?  Probably.

      • Were you feeling smug because you knew they found Guede’s handprint, DNA, shoeprint and shit?  The stuff you left behind .....

      • You might convince them?  Well, you initially convinced the police….

      [Chapter 18, Page 217] ‘’ ... A few months after that, they released my prison journal to the media, where instead of reporting that I’d had seven lovers altogether, some newspapers wrote that Foxy Knoxy had slept with seven men in her six weeks in Perugia….’‘

      • You are accusing the prison staff of violating medical confidentiality?  Did you report this?

      • Or, was this a ‘‘sympathy’’ leak from your own lawyers?

      • Whether you slept with 7 men in Perugia, or 7 men overall, that is the least of your worries.

      [Chapter 19, Page 219] ‘’ ... I was stunned one morning when I looked up at the TV and noticed a breaking news report. There was now a fourth suspect, and an international manhunt for him had been launched. The police didn’t say who the suspect was or how this person fit into the murder scenario they’d imagined, only that they’d found a bloody handprint on Meredith’s pillowcase that wasn’t mine, Patrick’s, or Raffaele’s. The news rattled me, but it also gave me hope. Maybe this meant the police hadn’t completely given up trying to find the truth. For the next twenty-four hours I was consumed by the question Who is this unnamed person? ...’‘

      • Stunned because you expected him to be caught SOONER, or LATER?

      • Fit into the murder scenario THEY imagined?  Your statements include all sorts of things ‘‘your mind made up.’‘

      • Great idea, to leave that handprint.  They got your accomplice.

      • Just because the police see through your B.S., doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to see the truth.

      • Or, more likely consumed with the question of whether he would talk.

      [Chapter 19, Page 219] ‘’ ... The name didn’t click until I saw his mug shot. Oh my God, it’s him. I thought back to November 5, when I was sitting in the hall at the questura, assuming I was just waiting for Raffaele, and talking to the silver-haired cop. As I’d been doing for days, I was trying to recall all the men who had ever visited our villa, when I suddenly remembered one of Giacomo and Marco’s friends. It had annoyed me that I couldn’t remember his name. “I think he’s South African,” I told the detective. “All I know is that he played basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced him to Meredith and me in Piazza IV Novembre in mid-October. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.” I’d seen Guede just one time after that. He’d shown up at Le Chic, and I had taken his drink order. Those few words were the only ones we ever exchanged…’‘

      • In your email to Judge Nencini (December 2013), you said you had no contact with Guede

      • In that same email, you said that you crossed paths with Guede exactly once.

      • In this passage, you describe meeting Rudy at your apartment, and at Patrick’s bar. That is TWICE.

      • Even though, you never met Rudy, you remember him joking with the guys (and finding out), he was into you.

      • Even though Guede is into you, the only words you exchange is when he orders a drink?

      • Is Guede some kind of love-sick stalker, that you never had contact with, and never spoke to?

      • So, how many times exactly did you meet Rudy Guede?

      Chapter 19, Page 220] ‘’ ... I learned that Guede was twenty and originally from Ivory Coast. He’d been abandoned by his parents and taken in by a rich Perugian family who treated him like a son. He was a talented basketball player who’d made a lot of friends on the court. But over time, he’d been more inclined to loaf than to work, and his surrogate family disowned him. He’d lost his job in the fall of 2007, before Meredith and I met him. Guede had been caught breaking into offices and homes and stealing electronics and cash…’‘

      • His parent abandoned him?  I thought he was an orphan, at least that’s what FOA says.

      • Over time he’d been more inclined to loaf than work?  You seem to know a lot about his work status, despite not knowing him.

      • He lost his job?  You seem to portray him as a drifter and drug dealer.  Most drug dealers are not employed.

      • So, did you find out about these break ins when you met him the ‘‘one-time’’ at your apartment?

      • So, Guede has a history of break ins, you stage break ins as a prank, he has the hots for you, and this never came up?

      [Chapter 19, Page 221] ‘’ ... All I could think was that if he’d been put behind bars then, Meredith would still be alive.

    • It didn’t make sense to me that they had let him go but had leapt to arrest me. I’d met but didn’t know Rudy Guede. I didn’t know if he was capable of murder. I couldn’t imagine why he might do something so brutal. But I believed that he was guilty, that the evidence could only be interpreted one way. Finally the police could stop using me as the scapegoat for some phantom killer whom no one could name—a phantom whose place I’d been filling…’‘

      • The same could be said if Seattle police had locked you up for that stone throwing riot. Oh wait, you have no record.

      • They didn’t leap to arrest you.  You wrote multiple statements saying you were at the scene, and witnessed (but did not report,), PL murder Meredith.

      • You believed he was guilty?  How do you know?  You ‘‘met him once’‘, and didn’t know much about him.  It is almost as if you intimately knew what evidence was at the crime scene.

      • The evidence can only be interpreted one way? Evidence like phone records, or lying to police?

      • They weren’t ‘‘scapegoating’’ you for some phantom killer.  You gave statements saying you witnessed PL doing it.

      [Chapter 10, Page 222] ‘’ ... Still, I was surprised it was Guede who had been named, because the two times I’d met him were under such ordinary circumstances. There was nothing distinguishable about him. He’d seemed interchangeable with almost every guy I’d met in Perugia —confident, bordering on arrogant. Not threatening. Not like a down-and-out thief. Not even odd…’‘

      • The two times you met him? Again, you emailed Judge Nencini you never met him, but crossed paths exactly once.

      • Perugia men are confident and arrogant?  How many exactly did you sleep with?  Never mind, not relevant.

      [Chapter 19, Page 222] ‘’ ... “Rudy?” I asked, repeating his name to make sure I’d heard correctly. “You mean the guy who police are calling ‘the fourth person’?”

      “Yes, Rudy. You know him?” “Vaguely,” I answered, shrugging.  “Vaguely, huh? We’ll see what he says about that,” the cop said.

      I didn’t respond but tried to act confident so he wouldn’t think he was getting to me. I was thinking, Guede won’t have anything to say about me. He doesn’t know me. ...’‘

      • You know him vaguely?  Once again, you emailed the judge at YOUR Florence appeal, saying you didn’t know him

      • You know him vaguely, but he doesn’t know you?  So, is knowing someone a one-way affair now?

      • Guede won’t have anything to say about you?  Hmm… almost like you have something on him.

      [Chapter 19, Page 222] ‘’ ... Within hours, I learned that, before his arrest, he told a friend over Skype, as Perugian detectives listened in, that he’d been at the villa the night of the murder. “I was in the bathroom when it happened,” he said. “I tried to intervene, but I wasn’t able. Amanda has nothing to do with this . . . I fought with a male, and she wasn’t there.” Neither was Patrick, he said. “The guy was Italian, because we insulted each other and he didn’t have a foreign accent.”

      • When his friend asked if it was Raffaele, “the one from TV,” Guede said, “I think so, but I’m not sure.”

      • And this is the PROOF you are innocent?

      • So, Guede weakly identifies Raffaele, but is sure you are not there?  Okay.

      [Chapter 19, Page 223] ‘’ ... Guede apparently tried to establish an alibi by changing clothes and heading to a downtown dance club hours after the murder. His lawyers later said he’d been so frightened by the murder that he’d gone there to calm himself down. He went to Domus again the next night—attracting attention when he continued dancing during a moment of silence for Meredith. He left town the following day. Carlo and Luciano told me he probably got spooked by the media’s attention to the case and decided it was best to leave and take his bloody clothes and shoes with him. They guessed that Guede had probably been in the middle of robbing the villa when Meredith came home, and he had attacked her. As soon as they suggested this scenario, it made perfect sense to me. I hadn’t been able to put all those pieces together before. Meredith’s murder had been so horrific, and my arrest too absurd, it had been impossible for me to think logically about it…’‘

      • Carlo and Luciano?  Hmmm…. so when does Rome lawyer Giancarlos Costa join your team?

      • Guede tried to establish an alibi? Seems he is not the only one.

      • Guede was in the middle of robbing the place, when Meredith came home, but he doesn’t take anything, just murders her, takes a dump and leaves?

      • And how did he break in?  The police thought the break in was staged.

      • How do you know what happened to his bloody clothes and shoes?

      [Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ ... I saw it as a momentary problem that Guede was fingering Raffaele, but this was huge! Guede had backed up my alibi: I hadn’t been at the villa. And since I hadn’t been there, since I’d been at Raffaele’s apartment, Raffaele would be cleared, too. We would both be freed….’‘

      • Guede backs your alibi, but fingers you alibi witness?

      • How is this a momentary problem?

      [Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ .... Seeing how the prosecution treated Patrick in the two weeks since his arrest should have given me insight into how they worked. My lawyers told me it had been widely reported the week before that Patrick had cash register receipts and multiple witnesses vouching for his whereabouts on the night of November 1. A Swiss professor had testified that he’d been at Le Chic with Patrick that night from 8 P.M. to 10 P.M. But even though Patrick had an ironclad alibi and there was no evidence to prove that he’d been at the villa, much less in Meredith’s bedroom at the time of the murder, the police couldn’t bear to admit they were wrong….’‘

      • Patrick was arrested due to the accusatory statements that YOU wrote.

      • Give you insight into how they worked?  Yes, they investigated his alibi, and released him once it was corroborated.

      • Yes, no evidence of him at the home would surely speed up his release.

      • The police did admit they were wrong.  They released Patrick.

      [Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ ... Patrick went free the day Guede was arrested. Timing his release to coincide with Guede’s arrest, the prosecution diverted attention from their mistake. They let him go only when they had Guede to take his place…’‘

      • You seriously think they kept Patrick was held until they had someone else?

      [Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... I dreamed about the interrogation almost every night during these early days in prison. I would be back in the crowded, close interrogation room, feeling the tension, hearing the officers yelling, reliving the primal panic. I’d wake up sweating, my heart banging. Nothing in my life up to then had compared to that experience. What had happened to me that night? How I could I ever have named Patrick? ...’‘

      • You dreamed about the “interrogation”?  You seemed to be dreaming during it too.

      • Primal fear?  Is tea and chocolate that chilling to you?

      • How could you name Patrick?  Better question would have been ‘‘why’‘.

      [Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... Then I immediately felt embarrassed, self-conscious that, in one way or another, the few prisoners and guards who happened to see this would misread my actions as selfish. I didn’t know whether the guards were reporting directly to the prosecution, but I knew that everyone thought I was a liar and that anything I said and did would be viewed from that angle—that I was trying to make people think I was innocent by acting happy for Patrick. The police would almost certainly think this was one more instance of Amanda Knox behaving inappropriately—one more example of me as a manipulative, depraved person ....’‘

      • You accuse someone of murder, who is totally innocent.  How are people supposed to view it?

      • Yes, people probably did think you were a liar.

      • Yes, it would seem to strange to be happy for someone you said you were afraid of, and who you falsely accused.

      • Well, it might be less inappropriate, except for the fact you caused this dilemma.

      • Manipulative?  Reasonable conclusion. Depraved?  Not my place to say.

      [Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... Even if my cellmates didn’t see my reaction as putting on an act, I didn’t want anyone to know what I was actually thinking and feeling. I was protective of myself in that environment. I felt vulnerable and scared, and I didn’t want anyone to see that, even if that’s how I really felt….’‘

      • You just said you didn’t want people to see you as manipulative, but you are now saying you put up a front.

      [Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... In truth, I did see Patrick’s release as my vindication. By writing my two postinterrogation statements—my memoriali—I had tried to convince the police that Patrick was not Meredith’s murderer. And now the prosecution knew that when I retracted my declarations from that night, I was telling the truth: Patrick was innocent. Raffaele and I had been together at his apartment the whole time…’‘

      • You tried to convince the police Patrick was not involved?  Then why all the ‘‘stuff my mid made up’’ crap?

      • You went from clear and accusatory to confusing and contradictory.  Hardly truth telling.

      • You were with Raffaele?  Didn’t he recently say that you asked him to lie for you?

      [Chapter 19, Page 226] ‘’ ... The prosecution would understand how, under pressure during my interrogation, I had pictured a scene that wasn’t true. I had faith that my lawyers could prove the knife with Meredith’s and my DNA was a mistake. My confidence was bolstered by Guede’s arrest. I didn’t know him. If he was Meredith’s murderer, I was sure people would see that Raffaele and I had had nothing to do with it.  Soon I’d be cleared as a suspect….’‘

      • So, when faced with the loss of your alibi, you pictured a scene that wasn’t true—to divert suspicion?

      • Your lawyers can prove the double DNA knife is a mistake?  Why didn’t they attend the testing?  Right, to use as an excuse later.

      • Why would Guede’s arrest make people believe in you?  People can commit crimes with accomplices.

      • You seem obsessed to be seen in a positive light.

      [Chapter 19, Page 226] ‘’ ... The prosecution could have redeemed themselves. Instead, they held on to Raffaele and me as their trophies.

      I learned that when he signed the warrant for Patrick’s release, Giuliano Mignini said that I’d named Patrick to cover up for Guede. It was his way of saying that the police had been justified in their arrest of three people and that any confusion over which three people was my fault. I was made out to be a psychotic killer capable of manipulating the police until my lies, and the law, had caught up with me….’‘

      • They did redeem themselves. They now had the right people in custody, in spite of your lies.

      • The prosecution held onto you as suspects, only psycho killers take trophies.

      • Naming Patrick to cover for Guede?  Reasonable suspicion.

      • You ‘‘DID’’ manipulate the police until your lies caught up to you.

      [Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... Patrick gave only one interview condemning the police for his unfounded arrest before his lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, advised him to side with the prosecution, who had taken him away in handcuffs, humiliating him in front of his family, in the intimate hours of the morning. After that, he announced that he would never forgive me for what I had done, that I’d ruined him financially and emotionally. He talked about my behavior in his bar, saying that he’d fired me for flirting with his customers. He called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.”

      • Patrick was taken away at YOUR instigation.  Get this straight.

      • Sided with the prosecutors?  Would he side with the defendant who framed him?

      • He wouldn’t forgive you for this humiliation in front of his family?  Who would?

      • Fired you for not doing your job?  What an evil man.  Wait, that is just what you told police.

      [Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... The truth is that he had hired me not just to serve cocktails but to bring in customers. He had cut back on my days because I was a mediocre waitress and not enough of a flirt to add to his bottom line. Then, after Meredith’s murder, I quit because I was afraid to be out alone at night…’‘

      • You have casual sex with random men, and are not enough of a flirt?

      • You quit because of fear of being alone?  So, why would Patrick still be expecting you to work?

      [Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... I absolutely understood why he was angry with me. I’d put his reputation, his livelihood, and possibly even his life at risk. I felt sick with guilt. I thought he deserved an explanation and an apology from me. When I asked my lawyers if it would be okay for me to write him, they shook their heads no. “I’m afraid it’s not as simple as that anymore,” Carlo explained. “Patrick’s lawyer will hand over anything you send Patrick to the press.”

      • You understand why he was angry with you?  Well, you seemed to be justifying it by saying he wanted you to flirt more.

      • Yes, he does deserve an explanation and apology.

      • Well, if you want to clear something up, why not put it in writing?  Not that it has ever backfired on you before.  Wait….

      • You flirt with people in court, and are anxious about a letter ending up in the press?

      [Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... Any communication with Patrick would be publicized and scrutinized and played to my disadvantage, especially if I explained why I’d said his name during my interrogation. I’d have to go into how the police had pressured me, which would only complicate my already poor standing with the prosecution. If I said I’d imagined things during the interrogation, I’d be called crazy. If I said I’d been abused, it would be seen as further proof that I was a liar….’‘

      • Yes, written statements by defendants tend to be scutinized.

      • An explanation would be nice.  Something without any references to drugs, or stress, or visions.

      • Yes, those pesky police-abuse accusations (if false) tend to leave a bad impression.

      • You wouldn’t be seen as crazy, just a B.S. artist.

      [Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... When I first told Carlo and Luciano I wanted to talk to Prosecutor Mignini, I didn’t think of it as a rematch between opposing sides. I saw it as a chance to set the record straight. Finally….’‘

      • Was it not Luciano Ghirga and Giancarlo Costa who were with you in this questioning?  We haven’t even started and you are already lying.

      • Set the record straight?  You are going to confess?

      [Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... “I’m sure if I talk to him in person, I can show him I’m sincere,” I told my lawyers. “I can convince him he’s been wrong about me. It bothers me that everyone—the prosecutor, the police, the press, the public—thinks I’m a murderer. If I just had the chance to present my real self to Mignini I’m sure I could change that perception. People could no longer say I’m a killer.”

      Carlo and Luciano looked at me doubtfully. “I’m not sure it’s the best idea,” Carlo said. “Mignini is cagey. He’ll do everything he can to trick you.”

      • You can show Mignini you are sincere?  Didn’t you say in chapter 10 how he bullied a false statement from you?  Right, he wasn’t there.

      • Present your ‘‘real-self’‘?  This is a murder investigation, not a job interview.

      • Trick you?  Or expose your lies and inconsistencies?

      [Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... “I feel like it’s my only hope,” I said. “My memoriali didn’t change anyone’s mind —they just made the prosecution and the media portray me as a liar. I didn’t get to tell the judge what happened before she confirmed my arrest. I think I have to explain face-to-face why I named Patrick. I’ve got to make Mignini understand why I said I’d met Patrick at the basketball court, why I said I’d heard Meredith scream.”

      • Did you actually read the memoriali you wrote?  Who wouldn’t conclude you were lying?

      • You have to explain yourself?  Do you want to make things worse?

      • Yes, how did you know that Meredith screamed?  Guede, and neighbour Nina Capellazi both confirmed this ‘‘wee’’ detail.

      [Chapter 20, Page 230] ‘’ ... “It’s risky,” Carlo said. “Mignini will try to pin things on you.” “He already has,” I told them. The first time I met Mignini at the questura, I hadn’t understood who he was, what was going on, what was wrong, why people were yelling at me, why I couldn’t remember anything. I thought he was someone who could help me (the mayor), not the person who would sign my arrest warrant and put me behind bars…’‘

      • You want to meet with the man who tried to pin things on you?

      • Yet, you think that this will clear everything up?

      • You think Mignini is the mayor?  Do city officials typically get involved in murder investigations?

      • Wow, the ‘‘Mayor’’ is a douche, spending all this time at court, police stations and crime scenes.  No wonder those potholes aren’t getting filled.

      [Chapter 20, Page 230] ‘’ ... This time I was ready. This time my lawyers would be there. I’d be rested. My mind was clear. I was going in knowing what I was getting into. I’d take my time and answer all his questions in English. I didn’t think I’d be released immediately, but I hoped that giving the prosecutor a clear understanding of what had happened would help me. Then, as new evidence came forward proving my innocence, Mignini would have to let me go….’‘

      • You were ready?  So you had time to rehearse?

      • Your mind was clear?  So, no more ‘‘best truths’‘, let’s hope.

      • You did answer in English, but in the transcript, you were able to understand Mignini’s questions quite well in Italian.

      • How would giving a clear understanding help you?  Unless it is a straightforward alibi?

      • What ‘‘evidence’’ would be coming forward, proving your innocence?  Did you stage something?

      [Chapter 20, Page 231] ‘’ ... But I wasn’t good at censoring myself. I had only two hours a week with my mom and dad, and they were the only people I could open up to. It made me feel better to vent, and my parents needed to know what I was thinking. I couldn’t see the danger in discussing with them my day-to-day prison life, my interactions with my cellmates and guards, or my case. Since I hadn’t been involved in the murder, I figured that anything I said would only help prove my innocence…’‘

      • Right, you aren’t good at censoring yourself: Meredith’s friends all complained about just that problem

      • How would sharing the day-to-day help prove you are innocent?  You were arrested AFTER the murder, correct?

      [Chapter 20, Page 231] ‘’ ... I hadn’t considered that the prosecution would twist my words. I didn’t think they would be capable of taking anything I said and turning it into something incriminating, because everything I said was about my innocence and how I wanted to go home. I was saying the same thing again and again…’‘

      • Mignini didn’t try to twist anything.  He wanted to clear up many unanswered questions

      • Yes, you talk about your innocence, and the details (from the transcript), are even MORE confusing.

      • If you were saying the same thing over and over, we wouldn’t be here.

      • And this book (even with publishing help), changes considerably.  Everything you say has new versions.

      • Even your lawyers come in new versions.  This book omits Giancarlo Costa.

      [Chapter 20, Page 232] ‘’ ... On their first visit after the knife story came out, Dad and Mom were telling me my lawyers’ theory—that the police could be using the knife as a scare tactic to get me to incriminate myself. “The police have nothing at all on you,” Mom said. “So they are trying . . . to see if you[’ll] say something more.”

      • The police don’t need to intimidate you.  And this might get you a new calunnia charge.

      • They have plenty on you.  False alibi, false accusation, DNA, incriminating statements….

      • So, has Dad shared his new ‘‘secret weapon’‘?  A PR firm, with David Marriott… ?  No?

      [Chapter 20, Page 232] ‘’ ... “It’s stupid,” I said. “I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there. I mean, I can’t lie about this, there is no reason to do it.”

      What I meant by “I was there” was that I was at Raffaele’s apartment the night of Meredith’s murder, that I couldn’t possibly implicate myself. I hadn’t been at the villa. I wasn’t going to slip up, because I wasn’t hiding anything….’‘

      • Well, your explanation seems reasonable, but would be far more believable except that your alibi witness withdrew his alibi, and signed a statement saying you asked him to lie for you.

      • You can’t say anything but the truth?  I bet Patrick would beg to differ.

      • You didn’t implicate yourself.  You claimed to be a witness to someone else doing it, (and placed yourself there).

      [Chapter 20, Page 233] ‘’ ... Being more careful in the future wouldn’t immediately resolve this serious misunderstanding. A few days later the judge considered those words when deciding if I could be moved to house arrest. In another crushing blow that characterized my early months in prison, my request was denied. I was stuck alone behind bars….’‘

      • Meredith was murdered, and it was a ‘‘misunderstanding’‘?

      • Or rather, lies, false accusations, DNA evidence, and incriminating statements are ‘‘misunderstandings’‘?

      • You were denied house arrest? Go figure.

      • You were also psychologically tested, and the results were alarming.  Yet you omit that as a major reason to keep you.

      [Chapter 20, Page 233] ‘’ ... Calling the intercepted conversation a “clue,” the judge wrote, “it can certainly be read as a confirmation of the girl’s presence in her home at the moment of the crime.” He went on to describe me as “crafty and cunning,” saying that I was “a multifaced personality, unattached to reality with an elevated . . . fatal, capacity to kill again.”

      • It wasn’t until my pretrial, the following September, that a different judge agreed with my defense that it was obvious I was talking about Raffaele’s apartment, not the villa, and removed this “evidence” from the record….’‘

      • Well, your false accusation of Lumumba was crafty and cunning.  Wait, that was ‘‘under pressure’‘.

      • Unattached to reality?  Have you seen the stuff you write?

      • Actually, the ‘‘evidence’’ was never removed.  In fact, Judge Paolo Micheli found enough cause to send you to trial.

      [Chapter 20, Page 234] ‘’ ... Not even my lawyers understood my journal musings on Raffaele and the knife that made their way into the newspapers. I’d written a hyperbolic explanation about him taking the knife from his apartment behind my back. I had to explain to Carlo and Luciano that I’d concocted it because the possibility of a knife with Meredith’s DNA coming out of Raffaele’s apartment had struck me as so preposterous:  ‘’ Unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned it off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that…’‘

      • I’m sure your lawyers don’t understand your journal writings.

      • What is the purpose of these writings?  Were they deliberate, did you assume they would be read?

      • It sounds like a silly passage from ‘‘Honor Bound’’—Amanda’s DNA on Meredith’s bra, because Amanda wore it too.

      • Or this excuse from Raffaele—Meredith’s DNA was on his knife because Meredith pricked her hand while cooking.  (Despite Meredith was never there).

      [Chapter 20, Page 234] ‘’ ... But I didn’t have the luxury of explaining what I’d written to everyone who read it. After my passage was translated into Italian and then retranslated back into English, it bore little resemblance to the original—and a great resemblance to the prosecution’s theories about what had happened the night of November 1:

      ‘‘That night I smoked a lot of marijuana and I fell asleep at my   boyfriend’s house. I don’t remember anything. But I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed her. And then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he put my fingerprints on the knife. But I don’t understand why Raffaele would do that…’‘

      • How would you know exactly what it said?  The writing was confiscated, and according to your 2013 interview with Amazon editor Neal Thompson, (available online), you didn’t get anything back that was confiscated.

      • Actually, (marijuana aside) there are the same elements, Raffaele killing Meredith, then putting your fingerprints on the knife.

      • You could always have taken the stand (without restricted questioning), to explain it.

      [Chapter 20, Page 235] ‘’ ... As the date for the interrogation approached, Luciano and Carlo offered me a few pointers. “Don’t let him get to you. Don’t say anything if you don’t remember it perfectly. It’s okay to say, ‘I don’t remember.’ You don’t have to be God and know everything. It’s better to say, ‘I don’t know,’ and move on.”

      • Luciano and Carlo?  Again, no Giancarlo Costa? See this.

      • Don’t say anything if you don’t remember perfectly Is this advice to withhold?

      • She isn’t God, but according to her writings, Amanda is Helen of Troy.

      [Chapter 20, Page 237] ‘’ ... It bothered me that as I answered him as fully as I could through an interpreter, Mignini would usually repeat the question. I was afraid I wasn’t making myself clear. At first, Carlo, acting as a second interpreter, spoke in measured tones. He would interrupt and say, “What she is really saying is . . .” or “She’s already answered that question!”

      • Actually, the ‘‘interrogation’’ was nothing like what Amanda describes.  Here are the transcripts: one, two, three, and four.

      • And it is Giancarlo Costa, not Dalla Carlo Vedova, who is with Luciano Ghirga.

      [Chapter 20, Page 239] ‘’ ... I was more frustrated than I’d ever been. “Because I thought it could have been him!”

      I shouted, starting to cry. I meant that I’d imagined Patrick’s face and so I had really, momentarily, thought it was him. Mignini jumped up, bellowing, “Aha!” I was sobbing out of frustration, anger.

      My lawyers were on their feet. “This interrogation is over!” Luciano shouted, swiping his arm at the air….’‘

      • Read the transcripts above.  Knox stopped the questioning, not Luciano.

      [Chapter 21, Page 241] ‘’ ... Now I was moving in with Cera. Young, with the tall, lean looks of a model, she worked as a portavito, delivering meals from a rolling cart. She was also in my weekly guitar class, another prison “rehabilitation” activity like movie time. But I was still secluded from the main prison population—a special status to protect young, first-time suspects. The downside was that it prevented me from participating in group activities or talking to anyone but my cellmates. Thankfully, Don Saulo convinced prison officials to let me attend the guitar lessons, just as he had weekly Mass….’‘

      • You had a weekly guitar class?  Wow, can you name one American prison that does that?  Probably not.

      • There is movie time?  Wow, such a hard place to be in.

      • You were secluded because you were a young first timer?  Really, or secluded until they determined if the accused sex killer was a danger?

      • So, how long exactly were you in ‘‘seclusion’‘?  You are very vague on this.

      [Chapter 21, Page 242] ‘’ ... Cera had managed to make her cell homey, clean, and organized. There were bright colored sheets on the beds, postcards taped to the walls, and a colorful curtain tied to the bars at the window. We had a heart-to-heart talk while I unpacked. She was sitting cross-legged on the bed closest to the window. “I should probably tell you right off, I’m bisexual,” she said.

      “That’s cool,” I replied. “I’m not, but I’m definitely live-and-let-live.”

      “You’re not my type, anyway,” she said. “I thought you might be gay when you asked to live with me, but I decided you weren’t.” She hesitated. “You know, your former cellmates said you’re spoiled.”

      Wow. Why hadn’t I realized they would trash me behind my back? They gossiped about everyone else. Cera read my disappointment. “They’re fake. Almost everyone in prison is fake. You’ll see.’‘


      • Prison is not the most socially progressive place, and you wish to publish that your cellie is bisexual?  Some friend.

      • Yes, almost everyone in prison is fake.  Amanda, care to comment on this link?

      [Chapter 21, Page 243] ‘’ ... Cera scoffed. “You don’t know what they say about you when you’re outside—‘Who does Kuh-nox think she is? She’s saving worms from the rain but killing people.’ Even Lupa says you’re guilty.”  I knew the prosecution didn’t believe me, but I’d assumed the people I interacted with every day would see me for who I was and not imagine the worst. As soon as Cera said this, it seemed obvious—of course the guards would assume I was a murderer. Everyone did….’‘

      • So, is this conversation in English, or is your Italian fluent by now?

      • Why would the guards make this assumption?  They watch over all kinds of people.

      • You have been formally charged with murder, and a judge has said there is cause to hold you.  People might think you are a killer.
      Posted on 09/04/15 at 03:02 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
      Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxOther legal processesKnox followupNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (8)

      Friday, August 28, 2015

      Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #4

      Posted by Chimera



      Also Implacably Nasty… Click here to go straight to Comments.

      1. Overview Of This Post

      My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

      Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

      I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. And Post #3 disected pages 108 to 172.

      2. Dissection Of Pages 173 to 207.

      [Chapter 15, Page 173] ‘’ ... Her empathy and advice always made me feel on safe ground. I didn’t really get into trouble in high school, but I knew that if I did, she would support me through the situation. When I was at odds with myself, she’d reassure me that I was worthy of a happy life….’‘

      • Hate to break it to you, but this isn’t like getting detention in high school.

      [Chapter 15, Page 173] ‘’ ... Now my no-questions-asked, I’ll-come-help-you-wherever-you-are mother sat across from me in an empty room in Capanne Prison. This time she couldn’t just make it all go away. She couldn’t do anything but comfort me….’‘

      • So, were you talking face to face, or was it over a telephone?

      • Funny, in the book you don’t mention how you told your Mom ‘‘I was there’’ and that Patrick was innocent.  Oops.

      • She couldn’t make it all go away? Are you a child?  No doubt you wanted her to.

      [Chapter 15, Page 174] ‘’ ... “I’m so sorry, Mom. I’m so sorry,” I moaned. “I didn’t mean for any of this to happen.”

      I had so much to explain. After four days of being ordered around and ignored, I was finally in front of the one person who had always listened. But I worried that the overwhelming need I’d felt to tell the police what they wanted to hear wouldn’t make sense to anyone who had never been pushed so far. How could I explain it to her when I didn’t even understand it myself? More than anything, I needed my mother to believe me….’‘

      • Four days of being ordered around and ignored?  Didn’t you say you wanted to stay in Perugia to help the police?  Didn’t you go to class Monday morning, and spent the evening with Raffaele and a friend?

      • Didn’t the police ask only for Raffaele that night—and that you had to beg them to let you in.  Didn’t you say that in that first time at the Questura, they kept EVERYONE from the house: You, Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, the other men downstairs?

      • Tell the police everything?  Like how Meredith had her f***ing throat cut? She f***ing bled to death? That she screamed? That she was moved?  Is that what you mean by telling the police everything?

      • Yeah, you probably DID need Mom to believe you.  She likely wouldn’t mortgage your house if you said you did it?

      [Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... I went through my interrogation with her step by step—the repeated questions, the yelling, the threats, the slaps. I explained to her how terrified I’d felt…’‘

      • Really, did you include the account (like in Chapter 10, about (Mayor) Mignini ‘‘interrogating’’ you, even when he was not there?

      • Out of curiosity, you claim that you barely spoke Italian (though you evidently learn VERY quickly).  You also said there was no interpreter, (even though Anna Donnino testified that she did act as an interpreter for you).  So, how do you know they were threatening you?

      • These ‘‘slaps’’ ... were you ‘‘beaten’’ by the police, or did it ‘‘only frighten’’ you?  It can’t really be both.

      • And as for being hit, your own lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, said publicly you were not hit.  Was he lying?

      • Why did Dalla Vedova ‘‘omit’’ your ‘‘beatings’’ by police in your ECHR complaint?

      [Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... “I didn’t come up with those things on my own,” I said. “I told them I’d been with Raffaele all night at his apartment. But they demanded to know whom I’d left to meet, who Patrick was, if I had let him into the villa. They insisted I knew who the murderer was, that I’d be put in jail for thirty years if I didn’t cooperate.”

      • Actually, you said (over the telephone, this was recorded) ‘‘I cannot lie. I was there.’’  What did you mean by that?

      • Actually, they wanted to know Raffaele removed his alibi for you, as any police officer would wonder.

      • They didn’t wonder who Patrick was.  You gave them his name.

      • A touching mother/daughter moment.  But you still leave you the part where you tell your mom Patick is innocent, and she does nothing.

      [Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... I told her that I had signed the witness statements out of confusion and exhaustion, that as soon as I had a few minutes by myself, I realized that what I’d said under pressure might be wrong. “I thought I could fix my mistake by explaining it in writing,” I said. “Instead, they arrested me.”

      • Seriously?  Did you actually read those witness statements?

      • The first time you are quite clear you left Raffaele to meet Patrick, and he killed her. (but you omit it from your book)

      • The second one you say you you were there when Patrick killed Meredith, Raffaele might be there (but you omit it from your book)

      • The third one you say that your mind is making things up, but that you might have been there with Patrick

      • You also didn’t include your November 4th ‘‘mass email’‘, which contradicts most of what the other statements say.

      • And of course, these ‘‘written statements’’ contradict everything you said in all your other police statements.

      • So, how does you writing statements do anything but muddy the waters?  Unless that is your goal…

      [Chapter 15, Page 175] ‘’ ... The immense burden I’d been carrying by myself lifted. I felt light-headed with relief. It was the first time since before my arrest that I’d talked to someone who knew I was innocent, who believed in me. I had longed to hear that for days—from anyone! Of course it came from the most important person in my life….’‘

      • Umm… did you forget this passage from chapter 13, page 122?

      ‘’ I tried to answer, to say, “I’m okay,” but I couldn’t stop the surge of tears. Lupa asked her colleague to unlock the door and came inside. She squatted in front of me and took my cold hands in her large ones and rubbed them. “You have to stay strong,” she said. “Everything will be figured out soon.”

      • So is Agente Lupa the first person who ‘‘knew’’ you were innocent, or was it your Mom?

      • And for someone ‘‘keeping notes’’ in prison, how did you miss something like this?

      [Chapter 15, Page 176] ‘’ ... Since the hearing, I’d realized that she couldn’t mamma-bear me out of prison. “Now I’ll have to stay here until the prosecutor figures out there isn’t any evidence against me—that I wasn’t at the scene of Meredith’s murder.”

      Mom squeezed my hands reassuringly. “I promise everything’s going to be okay, Amanda. It’s not your fault that the police scared you—you tried to fix things.”

      • No, the jails would likely be empty if ‘‘Mamma-Bearing’’ could get people out.

      • Stay until the prosecutor figures out there isn’t any evidence?  You gave false alibis, had your alibi pulled, make a Susan Smith style false accusation, let slip several personal details of the crime, and wrote statements saying you were there.  There is evidence against you.

      • And ‘‘wait until the prosecutor figures out’‘, as in what, identifies Guede from the traces you left?

      • Yes, Amanda did try to ‘‘fix things’‘.  Patrick was hauled out in handcuffs because of it.

      [Chapter 15, Page 177] ‘’ ... “I’ll be back in a few days—as soon as they let me,” Mom said. “Carlo and Luciano will come talk to you again, and your dad is flying over. This is all a big misunderstanding, and it will get fixed. We’ll be here with you for as long as it takes. We’ll get through this together. I love you so much.”

      • Carlo (Vedova) and Luciano (Ghirga)?  Wasn’t there someone named Giancarlo Costa who represented you for a while?  Is he still left out?  You remember the topics you and Raffaele discussed the night Meredith was murdered, but not who your lawyers were at the time?

      • ’‘It will get fixed’‘?  Uh… are you looking through the ‘‘business Judge’’ directory?

      [Chapter 15, Page 177] ‘’ ... My imprisonment didn’t change the dynamic between Mom and Dad. They didn’t suddenly seem like close friends. They didn’t show affection for each other. They both focused on me. But it made me swell with love for my parents to see that even though they were marked by their failed marriage, they were able to create a united front.

      They’d arranged this visit together. They were talking to Luciano and Carlo together…’‘

      • Still no Giancarlo Costa?

      • Well, you have screwed up your family’s life, but at least you gave them some purpose.  Kudos.

      • No affection?  What, you’d think they are divorced or something.

      • So, when are we going to hear about dad hiring Marriott Gogerty?

      [Chapter 15, Page 178] ‘’ ... Capanne made eight hours available for visitors each month—on Tuesdays and Saturdays—but the prison allowed each prisoner only six visits. This infuriated my parents, who wanted to be there each time the prison was open to outsiders. It made me crazy, too. Eventually Carlo and Luciano were able to arrange eight colloqui a month, and sometimes nine, by pleading with the prison authorities that my family had to come so far to see me. Even with the bumped-up hours, the amount of time I was able to spend with the people I loved was such a tiny fraction of the thousands of hours I was locked up, trapped among strangers…’‘

      • So, the claims that you got special privileges .... you are already getting extra visiting time.

      • Yes, visiting generally is a lot less time than the rest of the day.  That is why it is called visiting time.

      [Chapter 15, Page 179] ‘’ ... Without them, I think I would have had a complete breakdown. I would not have been able to survive my imprisonment.

      Before my parents left together that first time, Mom grasped my hands again, leaned toward me, and, tears brimming, said urgently, “Amanda, I’d do anything to take your place. Your job now is to take care of yourself. I’m worried for you being here.”

      Her words underscored what we all knew: that while my parents had my back, they couldn’t take care of me from day to day. I had to navigate prison alone. For other prisoners, the key to survival was to find someone to bond with, and that person would protect you and guide you through. But there was no one like me, no one I could confide in, no one whom I could trust to take me under her wing…’‘

      • According to claims from ex-prisoners, and guards, you survived quite well, never cried, never needed medication, were never depressed

      • Also, according to the same sources, you avoided making friends, preferring to enjoy your reading.  Comments?

      • Did you make any complaints when the U.S. State Department visited you?

      [Chapter 16, Page 181] ‘’ ... In spite of all that had happened, I believed that the police, the prosecutor, a judge —some official—would look at the facts and realize how wrong they’d been. They’d be jolted by the obvious: that I was incapable of murder. Surely someone would see that there was no evidence. My belief that my imprisonment was temporary was all that kept me from being overwhelmed. I guess my faith in eventual justice is what psychologists call a coping mechanism…’‘

      • Wrong?  You summarized the Matteini Report fairly well, and there is a lot to keep you there.

      • So, if someone is ‘‘incapable of murder’‘, do we let her go, all evidence to the contrary?

      • Now you say ‘‘surely they would see there is no evidence’‘?

      • This is very ‘‘Ted Simon-like’’  Your Honour, there is no evidence, but if there was, she is incapable of murder.

      • Faith?  More like delusion, or things you mind makes up.

      [Chapter 16, Page 182] ‘’ ... In the days after Meredith’s death I’d insisted on staying in Perugia. Back then, going home meant defeat. But my wants flipped with my arrest. Now the only thing that mattered was to reclaim my life in Seattle. I considered what I would do once my ordeal was over—how I’d rebuild myself, whether I’d live with Mom or find a place of my own, whether I’d go back to school or get a job, how much I wanted to reunite with the people I loved…’‘

      • Going home meant defeat? How, as in fleeing rather than fooling the police?

      • Okay, so since fooling them didn’t work,. now you want to go back to your old life?

      • How to rebuild yourself?  Well, you’ll probably qualify for social security by the time you get out.

      • How to reunite?  Here’s a tip: Don’t stab them.

      [Chapter 16, Page 182] ‘’ ... A guard gave me an order form for groceries and other basics—ranging from salt to sewing needles—and a libretto, an eight-and-a-half-by-eleven-inch piece of paper folded in half with a handwritten spreadsheet inside to track what I spent. I had two hundred euros—about three hundred dollars—in my prison account from the purse/book bag they’d impounded upon my arrival. The order form was divided into three columns for the name of the item, the code number, and the quantity. Gufa badgered me to buy her a camp stove and a coffeemaker, but I refused to order so much as a carton of milk. I’d be gone before it reached its expiration date…’‘

      • Yes, you did have a lot of money on you. Coincidently, Meredith was missing a lot of money.

      • Gufa badgered you?  Hmm… does she speak English, or are you fluent in Italian yet?

      [Chapter 16, Page 183] ‘’ ... Getting me out of jail was the first priority whenever I talked to Carlo and Luciano. Their take was that when the media frenzy died down in a couple of weeks, a judge would probably put me under house arrest, either with my family or in a religious community. Then, when the prosecution saw they had no evidence against me, they would let me go…’‘

      • Still no Giancarlo? Hmmmm.

      • So, the media attention influences how courts rule?  Seems you tried that in the U.S.

      • You are charged with sexual assault and murder, and the judge will ‘‘probably put you under house arrest’‘?

      • So, you still think that the prosecution is based on nothing?  Surely you would scream out to be heard, even in Capanne.  Funny, inmates said that you refused to ever talk about Meredith and your case.

      [Chapter 16, Page 186] ‘’ ... Early on, I started keeping a journal, which I titled “Il mio diario del prigione”—“My Prison Diary”—on the cover:

      My friend was murdered. My roommate, my friend. She was beautiful, smart, fun, and caring and she was murdered. Everyone I know is devastated for her, but we are also all at odds. We are angry. We want justice. But against who? We all want to know, but we all don’t . . .

      Now there’s the sound of women wailing through bars and the sounds of wheels of the medicine carts rolling down the hard floors of the echoing halls.’‘

      • Your ‘‘friend’’ was murdered?  Do you ever mention Meredith by name?

      • ’‘She was beautiful, smart, fun, caring’‘?  Are you rehashing your November 4th, 2007 mass email?

      • “everyone is devastated for her, but we are also at odds?  We want justice. But against who?”  Probably whoever murdered her.

      • “We all want to know, but we all don’t…’’  Well, the murderer(s) probably don’t want that, but everyone else sure does

      • Yes, people wailing can be so annoying.  Can’t they just get on with their lives?

      [Chapter 16, Page 186] ‘’ ... But I spent most of my time sitting on my bed wondering what was happening beyond the sixty-foot-high walls topped with coiled razor wire. What were my parents and family and friends doing and thinking? What was happening with the investigation? How long would it take to examine the forensic evidence that would clear me? ...’‘

      • You know, there are many kinds of non-forensic evidence, and they don’t clear you.

      • The evidence would clear you?  You mean Rudy’s handprint?

      [Chapter 16, Page 186] ‘’ ... Underneath every thought there was a bigger, louder one looping through my head. How could I have been so weak when I was interrogated? How did I lose my grip on the truth? Why didn’t I stand up to the police? I’d failed myself, Meredith, Patrick, Raffaele…’‘

      • You failed Meredith by betraying her trust as a roommate, then killing her and robbing her.

      • You failed Patrick by falsely accusing someone decent enough to give you a job, even without a work visa.

      • You failed Raffaele by dragging him into your mess with Meredith, and having him help you out

      • You failed yourself by going on a self destructive path of alcohol, drugs and sex, finally murder.

      • The police didn’t fail you.  All they did was pick up the pieces.

      [Chapter 16, Page 192] ‘’ ... But sometimes what I thought was a kind overture would take an ugly turn. I was required to meet with Vice-Comandante Argirò every night at 8 P.M. in his office—the last order before lights out at 9 P.M. I thought he wanted to help me and to understand what had happened at the questura, but almost immediately I saw that he didn’t care.

      When I ran into him in the hallway he’d hover over me, his face inches from mine, staring, sneering. “It’s a shame you’re here,” he’d say, “because you are such a pretty girl,” and “Be careful what you eat—you have a nice, hourglass figure, and you don’t want to ruin it like the other people here.”

      • This makes for an entertaining read, but did you report it formally?  Even after you left prison?

      [Chapter 16, Page 193] ‘’ ... At first when he brought up sex I pretended I didn’t understand. “I’m sorry—Mi dispiace,” I’d say, shaking my head. But every night after dinner, I felt a knot in the pit of my stomach. I had no choice but to meet with him. After about a week of this behavior, I told my parents what Argirò was saying. My dad said, “Amanda, he shouldn’t be doing that! You’ve got to tell someone!”

      • You know, I might be inclined to believe that this happened, making you uncomfortable ....

      • If you didn’t write in graphic detail about your ‘‘campaign for casual sex’‘

      • If you didn’t write about Meredith’s sex life, and questions about whether she liked anal.

      • If you didn’t write in graphic detail about strip searches.

      • If you didn’t write about how you thought everyone was coming onto you.

      • If you didn’t post your rape story ‘‘Baby Brother’‘.

      • It seems you really enjoy writing and taking about sex.  Makes me doubt this whole section.

      [Chapter 16, Page 194] ‘’ ... Silently, I rehearsed what I would say to him: “These conversations repulse me.” But when we were face-to-face, I balked, settling on something more diplomatic—“Your questions make me uncomfortable,” I said.
      “Why?” he asked.

      I thought, Because you’re an old perv. Instead I said, “I’m not ashamed of my sexuality, but it’s my own business, and I don’t like to talk about it.”

      • Really? Amanda, let me introduce you to a book called ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’‘.  This woman publishes a memoir about her supposed wrongful imprisonment and conviction in Italy.  Rather than provide a clear account of what happened to her roomate, she describes in great detail random encounters with Cristiano (or was it a drug dealer named Frederico)? Mirko, Bobby, and later Raffaele.  She also writes (publishes), speculation about the sex lives of the women she lives with.  She also goes on about a bunny vibrator she keeps.  She also writes in detail about being strip searched.

      • And this guy is the creepy perv?

      [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.”

      • Seriously?  This type of treatment of a prisoner is illegal (male or female), and regardless of the country.

      • Your lawyers, if they knew this was going on, would be legally obligated to report it.  Why didn’t they?

      • Ghirga and Vedova ‘‘know’’ that you are being preyed on, but don’t make a formal complaint?  Or is this like the ‘‘beating’’ from Rita Ficarra, which Ghirga denies ever happened?

      [Chapter 16, Page 195] ‘’ ... One night, Argirò asked me if I dreamed about sex, if I fantasized about it.

      Finally I got up my courage. I took a deep breath. “For the last time,” I said, my voice pitched, “No! Why are you constantly asking me about sex?”

      • Are we sure the roles are not reversed here?

      [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….’

      • If this were actually true, it would be (yet another) sexual assault, and abuse of power.  Did you report it? No? Even tell your lawyers? No?

      [Chapter 17, Page 197] ‘’ ... He pushed a printout of an Italian news article toward me. It took me a minute to translate the headline: “Murder Weapon Found—With DNA of Victim and Arrested Suspect Knox.” Beneath was a fuzzy photograph of a kitchen knife and the words “A knife has been found in Sollecito’s apartment with Knox’s DNA on the handle and the victim’s DNA on the blade. Investigators believe it to be the murder weapon.” That doesn’t make sense. I must have read it wrong.

      I made myself start over, slowly rereading the story, checking each word as I went. By the end I knew language wasn’t the barrier.

      Argirò glared at me cruelly.  “Do you have anything to say?” he asked.  “It’s impossible!” I blurted. “I didn’t kill Meredith! I’m innocent! I don’t care what the article says! It’s wrong!”

      “It’s proof,” Argirò said, smirking. “Your fingerprints. Her DNA.”  “I don’t know anything about a knife,” I said. “You can’t prove that I’m guilty when I’m innocent.”

      The short conversation ended in a stalemate. I glowered at him.  “Why don’t you go back to your cell and think about what you want to say,” Argirò said….’‘

      • Wow, you ‘‘barely speak the language’‘, yet you are reading newspaper articles, and answering questions in Italian?

      • Um… language was NEVER the barrier, only your lack of humanity.

      [Chapter 17, Page 198] ‘’ ... Investigators were claiming that I’d been responsible for holding Meredith down while either Patrick or Raffaele cut her throat, that I’d pressed so hard on Meredith’s face during the attack I’d left an imprint of my fingers on her chin. The police said that because the bruises were small, they’d come from a woman’s fingers, even though that’s not how it works. “It isn’t like a fingerprint,” Carlo explained. “You can’t tell the size of the hand by the size of the bruise. It depends on the circumstances and the pressure.”

      • Still waiting for Giancarlo Costa (who was at Knox’s December 17th questioning) to make his entrance.

      • Okay, last time I will ask, what language were you and Luciano, and ‘‘Carlo’’ speaking in?

      [Chapter 17, Page 198] ‘’ ... This was another example of the prosecution misinterpreting evidence so it would put me at the murder scene and discounting the things that didn’t fit into their explanation. They had done the same thing a few days before, when they circulated the idea that only a woman would have covered Meredith’s ravaged body with a blanket. A few years later I learned that this is something first-time killers also often do. The detectives didn’t mention how improbable it is for a woman to commit a violent crime, especially against another woman. Nor did they acknowledge that I didn’t fit the profile of a violent woman. I’d never been in a gang; I had no history of violence…’‘

      • Misinterpreting evidence?  You have always said there was no evidence.  Which is it?

      • So, the prosecutors have this silly notion that a woman might show compassion by covering Meredith?  Guess you’ll show them.

      • Improbable or not, the police have to go on the evidence, not what bias and ‘‘statistics’’ say.  Women do harm other women.

      • You don’t have to fit the ‘‘profile’’ to be found guilty if there is evidence.

      • You don’t have to be a gangbanger to kill.

      • Rock throwing riot aside, you don’t have to have a violent past to kill once.

      • Why are you so obsessed with how you appear, and what kind of ‘‘profile’’ you have?

      [Chapter 17, Page 199] ‘’ ... In mid-November the press announced that the striped sweater I’d worn the night of the murder was missing, implying I’d gotten rid of it to hide bloodstains. In truth I’d left it on top of my bed when I came home to change on the morning of November 2. The investigators found it in January 2008—in the same spot where I’d taken it off. It was captured in photos taken of my room, which my lawyers saw among the official court documents deposited as the investigation progressed. The prosecution quietly dropped the “missing sweater” as an element in the investigation without correcting the information publicly. Convinced that arguing the case in the media would dilute our credibility in the courtroom, Carlo and Luciano let the original story stand…’‘

      • Well, most killers WOULD get rid of blood stained clothing.

      • Hmm…. you don’t remember details of that night, but you are certain of the shirt you were wearing?

      • Actually, it wasn’t found. The prosecution contends that to this day, the top was never found.

      • Carlo and Luciano let it stand in the media?  Seems they let it stand in court too.

      [Chapter 17, Page 199] ‘’ ... The police leaked this to the local press, and it rippled out from there. If true, it would have contradicted my alibi: I hadn’t left Raffaele’s apartment that night. The local headlines in those days often read “Amanda Smentita”—“Amanda Found in a Lie.” It bolstered the prosecution’s characterization of me as a depraved, deceitful person capable of murder…’‘

      • You are deliberately misconstruing what was said.

      • Being found in a lie doesn’t mean you are a depraved, deceitful person capable of murder, but it does throw into question other things you have said and lead the police to at least question why you are lying.

      • Why do you insist that everyone is trying to portray you as a monster or as depraved? No one did that but you.

      [Chapter 17, Page 200] ‘’ ... The press reported police claims that Raffaele and I had destroyed the hard drives on four computers—his, mine, Filomena’s, and Meredith’s. False…’‘

      • Okay, humour me, what reason did the police say you did this for?  Unless you were emailing murder plans to each other, it could not possibly be related.

      [Chapter 17, Page 200] ‘’ ... Later, when a computer expert examined the computers, he discovered that the police had fried the hard drives. Whether it was on purpose or out of extraordinary incompetence, I never learned. But it’s hard to see how they could inadvertently have wiped out four computers, one after the other. My computer wouldn’t have given me an alibi. All investigators would have found was evidence of Meredith’s and my friendship—pictures from the Eurochocolate festival and of our hanging out at home.

      Journalists reported that the police had confiscated “incriminating” receipts for bleach, supposedly from the morning of November 2. False…’‘

      • So, you suspect the police destroyed exculpatory evidence?  Okay.

      • Your computer wouldn’t give you an alibi, but Raffaele’s would have.  Remember?  He told police that you asked him to lie, and he spent time on the computer while you went out.

      • And while it wouldn’t give YOU an alibi, would it have given Raffaele?

      • Pictures of you and Meredith?  Yet, in the photo section you include a press photo of her.  You aren’t in any photo with Meredith.

      • Seriously?  You claim that ‘‘bleach receipts’‘, without any listing of bleach were used as evidence?

      [Chapter 17, Page 201] ‘’ ... A knife from Raffaele’s kitchen with DNA from both Meredith and me wasn’t possible. In the week I’d known him, I’d used Raffaele’s chef’s knives to cook with, but we had never taken them out of his kitchen…’‘

      • Yet, Raffaele told a story about Meredith coming to his house and cutting her hand while cooking.  He later admitted it was made up.

      • Raffaele also said (in Honor Bound), that he still had visions of Meredith cutting her hand while cooking at his flat.

      • Impossible, why?  Bleach does a better job than that?

      • They weren’t taken from his kitchen?  Was Meredith murdered at Raffaele’s apartment?

      [Chapter 17, Page 202] ‘’ ... I couldn’t believe what they were asking me. “No! It’s impossible!” I shrieked, my body starting to shake. “The police have made a mistake. I never left Raffaele’s that night, I never took a knife from his apartment, and Meredith never visited me there. I didn’t have any reason to be angry with Meredith. And even if we’d had a fight I would have talked to her, not killed her!”

      • Raffaele originally said you two were at a friend’s party.

      • Raffaele said you left his apartment in his November 5, 2007 statement

      • Raffaele claimed he was on his computer (alone), while you were out.

      • Raffaele refused to confirm you alibi at your 2009 trial.

      • Raffaele said you left his apartment in his July 2014 press conference

      • Raffaele said on Porta a Porta, February 2015, that you were not with him that night.

      • You said that you left Raffaele’s went to meet Patrick, and he killed Meredith.

      • You later said that you were at your apartment, Patrick killed Meredith, and Raffaele might be there.

      • You later said your mind was making things up, but you think Patrick might have killed Meredith.

      • You might have talked in a fight, but what if she caught you stealing her rent money?

      • Can’t understand why no one seems to believe you.

      [Chapter 17, Page 202] ‘’ ... Investigators apparently had confiscated the knife—a chef’s knife with a black plastic handle and a six-and-a-half-inch blade—when they searched Raffaele’s apartment after our arrest. It was the only knife they considered out of every location they’d impounded, the top knife in a stack of other knives in a drawer that housed the carrot peeler and the salad tongs. I’d probably used it to slice tomatoes when Raffaele and I made dinner the night Meredith was killed.

      The officer who confiscated the knife claimed that he’d been drawn to it by “investigative intuition.” It had struck him as suspiciously clean, as though we’d scrubbed it. When he chose it, he didn’t even know the dimensions of Meredith’s stab wounds….’‘

      • You are again being disingenuous.  The knife from the crime (while soaked in blood), made a very distinctive impression on the bed.  Police were looking for a knife that could have left that stain.  They knew what they were looking for.

      [Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... The knife was a game changer for my lawyers, who now feared that the prosecution was mishandling evidence and building an unsubstantiated case against me. Carlo and Luciano went from saying that the lack of evidence would prove my innocence to warning me that the prosecution was out to get me, and steeling me for a fight. “There’s no counting on them anymore,” Carlo said. “We’re up against a witch hunt. But it’s going to be okay.”

      • You think the police are framing you?  Pot, meet kettle.

      [Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... I was choked with fear. The knife was my first inkling that the investigation was not going as I’d expected. I didn’t accept the possibility that the police were biased against me. I believed that the prosecution would eventually figure out that it wasn’t the murder weapon and that I wasn’t the murderer. In retrospect I understand that the police were determined to make the evidence fit their theory of the crime, rather than the other way around, and that theory hinged on my involvement. But something in me refused to see this then…’

      • The knife was the first inkling the investigation was not going as you expected?  You mean, they should have arrested Rudy by now?

      • And the first inkling?  Wasn’t being taken to Capanne in handcuffs an earlier inkling?

      • The police were not biased against you.  You and Raffaele told many lies.  You falsely accused an innocent person to divert attention.  Forensic evidence is piling up.  There is no bias here.

      • Police would figure out it wasn’t the murder weapon?  Funny, in your May 2014 with Chris Cuomo, you disputed that knife as being the murder weapon.  How do you know so much more than the police and the courts?  Right, you know which knife you used.

      [Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... My journal must have been what they were looking for, because Meredith’s British girlfriends testified after my arrest that I’d been writing in it in the waiting room at the questura. I had done so to calm myself, but soon the contents were leaked to the press. In it, they found, among other things, my comments about wanting to compose a song in tribute to Meredith. (Ironically, I would later get a bill for the translation of the journal into Italian.) ...’‘

      • Yes, after my ‘‘friend’’ is murdered, I feel like writing how I would kill for a pizza too.

      • You received a fine after you were convicted, not the same thing.

      [Chapter 17, Page 204] ‘’ ... The officer shook his head and laughed derisively. “Another story? Another lie?” he scoffed. He looked at me as if I were the most vile, worthless thing he’d ever laid eyes on. No one had ever stared at me with so much hatred. To him, I was a lying, remorseless murderer. I heaved back great waves of anger but waited to get back to my cell before I broke down at the ugliness of it all—my friend being dead, my being in prison, the police following a cold and irrational trail because they had nothing better…’‘

      • You seem to think that everyone has a nasty impression of you.  Why exactly?

      • Why do you think he made the assumption about you being remorseless?

      • The police had nothing better?  So they framed you to make their lives easier?

      • False alibis, false accusation, inside knowledge of the crime, statements placing you at the scene, DNA evidence ... in a weird way you are right, Amanda, they don’t have anything better on anyone else.

      [Chapter 18, Page 205] ‘’ ... My Italian was still elementary enough that if I wasn’t paying close attention, I couldn’t grasp much of what was being said. I embraced my new routine—do as many sit-ups as I could manage, write, read, repeat—as if ignoring the reports would make me immune to them, that they couldn’t hurt me. I convinced myself that whatever awful things the media were saying about me were irrelevant to the case. It doesn’t matter, I told myself. But in my heart I knew it did…’‘

      • Your Italian was still elementary enough?  Wow, you seem to unlearn it faster than you learn it

      [Chapter 18, Page 206] ‘’ ... I felt violated, indignant that journalists could say or imply anything they wanted, that they could use my photo as a symbol of evil. I now understood the belief in some tribal cultures that having your picture taken robs you of your soul….’‘

      • You felt violated? I wonder what Meredith felt, or was she already dead?

      • You are charged with calunnia, for making false accusations, and you claim the media can say anything?  Pot, meet kettle.

      • No, they used your actions as a symbol of evil.

      • You write a lurid account of your random sex, and you feel violated by the media?  Bull$h1t.

      [Chapter 18, Page 207] ‘’ ... Overnight my old nickname became my new persona. I was now known to the world as Foxy Knoxy or, in Italian, Volpe Cattiva—literally, “Wicked Fox.” “Foxy Knoxy” was necessary to the prosecution’s case. A regular, friendly, quirky schoolgirl couldn’t have committed these crimes. A wicked fox would be easier to convict.

      They were convinced that Meredith had been raped—they’d found her lying on the floor half undressed, a pillow beneath her hips—and that the sexual violence had escalated to homicidal violence.

      They theorized that the break-in was faked.  To make me someone whom a jury would see as capable of orchestrating the rape and murder of my friend, they had to portray me as a sexually deviant, volatile, hate-filled, amoral, psychopathic killer. So they called me Foxy Knoxy. That innocent nickname summed up all their ideas about me…’‘

      • Your nickname is not what convicted you.  Mountains of evidence (which you deny exist), are what convicted you.

      • Woman, half naked, stabbed to death?  Rape and murder is a reasonable suspicion.

      • Did you elaborate on WHY the police thought the break in was staged?  Nothing taken, no glass outside, no evidence of a climb, glass ON TOP of the ransacked items…

      • They don’t have to portray you as anything.  They simply presented evidence.

      • The prosecution did not try to demonstrate you were amoral and psychopathic, just that you were involved in certain crimes

      • They called you ‘‘Foxy Knoxy’‘? That was your MySpace name.

      Posted on 08/28/15 at 10:00 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
      Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followupNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (19)

      Tuesday, August 25, 2015

      Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #3

      Posted by Chimera



      Also Implacably Nasty… Click here to go straight to Comments.

      1. Overview Of This Post

      My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

      Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith.  And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does it muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

      I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here.  Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition.  Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107.

      2. Dissection Of Pages 107 to 168

      [Chapter 10 Page 107] ‘’ ... That afternoon at Raffaele’s, I got a text from one of Meredith’s friends—a student from Poland—telling me about a candlelight memorial service for Meredith that night. Everyone was supposed to meet downtown, on Corso Vannucci, at 8 P.M. and walk in a procession to the Duomo. I kept wondering about what I should do. I wanted to be there but couldn’t decide if it was a good idea for me to go to such a public event. I was sure the people I ran into would ask me what I knew about the murder. In the end my decision was made for me—Raffaele had somewhere else to be, and I wouldn’t have considered going alone. It didn’t occur to me that people would later read my absence as another indication of guilt.

      At around 9 P.M. Raffaele and I went to a neighbor’s apartment for a late dinner.  Miserable and unable to sit still, I plucked absentmindedly at his friend’s ukulele, propped on a shelf in the living room. At about ten o’clock, while we were eating,Raffaele’s phone rang. “Pronto,” Raffaele said, picking up…’‘

      • You get a text telling you there is a vigil for your murdered ‘‘friend’‘, and you aren’t sure what you should do?

      • Yes, people might ask about the case, but you had no problem refusing to talk to your classmates about it, correct?

      • Did Raffaele really have somewhere to be?  Why couldn’t you go alone?  You could go with the Polish student who texted you.

      • Or did you simply not want to be confronted by anyone with what really happened, or not respect the victim?

      [Chapter 10, Page17] ‘’... Raffaele said, “We’re just eating dinner. Would you mind if I finished first?”  That was a bad idea, too.

      While we cleared the table, Raffaele and I chatted quickly about what I should do while he was at the police station. I was terrified to be alone, even at his place, and uneasy about hanging out with someone I didn’t know. I could quickly organize myself to stay overnight with Laura or Filomena, but that seemed so complicated—and unnecessary. Tomorrow, when my mom arrived, this wouldn’t be a question we’d have to discuss.

      “I’m sure it’s going to be quick,” Raffaele said.  I said, “I’ll just come with you.”  Did the police know I’d show up, or were they purposefully separating Raffaele and me? When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside, that I’d have to wait for Raffaele in the car. I begged them to change their minds. I said, “I’m afraid to be by myself in the dark.”

      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. He said, “As long as you’re here, do you mind if I ask you some questions?”

      I was still clueless, still thinking I was helping the police, still unable or unwilling to recognize that I was a suspect. But as the next hours unfolded, I slowly came to understand that the police were trying to get something out of me, that they wouldn’t stop until they had it.

      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.”As I was running through the list of male callers at No. 7, Via della Pergola, I suddenly remembered Rudy Guede for the first time. I’d met him only briefly. I said “Oh, and there’s this guy—I don’t know his name or his number—all I know is that heplays basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced Meredith and me to him in Piazza IV Novembre. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.

      • ”The logic here is a bit convoluted.  Raffaele is called to clear up discrepancies in his alibi, and you assume it is an elaborate plot to lure YOU in?

      • You claim the police thought you were a suspect, yet you had to beg them to let you in, and to stay when you were told to go home to bed?

      • Who was the “silver haired officer”? Did he even exist? There was trial testimony proving this untrue, that Rita Ficarra kept an eye on you and eventually suggest you list possible perps.

      • If you had just been eating very late, and you were brought refreshments, then why complain later about not having been given anything to eat?

      • You admit, once again, that you knew who Rudy Guede was.  Again, why did you say in your December 2013 email to Judge Nencini, that you had never met him?

      • You can see why lying to a judge about not ever meeting your co-accused might be suspicious?

      • You later claim that Guede is a drug dealer.  With what proof? If Guede was a drug dealer, why would he not break into the bottom floor (where the drugs were)?

      • Why did you bring your college homework to the police station?  Did you know Raffaele could be a long time in there?

      • You definitely worked on a list of men who came by the apartment.  In fact you produced a list of 7 names that included: Rudy Guede, Patrick, Shaky, Spyros and Jude.  You drew maps to where they lived.

      • Why did that never appear in your book? How long did this list take to make?  Didn’t you only stop because Raffaele withdrew his alibi for you?

      • Did you ever name Rudy, Patrick, Shaky, Spyros or Jude before? Or as the next hours unfolded?

      • How long was it exactly before Raffaele ‘‘took away your alibi’‘? Just shortly before you finished your first statement at 1:45, right?

      [Chapter 11, Page 125] ‘’ ... I signed my second “spontaneous declaration” at 5:45 A.M., just as the darkness was beginning to soften outside the small window on the far side of the interrogation room…’‘

      • “spontaneous declaration” ? There is no obvious reason for the quotation marks.  It WAS spontaneous made at your own request.  Granted Cassation gave you the benefit of the doubt in excluding it form the main trial, it was completely your own decision to write it.

      [Chapter 11, Page 125] ‘’ ... The room emptied in a rush. Except for Rita Ficarra, who sat at the wooden desk where she’d been all night, I was alone in the predawn hush. Just a few more hours and I’ll see Mom, I thought. We’ll spend the night in a hotel.

      I asked permission to push two metal folding chairs together, balled myself into the fetal position, and passed out, spent. I probably didn’t sleep longer than an hour before doubt pricked me awake. Oh my God, what if I sent the police in the wrong direction? They’ll be looking for the wrong person while the real killer escapes. I sat up crying, straining to remember what had happened on the night of Meredith’s murder. Had I really met Patrick? Had I even been at the villa? Did I make all that up? I was too exhausted, too rattled, to think clearly. I was gripped by uncertainty about what I’d said to the police and the pubblico ministero. I tried to get Ficarra’s attention. “Um, scusi,” I murmured tentatively. “I’m not sure what I told you is right.” “The memories will come back with time,” Ficarra answered mechanically, barely raising her eyes to look at me. “You have to think hard.”

      • Putting the chairs together for you to rest was actually Rita Ficarra’s idea. She and other investigators were trying to calm you down. She never brushed you off as you claim.

      • Prior to this Dr Mignini chaired a hearing specifically to inform you that you were being held and charged and you should say no more without a lawyer - though you did talk and did write statements at 5:45 and noon.

      • The evidence he listed against you was very substantial and was summarised at length in the reports of the Matteini and Ricciarelli hearings and the sharp refusal of the Supreme Court to allow house arrest.

      • What language were you speaking in?  You say that you are alone except for Rita Ficarra and she speaks no English, and you ‘‘virtually have no’’ Italian, and she testified she called for a translator as no progress was made.

      • You are trying to ‘‘frame’’ it as doubt, but you did send the police on a wild goose chase naming numerous new suspects, and you did help your accomplice, Rudy Guede, escape.

      • Just so we are clear: Did you speak with Dr Mignini prior to your second spontaneous declaration only, or prior to the first as well, though he is conclusively proven to have not been there?

      • Your ‘‘account’’ of the fictional questioning by Dr Mignini is so detailed.  How is it you have such ‘‘vague’’ recollections about everything else?

      • You fell asleep?  Was it exhaustion, or knowing the anticipation was over?  Ask any American or Canadian police officer.  Guilty perps who are arrested have no trouble falling asleep.  But the innocent ones can’t.

      [Chapter 11, Page 126] ‘’ ... I tried to weave the images that had flashed in my mind the night before into a coherent sequence. But my memories—of Patrick, the villa, Meredith’s screams—were disjointed, like pieces of different jigsaw puzzles that had ended up in the same box by mistake. They weren’t ever meant to fit together. I’d walked by the basketball court near the villa every day. I’d said, “It was Patrick,” because I saw his face. I imagined him in his brown jacket because that’s what he usually wore. The more I realized how fragmented these images were, the closer I came to understanding that they weren’t actual memories….’‘

      • You are right in one sense.  They were not memories.  Various courts all concluded that they were lies.

      • ’‘I imagined him’‘?  Really, when you are faced with the loss of your alibi you start imagining people?

      • Memories ... of Meredith screaming… You were the first to claim this and it was then was corroborated by several others, strong proof that you were there.

      • So you have memories of Meredith screaming, you walked by the basketball court [where Rudy plays] everyday, and you imagine Patrick’s face?

      [Chapter 11, Page 126] ‘’ ... Suddenly my cell phone, which had been lying on the desk since it was waved in my face, lit up and started ringing. Ficarra ignored this. “Can I please answer it?” I begged.

      “I’m sure it’s my mom; I’m supposed to meet her at the train station. She’ll freak out if I don’t answer.”  “No,” Ficarra said. “You cannot have your phone back. Your phone is evidence.”

      • This is all made up. There is no proof this exchange took place. No call came through. Nobody took your phone, you yourself passed it across several times. You waved ii before the cops.

      • Again, what language are you and Rita Ficarra talking in? Was the translator now there?

      [Chapter 11, Page 127] ‘’ ... Around 2 P.M. on Tuesday—it was still the same day, although it felt as if it should be two weeks later—Ficarra took me to the cafeteria. I was starving. After the interrogation was over they brought me a cup of tea, but this was the first food or drink I’d been offered since Raffaele and I had arrived at the questura around 10:30 P.M. Monday. With my sneakers confiscated, I trailed her down the stairs wearing only my socks. She turned and said, “Sorry I hit you. I was just trying to help you remember the truth.”

      • There is no proof this exchange took place. You were not hit ever by the police. Even your own lawyers confirmed this. The police had no need, and no time after you did the list and maps.

      • Minute to minute it is known what happened, this came out at trial.  In fact, you currently face more calunnia charges for this false accusation among others.

      • This was the first food you had had since last night?  In the 2009 trial, the police testified you were fed and brought drinks several times. You admitted this at trial.

      [Chapter 11, Page 127] ‘’ ... I was still too confused to know what the truth was….’‘

      • That reads very evasive and deceptive. If you were so confused then, and at trial, how is it you have such perfect recall now?

      [Chapter 11, Page 128] ‘’ ... I didn’t want them to think I was a bad person. I wanted them to see me as I was —as Amanda Knox, who loved her parents, who did well in school, who respected authority, and whose only brush with the law had been a ticket for violating a noise ordinance during a college party I’d thrown with my housemates in Seattle. I wanted to help the police track down the person who’d murdered my friend…’‘

      • This is not how anyone in Perugia saw you. It reads like you are a lawyer trying to pitch for leniency at a trial.  “Your Honor, really Ms. Knox is a good person.  She does well in school, loves her family, and her only prior is for making noise.  Please ignore the evidence about the sexual assault and stabbing.”

      • Whether you love your parents is irrelevant. Whether you got good grades or not is irrelevant. Whether you respected authority is irrelevant. The ticket may have been your only police involvement, but you left out the rock throwing which was part of the offense.

      [Chapter 11, Page 128] ‘’ ... What I did not know was that the police and I had very different ideas about where I stood. I saw myself as being helpful, someone who, having lived with Meredith, could answer the detectives’ questions. I would do that as long as they wanted. But the police saw me as a killer without a conscience. It would be a long time before I figured out that our presumptions were exactly the opposite of each other’s….’‘

      • As they testified, the police thought no such thing. At most several of them thought you might be withholding vital information, based on what they overheard, but they were still pursuing numerous other leads.

      • You three statements smacked of desperation given you were really treated well. It doesn’t help that you said you went out alone, or deliberately vague about Raffaele possibly also being there.

      • In previous days the police merely asked you for some routine background about yourself and Meredith.  They also asked where you were at the time, which is standard procedure.  You would only have to do that ‘‘as long as they wanted’’ if you were either lying or being uncooperative.  Remember, you complained (and in this book) that the questioning was excessive, though others were questioned too.

      [Chapter 11, Page 129] ‘’ ... “We need to take you into custody,” she said. “Just for a couple of days—for bureaucratic reasons.”

      • This is a complete fabrication. There is no proof this exchange took place. You knew full well you were being arrested, and signed a statement saying you understood why.

      • By your own admission, they were still just looking for possible suspects.  And if Sollecito had withdrawn your alibi, they wouldn’t need a name—they would suspect him and you.  This makes no sense.

      • Dr Mignini had just spelled out your status with great care. Why would Ficarra diifer from that? Custody? What does that mean?

      • You claim the mysterious silver-haired cop who no-one else saw had told you during his “interrogation” that they would protect me if I cooperated, if I told them who the murderer was. Really?

      [Chapter 11, Page 129] ‘’ ... I needed to say that I had doubts about what I’d signed, to let the police know they couldn’t rely on my declarations as the truth. I knew that undoing the cops’ work would almost surely mean they’d scream at me all over again. As paralyzing as that thought was, I had to risk it. In naming Patrick, I’d unintentionally misled them. What if they thought I did it on purpose? They’d wasted time on me when they could have been out pursuing the real killer….’‘

      • According to Cassation, you did deliberately mislead the police, and you did it to divert suspicion from yourself. Many present testified that no-one screamed at you.  The only screaming was yours, when you had several head-thumping fits.

      • When you talked to your mother, why didn’t you then tell the police Patrick was innocent? Why didn’t Edda (your mother), tell anyone Patrick was innocent?  You told her he was.

      [Chapter 11, Page 130] ‘’ ... “Can I have a piece of paper?” I asked Ficarra. “I need to write down in English what I’m trying to tell you, because you apparently don’t understand me right now. You can bring the paper to someone who can tell you what it says in Italian. We can communicate better that way. You’re telling me that I’m going to remember when I’m telling you that I am remembering, and that I doubt what I said is true.”

      She handed me a few sheets of paper and a pen. “You’d better write fast,” she said. “We have to get going.”

      • Wow, either Rita Ficarra is learning English really fast .... or you speak Italian quite well.  Really, Officer Ficarra is taking you to be confined and she isnt remotely interested in having you write another incriminating statement having had less sleep than you.

      • You quote the noon statement in full. Answer the numerous points proving you piled lie upon lie made by Peter Hyatt here.

      [Chapter 11, Page 135] ‘’ ... I finished writing and handed the pages to Ficarra. I didn’t remember the word for “explanation.” “This is a present for you”—“un regalo,” I said.

      She said, “What is it—my birthday?” I felt so much lighter. I knew that I was blameless, and I was sure that was obvious to everyone. We’d just had a misunderstanding. I’d cleared the record. ....’‘

      • There is no proof the exchange took place as described. Rita Ficarra is not known for even being sarcastic, she is regarded as firm but kind and had kindly looked after you all night.

      • For days you deny knowing anything about Meredith’s murder. After Raffaele removes your alibi, you write that you left him to meet Patrick, and he murdered Meredith.

      • You then write you met Patrick, he murdered Meredith, and Raffaele may or not be there. You then write this completely vague, contradictory, and convoluted letter to police.

      • You tell Officer Ficarra you are giving her a ‘‘gift’‘, or was it an un-explanation? You now think it was just a misunderstanding, and you cleared the record???? Wow ....

      [Chapter 11, Page 136] ‘’ ... I was on the police’s side, so I was sure they were on mine. I didn’t have a glimmer of understanding that I had just made my situation worse. I didn’t get that the police saw me as a brutal murderer who had admitted guilt and was now trying to squirm out of a hard-won confession….’‘

      • Three statements proves you did know you had dropped yourself in it and every copy would regard three statemenst as overkill. Lying and obstructing justice would hardly put you ‘‘on the police’s side’‘?

      • Why would they see you as a brutal murderer?  How do you know how brutal the murder was? You inisisted to write all of these ‘‘confessions’’ and were not being interrogated, so how can any be ‘‘hard won’‘?

      [Chapter 11, Page 136] ‘’ ... My memoriale changed nothing. As soon as I gave it to Ficarra, I was taken into the hall right outside the interrogation room, where a big crowd of cops gathered around me. I recognized Pubblico Ministero Giuliano Mignini, who I still believed was the mayor….”

      • What big crowd of cops? There is no proof this event took place. You knew Dr Mignini’s full name and title, but not what his job is? He himself had told you three times - on the morning of the crime at the house, when the knives were shown to you at the house, and when you were arraigned and read your rights.

      • There is no slightest hint that Dr Mignini was the mayor.  Do politicians typically investigate homicides in America? The claim reeks of self-importance so typical of you.

      • You seriously thought after writing that letter, you were going to be released? By the way, again, what language were your ‘‘declarations’’ in?  If Italian, did you have a translator?

      [Chapter 11, Page 136] ‘’ ... I thought that they were keeping me to protect me. But why would they have to arrest me? And why did they have to take me to prison? I’d imagined that maybe “custody” meant I’d be given a room in the questura. That Mom could be there with me….’

      • Yes, police stations and prisons typically double as hotels in Italy…. More blatant lies. Dr Mignini fully explained your status with an interpreter there and you signed a statement that you fully understood.

      • So Mom could be there in prison with you?  Well, maybe, for not reporting her knowledge of your false accusation.

      [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? ....’‘

      • Did you tell this to any Judge?  Matteini, Micheli, Massei, Hellmann, Nencini?  No. If any of this were actually true, it would be sexual assault.  Did your lawyers file a complaint? No, of course not, they knew it was made up.

      • This was simply a routine frisk and testified to at trial, and in earlier descriptions you left all of this out.  This farfetched claim is completely undermined by you elsewhere writing about your ‘‘medical check’’ as fairly routine.

      [Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... Next they checked my entire body for cuts and bruises, clawing through my hair to get to my scalp and inspecting the bottoms of my feet. A female police officer pointed out different places to examine and document. I thought, Why are they measuring the length of my arms and the breadth of my hands? What does it matter how big my feet are? Later, I realized they were trying to fit the crime to my dimensions. What would Meredith’s wounds be like if I’d been the one who stabbed her? Could I have stabbed her from my height? They took pictures of anything they thought would be significant….’‘

      • Well you did have a scratch on your neck, I mean hickey. There were bare bloody footprints at the crime scene.

      • While checking for other injuries is quite routine you are trying to make it sound like an alien probe.

      [Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... I asked to use the bathroom. A female police officer stood in front of the stall with the door open. Why is she standing here? I can’t relax enough to pee, even if she’s looking away. I guessed this unwanted guardian was somehow supposed to keep me safe.

      Eventually I put aside my inhibitions long enough to be able to pee. After that they closed the handcuffs back around my wrists. I think they’d left them intentionally loose, but I was so submissive I reported their breach. “Excuse me,” I said. “But I can slip my hand out.”

      • Do you really need to include the story about going to the bathroom? Being watched is untrue, in fact prior to 5:45 Knox was at any time free to go. And your Italian is progressing nicely since your ‘‘interrogation’‘.

      [Chapter 11, Page 139] ‘’ ... I just wanted this ordeal to end.’‘

      • This is probably about the only true statement in the book. After causing chaos in so many other lives, Knox just wants to get on with her own life.

      [Chapter 11, Page 139] ‘’ ... I was consumed by worry for Patrick. I felt that time was running out for him if I didn’t remember for sure what had happened the night of Meredith’s murder. When I’d said, “It was Patrick,” in my interrogation, the police pushed me to tell them where he lived.  As soon as I’d mentioned his neighborhood, several officers surrounding me raced out. I figured that they’d gone to question him. I didn’t know that it was too late, that they’d staged a middle-of-the-night raid on Patrick’s house and arrested him….’‘

      • You claim you are consumed with worry, but still let him languish desperate and depressed in jail while his business tanked. You name someone as a sex-killer, and several officers rush out, and they only want to question him?

      • They pushed you to tell them where he lived?  But did you not eagerly draw a map previously?

      [Chapter 11, Page 140] ‘’ ... Finally our car pulled through the main gate of the Casa Circondariale Capanne di Perugia—not that I knew where we were—and came to a stop inside a dim, cavernous garage. As the doors rumbled closed, I was allowed to sit up. A uniformed prison guard came over, and I tried to catch his eye. I wanted someone, anyone, to look at me and see me for who I was—Amanda Knox, a terrified twenty-year-old girl. He looked through me….’‘

      • You want them to see you as a terrified 20 year old girl?  Why, so they won’t think of you as a murderer?  Do you know what most people call 20 year old girls?  Women.

      • You tried to catch his eye?  Was he cute? He saw right through you?  So have most people in Italy.

      [Chapter 11, Page 141] ‘’ ... Ficarra ahead of me, the other officer behind, each gripping one of my arms.  Once inside, they let go. “This is where we leave you,” they said. One of them leaned in to give me a quick, awkward hug. “Everything’s going to be okay. The police will take care of you.”

      “Thank you,” I said. I gave her a last, beseeching look, hoping this meant that finally they knew we were on the same side….’‘

      • This is absurd.  Who gave such a hug? Mothers dropping their kids off at school give hugs.  Police generally don’t hug accused killers as they leave them at the jail or say to them that all will be okay.

      [Chapter 12, Page 144] ‘’ ... The cold traveled up from the concrete floor and through my bare feet. I hugged myself for warmth, waiting—for what? What’s coming next? Surely they wouldn’t give me a uniform, since I was a special case. It wouldn’t make sense, since I’d be in prison so briefly.

      “Your panties and bra, please,” Lupa said. She was polite, even gentle, but it was still an order.

      I stood naked in front of strangers for the second time that day. Completely disgraced, I hunched over, shielding my breasts with one arm. I had no dignity left. My eyes filled with tears. Cinema ran her fingers around the elastic of the period-stained red underwear I’d bought with Raffaele at Bubble, when I thought it’d be only a couple of days before I’d buy more with my mom….’‘

      • This is gross.  Why the heck is Knox adding these easy-to-disprove inventions in?

      • Oddly, she is more precise, and certain about these details, than what she was doing before, during and after Meredith’s death, with fewer contradictions.

      [Chapter 12, Page 147] ‘’ ... When I’d first been brought inside from the squad car, I’d seen Raffaele through a barred glass window, locked in a hallway near the prison entrance. He was wearing his gray faux fur–lined jacket and was pacing back and forth, his head down. It was the first time since we’d been separated that I’d seen more than his feet. He didn’t look at me. I’d wondered if he hated me.

      Raffaele and I hadn’t been together long, but I’d believed I knew him well. Now I felt I didn’t know him at all….’‘

      • You wonder if he hated you? As in, he doesn’t love you enough to cover for you? His own statement to Judge Matteini did say he never wanted to see you again, it was all your fault.

      [Chapter 12, Page 149] ‘’ ... “I feel terrible about what happened at the police office. No one was listening to me,”  I said. Tears sprang to my eyes again.

      “Hold up there, now,” Argirò said. “Wouldn’t listen to you?” the doctor asked. “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.” “I’ve heard similar things about the police from other prisoners,” the guard standing in the background said. Their sympathy gave me the wrongheaded idea that the prison officials were distinct and distant from the police.

      “Do you need anything to sleep?” the doctor asked. I didn’t know what he meant, because the idea of taking a sleeping pill was as foreign to me as being handcuffed. “No,” I said. “I’m really tired already.”

      • When exactly were you hit and why? What anonymous guard would say that? Italian police are well known in fact for being too nice. You claim that the prison officials were now aware you were ‘‘assaulted’’ by police, yet do not report it?

      • Do these anonymous prison officials speak English?  You did make such a huge deal about not understanding the language.  And remember, you were interrogated in a ‘‘language you barely knew’’ just 24 hours ago.

      [Chapter 13, Page 154] ‘’ ... Argirò had said this seclusion was to protect me from other prisoners—that it was standard procedure for people like me, people without a criminal record—but they were doing more than just keeping me separate. In forbidding me from watching TV or reading, in prohibiting me from contacting the people I loved and needed most, in not offering me a lawyer, and in leaving me alone with nothing but my own jumbled thoughts, they were maintaining my ignorance and must have been trying to control me, to push me to reveal why or how Meredith had died….’‘

      • You were repeatedly advised to get a lawyer and meanwhile say no more and confirmed thgis in writing in fact. The interrogators themselves confirmed they did not want you watching news or hearing what Sollecito had claimed.

      • In no US prison would you have been allowed to watch TV.  And to keep asking this: Did Argiro say this in English or Italian? Remember, you barely speak any Italian….

      • Why would they be pushing you further to reveal why or how Meredith died? Didn’t you just sign multiple statements saying how and why it happened, which Judge Matteini found more than enough?

      [Chapter 13, Page 154] ‘’ ... But I had nothing more to tell them. I was desolate. My scratchy wool blanket didn’t stop the November chill from seeping bone deep. I lay on my bed crying, trying to soothe myself by softly singing the Beatles song “Let It Be,” over and over….’‘

      • Actually, your third signed statement (the one you included in this book), gave many confusing and contradictory details and facts.  In fact, you claimed that you are confused and ‘‘unsure about what the truth is.’’ Perhaps you can be the one to tell them what was fact, and what was total fiction.

      • Didn’t stop the November chill?  You said in your January 2014 interview with Simon Hattenstone that you and Meredith went sunbathing on your terrace—regularly.  Wow, in Italy temperature drops are abrupt.

      • According to accounts from the prison staff and other prisoners, you never ever cried.

      [Chapter 10, Page 154] ‘’ ... I tried to answer, to say, “I’m okay,” but I couldn’t stop the surge of tears. Lupa asked her colleague to unlock the door and came inside. She squatted in front of me and took my cold hands in her large ones and rubbed them. “You have to stay strong,” she said. “Everything will be figured out soon.”

      • Really?  You are accused of sexual assault and murder, and her response is to hug you, and say ‘‘everything will be figured out’‘? There is no proof this exchange took place.

      [Chapter 10, Page 155] ‘’ ... Six days ago I believed that I could, and should, cope with Meredith’s murder by myself. But everything had broken down so quickly. I was sure that if I’d asked for Mom’s help sooner, I wouldn’t have felt so trapped and alone during my interrogation. I could have stopped it. If my mom, my lifeline, had been ready to jump to my defense on the other side of the door, I’d be staying with her now, not in prison by myself….’‘

      • Either you are REALLY bad at math, or this is disturbing.  The ‘‘date’’ November 7th, and 6 days earlier would be November 1st while Meredith was still alive.  So, you can cope with Meredith’s murder by yourself?  Does this mean you will kill her by yourself, or you won’t need any comforting afterwards?

      • Why would you not have felt trapped if your Mom was there?  Would she not have let you write those incriminating and accusatory statements?  Were you not thinking clearly?

      • Why would you be home by now?  Would you have fled Italy before the forensic testings were done?

      [Chapter 13, Page 155] ‘’ ... And then, right after the nun had left, detail after detail suddenly came back to me.

      I read a chapter in Harry Potter. We watched a movie. We cooked dinner. We smoked a joint. Raffaele and I had sex. And then I went to sleep.

      • Well that clears it up.  I assume you would agree to be questioned immediately.

      • And if it ever goes to trial, I assume you will testify fully, without any restricted questionings.

      [Chapter 13, Page 156] ‘’ ... I quickly wrote at the top of the page: “To the person who must know this.” Unlike my first memoriale, this one expressed less doubt and more certainty about where I’d been the night Meredith was killed. I rushed to get it down, so excited to finally be able to make sense of my memories for myself, and to be able to explain myself to the police. It read:

      • If your memories are now clear, there shouldn’t be any doubt.

      • You have dug yourself a deep hole already by ‘‘expressing yourself’‘

      • But, okay, let’s clear things up

      [Chapter 13, Page 156, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... Oh my God! I’m freaking out a bit now because I talked to a nun and I finally remember. It can’t be a coincidence. I remember what I was doing with Raffaele at the time of the murder of my friend! We are both innocent! This is why: After dinner Raffaele began washing the dishes in the kitchen and I was giving him a back massage while he was doing it….’‘

      • I’m freaking out a bit now because I talked to a nun, and I finally remember?  Talking in English or Italian?

      • You remember what you were doing with Raffaele at the time of the murder of my friend?  Your friend?  Meredith I am assuming?  How do you know exactly when she was murdered?

      • We are both innocent! This is why: After dinner Raffaele began washing the dishes in the kitchen and I was giving him a back massage.  Okay .... you are innocent, not because you say you didn’t do it, but because you were giving Raffaele a back massage?

      [Chapter 13, Page 156, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... [backrubs are ] something we do for one another when someone is cleaning dishes, because it makes cleaning better. I remember now that it was AFTER dinner that we smoked marijuana and while we smoked I began by saying that he shouldn’t worry about the sink. He was upset because the sink was broken but it was new and I told him to not worry about it because it was only a little bad thing that had happened, and that little bad things are nothing to worry about…’‘

      • I remember now it was after dinner we smoke marijuana?  Umm, who cares?

      • The sink was new? I thought the plumber had been there for prior problems.  In fact, you claimed it, so that your ‘‘leaky pipe’’ story wouldn’t seem so convenient.  But still not sure why you didn’t have towels or a mop handy….

      • Stabbing Meredith…. where does that fit on the ‘‘spectrum’’ of bad thing?

      [Chapter 13, Page 156, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... We began to talk more about what kind of people we were. We talked about how I’m more easy-going and less organized than he is, and how he is very organized because of the time he spent in Germany. It was during this conversation that Raffaele told me about his past. How he had a horrible experience with drugs and alcohol. He told me that he drove his friends to a concert and that they were using cocaine, marijuana, he was drinking rum, and how, after the concert, when he was driving his passed-out friends home, how he had realized what a bad thing he had done and had decided to change.

      He told me about how in the past he dyed his hair yellow and another time when he was young had cut designs in his hair. He used to wear earrings. He did this because when he was young he played video games and watched Sailor Moon, a Japanese girl cartoon, and so he wasn’t a popular kid at school. People made fun of him. I told him about how in high school I had been unpopular as well, because the people in my school thought I was a lesbian. We talked about his friends, how they hadn’t changed from drug-using video game players, and how he was sad for them.

      We talked about his mother, how she had died and how he felt guilty because he had left her alone before she died. He told me that before she died she told him she wanted to die because she was alone and had nothing to live for. I told Raffaele that wasn’t his fault that his mother was depressed and wanted to die. I told him he did the right thing by going to school….’‘

      • So, you remember all of these topics being discussed, but at the police station, you are so vague about what you were doing?  Interesting

      • You remember all of this, but not when you woke up, or why you turned your phone off?

      [Chapter 13, Page 157, Knox letter to police]  ‘’ ... I told him that life is full of choices, and those choices aren’t necessarily between good and bad. There are options between what is best and what is not, and all we have to do is do what we think is best….’‘

      • So, stabbing Meredith, was that a good/bad choice, or a best/not best choice?


      [Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... Around five in the evening Raffaele and I returned to his place to get comfortable. I checked my email on his computer for a while and then afterward I read a little Harry Potter to him in German….’‘

      • 5:00pm is not the evening.  It is the afternoon.  Anyway, didn’t you both claim at other times you were out, but that you didn’t remember what you did?

      • So, you read a little Harry Potter to Raffaele (in German), and this was BEFORE watching Amelie, cooking dinner and doing dishes, having the pipe FLOOD the floor…  However, remember this quote (Page 44/45), you claim to be reading Harry Potter to him AFTER the flood.  REMEMBER???

      ‘’ ... After the movie ended, around 9:15 P.M., we sautéed a piece of fish and made a simple salad. We were washing the dishes when we realized that the kitchen sink was leaking. Raffaele, who’d already had a plumber come once, was frustrated and frantically tried to mop up a lot of water with a little rag. He ended up leaving a puddle. “I’ll bring the mop over from our house tomorrow. No big deal,” I said. Raffaele sat down at his desk and rolled a joint, and I climbed into his lap to read aloud to him from another Harry Potter book, this one in German. I translated the parts he didn’t understand, as best I could, into Italian or English while we smoked and giggled….’‘

      [Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... We watched Amelie and afterward we kissed for a little while. I told him about how I really liked this movie and how my friends thought I was similar to Amelie because I’m a bit of a weirdo, in that I like random little things, like birds singing, and these little things make me happy. I don’t remember if we had sex….’‘

      • You are weird like Amelie?  Does she publish lurid sexual details and rape stories?

      • You remember a lengthy list of topics you talked about BUT NOT whether you had sex?  You seemed to remember all the others….

      [Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... Raffaele made dinner and I watched him and we stayed together in the kitchen while dinner was cooking. After dinner Raffaele cleaned the dishes and this is when the pipes below came loose and flooded the kitchen floor with water. He was upset, but I told him we could clean it up tomorrow when I brought back a mop from my house. He put a few small towels over the water to soak up a little and then he threw them into the sink. I asked him what would make him feel better and he said he would like to smoke some hash…. ‘’

      • Kitchen floor flooded with water?  To heck with it, let’s smoke a joint.

      • So, how much water was it, approximately?  You are (not surprisingly), vague about this.

      • You claimed the pipe had leaked before, (page 44 of WTBH…. did you not have an extra towel handy?

      • Raffaele cleaned the dishes?  Did you notice the ‘‘fish blood’’ on his hand you claimed earlier to have seen?

      [Chapter 13, Page 158, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... I received a message from my boss about how I didn’t have to come into work and I sent him a message back with the words: “Ci vediamo. Buona serata.”

      While Raffaele rolled the joint I laid in bed quietly watching him. He asked me what I was thinking about and I told him I thought we were very different kinds of people. And so our conversation began, which I have already written about. After our conversation I know we stayed in bed together for a long time. We had sex and then afterward we played our game of looking at each other and making faces. After this period of time we fell asleep and I didn’t wake up until Friday morning…’‘

      • You had sex?  You said just 2 paragraphs ago you didn’t remember if you had sex. You woke up Friday morning?  Okay, care to specify WHEN exactly?

      • So you get a message from Patrick (not to come to work), and in your letter to the police, it comes AFTER your dinner, washing the dishes, and the pipe bursting.  However see your account on page 62 of the book.

      • By the way in court that text was proven to have reached you away from the house.

      [Chapter 13, Page 159, Knox letter to police] ‘’ ... I know the police will not be happy about this, but it’s the truth and I don’t know why my boyfriend told lies about me, but I think he is scared and doesn’t remember well either. But this is what it is, this is what I remember….’‘

      • You are talking about what ‘‘could’’ have happened, and you can’t understand police frustration?

      • But it’s the truth?  You just said you COULD swear by it, not that you actually ARE swearing to it

      • What doesn’t Raffaele remember?  The truth?  Or the ‘‘truth’’ you came up with?

      [Chapter 13, Page 159] ‘’ ... I was a little girl again. I was doing what I’d done since I was seven years old, whenever I got into trouble with Mom. I’d sit with a Lion King notebook propped up against my knees, write out my explanation and apology, rip it out, fold it up, and then either hand it to Mom or, if I wasn’t brave enough, put it somewhere I knew she’d immediately find it. When I was older I had a small, old-fashioned, beat-up wooden desk with a matching chair and a drawerful of pens. I felt so much more articulate writing than speaking. When I talk, my thoughts rush together, and I say things that don’t always seem appropriate or make sense…’‘

      • So you write you ‘‘apologies’’ to Mom, and give them to her?  Out of curiosity, are those also completely full of B.S.?

      • Yes, childhood discipline with Mom…. just like police questioning for a murder….

      • You feel more articulate writing than speaking?  That is scary, you are a university junior, and your writing is awful.

      • You say things that don’t always seem to make sense?  Either they make sense, or they don’t.

      [Chapter 13, Page 160] ‘’ ... That’s what I wanted to have happen now. Somehow the kindness from the nun and that embrace from Agente Lupa had encouraged me that it would.

      I believed it was only a matter of time before the police understood that I was trying to help them and I would be released. The guard would unlock the cell. Without leading me by the arm, she’d escort me to an office where I could reclaim my hiking boots, my cell phone, my life. I’d walk out and into my mom’s arms…’‘

      • Either you are completely delusional, or just pretending to be. The police have charged you with sexual assault and murder, and you are just ‘‘trying to help them’‘?

      • You think you will just walk out of here, into your mother’s arms?  Wow ... and you thought you were mature?

      [Chapter 13, Page 160] ‘’ ... I thought I’d made it clear that I couldn’t stand by what I’d said during my interrogation, that those words and my signature didn’t count.

      We would have to talk again. This time they would have to listen and not shout.

      I thought about what to do while I waited for my memoriale to get passed to the right readers and the paperwork to get filled in. Since I’d never been in a prison before —and I’d never be here again—I decided to record what I saw so I wouldn’t forget.

      I felt I had a duty to observe and collect information, just like a tourist who writes a travelogue or a war correspondent who witnesses devastation…’‘

      • You couldn’t stand by your interrogation?  So, I assumed you made all efforts to get Lumumba released immediately?  No….

      • So, you being here is just a ‘‘paperwork’’ issue?

      • You have a duty to observe and collect information—just like a tourist ...? Guess you need something for material, should you ever get out and need to cash in on it.

      [Chapter 13, Page 161] ‘’ ... As I gathered this insider’s information, I felt more like an observer than a participant.  I found that being watched by a guard every time I peed or showered or just lay on my bed seemed less offensive when I looked at it with an impersonal eye. I saw the absurdity in it and documented it in my head…’‘

      • So, you just ‘‘get used to’’ having people watching you ‘‘pee and shower’‘.  Odd, you aren’t immediately okay with it.  You…

      • Published a rape story

      • Have sex with random strangers

      • Published lurid details about random sexual encounters

      • Published about Grandma helping you get medicine for your STD.

      • Published details about your strip search

      • Flirt with people in court

      • Just a thought: Even if you WERE watched in the shower, or on the toilet, you would probably enjoy it.

      [Chapter 13, Page 161] ‘’ ... But no matter how much I tried to distance myself from my physical surroundings, I was stuck with the anger and self-doubt that were festering inside me. I was furious for putting myself in this situation, panicked that I’d steered the investigation off course by delaying the police’s search for the killer….’‘

      • Of course there was self doubt. Rudy hadn’t been identified yet, had he?

      • You were furious for putting yourself in that situation, but not for putting Patrick there?  Classic narcissist.

      • You didn’t ‘‘panic’’ for steering the investigation off course.  It probably released the tension.

      [Chapter 14, Page 163] ‘’ ... In the middle of my second full day as a prisoner, two agenti led me out of my cell, downstairs, outside, across the prison compound, and into the center building where I’d had my mug shot taken and my passport confiscated. There, in an empty office converted into a mini courtroom, seven people were waiting silently for me when I walked into the room, including two men, who stood as I entered.

      Speaking in English, the taller, younger man, with spiky gray hair, said, “I’m Carlo Dalla Vedova. I’m from Rome.” He gestured toward a heavier-set man with smooth white hair. “This is Luciano Ghirga, from Perugia.” Each man was dressed in a crisp suit. “We’re your lawyers. Your family hired us. The American embassy gave him our names. Please, sit in this chair. And don’t say anything.”

      • Hmm… so only 2 full days as a prisoner, and you already have 2 lawyers ready for you?  Guess this isn’t Guantanamo Bay after all.

      • Ghirga and Vedova?  Funny, wasn’t there someone named Giancarlo Costa representing you for a while?

      [Chapter 14, Page 164] ‘’ ... Also in the room were three women. The one in black robes was Judge Claudia Matteini. Her secretary, seated next to her, announced, “Please stand.”

      In an emotionless monotone, the judge read, “You, Amanda Marie Knox, born 9 July 1987 in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., are formally under investigation for the murder of Meredith Kercher. How do you respond? You have the right to remain silent.”

      I was stunned. My lower jaw plummeted. My legs trembled. I swung my face to the left to look at the only people I recognized in the room—Monica Napoleoni, the black-haired, taloned homicide chief; a male officer from my interrogation; and Pubblico Ministero Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, who I still thought was the mayor. Napoleoni was resting her chin on her hand glowering at me, studying my reaction. She seemed to be enjoying this….’‘

      • Judge Matteini?  Wasn’t she the one who would determine if you could be released, or had to be detained?  Sounds a bit like a ‘‘bail hearing’‘.  Wait, bail does not exist in Italy.

      • You ‘‘still thought Mignini was the Mayor’‘?  Are you that dense? He told you who he was both at the house on the morning after the murder and when presiding over the 5:45 am warning of charges.

      • Why exactly do you think Napoleoni was enjoying this? There is no sign in her extensive testimony that she did.

      • Just for reference, was this hearing done in all English, all Italian, or did you have an interpreter?

      [Chapter 14, Page 165] ‘’ ... There hadn’t been enough time between their hiring and this preliminary hearing for Carlo and Luciano to meet with me. But more time might not have made a difference. It turned out that, mysteriously, Mignini had barred Raffaele’s lawyers from seeing him before his hearing. Would the prosecutor have treated me the same? I think so. I can’t be certain who ordered that I be put in isolation and not allowed to watch TV or to read, to cut me off from news from the outside world. But I believe that the police and prosecution purposely kept me uninformed so I would arrive at my first hearing totally unprepared to defend myself.

      I do know this: if I’d met with my lawyers, I could have explained that I was innocent, that I knew nothing about the murder, that I imagined things during my interrogation that weren’t true. The only thing my lawyers knew about me was that when I talked I got myself in trouble. I understand their impulse to keep me silent then, but in the end, my silence harmed me as much as anything I’d previously said….’‘

      • You had at least six opportunities before trial to argue the same thing - and failed at them all. The evidence list was long and you failed a psychological test to establish whether you could do more harm.

      • And besides lawyers ALWAYS can get delays by saying they need to consult with their clients.

      • Mignini barred Raffaele from seeing his lawyers?  Really, in Honor Bound, Sollecito says no such thing. He told his father he saw his lawyers the very next day.

      • You are in prison, you ARE cut off from the outside world.  Why do you assume you have the right to a TV?

      • Your silence harmed you?  No, your mouth, and your ‘‘creative writing’’ harmed you.

      [Chapter 14, Page 166] ‘’ ... It would be a long time before my Italian would be good enough to read Judge Matteini’s nineteen-page report, which came out, and was leaked to the press, the next day. But my lawyers told me the gist of it. The judge said, “There were no doubts” that Patrick, Raffaele, and I were involved. Our motive, according to her, was that Raffaele and I wanted “to try a new sensation,” while Patrick wanted to have sex with Meredith. When she refused, the three of us tried “to force her will,” using Raffaele’s pocketknife.

      I couldn’t believe anyone could think that of me…’

      • Well, considering November 5th you barely spoke the language, and November 7th you can converse with the guards, you may be the world’s fastest learner of the Italian language.  Keep up the good work.

      • Patrick wanted to have sex with Meredith?  Who gave the police and judge THAT idea?

      • The Judge thought you, Raffaele, and Patrick were involved?  Did someone sign a statement or something?

      • You can’t believe anyone would think that of you?  This is a murder case, no one cares who YOU are.

      [Chapter 14, Page 166, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... She went on to say that we hadn’t called 112, the emergency number for the Carabinieri military police; that the Postal Police arrived at 12:35 P.M., and that our calls to 112 came afterward, at 12:51 P.M. and 12:54 P.M., suggesting that the police’s appearance at the house took us by surprise and our calls were an attempt at orchestrating the appearance of our innocence. It wasn’t until our trial that this accusation was proven to be erroneous….’‘

      • Interesting summary, except is WASN’T proven to be false.  Your call to the police DID come after the Postal Police arrived

      [Chapter 14, Page 166, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... The report said that in Raffaele’s second statement, made on November 5, he changed his story. Instead of saying that we’d stayed at his apartment all night, as he’d done originally, he told police we’d left my apartment to go downtown at around 8:30 or 9 P.M., that I went to Le Chic and he returned to his apartment. He said that I’d convinced him to lie….’‘

      • Actually, Raffaele said that you left his apartment.  He didn’t say you both left home, and that he went back later.  You misconstrue Sollecito’s ‘‘amended’’ statement.

      [Chapter 14, Page 167, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... A bloody footprint allegedly compatible with Raffaele’s Nikes was found at our villa, and the pocketknife he carried on his beltloop was presumed to be compatible with the murder weapon…’‘

      • Yes, the sneaker did look similiar to Raffaele’s shoe

      • In ‘‘Honor Bound’‘, Raffaele claims he told the Judge that someone stole his shoes.  Any comment on this?

      • In ‘‘Honor Bound’‘, Raffaele first claimed to never meet Patrick, then says he’s been to the bar.  Any comment?

      • Yes, the knife Raffaele had was confirmed at trial (and confirmed on appeal), to be used in the attack. Comments?

      [Chapter 14, Page 167, Matteini Report] ‘’ ... The judge’s report concluded that we “lost the appearance that [we] were persons informed about the facts and became suspects” when I confessed that Patrick had killed Meredith; that I wasn’t sure whether or not Raffaele was there but that I woke up the next morning in his bed…’‘

      • First and foremost: You do not CONFESS that someone else did something.  You ACCUSE them of something.

      • Well, you did say that you were with Raffaele at his apartment when Meredith was killed.

      • You later wrote that you left Raffaele to go meet Patrick, and that he killed her (you were a witness).

      • You later wrote that you witnessed Patrick killing Meredith, and you weren’t sure if Raffaele was there.

      • You later wrote that you can’t remember for sure what happened.

      • Sollecito first claimed he was at a party.

      • Sollecito later said you two were at his apartment

      • Sollecito later said you left, and that you asked him to lie for you

      • Sollecito claimed his ‘‘matching shoes’’ were stolen, and he ‘‘wasn’t sure’’ if he ever met Patrick.

      • Yes, you left Raffaele, met up with Patrick, heard him kill Meredith, and woke up the next morning with Raffaele.  Makes sense.

      • Gee, any wonder Judge Matteini has reasons to doubt you all?  Well, Patrick, maybe not.

      [Chapter 14, Page 167] ‘’ ... It was just the start of the many invented stories and giant leaps the prosecution would make to “prove” I was involved in the murder—and that my lawyers would have to try to knock down to prove my innocence…’‘

      • Let’s see here:

      • False accusation of innocent person (Susan Smith, Casey Anthony…), to divert attention.

      • Multiple false alibis

      • Statements saying you were at crime scene (contradicting earlier statements)

      • Your alibi witness (Sollecito), removes his alibi for you, says you asked him to lie.

      • Sollecito brings knife—and possible murder weapon—to police station, and says his ‘‘matching shoes’’ were stolen, then presumably returned.

      • The prosecution did not make any of this up.  You did.

      [Chapter 14, Page 168] ‘’ ... “It’s the judge’s paperwork,” the male guard explained, his voice without inflection.

      “The confirmation of your arrest. It says the judge ‘applies the cautionary measure of custody in prison for the duration of one year.’ ”

      “One year!” I cried out.

      I was floored. I had to sit down and put my head between my knees. That’s when I learned how different Italian and U.S. laws can be. The law in Italy allows for suspects to be held without charge during an investigation for up to a year if a judge thinks they might flee, tamper with evidence, or commit a crime. In the United States, suspects have to be indicted to be kept in custody.

      I felt I had only myself to blame. If I’d had the will to stick to the truth during my interrogation, I would never have been put in jail. My imprisonment was my fault, because I’d given in to the police’s suggestions. I’d been weak, and I hated myself for it….’‘

      • This is being disingenuous.  In America, you would have been indicted on this evidence.

      • You were given the opportunity to speak up.  Why didn’t you?  You are not a timid person.  Hell, people can’t shut you up.

      • You do all of the ‘‘suspicious behaviour’’ listed above, it is your fault ... because you’d given in to their suggestions?

      • Vedova and Ghirga didn’t do too well for you?  What about the disbelieving Giancarlo Costa?  Why do you never mention him?

      Posted on 08/25/15 at 07:42 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
      Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followupNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

      Friday, June 26, 2015

      What No-Show Amanda Knox SHOULD Have Emailed Judge Nencini As Truthful Testimony in December 2013

      Posted by Chimera



      As the real thing really didnt work any better for Knox…


      As is well known, Amanda Knox refused to attend her own appeal in Florence in 2013/2014.

      This was a defence appeal by Knox herself and Sollecito against the 2009 conviction by Judge Giancarlo Massei’s trial court.  It was not a new trial, or a retrial, or even a prosecution appeal. It was an appeal DEMANDED by Knox and Sollecito.

      While Knox refused to attend, she did send a long, rambling email to Lead Judge Nencini.  Judge Nencini tartly read out the email in court, and remarked that she could have delivered this in person and answered questions if she wanted it credibly on the record - after all, Sollecito was sitting right there and not scared out of his wits.

      Kudos to fellow main posters Finn MacCool and SeekingUnderstanding for their original and well done posts on this ‘‘submission’‘

      With a bit of fact checking, Knox’s email could have looked to the court and the media more like this.  Enjoy.

      Court of Appeals of Florence section II Assise Proc. Pen, 11113

      Letter sent to attorneys Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga via email Seattle, 15 December 2013

      Attn: Honorable Court of Appeals of Florence

      1. I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified accusations of the prosecution and civil parties. I seek not to supplant their work; rather, even though I am not present to take part in this current phase of the judicial process, I feel compelled to share my own perspective as a six—year-long defendant and causation of Meredith’s injustice.

      2. The Court has access to my previous declarations, and please disregard that whole ‘‘aggravated calunnia’’ in which Cassation says i framed Patrick to divert attention, or that pending calunnia charge claiming I falsely accused the police to sabotage the court proceedings.  I trust you will not be blinded by these things to come to this verdict.  I must repeat: I am innocent.  Because repeating it will help dissuade you from studying my lies too carefully.

      3. According to my lawyers: I am not a murderer, I am not a rapist, I am not a thief or a plotter or an instigator, at least not until Cassation signs off on it. I did not kill Meredith or take part in her murder or have any prior or special knowledge of what occurred that night, (other than screaming, slit throat, and that the body was moved). I was not there for part of the time, and had nothing to do with it.

      4. I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid. Frederico Martini is probably still pissed that I gave him up; the court and jail officials don’t like my book; and I think there is still an open warrant on me for calunnia.  Also, without any employment or housing references, staying here may be tricky.  I have faith in your judgement, but am worried you are so poor a judge you will be blinded my the Prosecution’s vehemence.  I remember Judge Micheli: he was the wise Judge who found Guede guilty; he was the idiot Judge who ordered Raffaele and I to stand trial as accomplices.

      5. My life being on the line, at least until I get parole, and having with others already suffered too much, I’ve rehearsed this story and attentively followed this process and gleaned the following facts that have emerged from the development of this case that I beg you not to dismiss when making your judgement:

      6. No physical evidence places me in Meredith ‘s bedroom, the scene of the crime, because I define only that as the crime scene.  My DNA mixed with Meredith’s was in the bathroom and Filomena’s room, not Meredith’s.  Those bloody footprints cleaned away were in the hallway, not Meredith’s room.  Raffaele had one knife, and this other was at his flat, neither of which is Meredith’s room.  My lamp on Meredith’s floor had no fingerprints on it, and does not implicate me.  That DNA on Merdith’s bra, and bloody footprint on the bathmat only implicates my alibi witness (who refuses to be questioned), not me.  Those false alibis, false accusations, details I know about the crime, and phone records are not physical evidence, and did not happen in Meredith’s bedroom. Those ‘‘eyewitnesses’’ the Prosecution produced are not forensic evidence, and do not place me in Meredith’s room.

      7. Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of his presence in the brutal scenario, we made sure of that.  Heck, the police couldn’t even find my fingerprints in my own bedroom.

      8. No evidence places me in the same brutal scenario, again, which I restrict to Meredith’s bedroom, and only actual physical evidence.  The prosecution has failed to explain how—with these restrictions—I could have participated in the aggression and murder—to have been the one to fatally wound Meredith—without leaving any genetic trace of myself. Just because i spend a lot of time talking about it, and am a C.S.I. fan, doesn’t mean I know how to remove evidence.  That is because it is impossible. It is impossible to identify and destroy all genetic traces of myself in a crime scene and retain all genetic traces of another individual, or so C.S.I. has taught me. Either I was there, or I wasn’t. My analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn’t there.

      9. My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “confession” that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime- The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “confession.” Yes, I wrote out a false ‘‘confession’’ that accuses someone else.  Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge. Dammit, give me some privacy.

      10. My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence, if you think creatively enough. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance, because (in my November 4th email), the police wouldn’t let me leave.  I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call trying to think of answers for over 50 hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer, or at least someone who was ‘‘close enough’‘.  I never thought or imagined that repeatedly changing my story would fuel their suspicions. I did not hide myself or my feelings: when I needed sex, Rafael ‘‘embraced’’ me; when I was scared of being exposed, I cried; when I was angry that it wasn’t working, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence, at least until I could find a new ‘‘best truth’‘; when I was trying to help, I evaded questions, consoled Meredith’s friends, especially her male friends, and tried to keep a positive attitude that this would blow over.

      11. Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position, accompanying Raffaele to a witness summary session which I was not invited to. 20—years old and alone in a foreign country, I was, legally speaking, innocent and never expected to be suspected and subjugated to torture, and I wasn’t. I was told I was a witness, then after I placed myself at the crime scene I was told I was a suspect. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew, and that questioning includes the time I was sleeping or getting tea.  I denied legal counsel- still The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it was inadmissible. In my memoir, WTBH; I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I told myself I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I told myself that if I didn’t succeed in ‘‘remembering’’ what happened to Meredith that night, I would never see my family again. I browbeat myself into confusion and despair, to sell to the media at a later date. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth, but again, that is not what happened here.

      12. The police used tea and kindness to coerce me into signing a false “confession” that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which I let the police wrongfully interpret (‘Civediamo piu tardi. Buona serata’). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward—it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba’s defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable.  After over 50 hours of rehearsing the questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.

      13. This coerced and illegitimate statement, which I dreamed up, was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship, (at least until I destroyed his life). This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander.  Judge Hellmann saw that this statement was coerced, and threw out my calunnia conviction .... I mean he increased the sentence .... never mind.The prosecution and civil parties are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.

      14. Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false"confession” because of torture.  I’m not sure why this applies to my case, but damn, it sure sounds impressive.

      15. This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false “confessions.” Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone: Susan Smith and Casey Anthony ‘‘falsely confessed’’ that other people did it too.  And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party—just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guide.

      16. In the brief time Meredith and I were roommates and friends we never fought.  Roommates, not friends.

      17. Meredith was my friend, not that I was her friend. She was kind to me, helpful, generous, fun, and in retrospect, I should have been more of the same.  She never criticized me. She never gave me so much as a dirty look, even as I left the place a mess, and even when I flirted with her boyfriend, or she took my job at the bar.

      18. But the prosecution claims that a rift was created between Meredith and I because of cleanliness. This is a distortion of the facts. Please refer to the testimonies of my housemaster and Meredith’s British friends. None of them ever witnessed or heard about Meredith and I fighting, arguing, disliking each other. None of them ever claimed Meredith was a confrontational clean-freak, or I a confrontational slob. Laura Masotho testified that both Meredith and I only occasionally cleaned, whereas she and Filament Romanal were more concerned with cleanliness. Meredith’s British friends testified that Meredith had once told them that she felt a little uncomfortable about finding the right words to kindly talk tome, her new roommate, about cleanliness in the bathroom we shared. The prosecution would have you believe this is motivation for murder. But this is a terrifying distortion of the facts, as proving motive it not necessary—anywhere.

      19. I did not carry around Rafael’s kitchen knife.  That’s what men are for, to do the lifting for me.

      20. This claim by the prosecution, crucial to their theory, is uncorroborated by any physical evidence or witness testimony. I didn’t fear the streets of Perugia and didn’t need to carry around with me a large, cumbersome weapon which would have ripped my cloth book bag to shreds. My book bag showed no signs of having carried a bloody weapon. The claim that he would have insisted I carry a large chef’s knife is not just senseless, but a disturbing indication of how willing the prosecution is to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven theory.  Yes, i can positively disprove a theory I know nothing about.

      21. It is yet another piece of invented “evidence”, another circumstance of theory fabricated to order, because having discovered nothing else, the prosecution could only invent: phone records, false alibis, false statements, false accusations.

      22. I had no Contact with Rudy Guide, even though I mention in my book having seen him twice, and a third time in the next paragraph.

      23. Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guide. He played basketball with the young men who lived in the apartment below us. Meredith and I had been introduced to him together. Perhaps I had seen him amongst the swarms of students who crowded the Perugian streets and pubs in the evenings, but that was it. We didn’t have each other’s phone number, we didn’t meet in private, we weren’t acquaintances. I never bought drugs from Rudy Guide or anyone else. I was having sex with Federico for drugs, which isn’t the same thing.  The phone records show no connection. There are no witnesses who place us together, except my statement here. The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guide to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn’t even speak the same language. He has lived in Perguia for 15 years, and I am a student of Italian. Once again, the prosecution is relying upon a disturbing and unacceptable pattern of distortion of the objective evidence.

      24. I am not a psychopath.  That evaluation in 2008 was unfair, as I didn’t get a chance to prepare my spontaneous answers.

      25. There is no short list to the malicious and unfounded slanders I have enjoyed over the course of this legal process. In trial, in the media I have been called no less than:

      “Conniving; manipulating; man—eater; narcissist; enchantress; duplicitous; adulterer; drug addict; an explosive mix of drugs, sex, and alcohol; dirty; witch; murderer; slanderer; demon; depraved; imposter; promiscuous; succubus; evil; dead inside; pervert; dissolute; a wolf in sheep’s clothing; rapist; thief; reeking of sex; Judas; she-devil;

      26. I have never demonstrated anti-social, aggressive, violent, or behavior. Throwing rocks at cars, writing rape stories, and staging break ins are not violent or anti-social.  I am not addicted to sex or drugs.  In fact, Federico Martini hasn’t given me any since I was arrested.  Upon my arrest I was tested for drugs and the results were negative. I am not a split-personality One does not adopt behavior spontaneously.

      27. This is a fantasy. This is uncorroborated by any objective evidence or testimony. The prosecution and civil parties created and pursued this character assassination because they have nothing else to show you. They have neither proof, nor logic, nor the facts on their side. They only have their ‘‘evidence’’ against me, and my personal opinions about them. They want you to think I’m a monster because I am telling you they think I am a monster.  it is easy to condemn a monster. It is easy to dismiss a monster’s defense as deception. But the prosecution and civil parties think I’m both severely mistaken and wrong. I have condemned them without proof of wrongdoing, and I seek to convince you to condemn them without proof of wrongdoing.

      28. If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics. Never mind that this is my own appeal, and I ‘‘should’’ be demonstrating why the 2009 trial verdict is unjust.  If I had a case, there would be no need for smoke and mirrors to distract you from the mountains of physical evidence against me. But because this evidence exists that proves my guilt, I would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements. Because I am not a murderer (yet), I would seek to mislead you into convicting me by charging your emotions, by painting me as an innocent until proven guilty, but not as a monster.

      29. The prosecution and civil parties are committing injustices against the Kerchers because they cannot bring themselves to admit, even to themselves, that they’ve made a terrible mistake, namely, that the murder was premeditated. Again, it is my own appeal, but they are persecuting me.

      30. The Court has seen that the prosecution and civil parties will not hear criticism of their mistakes, by people who won’t attend their appeal.

      31. The Court has seen that the prosecution jumped to conclusions at the very start of their investigation: they interrogated and arrested innocent people and claimed “Case Closed"before any evidence could be analyzed, before bothering to check alibis.  As proof of this, they called Raffaele to the police station (at his leisure), to clear up discrepencies in his alibi.  Then when he claimed I lied, Rita Ficarra then asked me for an explanation.  Those brutes!  Then they hauled in Patrick just because in ‘‘confessed’’ several times that he did it.

      32. The prosecutor and investigators were under tremendous pressure to solve the mystery of what happened to Meredith as soon as possible. The local and International media was breathing down the necks of these detectives. Their reputations and careers were to be made or broken. In spite of that, they still saw my mistakes. Under pressure, they admitted to as few mistakes as possible and committed themselves to a theory founded upon disproving my mistakes.

      33. Had they not jumped to conclusions based on nothing but Raffaele’s changing alibi and my false accusations, they would have discovered definitive and undeniable evidence of not Patrick Lumumba, but of Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox. We would not be here over six years later debating clues my lawyers claim are inconclusive and unreliable.  Had we plead guilty we would have been spared the cost, anguish and suffering, not only of Raffaele’s and my family, but especially of Meredith’s family as well.

      34. My accusations are unworthy of judicial or public confidence. In over six years I have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated theory of the crime, but would nevertheless argue that you should not take my life away. I beg you to see through the ‘‘facts’’ and ‘‘reason’’ of what I say. I am innocent. Raffaele is innocent. Meredith and her family deserve the ‘‘truth’‘. Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice for them.

      in faith,

      Amanda Marie Knox

       


      Thursday, May 30, 2013

      The Amanda Knox Trainwreck: What The Newly Published Knox Writings Reveal To Professional Eyes

      Posted by SeekingUnderstanding




      The New Writings

      It is good to have an opportunity to see the letters from Amanda to her social worker, Maurizio. The writing style is very different from her book which seems more abrasive, more ‘jazzed up’, pointed, in comparison - presumably the influence of the ghost writer.

      What is immediately and conspicuously obvious is that the letters make no mention of ill-treatment - a contrario in many ways. The recipient of the letters is someone whose support she needs, as is Don Saulo.

      She goes out of her way to speak to them with endearment, even flirtation, to show gratitude, to build trust, or to appear to build trust. This is a person whose need to be liked and supported is paramount. One has the feeling, therefore, that she is presenting herself in the best possible light.

      This includes being ‘good’ and saying things as they are. And they are: ‘OK’, ‘fine’, ‘bene’, ‘well enough’, ‘happy to remain’ (in Perugia) etc.

      There has been much speculation about the psychology of Amanda Knox. I am glad to say that this site has deferred, by and large, from assigning labels to her. It is not for nothing that the official court psychological profiles of 2008 have not been disclosed. To begin with, a full analysis is not possible without personal encounter. And then there is the question about the value of such labels at all, especially with new research advancing all the time.

      However, one can talk about observable patterns of behaviour, for example narcissistic behaviour. There are a number of established, well-researched traits in narcissistic behaviour which are worth discussing here.

      Observable Behaviors

      I believe the following characteristics have been observable and continue to manifest in the letters just published.  These are :

        1) Immaturity, of a degree which indicates some arrested emotional development. And connected to this, an emotional neediness and dependence. This usually manifests as insecurity where it becomes important that everyone has to like, admire, and feel affection for them - most especially those who they need to ‘look out for them’, be their support system etc. A secure personality has a healthy ego which can quietly use reasonable judgement, and only needs to be assertive where occasion demands. An insecure person has a weak and fragile ego, contrary to the appearance they try and give, which can be loud, over-confident and assertive, or proud etc.

        2) An inability to deal with shame, or admit guilt. This also connects with (in Jungian terminology) an inability to ‘own the shadow’, and admit one can and does sometimes make mistakes. The cultivation of a false sense of self or identity follows; an image projected of the ‘angelic’,‘innocent’ - always sunny and light, and, ‘special’  (cf : ‘here comes the sun’ as a mantra). Of course, a PR campaign can proliferate this advertising of the false image, and this is precisely how ‘celebrities’ make use of this process.

        3) Self-esteem which in reality is rather low - together with compensatory behaviour which includes constantly needing attention, praise and to be recognised as perhaps clever, cultured, athletic, attractive…in short, ‘superior.’

        4) Manipulation. This is connected to the lack of true empowerment, and therefore the attempt (which can seem desperate) to ‘get’ power through having power and control over others. Flirtation, seduction (and obsession with erotica) can show this manipulative tendency. Control, in this case self-control, is a prerequisite for manipulating a situation. A person’s unnatural focusing around staying in control will often belie an agenda of manipulation. A secure mind and ego can afford to allow spontaneity - an insecure one cannot.

        5) Anger management can be an issue; also a ‘show of rage’ - melodramatic - can be used as a manipulative tool. (Tantrum…as in two year old). One could write a paper just on this anger aspect alone.

        6) Feeling too different, and needing badly to be accepted by others. Rejection is unbearable. And, of course, people do reject them, even if it is just in the sense of being put off by their loudness etc, as above. Thus the problems escalate inside.

        7) Lying. In severe narcissism lying is pathological. If a child is not taught why telling the truth matters - if their childish lies are humoured and not challenged by the parent, this sets up enormous trouble in the adaptation to the adult world. Again, one could write a great deal about pathological lying, - it is a topic in itself…suffice to say, here, that AK stands as a convicted felon for lying.

      There is some interesting new research (Professor Raine) that has established a 22% difference in a specific brain layer, in people who are able to glibly lie. These people also have enhanced verbal faculties. Some people lie just because that’s what they do, (when they don’t actually ‘need’ to). It’s a modus operandi, - usually used as a tool to get what they want.

      All of these characteristics above, added together, will give a person who is first, foremost and last, concerned with their own image, their persona - how the world sees them. Hence ‘Narcissus’, gazing at his own reflection, and mistaking it for reality.  So much mental energy is orientated towards weaving together their ideal image of themselves in everything they do: ‘What people think of me’.

      Then, too, the illusion of this constructed image has to be maintained. Therefore anything that contradicts it has to be denied.  *Amanda the Innocent* - this is the image that, in this case, has been projected and maintained.

      Notice that it is the perpetuating of the Image that matters - the actual point of whether she is - in fact and evidence,- innocent or guilty takes low precedence compared to the task of getting people to believe in the image of her being innocent. AK actually says so herself (in the way she often reveals herself) : “people thought I was.. ( a murderer) whether I am or not.” She couldn’t bear people to believe such an image of herself - whether she was or not, she didn’t want people to think it

      It is what people think or believe about them that matters most to the image-creating narcissist. They cannot bear to be found faulty - they must be admired.

      The Six Published Letters

      Here are some points of interest that stood out in the published letters in the post below. (I expect others can be observed, and found also in the recent interviews, etc.) :


      Letter dated April 3rd 2008.

      This is the only letter of this group that contains a grumbling complaint. Firstly, she mentions the police thinking badly about her. It is striking yet again that what bothers her is how people think of her. She also repeats, as often, ‘I do understand that I have to be in control’. See point 4) above.

      Then a passage that contains a couple of enigmatic statements :

      “...Above all when they don’t know the truth?

      It really is a torture and now I understand the motivation. I understand the motivation, but I do not agree. “Sweet” or not it is a “TORTURE”. I am being tortured and it is not right…...

      Sorry. As I said I do suffer a lot in prison. Generally I am scared, alone, with no hope, sad, and tired, even if I am innocent.”

      This rewards some analysis. ..“Above all when they don’t know the truth?”

      No one can know the full truth, precisely because AK herself (and Sollecito) have declined, from the start, to give a full and comprehensive - let alone consistent - account of the tragic evening. So it is very illogical to then complain that the authorities are acting thus because they don’t know the truth…

      “It really is a torture and now I understand the motivation”. These two clauses seem to be non sequiturs to me. I do not see what they mean. It is dark innuendo that she ‘doesn’t agree with.’ That is all we are told. Then :

      “TORTURE”

      If I was being gravely mistreated, with due cause for complaint, I would detail the wrong-doing as simply and clearly as possible, so it could be addressed. This does not. How is one to know whether the ‘torture’ (her inverted commas) is really frustration and annoyance at the way things have turned out? It also is expressed in a self-dramatising way.

      ...“even if I am innocent”. I really did read this as an ‘add-on’ - for safe measure, in case anyone significant were to read it. The word ‘even’ is out of context. It is another example of ‘distancing’, too.


      Letter dated April 28th 2008 :

      Don Saulo is ‘a true friend and a very good man’. At this point in time AK needs Don Saulo very much. He also, probably, offers her a role model of a positive animus (Jung again), in contrast to the other menfolk in her life, he is a man with forgiveness and without anger. Obviously, later on, she no longer needs him.

      In a rare moment of veracity, AK says, “I am ignorant, unfortunately”. She also wants someone to give her explanations (for the meaning of the literature) - this indicates a passive intellect, possibly without the desire to grasp an understanding for oneself. She would rather be given the meaning, as a soundbite, almost. Then one can impress, with the knowing. Somewhat as tourists ‘get the knowledge’. I suggest, having lived in Rome, that some Americans are perhaps prone to this.


      Letter November 26 2009 :

      This is notable as, first, a copious expression of gratitude for being liked, and given support, and in continuation, as a definite plea for this support (and, she hopes, affection) to be ongoing.


      Letter dated August 10th 2010 :

      AK is first flirtatious over Maurizio’s marriage. Is she being risqué ? It seems typical of her to introduce a sexual nuance where in reality it is not appropriate.

      Next, we have one of her cultural detours. She gives a (for her) fairly detailed reaction to a book by Umberto Eco, a writer of some standing. She mentions not just once, but twice that the writing is ‘meticulously built’. This obviously is something that makes the most impression upon her. Of all the stylistic and imaginative innovation, and colour, that there is in Umberto Eco’s writing, I find it most curious that this is what impresses her.


      Letter April 20th 2010 :

      AK is very happy to be credited as a translator : this will help her be seen in a favourable light, something high on her agenda. To be fair, credit where credit is due, (although one knows nothing of the details of the translation).

      Next we have another passage of gratitude.

      Then a description of how she is happy ‘playing…out in the sun’. This is immediately followed with ‘I have made a new friend’ - all important to her, and makes all the difference, - if she is liked, accepted, and preferably admired too.


      Letter undated :

      Here, AK says ‘I feel fine’, followed again, immediately, by a description of her new cell mate who likes her, helps her, and shares as a friend, both manicure and music. This being liked and accepted obviously gives her security, and she doesn’t want to move : ’ I am happy to remain in Perugia…’

      Conclusion

      These Knox letters describe a real prison situation that is at odds with the seemingly fictional Knox book. She may have been at some inner peace there. Outside, it is hard work.

      Posted on 05/30/13 at 08:26 PM by SeekingUnderstanding. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
      Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyAmanda KnoxKnox-Mellas teamNasty-prison hoax
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (30)

      Tuesday, May 28, 2013

      Focus In Italy Now On Knox Psychology As Her Claims Meet With Skepticism, Lack Any Proof

      Posted by Miriam



      [Header of the Giallo article; the rest off it is at bottom; click for a larger image]

      The Amanda Knox We In Italy Know

      Amanda Knox may have felt she was “waiting to be heard” in America but here in Italy we have heard her many times, and we feel we know her pretty well.

      Her book and interviews don’t sound like her at all. They sound like nasty legal stunts and nasty PR at work. It is easy to disprove her disparagement of officials and her friends here, and an investigation by the Chief Prosecutor in Bergamo is already under way.

      So the big question for us here is not angrily “Who are these appalling police, prosecutor and prison officials, and why did they do these terrible thing?” but sadly “Why was she compelled to invent all this stuff?” and “Why is she so scared to come back?”

      I have translated six of her letters from prison just published in the crime magazine Giallo plus the introduction and the graphologist’s analysis. This is more like the Amanda Knox we know, not the invented one in the book.

      1. The Giallo magazine’s Introductory framing of Knox’s letter below

      Amanda: “Here In Prison Things Are Okay”

      So writes Knox to a friend while she was a prisoner in Perugia. [The true crime magazine] Giallo publishes her letters, and then has them commented on by a graphologist and a psychologist

      The letters you see published on these pages are from Amanda Knox, the young American accused, along with her ex boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, of the murder of the British student Meredith Kercher, that took place in Perugia the 1st of Nov. 2007.

      Knox, 26 years old, was acquitted in appeal, but now Cassazione has decided that the appeal must be redone. While waiting for this complicated judicial process to restart, Amanda lives in Seattle, and is traveling around America to launch her new book Waiting to be Heard for which she was paid several million euro by her publisher.

      To the American television interviewers, the young American woman has said she is scared of coming back to Italy, because our prisons are terrible places, where she was threatened, molested sexually, and humiliated.

      Well, in the letters that Giallo publishes in an exclusive, Amanda writes to a social worker, Maurizio, who helped her, and she seems neither desperate or scared, she has friends and cellmates with which to share many interests, From reading to music, up to manicures. There is a priest, Don Saulo, with which she talks, and confesses, and helps her in her moments of discouragement.

      Sure, she suffers from the distance from her family, her loneliness and her imprisonment, but she can see her parents and speak with them frequently, and this notably relieves her suffering.

      2. Six letters from Knox to the social worker Maurizio 2008-2010

      April 3 2008

      Dear Maurizio,

      Thank you very much for that letter that for me is very interesting. I was thinking: “Why am I here?”, “why can’t I be with my mother?”, “ Yes the police can think badly about me, and meanwhile I do understand that I have to be in control, not run away from the situation, but why prison? I am 20 years old, never committed a crime, it is senseless. How can they say that I have to stay in prison like the people that can be a danger to others? Above all when they don’t know the truth?

      It really is a torture and now I understand the motivation. I understand the motivation, but I do not agree. “Sweet” or not it is a “TORTURE”. I am being tortured and it is not right…...

      Sorry. As I said I do suffer a lot in prison. Generally I am scared, alone, with no hope, sad, and tired, even if I am innocent.

      Thank you for the article. It is interesting to know how people that do not undergo this torture as I and hundreds others think. To tell you the truth, I can’t understand how some judges can sleep at night, when they very well know that it can be a grave mistake. ah… mamma mia….

      Come on! It is O.K. here. I am studying a lot and have started reading Italian Poetry.

      Another thing that I like a lot is the song “A te” by Jovanotti. “perché tu sei…semplicemente sei….sostanza dei giorni miei…sostanza dei giorni miei…. (lyric of the song n.d.r.). Have you heard it? According to me it is a live song. It is true. Simple and strong. I like it a lot.

      How are you? Do you like the change of weather? I spend more time outside reading a book and singing (I am still alone when I go outside). I am sun tanning but I’m still white white!

      Hope you are OK. Love, Amanda

      P.S. Let it be! Here comes the sun!  I know that I am not alone, even when I am alone

      April 28 2008

      Dear Maurizo,

      Thanks again for your thoughts and your gifts.

      I really like the T-shirts and the book of art. Beautiful! Mamma mia the talent of the artists always surprises me! Thanks. But you know, you do not have to buy me anything. I am happy just to hear from you.

      Really, [Priest] Don Saulo speaks to me so much about God’s gifts, especially about the strength to overcome the difficult moments, of which there are so many. He bought me a book on philosophy entitled “Umanesimo Integrale” and we speak often of my thoughts and my questions. He is a true friend and a very good man.

      It’s true, I must start to read a bit of classic Italian texts. Maybe there are some books in the library for me….......Who can explain to me about “Divina Commedia”? I know it exists and that it is famous, but more than that I am ignorant, unfortunately.

      Now my father is here with me, but he has to return to the United States, next week. In his place the husband of my mother, will come. I am happy, because from him I receive a lot of strength. He is like that.

      Today I go to the gym course (in a bit) and I have a home telephone call. My first telephone call was last week and I was so excited. The voices of the people I love are really a gift. I trembled a bit after those so little ten minutes.

      Now, I must go to the course to sweat a bit. grin I hope you are very well. Thanks again for your words.You are very kind.

      A hug, Amanda grin

      P.S. Let it be! Here comes the sun! I know I am not alone, even when I’m alone.

      November 26 2009

      Caro Maurizio,

      Ciao, my friend. How are you? It’s from forever that I write you. I imagine that you must have basketball in your head, since it is the season’s sport. I send best wishes to your nephews, who play it. I am terrible at basket. I have very small hands, therefore I can’t control the ball.

      I would like to thank you for meeting with my family. Chris told me nice things about your encounter, he was impressed by your generosity. I know that it is always nice and unique, every time that somebody comes toward you and they like you, just like that. Therefore, thank you, for having welcomed him, me and my dear ones.

      Nearly, nearly there. O mamma mia, one has to remain strong in these days. I am always hoping so much, even if, in my stomach I feel sick, anxious. More than anything, the closer it gets, the more I have to reinforce my patience against the fatigue and frustration.  But I will make it.

      A lot of my family will come tomorrow to be in court. There will be my father, my mother, my stepmother and my aunt. My three sisters will be here on Dec. 2. I hope so much to be able to go home with them, finally, this time. I see it in “my third eye” the vision of being on the plane between my mother and my sister. Maybe, I am thinking to much about it.

      Anyway, I hope you are well. I must go to sleep early tonight, to be ready for tomorrow.

      Thank you for your continued support.

      Your friend, Amanda grin

      Here comes the sun! Let it be! I know that I am not alone even when I am alone,

      Happy Thanksgiving!

      April 20 2010

      MAURIZIO

      Hi! How are you? I’m happy that I made you happy with the full translation. For me it was a satisfying job, so I thank you too for the chance that you gave me. I don’t think it will be a bad thing put up my name as a translator. OK it is fine for me and yes if you like it, you can even put my second name Marie,

      Thank you very much for the towels, to be truthful I really needed them. They are beautiful. I gave one of my pillow cases to the other inmate so we have twin pillows. She thanks you too and sends her best wishes.

      Seems like that the weather is finally changing. With great pleasure I was able to wear a skirt in these days. Now people are out and we play volleyball together under the sun. I made friends with a new 19 years old girl: she is an athlete too. Every day we walk or play with the ball together,

      Next Friday my mother, father and stepfather will be here for a visit. Mi mother and father are here for a short time to be interviewed on TV at “Quarto Grado” and then will come here. Can’t wait to see them, I miss them with all my heart.

      Well, hope that you are fine. Thank you again for everything and salute you with all my affection

      Hi your friend, Amanda

      I know that I am not alone even when I am alone

      August, 30 2010

      Dearest Maurizio

      Hi dear, how are you? Do you know that yesterday I was taking with D…. about you, only because you are a very special person in this world, for all that you do for others. She told me that you got married. Congratulations! Now I have to tell to my grandmother and break her heart! grin Just joking!

      I am well enough here. I thank you again for the shorts and shirt that you send me. They were perfect as always. Thanks and I hope that you didn’t lighten your wallet too much. I am kind of disappointed that you spend your money on me, you are too generous. I am always the same here.

      Just finished reading a book by Umberto Eco book that I liked a lot. In Italian should be “ L’isola del giorno prima”, I read it in English “The island of the day before”; maybe the “island of yesterday”? Anyway, I was favorably moved by Eco’s organization in this novel in order to communicate so many ideas on science, philosophy, ethic, imagination, literature. It was a book very rich on thoughts, and colpi di scena during it’s path.

      I like Umberto Eco because he meticulously builds the story that he wants to tell. Of all he writes, nothing is taken for granted and this is remarkable, he has a fantastic mind to dig deep while following a long track. I saw a Sean Connery movie based on a book of his “Il nome della Rosa?” It was fantastic. Always meticulously built, deep and fascinating.

      Seems like that the newspapers know before us when the appeal proceeding will take place. We still have not been officially notified, but my lawyers told me that it should start Nov. 24th; that in the USA is Thanksgiving Day. Hope that it is a good omen even if there is a lot in my life for which I should be grateful: to be alive, having the family that I have etc…

      [Undated letter]

      Dearest Maurizio,

      I am happy to hear from you again. I use now the paper you sent me to answer you.  Sorry to make you wait.  My mother has returned to the United States nearly a week ago, and my father returns to Italy tomorrow, to see me Tuesday.

      I am happy to remain in Perugia. I do not want to restart everything in another place.  Also I? (blurred) have heard that the prisons in Rome are harsher than here. Who knows?

      I only know that at least I know some of the prison officers fairly well, after all this time. I would be sorry to leave Don Saulo. I feel fine in my new cell. I changed it so I could be with a girl my own age. We joke, cook, we do manicures. Further, she does a manicure for me, because I do not know how to do one. We listen to music a lot because she has a radio.

      Thank you for all you do for me. The paper, your words of confidence, your prayers. To Don Saulo I will send your greetings. Do you write often to him too?  I hope all is very well with you. I send you a big hug. Ciao! Thank you!

      Amanda Knox grin

      Let it be, Let it be! Here comes the sun! (drawing of a sun)

      3. Comments by educational psychologist and graphologist Evi Crotti

      Looking at the Amanda Knox letters it is evident right away how organized and precise she is: she has a perfect handwriting, elegant and without smudges. We try to interpret it with the help of the graphologist and educational psychologist Evi Crotti.

      She explains: Her perfect, organized handwriting, without margins and few spaces indicates that we have before us a girl that is decisive, strong, who wants to dominate, and knows she can succeed in life. She puts herself In the center and leaves no place for others. Amanda displays a way of writing that is typically northamerican, in small print, called script.

      The handwriting, elegant, big and curved, reveals an extroverted personality, and with a notable sense of taste. Her language is fluid and polished, and the accuracy with which she writes, tells us that this young girl has a need to maximize and nurse her image, to the point of becoming narcissistic: after her signature she draws herself with a smiling face.

      Amanda leaves no space between the lines: this signifies an element of interior loneliness, which she attempts to compensate at any cost with approaches of verbal intrusiveness. This tells us that that her strong narcissistic behavior can escape control and lead her to present unstable behaviors. The fact instead that her handwriting is always in horizontal lines, without blurs, gives testimony to her practical intelligence and her strong tenaciousness,  that allow her to reach her goals.

      Also, the handwriting is rigid and this signifies that she knows how to use words with care and determination. Evi Crotti underlines that the handwriting is static: It is a sign of a behavior that is very seductive. Attention, the need to be attractive at all costs can make her lose sight of the objectivity of judgment , taking her to a subjective vision of circumstance reality.

      Conclusion:  Amanda seems to be in a continuous search of approval and acceptance from those who live around her. Her egocentricity, maybe pushed unto the point of a bogus personality, demonstrates that this girl possess a highly emotional immaturity that doesn’t allows her to love in an unselfish way. The handwriting slightly slanted to the left indicates a contradiction between the need to be liked and the reactive refusal toward a feminine figure: for her, probably every woman represents a rival.




















      Posted on 05/28/13 at 04:00 PM by Miriam. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
      Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyAmanda KnoxKnox-Mellas teamNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxesEvil Mignini hoax
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (42)

      Sunday, May 12, 2013

      (2) The Oggi Article Which Conveys To Italy Knox’s Claims Of Crimes: Our Claim By Claim Rebuttals

      Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



      [Umberto Brindani, editor of Oggi, a Mario Spezi ally, being sued for publishing Knox’s claims in Italy]


      The decision of Amanda Knox and her lawyers and publishers to flaunt her dishonest claims in Italy seems seriously ill advised.

      Pouring gasoline on the fames, it has opened up a fast-track way for those many who she nastily attacks to put the real truths in front of the world. Nobody who foolishly parrots her will be immune from being required to testify by the courts, her own lawyers included. 

      Here are our own short rebuttals of the Knox claims Oggi specifically flaunts to Italy in its unresearched review.

      • Knox was NOT interrogated for days and nights. She was put under no pressure in her brief witness interviews except possibly by Sollecito who had just called their latest alibi “a pack of lies”.

      • Knox WAS officially investigated in depth, after she surprisingly “confessed” and placed herself and Patrick at the scene. Prior to that she’d been interviewed less than various others, who each had one consistent alibi.

      • Knox herself pushed to make all three statements without a lawyer on the night of 5-6 November 2007 in which she claimed she went out from Sollecito’s house, met Patrick, and witnessed him killing Meredith.

      • Far from Knox being denied a lawyer, discussions were stopped before the first statement and not resumed, in the later hearing she was formally warned she needed one; she signed a confirmation of this in front of witnesses.

      • Prosecutor Mignini who Knox accuses of telling her a lawyer would hurt her prospects when she claims she asked for one was not even in the police station at that interview; he was at home.

      • She was not prohibited from going to the bathroom. At trial, she testified she was treated well and was frequently offered refreshments. Her lawyers confirmed this was so.

      • She was not given smacks by anyone. Over a dozen witnesses testified that she was treated well, broke into a conniption spontaneously, and thereafter was hard to stop talking.

      • There is no evidence whatsoever that Knox was subject to “something similar to torture” and as mentioned above only Sollecito applied any pressure, not any of the police.

      • There is nothing “suicidal” about returning to Italy to defend herself at the new appeal. Sollecito did. She risks an international arrest warrant and extradition if she doesn’t.

      • There is no proof except for her own claims of sexual molestations in prison; she is a known serial liar; and she stands out for an extreme willingness to talk and write about sex.

      • Many people have testified she was treated well in prison: her own lawyers, a member of parliament, and visitors from the US Embassy were among them; she herself wrote that it was okay.

      • She may have based her account on her diaries and “prodigious memory” but the obviously false accusation against the prosecutor suggests that much of the book was made up.

      • The investigators had a great deal of evidence against Knox in hand, not nothing, and they were not ever faulted for any action; they helped to put on a formidable case at trial in 2009.

      • “Police and Italian justice work with such incompetence, ferocity, and disdain for the truth” is contradicted by a very complete record prior to trial which was praised by the Supreme Court.

      • Mr Mignini has NO bizarre past at all. He is widely known to be careful and fair. He would not have been just promoted to first Deputy Prosecutor General of Umbria otherwise.

      • He was put on trial by a rogue prosecutor desperate to protect his own back from Mignini’s investigations; the Supreme Court has killed the trumped up case dead.

      • There was nothing “mysterious” about Knox being taken to the crime scene to see if any knives were gone, but her wailing panic when she saw the knives was really “mysterious”.

      • Knox never thought she was in prison for her own protection; she had signed an agreement at the 5:00 am interview confirming she did know why she was being held.

      • Monica Napoleoni did not “bluff” that Sollecito had just trashed their joint alibi; he actually did so, because his phone records incriminated him; he agreed to that in writing.

      • There was no crescendo of “yelling and intimidations that lasts from 11 at night until 5.45”. There were two relatively brief sessions. Knox did most of the talking, named seven possible perps, and drew maps.

      • There was zero legal requirement to record the recap/summary interview, no recording has “gone missing” and many officers present testified to a single “truth” about what happened.

      Friday, May 10, 2013

      For Multiple False Accusations Against ItaliaOfficials Knox Book Is Expected To Be Ordered Withdrawn

      Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



      [From the Dec 2008 NBC Dateline in which all interviewed concluded the two had cooked themselves]


      A judicial order is understood to be imminent to require HarperCollins to withdraw the Knox book from all markets in Europe.

      The exceptions are the UK or Italy because the publishers wisely tried to stay below the radar there. As for the US? The American arm of the publishers (wholly owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corps, both based in New York), would be left with little reason to fight. The First Amendment provides no automatic right to defame. 

      The Knox book is not selling very well in the US, despite a media blitz, and sales are unlikely to perk up from now on. Revenues are probably far below costs. And Knox is increasingly unable to parrot what her ghost writer put in the book - Raffaele Sollecito ran into the exact same problem.

      In the post below this one, one of the most serious of the false accusations is described. Lawyers are shaking their heads at the unbelievable stupidity of that inclusion. Did Robert Barnett and Ted Simon and the defense lawyers and publishers’ lawyers have any real clue about events?

      Let us review where things stand.

      BAD PR takes a position 180 degrees opposite to the truth and almost invariably fails to apply any lipstick to the pig.  GOOD PR takes a position 5 degrees from the truth and often eventually succeeds.

      RS’s and AK’s books both took the 180 degree approach, the “dont believe your lying eyes” approach, the Wizard of Oz approach, the nuclear war approach.

      This now looks like really, really bad PR and no legal common sense at all.

      This may have worked in temporary small ways in the US, though the movement has still not captured any big politician or big lawyer willing to head the parade. The Departments of State and Justice, very well informed on the case prior to the book,  are noticeably cold.

      It only gets worse.

      • In each case some money was made, but now all of that is at risk, in compensation to the victim’s family and in fines by the Italian state.

      • In each case it will be a legal and public opinion disaster for the two and their support teams at the pending new appeal in Florence.

      • In each case, their books had the stink of blood money; that is widely despised both in Italy and in the United States and has rarely turned out to be a good thing (ask OJ).

      • In each case, the very existence of the book as an attempt to rain public hostility on the court during an ongoing legal process is a contempt of the court.

      • In each case, the book contained myriad small mistakes and smears as we have been showing with Sollecitos book and have now begun with Knox’s. (See the links in left column.)

      • In each case, the book contained one huge defamatory lie which might end up costing each of them years in prison.

      In Sollecito’s book it was that the prosecution tried to force on him a deal to roll over on Knox, claiming there was no “real” evidence on him - but stacks of evidence in Knox’s case (gee thanks Sollecito).

      In Knox’s case it was this absurd lie described below that Prosecutor Mignini illegally tried to talk Knox into firmly framing Patrick Lumumba.

      In Sollecito’s case the book was almost instantly ripped apart on Italian national TV in the #1 crime talk show Porta a Porta with Sollecito’s dad seen squirming throughout the show.





      Subsequently Sollecito’s own lawyer Maori had to come out publicly and renounce RS’s claim to the media - it was either that, or Bongiorno and Maori would have been dead certs for prosecution themselves. They were credited with helping to write the book.

      Expect the same from Knox’s lawyers. In many places Knox drops them in it, and she describes Dalla Vedova in particular as performing various unethical and possibly illegal actions.

      Thereafter in Sollecito’s case there was a drip-drip-drip phase in the Italian media. Yummi captured it really well in this in-depth post and it is worth reading again because for Knox we will likely see it repeated for the same reasons:

      Then in RS’s case we had the two developments described here: (1) the complaints against him briefly going public and being widely reported, and (2) then being yanked behind the scenes by the Florence chief prosecutor, where they will be investigated for the next 3-4 months.

      Even in the remote chance that the Florence appeal court declares Sollecito not guilty of Meredith’s murder (and he has now stacked more evidence against him, as has Knox), for falsely accusing court officials who handle mafia cases and have special protections he could still face up to ten years.

      Sollecito’s lawyers and family and he himself are now all seriously off their game, and seemingly doing no more talking. Sollecito seems to be attempting to set up an escape route through Switzerland. Good luck with that.

      Knox’s book now places her in the same position. In fact maybe worse. Two countries have been set at loggerheads by the private practice of foreign policy here. The complaint can therefore be pushed up further, to the powerful Council of Magistrates or even the President of the Republic.

      And at that point, the complaint could be shared with the US Departments of State and Justice and the FBI. If that happens no official in the US, such as a judge deciding on an extradition request, would go to bat for Knox.

      Knox seems cooked. By her own hands. Or those of the exploitative bunch around her.


      Thursday, May 02, 2013

      The Amanda Knox Book: Good Reporters Start To Surface Amanda Knox’s False Claims In Droves

      Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



      [American Ambassador to Italy David Thorne whose reports contradict Knox’s prison claims]

      Did ANYBODY think to check Knox’s book for criminal defamations and false claims? Take this glaring “mistake” from page 248.

      During the rebuttals, on December 3, each lawyer was given a half hour to counter the closing arguments made over the past two weeks. Speaking for me, Maria criticized Mignini for portraying Meredith as a saint and me as a devil

      Really? Prosecutor Mignini said that? So why did the entire media corps report that it was said by Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer Carlo Pacelli? As the BBC reported:

      [Mr Pacelli] added: “Who is the real Amanda Knox? Is it the one we see before us here, simple water and soap, the angelic St Maria Goretti?”

      “Or is she really a she-devil, a diabolical person focused on sex, drugs and alcohol, living life to the extreme and borderline - is this the Amanda Knox of 1 November 2007?”

      So even Mr Pacelli didnt compare Knox to Meredith, or simply call Knox a she-devil to her face. He asked rhetorically if she was a she-devil or a saint. Not exactly unheard of in American courts.

      And remember he was addressing someone who would have been quite happy to see Patrick put away for life, cost him two weeks in a cell, entangled her own mother in a cover-up, destroyed Patrick’s business and reputation world-wide, still hasnt paid him money owed, and for lying about him served three years.

      Prosecutor Mignini in fact never called Knox anything at all. We can find no record that he did. Again and again he has denied it. And he had no personal need to prosecute Knox, and certainly no need to frame her, despite many pages Knox devotes to trying to prove the reckless claim that he did.

      Another false claim: Knox’s claim that Prosecutor Mignini invented the notion of a satanic cult to explain the Monster of Florence murders, also made by Sollecito, is totally untrue. 

      Dozens of others had suspected and talked about a satanic cult for YEARS before he investigated one loose end in the case. And both that theory and that investigation are back on track - at the recent order of the Supreme Court.

      Another false claim: Knox devotes pages to trying to make herself look good on the witness stand at the trial. But Italians who could follow in Italian in real-time ended up suspecting and despising her performance up there.  Read what they saw here and here.

      Inspired by such conspicuous false claims as these, various reporters have begun to dig. We posted on Knox’s false claims about her prison time and the many disproofs. Italy-based reporter Andrea Vogt uncovers some more.

      Knox’s memoir is a vivid personal account of the difficulties of prison life in Italy, complete with claims about inappropriate behaviour by staff. But Knox herself once painted a different picture.

      Other documents - including writings Knox penned in her own hand while incarcerated, case files and state department records - conjure up quite another impression of a very different Knox, one who was more sanguine about her experience.


      On the attitudes of the prison staff

      “The prison staff are really nice,” wrote Knox in her personal prison diary, which was eventually published in Italy under the title Amanda and the Others.

      “They check in to make sure I’m okay very often and are very gentle with me. I don’t like the police as much, though they were nice to me in the end, but only because I had named someone for them, when I was very scared and confused.”

      She described Italian prisons as “pretty swell”, with a library, a television in her room, a bathroom and a reading lamp. No-one had beaten her up, she wrote, and one guard gave her a pep talk when she was crying in her cell.

      Unlike the heavily-edited memoir, these are phrases she handwrote herself, complete with strike-outs, flowery doodles, peace signs and Beatles lyrics.


      On the positive HIV result she was given

      Both accounts also refer to the devastating but erroneous news from the prison doctor that she had tested positive for HIV, although her diary presents a more relaxed person at this point. “First of all, the guy told me not to worry, it could be a mistake, they’re going to take a second test next week.”

      We also know that it was Knox’s own lawyers who leaked the HIV report and list of sex partners. Not the doctor or anyone else. No malice was intended, that is clear, despite her claims.

      On her framing of her kindly employer Lumumba

      [Knox] writes that she had a flashback to the interrogation, when she felt coerced into a false accusation. “I was weak and terrified that the police would carry out their threats to put me in prison for 30 years, so I broke down and spoke the words they convinced me to say. I said: ‘Patrick - it was Patrick.’”

      In her memoir, she describes in detail the morning that she put that accusation in writing, and says the prison guard told her to write it down fast.

      Yet in a letter to her lawyers she gives no hint of being rushed or pressured. “I tried writing what I could remember for the police, because I’ve always been better at thinking when I was writing. They gave me time to do this. In this message I wrote about my doubts, my questions and what I knew to be true.”


      On her medical examination after arrest

      “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, measured and photographed her private parts, she writes - “the most dehumanising, degrading experience I had ever been through”.

      But in the 9 November letter to her lawyers, she described a far more routine experience.

      “During this time I was checked out by medics. I had my picture taken as well as more copies of my fingerprints. They took my shoes and my phone. I wanted to go home but they told me to wait. And that eventually I was to be arrested. Then I was taken here, to the prison, in the last car of three that carried Patrick, then Raffaele, then me to prison.”


      On her persona and mood swings in prison

      She says she was often suicidal, but recollections of prison staff and other inmates differ. Flores Innocenzia de Jesus, a woman incarcerated with Amanda in 2010 described Knox as sunny and popular among the children who were in Capanne with their mothers, and recalled her avid participation in music and theatrical events. She also held a sought-after job taking orders and delivering goods to inmates from the prison dispensary.

      “Most of the time when we spoke during our exercise break, the kids would call her and she would go and play with them,” de Jesus told me.


      And on what US officlals and her own lawyers perceived

      State department cables, released through the Freedom of Information Act, show that between 2007 and 2009, three different high-level diplomats from Rome (Ambassador Ronald Spogli, Deputy Chief Elizabeth Dibble and Ambassador David Thorne) were among those reviewing Knox’s case.

      Embassy officials visited regularly. Records show one consular official visited Knox on 12 November, soon after her arrest.  A few weeks later she wrote in her diary how the visits of embassy officials improved her experience….

      In 2008 and 2009, she was visited by two embassy officials at a time, six times. Ambassador David Thorne, whose name appears at the bottom of cables in August, November and December of 2009, is the brother- in-law of US Secretary of State John Kerry (at that time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).

      If the diplomats knew anything of the “harrowing prison hell” Knox was going through (as one paper put it), they are keeping those reports under wraps. Neither Kerry nor any other prominent US politician has made any public complaints. Even today, her Italian lawyers maintain she was not mistreated.

      Half a dozen obvious false claims and defamations here. We estimate we will uncover well over one hundred more.


      Thursday, April 25, 2013

      The Amanda Knox Book: Claims About Prison Traumas Widely Contradicted By Solid Sources

      Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



      [Above and at bottom: an animated Amanda Knox in red t-shirt at a prison rock concert]

      “Amanda Knox’s trauma in an Italian hell-hole of sin and debauchery!”

      That opening remark of a preview by the National Enquirer of Amanda Knox’s forthcoming book has been widely parroted in other American media reports.

      Putting out new claims in the book like that is apparently considered to be worth the huge risk of extra years behind bars for contempt of court described in the post below this one.

      Still, the US edition was sanitized after the annullment by the Supreme Court of the Hellmann appeal, and the UK publication of the book was canceled altogether.

      So what are these remaining shock-horror claims? We intend to post commentary on them all.

      Several concern Knox’s time in Capanne Prison where, it should be remembered, she actually served a three year sentence for lying. This was a sentence recently ratified by the Supreme Court, for criminal lying about the involvement of Patrick Lumumba in Merediths murder.

      Main prison claim 1: sex advances by staff

      One of the prison claims made public names a now-retired senior prison guard who Knox now claims asked her for sex. Actually this is hardly new news. Knox made the claim but in a far weaker form in 2011.

      Then as CBS reported she had in fact concluded the guard was not even serious about sex. He was seeking to understand her.

      Investigative journalist and CBS News Consultant Bob Graham, reading from Amanda’s letter to him: “‘He was fixated on the topic of sex, with whom I’d done it, how I liked it, if I would like to do it with him. When I realized that he really wanted to talk to me about sex I would try to change the subject.’”

      Correspondent Peter Van Sant: “What does this letter say to you about what she’s been going through?”

      Graham: “It says in a time when she was clearly traumatized by the events of the death, the murder of her flatmate, that there she was, an innocent abroad, because she was innocent, she is innocent… and here she was being pressured, further pressured in a prison system, a system that at least she should have had some degree of safety.”

      Graham, reading Amanda’s letter: “I realize that he was testing me to see if I reacted badly, to understand me personally. He wanted to get a reaction or some information from me. I did not get the seriousness of the situation.’”

      Knox’s claim seems to have left Italians contemptuous. “Yet more lies.” Here is a commentary on Knox’s claim of sexual harrassment in Il Giornale.

      AMANDA: “THE WARDER WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH ME”.

      Nino Materi - Monday 15/04/2013 - 15:38.

      And in the end do you want to see that we will have even have to compensate Amanda Knox for the “psycho-sexual” abuse suffered in prison in Perugia? By now we have become used to everything in the ugly story of the murder of poor Meredith Kercher.

      But you really need a strong stomach to get used to the idea that the girl from Seattle should even be earning millions of dollars with true-story book (“true” in a manner of saying) which rummages in the trash of the Perugia thriller. A literary destiny which associates Amanda with the other key character at the crime scene: that Raffaele Sollecito author of a another true-story book (once again “true” in a manner of saying). Sollecito’s memoir is entitled Honour Bound: my Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox, while Amanda’s “best-seller” is called Waiting to be Heard.

      Pages in which Amanda – among other things – tries to make herself out to be an ingenuous, modest creature actually “molested” by the sexually implicit sayings of a supposedly dirty-minded prison warden. Amanda writes, or the ghost writer does, “The screw would ask me with whom I had had sex, he wanted to know how many boyfriends I had and whether I wanted to go to bed with him.” The period referred to is when the American student was in the Perugia prison following the first stage sentence for the crime of Meredith’s “friend”.

      Then, on appeal, Knox (and Sollecito) were acquitted and now Cassation has ordered a new trial for them both. Meanwhile Amanda has gone back to Seattle (from where she will obviously never return to Italy) and she is enjoying the proceeds of her new career as a writer, not to speak of being a guest of agony TV, where between tears she tells how she was persecuted in our country. And the more she cries, the more the audience hits the roof and the more Amanda’s bank account grows. No talk of repaying her debt to Italian Justice…

      In the 400 pages published by Harper Collins, the New York publishers which obtained the exclusive on the memoirs of Amanda after paying out about three million dollars, there is no lack of titillating details. A perfect location: the cells of Capanne Prison. Here Amanda tells about “continual requests from a prisoner to start a lesbian relationship with her”. In other pages she recalls how “she was informed of being HIV positive shortly after her arrival in gaol”.

      Then the shock-revelation about a prison guard who is now retired. Knox accuses him of “ doing nothing but talk about sex with her from the day she arrived after her arrest”. In a message to a girlfriend, the girl from Seattle tells how the man in uniform accompanied her on every medical visit, twice a day, and in the evening how he would call her up to the third floor of the prison to an empty room to chat. “He was obsessed with sex, with whom I had done it, how I liked doing it, whether I wanted to do it with him,” she writes in the book. “I was so surprised and scandalised by all his provocations that sometimes I wondered whether I was not misunderstanding what he was telling me. When I realized that he wanted to talk about sex I tried to change the subject.”

      The guard is now suing the girl for defamation after Amanda said that she had been abused during the questioning. In an interview with Bob Graham, an English journalist very close to the Knox family, the guard admitted talking about sex with Amanda, but claiming that she was the one who introduce the topic: “I talked to her a lot, but only to calm her down. I asked her how many boyfriends she had had, but it was always she had to start talking about sex.”

      Anyone who wants to rummage in the garbage, buy the book by all means.


      Main prison claim 2: malicious sex-partner humiliation

      The second main claim against a prison official concerned the preliminary results of a routine HIV test required of all prisoners and a list of sex partners. The list of sex partners was reported in the media in 2008 as if the prosecutor and prison doctor had engineered the result and then leaked it to the public. 

      What did we find when we looked closely into this?

      Knox’s own diary made quite clear that she was the one who decided to create such a list, and the list in fact seems to have been leaked by Knox forces. Back then, Knox herself exonerates the doctor and prosecutor.

      Main prison claim 3: Italian prison conditions are unbearable

      Italian prison conditions and treatment, Knox claims, were so bad that they made her life miserable. She says that at times she became very despondent, and even claims to have imagined doing away with herself. 

      However, Italian prison conditions except for occasional overcrowding are widely considered among the most humane, caring and rehabilitating in the world. Compared to US prison conditions, they are like night and day.

      And this almost universal claim of every prisoner everywhere is contradicted by the media on which she and her family worked hard; by prison staff and official visitors, and even by the US Federal Government itself.

      (1) Contradicted by the extensive media reporting

      Occasional despondency is not all uncommon among those paying their debt to society. And there is scads of reporting that Knox had adjusted well to prison.

      Here is a report by ABC News after Knox was found guilty in 2009.

      Knox said that she felt “horrendous” the night that the verdict was delivered. “She said the prison guards did come in to hold her and make her feel better. She said the other prisoners were good to her,” Thomas said.

      The reporter said the prison is “extremely clean.” Knox’s cell, which she shares with another American who has been sentenced on drug charges, is small. “It had a little bathroom with a door, a bidet, a sink, a shower…. better than some of the things I’ve seen at summer camp or boarding school.”

      The women inmates are allowed to go to a hairdresser once a week.

      The prison is a new facility, just opened in 2005. The women’s ward has an infirmary, an entertainment room with a pool table and ping-pong table, and a library. There is also a small chapel. Outside there is a little playground for children with benches and toys because there are cells specifically for women with children. Currently there are two women in Capanne with children.

      It was very widely reported over four years that Knox was given the opportunity to do all these many things rarely encountered in American prisons: Learn the guitar. Read a lot. Watch TV. Study foreign languages.

      Do artwork (colored pictures of hands). Attend rock concerts where she was seen leaping up and down (images here). Attend classical concerts. Attend Christmas parties.

      Knox even played a major part in the creation of a rock video with a rock group. Unfortunately for her, that video appeared to many to come close to a taunting murder confession.

      And on various occasions Knox was quoted as saying prison guards were kind to her.

      (2) Contradicted by the US Embassy and State Department

      US Embassy staff regularly monitored Knox’s treatment both during trial and thereafter. She was given chances again and again to lodge complaints with an Embassy officer.

      But as we posted here in June 2010 and here in May 2011 cables from the US Rome Embassy to the State Department in Washington DC released to reporter Andrea Vogt contained ZERO complaints.

      This matters incredibly because it constitutes the official take of the US Federal Government.

      It will be front and center of State Department and Justice Department considerations when an arrest warrant for Knox is issued and extradition requested both of which could happen soon.

      (3) Contradicted by Member of Parliament Rocco Girlanda

      Mr Girlanda visited Amanda Knox in prison approximately 20 times for the specific purpose (or so he claimed) of checking her prison conditions. In fact that was the only way he could legally visit her, although oddly enough a book and a number of other pro-Knox actions emerged - even a complaint to the President about the Perugia prosecutors.

      After Knox was released late in 2011 Mr Girlanda specifically praised the prison staff in this statement.

      Perugia Prison Police The Example of Professionalism.

      The PdL Party member of parliament Rocco Girlanda praises the officers of the Perugia prison.

      “I’ve had the opportunity to describe to the Minister of Justice, Nitto Palma, the great professional behaviour shown by the Perugia Penitentiary Police with regards to the court case that saw Amanda Knox as protagonist, a behaviour that I had always observed during the course of my visits to the Capanne prison in the last two years.”  So says Rocco Girlanda, Umbrian deputy of the PdL, after the conclusion of the appeal trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

      “In recent months I have had the opportunity to make dozens of visits to the prison, which also included some of the petitions presented by the senior management of the premises and my commitment in this regard, always finding, that starting from the director Bernardina Di Mario, continuing with the Penitentiary Police commander Fulvio Brillo, up to the entire personnel employed, the helpfulness, the courtesy and their professionalism which allows me to say that Perugia is a model structure on the national landscape, managed and directed in the best way and with a large dose of humanity on the part of the staff employed.”


      (4) Contradicted by Knox’s own Italian lawyers

      Knox’s lawyers Mr Dalla Vedova and Mr Ghirga visited her again and again during the 2009 trial and 2010 hiatus and 2011 appeal. Knox once again had dozens of opportunities to lodge complaints with them - lawyers who could have initiated Supreme Court action in response.

      When Knox was released late in 2011 Mr Dalla Vedova and Mr Ghirga were interviewed by the TV station Umbria 24:

      The lawyers: “she never complained about the prison”.

      Amanda Knox “has never complained about the conduct/behavior of the prison police supervisor” and “she has never mentioned his name”: to say so are the defenders of the American woman, lawyers Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga, commenting on what was reported by the tabloid The Sun. “

      Ghirga said: “In the diary Amanda never makes the name.”

      Della vedova said: “We are grateful to the management staff of Capanne prison for their cooperation even given to the family’s requirements. Amanda has never reported violations against her.”

      “She absolutely has received the correct treatment and the outmost solidarity, within compliance, especially in the prison’s female section.”


      (5) Contradicted by prison guards and other inmates

      In some interviews, the reporter Sharon Feinstein captures a view of a difficult, narcissistic, uncaring Amanda Knox which is very commonplace around Perugia. The real faults lie with Knox, in effect.

      Our legal assessment

      So does Amanda Knox’s book contain defamatory lies which could cost her considerable additional prison time? The book is not even out yet but, based on the first hints above, she’s in serious trouble. 







      Posted on 04/25/13 at 04:20 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
      Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxHoaxers - main peopleKnox-Mellas teamKnox interrog hoaxNasty-prison hoaxKnox book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (60)

      Friday, April 12, 2013

      Questions For Knox: Diane Sawyer, How To Push Back Against The False Claims And Emotion

      Posted by Media Watcher





      Dear Diane Sawyer:

      Much of Italy and the UK and US will be curious to see how this interview works out on the ABC network on 30 April.

      The extreme overkill of spin and false claims have not worked well for Knox lately. Now twin developments (the blunt and categoric ruling of the Supreme Court two weeks ago, and the ominous legal moves against Sollecito for his own rash public statements) have left Amanda Knox perched on a thin icy ledge.

      We have dozens of lawyers and even judges read here. We do not know even one astute lawyer who really understands the case and the Italian system who, in light of those twin developments, considers this interview or Knox’s book as any longer a good idea.

      The yanking of the book in Britain shows a creeping realization of this among those with their own necks on the line here.

      The twin developments have changed this from the launch of a “promotional” book tour to a very serious inquiry into an ongoing murder trial, with very serious implications for U.S./Italian diplomatic relations.

      We’re appreciative that you are the journalist who will be doing the first in-depth interview here. You have a solid reputation for balance and objectivity, and we’re looking forward to seeing your broadcast. 

      From Seattle, it often seems as though Americans simply cannot comprehend that a young co-ed could be caught up in a case so violent.  Because the court proceedings were conducted in Italian, most Americans heard the story of what happened through a media filter, which in turn got much of its information from people who had a bias in support of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

      Repeatedly, we have heard reporters parrot the defense attorney’s claim that there is no evidence.”  However, the evidence presented was strong enough to convince Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz that the conviction will likely be affirmed on appeal. 

      Other legal experts who have said the evidence supports a guilty verdict include New England Law Professor Wendy Murphy, who was herself a former prosecutor, and Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor who now hosts a show on trials and legal issues for CNN.

      Contributors to this site, who all work pro bono, have also concluded the evidence supports a guilty verdict. We have studied the evidence presented at trial (in many cases ourselves translating key court documents) and have monitored with growing alarm the huge disconnect here in the U.S. between what happened in court and what has been reported.

      What motivates us now is seeing that the reporting of the trial here in the United States is objective and corresponds with the reality of what is happening in Italy and what Italians are seeing and reading. 

      Ultimately, if the conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is upheld by the Appeals Court and then Italy’s Supreme Court, we expect that the United States will honor the extradition treaty that’s been in place for decades, because it shouldn’t matter whether a perpetrator is perceived as attractive or sympathetic. While everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and a fair judicial process, we also believe the victim’s family is entitled to justice.

      Having said all of that, we’re looking forward to seeing your report and here are some of the themes we hope you’ll explore in the report that surrounds the interview:

        1) We believe it’s important to confront the “no evidence” claim head on by citing the actual evidence that is summarized in the Massei Report.  We believe it’s compelling and we hope you can lay it out– including the DNA, cell phone, witness statements, bloody footprint, the evidence of a coverup/cleanup, and the conflicting and shifting statements made by the defendants; all so that viewers can understand the full scope of what that jury heard and evaluated in making the original decision to convict.

        2) Many Americans seem to not understand the automatic three-stage trial process that is typical of the Italian judicial system - actually put in place to benefit defendants.  We hope you can provide an overview of Italy’s judicial process, and help viewers to understand the very limited scope of the contested evidence that was subject to review by the Appeals Court.  We also hope you’ll remind viewers of all of the evidence that was not subject to review during the appeal—again, the cell phone evidence, the conflicting statements from the defendants, the evidence that showed Amanda and Meredith’s DNA mixed together in the bathroom and hallway and Filomena’s room, the bloody (Sollecito) footprint, the evidence of a staged break-in and cleanup, and the witness statements about Amanda and Raffaele’s conduct at the time the murder was discovered and over the following days.

        3) Defenders of Amanda and Raffaele often claim that Rudy Guede acted alone.  Many viewers seem not to understand that the Supreme Court had earlier ruled that Rudy Guede was one of multiple attackers.  We believe it would be useful if you could review this for your viewers and cite some of the evidence that convinced the Supreme Court that Guede could not have acted alone.  Perhaps reminding viewers that Rudy Guede’s footprints lead directly from the murder scene to the outside door would be helpful, given that there was clearly mixed DNA evidence in the bathroom and a bloody footprint in the hallway, which had been cleaned up and later revealed through the use of Luminol (a chemical agent used by forensics specialists to detect trace amounts of blood left at crime scenes).

        4) We hope you’ll help viewers to understand a key point made in a recent NYTimes op-ed about the mathematical value of doing a second DNA test on the knife that was found in Sollecito’s apartment.  As you know, the Appeals Court Judge refused to allow a second test on the knife, even though a confirmation of the original result or a different result would likely have provided additional clarity.

        5) We hope you’ll address the issue of contamination – especially as the key issue on the bra clasp is not whether Sollecito’s DNA was on it, but whether Sollecito’s DNA could have gotten on the clasp through contamination.  Given that there was only one other piece of Sollecito’s DNA found in the apartment, and given that at the time it was analyzed, it had been more than a week since any evidence from the crime scene was reviewed in the lab, it might be useful to have someone address the chances of there having been contamination resulting in Sollecito’s DNA ending up on the clasp.

      With respect to the interview itself, here are some of the questions many would like to see Amanda answer:

        • 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?

      Thank you for reading this letter, Diane.  Because of the PR fog around the case, we believe far more attention needs to be paid to the actual evidence that was presented at trial. 

      We are confident that you’ll bring all of your considerable skill and experience to bear on this interview in ways that will leave viewers much better informed.




      Monday, February 18, 2013

      Raffaele Sollecito Now Under Formal Investigation For New Crimes Apparently Unprecedented

      Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




      Breaking news. The Chief Prosecutor for Tuscany Dr Quattrocchi (above and below) has taken this investigation of Sollecito behind the scenes. Dr Quattrocchi is actually under no compulsion to make any of the Perugia and Rome complaints public before his investigation is complete. He has ordered all documents removed from the public domain. This is specifically to give the defense and their PR no advantage, and to make sure those others in Perugia who are going to complain about being defamed do so without harm.

      Overview

      This is a contempt of court case as court officials have been impugned. This is Wikipedia’s definition of “contempt of court” under US and UK common law.

      Contempt of court is a court order which in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court’s authority.

      Often referred to simply as “contempt,” such as a person “held in contempt,” it is the judge’s strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court’s normal process.

      A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial.

      A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court.

      We may now find out much more about the equivalent under Italian law.

      When Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were released at the end of 2011, the prosecution filed a Supreme Court appeal within the allotted period. This automatically meant that Sollecito and Knox still stood accused of crimes until the Supreme Court finally signs off.

      Typically Italian defendants in such a legal status get good legal advice, on the lines of “Shut up and keep your heads down. We need to be the only ones doing the talking here.” 

      Here such advice may or may not have been forthcoming, but the public record strongly suggests it was not. In fact Sollecios entire legal team is credited by both himelf and his shadow writer Andrew Gumbel with helping. This is what Gumbel wrote in his Acknowledgments:

      Donatella Donati in Luca Maori’s office gave up many hours to make the official documentation available and to present it all in a cogent order. She’s a largely unsung hero in this story and deserves recognition for her extraordinary efforts on Raffaele’s behalf. Giulia Bongiorno, Luca Maori, and Tiziano Tedeschi answered questions and made comments on parts of the manuscript.

      In the same Acknowledgments Sollecito credits the following.

      I was lucky to have a crack legal team who showed their devotion to the truth and, in some cases, did not even request payment. The team of lawyers and consultants included Adriano Tagliabracci, Francesco Vinci, Bruno Pellero, Francesco Introna, Giulia Bongiorno, Maurizio Parisi, Daniela Rocchi, Luca Maori, Donatella Donati, Marco Brusco, Aldo Poggioni, Delfo Berretti, Tiziano Tedeschi, and Antonio D’Ambrosio.

      Interestingly, Luca Maori has already left Sollecio’s legal team, and all eyes are now on Giulia Bongiorno. Buy plenty of popcorn. Lawsuits could fly between lawyers and family. 

      Since the end of 2011 Curt Knox’s forces seem to have have gone full steam ahead with their own vilifications of the Italian prosecutors, police, judges, and witnesses - in fact almost anyone who had any role in 2009 in finding them guilty, or came to believe that was a fair finding. Ourselves included.

      In late 2012 Curt Knox apparently invited all the most fervent of these attackers to Seattle, including Frank Sforza and Bruce Fischer, as some sort of reward for their legally very ill-advised campaign. Buy plenty more popcorn. Lawsuits could fly here as well. 

      Raffele Sollecito’s forces in Italy had been a lot more restrained.

      But at a stroke, the shrillness of Raffaele Sollecito leapfrogged that of Amanda Knox’s forces, with the publication of his book Honor Bound by Simon and Schuster in English in the UK and US last September,

      INSTANTLY the book became notorious in Italy, because excerpts were read out by an Italian reporter in New York on the national television show Porta a Porta. Raffele Sollecito’s father Francesco was on that show, and he was increasingly forced to admit a key claim in the book was invented. It simply never happened. His son made it up.

      The false claim by his son that Francesco was made to repudiate - it reappears over many pages - concerned a claimed deal engineered by his family and offered by the prosecution to Sollecito.

      The deal he claimed was to roll over on Amanda Knox, and if Sollecito did so, he would be home free.

      Following the Porta a Porta show, the book (obtainable on UK Amazon, where many false claims are repeated in the reviews) began to make its rounds in Italy. It took some time before many official parties accused of crimes by Sollecito obtained copies and started to explore their own legal possibilities. They are apparently still far from finished.

      At the end of last week, the Chief Prosecutor for Tuscany Giuseppe Quattrocchi received the first official request from Perugia, which is to investigate 12 very serious claims in the book against the prosecution and the legal institutions of Italy. The complaint nominates a number of witnesses.

      The Prosecution office of Florence now has a maximum of six months to investigate whether there is a case against Sollecito and other named parties. If so, they will steer it through the hoops of the Italian process.

      The potential ripple effects of this appear to us to stretch on and on. They could come to engulf both legal teams (credited in the book with helping) and all of the PR for both defendants. Sollecito’s publisher and shadow writer are specifically named in the complaint

      If Amanda Knox is not let off the hook by the Italian Supreme Court late in March (the outcome we consider most likely, given the great strength of the appeal) the smart way for Knox to go in light of this could be to junk all her websites, her book, and her interviews, and throw her supporters under the bus. Plus maybe get smarter lawyers - the aggressive and inexperienced Dalla Vedova does her no favors.

      Keeping Amanda Knox’s head out of this deadly new line of fire may be very late - but maybe better late than never.




      Friday, October 28, 2011

      A Famous Black Widow Confirms What MP Girlanda Told Us First: Italian Prisons Are Pretty Nice Places

      Posted by Peter Quennell




      Florence is 70 miles north of Perugia along a winding roller coaster of an autostrada which everyone drives at great speed.

      If you take more than 1/2 an hour you are a sissy. (Just kidding.) The global luxury goods empire House of Gucci with stores in New York, Shanghai, and many other main cities was founded in Florence in 1921.

      In 1998 Maurizio Gucci the grandson of the founder who was then aged 46 was executed by a hit man in Milan.

      He had sold financial control of the empire he had managed to greatly expand to a Bahrain group in 1993 and then turned to doing other things. That included several girlfriends or mistresses which greatly distressed his wife.

      Patrizia Reggiani was subsequently tried for initiating the hit and she was sentenced to 29 years which was reduced on appeal to 26. Nick Squires in the Daily Telegraph picks up the story from there.

      Patrizia Reggiani has been in jail ever since being convicted of the killing in 1998. More than a decade later, she was the prospect of day release from Milan’s San Vittore prison, if she will accept a menial job such as working as a waitress.

      But the 63-year-old, whose extravagant tastes included spending 10,000 euros a month on orchids, told a court in Milan: “I’ve never worked in my life and I’m certainly not going to start now.”

      Her peremptory refusal of the day release deal echoed one of her more famous quotes: “I would rather weep in a Rolls-Royce than be happy on a bicycle.”

      Instead she intends to serve the rest of her 26-year sentence in her jail cell, where she reportedly lavishes affection on a collection of pot plants and a pet ferret.

      She will continue to be allowed to make twice-monthly visits to her ageing mother, who lives in a lavish palazzo in central Milan – a reminder of the cosseted lifestyle Mrs Reggiani used to enjoy.

      A not-unpopular figure in Italy, she may soon be depicted by Angelina Jolie in a new Ridley Scott film to be called “Gucci” with Leonardo di Caprio as the hapless Maurizio. 

      The description of Patrizia’s prison life comes with no surprises. If you are going to be a prisoner anywhere in the world, Italy does seem the place of choice. .

      The prison population is very small (proportionally only 1/6 that of the US) and prisoners often get their own bathroom and even a kitchen attached to their cell. They can watch TV and walk outside (in many prisons cell doors are kept open all day) and get their hair done professionally and attend rock concerts and plays. They can learn a trade if they lack skills, study for a degree, and even work on a computer all day.

      Knox and Sollecito are believed to have done all of these things. Not least because the Italian MP Rocco Girlanda often visited Knox in Capanne and publicly told us all so. Mr Girlanda regularly visited to inspect conditions and then he declared Knox to be very well off. (He in return ended up with enough material for a book which nowhere depicted prison life as hell.)

      These sob-stuff stories on torrid life at Capanne suddenly emerging from Seattle sure smack of an instant rewrite of history. Perhaps Angelina Jolie could check them out.


      [Image at bottom: the Gucci museum in Florence which recently had a celebrity opening]








      Wednesday, March 02, 2011

      Serious Felony Charge Of Deliberate HIV Leak Was In Fact A Knox Defense-Team Hoax

      Posted by Michael



      Above and below: images from the two misleading scenes

      Movie Advances HIV & Sex Partners List Hoax

      The Lifetime movie nicely depicted Meredith and Mignini, and was not tough on Knox, though it seemed to leave many viewers sensing the possibility of guilt.

      However, there were some seriously wrong scenes in the Lifetime movie, and also in the following Lifetime documentary. Two advanced the HIV sex partners hoax.

      In a first long and emotional scene, the film depicted Amanda Knox being told by the doctor at Capanne that in a routine test she tested positive for HIV. It implied the test was a form of pressure. It showed Knox being told she should write down a list of her previous partners.

      In a second long and emotional scene, the film depicted a confrontation between an angry Amanda and the doctor when he told her she was all clear. And thereafter the sex partners list was leaked by the prosecution.

      These implied criminal actions on the part of the Capanne Prison medical staff and the prosecutors, and may have aroused a lot of false sympathy for Amanda Knox.

      Reality: The Routine HIV Test And First Results

      Lifetime depicted Amanda Knox being told by the doctor at Capanne that she tested positive for HIV. It implied the test was unusual.

      But on her admittance to Capanne Prison, Knox was simply routinely tested for HIV and some other possible conditions, as all prisoners are for their own good.

      When the first result came back the doctor told Amanda that the first result of the test was probably a false positive.  She shouldn’t worry, and another test would be run. Her diary reads:

      Last night before I went to bed I was taken down to see yet another doctor who I haven’t yet met before. He had my results from a test they took—which says I’m positive for HIV.

      First of all the guy told me not to worry, it could be a mistake, they’re going to take a second test next week….

      Reality: Knox Herself Creates Sex Partners List

      Lifetime claimed Amanda Knox was told to write down her list of partners by the doctor.

      But in Amanda Knox’s own words, you can read how it went down: She chose herself to create the sex partners list. The doctor never instructed Amanda to write out that list. Her diary reads:

      Thirdly, I don’t know where I could have got HIV from. Here is the list of people I’ve had sex with in Italy general:...

      Reality: There Was No Angry Confrontation

      The film depicts a yelling, pointing Knox who has to be restrained.

      The doctor merely conveyed the news of a negative results and Knox cheerfully went off. He had no ill intent, she did not get angry, and no accusations were made.

      Reality: The Prosecutors Never Leaked That List.

      Lifetime implied that Knox’s diary with the list of partners was leaked by the prosecutors to the public.

      We know this to be false. We know that it was instead Amanda Knox’s own lawyers that leaked the diary with the sex partners list (to journalists like Barbie Nadeau).

      And that the family effort leaked it to people like Frank Sforza (who duly published Amanda’s diary page on the previous sexual partners), and Candace Dempsey, and even tried to leak it to us!

      Reality: Knox Forces All Know HIV Story Is Untrue

      Amanda’ Knoxs family know the truth of this, but have not yet come out and corrected a seriously wrong pervasive impression.

      And Lifetime repeated the lie of the sex partners list, leading millions to believe the ILE deliberately terrified, tricked and humiliated Amanda Knox.

      But they didn’t. Even Amanda Knox herself showed it was not so. 


      Above and below: the first partly imaginary scene




      Above and below: the first partly imaginary scene




      Below: the second very misleading scene




      Below: the second very misleading scene


      Page 1 of 1 pages