Subject area: Hoaxers: tools & dupes

Tuesday, April 05, 2016

How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #2

Posted by Chimera




1. Overview Of This Post

We have just reported on how some of Knox’s malicious false claims have Oggi’s editor and veteran crime reporter facing a possible six years in prison.

Oggi’s lawyers could have phoned it in, so skimpy has their defense been. As noted previously, it seems nobody manages to make Knox’s myriad false claims stick while facing implacable truths.

I explained in the first post of this series that if complaints by those impugned are lodged, Knox would be charged for some or all of the myriad false accusation in her 2015 book.

This is another 1/3 of approximately 100 claims that could inspire complaints by those impugned to prosecutors.

2. False Accusations Of Crimes #2

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

AK lies about there being no medical privacy in prison.  There are Italian laws to ensure that there is, and there is no proof that they are not observed.

[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.”

No groundwork. AK accuses a guard at the prison of sexual harassment despite never claiming this to her family or staff of the American Embassy, or “monitoring” MP Rocco Girlanda. If she claims she told her lawyers they will be made to testify.

[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.”
‘’ ... 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.”

No groundwork. AK in effect accused Dalla Vedova and Ghirga of not reporting alleged sexual harassment. She never claimed this to her family or staff of the American Embassy, or “monitoring” MP Rocco Girlanda.

[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….’

No groundwork. Three pages late, another accusation of sexual harassment either never passed on or never acted upon.

[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….’‘

AK accuses the police of taking a knife at random for evidence, which is professional misconduct—rather than them checking for a specific imprint, which is what actually happened.

[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.”

AK and allegedly her lawyers accuse the prosecution of engaging in a witch hunt, of trying to frame her.

[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…’

AK accuses the prosecution of misconduct by trying to shape the evidence to fit pre-conceived notions.

[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…’‘

AK accuses the prosecution of engaging in a smear campaign.  Did they hire Marriott-Gogerty?

[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…’‘

AK still accusing the prosecution of doing a smear job.  Pot, meet Kettle.

[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….’‘

AK again accuses this prison guard of sexual harassment, and possibly coercion.  Again, it goes unreported.

[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….”

AK accuses the prison medical staff of violation patient confidentiality.

[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….’‘

AK accuses the police of mistreating Lumumba, and trying to cover up incompetence.

[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…’‘

AK accuses the police of knowingly keeping an innocent person in prison.

[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….’‘

AK accuses the prosecution of trying to cover up their mistakes.

[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….’

Once again, there was no pressure, except RS pulling her alibi.

[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…’‘

According to Dalla Vedova, Mignini typically tries to frame people.  Did CDV ever report any of these incidents?

[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…’‘

AK accuses the prosecution of trying to distort her words, which at a minimum would be professional misconduct.

[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…’‘

AK accuses an inmate of making advances on her.

[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.”

Again, CDV seems to think the prosecution is framing AK and RS.  This claim was never reported.

[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…’‘

AK accusing the police of attempting a cover-up of their own incompetence.

[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…’‘

AK accuses CDV and Ghirga of incompetence and malpractice.  She has been in custody a year, and they are only ‘‘now’’ just telling her about this?!

[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….’‘

AK again accuses prosecutors of trying to frame her.  In reality, Guede feared an alliance between AK and RS to pin it all on him.

[Chapter 23, Page 276] ‘’ ... The pretrial judge, Paolo Micheli, allowed testimony from two witnesses. The first was DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni for the Polizia Scientifica. 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.“’‘

[Chapter 23, Page 277] ‘’ ... The other testimony came from a witness named Hekuran Kokomani, an Albanian man the prosecution called to prove that Raffaele and I both knew Rudy Guede. Our lawyers argued that Raffaele had never met Guede. I’d said “Hi” to him once when we hung out at the apartment downstairs. My other encounter with him was taking his drink order at Le Chic.
Kokomani said he’d seen the three of us together on Halloween, the day before the murder.A massive lie.

Kokomani’s testimony made the pretrial seem like a farce. According to him, after dinner on Halloween, driving along Viale Sant’Antonio, the busy thoroughfare just above our house, he came
upon a black garbage bag in the middle of the road. When he got out of his car, he realized the “bag” was two people: Raffaele and me. He told the court that Raffaele punched him, and I pulled out a huge knife the length of a saber, lifting it high over my head. “Raffaele said, ‘Don’t worry about her. She’s a girl,”’ Kokomani testified. “Then I threw olives at her face.“….’‘

AK accuses Judge Micheli of misconduct in how he handled the pre-trial, and Guede’s short form trial.

[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….’‘

Once again, AK accuses the prosecution of trying to frame her.

[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.”

AK returns to making accusations about drug use against Filomena.

[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.”

And similar accusations against Laura and the others.

[Chapter 25, Page 303] 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.”

AK accuses Monica Napoleoni of trying to cover up assault and police misconduct.

[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.”

AK accuses Monica Napoleoni of perjury.

[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.”

There was no formal ‘‘interrogation’‘, but AK still accuses Rita Ficarra of perjury.

[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….’

AK accuses Ficarra of trying to cover up abuse and assault.

[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….’‘

AK accuses the prosecution of trying to gloss over exculpatory evidence.

[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.”

AK accuses Mignini of deliberately distorting what she said in the December 2007 interview.

[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…’‘

AK accuses her court-funded translator of mis-translating what she says.

[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….’‘

AK tries to explain her false accusation of Lumumba .... by falsely accusing Ficarra of assault.

[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.”

AK accuses the police of violating her right to counsel.

[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.’‘

AK accuses Marco Quintavalle of coming forward at the encouragement of a journalist friend.  She implies this is for the attention.

[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.’‘

AK accuses the DNA expert, Stefanoni, of withholding evidence, and then intentionally misconstruing the findings.


There will be another 1/3 of the accusations in the final post shortly.

Posted on 04/05/16 at 02:11 AM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Defendants in courtAmanda KnoxHoaxers: tools & dupesKnox-Mellas team212 Book hoaxes
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (8)

Thursday, March 24, 2016

How Her Tide Of Malicious Defamation Now Threatens To Swamp Knox #1

Posted by Chimera



The European Court of Justice in Luxemburg is not Amanda Knox’s friend

1. Legal Overview

Knox might be alone on a very small island before too long.

Her myriad false claims are becoming almost impossible for the remaining Knox cranks to support without legal threat. Her own family may already have signed off.

We already count well over 100 reporters and hacks like Timothy Egan and Doug Preston and Francesco Sforza and Bruce Fischer who posted factually wrong and defamatory claims about Dr Mignini and numerous other Italian officials online. Knox has placed targets on all of their backs.

They would never have gone there though without the mothership: the “professional” PR campaign ordered by Curt Knox and orchestrated by David Marriott which tilted the playing field in the US.

It did this both via dissemination to the media of myriad false claims and via countervailing and awkward facts left out - such as that Knox was in fact not found “innocent” last year by the Supreme Court.

By far the biggest and most damaging body of lies is to be found in Knox’s 2013 book, which Knox added-to last year. She KNEW the book was largely made up but the new edition, while added-to, remained otherwise unchanged.

I previously identified over 400 lies in the Knox book in a dozen long posts which I hope you have read or might read.

Now within them we have narrowed down to about 100 malicious false claims of crimes made by Knox. We have been told many among them will be the subject of new charges against Knox in the Florence Court. (The statute of limitations extends to at least 2021.)

Action against Knox’s false accusations of crimes will follow the same route as the action against Sollecito for his book - a prosecutor will charge Knox with diffamazione and vilipendio, and if the government case is won, civil suits against Knox for damages by those harmed can then begin.

With extreme fortuitus timing, a second route to push back by those Knox impugned against herself and her team has also opened up.

Under a new EEC-wide “right to be forgotten” law Google and other search engines must remove all links to false claims which cause personal harm.  This was confirmed as legally valid worldwide for European residents by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in 2014.

Now a French court has imposed the first fine on Google for failure to comply and they are expected to begin. 

2. False Accusations Of Crimes

In this and the next two posts we will quote what crimes Knox claimed and who she impugned and why each claim was wrong. Those impugned can submit complaints which require prosecutors to investigate them. Gravity varies considerably - some might merit merely a fine, others such as the claims against Dr Mignini could incur prison time.

Knox is already a felon for life for falsely accused Patrick of rape and murder, as ordered by Judge Massei (2009); Judge Hellmann (2011); Cassation Judge Chieffi (2013); Judge Nencini (2014); and Cassation Judge Marasca (2015).

It may therefore seem to you really moronic that Knox put this book out in April 2013, and then re-released it, added-to but unamended, with all malicious false charges of crimes intact.

[Chapter 2, Page 16] ‘’ ... We shared a joint, and then, high and giggly, we went to his hotel room. I’d just turned twenty. This was my first bona fide one-night stand. I’d told my friends back home that I couldn’t see myself sleeping with some random guy who didn’t matter to me. Cristiano was a game changer. We didn’t have a condom, so we didn’t actually have intercourse. But we were making out, fooling around like crazy, when, an hour later, I realized, I don’t even know this guy ...’‘

‘‘Cristiano’’ is actually Federico Martini, a drug dealer who swapped drugs for sex

[Chapter 2, Page 22] ‘’ ... They said I wasn’t the first roommate they’d interviewed. A guy they called “totally uptight” was interested in renting, until he found out they smoked—cigarettes and marijuana. “Are you okay with that?” Filomena asked…’‘

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 3, Page 37] ‘’ ...Around our house, marijuana was as common as pasta. I never purchased it myself, but we all chipped in. For me, it was purely social, not something I’d ever do alone. I didn’t even know how to roll a joint and once spent an entire evening trying. I’d seen it done plenty of times in both Seattle and Perugia, but it was trickier than I thought it would be. Laura babysat my efforts, giving me pointers as I measured out the tobacco and pot and tried rolling the mixture into a smokable package. I never got it right that night, but I won a round of applause for trying. Either Filomena or Laura took a picture of me posing with it between my index and middle finger, as if it were a cigarette, and I a pouty 1950s pinup.
I was being goofy, but this caricature of me as a sexpot would soon take hold around the world.

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 4, Page 46] ‘’ ... Giacomo handed me a beer, and I pushed my way through the crowd to find Meredith. When we had rejoined the guys, they introduced us to a friend who, I’d later learn, had moved to Italy as a kid, from Ivory Coast. His name was Rudy. They sometimes played pickup basketball with him.  The five of us stood around for a few minutes before walking home together. The guys invited us to their apartment, but Meredith and I first stopped at ours to drop off our purses.
“Ready to go downstairs?” I asked her.
“You go. I’ll be down in a second,” she said.
When I opened the door to the downstairs apartment, Giacomo, Marco, Stefano, and Rudy were sitting around the table laughing. “What’s funny?” I asked.  “Nothing,” they said sheepishly.  I didn’t think another thing about it until months and months later, when it came out in court that just before I’d opened the door, Rudy had asked the guys if I was available.
A short time later, Meredith came in and sat down next to me at the table. The guys passed us the joint they were smoking. We each inhaled, handed it back, and sat there for a few minutes while they joked around in Italian. Tired and a little stoned, I couldn’t keep up with their conversation. After a little while I told Meredith, “I’m going up to bed.”

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 5, Page 54] ‘’ ... Raffaele looked surprised, then pleased. “Do you want to come to my apartment and smoke a joint?”
I hesitated. He was basically a stranger, but I trusted him. I saw him as a gentle, modest person. I felt safe. “I’d love to,” I said.
Raffaele lived alone in an immaculate one-room apartment. I sat on his neatly made bed while he sat at his desk rolling a joint. A minute later he swiveled around in his chair and held it out to me….
The marijuana was starting to kick in. “You know what makes me laugh?” I asked.
“Making faces. See.” I crossed my eyes and puffed out my cheeks. “You try it.”
“Okay.” He stuck out his tongue and scrunched up his eyebrows.
I laughed.
By then, Raffaele had moved next to me on the bed. We made faces until we collided into a kiss. Then we had sex. It felt totally natural. I woke up the next morning with his arm wrapped snugly around me. ....’

Accusation of illegal drug use.

Chapter 7, Page 77] ‘’ ... Now I see that I was a mouse in a cat’s game. While I was trying to dredge up any small thing that could help them find Meredith’s killer and trying to get my head around the shock of her death, the police were deciding to bug Raffaele’s and my cell phones.

Knox claims she was illegally targeted, but MANY phones were tapped.

[Chapter 8,]  When we finished, a detective put me through a second round of questioning, this time in Italian. Did we ever smoke marijuana at No. 7, Via della Pergola? “No, we don’t smoke,” I lied, squirming inwardly as I did.

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 8] I didn’t think I could take any more surprises, but they kept coming. Next, the police opened up a closet to reveal five thriving marijuana plants. “Does this look familiar?” they asked.
“No,” I said. Despite my earlier lie about not smoking in our house, I was now telling the truth. I was stunned that the guys were growing a mini-plantation of pot. I couldn’t believe I had talked to them every day since I’d moved in six weeks earlier and they’d never mentioned it. I said, “I don’t really hang out down here a lot.”

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 8] Laura and Filomena were each consulting a lawyer about how to get out of the lease.  No doubt their lawyers were also counseling them on other things, such as how to deal with the police and on our pot-smoking habit, but they didn’t mention any of that.

Accusation of illegal drug use.

[Chapter 10, Page 103] ‘’ ... Police officer Rita Ficarra slapped her palm against the back of my head, but the shock of the blow, even more than the force, left me dazed. I hadn’t expected to be slapped. I was turning around to yell, “Stop!”—my mouth halfway open—but before I even realized what had happened, I felt another whack, this one above my ear. She was right next to me, leaning over me, her voice as hard as her hand had been. “Stop lying, stop lying,” she insisted.
Stunned, I cried out, “Why are you hitting me?”  “To get your attention,” she said. I have no idea how many cops were stuffed into the cramped, narrow room.  Sometimes there were two, sometimes eight—police coming in and going out, always closing the door behind them. They loomed over me, each yelling the same thing: “You need to remember. You’re lying. Stop lying!” “I’m telling the truth,” I insisted. “I’m not lying.” I felt like I was suffocating. There was no way out. And still they kept yelling, insinuating.  The authorities I trusted thought I was a liar. But I wasn’t lying. I was using the little energy I still had to show them I was telling the truth. Yet I couldn’t get them to believe me.
We weren’t even close to being on equal planes. I was twenty, and I barely spoke their language. Not only did they know the law, but it was their job to manipulate people, to get “criminals” to admit they’d done something wrong by bullying, by intimidation, by humiliation. They try to scare people, to coerce them, to make them frantic. That’s what they do. I was in their interrogation room. I was surrounded by police officers. I was alone.

False accusation of illegal interrogation.

[Chapter 10] Just then a cop—Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop
and the mop at the villa—opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on
Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you.
He’s taken away your alibi.”
My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded, devastated. What? I couldn’t believe that
Raffaele, the one person in Italy whom I’d trusted completely, had turned against me.
How could he say that when it wasn’t true? We’d been together all night. Now it was
just me against the police, my word against theirs. I had nothing left.
“Where did you go? Who did you text?” Ficarra asked, sneering at me.
“I don’t remember texting anyone.”
They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history.
“You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”
“My boss at Le Chic.”
“What about his text message? What time did you receive that?”
“I don’t know. You have my phone,” I said defiantly, trying to combat hostility with
hostility. I didn’t remember that I’d deleted Patrick’s message.
They said, “Why did you delete Patrick’s message? The text you have says you were
going to meet Patrick.”
“What message?” I asked, bewildered. I didn’t remember texting Patrick a return
message.
“This one!” said an officer, thrusting the phone in my face and withdrawing it before I
could even look. “Stop lying! Who’s Patrick? What’s he like?”
“He’s about this tall,” I said, gesturing, “with braids.”
“Did he know Meredith?”
“Yes, she came to the bar.”
“Did he like her?”
“Yes, he liked Meredith. He was nice to her, and they got along.”
“Did he think Meredith was pretty?”
“Well, Meredith was pretty. I’m sure he thought she was pretty.”
“When did you leave to meet Patrick?”
“I didn’t meet Patrick. I stayed in.”
“No, you didn’t. This message says you were going to meet him.”
“No. No, it doesn’t.”

False accusation of illegal interrogation. For someone in ‘‘trauma’‘, AK seems to “remember” it quite well.

[Chapter 10]  A beefy cop with a crew cut thought I’d said, “Fuck you,” and he yelled, “Fuck you!”
back.
They pushed my cell phone, with the message to Patrick, in my face and screamed,
“You’re lying. You sent a message to Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”
That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head.
“Why are you hitting me?” I cried.
“To get your attention,” she said.
“I’m trying to help,” I said. “I’m trying to help, I’m desperately trying to help.”
The pressure was greater than just being closed in a room. It was about being yelled
at relentlessly by people I trusted completely, by people I’d been taught to respect.
Everything felt bigger, more overwhelming, more suffocating, than it was because
these were people whom I thought I was helping and they didn’t believe me; they kept
telling me I was wrong.

False accusations of abuse and physical assault.

[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…’‘

False accusation; it really was a spontaneous declaration Knox absolutely insisted to make.

[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.”

False accusation; AK was never hit.

[Chapter 11, Page 129] ‘’ ... “We need to take you into custody,” she said. “Just for a couple of days—for bureaucratic reasons.”

False accusation; Dr Mignini fully briefed Knox on why she was being locked up.

[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….’‘

False accusation; AK wasn’t screamed at in the first place, and she did intentionally mislead them.

[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….’‘

False accusation; police had formed no such view. And ‘cConfessing’’ means admitting guilt, it does not mean ‘‘accusing’’ someone else. And “hard won”?  AK flipped almost instantly once she was told Sollecito was blaming her.

[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….”

Starting at the house the day after Meredith died Dr Mignini repeatedly explained to Knox who he was.

[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? ....’‘

Knox falsely accuses the medical staff of sexual assault.

[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….’‘

Knox claimed to ‘‘witness’’ Patrick murdering Meredith but accuses the police of acting inappropriately.

[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.”

Knox falsely accuses the police of assault, and the medical staff of covering up frequent incidents.

[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….’‘

Knox falsely claims the guard locked her up in isolation and lies about the reason for it.

[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….’‘

Knox falsely accuses of the authorities of trying to prevent her and RS from seeing counsel in order to make the frame job much easier.

[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…’

Again false accusations of assault, verbal abuse and intimidation

[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.”

Knox falsely accuses the police of making threats to ensure co-operation.

Parts #2 and #3 follow next.

Posted on 03/24/16 at 11:24 PM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Defendants in courtAmanda KnoxHoaxes By Knox & team212 Book hoaxesHoaxers: tools & dupesKnox-Mellas team
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (7)

Monday, January 25, 2016

Is Francesco Sollecito Forced Into Legal Aggression He Didnt Want & Which Could Rebound?

Posted by Peter Quennell




Legal Development

Francesco Sollecito is being reported as denouncing Guede and initiating actions against him - and the Republic of Italy.

What must have looked to him nicely wound up by the Fifth Chambers at the end of March last year does seem to have a pesky tendency to become unwound.

It was unwound a bit by the continuance of Sollecito’s book trial in which RS lawyer Bongiorno refused to become involved. It was unwound a bit by the charges Dr Mignini requested against the RS lawyer Maori mid-year. It was unwound a bit by the Fifth Chambers with the poisoned sting at the end of its Report.

That Motavazione as phrased could open the way to a wrongful death suit against Sollecito (and Knox) or a petition to the President. A “guilty” verdict on the numerous false claims in Sollecito’s book could open the way to civil suits.

The petition was filed today at the Court of Appeal of Florence by their lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori. The lawyers decided to turn to the last trial court that dealt with the process. In particular, they demanded compensation of 516,000 Euros for the detention to which Sollecito was submitted from 6 November 2007 to 4 October 2011.

The computer engineer from Puglia has always proclaimed he was not involved in the murder and was finally acquitted along with Amanda Knox.  “I can not spend my life defending myself from something I have not done ...”: Raffaele Sollecito commented on the interview… 

He was followed by his father Francesco in transmitting a statement from their home in Puglia. “Raffaele is shocked and outraged,” said Francesco Sollecito. “I am also deeply outraged. I did not even sleep last night.” The father of Raffaele - finally acquitted for a murder he always proclaimed he was outside of - criticized in particular “Guede’s attitude towards the brutally murdered girl. Guede is refuted by the procedural documents, many of which are omitted in the interview. It was denied, among other things, by Raffaele’s friends that there was a random meeting with Meredith Kercher.”

“Guede still has to explain why he was in that house and why he went to the disco after finding the body. Let us remember, Francesco Sollecito empahsized again, that he is a person definitively convicted of murder. “

No mention at all of Knox? She was the one Guede really nailed, though Raffaele was pretty firmly placed at the crime scene too.

Last year, a bombastic Raffaele Sollecito had threatened to file a suit against Italy, but his father and lawyers had wound him back. Presumably because way, way, way too much could come out. “Take care about what you wish for.” “Let sleeping dogs lie.” “Discretion is the better part of valor.” Take your choice.

But such a suit is normal and expected. It would look suspicious if it was never filed. Now the Florence prosecution may get the chance to make the case in full the Fifth Chambers never heard.

Storms In The Past

Francesco Sollecito and Raffaele Sollecito and Vanessa Sollecito are all notorious for loosing their cool.

Francesco lost it here toward Raffaele, and especially here. Vanessa lost it here and again here. Everybody lost it toward Amanda Knox. Sollecito’s own book describes that rage.

And take a look. Despite supposed “honor bound” there are dozens of examples there.

Francesco Sollecito lost it after the Hellmann acquittal when Raffaele said he and Knox were still a thing, and again when RS took off to Seattle after Knox. He lost it again when a false felony claim in Sollecito’s book was unveiled on national TV.

Bongiorno also often seems in a rage. Hmmm. A group of people in a rage, and then things go too far. Where have we heard that before?


Friday, December 18, 2015

Knox Calunnia Trial #2: Judge Receives Arguments Of Prosecution And Knox; Verdict In New Year

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Court in session 7 September in Florence with Knox a no-show

1. Latest Development

We are informed that the final arguments to the judge by both sides have been submitted in writing.

We will summarise and/or fully translate them, hopefully next week. Next step is the verdict from Judge Boninsegna, which may come early in the New Year.

Below is a reposting of the background to this unusual case, and Machiavelli’s reports from the court on 7 September.

Such trials are very rare. Usually it is only organized crime figures that in the course of a trial impugn police and prosecutors who in Italy are much respected. Defendants rarely even get on the stand, and if they do so, they invariably follow the advice of defence counsel to not dig themselves in any deeper. 

In contrast, Knox pretty well went haywire. NOBODY in Italy has ever believed her. Not her own lawyers, nor multiple hearings & trial judges, or the skeptical media, or the watching population, or Hellmann & Zanetti, or even Marasca & Bruno…  Not even Curt Knox! He failed to turn up to give scheduled defense testimony that could have helped Amanda Knox last September.

Gee, thanks, Curt….

And she has left her own lawyers handicapped, as they had publicly counseled Knox to stop escalating her claims about illegal coercion at her “interrogation” on 5-6 November 2007.

Their filing probably needs to be especially careful to avoid their own liability. 

2. Background To Calunnia Trial

This trial focuses on the claims of Amanda Knox at trial in 2009. Charges for malicious claims in her book will fall to another court, probably also in Florence. Oggi is already on trial for republishing some of them.

There seems no parallel in US or UK legal history to this - to a defendant testifying prolifically for two days to crimes by investigators, in spite of even more days of prior testimony which all pointed the other way.

Seemingly under strong pressure from her own family Knox willingly took a huge legal risk which her own lawyers had warned her about again and again, sometimes publicly, over nearly two years.

They never ever lodged even one complaint. Nor did the US Embassy in Rome, which monitored all sessions in court, and often checked her out (as did Italian MP Rocco Girlanda) in prison at Capanne.

The Massei court and the watching audience in Italy (read here and here) bought none of it. Knox still served three years for framing Patrick. Not even Judge Hellmann bought into her claims. Certainly not the Supreme Court.

The current trial in Florence was preceded by an investigation by Florence prosecutors, who bring the charges and argue them because Knox impugned officers of the justice system in their official roles. 

Prior to today the prosecutors’ investigation report had only been released to Knox’s defense. So we don’t yet know if the charges extend beyond Knox’s claims of having been abused into a false “confession” on 5-6 November 2007.

Post #1 of our ongoing Interrogation Hoax series points toward what investigators testified to at trial.

Four months later Knox contradicted them at length as summarised in our two posts here and here: “The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About”

3. Machiavelli Reports From Trial 7 September

1. Tweets from the Florence court:

16. Zugarini was present throughout the interrogation and described when #amandaknox started to cry, remembered her peculiar hand-ear gestures.

15. Napoleoni testified #amandaknox was brought a chamomille when she started crying at 01:45, the interrogation was immediately stopped.

14. Napoleoni and Zugarini said they “cuddled” Knox because she was a 20-year old girl.

13. Both Mignini and Zugarini described having had impression that #amandaknox was feeling “relieved of a burden” after accusing Lumumba.

12. Mignini said Knox was not clearly a suspect to him by the 05:45 interrogation.

11. Witnesses had inaccurate memory on some details, but were convergent on some peculiar details.

10. Napoleoni said she did not enter interrogation room, she called Rita Ficarra out to talk to her.

9. Zugarini said, as for her knowledge, Knox was not told that Sollecito withdrew her alibi.

8. Zugarini said called interpreter only to ask #amandaknox more precise questions about people in her phone contact list.

7. Zugarini said #amandaknox was able to explain herself in Italian. They called an interpreter to translate what police had to say.

6. Testimony of Mignini was descriptive and framed thing in law. Mostly talked at length explaining alone, prosecutor listened.

5. In today’s hearing, Mignini talked 2 hours, confirmed arrived at 3am, police interview was over, he asked no questions of AK.

4. Napoleoni was precise and synthetic. Zugarini longer and IMO more interesting on many details.

3. Mignini and Judge Boninsegna appeared irritated by Dalla Vedova’s remarks.

2. Long hearing of Mignini at trial against Amanda Knox for calunnia. Napoleoni & Gubbiotti followed, then Zugarini

1. Testimony of some of the investigators accused by Knox and the lead prosecutor Dr Mignini [image above] is being taken in court.

[Reporting from the Florence court sometimes requires a wait to get to a place where mobile phones can connect to the outside.]

2. Emailed report following day (8 September):

No Knox calunnia session required today as last Friday and yesterday both sides completed their witness list.

Amanda Knox and Curt Knox chose not to testify.

Now Judge Boninsegna has ordered each side to prepare their arguments within three months (7 December).

The verdict is likely to arrive in the New Year.

 


Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book #12: Finally, We Nail Knox’s Self-Serving 2015 Afterword

Posted by Chimera



Phew. The nasties do finally go down.  Click here to get to Comments fast.

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.

One more quick post after this one, on the new Afterword, and the series will be done here. Then we will repost the final version on a new Knox Liewatch page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The ten posts before this one can all be read here.

Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.


2. Overall How The Afterword Misleads

1. Again Knox goes on and on about how there is no evidence against her or Raffaele in the ‘‘murder room’‘, or the ‘‘murder scene’‘.  This is false and seriously misleading for several reasons:

    (1) Knox’s bloody shoeprint was found on Meredith’s bed (even though the shoes were not recovered).

    (2) Knox’s lamp (wiped of prints), was found on the floor in Meredith’s room.

    (3) The bloody impression of a knife (which matches a knife taken from Sollecito’s flat), was found on the bed.

    (4) Sollecito’s DNA was found on Merdith’s bra clasp, in the room.  Defence screams ‘‘contamination’‘, but doesn’t suggest where it came from.

    (5) Knox defines the crime scene solely as Meredith’s room.  It does not take the rest of the house into account.

      (a) Mixed blood of Knox/Meredith in Filomena’s bedroom, the supposed ‘‘point of entry’’ for the burglar.  But no trace of Guede.
      (b) Mixed blood of Knox/Meredith in their bathroom.
      (c) Sollecito’s bloody bare footprint on the bathmat.
      (d) Bare footprints (wiped away, revealed by luminol), of Knox and Sollecito in the hallway


2. While Knox predictably misconstrues the evidence against her, she doesn’t talk about the other things we would like to see addressed.

Of course, in this new addition to her book, Knox doesn’t talk about any of the hard evidence (of a non forensic nature).  She doesn’t address any of the multiple false alibis that she and Sollecito gave.

Amanda Knox… Trapped, In Her Own Words

Raffaele Sollecito… Trapped, In His Own Words


3. Knox does briefly mention the false accusation against Lumumba, but again reiterates that it only happened due to police pressure.  A stunningly stupid thing to say, as she is facing a calunnia trial over exactly this issue.  But that is not disclosed.

Updates: Sollecito’s Trial For Vilipendio And Diffamazione, Knox’s Trial For Calunnia #2


4. In this new afterword, Knox fails to mention that the Italian magazine, Oggi, got into legal trouble from publishing parts of her book.

(1) The Oggi Article Which Conveys To Italy Knox’s Claims Of Crimes Oggi Is Now Charged For

(2) The Oggi Article Which Conveys To Italy Knox’s Claims Of Crimes: Our Claim By Claim Rebuttals


5. Knox also fails to mention Sollecito’s current legal troubles over his own book which also made many false claims.

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #1

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #2

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #3

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #4

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #5


6. Knox leaves out that this may not be the end (probably to secure the next publishing at this time).

A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy Begins

A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy #2


7. Knox writes positively about Sollecito, but leaves out his ‘‘bride-shopping’’ efforts and anger at her.

Interview Part 1 With Kelsey Kay About Her Sad Experience With Serial Exploiter Sollecito

Interview Part 2 With Kelsey Kay About Her Sad Experience With Serial Exploiter Sollecito


8. Knox omits Sollecito’s various efforts to throw her under the bus (Mr. Honour Bound wants to save himself), most amusingly.  Sollecito’s line since the Florence appeal is that he doesn’t really know where Knox was that night.

Sollecito Suddenly Remembers He Wasnt There But Cannot Speak For Knox Who (As She Said) Went Out

Spitting In the Wind: Sollecito News Conference Backfires On Him AND Knox - What The Media Missed

Sollecito On Italian TV: Seems RS And AK Selling Out One Another Is Gravitating To A Whole New Plane


9. Knox leaves out the resentment and bitterness she herself feels toward ‘‘Mr. Honour Bound’‘.

Seeds Of Betrayal: In Interview Knox Reveals To Italy Her Considerable Irritation With Sollecito


10. Knox leaves out that Guede said after the March verdict that he will push for a new trial.

In Big Complication For Cassation Guede Demands New Trial To Prove He Was Not “Accomplice Of Myself”


11. Knox still spends more time talking about her sex life in the early chapters than Cassation 1, Florence, Cassation 2 combined.


12. Knox lies, and distorts much of the body of facts.  Her recollections are totally unreliable despite all the malicious quotes.


13. Knox leaves out any information on the upcoming adventures of her, Sollecito and Guede. She acts like this is settled.


14. The paperback was released June 9th, the same day her 2nd calunnia trial started in Florence.  No coincidence I’m sure.


15. Much of the ‘‘I love my family’’ feels fake and contrived.


3. Dissection Of Specific Knox Claims

Here are dissections of the new part of Knox’s book.  Not all of it is included, just the most blatant stuff.

My friend and co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, but the past 7 1/2 years have shown that innocent people can be wrongfully convicted.  And that some minds will not be changed by the truth.

  • Well, Patrick Lumumba came close to being wrongfully convicted, as a result of your statements, remember that?

  • Some minds will not be changed by the truth?  Well, maybe Edda and Madison, they noticeably backed away.

We’d been through one lower court trial, two appellate trials, and a decision by Corti di Cassazione.  We had been found guilty, innocent, and guilty again.

  • Finally, Knox seems to understand the difference between a trial and an appeal. Those verdicts were all only provisional, under Italian law.

My hopes had been high during my first trial, in 2009, but Raffaele and I were convicted amid a media circus.

But our first appellate trial, in which ended in October 2011, resulted in a clear and unequivocal finding that we were innocent, setting me free, and allowing my immediate return to the United States.  The presiding judge, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, had renewed my belief that innocent people are ultimately vindicated.

  • Hellmann also spoke the infamous and telling words: ‘‘The truth may be different.’‘

  • Hellmann released Knox even though she had a pending calunnia trial, for falsely accusing the police of brutality.

  • The prosecution didn’t get to present any evidence at all at this ‘‘new trial’‘, so it was very one sided.

  • Just to be clear, this was a defence appeal.  The prosecution did not ask for it.

In Italy, every case is reviewed by the Corti di Cassazione before it is officially closed.  It seemed impossible that just seventeen months after we were found not just not guilty, but innocent, the justices would reverse the decision and send the case back for a retrial—especially since our appeal court-appointed experts rejected the prosecution’s handling of, and conclusions from, the DNA evidence.

  • Well, in this case the prosecution had valid reasons for asking Cassation to annul the Hellmann verdict.  More on that later.

  • The Massei trial court in 2009 saw all the evidence, and concluded guilt.  Hellmann only saw the cherrypicked pieces of evidence the defence contested, nothing else.

  • Cassation didn’t ‘‘send the case back for a retrial’‘.  They allowed you to file another appeal.  Big difference between the two.

  • C&V were not “independent” experts, they worked with the defense, and in fact were not really even experts as was later shown.  Consultants should not have been allowed at the appellate level.

In fact, the DNA evidence cleared us conclusively.  It was straightforward: people leave DNA—lots of DNA—wherever they go.  None of my DNA was found in my friend, Meredith Kercher’s bedroom, where she was killed.  The only DNA, other than Meredith’s, belonged to the man convicted of her murder, Rudy Guede.  And his DNA was everywhere in the bedroom.  It is, of course, impossible to selectively clean DNA, which is invisible to the naked eye.

  • Very little usable DNA normally gets shed. There was even very little of Guede’s DNA in the room, in fact, and the entire room was not fully swabbed.

  • Knox’s DNA wasn’t found in Meredith’s bedroom, but your blood was found mixed with Meredith’s in Filomena’s room, (where the ‘‘burglar’’ broke in), and in the bathroom, where a killer cleaned up.

  • And while DNA might not be in the room, the alibi witness, Raffaele, has his on Meredith’s bra clasp.

  • It is also impossible to clean bloody footprints in the hallway, luminol brings them right out.

  • Even if defence claims about a few pieces of DNA had been valid, still it did not clear Knox conclusively.  It still doesn’t explain so many things: false alibis, false accusations, confusing accounts of your movements, shutting off your phones, and the other forensic evidence that was ‘‘not’’ in the appeal.

We simply could not have cleaned our DNA and left Guede’s and Meredith’s behind.  Nor was any trace of me found at the murder scene: not a single fingerprint, footprint, piece of hair, drop of blood or saliva.  My innocence and Raffaele’s was irrefutable.  Like my legal team, I firmly believed that Corti di Cassazione would affirm the innocence finding.

  • First, Knox’s shoeprint (a woman’s size 37), WAS found in the room, so that is not true.

  • Knox’s lamp, wiped clean of prints, was also found in Meredith’s room and Knox was struck dumb trying to explain that.

  • Again, Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp, which had been cut off.

  • Bloody footprints (matching Knox and Sollecito), had been in the hallway, and cleaned.  Luminol revealed them.

  • Sollecito’s footprint in Meredith’s blood was found on the bathmat. It was unquestionably his.

  • The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s

  • An imprint (a clear one), in blood, on Meredith’s bed, matched a knife found in Raffaele’s home.

  • Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s and found in the bathroom and in Filomena’s room.

  • Knox associates only ‘‘forensic’’ evidence, but omits many other types of circumstantial evidence.

  • There was no trace of Guede in Filomena’s room, where the ‘‘break-in’’ took place, or on the ground or wall where he ‘‘climbed up’‘.

  • Again, Knox associates only ‘‘forensic’’ evidence with the guilty verdict , but omits many other types of circumstantial evidence.

But in March 2013 the high court ordered yet another trial, directing the next appeals court to re-examine certain aspects of the case.  My world was shattered again.  The court gave 3 primary reasons.

  • Cassation didn’t order a new trial, but did give her the opportunity to appeal again.  Not the same thing.

  • Cassation gave many reasons, we’ll get to that.  But to focus on yours ....

The first concerned the supposed murder weapon.  The independent experts had found there was no scientifically reliable proof that Meredith’s DNA was on it, but there was one micro-trace of DNA they deemed too small to test.  Based on the prosecution’s claim it could prove to be Meredith’s DNA, the justice’s said it should be tested in the new trial.

  • So, these experts deemed it too small to test, and therefore never actually did try to test it?  Some experts.

  • If a victim’s DNA could be on the murder weapon, that is a great reason to test it.

  • This is not a retrial.  It is Knox and Sollecito’s appeal.

Second, during Guede’s appeal in 2009, the theory that there were multiple attackers worked in both the favour of the prosecution and Guede’s defence, which was aiming to reduce Guede’s sentence.  Neither Raffaele nor I could present evidence at that trial, so no evidence was presented that there was a single attacker.  In our hearing Corte di Cassazione said that Judge Hellmann had not properly factored in the findings of the court sentencing Guede that there had been—

  • Yes, strange that Knox can’t introduce evidence in the trial of someone she claims not to know.

  • It was more than just Guede’s appeal in 2009.  Judge Micheli in 2008 at the fast track trial, the 2009 appeal, and the 2010 Cassazione appeal all ruled that Guede was involved, but most likely was not alone.  Hellmann ‘‘should’’ have factored in the findings of the top court a year earlier.

—this in spite of the fact that the only forensic at the murder scene belonged to Guede.  The court directed that the new trial must account for the other alleged attackers.

  • Knox repeats her 2 main lies:  (a) Forensic evidence is the only type that matters; (b) The ‘‘murder scene’’ is exclusively Meredith’s bedroom, not the whole house.

  • Again, it is not a new trial.  Knox and Sollecito have been allowed to redo their appeal.

As for the third issue, the high court noted the Judge Hellmann looked at each piece of circumstantial evidence and found each to be unreliable.  The court directed that the circumstantial evidence should be reviewed ‘‘as a whole’’ in the new trial.

  • Again, it is not a new trial, it is an appeal. 

  • But otherwise, Knox is actually correct.  Cassation was very critical of how ‘‘piecemeal’’ and disjointed Hellmann seemed to view the evidence.  Cassation said that evidence should be considered in a way that best explains everything.

  • However, Knox seems to have preferred the disjointed method.

My lawyers argued that this was like saying zero+zero+zero+zero=one.  Nonetheless the court ordered another trial.

  • This is getting repetitive, but Cassation did not order another trial.  It allowed Knox and Sollecito to redo their appeal.

  • 0+0+0+0=1 is a red herring.  Cassation thought that Hellmann considered everything to be unreliable because he viewed everything separately.  As a whole, the evidence makes sense, but only when trying to come up with (separate) explanations does Hellmann make sense.

  • Cassation was also critical as Judge Hellmann only considered a few pieces of evidence, rather than everything that was presented at trial.  Perhaps if a judge is to throw out the prosecution case, he/she should actually review it all.

  • Hellmann, while finding Guede unreliable, chose to reframe the time of death based solely on Guede’s statements.

  • Hellmann allowed Alessi and Aviello to testify for the defense, despite their history of making false claims.

  • Hellmann was critical of Antonio Curatolo, (who saw them together), and without cause found him to be unreliable.

  • Hellmann twisted parts of Marco Quintavalle’s testimony (who saw Knox in his shop the next morning).

  • Hellmann claimed Knox’s calunnia against Lumumba was due to duress, caused by a long interrogation.  This came despite the testimony in the 2009 Massei trial (and admitted by Knox herself), that she was treated well.  See, this is what happens when you have a one-sided trial.  Hellmann then increased Knox’s sentence for calunnia from 1 year to 3.

  • Speaking of the calunnia, Knox doesn’t mention this at all, but Cassation found that it was in fact done to divert attention from herself.  But this is left completely out of her ‘‘afterward’‘.

  • Cassation was critical of Hellmann for cherry-picking his facts.  Now, ironically, Knox does the same thing with her summary of Cassation’s verdict.

  • A Summary Of The Cassazione Ruling On Annulment Of The Knox-Sollecito Appeal

No legal process was issued to request my return to Italy for the 2013 appellate trial in Florence.  My lawyers presented my defence in my absence.

  • It is expected that all accused will attend their own proceedings, especially when this is their own appeal.

  • Is this just a confusing way of saying she couldn’t be forced back?

  • Knox hit the talk shows claiming she is innocent, and afraid, and despite her $3.8 million book deal, can’t afford to go back.

  • Questions For Knox: How Do You Explain That Numerous Psychologists Now Observe You Skeptically?

  • Knox didn’t skip out of fear of prison officials, or the drug dealer, Federico Martini, that she got locked up, did she?

  • Yes, Knox’s lawyers did present in her absence.  Judge Nencini wrote it up as ‘‘FAILED TO APPEAR’‘.

The new court-ordered test of the knife revealed the source of the trace DNA.  It was not Meredith’s, it was mine, likely left there when I used to cook in Raffaele’s kitchen, as I had in the days before the murder.  This reconfirmed the independent experts’ earlier finding that the knife was not the murder weapon.  I wasn’t surprised, but elated.  This was the only new material evidence the prosecution presented and it undermined their case.  Without new condemning evidence, everything was on track to clear us and finally end this nightmare.

  • Yes, it was Knox’s DNA, in a groove in the handle.  The issue wasn’t whether it was used on Meredith (her DNA was also on it), but whether it could definitively be linked to Knox.

  • Knox’s DNA on a knife used to kill Meredith is actually pretty strong evidence.

  • The only new material evidence?

  • On her May 2014 interview with Chris Cuomo, Knox claimed the evidence presented ‘’ has been proven less, and less, and less’‘.

  • The Cuomo Interview: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Tries To Argue Innocence On TV

  • On her own website, Knox claims ‘‘NO’’ new evidence was introduced at this ‘‘trial’‘.

It made what came next even harder to stomach.  On January 30, 2014, the Florence court found Raffaele and me guilty again.  The court fell back on the multiple-attacker theory, even though there was no evidence to support it.

  • Hard to stomach?  Perhaps this is why Knox skipped her own appeal.

  • Why Knox & Sollecito Appeal Against Guilty Trial Verdict Fails: Multiple Wounds = Multiple Attackers

  • Meredith had 47 injuries, with no defensive wounds.  Unless Guede is Spiderman ....

  • Guede climbed Filomena’s wall, and broke in without leaving a trace outside.  Spiderman could do it ....

  • Guede was able to hop on one foot (one was bare, one had a shoe on it.  Spiderman could do it ...

  • Guede telepathically caused Knox and Sollecito to give multiple false accounts.  Did Spiderman have telekinesis? 

  • Guede left Sollecito’s bloody footprint and DNA behind.  Did Spiderman even know him?

  • Okay, we get it…. Guede is Spiderman.

  • While the first prosecutor initially that the murder was the result of a bizarre sex game gone wrong, the court now speculated that Meredith and I had fought over Guede’s presence in the apartment or money. and that an argument between us had somehow led Guede, Raffaele, and me to kill her.

  • Prosecutors never said it was a sex game gone wrong.  (Well, it might have been for Knox), but rather that it was a hazing/humiliation.

My original sentence was 26 years, 4 of which I had served.  The new sentence was 28.5 years.  The extra time was for ‘‘aggravating circumstances’‘, meaning I’d purposely slandered Patrick Lumumba (when I’d been pressured into falsely implicating him—and implication I’d quickly recanted), in order to undermine the police investigation.

Judge Hellmann, who had retired from the bench, did a rare and welcome thing—he publicly responded to the verdict, calling its decision ‘’ the result of fantasy’‘.  he told CNN.  ‘‘The Florence Appeal Court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book when it should have considered only the facts and evidence.’‘

  • Knox is being partially true here.  Hellmann did publicly criticise the Nencini verdict.

  • Knox, however, omits the fact that Hellmann was forced to retire by the CSM after his bungling of the 2011 appeal.

  • Knox also fails to detail the full reasons why Cassation so completely rejected his verdict.

Once again, our case had to go to the Corti di Cassazione.  But my confidence had dissipated.  If the Florence Court could find us guilty after incontrovertible proof that we had no connection to Meredith’s murder, I didn’t know what to expect from the high court.  I don’t know if I would survive if I were made to go back to prison with no hope of an appeal.

If the guilty verdict was upheld, Raffaele’s word would shrink to the size of his cell.  And there would be nothing that his family, his lawyers, or I could do about it.  Neither of us deserved jail, but being free while he wasn’t would torment me.

The book advance helped repay some of the money my parents and step-parents had borrowed—the maximum allowed against their homes and retirements—and the mounting legal fees I owed my Italian lawyers.

My notoriety left me vulnerable at times I least expected.  A couple of students in one of my large lecture classes at UW posted pictures of me online saying they were in class with a murderer.

I had read Raffaele’s book and was surprised that there were things I hadn’t heard before.  This was my chance to ask him.  In it he describes himself as ‘‘Mr. Nobody’‘.  Although he had been falsely imprisoned as long as I had, the prosecution and media portrayed him as a second fiddle, manipulated by me.  The prosecution always said he took orders from me.  The media referred to him as ‘‘Amanda’s ex-boyfriend’‘.

  • There are probably many things in the book Raffaele hadn’t heard before.  He claims Andrew Gumbel wrote it, in his latest court proceedings.

  • This is Knox’s chance to ask him?  To get your stories straight?

  • He was falsely imprisoned for as long as Knox had?  Sollecito got 3 years for calunnia as well?

  • Yes, the media did portray it as the ‘‘Amanda Knox Show’‘.  He was just a secondary actor.

He also writes that the prosecution had contacted his defence unofficially to suggest cutting a deal if he testified against me.  His family was willing to consider it, but Raffaele resolutely refused.  ‘‘I had no idea.’’ I said.  ‘‘Thank you.’‘

In April 2013, when my memoir was published, I did my own media tour in New York.  I did a Primetime special with Diane Sawyer and made an appearance on Good Morning America!  I was featured in articles in USA Today and People.  I spoke with reporters as far away as Australia.  I gave so many interviews in my publisher’s office—one person after another—that my picture was being taken for one media outlet when the next reporter and photographer were coming in.  It was exhausting, but their was a huge upside.  I was sure once people hear me tell my story, they will embrace my innocence.

Unlike the previous high court hearing, the justices listened to all sides without interrupting the defence.

  • As Knox did not attend the 2013 Cassazione hearing, she would not know how often they were interrupted.

  • Knox did not attend the 2015 Cassazione hearing, so she would not know how attentively they listened.

  • In fact neither in 2013 or 2015 were the Perugia or Florence prosecutions even represented at the Supreme Court at all.
Posted on 12/02/15 at 11:00 PM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Defendants in courtAmanda KnoxHoaxers: tools & dupesKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followup212 Book hoaxes
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (16)

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #11

Posted by Chimera



More implacable nastiness in Star Wars.  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.

One more quick post after this one, on the new Afterword, and the series will be done here. Then we will repost the final version on a new Knox Liewatch page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The ten posts before this one can all be read here.

Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

2. Dissection Of Pages 403 to Afterword

Chapter 31, Page 403 ]  To the Kerchers, I wrote,

I’m sorry for your loss, and I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to say so. Pm not the one who killed your daughter and sister. I’m a sister, too, and I can only attempt to imagine the extent of your grief. In the relatively brief time that Meredith was part of my life, she was always kind to me. I think about her every day.

  • Wow .... I was only kidding when I said Knox should send a ‘‘Sorry for your loss’’ letter.

  • You can only attempt to imagine the extent of your grief?  Right, you would have to care about Meredith.

  • You are charged with her death, and you think of her everyday?  Is that what you really meant?

[Chapter 31, Page 403]  Disappointed and unsatisfied, I went back to my cell and came up with Plan B. I’d make a personal statement at the beginning of the trial. Unlike my declarations during the first trial, this one would be “spontaneous” in name only. I’d weave in Kassin’s work to explain why I’d reacted to my interrogation as I had. At the same time, I’d speak directly to Patrick and the Kerchers.I spent over a month writing drafts. Alone in my cell, I paced, muttering to myself as if I were speaking to the judges and jury.

  • So, you are allowed to address the court, and you try to get ‘‘scientific’’ information in by the backdoor?

  • You weren’t interrogated.  I get tired of saying that.

  • But at least since it is a defence appeal, prosecutors won’t be introducing any ‘‘evidence’’ in.

  • You come off as fake and rehearsed.  Now you admit you do rehearse.

[Chapter 31, Page 404]  As I honed my statement, I decided it would be stronger to speak from my heart, without Kassin’s academic language. I’d tell the court about how I had been confused by the police and had lacked the courage to stand up to the authorities when they demanded that I name a murderer.  During the first trial, I believed my innocence would be obvious. It hadn’t saved me, and I might never again have the chance to approach Patrick and the Kerchers. This time I was determined to help myself.

  • Why are you honinh your statement if you are speaking from the heart?

  • Do you normally include ‘‘academic language’’ when speaking from the heart?

  • You’ll tell the police how you had been confused?  If you were confused 3 years ago, how do you remember now?

  • Which was it?  They demanded you name a killer, or they wanted to know who Patrick was?  It can’t be both.

  • You believed your innocence would be obvious?  Were you watching your trial, or someone else’s?

[Chapter 32, Page 405]  0ne must necessarily begin with the only truly certain, undisputed, objective fact: on November 2, 2007, a little after one P.M., in the house of Via dells Pergola, Number Seven, in Perugia, the body of the British student Meredith Kercher was discovered.”

Those were the opening words spoken at my appeal, by the assistant judge, Massimo Zanetti.

  • Yeah, screw that mixed blood, footprints, false alibis, false accusation double DNA knife, and no alibi.

  • Weren’t the closing words ‘‘the truth may be different’‘?  (meaning AK and RS may not be innocent).

[Chapter 32, Page 406]  Rocco and Corrado had given Laura money to buy me appropriate court clothes. She turned out to be an excellent personal shopper.  My champagne-colored blouse and black pants told the judges and jury that I respected them and the law.

  • Not flirting and smirking would also tell the judges and jury you respect them.

[Chapter 32, Page 406]  The judge’s opening statement gave us hope that the court wanted a trial grounded in facts, not theories. Will we finally get a fair trial? Will the judges and jury finally listen to what we have to say?

  • Judge Massei didn’t give you a fair trial?

  • Judge Micheli didn’t give you a fair pre-trial hearing?

  • Will the judges and jury listen to what you have to say?  Will you agree to an unrestricted cross examination?

  • Will Sollecito take the stand at all?  (and no, giving speeches doesn’t count).

[Chapter 32, Page 406]  I stood to deliver my declaration, the one I’d worked on for weeks. Speaking in Italian, without an interpreter, I sensed my voice quavering, my hands trembling:

  • Yes, the ‘‘spontaneous declaration’’ that you spent weeks preparing ....

  • You could agree to answer questions about Meredith’s death, couldn’t you

FOR A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE STATEMENT TO THE APPEALS COURT:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/scientific_statement_analysis_4_amanda_knoxs_statement_to_the_appeal_c/

[Chapter 32, Page 410]  My declaration left me feeling cleansed and relieved. I didn’t expect to change minds instantly—and I didn’t. Chris, Mom, and Madison told me later that the Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, had left the room at my first mention of Meredith’s family. “She bores me,”  the London Guardian reported him saying. “Her speech lacked substance, was designed to impress the court and was not genuine.”

  • Is he wrong?  You said that you rehearsed for weeks trying to impress.

[Chapter 32, Page 410]  Maresca cared more about seeing me convicted than finding justice for Meredith. He always spoke of me as if I were a monster who must pay for Meredith’s death with my life.

  • So, someone who cashes in on the brutal killing of a ‘‘friend’’ is just quirky?

  • If you are guilty, then convicting you does mean justice for Meredith.

[Chapter 32, Page 411]  Since court hearings were held only on Saturdays, an excruciatingly slow week would have to pass before we’d know Judge Hellmann’s mind. While we waited, Italy’s highest court signed the final paperwork on Rudy Guede’s verdict, approving his reduced sixteen-year sentence in the belief that he had not acted alone. Could that news influence Judge Hellmann’s decision? By pursuing our trial, he might seem to be contradicting the Supreme Court and make Italy look foolish.

  • It was slow for the Kerchers too.  One hearing every 2 weeks, it took almost as long as the Massei trial.

  • Guede’s sentence was reduced to 16 years because he chose the ‘‘fast-track option’’ that you referenced.  That means he gets 1/3 less than you for murder.  24 years - 1/3 = 16 years.

  • Hellmann would indeed make the Supreme Court and Italy look foolish, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. [Chapter 32, Page 411]  “I’m convinced the case is complex enough to warrant a review in the name of ‘reasonable doubt,”’ Judge Hellmann told the rapt courtroom. “If it is not possible to check the identity of the DNA, we will check on the reliability of the original tests.”

  • This sounds impressive, but bringing in of independent experts is meant for the ‘‘trial’’ phase, and not for the 1st level appeal.

  • Hellmann would later go on to say that he brought the experts: Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, since he didn’t understand much about DNA.

  • It would later be revealed that the 2 ‘‘independent’’ experts were not really independent.

[Chapter 32, Page 411] I hadn’t wanted to admit to my lawyers or to myself how petrified I’d been. Only when the result came back did I realize how much fear I had had pent up. I brushed away tears. We might finally have a real chance to defend ourselves.

Still, I was wary. The judge in the previous trial had granted our request for data and then sided with the prosecution’s interpretation.

  • You had many chances to defend yourself.  You went before Judge Claudia Matteini, November 8th, 2007.

  • http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_10_/

  • You went before a 3 judge panel chaired by Judge Massimo Ricciarelli, November 30, 2007.

  • You agreed to be questioned (with lawyers present), by Prosecutor Mignini,

  • http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/knox_tied_in_knots_by_her_own_tongue_translation_4/

  • You appealed to Cassation, headed by Judge Torquato Gemeli, in April 2008.

  • http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_16/

  • You attended pre-trial hearings in front of Judge Paolo Micheli in October and November 2008

  • http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_18_micheli/

  • You also had the opportunity to testify at your own trial in 2009.

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

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

  • You seem unhappy that the expert opinion didn’t go your way?  Sollecito says the same thing in ‘‘Honor Bound’‘.

  • From page 107 [page 107] ‘’... Papà was spinning like a dervish to clear my name, but not everyone he hired was as helpful as he hoped. One consultant whom he asked to monitor the Polizia Scientifica demanded eight thousand euros up front, only to prove reluctant to make overt criticisms of the police’s work, the very thing for which he’d been hired. A forensic expert who also seemed a little too close to the police charged four thousand euros for his retainer with the boast, “I’m expensive, but I’m good.” He wasn’t. A computer expert recommended by Luca Maori didn’t know anything about Macs, only PC’s.”

  • [Chapter 32, Page 411]  After that, we were back to waiting again. The independent experts, Dr. Carla Vecchiotti and Dr. Stefano Conti, forensic medicine professors at Rome’s university, La Sapienza, were sworn in, and Judge Hellmann charged them with figuring out whether a new analysis of the DNA on the knife and bra clasp was possible. If not, he wanted to know if the original results of the prosecution’s forensic expert were reliable: Were the interpretations of the genetic profiles correct? Had there been risk of contamination? The experts were given three months from the day the prosecution turned over the evidence.
    • Vecchiotti and Conti would claim that there is too little DNA to do additional testing.  However, when the Carabinieri got the knife back, they ‘WERE’ able to do an additional test.

    • Therein lies part of the problem.  It is not enough to say ‘‘there might have been contamination’‘.  You have to at least show ‘‘how’’ it was likely to have happened.

    [Chapter 32, Page 411]  During the first trial, Prosecutor Mignini had called the witness Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man referred to as “the stepping-stone leading us up to the murder.” Curatolo had testified that he’d seen Raffaele and me arguing on the basketball court in Piazza Grimana. It was key evidence in our conviction, because it contradicted our alibi that we’d never left Raffaele’s apartment. But it had been left unclear which night Curatolo, was describing—Halloween or November 1?

    [Chapter 32, Page 413]  Under the judges’ questioning, Curatolo, talked about his personal history: “I was an anarchist, then I read the Bible and became a Christian anarchist,” he said.  He confirmed that he was now in prison, adding, “I haven’t quite understood why yet.” Asked if he’d used heroin in 2007, he answered, “I have always used drugs. I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen.”

    • This is a made up passage to smear Curatolo as being disconnected from reality, and hence unreliable.

    • Hellmann would go on to discredit the witness without any real basis, and would be criticized for it

    [Chapter 32, Page 414]  “Curatolo didn’t know what he was talking about, poor guy. If my life didn’t depend on his being wrong, I’d just feel bad for him,” I reported.

    “The broadcasts here are saying that he’s a confused drug addict!” someone cried.

    It was ironic that I learned from my family in Seattle what the journalists in the courtroom were thinking. “The media are really figuring it out this time,” my family reassured me. “It’s going to be okay.”

    The media, yes. But what about the judges and jury? I wondered. Curatolo hadn’t been convincing in the first trial, either, but his testimony had contributed to our conviction.

    • The media is really figuring it out this time?  God job, Dave Marriott.

    • Those broadcasts?  Were they in the courtroom, or just reporting a PR line?

    • Worried about the judge and jury?  Don’t worry, it was already decided.

    [Chapter 32, Page 414]  Before the first trial, the defense began requesting forensic data from the prosecution in the fall of 2008, but DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni dodged court orders from two different judges. She gave the defense some of, but never all, the information. Now it was Conti and Vecchiotti’s turn to try to get the raw data that Stefanoni had interpreted to draw conclusions about the genetic profiles on the knife and the bra clasp. Stefanoni continued to argue that the information was unnecessary. Not until May 11, under additional orders from Judge Hellmann, did she finally comply.

    • So, you are accusing the analyst Stefanoni of committing a contempt of court (dodging court orders)?

    • You are accusing her of withholding documents and sabotaging your right to a fair trial?

    • Pretty serious claims to make.

    • Interestingly though, these ‘‘experts’’ only chose to test 2 pieces of DNA (Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp, and the DNA on the big knife).  What about the other DNA evidence that had been introduced?  Did Judge Hellmann even know about them?

    [Chapter 32, Page 415]  Before the court withdrew to decide whether to approve the delay, I made a statement. “I’ve spent more than three and a half years in prison as an innocent person,” I told the court. “It’s both frustrating and mentally exhausting. I don’t want to remain in prison, unjustly, for the rest of my life. I recall the beginning of this whole thing, when I was free. I think of how young I was then, how I didn’t understand anything. But nothing is more important than finding the truth after so many prejudices and mistakes. I ask the court to grant the extra time, so that the experts may complete a thorough analysis. Thank you.”

    • For someone supposedly wrongfully imprisoned (in part) to junk DNA, you seem really calm about this.

    • Silly question, why did you lawyers never attend the DNA testing in 2008, when they had the chances to?

    [Chapter 32, Page 416]  When Luciano came to Capanne for our weekly Wednesday meeting, he told me that a special award had been given to officers in the Squadra Mobile for its work on Meredith’s murder investigation.  The citation read: “To recognize elevated professional capabilities, investigative acumen, and an uncommon operative determination. They conducted a complex investigation that concluded in the arrest of the authors of the murder of the British student that had taken place in the historic center of Perugia.”

    Four of the sixteen police officers receiving the Police Holiday award were named in the police’s slander charge against me.

    They included Vice Superintendent Marco Chiacchiera, whose “investigative instinct” led him to randomly select Raffaele’s kitchen knife from the drawer as the murder weapon; Substitute Commissioner and Homicide Chief Monica Napoleons; and Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra.

    The news infuriated me. I knew it was just another face-saving ploy. How could they commend the officer who had hit me during my interrogation and those who had done so much wrong?

    But I wasn’t surprised. It was completely in line with the prosecution’s tactics to discredit my supporters and me. Mignini had charged my parents with slander for an interview they gave to a British newspaper in which they told the story of my being slapped during the interrogation. He was the one who had charged me with slandering the police.

    • You accuse (again) Chiacchiera of randomly selecting a knife and then calling it evidence

    • You accuse a dark haired woman (who you now name as Ficarra), as assaulting you

    • You accuse PM Mignini of an illegal interrogation, and of pursuing this case for his own career.

    • You accuse PM Mignini of trying to ‘‘discredit you’’ for filing a complaint about false claims your parents made

    • You accuse the citations as being ‘‘politically motivated’‘.

    • Oh right, you falsely accuse Patrick of raping and murdering Meredith.

    • Amanda, has it yet sunk in that making false accusations is not a good idea?

    [Chapter 32, Page 417]  British journalist Bob Graham interviewed Mignini for an article in The Sun that came out on Police Holiday. Mignini confided in Graham that he chose the parts of my interrogation that suited his purposes. He also said that my interpreter at the questura that night was “more investigator than translator.” When Graham asked the prosecutor why there was no evidence of me in Meredith’s bedroom, Mignini told him, “Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room.”

    • Which parts of your ‘‘interrogation’’ did ‘‘Mayor’’ Mignini choose if he asked no questions?

    • You accuse Anna Donnino of being a police plant, and not actually trying to be an interpreter.

    • No evidence of you in Meredith’s bedroom?  There is plenty just outside.

    • And what about your shoeprint and the DNA of your ‘‘alibi witness’‘?

    • To play devil’s advocate, you did write statements that you were in the kitchen, trying not to hear Meredith’s screams.

    [Chapter 32, Page 418] Mario Alessi was a brick mason given a life sentence for murdering an infant boy in 2006. He was in the same prison as Rudy Guede, and had written to Raffaele’s lawyers that he had information for our defense: Alessi said he went outside for exercise with other prisoners, including Rudy Guede, on November 9, 2009. “Guede told me he wanted to ask me for some confidential advice,” Alessi said in his court deposition. “There wasn’t a day that Guede and I didn’t spend time together ...

    “In this context, on November 9, 2009, Guede told me that in the following days, and in particular on November 18, 2009, he had his appeal and he was reflecting over whether to ... tell the truth about Meredith Kercher’s murder. In particular, he asked me what the consequences could be to his position if he gave statements that reconstructed a different truth about what happened the night of the murder.

    • Yes, jailhouse snitches are always reliable witnesses.

    [Chapter 32, Page 418]  Guede told Alessi that he and a friend had run into Meredith in a bar a few days before the murder.  On the night of November 1, Alessi said, the two men surprised Meredith at the villa and, “in an explicit manner,” asked her to have a threesome.

    • This is quite the revelation.  I thought Guede broke in to rob the place, and Meredith interrupted him.

    • Interestingly, this ‘‘other man’‘, is never identified.

    • Despite Guede leaving ‘‘vast amount of himself’’ at the crime scene, this unnamed accomplice apparently left none.

    • So ... if the intent ‘‘was’’ to have a 3-some, perhaps the burglary really was staged, and the police were correct.

    [Chapter 32, Page 418]  Alessi said that Meredith “rejected the request. She even got up and ordered Guede and his friend to leave the house. At this point Guede asked where the bathroom was, and he stayed in the bathroom for a little while, ten to fifteen minutes at most. Immediately after, reentering the room, he found a scene that was completely different—that is, Kercher was lying with her back to the floor and his friend held her by the arms. Rudy straddled her and started to masturbate. While Guede told me these things, he was upset and tears came to his eyes ...

    “The second part of his secret came out while we were in our respective cells ... at a certain point he and his friend changed positions, in the sense that his friend attempted to have oral sex with Meredith while Guede was behind. He specified in particular that his friend was in front of Meredith, who was on her knees, while Guede was behind Meredith, with his knee on her back. Kercher tried to wriggle out ...

    “Kercher tried to get away, and at this point Guede’s friend took a knife with an ivory-colored handle out of his pocket. While Kercher tried to get away, turning around, she was wounded by the blade. At this point, seeing as she began to bleed, Guede, finding his hands covered in blood, let her go. While Guede tried to staunch the wound with clothes, his friend reprimanded him, saying,

    ‘Let’s finish her. If not, this whore will have us rot in prison: At this point, his friend killed her, stabbing her various times while Guede gathered clothes to staunch the wounds. Then, realizing that she wasn’t breathing anymore, he left.”

    • Still wondering: why this other man left no traces in the murder room.  After all, Knox reminds us again and again and again that that is impossible.

    • Alessi seems to have a stunning memory.  He can recall precise details of a story he only heard.

    • However, he is a little vague: did Meredith greet them at the door, or does she just expect strange men in her home?

    • Alessi also remembers that Guede went to the bathroom.  Of course, it happens to be when ‘‘quirky’’ Knox refused to flush the toilet.

    • Also, is this a tacit admission that a ‘‘lone-wolf’’ attacker was just not possible?

    [Chapter 32, Page 419]  Listening to Alessi testify, I felt frozen in my chair, my limbs numb. Alessi was a calm, direct, convincing speaker. Is this possibly what happened the night of November 1 ? Is this the horror that Meredith experienced? For three and a half years, I’d tried to imagine Meredith’s murder and had to push it out of my mind. When the prosecutor had put Raffaele and me into the scene, it hadn’t bothered me nearly this much. We weren’t there, so Meredith’s murder couldn’t possibly have unfolded the way Mignini described. His story was so far-fetched, and it was so painful to hear myself described in bloodthirsty terms, that I couldn’t help but focus on the verbal attack on me rather than the physical attack on Meredith.

    • It is farfetched.  Why was there no trace of this ‘‘other man’‘?  You keep saying it is impossible to murder without leaving traces.

    • If you weren’t there, how could you know exactly how it could or couldn’t unfold?

    • What verbal attack?  The courts treated you fairly.  As for the media, thank Curt for that.

    • Why were you trying imagine Merediith’s murder if you were trying to put it out of your mind?

    [Chapter 32, Page 421]  Real or not, it forced me to focus on the torture that Meredith was put through. And it opened up a question I’d never seriously considered and could barely handle: Had there been someone with Guede?

    • Yeah, not that prosecutors were pushing a ‘‘multiple attacker’’ theory since November 2007.

    • It forced you to focus on the torture?  Why exactly?

    [Chapter 32, Page 421]  My lawyers once told me that investigators had found unidentified DNA at the crime scene, but I’d never dwelled on it. The prosecution had never presented it. Wouldn’t there have been signs of another person in the room and on Meredith’s body? I didn’t know. This is what I was sure of: Guede was there, Guede lied about us, Guede tried to escape his responsibility for the crime.  Guede would have to confess.

    • Well, your DNA is in your bathroom.  Oh, right, that only proves you lived there.

    • This ‘‘unidentified’’ DNA: was it blood, or something else?

    • Humour me, is an unflushed toilet part of the ‘‘crime scene’’ if it is not in the ‘‘murder room’‘?

    • Signs of another person?  Like DNA on the victim’s bra?  Oh, right Sollecito was at his home with you.

    • Signs of another person?  Such as lack of defensive wounds?

    • (1) Guede was there; (2) Guede lied about us; (3) Guede tried to escape responsibility.  Okay, let’s try this:

    • (1) You were there, your statements say you were, your blood mixed with Meredith’s.

    • (2) You lied about your alibi, according to Sollecito

    • (3) You tried to escape responsibility by framing Patrick.

    [Chapter 32, Page 421]  I desperately hoped he’d be honest when he took the witness stand. With the Supreme Court’s seal on his conviction, his sentence couldn’t be extended no matter how he incriminated himself. Since he truly had nothing to lose, I thought he might admit his crimes—and the fact that Raffaele and I weren’t there that night.

    • Actually, you desperately hoped he’d be silent.

    • Forget Guede, why don’t you simply testify (without restrictions), about what you were doing that night?

    [Chapter 32, Page 421]  In the meantime, I was agitated. I had no reason to expect that Guede would admit what had happened—anyone who can kill is already lacking a conscience. Even if Guede acknowledged Raffaele’s and my innocence, it still wouldn’t be enough on its own to free us—his statements were compromised since he’d lied before and wasn’t impartial. But it would be a huge step in the right direction—and an even bigger comfort to me.

    • Anyone who can kill lacks a conscience?  Amanda, I think we are making progress.

    • His statements were compromised?  Great, there isn’t any other evidence I assume.

    • It would be a comfort—that your frame job worked?!

    [Chapter 32, Page 423]  Twenty-four hours before the court-appointed experts were to present their findings on the DNA, only two words were going through my mind. What if? What if their review somehow - impossibly - confirmed Meredith’s DNA on the knife blade? What if they found that the bra clasp couldn’t have been contaminated?

    • What if they did confirm it?  What good is bleach then?

    • The bra clasp being contaminated how exactly?

    • Again, there are many other pieces of DNA evidence to tie you to the murder.  Why cherry-pick these two?

    [Chapter 32, Page 423] Or what if the experts risked telling the truth and sided with the defense?  I knew the prosecution’s DNA testing was flawed. But so little had gone right in this case, why would this go right?

    Science was on our side. The knife blade had tested negative for blood, and there was a high likelihood that the bra clasp had been contaminated while it sat on the floor for six weeks. But I had no faith in facts anymore. They hadn’t saved me before. It was terrifying to hope—and impossible not to.

    • This is a court.  People are not ‘‘punished’’ for telling the truth.

    • You knew the prosecutor’s DNA testing was flawed?  How much research have you done on the topic?

    • The bra clasp, in a sealed crime scene, was contaminated .... how?

    [Chapter 32, Page 423]  I had to hear the words myself. I went to the TV, madly changing channels until I found the news. “Svoltaa Giudiziaria” - “Judicial Turning Point” - the headline read, behind an announcer who was talking about my case. The crawl at the bottom read: “DNA damning Knox and Sollecito deemed unreliable by court-appointed experts. New hope arises for the defendants.”

    • Once again, why only test those 2 pieces of DNA evidence?  Do you not contest them?  Or not want Hellmann to consider them?

    • Why not get independent experts for the trial?  That is how things are normally done.
      Posted on 11/28/15 at 08:45 AM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
      Archived in Defendants in courtAmanda KnoxHoaxers: tools & dupesKnox-Mellas teamOther legal processesKnox followup212 Book hoaxes
      Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (18)

      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 ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
      Archived in Defendants in courtAmanda KnoxHoaxers: tools & dupesKnox-Mellas team209 Nasty prison212 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 ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
        Archived in Defendants in courtAmanda KnoxHoaxers: tools & dupesKnox-Mellas team209 Nasty prison212 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.


          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.


          Monday, September 07, 2015

          Knox Calunnia Trial #2: Testimony In Florence Court Today By Some Accused By Amanda Knox Of Crimes

          Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




          1. Overview Of This Post

          The post is in 3 parts and was added to on the fly as new information flowed in.

          Part 2 below summarizes what this trial is all about. It is not about Knox’s book, it is about her claims on the stand in mid 2009 of crimes committed by numerous investigators and the lead prosecutor.

          Part 3 below is live reports from the court. Part 4 is about the Supreme Court sentencing report released today in Rome.

          2. Background To Calunnia Trial

          This trial focuses on the claims of Amanda Knox at trial in 2009. Charges for malicious claims in her book will fall to another court, probably also in Florence. Oggi is already on trial for republishing some of them.

          There seems no parallel in US or UK legal history to this - to a defendant testifying prolifically for two days to crimes by investigators, in spite of even more days of prior testimony which all pointed the other way.

          Seemingly under strong pressure from her own family Knox willingly took a huge legal risk which her own lawyers had warned her about again and again, sometimes publicly, over nearly two years.

          They never ever lodged even one complaint. Nor did the US Embassy in Rome, which monitored all sessions in court, and often checked her out (as did Italian MP Rocco Girlanda) in prison at Capanne.

          The Massei court and the watching audience in Italy (read here and here) bought none of it. Knox still served three years for framing Patrick. Not even Judge Hellmann bought into her claims. Certainly not the Supreme Court.

          The current trial in Florence was preceded by an investigation by Florence prosecutors, who bring the charges and argue them because Knox impugned officers of the justice system in their official roles. 

          Prior to today the prosecutors’ investigation report had only been released to Knox’s defense. So we don’t yet know if the charges extend beyond Knox’s claims of having been abused into a false “confession” on 5-6 November 2007.

          Post #1 of our ongoing Interrogation Hoax series points toward what investigators testified to at trial.

          Four months later Knox contradicted them at length as summarised in our two posts here and here: “The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About”

          2. Machiavelli Reports From Calunnia Trial

          1. Tweets from the Florence court:

          16. Zugarini was present throughout the interrogation and described when #amandaknox started to cry, remembered her peculiar hand-ear gestures.

          15. Napoleoni testified #amandaknox was brought a chamomille when she started crying at 01:45, the interrogation was immediately stopped.

          14. Napoleoni and Zugarini said they “cuddled” Knox because she was a 20-year old girl.

          13. Both Mignini and Zugarini described having had impression that #amandaknox was feeling “relieved of a burden” after accusing Lumumba.

          12. Mignini said Knox was not clearly a suspect to him by the 05:45 interrogation.

          11. Witnesses had inaccurate memory on some details, but were convergent on some peculiar details.

          10. Napoleoni said she did not enter interrogation room, she called Rita Ficarra out to talk to her.

          9. Zugarini said, as for her knowledge, Knox was not told that Sollecito withdrew her alibi.

          8. Zugarini said called interpreter only to ask #amandaknox more precise questions about people in her phone contact list.

          7. Zugarini said #amandaknox was able to explain herself in Italian. They called an interpreter to translate what police had to say.

          6. Testimony of Mignini was descriptive and framed thing in law. Mostly talked at length explaining alone, prosecutor listened.

          5. In today’s hearing, Mignini talked 2 hours, confirmed arrived at 3am, police interview was over, he asked no questions of AK.

          4. Napoleoni was precise and synthetic. Zugarini longer and IMO more interesting on many details.

          3. Mignini and Judge Boninsegna appeared irritated by Dalla Vedova’s remarks.

          2. Long hearing of Mignini at trial against Amanda Knox for calunnia. Napoleoni & Gubbiotti followed, then Zugarini

          1. Testimony of some of the investigators accused by Knox and the lead prosecutor Dr Mignini [image above] is being taken in court.

          [Reporting from the Florence court sometimes requires a wait to get to a place where mobile phones can connect to the outside.]

          2. Emailed report following day (8 September):

          No Knox calunnia session required today as last Friday and yesterday both sides completed their witness list.

          Amanda Knox and Curt Knox chose not to testify.

          Now Judge Boninsegna has ordered each side to prepare their arguments within three months (7 December).

          The verdict is likely to arrive in the New Year.

          4. Machiavelli On Cassazione Sentencing Report

          4. The Cassazione sentence on the #meredithkercher case about #amandaknox and #raffaelesollecito is an offence to intelligence.

          3. Cassazione repeats several times “strong suspicion” remains about #amandaknox and #raffaelesollecito

          2. Cassazione says #amandaknox was in the apartment when murder was convicted, and it is “incontrovertible” that she committed calunnia.

          1. INCREDIBLE: SC says *proven* fact that #amandaknox was in house when murder was committed. Agrees with court on this


          Monday, August 31, 2015

          The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About #2

          Posted by Peter Quennell



          Above: Florence Prosecutor Dr Angela Pietroiusti. Quick route to Comments here.

          1. Most Bungling Team In Legal History?

          There is NO WAY Knox and Sollecito would be out on the streets if the playing field had been level.

          Knox’s lawyers and family and PR effort and publishers all bungled enormously and suffered an overwhelming loss at both Knox’s trials (murder and calunnia) when pre-trial concessions could have served them well.

          To make up for this, they tilted the playing field.

          Manipulation of the media and thus American (but not Italian) opinion and manipulation of the evidence and manipulation of judges and manipulation of court-appointed DNA experts and manipulation to prevent Italy from finding out what was in Knox’s and Sollecito’s horrific books.

          You want to see manipulation in spades?

          See here and here and the whole huge area of the DNA and of course the RS and AK books.

          You want to see bungling in spades?

          No better example than this one which could possibly cost Sollecito lawyer Luca Maori his career and has stopped the Fifth Chambers of Cassation dead in their tracks.

          Also Knox’s and Sollecito’s foolish books involving dozens of others are coming back to haunt them in court. Also look here at how Chris Mellas dropped Knox in it.

          Helping Sollecito cost his sister Vanessa her Carbinieri job. Sollecito’s father admitted to Panorama he tried political manipulation and was charged. Knox’s parents parroted Amanda Knox and were charged. “Helpful” investigator Paul Ciolino framed an innocent man in another case and was charged. Doug Preston ally Mario Spezi smeared investigators after the two tried framing an innocent man and blocking an investigation getting too near the truth and Spezi was charged.

          Judge Heavey lied to national presidents everywhere and was reprimanded and soon retired. The defense arranged for Judge Hellmann to preside over the 2011 appeal; he was overturned and pushed out. Pepperdine University pushed out the besotted security guard Steve Moore. Frank Sforza, facing felony charges, took off like a rabbit out of America. Defense witness Aviello was charged. 

          The defenses’ attempt to climb in Filomena’s window came up short. This bungled frame-up went nowhere. The pathetic Bruce Fischer team has gone nowhere.

          2. Bungling In Knox’s Calunnia Case

          Keeping Knox quiet for her own good was always a mighty struggle and the defense lawyers openly complained. It was an open secret in Perugia from 2007 to 2009 that Knox’s defense lawyers were struggling with Knox herself and with her family and her PR.

          At least one defense lawyer was fired or walked off the job (as with the Sollecito team). This struggle broke out into the open at various times, for example see here.

          Still. Knox’s defense team also did at least five things to help make matters worse for her in her calunnia trial now.

            1) They allowed Knox to interrupt prosecution witness Anna Donnino, the interpreter, during her testimony in March 2009 to claim she was hit, having repeatedly said previously that that was untrue. That set the legal reaction in motion.

            2) They put Knox on the stand seemingly unbriefed and allowed her to contradict both days and days of prosecution testimony and also prior declarations by herself.

            3) They put a presumably privileged letter from Knox to themselves in evidence (see previous post) knowing that it contained false claims.

            4) They applied to a Perugia judge for the transfer of the calunnia case from Perugia to Florence, thinking the Florence court was gunning for Dr Mignini when the truth is opposite.

            5) They applied to the same Perugia judge for the attachment of Dr Mignini’s name to the complaint though they knew he was not at the “interrogation” as even Knox said on the stand.

          Due to failed defense efforts Knox has already served three years and is a felon for life, and she now could face another six plus more penalties for her book. She is still not off the hook for murder as Fifth Chambers judges broke two laws and had fishy friends in their pasts.

          So, good luck, Amanda Knox. GREAT TEAM!

          3. Day Two Of Knox’s Testimony

          These are excerpts related to the “interrogation” of 5-6 Nov. Important: we dont yet know what else the prosecutors will include in their charges as much of Knox’s testimony was on other things about which she also lied.

          Excerpts in both posts are from the full transcript on the Case Wiki, and all transcription and translation into English (a massive task) was by the PMF Team.

          Cross Examination By Prosecutor Mignini

          GM:  In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there’s Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn’t you ever mentioned him before?
          AK:  Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick’s name to me.
          GM:  All right, now is the time for you to make this precise and specific. At this point I will take…no, I’ll come back to it later. You need to explain this. You have stated: “The name of Patrick was suggested to me. I was hit, pressured.”
          AK:  Yes.
          GM:  Now you have to tell me in a completely detailed way, you have to remember for real, you have to explain step by step, who, how, when, was the name of Patrick suggested to you, and what had been done before that point. The name of Patrick didn’t just come up like a mushroom; there was a preceding situation. Who put pressure on you, what do you mean by the word “pressure”, who hit you? You said: “They hit me”, and at the request of the lawyer Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.
          AK:  Yes.
          GM:  So that would be what you meant by being hit?
          AK:  Yes.
          GM:  Or something else? Tell me if there was something else. You can tell us.
          AK:  Okay.
          GCM:  So, you are—[Interruptions] The question is—[Interruptions] Escuse me. Excuse me. The question is quite clear. He is repeating this in order to give the accused a chance to add something to these events that were explained by the accused yesterday. The pubblico ministero is asking to return to these events mentioned yesterday in order to obtain more detail about exactly what happened and who did it. Please be as precise as possible.
          GM:  So you were in front of—
          GCM:  The question is clear.
          GM:  All right, so tell us.
          GCM:  Yes, it’s clear.
          AK:  All right. Okay.
          GCM:  If you could give more detail, be more precise, exactly what was suggested to you, about the cuffs, all that.
          AK:  Okay.
          GCM:  And who did all this, if you can.
          AK:  Okay. Fine. So, when I got to the Questura, they placed me to the side, near the elevator, where I was waiting for Raffaele. I had taken my homework, and was starting to do my homework, but a policeman came in, in fact there were I don’t know, three of them or something, and they wanted to go on talking to me. They asked me again—
          GM:  Excuse me, excuse me—
          AK:  [coldly] Can I tell the story?
          GM:  Excuse me for interrupting you otherwise we’ll forget—
          CDV:  Presidente, I object to this way of doing things. The question was asked—[Yelling, interruptions]—we should wait for the answer.
          GM:  It’s impossible to go on like this, no, no.
          CDV:  If a question is asked, she has to be able to answer.
          GCM:  Please, please. That’s correct. There is a rule that was introduced, which says that we should absolutely avoid interruptions from anyone.
          CDV:  I want to ask that she be allowed to finish her answer. She has the right, no?
          GCM:  Please, please, pubblico ministero. It’s impossible to go on this way.
          GM:  I would like to, I can—
          GCM:  No no no, no one can. We have to make sure that while someone is speaking, there are never any superimposed voices. And since the accused is undergoing examination, she has the right to be allowed to answer in the calmest possible way. Interruptions and talking at the same time don’t help her, and they can’t be written down in the minutes, which obliges the courts to suspend the audience and start it again at a calmer and more tranquil moment.
          GM:  Presidente—
          GCM:  No, no, no! Interruptions are absolutely not allowed! Not between the parties, nor when the Court, the President is speaking. So, interruptions are not allowed. Now, the accused is speaking, and when she is finished, we can return to her answers—
          GM:  Presidente.
          GCM:  Excuse me, please! But at the moment she is speaking, we have to avoid interrupting her. But—I don’t know if this is what was wanted—but while you are speaking, if you could tell us when. For instance, you say you were doing homework, but you didn’t tell us when. We need to know when, on what day, the 2nd of November, the 3rd, what time it was. While you are talking, you need to be more detailed, as detailed as you can with respect to the date and the time.
          AK:  Okay.
          GCM:  And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
          AK:  Thank you. So, here is…how I understood the question, I’m answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I’m sorry, I don’t know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation. The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I didn’t do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.” So I said okay and went with them, and they started asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening. At least, they kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything about what I did. Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times and schedules, and time segments: “What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember. And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.” And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn’t there? I was there! Maybe I can’t say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because I didn’t look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And she would say “No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the house.” And I said, no, that’s not how it was. I was always in Raffaele’s apartment.
          GCM:  [taking advantage of a tiny pause to slip in without exactly interrupting] Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the cuffs, who gave them to you.
          AK:  All right. What it was, was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started to little by little and then more and more these remarks about “We’re not convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not remember another thing. We don’t understand how you could take a shower without seeing…” And then, they kept on asking me “Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.” Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that I had gone out of the house. I said look, it’s impossible. I don’t know if he’s really saying that or not, but look, I didn’t go out of the house. And they said “No, you’re telling a lie. You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.” Sure, take it. “All right.” So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling “We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?” But I kept saying no, no, I didn’t go out, I’m not pro-pro-pro—-
          GCM:  [taking advantage of her stammer] Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous crescendo.
          AK:  Yes.
          GCM:  As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as continuously as possible…
          AK:  Okay, I’m sorry.
          GCM:  So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who… these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me…
          AK:  Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said “Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick”, and I said I don’t think I did, and they yelled “Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here’s your message saying you wanted to meet him!” And I didn’t even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was telling me “Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you’re not able to remember anything you’ve done.” So I said, how could that be? And she said, “Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can’t remember it. Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg…”
          GCM:  The interpreter said this to you?
          AK:  The interpreter, yes.
          GCM:  I also wanted to ask you because it isn’t clear to me: only the interpreter spoke to you, or the others also?
          AK:  All the others also.
          GCM:  Everyone was talking to you, all the others, but were they speaking in English?
          AK:  No, in Italian.
          GCM:  In Italian. And you answered in Italian?
          AK:  In Italian, in English…
          GCM:  And what was said to you in Italian, did it get translated to you in English?
          AK:  A bit yes, a bit no, there was so much confusion, there were so many people all talking at the same time, one saying “Maybe it was like this, maybe you don’t remember,” another saying “No, she’s a stupid liar,” like that…
          GCM:  But everything was eventually translated, or you understood some of it and answered right away?
          AK:  It wasn’t like an interrogation, like what we’re doing now, where one person asks me a question and I answer. No. There were so many people talking, asking, waiting, and I answered a bit here and there.
          GCM:  All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about something that had happened to her. [Interruption by Mignini.] But you need to get back to the questions asked by the pubblico ministero. This isn’t a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we still haven’t really heard the answer to it.
          AK:  Yes, sorry.
          GCM:  Right, so you were saying that there was this continuous crescendo.
          AK:  It’s difficult for me to say that one specific person said one specific thing. It was the fact that there were all these little suggestions, and someone was saying that there was the telephone, then there was the fact that… then more than anything what made me try to imagine something was someone saying to me “Maybe you’re confused, maybe you’re confused and you should try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking, what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting “Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember,” and boom! on my head. [Amanda slaps herself on the back of the head: End of video segment] “Remember!” And I was like—Mamma Mia! and then boom! [slaps head again] “Remember!”
          GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me, please, excuse me…
          AK:  Those were the cuffs.
          GCM:  So, the pubblico ministero asked you, and is still asking you, who is the person that gave you these two blows that you just showed us on yourself?
          AK:  It was a policewoman, but I didn’t know their names.
          GM:  Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
          GM:  So, now, I asked you a question, and I did not get an answer. You ... [interruptions]!
          LG or CDV:  I object to that remark! That is a personal evaluation! Presidente! That is very suggestive. He is making an unacceptable conclusion. He can ask a question, but this is a personal opinion. It seems to me that she did answer. She answered for a good five minutes.
          GCM:  Sorry, but I said that we were supposed to avoid interruptions, that we weren’t supposed to interrupt when someone was speaking—
          LG or CDV:  But—
          GCM:  Wait—avvocato, excuse me, please, let’s try to avoid these moments which don’t help anybody and probably harm the person undergoing the examination because they create tension in the court—
          GM:  When I am doing the cross-examination I would like—
          GCM:  Please, pubblico ministero. This is another recommendation: let’s avoid analyses. Let’s take the answers as they come, later the right moment will come to say that from this examination, you did not obtain the answer that you expected, that the accused did not answer the questions. That is a later phase. At this moment, let’s stay with the answers that we have, even if they are not exhaustive, and return to the question, but avoiding personal evaluations of their value. Go ahead, publicco ministero, go ahead.
          GM:  I would like to—
          GCM:  Yes, yes, go ahead, return to your question. And then you can come back to it with more details.
          GM:  The central point of that interrogation was the moment when the name of Patrick emerged. You spoke of suggestions, you spoke of pressure, you spoke of being hit, I asked you to give me a precise description of who gave you the blows, you need to describe this person. Was it a woman or a man? Who asked you the questions? Who was asking you the questions? There was the interpreter, who was the person who was translating. But the exam, the interrogation, who was doing it? Apart from the people who were going in and out. You must have understood that there was a murder, and this was a police station, and the investigation was hot, and what I am asking you is, who was actually conducting the interrogation?
          GCM:  The pubblico ministero is asking you, you said that the two blows were given to me by someone whose name I don’t know. The pubblico ministero is asking you firstly if you can give a description of the person who hit you, if you saw her, and if you can give us a description. The second question—
          AK:  So, when I—the person who was conducting the interrogation—
          GCM:  That was the second question! You’re starting with the second question, that’s fine, go ahead, go ahead.
          AK:  Oh, sorry…
          GCM:  Go on, go on. The person who was conducting the interrogation…
          AK:  Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don’t know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?” Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn’t see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.
          GCM:  This was the same woman with the long hair?
          AK:  Yes, the same one.
          GCM:  All right. Are you finished? Tell me if you have something to add.
          AK:  Well, I already answered.
          GCM:  Fine, fine, all right. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
          GM:  I’ll go on with the questions. In the minutes it mentions three people, plus the interpreter. Now, you first said that they suggested things to you. What exactly do you mean by the word “suggestion”, because from your description, I don’t see any suggestion. I mean, what is meant by the Italian word “suggerimento”, I don’t find it.
          GCM:  [quelling them] Excuse me, excuse me, please, please, excuse me, excuse me! Listen, the pubblico ministero is asking you: “suggestions”, you also mentioned words that were “put in your mouth”, versions, things to say, circumstances to describe.
          The pubblico ministero is asking two things: who made the suggestions, and what exactly were you told to say? }}
          AK:  All right. It seems to me that the thoughts of the people standing around me, there were so many people, and they suggested things to me in the sense that they would ask questions like: “Okay, you met someone!” No, I didn’t. They would say “Yes you did, because we have this telephone here, that says that you wanted to meet someone. You wanted to meet him.” No, I don’t remember that. “Well, you’d better remember, because if not we’ll put you in prison for 30 years.” But I don’t remember! “Maybe it was him that you met? Or him? You can’t remember?” It was this kind of suggestion.
          GCM:  When you say they said “Maybe you met him?”, did they specify names?
          AK:  Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him—
          [Interruptions]
          GCM:  Please, please!
          [Interruptions, multiple voices]
          CDV:  It’s not possible to go on this way! [Mignini yells something at dalla Vedova]
          GCM:  Please, please, excuse me, excuse me!
          ??:  I’m going to ask to suspend the audience! I demand a suspension of five minutes!
          GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me! Please!
          CDV:  Viva Dio, Presidente!
          GM:  Presidente, I’m trying to do a cross-examination, and I must have the conditions that allow me to do it! The defense keeps interrupting.
          ??:  That’s true!
          GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me, please—
          GM:  We’re asking for a suspension!
          GCM:  Just a moment, excuse me. I’ve heard all the demands and suggestions, now the Court will decide. So.
          [Several moments of silence, during which Amanda murmurs in a very tiny voice: “Scusa.”]
          GCM:  I want to point out that the accused offers answers to every question. She could always refuse to respond. She is answering, and that doesn’t mean she has to be asked about the same circumstances again and again. She is not a witness. The accused goes under different rules. We have to accept the answers—
          ??:  But—
          GCM:  Please, please! We have to accept the answers given by the accused. She can stop answering at any time. At some point we simply have to move on to different questions. One circumstance is being asked again, the accused answered. The regularly, the tranquillity, the rituality of the court, of the process, has to be respected. The pubblico ministero was asking about suggestions. [To Amanda] If you want a suspension we can do it right away.
          AK:  No, I’m fine.
          GCM:  So the pubblico ministero was asking about the suggestions. All right?
          AK:  Sure.
          GCM:  So, you were the one who gave the first indication, introducing this generic pronoun “him”? This “him”, did they say who it could be?
          AK:  It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying “Are you sure you don’t remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote this message.”
          GCM:  In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?
          AK:  No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata.”
          GCM:  But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?
          AK:  Actually, I don’t know if that information is in the telephone. But I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn’t find it, but they found the one I sent to him.
          GCM:  I also wanted to ask you for the pubblico ministero, you wrote this message in Italian. I wanted to ask you, since you are an English speaker, what do you do when you wrote in Italian? Do you first think in English, and then translate into Italian, or do you manage to think directly in Italian?
          AK:  No, at that time, I first thought in English, then I would translate, and then write.
          GCM:  So that clarifies that phrase. Go ahead, pubblico ministero, but I think we’ve exhausted the question.
          GM:  Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language, “suggerire” means “indicate”, someone who “suggests” a name actually says the name and the other person adopts it. That is what “suggerimento” is, and I…so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?
          ??:  Objection! Objection!
          GM:  On page 95, I read—
          CDV:  Before the objection, what was the question?
          GM:  The question was: the question that was objected was about the term “suggerimento”. Because I interpret that word this way: the police say “Was it Patrick?” and she confirms that it was Patrick. This is suggestion in the Italian language.
          GCM:  Excuse me, please, excuse me. Let’s return to the accused. What was the suggestion, because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had been identified, they talked about “him, him, him”. In what terms exactly did they talk about this “him”? What did they say to you?
          AK:  So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message—
          GCM:  You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?
          AK:  To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew, and that I didn’t want to tell. And that I didn’t want to tell because I didn’t remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying “Look what a stupid liar you are, you don’t even remember this!” At first, I didn’t even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying “Maybe you don’t remember, maybe you don’t remember, but try,” and other people were saying “Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing “Remember, remember, remember,” and then there was this person behind me who—it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me…
          GCM:  “Remember!” is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather…
          AK:  But it was always “Remember” following this same idea, that…
          GCM:  But they didn’t literally say that it was him!
          AK:  No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him.”
          GCM:  So, these were the suggestions.
          AK:  Yes.
          GCM:  Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
          GM:  I object here on the dynamics, because here there’s a contrast…well… per carita—[Brief interruption from GCM]—From Amanda’s answer, it emerges that there was this cell phone and this message and this “Answer, answer,” whereas in the minutes of the Dec 17 interrogation, page 95, we find: The police could not have suggested—[Arguing, everyone speaking, Maresca, Pacelli etc., some saying that they need to know the exact page, it’s different in their version. ]
          GCM:  While the pubblico ministero is talking, let’s avoid interrupting him. It’s true that the pages are different, but still, if you can’t find the page, ask for a moment’s pause, don’t interrupt the reading.
          GM:  So, on line number one, two, three, four…
          GCM:  Pubblico ministero, don’t worry about the lines, please read.
          GM:  [reading] She said: “I accused Patrick and no one else because they were continually talking about Patrick.” Suggesting, to use Amanda’s words. I asked: “The police, the police could not suggest? And the interpreter, was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police saying?” Knox: “The police were saying, ‘We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.’ And one moment before I said Patrick’s name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him.” This is the objection. There is a precise moment. The police were showing her the message, they didn’t know who it was—
          GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me pubblico ministero [talking at the same time] excuse me, excuse me, the objection consists in the following: [to Amanda], when there are contrasts or a lack of coincidence with previous statements, be careful to explain them.
          AK:  Okay.
          GCM:  Do you confirm the declarations that the pubblico ministero read out?
          AK:  I explained it better now.
          GCM:  You explained it better now. All right pubblico ministero. Go ahead.
          GM:  So, let’s move forward.
          AK:  Okay.
          GM:  Now, what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?
          AK:  Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn’t tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of “Patrick”, I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn’t agree, that maybe could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick’s face, then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted to know everything I had done. But I didn’t know how to say. So they started talking to me, saying, “Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?” I don’t know, maybe in Piazza Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. “Okay, fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the door?” Well, with my key. “So you opened the house”. Okay, yes. “And what did you do then?” I don’t know. “But was she already there?” I don’t know. “Did she arrive or was she already there?” Okay. “Who was there with you?” I don’t know. “Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?” I don’t know. It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me: “Excuse me, I don’t understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?” No. “But how could you not have heard the scream?”. I don’t know, maybe my ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don’t know, maybe, imagining…
          GCM:  [Stopping her gently] Okay, okay. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
          CDV?:  I’d like to ask a question, I’d like to make an objection about—
          GCM?:  All right, so—
          GM:  Is it a question or an objection? [crossing, arguing voices]
          GCM:  Please, no interruptions.
          CDV?:  [stronger] I said, I am asking a question and making an objection—
          GCM:  But, excuse me, let’s stay with essentials. Let’s hear what the pubblico ministero has to say, and then we’ll see. That’s a premise.
          GM:  I appeal to the court that this is making the examination impossible.
          GCM:  Please, please, sorry. Go ahead.
          GM:  I am trying to understand. In the interro—[he breaks off in mid-word, I think dalla Vedova must have stood up again.]
          GCM:  But it’s not possible to hinder things this way, avvocato. Excuse me. Why?
          CDV?:  [hard to hear because he’s speaking at the same time as GCM] The defense would like to formally ask for a break [?]
          GCM:  We haven’t even heard what he is trying to say yet. You can’t make preventive objections! I’m sorry, avvocato.
          CDV?:  I’m not making an objection—
          GCM:  [really trying to stop him but not succeeding, CDV goes on talking at the same time] Please, please avvocato, no no no no, the pubblico ministero is speaking. [GM also says some words] Excuse me, excuse me.
          CDV?:  The suggestions of the PM before asking the question are inopportune, because he is suggesting and making suggestive…
          GCM:  Please, please, excuse me, excuse me! [He really, really needs a gavel to bang!]
          GM:  [some words]
          GCM:  Please, pubblico ministero! We are creating useless moments—
          GM:  [some words]
          GCM:  [much louder] Please, pubblico ministero! Please! Now, excuse me.
          GM or CDV:  Please explain this concept to me.
          GCM:  Please, please! [He finally obtains silence] I understand that when these interruption happens, the tone gets a bit louder, but that is not helpful. [Interruption] Please, please—but we are getting the impression that the objections are preventive. So while the pubblico ministero is speaking, which he has every right to do in this phase, and the defense already had their chance to do it, and they weren’t interrupted yesterday, so we ask for equal treatment today, at the present moment of the examination of the accused. And the tone should always remain cordial without giving the impression of a—
          CDV:  Yes, yes, no, no. But it’s just that, I am asking that—
          GCM:  Please, avvocato. There’s no reason. We are trying to reconcile the interests of all parties, we are gathering circumstances on which the different parties are called to make analyses and the Court to decide. This will be helpful for everyone. Go ahead.
          GM:  The question is this: You say, you just told me a little while ago, that… the police—I’m trying to—well, I have to give a little introduction so she understands my question. You said “they found this message and they asked me whom it was to, if it was true or not true.” And you answered. Then the police obviously goes forward with their questions. “So, tell us”. And you…you just told me, I can’t read it, obviously I don’t have the transcription right here, but, I might be making a mistake, I don’t know, but you were saying that you remembered Piazza Grimana. Did you really say that?
          AK:  Yes.
          GCM:  Please, please, excuse me, there, now what the accused is saying is: “On the basis of these elements, I tried to reconstruct a scene that could be verified.” In these terms, not because she… She mentally elaborated, with her imagination: this is what I understood, how the scene could be realized, containing those elements that had come up.
          AK:  Certainly.
          GCM:  But she wasn’t speaking of an effective memory of circumstances that had effectively occurred in her perception. That is the meaning of the response of the accused.
          AK:  Certo.
          GM:  But you said that you remembered Piazza Grimana.
          AK:  I had an image of Piazza Grimana.
          GM:  An image of Piazza Grimana, that’s right. Now listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary…

          [Start of 6:54 minute video segment] ...I asked this question: Why did you throw out an accusation of this type? In the confrontations with Mr. Lumumba (I was continuing and you answered right away): “I was trying, I had the possibility of explaining the message in my phone. He had told me not to come to work.” Perfectly normal things. So, faced with a perfectly normal circumstance, “My boss texted me to tell me not to come to work and I answered him,” you could have just stated that. End of response. Instead, faced with the message, and the questions of the police, you threw out this accusation. So I am asking you, why start accusing him when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why did you think those things could be true? }}
          AK:  I was confused.
          GM:  You have repeated that many times. But what does it mean? Either something is true, or it isn’t true. Right now, for instance, you’re here at the audience, you couldn’t be somewhere else. You couldn’t say “I am at the station.” You are right here, right now.
          AK:  Certainly. [Some noise]
          GCM:  The question is clear.
          AK:  Can I answer?
          GCM:  [quelling noise] Excuse me, excuse me! Please, go ahead.
          AK:  My confusion was because firstly, I couldn’t understand why the police was treating me this way, and then because when I explained that I had spent the whole time with Raffaele, they said “No, you’re a liar”. It was always this thing that either I didn’t remember or I was lying. The fact that I kept on and on repeating my story and they kept saying “No, you’re going to prison right now if you don’t tell the truth,” and I said “But I’ve told the truth,” “No, you’re a liar, now you’re going to prison for 30 years because either you’re a stupid liar or you forgot. And if it’s because you forgot, then you’d better remember what happened for real, right now.” This is why I was confused. Because I didn’t understand. I didn’t understand why. I didn’t understand anything any more. I was so scared and impressed by all this that at some point I thought What the heck, maybe they’re right, maybe I forgot.
          GM:  So, and then, you accused Lumumba of murder. This is the conclusion.

          GM:  I wanted to spend a moment on one last question, maybe the last but I don’t know, about the morning of the 6th.
          AK:  Okay.
          GM:  There’s another thing I didn’t understand. You said pressure was put on you, and there were suggestions, you explained today exactly what those consisted in, to say the name of Patrick and to accuse Patrick. Then you wrote a memorandum in which you confirm everything. And you weren’t under pressure right then. Why didn’t you just say: “I falsely accused someone.” Someone who was in prison, who was put in prison, maybe for a long time. Can you explain this to me?
          AK:  Certo.
          CDV?:  Can I make an objection? Very, very calmly and without animosity?
          GCM:  Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you [for the calm, no doubt]. Thank you.
          CDV?:  It seems to me that the pubblico ministero, in presenting his questions, always makes references which go as far as actually suggesting the answers, and also—
          GM:  Well it is a cross-examination.
          GCM:  Please, please let’s avoid interruptions and let each person express what he has to say. Go ahead, avvocato.
          CDV?:  In the question he just asked, he mentions the memorandum and says it confirms. Now, this might be a specific question, but it should not be an assertion on the part of the pubblico ministero, followed by another question. If we look in the minutes, we find a series of unilateral declarations which all go to show what interests the pubblico ministero. To my mind, this mentality goes against our way of examining the accused. I just want to make this clear.
          GCM:  All right, taking into account these remarks, the pubblico ministero’s question remains. It could be rephrased like this: during the 5th and the 6th, you said there were pressures, and the name of Patrick Lumumba emerged as also being involved in these events. But as the pubblico ministero notes, you then you wrote the memorandum spontaneously. We heard that you yourself asked for paper to be able to write it.
          AK:  Certainly.
          GCM:  And writing with this liberty, you even referred to it as a gift, these elements which had already emerged, you reasserted them, and this involvement of Patrick Lumumba. What the pubblico ministero is asking is: how did you—this question was already asked yesterday—in these different circumstances, you weren’t in the room any more, there wasn’t any pressure, why didn’t the truth somehow get stabilized?
          AK:  Yes, yes. In fact, what happened is that I had literally been led to believe that somehow, I had forgotten something real, and so with this idea that I must have forgotten, I was practically convinced myself that I really had forgotten. And these images, that I was actually forcing myself to imagine, were really lost memories. So, I wasn’t sure if those images were reality or not, but explaining this to the police, they didn’t want to listen to the fact that I wasn’t sure. They treated me as though I had now remembered everything and everything was fine and I could now make a declaration in the tribunal against someone, to accuse someone. I didn’t feel sure about that. I didn’t feel—
          GCM:  Excuse me, but in the memorandum, do you remember what you wrote about Patrick? Because maybe it wasn’t precise…
          GM:  [Interrupting] I want—I want—I want to contest this point. Two points in the memorandum. If I’m not mistaken, you weren’t a witness right then. You had been the object of an arrest warrant. You had been arrested. You know the difference between a suspect and a witness. You weren’t a witness. Not any longer. So in the memorandum—
          CDV?:  One moment—[hard to hear] Does she know the difference?
          GM:  Can I continue? Sorry, avvocato, but I’m asking questions! Can I continue? He’s continually—
          GCM:  Sorry, sorry, go ahead.
          GM:  This is impossible!
          GCM:  Please, pubblico ministero, go ahead, go ahead.
          GM:  I am interrogating. I am interrogating. Now I’m distracted. Now, the difference between a suspect and a witness—a person informed of the facts. You said: “I made these declarations so that I could leave, so I could be—” but instead, you were arrested. And you wrote the memorandum after you had been arrested. And you wrote two sentences: I’ll read them. “I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick.” [In Italian: “I confirm…”] Do you know what the word “confirm” means in Italian? “In the flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer.” There wasn’t any policeman with you when you wrote that. No one. You wrote that in complete liberty. Do you know how to explain to me why? And this is even more decisive than what you said some hours earlier. Can you explain this?
          AK:  I couldn’t even explain to myself why I had these images in my head, because I didn’t know if they were memories or not. And I want to say that if I made these declarations, that they asked me to sign and everything, I did it, but I wanted in the memorandum to explain my doubt, this fact that I wasn’t sure about it, because no one ever wanted to listen when I said listen, I don’t know.
          GCM?:  Effectively the memorandum was correcting what had been said, and these doubts arose.
          GM:  Do you have lapses of memory? At that time did you ever have lapses of memory?
          AK:  Did I have what?
          GM:  Lapses of memory.
          AK:  Oh, lapses of memory.
          GM:  Lapses of memory. Moments where you couldn’t remember things that you had done. “What did I do yesterday? I don’t know.”
          AK:  [Laughing] I’ve had that problem all my life.
          GM:  What?
          AK:  I’ve had that problem all my life. I can’t remember where I put my keys.
          GM:  So it happened to you at other times? Explain it to me. You previously mixed up things, didn’t know whether you had dreamed things or they were real?
          AK:  No, not that part about the imagination! I would forget for example what I ate yesterday for dinner, yes, that happened to me, but not to actually imagine things.
          GM:  To imagine something that hadn’t really happened, that never happened to you.
          AK:  No. I never had that problem, but then, I had never been interrogated like that before.
          GM:  Okay, so when you had this flashback, you saw Patrick as the murderer. What was this flashback?
          AK:  The flashback consisted in this image of Patrick’s actual face, not that I imagined an actual act, I imagined his face. Then I had this image of Piazza Grimana, then an image of Patrick’s face, then I always had this idea that they wanted to say: these images explain the fact that you met him, and you brought him home, and maybe you heard something and covered your ears, and it was always like this, not that I actually imagined having seen Meredith’s death. It was these images that came by themselves, to explain…
          GM:  I see. All right. I take note of what you’re saying. Now, let’s talk about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: “I didn’t lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick.” Then you add “But now I know that I can’t know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn’t go home.” Can you explain these concept to me?
          AK:  Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in that moment, I—
          GM:  So what you had said might have actually been true?
          AK:  Yes.
          AK:  Yes, it could have been true, but at that moment. But then, when I was able to rethink the facts, it became clearer and clearer that it didn’t make sense, that it was absolutely ridiculous that I could have thought that or imagined it.
          GM:  But didn’t you feel the need to intervene to get an innocent person out of prison? You didn’t feel the need?
          AK:  But the police had already called me a liar, and I didn’t feel they were listening to me. Also because in the Questura—
          GM:  But you were in prison!
          AK:  But in the Questura, I had already told them: Look, I’m not sure about this, and they didn’t want to hear that. They didn’t want to listen, because they said to me “No, you’ll remember it later. You just need a little time to really remember these facts.” I told them no, I don’t think it’s like that, but they didn’t want to listen.
          GM:  They didn’t believe you. But you, once you said that you remembered, [snaps fingers?] you could have just made a declaration or sent me another memorandum saying “No, I didn’t say the truth. Patrick is innocent.”
          GCM:  Excuse me, we already had explanations about this.


          The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About #1

          Posted by Peter Quennell



          Above: Florence Prosecutor Dr Leopoldo Di Girolamo. Quick route to Comments here.

          1. Arrangements For Knox Trial In Florence

          Knox’s second trial for aggravated calunnia will take place later this week and early next week in Florence.

          For the record the sentence for a repeat calunnia offense can be six years and the statute of limitations cuts in at 11 year and three months which in this case will be late in AD 2020.

          The real drama if any will be next week, when witnesses are to be called starting on Monday. We should have some court reporting from Main Poster Machiavelli. There is the possibility of a closed court and a verdict on Tuesday.

          We believe the judge will be Dr Giampaolo Boninsegna. We presume that Knox will not attend (perhaps a weak move, perhaps not).

          Two prosecutors have developed the case which was sparked by complaints from investigators in the Perugia central police station. They are Dr Leopoldo Di Girolamo (image above) and Dr Angela Pietroiusti. We could see either or both of them in action.

          It appears now that knox’s lawyers will again be Ghirga and Dalla Vedova, who some lawyers criticise for dropping her in it at trial with an ill-judged stint on the stand after 20 months of trying to stop Knox dropping herself in it.

          2. Why Knox Was On The Stand in 2009

          Knox’s team primarily primarily intended that Knox’s two days on the stand should serve to explain why she framed Patrick and then allowed him to languish in prison.

          Both publicly to the media and at the Micheli hearings in late 2008 Knox’s lawyers had denied she was ill-treated or forced into a “confession”. So why was Knox put on the stand?

          Probably in part because Knox absolutely insisted on it, given her considerable track record of written and spoken explanations and her interrogation in December 2007 by Dr Mignini. Each time a fail, but perhaps she had in mind the movie Groundhog Day.

          And probably in part because the prosecution portion of the trial had been pretty damning. There had been stacks of evidence and numerous witnesses whose testimony fitted together pretty seamlessly.

          Contrast this with the defense portion of the trial, from late summer onward, which was often awkward and hesitant, often did not fill complete court days, and really gained no ground back.

          3. The Knox Defense Team’s Uphill Task Here

          Bizarrely, Knox AND her lawyers AND her family had already sat through days and days of testimony earlier in the trial from various investigators who were present on 5-6 November when Knox explosively fingered Patrick.

          Knox’s testimony was like night and day compared to that, as if none of that previous testimony had even happened. This was probably unique in Italian legal history and quite possibly in US legal history also.

          Our ongoing Interrogation Hoax series, still far from complete, which has included a lot of new translation, showed what a very consistent picture of events on 5-6 Nov all these witnesses testified to.

          Testimony led by Knox’s team (see below) was quite extensive but it tellingly wandered far from the main point and was very pussyfooting about 5-6 Nov even though Knox was not under oath and prosecutor cross-examination was circumscribed. It really won no points for Knox at all and didnt avoid her serving three years.

          To consider the target testimony below against the picture the court had already developed, please read at least Part One of the series.

          Look below as you read for all the numerous claims by Knox of illegal pressure and illegal abuse and illegal insistence of scenarios and names given to her by the cops.

          According to the prior testimony of all those officers Knox is impugning, none of these claims of illegality seemingly designed to hurt careers had any truth at all to them.

          4. Day One of Knox’s Testimony

          Day two’s testimony will follow in our next post. Excerpts in both posts are from the full transcript on the Case Wiki, and all transcription and translation into English (a massive task) was by the PMF Team.

          Relevant Questions By Lumumba Lawyer Pacelli

          Here AK is Knox, CP is Pacelli, and GCM is Judge Massei.

          CP:  Listen, let’s get to the evening of November 1. On the evening of November 1, 2007, did you have an appointment with Patrick near the basketball court?
          GCM:  [Interrupting the interpreter who is putting this question into English for Amanda] Excuse me, excuse me. Also for the interpreter, also the English translation, everything is for everyone, this is not a dialogue between two people.
          CP:  I’ll ask a simpler question, Presidente.
          GCM:  No no, we heard it. Please, go ahead. [The interpreter translates the question]
          AK:  No, I didn’t.
          CP:  So, on the evening of November 1, you didn’t meet Patrick?
          AK:  No.
          CP:  You didn’t meet him at the basketball court?
          AK:  No.
          CP:  Then why did you say you met him at the basketball court during your interrogation of November 6, 2007, at 1:45 in the morning in front of the judicial police?
          AK:  It was a complicated situation. I can explain it if you want me to go into it.
          CP:  Yes, yes, later.
          AK:  Okay.
          CP:  You had the keys of the apartment in via della Pergola?
          GCM:  Excuse me, avvocato, she was saying something.
          CP:  Sorry. Please, go ahead.
          GCM:  She was adding something. Please go ahead. You can answer…
          AK:  Okay.
          GCM:  ...with all the time and the precision that you need.
          AK:  Okay.
          GCM:  [addressing the interpreter] Tell her that if she wants to add something, as it seemed she did, she can do it, and we will listen. [Interpreter puts this into English]
          AK:  Yes. Um, the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving in the police office, I didn’t expect to be interrogated at all. When I got there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that they had been asking me days…all these days ever since it happened. For instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and I said I still didn’t know, and so what they did is, they brought me into another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn’t remember doing. That’s when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone. [Sigh] So I was there, and they told me that I was trying to protect someone, but I wasn’t trying to protect anyone, and so I didn’t know how to respond to them. They said that I had left Raffaele’s house, which wasn’t true, which I denied, but they continued to call me a stupid liar. They were putting this telephone in front of my face going “Look, look, your message, you were going to meet someone”. And when I denied that, they continued to call me a stupid liar. And then, from that point on, I was very very scared, because they were treating me so badly and I didn’t understand why. [Sigh] While I was there, there was an interpreter who explained to me an experience of hers, where she had gone through a traumatic experience that she could not remember at all, and she suggested that I was traumatized, and that I couldn’t remember the truth. This at first seemed ridiculous to me, because I remembered being at Raffaele’s house. For sure. I remembered doing things at Raffaele’s house. I checked my e-mails before, then we watched a movie. We had eaten dinner together, we had talked together, and during that time I hadn’t left his apartment. But they were insisting upon putting everything into hourly segments, and since I never look at the clock, I wasn’t able to tell them what time exactly I did everything. They insisted that I had left the apartment for a certain period of time to meet somebody, which for me I didn’t remember, but the interpreter said I probably had forgotten. [Sigh]...
          AK:  So what ended up happening was, that they told me to try to remember what I apparently, according to them, had forgotten. Under the amount of pressure of everyone yelling at me, and having them tell me that they were going to put me in prison for protecting somebody, that I wasn’t protecting, that I couldn’t remember, I tried to imagine that in some way they must have had…it was very difficult, because when I was there, at a certain point, I just…I couldn’t understand [Start of 15:19 minute video segment] why they were so sure that I was the one who knew everything. And so, in my confusion, I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said. They continued to say that I had met somebody, and they continued to put so much emphasis on this message that I had received from Patrick, and so I almost was convinced that I had met him. But I was confused.
          CP:  But—did you really meet him at the basketball court?
          AK:  No.
          CP:  Then how could you be convinced that you had met him?
          AK:  I was confused.
          CP:  When you said this, how many police inspectors were present?
          AK:  I don’t know how many were police officers or inspectors, but there were lots.
          CP:  Listen, but you were accompanied to the bar, they offered you a cappuccino over the night? They assisted you through the night?
          AK:  I was offered tea after I had made declarations.
          CP:  So they treated you well.
          AK:  No!

          On November 6, 2007, at 1:45, you said that you went to the house in via della Pergola with Patrick. Did you go?
          AK:  The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were suggested by the public minister.
          CP:  Excuse me, but at 1:45, the pubblico ministero was not there, there was only the judicial police.
          AK:  Ha. They also were pressuring me.
          CP:  I understand, but were they telling you to say that, too, or did you say it of your own free will.
          AK:  They were suggesting paths of thought. They were suggesting the path of thought. They suggested the journey. So the first thing I said, “Okay, Patrick”. And then they said “Okay, where did you meet him? Did you meet him at your house? Did you meet him near your house?” “Euh, near my house, I don’t know.” Then my memories got mixed up. From other days, I remembered having met Patrick, at Piazza Grimana, so I said “Okay, Piazza Grimana.” It wasn’t as if I said “Oh, this is how it went.”

          GCM:  Please go ahead, avvocato.
          CP: —which is the object of both declarations, the one at 1:45 and the one at 5:45. [Crossing voices.]
          GCM:  It was about facts, though?
          CP:  All right, I’ll reformulate the question. Meredith, before she was killed, did she have sex?
          AK:  I don’t know.
          CP:  Then why, in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45, did you say that Meredith had sex before she died?
          AK:  Under pressure, I imagined lots of different things, also because during the days that I was being questioned by the police, they suggested to me that she had been raped.
          CP:  And the police suggested to you to say this?
          AK:  Yes.
          CP:  And to make you say this, did they hit you?
          AK:  Yes.

          CP:  When you wrote the memorandum, were you hit by police?
          AK:  When?
          CP:  When you wrote the memorandum. Were you hit by police?
          AK:  No.
          CP:  Mistreated?
          AK:  No.
          CP:  Did the police suggest the contents?
          AK:  No.
          CP:  You gave it to them freely?
          AK:  Yes.
          CP:  Voluntarily?
          AK:  Yes.
          CP:  Listen, in this memorandum, you say that you confirm the declarations you made the night before about what might have happened at your house with Patrick. Why did you freely and spontaneously confirm these declarations?
          AK:  Because I was no longer sure what was my imagination and what was real. So I wanted to say that I was confused, and that I couldn’t know. But at the same time, I knew I had signed those declarations. So I wanted to say that I knew I had made those declarations, but I was confused and not sure.
          CP:  But in fact, you were sure that Patrick was innocent?
          AK:  No, I wasn’t sure.
          CP:  Why?
          AK:  Because I was confused! I imagined that it might have happened. I was confused.

          CP:  Did you see Patrick on November 1, yes or no?
          AK:  No.
          CP:  Did you meet him?
          AK:  No.
          CP:  Then why did you say that you saw him, met him, and walked home with him?
          AK:  Because the police and the interpreter told me that maybe I just wasn’t remembering these things, but I had to try to remember. It didn’t matter if I thought I was imagining it. I would remember it with time. So, the fact that I actually remembered something else was confusing to me. Because I remembered one thing, but under the pressure of the police, I forced myself to imagine another. I was confused. I was trying to explain this confusion, because they were making me accuse someone I didn’t want to accuse.

          Relevant Questions By Knox Lawyer Ghirga

          CP:  I’ll repeat my question. On the 10th, you said to your mother: “It’s my fault that he’s here. I feel terrible.” Why didn’t you say this to the pubblico ministero?
          LG?:  I object! He’s already asked this question. And it was answered.
          GCM:  Yes. It was already asked.
          CP:  Yes, but she hasn’t answered!
          LG?:  Yes, she HAS answered!
          CP:  Can she answer? I didn’t understand.
          GCM:  Excuse me, excuse me. Please.
          CP:  I didn’t understand her answer, President. Can you explain?
          GCM:  So, the question was asked and has been asked again because—
          CP:  [speaking over him] Because I didn’t understand the answer!
          GCM: —the defense lawyer has not understood why—in what regards the police, the accused has said that when they came to bring her paper, they said “Oh, another truth,” so her relations with them were such that she did not feel that she could tell them this circumstance. It remains to ask why she did not tell the pubblico ministero. This is what the lawyer is asking. For what concerns the police, we have heard her position and her answer. We’re talking about the period after the 10th of November, when this conversation with the mother was recorded. In what concerns the pubblico ministero, the lawyer is asking you why you didn’t feel the necessity, like with your mother, of telling him that Patrick Lumumba, as far as you were concerned, had nothing to do with all this.
          AK:  We are talking about when I was in front of the judge?
          GCM:  After the 10th of November.
          AK:  Frankly, I didn’t have good relations with the police after that period, nor with the pubblico ministero, because he also had suggested declarations that got written down in the declarations. I didn’t know where to turn. I felt better talking to my defense than to the police.

          LG:  All right, I’ve exhausted this topic. Now, I said we were just coming to the evening when you were called in, or rather when Raffaele was called in to the Questura on Nov 5. Where did you come from? Were you having dinner somewhere? Do you remember?
          AK:  We were at the apartment of a friend of his, who lived near his house, and we were having dinner with them, trying, I don’t know, to feel a bit of normality, when Raffaele was called by the police.
          LG:  Okay. So you went with him in the car, and you came in and they settled you somewhere, and later you were heard.
          AK:  Yes. What happened is that they weren’t expecting me to come. I went somewhere a bit outside near the elevator, and I had taken my homework with me, so I started to do my homework, and then I needed to do some “stretching”, so I did some “stretching”, and that’s when one policeman said something about my flexibility. A comment.
          LG:  Okay. Then you were interrogated, let’s say interrogated, it was just for information. So you were interrogated.
          AK:  Mm.
          LG:  During the interrogation, there were several people in the room, did someone come who was involved in Raffaele Sollecito’s interrogation? He was being interrogated in one place, you in another.
          AK:  So, there were lots and lots of people who came in and went out, and after one had come in and gone out, another policewoman told me that Raffaele said that I went out of the apartment—at least, Raffaele apparently said that I [stammering] had gone out of his house.
          LG:  Okay. And the episode of the text message came later? After this person came in and said that? You don’t remember?
          AK:  Yes, yes. I think it happened after they told me that.
          LG:  Now what interests me is that you should be precise about the term “hit”, because being hit is something…was it a cuff on the head, two cuffs on the head? How precise can you be about this “hitting”?
          AK:  So, during the interrogation, people were standing all around me, in front of me, behind me, one person was screaming at me from here, another person was shouting “No no no, maybe you just don’t remember” from over there, other people were yelling other things, and a policewoman behind me did this to me [you hear the sound of her giving two very little whacks].
          LG:  Once, twice?
          AK:  Twice. The first time I did this, I turned around to her, and she did it again.
          LG:  I wanted to know this precise detail.
          AK:  Yes.
          LG:  After all that, that whole conversation, that you told us about, and you had a crying crisis, did they bring you some tea, coffee, some cakes, something? When was that exactly?
          AK:  They brought me things only after I had made some declarations. So, I was there, they were all screaming at me, I only wanted to leave because I was thinking that my mother was arriving, and I said look, can I have my telephone, because I want to call my mom. They said no, and there was this big mess with them shouting at me, threatening me, and it was only after I made declarations that they started saying “No, no, don’t worry, we’ll protect you,” and that’s how it happened.
          LG:  Then you stayed in the Questura?
          AK:  Yes.
          LG:  Then, at midday, or one o’clock, we don’t know exactly, they brought you a paper called an arrest warrant. When they served you this warrant, it must have been around twelve, one o’clock. Do you remember?
          AK:  So, all papers they brought me to sign, at that point, they were all the same to me, so I can’t even say what I had to sign, arrest warrant, declarations, whatever, because at a certain point, I just wanted to sign and go home.
          LG:  Right. But instead?
          AK:  Instead, no. After a while they told me I had to stay in the Questura, so I had to stay, and I rolled up in a fetal position to try to sleep, on a chair, and I fell asleep, then I woke up, and I was there thinking and some people were going in and out, and during this period of time, I was telling them: “Look, I am really confused, these things don’t seem like what I remember, I remember something else.” And they said “No no no no no, you just stay quiet, you will remember it all later. So just stay quiet and wait, wait, wait, because we have to check some things.” And at that point I just didn’t understand anything. I even lost my sense of time.
          LG:  And I wanted to ask you after how long they took you to prison. At some point there was a car, a police wagon that took you to prison. After how much time was that? You don’t know?
          AK:  Well, I can’t say, but what I can say is that I stayed a while in the Questura, and during that time I kept trying to explain to the police that what I had said was not certain, and they took my shoes during that time and they took some pictures, they undressed me to take the pictures, and so it seemed like a long time.
          LG:  So it was between this time and the time you went to prison that you wrote the memorial?
          AK:  Yes. I wrote it there because, I asked to do it because I was telling them “Listen, you’re not hearing me, give me a piece of paper, and I’ll write this down in English to be sure you understand what I’m saying.” But I couldn’t really say that. I just said “Look, I’ll give you a present.” [Laughs.] It was because I wasn’t really able to speak or understand then. So I wrote that, but after I wrote the first pages, I was in the middle of writing this memorandum, they suddenly said “Hurry up, hurry up, finish because we have to take you to prison.” I stayed there like…I didn’t expect to go to prison, I thought maybe I hadn’t understood. I asked the policemen, the people who were around me, there, “But Why? I haven’t done anything.” And they said “No, it’s just bureaucracy. At least that’s what I understood.
          LG:  All right Amanda, okay. Thank you. So you went to prison and spent the night. When did you write the second memorial?
          AK:  So in prison I again asked for paper, because that’s how I’m used to expressing myself, the way I succeed best, also to organize my thoughts, I needed to write them down. I needed to reorganize all my thoughts, because at that point I was still confused, I still had these images in my memory that finally I understood were a mixture of real images in my memory from other days mixed with imagination. So I needed those pieces of paper, so I could take everything and put it in order.
          LG:  All right, I’ve finished the subject of the night in the Questura. When you made your first declaration, it was without the pubblico ministero. Then he came. Can you tell us if there was some discussion about a lawyer? If you remember, and whatever you remember.
          AK:  So, before they asked me to make further declarations—I really can’t tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing—but at one point I asked if I shouldn’t have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn’t know, but I’ve seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn’t want to collaborate with the police. So they told me no.

          Amanda Knox’s first letter of Nov 9, 2007

          This letter was entered in testimony by Knox’s lawyers on the first day. It was written by Knox to her lawyers around noon on Friday, Nov., 9, three days after her arrest and one day after the Matteini Hearing. Words that are missing from the scan are shown in square brackets.

          Presumably intended to help Knox, it has now become part of her problem.

          Per I Miei Avvocati

          - Amanda Knox (Friday, Nov. 9, 2007)

          Buon giorno Signore Ghirga e Signore Vedova. I’m sorry, but I must write in english to make sure I express myself [cl]early. Please excuse my handicap. I trust you are well, though probably very busy with my case and for this I thank you. What [I] want to provide for you now is help, because I know my position [is] a little confusing. I want to write for you everything I know as best I can and I especially want to tell you about this so-called “confession” that the police received from me. I want to begin with this “confession” because I know it is the most confusing, and so I will begin with that night.

          The night of Monday, November 5th, 2007, and the following early morning of Tuesday, November 6th, 2007, was one of the worst experiences of my life, perhaps the worst. Around 10:30pm or 11pm Raffaele and I arrived at the police station after eating dinner at the apartment of one of Raffaele’s friends. It was Raffaele who the police called, not me, but I came with him to the Questura anyway while he was to be questioned for support, as he had done for me many times. When we arrived he was taken inside and I waited by the elevator and looked through my books while I waited. Not long aftwerward one of the police came and sat by me, wanting to talk with me, supposedly to pass the time. He didn’t tell me he was a police officer. In fact, he said I could tell him whatever I wanted because it wouldn’t matter. At the time I was frustrated and told him so. I thought it was ridiculaous that the police called us in at ridiculous hours of the night and kept us at the police station for hours on end with only vending maschine [sic] food to sustain us, especially since we [wer]e all doing our best to help the police. I had been asked twice to reenter the home of my neighbors and mine, first to witness the blood in the neighbors’ apartment and then to look through [k]nives in mine. I really feared the place. Inside my own home I broke down crying because I couldn’t stand to be inside. These were the reasons for my frustration and I told him so.

          He then wanted to discuss who I thought the murderer could be, but as I had already told them before, since I wasn’t there at my home, I couldn’t have any idea, but [deleted words] he wasn’t satisfied with my answer. Who did I think it was? How would I know? I didn’t know anyone dangerous. Soon I was joined by other police people who only wanted to “talk” but who interrogated me again with the same questions. What males had ever been in my house? Who knew Meredith? Did I have any phone numbers? I gave them all the information I could. Names, phone numbers, descriptions. But it was all giving me a headache. I had already answered these questions before and I was confused as to why the police wanted so much to talk to me. Why me? Why did they keep asking me who I thought the murderer was when I already told them I had no idea?

          And then they brought me inside, because it was “warmer”. I [asked] where Raffaele was and they told me he would be done soon [but] in the meantime they wanted to talk to me. The interrogation process started rather quickley [sic]. One minute I was just [tal?]king and the next they were asking me where I was between [?]:30pm and 1:30am between November [1st] and 2nd. I told them I was with my boyfriend, like I had already said. They asked me what I had done during this time period and I found that I couldn’t remember a lot. I told them [we] watched the movie Amelie together, that we ate dinner [tog]ether, that after dinner Raffaele washed the dishes and spilled water on the floor when the pipes came loose. I told them that [we] smoked hash somewhere in that time but I couldn’t remember [mo]re. They told me I was lying. They told me they knew I had [not] been with Raffaele. They told me they knew I met someone that night. They told me they had proof I was at my house that night. This really confused me. I told them I wasn’t lying and [the]y began to get angry. Stop telling lies, they told me. We know [you] were there! But this didn’t make sense. I was frightened, because I couldn’t for the life of me remember what I did during the time [the]y were asking me. What were you doing?! Where did you go?! We [kno]w you were at your house!! Who did you meet?! But this all [did]n’t make any sense. How could they have proof that I was at my [hou]se when I wasn’t? Why did they think these things? Why me? They told me Raffaele had finally told the truth and that he had no [rea]son to lie. They told me that they knew I had told Raffaele to [lie?] and I told them this wasn’t true. I had never told him any [suc]h thing. We talked about the message I received from Patrik [and] I told them yes, I received a message from Patrik, he told me [not] to go into work that night because there was no one there. I [did]n’t remember if I had sent a message back, so I said no, but they [had] taken my phone and showed me the message I forgot I sent: [ending?] with the words, “Ci vediamo. Buona serata.” They called me a [stu]pid lier. They said I was protecting someone, who was it?! [The]y stuck pieces of paper in front of me, to write down the name [of] the murder, but I didn’t know. And I still couldn’t remember [wha]t me and Raffaele had been doing at his house. I had nothing to [say?] to answer their questions and it was terrifying me. Why couldn’t [I r]emember. The interpretor told me that one time she experienced [a ho]rrible car accident and couldn’t remember what had happened [unt]il a year later. She told me perhaps I had seen something [horr]ible and I couldn’t remember. Since I couldn’t remember [wha]t I had been doing at Raffaele’s house I started to think what [...?] was true? What if I had seen something and I didn’t [rem]ember? But it didn’t make sense. I remembered being [at] Raffaele’s the whole night. But in the meantime the police were [...?] or they were going to put me in jail for [...?] [p]rotecting the killer. They told me they had already caught the killer [a]nd they just wanted me to say his name, but I knew nothing. My [m]ind was a blank slate. Now, now, now!!! They were yelling at me. One [p]olice officer hit me on the back of my head twice. My head was [s]earching for any answer. I was really confused. I thought I was at my boyfriend’s house, but what if it wasn’t true? What if I couldn’t remember? I tried and tried and tried, but I couldn’t remember anything until all of the police officers left the room except one. He [to]ld me he was the only one who could save me from spending the [n]ext 30 years in jail and I told him I couldn’t remember. I asked to see the message on my phone to see if I remembered sending that [an]d when I saw the message my mind thought of Patrik. It was all I could think of, Patrik. I imagined meeting him by the basketball [cou]rts, I imagined him in front of my house, I imagined covering my ears to stop the sound of Meredith’s screaming, and so I said [Pa]trik. I said Patrik and I regret every second of it because now I [k]now that what I have said has done someone harm that I have no idea whether he was involved or not.

          After I said his name I was hysterical. I was weeping, [s]cared of what could have happened to me. I honestly thought [t]his could have been the answer. I was so confused. They told me that they had to write all of this down but I told them I wasn’t [s]ure. So they told me just to say what I had said, that I had seen [Pat]rik. That I had heard Meredith screaming. I told them I was [c]onfused, unsure, but they weren’t interested. While they were writing my so-called “confession”, which the didn’t call it [t]o me, they asked me to say if it was okay to write certain things. I [d]dn’t explain, but just said yes or no according to what these [im]ages of Patrik were showing me, but I always told them I wasn’t [su]re, these things didn’t seem real. They asked me why he had done [thi]s and I didn’t know why. Why would anyone kill another person? [I] told them he must be crazy. They asked me if I feared him and I [sa]id yes. I was so confused and the idea that he would kill someone [fr]ightened me. But I had never been frightened of him before, he has [al]ways been kind to me. After all of this I was allowed to sleep, [fi]nally. The whole thing was going through my head and I felt [aw]ful, to even think I could have been involved. But the more [confu]sed I became, the more sure I was that these ideas about Patrik [w]eren’t true, but I still couldn’t remember what I had been [do]ing at my boyfriend’s house after dinner.

          I seriously started to doubt when the police told me what my boyfriend had said. (1) First, that when I received the message from [Pat]rik, that I had told him I had to leave to go to work. This I [k]new, even then, wasn’t true. I remembered and still do specifically [th]at I had told him I _didn’t_ have to work and I kissed him and [...]

          [...] said, “Yay!” (2) I also never told him to lie for me. Why would he lie? Could he have lied about me not being there too? I was especially troubled by this because even though I had thought of Patrik, I still remembered being at Raffaele’s house. I told the police of my doubts but they said not to worry, little by little, I would remember. So I waited.

          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.

          [Deleted words] During this time I was checked out by medics [and?] 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 then eventually that I was to be arrested. Then I was taken here, to the prison, in the last car of three who carried Patrik, then Raffaele, and then me to prison.

          I hope this clears up some confusion for you and I’m sorry again that it is in English. I hope you are in contact with my mother and if you are, could you please tell her I love her, that I miss her, that I’m okay, and that I hope to see her soon.

          I also just received the order of arrest and it says I must remain here in prison for one year. I’m assuming this means only if they can prove I did it or not. So I’m not sad, I just have to wait until they prove I’m not guilty, and that I wasn’t there.

          I want to write another message for you which describes my version of events that at this time I remember very well. This I will do on a different piece of paper and a little later because I’m very tired.

          Good luck and thanks,
          Amanda Knox
          quasi mezzogiorno
          Venerdi, Novembre 9, 2007


          Part 2 (Day Two) in our next post.


          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.


          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?


          Monday, August 10, 2015

          Problems With Fred Davies #2: His Claims On Knives, Wounds And Stains Also Highly Mislead

          Posted by James Raper



          Several of the numerous scientific witnesses; some evidence was behind closed doors

          Overview Of This Post

          Remember that Amanda Knox, a felon for life, served three years for framing Patrick for murder.

          In my previous post I dismissed the claim which the British barrister FG (Fred) Davies pervasively made in Parts 1 to 20 of his mammoth series in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly that it was actually Guede and his team who had somehow framed Knox and Sollecito for a crime he alone committed and left all of Italian law enforcement bamboozled.

          I now have Parts 21 to 26 as well, all of the series, and I wish to examine one more large area of cherrypicked facts and misinterpretations, along with Davies’s final conclusion.

          First, Fred Davies’s Final Scenario

          As anticipated,  Davies concludes that Knox and Sollecito should only have been convicted of the charge of simulating a burglary. He presents his own synopsis of what happened on the night of the murder which has both Knox and Guede present at the cottage for the murder, but not Sollecito.

          Davies says it is Guede who sexually assaults and stabs Meredith. Knox, unaware of what was going to happen is horrified and scared out of her wits, retreating to her bedroom and locking herself in.

          Davies says Guede flees, ignoring or unable to do anything about the fact there is/was a witness to his horrific crime. When it’s safe to do so Knox emerges and meets up with Sollecito.

          Davies says that Knox, fearing that if she went to the police she would only end up being accused of involvement in the murder, persuades Sollecito to be her alibi, and to stage the scene to point to a burglar, and Sollecito, being the Honour Bound sort of chap he is, agrees to go along with this. Once they both embark on this course of action there us no turning back.

          I trust that you are all duly intrigued with Davies’s scenario and panting to learn how and why he arrives at it. Unfortunately this will have to wait until another day if it is to be from me.

          He has, after all, taken 26 Chapters in half a year to get to this point and I am not yet ready to deal with them comprehensively. Others here may contribute posts and discuss implications with the Criminal Law editor.

          Fred Davies On Knife Or Knives

          Whilst I guess most comments are going to be about the above synopsis, I am going to deal with his thoughts regarding the knives, these being quite central to his synopsis.

          My argument below is supported by numerous previous posters none of whom differed markedly from Massei or Nencini. 

          Davies in contrast is sharply critical of Massei. He simply excludes the Double DNA knife (Exhibit 36) as the murder weapon.

          He is also critical….nay, I would have to say that he is outraged…. at Massei holding that Sollecito was responsible for the lesser of the two wounds, that on the right side of Meredith’s neck. He is critical of Micheli for not finding, as a matter of fact, that Guede was the one responsible for the wounds, using his own knife which has yet to be recovered.

          Without more ado I will proceed to Mr Davies’ evaluation:

          “The finding against Sollecito that it was he who inflicted two of the three wounds to Meredith Kercher using a pocket knife which was in his possession at the material time is deeply flawed, offensive and wrong in law”

          Well, I was unaware that Massei had found that Sollecito inflicted two of the three wounds. In fact I am not aware of three wounds (unless he includes what is effectively a nick) , but if there were then Massei only attempted to attribute two, the one to the right of the neck, 4 cms deep and with a width of 1.5 cms, being attributed to Sollecito’s “pocket knife“.

          It did not cause any significant structural damage, unlike the wound to the left, 8 cms deep and 8 cms wide which had penetrated both Meredith’s larynx and the cartilage of the epiglottis, and had broken the hyoid bone. 

          Is the rest “deeply flawed, offensive and wrong in law”?

          “It could not have been part of the prosecution case that Sollecito used a pocket knife to subdue and stab Meredith Kercher. If it had why was Sollecito and/or Knox not charged with carrying the said pocket knife without justified reason? To recapitulate,, the charge alleged that the killing was achieved by means of………….and deep lesions to the left anterior-lateral and right lateral regions of the neck, caused by a bladed weapon (Exhibit 36).

          The Massei Court’s finding strikes against basic principles of fairness which applies to all criminal proceedings. Put another way, a criminal court is not generally entitled to bring in a verdict which differs markedly from the basis on which the prosecution puts it’s case. This is because the defence would not be able to adequately prepare and meet such an unexpected contingency. In plain English the defence would be ambushed or taken by surprise. In this case the defence was ambushed and the defendants’ rights (Knox and Sollecito) were fundamentally infringed.”

          Oh come on! Ambushed? Really?

          OK, so the charge did indeed indicate that that both the right and left sided wounds were caused by “a bladed weapon to which Chapter B applies” (Exhibit 36) but the reality is that the defence always knew that Exhibit 36 (because of it’s dimensions and in particular it’s width 4cms from the tip) could not have been the cause of the wound to the left anterior lateral. That’s a matter of simple logic and in any event every expert and all the lawyers in the case agreed on that.

          So the way the charge was erroneously framed in fact misled no-one.

          Indeed had the defence thought so then they could have raised the matter. Mr Davies does not claim that Massei did not have the power to amend the indictment. If the court was unable to, or the defence chose not to raise it, either way thinking it was a clever appeal point, then it did not become one.

          Indeed, Mr Davies will know anyway that in English law, by virtue of The Indictments Act 1915, courts can (and frequently do) order an amendment to an indictment at any stage (which includes during a trial) provided the amendment does not result in an injustice to the accused.  This is a practical necessity as it would be an affront to the concept of justice if defendants were to be acquitted on the basis of a mere technicality.

          One might consider what amendment might have been made.

          A possibility is that reference to the right-sided wound might have been excluded. It was the left-sided wound that was fatal, after all, and caused, as the prosecution would endeavour to prove, by a weapon which, as it happened, belonged to Sollecito.

          The prosecution did, of course, maintain that it was Knox who wielded the weapon, but might, as an alternative, have also asserted that it was Sollecito. Indeed the framing of the charge leaves it an open question as to which of them did. They were charged jointly with having caused Meredith’s death.

          The evidence that it may have been either (AK or RS) is a common feature of cases to which the English legal doctrine of joint criminal enterprise applies.

          The doctrine applies particularly to a case such as this in that no matter who actually wields the weapon the other participant in the common enterprise is deemed to possess the same level of criminal liability even if he did not know that there was a knife or that it would be so used. Being reckless as to that possibility is sufficient.

          It is surprising how often how little is required to establish joint enterprise. Frequently the mere fact that the participants know each other and were there, and that the situation was a combustible one of the group’s making, is enough. The doctrine has come in for a great deal of justified criticism but despite this remains firm law.

          My preference would have been to amend the indictment to refer to the right sided wound being caused by a bladed weapon, the blade being of indeterminate length but with a width of approximately 1.5 cms. It is the width of the wound that is salient because it is indicative of the width of the blade on the knife being used which, whilst also being indicative of the likely length of the blade, but without being sure, could be either a pocket knife (4 cms or more) or a flick knife (which could also be a pocket knife). 1.5 cms is about the width of the tip of one’s index finger, by the way.

          Massei, and others, always refer to this knife as a pocket knife. However henceforth I am going to write “pocket knife“ to refer to the options of a pocket knife with a blade of 4cms or more, or a flick knife.

          As to Mr Davies other point as to why Sollecito was not specifically charged with carrying a “pocket knife” without justified reason, I do not know, but since the framing of charges is a matter for the prosecution, one might as well leave the matter there.

          In any event the lack of a specific charge does not in any way preclude a court from inferring the nature of a weapon from the pathology of the wound nor from identifying the probable assailant (as distinct from having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the culpability of a single perpetrator named in a specific charge of “carrying“).

          Guede did not ever face a specific charge of carrying a weapon but that does not prevent Mr Davis from concluding that Guede had a knife and had stabbed Meredith. It seems that Mr Davies would have been quite happy for Guede to have been so charged and convicted on Professor Vinci’s (see later) dubious testimony.

          In this last respect, however, Mr Davies could have more telling argument. Lets see.

          “To infer that Sollecito had a pocket knife at Via della Pergola 7 on the fateful evening of November 1-2, based on the character evidence of four witnesses called for the defence, was to say the least highly unusual..”

          I think the operative words here are “witnesses called for the defence”, amongst whom was Sollecito’s own father. Yes, highly unusual but then that is what happens when you do not vet your own character witnesses before cross-examination.

          Sollecito’s proclivity for carrying a knife (usually a pocket knife) at all times (and indeed he had one on him at the time of his arrest in the Police Station) is highly relevant. These witnesses referred to a knife with a blade of about 4 cms, or perhaps 6 cms.

          In addition Sollecito was something of a knife aficionado. The police found two specialist knives, a Spiderco and a 2004 model Brian Tighe. Neither of these can be connected to Meredith’s wounds but they are indicative of his affinity to weapons specifically designed to be used in a fight to maim or kill. Clearly a flick knife falls into the same category.

          As to proclivity evidence against Guede one can refer to his brief possession of a kitchen knife acquired at and belonging to the Milan nursery (which he did not break into, he had been given a key).

          There is, of course, Tramontano’s dubious claim (angrily dismissed by Micheli even though Guede was never given the chance to challenge this in court) that a black man broke into his property and, confronted by Tramontano, had pulled out a flick knife as he exited. Tramontano tried to claim the burglar was probably Guede based on a photo of him he had seen in a newspaper. If it really was Guede he was not carrying that knife with him at the Milan nursery 8 weeks later.

          “Even if Sollecito was present at the scene of the crime (as distinct from being complicit), the court could not have been sure that any “pocket knife” in his possession, which incidentally was never recovered, had inflicted all or some of the injuries, the most cogent rationale being:

          1. The prosecution could not prove the dimensions and the character of the knife were consistent with the injuries inflicted upon Meredith Kercher.

          2. The Court paid scant regard to the totality of expert opinion as to the type of bladed weapon (or weapons) which had been used to stab the victim

          3. The Court paid scant regard to the dimensions of a bloody outline of a knife found on Meredith’s pillow

          4. Consequently the Court could not have been sure that any pocket knife and, a fortiori, exhibit 36 had been used to stab Meredith that fateful night.”

          As to 1 above, we know that no suitable weapon was ever recovered but if the indictment had been amended in accordance with my preference then the prosecution would easily have proved that part of the indictment, relating as it does to the wound on the right side of the neck.

          It is a reasonable inference on the balance of probabilities that the wound was caused by a “pocket knife” and if one accepts the presence of multiple attackers (which I understand is a judicial truth in the case even following the latest acquittal of Knox and Sollecito) then, again on the balance of probabilities, and taking into account all the other circumstantial evidence in the case, I submit that it is a reasonable inference that it was Sollecito’s “pocket knife“.

          The bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt” applies to culpability re the specified charge and is not to be confused with the elements.

          As to 2, this simply is not true. I shall look at the totality of the expert opinion in a moment but suffice it to say that Massei spent a considerable amount of time in his Motivation detailing with and discussing the defence experts’ opinions.

          As to 3, (and it was not on the pillow but the bedsheet) it was Professor Vinci’s contention that the bloody outline (there was a dual outline, he said) was left by a knife with a blade 11.3 cms long or a knife with a blade 9.6 cms long with a congruent section of handle 1.7 cms long (9.6 + 1.7 = 11.3). Davies does not mention a blade width but in fact Professor Vinci actually says 1.3 to 1.4 cms wide.

          Taking these measurements as read, Davies points out that they are incompatible with either a pocket knife (such as Sollecito had a proclivity to carry) and Exhibit 36. I have no argument with that observation. It follows, he then argues, that one has to infer the presence of a third knife in any hypothesis and if a pocket knife and Exhibit 36 are already accounted for by Knox and Sollecito then a reasonable inference is that the third knife would have to be Guede’s. Indeed (Davies does not say this, but I will) Professor Vinci’s blade is not incompatible a priori with either of the two wounds.

          This is worth looking at seriously as so far it is the only worthwhile point Davies has made.

          First of all I have to say that I have searched for but have not found any rebuttal evidence or comment from the prosecution amongst the documents on the Wiki.  I do not even see a question on the matter in the cross-examination of Professor Vinci.

          Massei only briefly commented about the bloody outline on the bed sheet.  He opined that the blood stains were certainly “suggestive” but insufficient to establish any clear outlines from which reliable measurements could be established. Clearly then he did not accord any reliability to Professor Vinci’s measurements. But is Massei right? One does not have to be an expert to consider this.

          First of all, here are images of the blood stains.






          In the picture below the stained section of sheet is cut out for analysis the day after the discovery of the murder.

          Did the prosecution overlook their own analysis of the stains? Did they deliberately do so after Exhibit 36 was found, 9 days later on the 12th November, to have Meredith’s DNA on it? Or did they always know that the stains established nothing?






          The next question to be asked is whether we can see the outline of a knife, or rather a blade. I think the honest answer to that is, on balance, yes. We think we see the tip of a blade, do we not? Maybe two, maybe even three.

          It is fairly clear that Professor Vinci takes the largest of the stains to be the hilt of the handle to the knife. Lining that up with what is perhaps the likely clearest possible perceived blade tip (being the middle out of a possible three I believe I see) then the distance to the perceived hilt is indeed something like the 9.6 cms which Professor Vinci has measured.

          But there are problems. Here are two of Ergon’s photos from his posts here and here with Exhibit 36 superimposed on the stains in two different positions to reflect the supposed dual outlines.










          The blob of blood in the bottom left of the pictures and it’s lesser moon at 1, or 2, o’clock are regarded as having come from the same position on the blade and so with that reference point the blade is positioned accordingly in each photo.

          We can surely take it that Professor Vinci also sees the same duality. But if the bloody hilt is aligned to fit with “the moon” stain in order to get the 9.6 cms measurement, then what has happened to that large hilt stain when the knife is moved further to the left, and then dropped a bit, to align to the moon’s planet (the blob)?

          It has either disappeared or become an edge. That doesn’t make sense if “the moon” is the lesser version of the blob. The blob has to come from the first positioning of the knife. Despite this, in the knife’s later position the volume of blood at the hilt has actually increased comparative to the knife’s first position. That doesn’t make sense either.

          So maybe the largest stain pre-exists, even for perhaps a moment, the stains suggesting the blade outlines, but in that case we can throw Professor Vinci’s measurements out of the window.

          Can we do without the blob and it’s moon? It’s all a lot less convincing without them. But in truth we cannot even be sure that they are related. Nor that the largest stain has anything to do with the hilt of a knife.

          A further connected observation concerns Professor Vinci’s claim that the blade of the knife is 1.3/1.4 cms wide. Like the rest of his evidence I do not find this very convincing. I suspect that he has deduced this from the largest stain which has a length, he says, of 1.7 cms. It’s width could then be something like 1.3/1.4 cms.

          If the width of the knife is represented by approximately 1.4 cms then, given the position of the bloody hilt relative to the tip of it’s blade, what are we to make of the two spots of blood in a horizontal line above? They look like the upper (or lower) edge of a knife but they can’t be without making the blade wider.

          Why does it have to be the same knife anyway? The stains could be the result of two different knives collected and laid to rest in the same spot.

          The blood stains are certainly bewitching - rather like seeing patterns in tea leaves at the bottom of one’s cup - but on the balance of probabilities I would not totally rely on anyone’s perception of them even, with all due respect, Ergon’s but his analysis is as good as anyone’s, and that for me is the point of it.

          In short I think that Massei was probably right. These stains are suggestive but basically useless and the police/prosecution ignored them for that reason.

          “Consistent with English law the Massei Court’s findings should be struck down as Wednesbury unreasonable. Where there is no evidence to support a finding of a court or the court has reached a conclusion which is irrational or perverse, in the light of the evidence adduced at trial, a conviction based on that part of the evidence cannot be sustained……….The Massei Court also appears to have violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair trial),”

          Yeah, right.  The case to which he refers, Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1KB 223, is an odd and unnecessary one to pray in aid.  It was a civil case where the appellant sought judicial review in respect of a licencing decision. As a formulation of a first principle of natural justice it is, of course, unquestionable. However the claim that Massei reached a conclusion that was irrational or perverse is laughable.

          It is at this point that one does begin to wonder whether Davies is indeed connected in some way with the daffy Nigel Scott (Sollecito‘s ex Lib Dem Haringey Councillor groupie) who similarly emerges with bizarre arguments.

          Next, in his evaluation, we come to a numbers game as to who was for and against the incompatibility of Exhibit 36 with the fatal wound on the left side, but before I enter into that game I want to make a point about incompatibility.

          A knife blade is only incompatible with a wound if the depth of the wound is longer than the length of the blade or if the width of the wound is shorter than the width of the blade at the relevant depth.

          We can therefore establish that Exhibit 36 was not incompatible, a priori, with the depth of the wound.  The blade on Exhibit 36 was 17. 5 cms long and the depth of the wound was 8 cms.

          Yes, I know that other arguments as to incompatibility were advanced based, in the main, on these measurements. These Massei logically deconstructed. In fairness to Mr Davies he did not advance them in his evaluation and so neither shall I.

          I would also have to concede that Sollecito’s “pocket knife” is not incompatible a priori with the wound on the left side nor, even if it‘s length of blade was over 4 cms, with the wound on the right. Nor Professor Vinci’s knife either.

          The same is true of the width of these knives.

          It should however be recalled that the width of the right-sided wound was also 8 cms. That is over 5 times the width of the “pocket knife”. The width of the blade on Exhibit 36 - 8 cms from it’s tip - was twice the width of the blade on the “pocket knife”.

          This fact, and the robustness of the larger weapon, particularly with regard to the observed butchering at the base of the right-sided cut, makes Exhibit 36 a far more likely candidate, in my submission, than a “pocket knife“, and that’s without taking into account Meredith’s DNA on the blade.

          Returning to our numbers game, Mr Davies puts it slightly differently from Massei. He says -

          “And if that were not enough, of the 8 experts who gave evidence on the point, two (Dr Liviero and Professor Bacci) opined that Exhibit 36 could have caused the fatal wound to Meredith’s left side. Professor Norelli could not rule out Exhibit 36. Professor Ronchi’s opinion is not clear due to the use of the “double negative” (non-incompatibility)  - it will be assumed that he supported the prosecution contention, but in any event al the remaining four experts, Professors Introna, Torre, Cingolani and Dr Patumi) opined that Exhibit 36 could be ruled out.”

          In other words a draw but one of the prosecution experts is a bit “iffy”.

          Massei tells us that Dr Liviero concluded “definite compatibility“, Dr Lalli and Professors Bacci and Norelli “compatibility” whilst “non- incompatibility” came from the 3 GIP experts nominated at a preliminary hearing. The latter were Professors Aprile, Cingolani and Ronchi.

          “Non-incompatibility” is not hard to understand. It simply means not incompatible or rather, compatible.

          Note that Mr Davies has Professor Cingolani lining up to exclude Exhibit 36. Massei disagrees and I agree with Massei. So, for what it is worth (and this is a bit childish I know) Mr Davies loses the game 7 - 3.

          “And one final thought. If the defendants (Knox and Sollecito) were sufficiently compos mentis to dispose of the pocket knife …. Why did they not dispose of Exhibit 36?  By a process of deduction and logical synthesis the answer is plain for all to see: Exhibit 36 never left Corso Garibaldi and was not the murder weapon ”

          Because it was on his landlord’s inventory of kitchen items? Indeed we don’t know for sure that the “pocket knife “was actually disposed of. All we know is that it was not identified and recovered by the police.

          And In Conclusion

          This is the second of my posts involving Mr Davies. I may not be disposed to do any more. I have to say that although he certainly provided some food for thought on this one, I have not been impressed with his analysis in the topics I have covered so far.

          Others here have been tabulating other factual errors and forced arguments and as I mentioned at the start we may see them carry this a bit further.

          Posted on 08/10/15 at 06:52 PM by James RaperClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
          Archived in Hoaxes re Guede401 Guede sole perpHoaxers: tools & dupesMore hoaxersNews media & moviesTerrible reportingMedia news
          Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (12)

          Friday, August 07, 2015

          Knox Book Phenomenon: PR Reaction Way Too Strident & Only Grows Suspicion She DID Do It

          Posted by Nick van der Leek



          Reporters, crime-book writers, and photojournalists, Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson


          Overkill. A Sure sign of bad PR. As someone once said “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”

          What’s interesting for Lisa Wilson and myself as True Crime authors and wrieters of Dark Matter and Deceit is that there are not only always two sides to every story, but two factions as well. 

          When the one faction believes us not to belong to theirs, well, then there is war.  Mudslinging, slander, insults – everything except a genuine discussion of the case.

          From where Lisa Wilson and I stand, which is hopefully in the middle and on the side of Lady Justice [who is blind, or blindfolded] both factions are mirror-images of each other.  Both sides are throwing stones, like the protagonists in the Middle East conflict, both have their grievances, and plenty of stones to throw. 

          And like the Middle East, the two factions in the Amanda Knox case have been in a war of mostly words for years.  Who has won?  Amanda Knox seems to have eeked out some sort of victory, but though recently engaged, shows no signs of getting married, and it’s possible the wedding is off.

          All is not always what it seems.

          Before highlighting a few of our haters, I want to touch on a quick incident that happened on twitter literally in the last day.  We had one of our followers enthusiastically report on one of the books she’d read [on Jodi Arias] and promise to give a review the same day.  We get bad reviews and we get good reviews, and especially when a book is new, reviews matter.  When I followed up with a tweet and then a second tweet, our enthusiastic reader said she felt pressured and obligated and then blocked me on twitter.

          What I’m trying to illustrate here is that even those you agree with our work aren’t necessarily above board themselves.  What we’re trying to achieve with our books isn’t merely justice in the court of public opinion, but we also want to encourage people to go out and live their lives in an honest, genuine and hopefully happily-ever-after way.  One of the ways we interrogate these cases is we try to fathom the underlying psychology of the criminals, and we try to understand these crimes as cautionary tales that we can learn from, and hopefully avoid spiralling into ourselves.

          Which is why Lisa and I find the constant lobbing of stones and jibes a little unfortunate.  When I confronted one of our supporters with their constant ping pong [block, reporting, badmouthing etc especially on twitter], the response was:  but didn’t that debate suit you when we were reviewing your books.






          We’ve love our reviewers to be honest, even when they disagree, especially when they disagree.  We’d hate our books to be part of a sort of football that is kicked about to score personal points for either side.  Our narrative isn’t intended to score points for either team, it’s intended to solve ‘the mystery’ of Meredith’s death.  Lisa and I see very little debate on that.  Maybe that’s fair given the time since Meredith’s death, but for me this is a crying shame.

          I came into this investigation unsure of whom to believe.  When you see – as you see in the Middle East conflict – two sides engaged in a tit for tat battle, it’s hard to come away with a sense that either side is right.  It’s even harder to trust that either side is going to even be able to be unbiased and fair in their assessment of things.  Does that make sense?

          Of the 30-odd books I’ve written and co-written with Lisa Wilson, DOUBT [on Amanda Knox] was the first to face accusations of plagiarism.  It became a lightning rod for haters and Pro Justice folk, and to date is my most reviewed book on Amazon by far.  To be honest, Amanda Knox’s fans are by far the most vindictive and malicious of the folk we’ve encountered through the course of nearly 20 True Crime books.  To be honest these people and their underhanded behaviour, even their language, don’t reflect well on their patron at all.

          They descend on any criticism of Amanda in organised groups that tag team each other.  Do these people not have day jobs?  Because it’s hard to believe such tactical and practised viciousness isn’t bought and paid for.  Such frenzied attacks inspire responses, and there’s been a lot in the comments section under various reviews – good and bad – of DECEIT. Does that mean people actually read the narrative or are debating it?  In a few cases they are, and in a few cases people have contacted us and let us know where they have learnt something or where they disagree, and this is tremendously useful and helpful. 

          But what about the plagiarism accusation?  It was at one time the most popular ‘agreed on’ review when DOUBT was published, so does that mean the plagiarism accusation was actually valid? Or was the accusation a cynical attempt by one side to throw a stone at another side because they didn’t agree with something.  Shoot the messenger in other words, forget the message. 

          Why would someone ignore a message, ignore a narrative unless there’s an implied threat that it could be true? 

          If it wasn’t true, would anyone really care?  But in the context of justice denied, the stakes are rather higher when truth and facts are obscured from the public view.  And then it seems, in order to defend the indefensible, one resorts to dirty tricks, like suppression of freedom of speech, and slander.  The biggest ironies are the accusations that we are profiting from the tragedy.

          Or that we’re slandering someone in our books [that’s the real crime]. It’s ironic when a murder suspect and her boyfriend together earned $5 million for their books, and have numerous and very real slander charges they have faced. In Knox’s case she’s already been found guilty of her false incrimination of Lumumba.  Lumumba never got off because Knox said, “Oh, hang on, that’s not right, sorry I made a mistake, it wasn’t him.”  Lumumba got off because he had an alibi and someone from the bar came forward to vouch for him.  In Sollecito’s case he must still defend allegations of police conduct made in his book [and so must Knox’s parents.

          Since Knox was found guilty of slander she served a few years for that.  She hasn’t paid restitution to Lumumba [who lost his job and moved to Poland] to date.  If Knox is innocent, why isn’t she suing the Italian authorities for wrongful imprisonment?  Lumumba did and got a hefty pay-out, so why doesn’t Amanda? Why aren’t we talking about that? But no, we – those of us writing books about the trial – we are the real criminals, we’re the slanderers, we’re profiting out of the loss of the poor victim [no not Kercher, Knox].  This is a crazy inversion of the facts, and only the intellectually weak actually fall for it.






          Coming back to Pruett’s plagiarism accusation:  was it an exaggeration, was it a lie?  Was it based on real plagiarism?  Within a few days – subsequent to a phone call to Karen Pruett, and a lawyer’s letter delivered by overnight courier to her work address [she’s a hairdresser in Seattle]– DOUBT was once again available online.  We elected to remove any references we made to Pruett’s work ourselves [credited in every instance] and repackage the narrative without including references to Pruett’s timeline in a new book, DECEIT.  Of course then the accusation is that our views, since we haven’t referred to Pro Knoxers, is biased and unbalanced.  Interesting isn’t it: you quote them and they accuse you of plagiarism, you don’t quote them and they accuse you of being biased.

          I only subsequently saw Pruett is endorsed on Amanda Knox’s own website, and was probably paid to research the timeline she produced for Ground Report, which is itself a site facing shutdown due to financial difficulties.  The first 80% of her research seemed fairly solid and reasonably unbiased, much of it did reference court testimony, but the last 20% [relating to the crucial timeline of the crime itself] became increasingly dodgy, and part of the original DOUBT narrative highlighted this. 

          If Pruett had received a hefty payment for her timeline and someone had come along and analysed all of it only to find sections of it to be….well…wanting, well, no wonder she wanted herself excised out of her book.  No wonder she wanted the book blocked.  So was it really about plagiarism then [because I referenced all quotes to Pruett, and all her quotes were italicised] or was it about Pruett protecting Pruett?

          In the end the blocking of the book [for a few hours, perhaps a day or two] by haters created curiosity amongst the Pro Justice folk, and this was invaluable PR for us. Upwards of 40 people asked for a PDF of the original DOUBT manuscript to be sent to them, and at least half sent through carefully considered reviews and feedback.  As a result of these reviews and the endorsement of Meredith’s supporters, when DOUBT returned as DECEIT it immediately sold like hot cakes.

          Right now it’s currently in the top 20 in Amazon’s ‘Criminal Procedure’ category, and the interest in that book has encouraged us to write a second [DARK MATTER, #15 on Amazon] , and in two weeks we begin with a third [UNDER SUSPICION].  We plan on writing around a dozen more books on this case, and we hope by around midway we will have galvanised a real conversation, not around ‘libellous wankers’ or ‘plagiarism’ or ‘removing Jesus from the Last Supper’ but the most legitimate questions of all:

          1. Did Amanda Knox get away with murder?
          2. Can the courts in Italy [or the USA or SA] be trusted, even when the world is watching?
          3. Is justice up for sale, is it a PR game? 
          4. If it is, what can we do as the Court of Public Opinion?
           
          As someone sympathetic to Meredith Kercher wisely pointed out in a recent review, the biggest mystery in this case is that it is a mystery at all. My suggestion is we do something more constructive than throw stones at each other.


          Thursday, July 30, 2015

          Problems With Fred Davies #1: Did Guede’s Separate Trial REALLY Impact Negatively On RS And AK?

          Posted by James Raper




          1. Summary Of The Complaints

          I want to write about the separate trials of Guede on the one hand and Knox and Sollecito on the other.

          This feature has often been criticized by the apologists for Knox and Sollecito, and I was surprised to learn just recently that their gripe seems to have some support in learned establishments in the UK! Ahem.

          The gripe concerns the Fast Track trial of Rudy Guede, and the consequent Supreme Court confirmation of his conviction, with the apologists arguing that these had an adverse and unfair effect upon the proceedings in which Knox and Sollecito were involved. It is based on the simple fact that Guede chose to be tried separately, this being seen as an unfair complication for the administration of justice in the Italian justice system.

          There are a number of complaints that the usual apologists have regarding the separate trial of Guede. Most of these are in fact fantasies as I will address.

          These complaints, or constant refrains, which some apologists fondly thought could form the basis of a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in due course, can be summarised as follows -

            1.  That the proceedings concerning Guede established various tenets the most important one of which was the multiple attacker scenario, and that this unfairly affected Knox and Sollecito bearing in mind that their defence was based on the Lone-Wolf scenario.

            2.  That the evidence in the Guede proceedings could never be effectively challenged by the Knox and Sollecito camps.

            3.  That, in consequence of which, Knox and Sollecito had virtually already been convicted by the judiciary by the time of their own trial.

            4.  That Guede was allowed to give evidence against Knox and Sollecito at both his own trial and at the Hellmann appeal hearing without effective cross-examination. Had this been the case the defence would likely have exposed and demonstrated his sole responsibility for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed had he been tried together with Knox and Sollecito this could well have happened at the Massei trial.

            5.  That Hellmann was right to give no probity value to the content of Guede’s sentencing and the subsequent annulment unfairly allowed material that was prejudicial for the aforesaid reasons into the Nencini Appeal.

            6.  That Guede was induced into electing for a separate trial with the promise of a reduced sentence should he be convicted - this being to prosecution’s advantage re the case against Knox and Sollecito.


          2. How Overall The Complaints Are Wrong

          I think that we know what fast-track is by now, so I will not dwell on that. Guede’s trial was over relatively quickly. It lasted a month and likely consisted of about 3-4 hearings. There were just a few witnesses called.

          The judge, Micheli, in addition, dwelt on all the evidence in the investigative file including witness statements and forensics. This was because Guede was charged with murder “in complicity with others” and because Micheli also had to make the decision whether or not to commit Knox and Sollecito to stand trial as the other accomplices.

          Before I address whether or not there could be any justification at all for the apologists’ above complaints I would like to mention that learned quarter to which I referred at the outset.

          I recently stumbled (with the help of the apologists’ website) across the Criminal Law and Justice Weekly website.

          I was surprised to learn that various articles had been appearing on it under the heading of “The Brutal Killing of Meredith Kercher - A critical examination of the trials and subsequent appeal hearings of Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.”

          Lexis Nexis ( publishers and distributors of legal material to the legal profession in the UK)  describe Criminal Law and Justice as….”the leading weekly resource for criminal law practitioners and all those working within the courts and criminal justice areas.”

          The articles are by an F. G Davies, described as a Barrister and listed in Anthony and Berryman’s Magistrates Court Guide as a Deputy Justices Clerk, North Cambridgeshire, in England. He is also a contributor and specialist editor to Justices of the Peace Law Reports.




          Online image associated with an annual legal-fees guide which FG Davies edits


          Here are two quotes I picked out relevant to this post about separate trials.

          “This supports the writer’s contention made earlier that the holding of separate trials for co-accused was wrong in principle and law because the prosecution were alleging that at all three defendants committed the crime acting in concert”

          And:

          “It provided Guede with a golden opportunity to minimize his part in the attack upon and murder of Meredith Kercher, loading the blame on to Knox and Sollecito who, by this time were suspected to be chief architects of the attack.”

          It is of course perfectly true that in the anglo-saxon world Guede would not have had the choice to elect for trial separately from his co-accused. It might have made for a very interesting trial for everyone concerned if he had stood trial together with Knox and Sollecito, but for reasons I will explain later I doubt it, or that Knox and Sollecito would have gained any advantage from it.

          Indeed separate trials had rendered a very specific advantage to the Knox and Sollecito camps in that Guede had already been convicted when Knox and Sollecito stood trial, a fact that their PR campaign and followers have drilled home at every conceivable opportunity.

          But what on earth does it mean to say that “the holding of a separate trial [for Guede] was wrong in principle and law”?  .

          Whose law? Whose principles? Just how deeply does the Deputy Justices Clerk delve into the respective systems of justice (and particularly the Italian one) for a comparative evaluation?

          Certainly on the basis of a quick read of his articles I would say that he hasn’t delved very far at all. In fact I will go further and say that despite that he is capable of a detailed review of various aspects of the case he pretty much shares the same hostility and concerns based upon parochialism and ignorance to be found on the usual apologists’ websites.

          So I will try to put him and the apologists right on how the Italians cope, as a matter of law, with any evidential difficulties that separate trials can throw up.

          However, let’s start first with the assertion that the fast-track trial “provided Guede with a golden opportunity to minimize his part in the attack upon and murder of Meredith Kercher, loading the blame on to Knox and Sollecito”? Is that true?

          Guede admitted that he was present at the scene of the murder and he has always minimized his part in the attack, in fact denying that he had any part. This is all to be found in his statements pre trial. He would have minimized his part even if he had been tried with his co-accused and had given evidence. Given that he was not believed anyway, it is difficult to detect wherein lies the golden opportunity of a fast track trial.

          It is also difficult to envisage what cross examination formula (and the point of it) would have been available to the Knox and Sollecito defence teams as to Guede’s minimal role or otherwise given that Knox and Sollecito maintain that they were not there and thus are hardly in a position to dispute Guede‘s version.

          Did Guede load the blame onto Knox and Sollecito?  The answer to that is that he did directly implicate Knox but not Sollecito. Again this is all to be found in his pre-trial statements and interviews with the police and investigating magistrates. Whilst on the toilet he had heard the doorbell ring, Meredith call out “Who is it?“ and later say “We need to talk” followed by another woman’s voice, which he thought was Amanda, replying “What’s happening?“ He had also claimed to have seen, through Filomena’s bedroom window, a female figure with flowing hair and had recognised the shape as being that of Amanda Knox.

          It might be useful at this point just to pause and remember when Guede could have been cross-examined on this by the Knox and Sollecito defence teams.

          Guede was called to give evidence during the Massei trial but declined to give evidence. Not surprising given that he was appealing his own conviction at the time. This was heard two weeks after the conclusion of the Massei trial.

          He then appeared at the Hellmann trial by which time he already had a definitive conviction. On this occasion he did respond to questioning and I shall look at this a little later.

          3. The Specific Mistakes In Each Complaint

          Let us return now to the apologists standard refrains as I listed them at the beginning.

          1.  That the proceedings concerning Guede established various tenets the most important one of which was the multiple attacker scenario, and that this unfairly affected Knox and Sollecito bearing in mind that their defence was based on the Lone-Wolf scenario.

          One might also add the staged break in and some others as well which were all considered by Micheli and endorsed by Massei.

          However as at the conclusion of the Massei trial Guede’s first appeal was still extant and the Supreme Court’s definitive reflections on the multiple attacker scenario were still a year off. Nothing had been written in stone at that point. If the multiple attacker scenario became a tenet of the case then it would be more accurate to say that it became so because of Massei joining up with Micheli.

          But let’s also take in the second refrain to consider alongside the first at this point.

          2.  That the evidence in the Guede proceedings could never be effectively challenged by the Knox and Sollecito camps.

          This really is pretty rich. So what? Knox and Sollecito were not on trial there. And what to make of the Massei trial which of course is when Knox and Sollecito then wheeled out their big guns; the expensive lawyers and experts in telecommunications, forensic pathology, forensic DNA, ballistics and footprint analysis?

          The Massei trial may have taken its time but it was nevertheless (unlike Guede’s trial) a full blooded adversarial trial of first instance, lasting a year, with the prosecution producing each and every one of it’s witnesses for rigorous cross-examination by the defence.

          It was Massei that confirmed the multiple attacker scenario on the basis solely of that evidence and with scarce a mention of Guede’s sentencing report. It is lame to argue that Massei was in any way constrained by Micheli’s reasoning on the matter though his judgement was indeed available.

          However Massei did make the following observation -

          “……the reconstruction of the facts leads to the unavoidable conclusion that he (Guede) was one of the main protagonists (writer’s note: no concession to Guede’s chances on appeal, then?); thus it is not possible to avoid speaking of Guede in relation to the hypothesised criminal facts. The defence of the accused in particular have requested the examination of texts concerning only Rudy, and have demanded the results, specifically concerning Guede of the investigative activities carried out by the police in particular. In fact they have expressly indicated Guede as being the author, and the sole author, of the criminal acts perpetrated on the person of Meredith Kercher.”

          So here we see the defence making the running on Guede (without Guede being present as a co-accused to dispute anything) to include any and all evidence as to his alleged criminal background with the precise purpose of bolstering the Lone Wolf scenario, all of which was duly evaluated by Massei.

          [One might think, in addition to the above, that Guede would have had cause to complain about the indictments for Knox and Sollecito, in that both were indicted, and subsequently convicted, with the crime of murder “in complicity with Rudy Hermann Guede”, although he still had two appeals left and theoretically (though not realistically) it was still possible for him to be acquitted of the crime. However the drawing up of indictments in separate trials, and how the judiciary would deal with an outcome such as above (which I don’t think would be difficult) would be a topic for another discussion.]

          3.  That, in consequence of which, Knox and Sollecito had virtually already been convicted by the judiciary by the time of their own trial.

          This is so lame by any objective standard, but it is amazing just how often this particular drum is beaten. However our Deputy Justices Clerk would probably subscribe to this. He develops an argument akin to this which he terms the Forbidden Reasoning (echoes of Preston’s “The Forbidden Killer”?) which is basically that Micheli made a number of errors which were then compounded in subsequent hearings.

          4.  That Guede was allowed to give evidence against Knox and Sollecito at both his own trial and at the Hellmann appeal hearing without effective cross-examination. Had this been the case the defence would likely have exposed and demonstrated his sole responsibility for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Indeed had he been tried together with Knox and Sollecito this could well have happened at the Massei trial.

          The evidence that implicated Knox I have already mentioned. It is not entirely decisive in that it is not a solid ID of Knox at the crime scene. At the Hellmann appeal Guede added this in an exchange with Knox‘s lawyer -

          DEFENSE ATTORNEY DALLA VEDOVA—And therefore, Mr. Guede, when you wrote verbatim that it was a “horrible murder of Meredith a lovely wonderful young woman, by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox” what do you mean exactly? Have you ever said this?
          WITNESS—Well, I… this, I’ve never said it explicitly, in this way, but I’ve always thought it.
          DEFENSE ATTORNEY DALLA VEDOVA—And so, it’s not true.
          WITNESS—No, it’s very true………………………………..............  So if I wrote those words it’s because I’ve always had them inside of me. It’s not up to me to decide who it was who killed Meredith, in the statement that I made in my trial, I always said who was there in that home that damned night, so, I think I’m not saying anything new……

          In another exchange, this time with Bongiorno, Guede makes it clear that he is not planning to answer any further questions about what happened that night but this is because he has already stated (statements and recorded interviews etc), and stands by, all that he has to say about it.  Thus all that is taken into evidence perfectly properly. The matter is then left to rest by the defence.

          Indeed it is difficult to conceive what further effective cross-examination could have occurred in this situation because clearly Guede would have responded with exactly the same answer each time.

          The above exchanges also show just why it is unlikely that there would have been any fireworks had Guede been tried with his co-accused.

          Guede would not have been obliged to give oral testimony any more than were Knox and Sollecito and in the event that he had done so (and I think it would have been in his interests to do so) his evidence would not only have been the same but it would have been subject to the same limitations, which would have been zealously protected by his lawyers, that had protected Knox when she gave oral evidence.

          On due consideration it might have been a somewhat tetchy affair for the lawyers but it would not have been in the interests of any of the respective teams of lawyers for there to have been any surprises such as Guede moving from beyond what he had already said in pre-trial statements to a solid ID of Knox from the witness box. That wouldn’t have particularly helped Guede as it would have affected his credibility even further. They all had prepared positions to protect and Guede’s presence would be neither that much of an added threat nor an advantage for Knox and Sollecito.

          5.  That Hellmann was right to give no probity value to the content of Guede’s sentencing and the subsequent annulment unfairly allowed material that was prejudicial for the aforesaid reasons into the Nencini Appeal.

          Now we are into the law, Italian law that is, and how it coped with separate trials of co-accused.

          By this time Guede’s conviction, remember, had been ruled as definitive by the Supreme Court.

          This is what Hellmann said about that -

          “……. in truth, this judgement, acquired pursuant to article 238 and so utilisable under the probative framework only as one of it’s evaluative elements pursuant to article 192.…………….. already appears in itself a particularly weak element, from the moment that this judgement related to Rudy Guede had been carried out under the fast track procedure.”

          It will be useful to consider some of Prosecutor-General Galati’s observations in the prosecution’s appeal submission and we can do this because the Supreme Court agreed with him.

          This is what the Supreme Court said -

          “The submission on the violation of article 238 …….is correct. Even though (Hellmann) obtained the final judgement pronounced by this court against Rudy Guede, after properly considering that the judgement was not binding, it has completely “snubbed” the content of the same, also neutralizing it’s undeniable value as circumstantial evidence on the presupposition that it’s profile was particularly weak, since the judgement was based at the state of proceedings without the enrichment acquired as a result of the renewal of the investigations hearing arranged on appeal, In reality, the court was not authorised at all, for this reason alone, to ignore the content of the definitive judgement.”

          The enrichment referred to would of course have been the Independent Expert’s evidence (subsequently debunked by Nencini) and the Supreme Court also added that in any event article 238 was not impaired at all by the fact that the first instance trial was fast track.

          At the end of the day this was just poor argument by Hellmann but it was symptomatic of the many flaws that underlay much if not all of his reasoning for acquittal.

          More importantly for me and in addition to the foregoing the Supreme Court delivered a withering criticism of Hellmann’s understanding of circumstantial evidence and how to evaluate and treat it in its broad spectrum.

          However, how can and what elements contained in the separate trial of one co-accused have any probative weight in the trial of the others?

          Prosecutor-General Galati puts it like this. The Supreme Court’s rulings -

          “have now settled definitively regarding the interpretation according to which finalised judgements can be acquired by the proceedings, as provided for by the indicated law, but they do not constitute full proof of the facts ascertained by them, but necessitate corroborations not differing from the declarations of the co-accused in the same proceedings or in a connected proceeding………………………………......
          Naturally this confirmation is not directly used for the purpose of proof but as corroboration of other circumstantial pieces of evidence or of evidence already acquired, not very different from what happens when declarations of collaborators with justice corroborate each other.”

          In the event the only material from Guede that really seems to me to have hitherto been extraneous to the first instance trial of Knox and Sollecito was the inclusion at the Nencini appeal of Guede’s partial ID of Knox at the scene and his evidence as to Meredith’s missing money, which were corroborative of elements of evidence that had appeared at the Massei trial; in the case of the missing money for instance, the missing credit cards and Filomena’s testimony that at a meeting shortly before both the murder and the day the rent was due Meredith had told her that she had the cash to hand and was prepared to hand it over there and then.

          No such money was found at the crime scene. One suspects that these two elements would have been more prominent at the Massei trial, and have been motivated more attentively, had the three been tried together. In the event Guede’s partial ID of Knox was not even mentioned by Massei and Knox and Sollecito, in the absence of any evaluation of Guede’s evidence, were acquitted (not even motivated at all in fact) of the charge of theft in relation to the money and the credit cards.

          Given the foregoing I would argue that Knox and Sollecito derived an advantage rather than a disadvantage from the separate trials.

          Furthermore I would argue that the material from Guede’s separate proceedings was not particularly damaging given the overall context of the evidence already directly available from the trial of Knox and Sollecito (which received some but in truth did not require much corroborative confirmation from Guede’s separate trial) and which in itself was sufficient to found a verdict of “beyond reasonable doubt”, but it did supply some useful insight into a motive when of course Hellmann had found none and Massei had supplied a rather improbable one.

          6.  That Guede was induced into electing for a separate trial with the promise of a reduced sentence should he be convicted - this being to prosecution’s advantage re the case against Knox and Sollecito.

          Needless to say this is what you get from desperate and deluded minds. Guede’s lawyer has explained why his client took his advice and the decision was perfectly rational and in Guede’s interests. Guede was entitled to a third off his sentence from choosing fast track though I am no fan of that. Furthermore I have explained why no particular advantage accrued to the prosecution from this choice other than that it probably foreshortened the time that a full trial of the three would have taken.


          Saturday, July 25, 2015

          Why The Count Of Discredited Prosecution Witnesses Even Now Remains Down Around Zero

          Posted by James Raper



          As with all images on TJMK this image above will expand if clicked on


          Just sifting through the latest drivel on Injustice in Perugia today and I came across this statement from one of their main posters.

          “It was physically impossible for Capezalli to have heard any sounds from Meredith’s residence”.

          Note : not that she was mistaken or that her evidence was unreliable but the bald statement that it was physically impossible for her to have heard anything.

          Was she profoundly deaf then? If not, then why this assertion? Without some basis for this assertion then it is simply a dismissive slur on the credibility of the witness.

          This happens to be the same poster who wowed that board with his claim that the Prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence that would have cleared Knox and Sollecito.

          Not that he supplied any proof. How could he?

          It is axiomatic, of course, that if there was suppressed evidence then what it was would not be known. Nevertheless it was a ready springboard for calls from mindless idiots to have the Prosecution fully investigated and charged with perverting the course of justice!

          Anyway, to move on, the purpose of this post is just to revisit (with pictorial assistance) Capezalli’s testimony (I shall call her Nara from now on) and see if there is even a scintilla of justification for the claim.

          Now to be fair, Nara did say in her evidence that she had double glazing and maybe that is what he is referring to although for the life of me I don’t see why that would make it impossible for her to hear a scream outside.

          But it’s worth investigating because it’s the sort of thing that does get repeated without further analysis and I have read others taking that remark at face value and doubting whether she did hear a scream and, perhaps more credibly, whether she would have heard the sound of someone running on the gravel of the cottage forecourt and up the metal steps from the car park.

          Here is what she said -

          “What happens is that getting up I’m going past the window of the dining room, because the bathroom is on that side, and as I am there I heard a scream, but a scream that wasn’t a normal scream. [A terrifying and agonising long scream as she describes it elsewhere] I got goose bumps to be truthful. At that moment I no longer knew what was happening, and then I went on to the bathroom. There is a little window with no shutters, none at all.”

          Mignini then asks -

          Q—Well, you go by the window and you hear this cry?
          Ans – Yes.
          Q – Then you continue to go towards the bathroom, you told me?
          Ans – Yes.
          Q – Do you open the bathroom window?
          Ans – No.
          Q – Explain what happened for us.
          Ans – I haven’t any shutters on that window, I only have double-glazing so I can look straight out
          Q – So you looked out of the bathroom window?
          Ans– I didn’t open up because I had all the little succulent plants there for the light.

          A little late in her testimony Mignini seeks to clarify her evidence -

          Q– So you hear the scream, go to the bathroom, look out the window and you don’t see anything?
          Ans – No.
          Q – Then you go back to the bedroom?
          Ans – Yes.
          Q – When is it that you hear the noises you described, and then we will see what they are?
          Ans – I hear the noises I described when I was closing the bathroom door, then I heard running, because that steel there [the metal stairs] makes a tremendous noise at night, then when you don’t hear cars going by or such like, I looked out but there was nobody there.
          Q – From which way?
          Ans – To the left and the right, and there was nobody there.
          Q – Then you heard the scuffling?
          Ans – The same, in the meantime I heard running on the stairs, from the other direction they were running in the driveway.

          Much later Nara is helpfully (perhaps) cross examined by Dalla Vedova on her remark that she has double glazing, as follows -

          CDV - How are your windows made?
          Ans -  My windows are made of wood. They have double glazing and they have a shutter.
          CDV - When you say “they have double glazing” do you mean that every single window has two panes, or are there two windows, one in front of the other?
          Ans -  No, two panes in each side and opening in the middle.

          Confused? What is she really describing?

          Many moons ago Kermit put together a very helpful Powerpoint lambasting the behaviour and claims of Paul Ciolino, the American PI who appeared on CBS rubbishing the suggestion that Nara would have been able to hear anything. It is obviously Ciolino’s disreputable work that is the basis for the claim.

          I am going to lift some stills from Kermit’s excellent Powerpoint and add to them some more from a (somewhat infamous) Channel 5 documentary, from which it will be clear that

          (a) Nara doesn’t have double glazing, nor shutters, at least not at the back of her property overlooking the cottage. However there are shutters at the front and, for all I know, double glazing there but that is not of concern to us.

          (b)  There is little reason to doubt that she would have been able to hear sounds outside quite well.

          Let’s start.

          Here’s a picture of the back of Nara’s property immediately above the car park.






          Here it is again in relation to the cottage






          In the first picture Nara’s first floor flat is shown circled. In the second, it is obvious that only the roof of the cottage would be visible from the first floor, as indeed she said in her testimony.

          There are two further floors above. The top floor is the one to which Ciolino (and Pater Van Sant) gained access, having tried but failed to interest Nara. Nara in her evidence said that there was an apartment above which she rented out and I suspect that this was the top floor. The top floor undoubtedly had double glazing or double casements.

          Below is one of the top floor windows. (We can see Ciolino’s reflection in the glass)






          And here he is, standing in front of the same window whilst conducting his experiment with a couple of kids running along the road outside -






          As we shall see it really was quite pointless conducting off-the-cuff sound experiments from there with the double casement shut tight

          Nara said that her daughter also lived in the building so either the second floor was a separate conversion for her daughter or first and second were shared and the second was where their bedrooms were. That’s actually immaterial as it is the first floor that really interests us.

          Here is a close up of the first floor. We can be sure because we can see Nara and the co-presenters of the Channel 5 documentary standing on the balcony.






          We can see how large the windows are on either side of the balcony. As to the window on the right it is also apparent that this has been blocked up save as to four panes in the middle so that now there is only that smaller window there.

          Let us now look at that window from the inside.






          “One went up, one went over there” is Nara explaining to the Italian TV reporter the sounds she heard.

          Clearly then she is standing inside her bathroom and the bathroom window looks over the car park. Indeed we can see her succulent plants on the inside window ledge as she stated in her evidence. Also, if we look closely, we can see that her wall is tiled or wall-papered with a tile design befitting a bathroom. Probably that wall is also made of little more than plasterboard.

          One thing is quite certain though and that is that the window, which opens in the middle, is not double glazed.

          Nara’s understanding however seems to be rather different. To her “double glazing” is (as she said to Dalla Vedova) “two panes in each side and opening in the middle”.

          We can also infer that the large window to the left of the balcony belongs to her dining room. What she said, in effect, was that she was traversing the first floor (from left to right) from her dining room to her bathroom (being both on the same side, as she says). She heard the scream in her dining room.

          The window there does not appear to be blocked off as it is to the right. Indeed I think we can see full length drapes or net curtains but certainly one would expect a larger window there and again, clearly, it is not double glazed.

          So again, why would it be physically impossible for her to have heard a sound, particularly a scream, coming from the cottage?

          It couldn’t be because it was too far away. We can see that from the pictures but also here is a handy GoogleMap calculation of the distance from her place to the far side of the cottage.






          So that’s, say, 45 metres. Or 49 yards. Not far at all. Thanks to Yummi for bringing that up on pmf.org.

          We should also remember that it was the 1st November which is a religious holiday in Italy in remembrance of the dead and therefore background noise was quieter than usual. It was also probably sometime around 11pm and the back of Nara’s property looks out on what is a natural amphitheatre in which noise will echo.

          Nara Capezalli in fact came across as a compelling witness to what she heard that night and there is no way at all that it was physically impossible for her not to have heard that scream. Nor the metal stairs (“..makes a tremendous noise at night”….) just off to the right of her property and immediately below it.

          On a personal note I was recently driven nuts by a manhole cover that had come loose in the road outside my bedroom window. Cars constantly drove over it and the noise kept me awake. The top floor of the car park would probably also act like a sounding board and the noise made by the stairs may also have come up through the stairwell we see immediately in front of her property. I am not so sure about the sound of gravel on the cottage forecourt being crunched underneath but already I am more than prepared to believe Nara on that score as well. Why not?

          Finally, as we await the Cassation Motivation (whenever!) I seem to remember that at least one appeal point was the failure of the lower courts to accede to a defence request for audio tests to be conducted from Nara’s property.

          Bearing in mind that Judge Marasca reportedly has stated that the ground for overturning the Nencini convictions was insufficient and contradictory evidence one wonders whether Cassation will say that a test was required, in the absence of which Nara’s testimony can be thrown into a pot along with other evidence somehow deemed “insufficient”?

          If they do then watch out for them getting the double glazing issue quite wrong as well.


          Thursday, July 16, 2015

          Amazon Reviews: Are Knox PR’s 1000 Dishonest Paid Reviews Losing Traction?

          Posted by The TJMK Main Posters





          Amazon reader reviews may or may not dictate how the sales of a book make out.

          Sales of the Sollecito and Knox books have been way below expectations despite dozens of glowing reviews - and by the way numerous repeats of the hoaxes and defamations.

          At the same time sales of objective books on the facts of the case and the psychologies have been meeting expectations despite the absence of advertising or a paid-for PR campaign.

          Here are some of the spontaneous review for the two books “Deceit” and “Dark Matter” by Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson.

          By atlantic 1 “atlantic1” on June 3, 2015

          This is an exceptionally-well-written, complex (but lucid and fast-paced) account of the murder of Meredith Kercher (a British exchange student) in Perugia, Italy, and the unconvincing behavior and at times multiple stories of the main suspects: Amanda Knox (the American roommate), Raffaele Sollecito (Knox’s Italian boyfriend at the time of the murder), and Rudy Guede (Ivory Coast native adopted by an Italian family, currently the only one serving time in Italy for the murder).

          Other characters are prominently featured, along with a lot of background information from reputable sources.

          What I really liked about the book is that many links throughout the text (in the Kindle edition that I purchased) send the reader to outside documents (e.g., photographs) that would otherwise take a while to research (warning: some visuals are pretty disturbing, but one always has the option of not clicking on the link).

          The book has a fluid style and is absolutely engrossing, I highly recommend it.

          By Leigh on June 8, 2015

          Nick has done a superb job in ‘Deceit’ of reviewing, combining, comparing, and contrasting vast amounts of information from many different sources on Meredith Kercher’s case. As someone who has followed anything and everything of substance I could find on the case since 2007—I appreciate his massive effort, and certainly agree, some amount of speculation is required. What is especially effective about Nick’s speculations is that they are based on confirmed ‘knowns’ about the case from genuine sources such as investigations, witness testimony, interviews with Meredith’s friends, housemates, and others who knew AK (rarely spell out AK’s name since I hold extreme animus for that wrongly acquitted psychopath!).

          While I don’t agree with every speculation of Nick’s—I have many of my own—I do appreciate that he examines what’s real. For everyone trying to follow the case, it’s been difficult to sift through the exhaustive amount of subterfuge, deceit, and duplicity from rabid AK fan club members, a professional ‘damage-control’ PR / media manipulation machine, lazy mainstream US media lapdogs, and AK’s lying family—people and organizations who clearly would stop at nothing to defend their favorite two murderers. The worst of them always show up to deliberately hurl their vile insults and spew hatred at anyone who doesn’t howl about the great Italian conspiracy perpetrated against the murderer AK, or who don’t constantly drool like a fool over AK’s beauty and brilliance. The AK jerks are certainly out in force at trying to bring down this book—they try and destroy anyone who seeks to get the truth out about Meredith’s murder and AK’s direct involvement in her death.

          By S. Gleason on June 7, 2015

          Thank you for reminding people of the truth Nick. Wonderful book. A breath of fresh air. Please don’t listen to propaganda being posted here in the reviews. Listen to the abundant case evidence against all three. Justice for Meredith and her family.

          By M Thomson “Elizabeth” on June 2, 2015

          This book is a interesting and fast paced read. Suspicion builds naturally as the author follows the two defendants in the hours before and the murder. Their actions and changing alibis are well documented here. Amanda Knox falsely accused Patrick Lumumba in a very short time just after learning Sollecito said she went out that night. I wonder if the one star reviewers would rather you not know this.

          By Margaret Ganong on May 25, 2015

          The author has a good grasp of the facts and makes a case that is far more convincing than the two recently and bafflingly acquitted Knox and Sollecito have ever been able to do. Indeed, one of the most compelling reasons to read this book is for its effort to set the written accounts of Knox and Sollecito side by side, revealing the many ways they don’t add up and are at odds with one another.

          By Amazon Customer on May 25, 2015

          Thoroughly enjoyed this book. I cannot wait for the next one in the series. There HAD to be more to this murder ... and I am now sure that there was more than one person involved. Poor Meredith ’ s family having to live with this. I just love the narrative that makes Nick’s books SO enjoyable.

          By kris arnason on May 26, 2015

          Nick van der Leek has written an extremely cohesive narrative about the tragic Meredith Kercher case. The author takes you through what likely happened that horrific night, and why Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito’s stories don’t add up, all the while providing the reader with hundreds and hundreds of hyperlinked images, news reports, and audio clips, etc. that have been consolidated, collected and embedded in this one narrative. Everything sourced, right at your fingertips. A must read for people like me who have followed this case from the beginning and folks just getting interested and want to learn all they can. Thanks Nick! Looking forward to more from you about this case!

          By Caroline on July 5, 2015

          I bought this book because of the reviews! I’ve never done that before but I’m so intrigued by the almost angry tone to all of these one star reviews. It just makes me wonder if a nerve was hit. Somebody’s hiding something maybe? Anyway, I just have to read it now. Will come back with full review when I’m done.

          By Amazon Customer on June 1, 2015

          Finally! An honest book of what really happened to Meredith Kercher! Can Nick interview AK & RS on TV in the USA? I am sure he would ask REAL questions!

          By Jeff “jeffski” on May 26, 2015

          It is a disgrace that Amazon allows these Amanda Knox trolls a platform to spread hate and abuse people simply because they write a review for a book that these people disagree with. Amazon must act on these known frauds/cyber bullies who suppress and insult/abuse people on forums/Comments section and social media.

          This book is a excellent read and obviously hits a nerve with Knox’s followers as the negative comments and abuse/insults aimed at author prove. Please look beyond the rent a hate mob and read the book and come to your own conclusion.

          By Columbo on May 25, 2015

          This is an excellent true crime story with highly accurate and precise detail of how Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede all killed Meredith Kercher. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to know the truth of this case in a very revealing and fast page turning account of what really happened in this case.

          By Michela on May 30, 2015

          Excellent read.

          By Maria Chinnapan on May 26, 2015

          A great read!, very down to earth appraisal of what may have happened. No nonsense and to the point

          By MCD on May 31, 2015

          Again this formidable true crime writer has come up trumps with an incredibly well researched interrogation of a crime that continues to baffle the world. The detailed sequence of events is painstakingly pieced together. I had only superficially followed this case when the news initially broke so have been fascinated by this book which has filled in many gaps and highlighted the inconsistencies in the behaviour of Amanda Knox and her boyfriend, who said what, who lied about what, etc.

          In addition to the bare bones of the case, the author’s classic approach is the use true crime as a melting pot of evil and the extremes of human nature. He asks unsettling questions about human behaviour, herd mentality, apathy and our place in society - a society where a crime like this one can and does take place and despite all the investigation, the waters are still muddied in the deeper pools.

          For those who appreciate that truth is stranger than fiction and like to delve deeper into these cases, the author brings it all together for you, with a dollop of enriching ‘food for thought’.

          By Truth Seeker on May 26, 2015

          It is the behavioural evidence which has always bothered me about this case, and it has always seemed that everything said/done by the ex defendants had to be explained away or justified. The author has cross referenced the two versions written by them in their memorials, and needless to say, there are major discrepancies.

          Unless we expose the inconsistencies, then the two will have literally got away with murder. Legally this may be the case, but analysis provided by this book goes some way to keeping the memory of Meredith honoured, and ensuring that there are some still fighting for justice for her. Do buy the book- it has none of the obfuscation and image management that we have been subject to in the past years.

          By Ipsos Maati on May 30, 2015

          Why is Amanda Knox panicked about this book, and why did she try to have it banned?

          Deceit shines light on the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher, and the dishonest effort to free her.

          Exonerated does not mean “innocent”.

          By elizabeth on May 26, 2015

          Deceit is a fascinating read no matter where you stand on the recent verdict. Fast paced but manages to bring a cohesive dialogue to days before and after the murder

          By A. Futo “911 coincidence analyst” on May 26, 2015

          Well written book by author Nick van der Leek, with all new research and links to original reporting and publicly available information about the murder Of Meredith Kercher.

          Is Amanda Knox, the main suspect in the case, guilty of murdering her room mate as many believe, or was she railroaded by the prosecution, as claimed by her friends and family?

          The author skilfully navigates the questions of motive, means, and evidence, starting with the premise that this is a case that begins with and is marked by many layers of deceit, as Knox first accuses an innocent man, Patrick Lumumba, then must lie and keep on lying to distance herself from the crime she implicates herself with by admitting to her presence at the scene.

          Her co-accused, Raffaele Sollecito withdraws then confirm her alibi, and the other person evidence shows was involved in the sexual assault that preceded the murder, Rudy Guede, also tries to distance himself by running away then denying her involvement, then accusing the two of them in a letter to the media.

          The author’s hypothesis of what happened is based on a finely rendered psychological evaluation of Amanda Knox. No matter what the final decision will be, this is a case that will be discussed for many years to come. I look forward to his next book of the series.

          By Leigh on June 25, 2015

          After more than 7 years of following Meredith Kercher’s murder case closely as the saga has wound through the arcane Italian justice system, I am completely convinced that AK & RS are her two other murderers who have ultimately escaped justice. Their final acquittal has not changed anything for me. Yet I’ve been asked by others who have more than a slight interest as to why is it I’m so certain, what’s your 3-minute elevator speech? Well, an elevator speech doesn’t exist, but in ‘Dark Matter’ and its prequel, ‘Deceit’ and I hope, in more follow-up e-books on this case, a reader can get as close as possible to a comprehensive full-view, what-happened, tell-me-everything explanation without having to slog through over 1,000 pages of trial documents translated from original Italian and endless arguments from two deeply entrenched opposing sides. Trying to read through it all could easily take most of an interested person’s discretionary time for a lengthy period of their lives. And who needs that, right?

          What’s special about ‘Dark Matter’ is how easy it is to read, how well the authors guide readers through crucial evidence while using a technique borrowed from Socrates—keep asking yourself common sense questions as you’re reading. ‘Dark Matter’ examines the early case from a big picture view—the most prominent evidence, the investigation, what happened in days before, and after Meredith’s murder, and what was the behavior like of those near Meredith? Then go further, examine what AK & RS wrote in their own books about the murder. Do they agree with each other or give themselves away by not agreeing in crucial areas? ‘Dark Matter’ creates these scenes while assisting readers in finding their own answers.

          ‘Dark Matter’ examines what is important to know, then asks readers to consider: ‘does it make sense?’ or ‘were these actions meant to deceive and lead investigators astray?’ ‘is there an innocent explanation?’ ‘does unusual behavior indicate guilt, youthful carelessness, or something else?’ ‘Dark Matter’ lays out salient evidence found during investigations, and continues to encourage readers to question its importance: ‘where does this evidence naturally lead?’ ‘can we tie the evidence and the behavior together to draw conclusions, and how do we do that?’

          ‘Dark Matter’ is exactly how I’d want someone to guide me through an enormous case if didn’t know much about it. Don’t tell me what to think, don’t try to persuade me towards your view—show me what is important to know—and I’ll decide for myself; in this, both authors excel.

          One area where I completely disagree with the authors is their, what appears to be, complete acceptance of nonsense created by AK’s professional Seattle-based propaganda machine and American author Douglas Preston—these two parties had their own reasons to intentionally malign and destroy Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Their agendas were obvious to truth seekers—one sought to do ‘damage control and create a villain to take attention away from AK,’ the other, to leverage the murder to create interest in his own book.

          Unfortunately this propaganda proved to be extremely effective, and was picked up by most US media outlets that then ran with the deception. Those who know the case from the pro-justice side are keenly aware of how this vicious, deceitful campaign against the prosecutor convinced tens of millions of Americans AK was an innocent who was framed. I hope the authors make an effort to learn how completely they have been deceived and correct these mistakes in future books in this series.

          By JJ on July 3, 2005

          Great book!! Highly recommended

          By Sarah Breen on June 30, 2015

          Research and writing are top notch! True investigative journalism into this controversial subject.

          By Nicole church on June 27, 2015

          I loved your book-you guys definitely did your research and systematically take the reader though some of the most damning evidence in this case. I was impressed at how you tied it all in with the theme of dark matter- very well done and thought provoking.

          No need to apologize for your narrative;yes there are some f bombs but it made me respect you more for being authentic and your sarcasm is justified when it comes to this case. Like you both said it would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. You do a great job calling bulls*** on both murderers using example after example from their own words(in court,interviews,diaries,etc)

          I am sure this book has the murderers supporters all in a tizzy- it is easy to spot their attempts to sabotage your deservedly 5 star reviews with their 1 stars. Just look for lots of exclamation points and words in all caps then move right along to the honest reviews that will really help you decide if this book is worth reading- and it certainly is.

          Looking forward to your next book and thank you for being the stars that shine light on the truth smile

          By Columbo on June 26, 2015

          Another really great book by Lisa Wilson and Nick van der Leek. In this easy to read and compelling book the key events, character aspects of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede and the most significant evidence against them are all objectively weighed and analyzed. Additionally, in a very balanced view, the case for Amanda Knox as promoted by her supporters is also reviewed so readers can make up their own minds. But there is only one conclusion: all three killers murdered Meredith Kercher (RIP). I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to know even more about this case.

          By kris arnason on July 5, 2015

          Dark Matter is a must read for everyone wanting to know more about the murder of Meredith Kercher. Those who believed in the lies & cover up of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s multi million dollar PR campaigns will have their eyes opened after reading this excellent book.

          By JJ “jj0388” on July 3, 2015

          great book!! highly recommended

          By A. Futo “911 coincidence analyst”
          I read many crime books, and this is one of the really good ones on the case. Amanda Knox’s strange behavior and lies, accusing Patrick Lumumba, her relationship with Meredith, all reflected in the “Dark Matter” of her psychology.

          She simply is not very believable in her book, and her media appearances have been disasters which is why she’s withdrawn in hiding. Her father hired a PR firm to manage her image, and in the process influenced many sad, gullible people who still try to negate any criticism. Even though Amanda Knox has ‘won’ her case, why are they still posting nonsensical, abusive reviews of a book they never read?

          One example, but this is important to me. Her father said that Meredith gained advanced three levels in karate and would not have gone without a struggle. A testimony to her character, but a reviewer writes “that’s an orange belt, beginner’s level”. Sorry, but the people who loved her say she would have fought to the end. So why the lack of defensive wounds, if she was being restrained by only one person?

          In the struggle, she managed to injure Amanda Knox, who left her blood behind in the crime scene. (A bloody nose, ear stud pulled out? Left her lamp behind in the room to assist cleaning?) She was photographed with a scrape on her neck, and the police photograph taken on arrest shows the long scratch which she only partially covered with makeup on November 02. Her adoring fans call that a “hickey”, lol. Perhaps Lisa Wilson can collect these reviews as insight into their “Dark Matter” as well?

          By GH2006 on June 22, 2015

          This book is a perceptive analysis of the evidence in the murder case of Meredith Kercher. Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson take you through the court documents, statements made by the suspects as well as the DNA evidence among other things, which reveal the many lies and obfuscations by the public relations firm hired by the defendants as well as the ob-knox-ious murder-supporters who attack anyone who writes about the truth of this crime. (Shown by the flock of 1 star comments with long venomous attacks by haters who haven’t even read the book.)

          Written with the same interesting, insightful, and at times entertaining way van der Leek and Wilson hook the reader in from beginning to end. I couldn’t pull myself away from this book that Nick generously gifted to me because this is not about making a profit for them but in getting the truth out there! (In stark contrast to the defendants who made millions selling their version of the crime.) Oh! And this book also shines a light on the way Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito obscure the truth in their own books. That was very interesting as well! I also enjoyed the first book DECEIT and looking forward to the next book! TY

          By Bibliophile on June 21, 2015

          Awesome humdinger of a book. This book will tell you the truth!


          Page 2 of 16 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »