Friday, January 10, 2014

Amanda Knox Confirms She Faked A Break-In in Seattle Long A Sore Point To Previous Victims

Posted by Peter Quennell

[Knox’s off-campus house shared with others near the University of Washington]

It was an open secret in November 2007 among those who had known Knox in Seattle that her charge for murder did not exactly surprise everybody.

“That figures” was in effect their take.

We got to hear about boozing and drug-use. Also (see here and here) about deep anger issues in the Knox-Mellas family, and also about Knox writings (scroll down here to “Baby Blue”) in which violence and cruelty appeared front and center.

We got to hear the hard facts about the rock-throwing abuse of neighbors and passing cars in the course of a drug-fueled party in which Knox was probably lucky to be charged only with a misdemeanour.

And we got to hear rumors, but no hard confirmation, about a faked break-in near the University of Washington campus, in which Knox apparently exulted while those hoaxed were left pretty shaken.

Nobody else ever reported that they found it at all funny, but Knox herself has now off-handedly laughed it off on her increasingly bizarre and telling website. Steven Wentworth has an excellent commentary on TEKJournalismUK. It is all worth reading. These are key excerpts:

She admitted that the hazing prank, played on her flat-mates at the University of Washington, involved messing up the flat and hiding things to make it appear as if items had been stolen. Knox used “mutual friends” of her other housemates to help fake the burglary in her own premises. She acknowledges that it caused “distress” to her housemates and she and her accomplices had to apologise for the act…

Rumours of the hazing prank have been around for years, after a former acquaintance of Knox’s let the story slip, just a month after her arrest. On being pressed for details, the informant clammed up, and the incident has subsequently been vociferously denied by members of Knox’s family and her supporters. Meanwhile her defence have made repeated references to Rudy Guede’s past actions as character evidence against him.

Yesterday’s revelations will come as no surprise to case-watchers. Her decision to stay away from the appeal hearing in Florence was widely seen as an “˜own goal’, and her emailed plea to the court clearly irritated the judge. In it, she suggested that the court would be unable to remain neutral in deciding her fate ““ a move not designed to curry favour with the judiciary. Whether her latest admission makes an impact on the current hearing remains to be seen.

And then according to her own words based on a huge lie to her parents and others in her circle in Seattle, this loose cannon headed for Europe, with little structure, little money, and little intention to do any serious study. In reality she was taking a year off.

Everybody she came in contact with there was well-meaning, hard-working and acting responsibility.  By all accounts except her own, she then in sharp contrast evolved into a grating unhygienic nuisance who made few friends, and soon lost all but that oddball Sollecito. Even he she described as soon shrugging off.

Knox is already being remarked upon in Italy as “too cowardly” to turn up at what is in fact HER appeal and have to face all of those she has been smearing. Her ill-advised blog is being observed and could result in yet another obstruction of justice charge as it rarely strays too close to the truth.

Way to go to ensure a stiff sentence? Probably this time with zero mitigating factors.


Unbelievable! Knox is like a rabid chimpanzee.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/11/14 at 12:40 AM | #

Perhaps this is the beginning of a lot of unravelling?
How many other anecdotes are there out there, I wonder…

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/11/14 at 01:53 AM | #

Perhaps she’s paving the road for another installment of “the best truth I can come up with.”  The problem is that I don’t see how she could minimize her involvement without throwing Sollecito under the bus, which she can’t afford to do for obvious reasons.

I am curious whether Sollecito would become eligible for re-arrest should the Nencini court confirm the Massei verdict (or whether he might be prevented from leaving the country at least).  Taking Santo Domingo out of the equation would also limit Knox’ flight opportunities down the line, if an extradition request were issued for her.

Posted by Vivianna on 01/11/14 at 04:08 AM | #

These two idiots can’t even talk in their sleep now without someone listening—in cases like these, though, they post stuff online themselves (heck, she can’t even claim she was in solitary confinement). They probably ended up believing their own lies (or each other’s), and have lulled themselves into a false sense of security. It has always been a matter of time for truth to come out, but I for one did not expect this freebie so soon.

Posted by Bjorn on 01/11/14 at 04:47 AM | #

I wonder what kind of person fakes a break in in the house she shares with other people?

What kind of person would dream that up in the first place?

What kind of person gets a kick or a laugh out of doing that?

What kind of person enjoys watching people frightened out of their wits, distressed and shocked?

Where’s the juice Amanda Knox? is it seeing people in pain, in shock?

Posted by DF2K on 01/11/14 at 08:18 AM | #

Amanda’s ‘quirky’.

It’s an Amanda thing.

It’s just Amanda being Amanda.

Posted by DF2K on 01/11/14 at 08:21 AM | #

The staged ‘break-in’ must surely have been an immediate give-away to those fellow students who were involved in the prank at the UW.

I totally fail to see why none of those students came forward officially to make a statement about it.  They must have put two and two together.

It makes you wonder exactly what was going on in Seattle in those early days and years.

Posted by thundering on 01/11/14 at 09:44 AM | #

And not just those who participated but also the victims on the receiving end.

Didn’t they have any empathy for Meredith?  No desire for justice?

Posted by thundering on 01/11/14 at 09:46 AM | #

This is a comment I wrote on 7th January :
‘PS. I also think AK likes to shock. It would be part of the same profile, and there have been indications of this propensity in the past.

In fact she has almost let things out, indiscreetly, because of this - what appears to be taking pleasure in shocking others.

If there ever is to be a confession of the true circumstances of the event, I suspect it will contain an element of revealing because of wanting to shock.’

Not only is it now clear that she likes to shock, but also that she likes to distress, to disturb, and to frighten.

If disturbed persons cannot get the affectionate, adoring attention they crave, then a different kind of attention will do. It’s still attention.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/11/14 at 11:51 AM | #


“Unbelievable! Knox is like a rabid chimpanzee.”

I object!

Amanda is being Amanda.

Posted by chami on 01/11/14 at 03:31 PM | #


“If disturbed persons cannot get the affectionate, adoring attention they crave, then a different kind of attention will do. It’s still attention”

This is a childhood disorder. Love itself is a very powerful drug!

Much of her actions in Perugia can be explained by this. Both sex and drug habits point to attempts of attention getting!

But one key parameter remains: Intolerance.

That is somewhat unexplored.

Posted by chami on 01/11/14 at 04:52 PM | #

@chami, ha ha! You’re probably right. @Peter Quennell, you point out Bongiorno’s flimsy track record for wins, how she lost Andreotti case, fainted in Perugia, played tricks as delaying tactics.

I agree that Bongiorno’s more bark than bite. It’s no use to dribble the ball all over the court if you can’t sink it through a hoop. Points are what count,  dribbling theatrics don’t. Maresca’s style is just the opposite: no gristle just meat.

Bongiorno’s wild posturing in Florence is her pretending to care and show passion to feel she earned her fee, but she was distracted from Raf’s case earlier when it counted.

I feel attorney Maori will also hurt Raffaele on January 20th. Correct me if I’m mistaken but isn’t Maori part and parcel of the whole Sollecito family? Raffaele emotionally threw out the whole lot of them in anger after his mother died, refused anyone with last name of “Sollecito” to attend the funeral. He has rejected them, so how can they help him? I don’t know what Maori’s track record is.

Although Dr. Sollecito and Vanessa have both strenuously undertaken to deliver Raffaele from his fate, they’ve done all the wrong things, hired the wrong lawyer, played underhanded, and haven’t legally succeeded. Of course they did love and keep Raf’s morale up.

Yet his own family isn’t legally effective for Raf. I predict Maori will be ineffective if not damaging.

If Bongiorno lost in Perugia on a prior case with a fainting meltdown, that should have warned them.

I admit a grudging respect for Raffaele who has braved showing up in Florence courtroom. His frenemy Amanda the media hound is jealous of him so she drops one media H-bomb after another to regain the spotlight. Envy.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/11/14 at 05:15 PM | #

Chami, do you mean by ‘intolerance’ the characteristic of refusing to accept things being other than what is wanted, exactly when wanted?
I.e. “I want this,  only this, and I want it now!”

If this is what you refer too - this is known typical narcissistic behaviour - and amounts to exerting the will over others, an issue with control. People who give in to these ( unreasonable) demands, and do what is wanted, are known as ‘narcissistic supply’.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/11/14 at 05:30 PM | #

Hi, Hopeful,

I am unwillingly and intimately familiar with attorney theatrics in another country, and can say without doubt that those who pull the kind of stuff Bongiorno pulled yesterday are the most incompetent and corrupt of all, and pick their clients accordingly, i.e., they defend organized crime, drug dealers, and anything/anybody who can pay them a lot of money, including regular citizens who break the law and think they can get away with it.

Also, they are *not* successful, obviously what they do betrays a great deal of professional weakness, and at the first opportunity drop their clients like hot potatoes, oftentimes leaving them in much worse legal tangles than when they started, after bleeding them dry of their money.

I believe the case at hand is no exception, and we shall see soon how “effective” Ms. Bongiorno was.

Posted by Bjorn on 01/11/14 at 05:57 PM | #

Raphael will always and forever be the same as Joran Van der Sloot who supposedly killed Natalee Holloway in Aruba (her body was never found) He then was found guilty of killing a girl in Puru where he is in jail. This, one way or the other, is Sollecito’s future since, just like Knox, he will always be cast by society as a murderer. They cannot escape the future. of course Bongiorno will do anything to at least minimize his involvement by placing as much blame as she can upon Knox but the two are tied as inexorably together as a gordian knot which will never come untied.

A word of caution though, because Bongioro will try anything and everything including her famous histrionics plus the supposed bribery, (was that Alessi or Aviello?) Hopefully Sollecito will end up in the same jail as those two. But Bongiorno is a very nasty piece of work who I would put nothing past.

Finally, and as I posted once before, Knox like Jody Arias is cut from the same sick cloth. For example Arias could not understand why her prosecutor Juan Martinez did not love her? Same as Knox who could not understand why others including Mignini, did not feel the same and this arose an anger in her which she will never be able to understand for just like Sollecito she is damaged goods forever wondering as why why she is somehow different and therefore superior to others. Knox bringing strange men back for sex was quite ordinary for her and to hell with anyone else.

however lets not celebrate too soon because whatever the eventual outcome it will not stop, in fact it will just be the beginning. I sincerely hope she goes on the lam and as I wrote, all her rabid supporters will be obliged to pony up some cash then we shall see just who in their camp is serious. For example I don’t believe Michelle and Steve Moore are rolling in money since security work is just about the same as the Wall Mart pay schedule.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/11/14 at 06:09 PM | #

Bjorn just above:

“...can say without doubt that those who pull the kind of stuff Bongiorno pulled yesterday are the most incompetent and corrupt of all, and pick their clients accordingly, i.e., they defend organized crime, drug dealers, and anything/anybody who can pay them a lot of money”

Important statement. I hope you might develop that into a post. Over on PMF dot org Hugo in a response to FinnMcCool just posted this:

[Bongiorno] was one of Andreotti’s lawyers. Hence on the losing side. Except, oh dear, the statute of limitations ran out—who could have seen that coming?—so the mobster was allowed to remain a senator for life despite being named as a mafia chieftain by the court. She’s a mob lawyer. Always was. That’s why people go on about all her ‘connections’.

To which I have just responded thus:

Yes. And there is no shortage of mafia fingers in the pie (and useful idiots) in our case though they hopped on opportunistically as it looked like a good way to take Italian justice down a peg. (The rogue masons got there first but are now largely forced out.)

A cousin of Sollecito’s father, Rocco Sollecito, runs the mob’s construction business in Toronto. Where RS hung out in the Caribbean is regarded as a mafia-run town. Oggi (which carries Knox’s divine messages to Italy) is known to be cozy with the mafia (and likely to be charged for publishing Knox). Aviello was a mafioso; Spezi is a fellow traveler. Sforza may be one.

Their useful idiots: Preston, Dempsey, Moore, Fischer, Heavey, Anderson, and Burleigh, and on and on. Certainly a band of naifs.

There is a very good reason why Cassazione was happy to send the appeal to the tough seasoned mafia-fighters in Florence. See above.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/11/14 at 06:34 PM | #

There is a fictional lawyer in ‘the Spiral’ (a French series), who is female, very attractive but ruthless, and seems to act exactly as you have described. She is called Josephine Karlsson in the series.
I didn’t realize that such people can be for real…

Regarding Bongiorno, I am amazed a lawyer can so blatantly proceed regardless of errors of logic, especially when Dr Galati so explicitly criticized the Hellman appeal for failing to follow the requirements of the court (Criminal Procedure Code).
Yummi explained this at length; e.g.:

‘1.  One error “of method” affecting the logical process is the “petitio principii”, which Galati-Costagliola addresses as a recurrent, structural and pervasive method of reasoning used by Hellmann-Zanetti.

It is “begging the question”, a kind of empty circular reasoning. This is demonstrated in several chapters and points. For Hellmann-Zanetti’s reasoning, Galati-Costagliola reserve the names “paradoxical”, “disconcerting”, “useless”, “circular”, and worse in this same tone. ...’

Perhaps that’s what the melodramatic gestures are supposed to divert us from? And she must be emboldened by her ‘connections’, as Pete explains.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/11/14 at 07:19 PM | #


“...characteristic of refusing to accept things being other than what is wanted, exactly when wanted?...”

Yes, well, but with people. They do not accept people with different culture, habits and even different philosophies. Sometimes though, they will even show flashes of contempt for a fellow who is very much like them.

I believe she accepted RS only as a sex object. Intellectually, otherwise, these two kids resonate very well. RS sometimes feels his manliness ego being hurt but that is a little price…

Anyway, Amanda was always on the driver’s seat!

Posted by chami on 01/11/14 at 07:22 PM | #


These days mafia is widely used in a generalized sense. Mafia is an organization with their own set of rules and judges and polices. We see them only at times of conflict our general experience with the mafia is superficial at best.

Mafia simply runs a parallel government. Most members (peripheral) are not in criminal activity- they are just supporters- like papa Sollecito. He is perhaps only a service provider.

It is a small price to pay for a lasting peace.

Posted by chami on 01/11/14 at 07:31 PM | #


If you are short on the hard logic, I think it is a very good option to use theatrics. I doubt they could have got a much better lawyer. Good lawyers don’t like to lose and they may not take cases they think that they are not going to win. I always thought that papa Sollecito wanted to calmly and quietly get their version of the “justice”. Via other channels.  Basically, Amanda’s lawyers too play on the emotions. And I believe that it works. The lawyers who want hard logic are often arrogant. Some of them even irritate the judges!

Just like RS did by just being present. He scored one extra point, without speaking a single word. In fact, his speech was ineffective, in my opinion.

Amanda is not the right frame of mind to even listen to the advices of her own lawyers. That is a really sad day for her. She did a good clean up and even covered the body. But she lost in the PR game. The FoA is her greatest enemy. They have taken away people’s sympathy for her.

Posted by chami on 01/11/14 at 07:49 PM | #

Hi, Peter, SeekingUnderstanding,

One other thing about corrupt lawyers (perhaps it is obvious, but it wasn’t to me until I saw it done), they sometimes intentionally create more trouble than necessary and complicate things in order to appear indispensable (sure enough, after a few moves they ARE indispensable). Delays and even unreasonable requests that require extra time and useless effort actually always mean more money for them. Needless to say, that is not in their clients’ best interest, and I believe Ms. Bongiorno took the Sollecitos for a ride, we’ll see how true that is in the end.

Chami, you’re absolutely right on the theatrics/logic dynamic. I would add that corrupt lawyers don’t like to lose, either, and in my opinion they’re more jumpy than their distinguished colleagues when that possibility looms; in addition, they would go as far as tamper with official court documents (I’ve seen it done, it’s a longer story) to serve their interests, and I mean their interests, not their clients’.

(I’ll keep an eye out for a longer post if I can find something relevant, thank you)

Posted by Bjorn on 01/11/14 at 08:41 PM | #


Interesting point.

“She did a good clean up and even covered the body. But she lost in the PR game. The FoA is her greatest enemy. They have taken away people’s sympathy for her.”

I wonder who exactly had any sympathy, apart from the usual patriots and xenophobes. What sympathy was due from the outset except from some small recognition of the fix these extremely disturbed children/adolescents found themselves in? My sympathy kicks in when there is some remorse and acknowledgement of crime. Not before.

Any original sympathy was surely just in the coterie surrounding the family; then the bearded Mephistopheles (aka Marriott, of Marriott PR) appears on the scene and the sad low IQ types types who are always looking for simple,  good v. evil, explanations were encouraged to see in all this a mythical sleeping (albeit smelly) beauty versus a “mid-evil” conspiracy.

There’s an awful lot of rather stupid people who can’t handle complexity without automatically and unconsciously choosing sides before they’ve looked at the evidence. We can only hope they don’t breed.

Posted by Odysseus on 01/11/14 at 09:53 PM | #

Actually, sad to say, and obviously,  these are just the types that do breed like rabbits.

We’re doomed:-)

Posted by Odysseus on 01/11/14 at 11:54 PM | #

I’m not expecting anything remotely coherent from all the Amanda Knox fans nor her family regarding her admission that she actually staged a burglary back home in Seattle not long before the police discovered a staged burglary in the house she shared with her victim Meredith Kercher.

Instead we are now witnessing the death throes of an always unbelievable PR sham designed to alter public opinion of a murderess who has never shied away from the spotlight.

As I commented on earlier, Knox has now chosen her own endgame with an public assault on the Kercher family. Aswell as her own personal attacks on them (in which she signalled to her followers that the Kercher family are not above criticism) it is now open season on this poor family who have suffered so much.

Knox’s minions are only too happy now to put their heads on the block (now the great one has spoken) for her in bizarre and unsubstantiated rants - some even accusing the victims brother of being someone he is most definitely not and his employer (The BBC) of biased reporting of the case because of their employee.

It is truly a bizarre spectacle to behold.

Perhaps they all know they are going down soon and that they will not be able to live with being seen to look so stupid by the manipulator Knox and this is the last Berlin bunker attempt at muddying the waters before they are consigned as being wrong, greedy and downright vindictive in their desperate clamour for fame.

Posted by DF2K on 01/13/14 at 08:46 PM | #


Very well said. There’s a lot of potentially good books waiting to be written about this whole farce. Also a lot of lessons to be learnt, not least in my opinion the boundaries we allow for PR activity/press reporting in ongoing trials.

If countries can have extradition agreements can’t they also mutually set limits on publicity during trials? It’s very clear from what’s gone on in this case that the media are lapdogs by and large, easily satisfied with press releases from interested parties given half a chance. They need reining in: they won’t self-regulate.

Personally I will be bloody glad when it’s all over, much as I’ve enjoyed interacting here and on other sites for a year or so: it can get totally dispiriting with all the lies, weird and corrupt characters and so on. Nevertheless I applaud people who have been on the case from the beginning, made of sterner stuff than me I think.

Anyway, roll on the 31st. Even if it’s not the correct verdict I will continue to add my voice to any appeal up until the case is signed off.

Posted by Odysseus on 01/13/14 at 10:01 PM | #

Amanda Knox saying “The Kerchers are not above criticism” is really unconscionable. Really low-road of you, Amanda. Why am I not surprised?

As to the faked break-in in Seattle, to me it could possibly reveal the genesis and “motive” of the murder. A faked break-in-slash-“prank” that went awry.

Meredith could not be allowed to end Knox’s fun times in Europe, could she? In the end, Knox has convinced herself that the victim deserved to die, for threatening (“minaccia”) to report her to the police. Sick stuff.

Posted by Earthling on 01/13/14 at 10:56 PM | #

One of the nice things about Knox saying that she will “Go on the lam” is that psychologically she expects to. Good! Therefore she expects to be convicted all over again.

I am so glad that she doesn’t know how to shut up but only digs herself ever deeper. As I have pointed out no matter the eventual outcome this will never stop. This after all is just the beginning.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/13/14 at 11:17 PM | #

How is it possible that her blog still exists? As a family member of her, or PR-Firm I would’ve shut it down after she admited to the “prank”.

How is it possilbe that no one of her inner circle reacts?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m more then happy that she was able to tell us about the prank! No FOAer can argue any longer that it’s just a rumor, or just lies from the haters 😊

Posted by Terry on 01/13/14 at 11:30 PM | #

Hi Terry

The reason they don’t shut it down is because above all else they are in a state of denial where they think they can write any lies or distortions they like and get away with it.

It has stopped being about innocent or guilty, but has become, to them, like a game in which they want to manipulate the evidence so that they can win.

They care nothing for Knox and even less for Meredith. In fact to most of them the name Meredith Kercher has ceased to exist even if it ever did.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/14/14 at 12:21 AM | #

To this day, Knox nor her supporters really get it. 

First, the FOA and its tributaries have spent six years denying that Knox had ever participated in anything like this.  Those who know her—and prior to the meddling by the PR campaign—were shouted down and castigated for creating “guilter fantasies”.

Second, her supporters have long indicated there was no apparent motive.  Forget that motive isn’t required for a criminal case to proceed.  But now, from the lips of one of the accused, we have a plausible motive for the inception of a potentially violent confrontation.

Third, Knox admits that the “prank” in Seattle required the submission of an apology.  She knew it was wrong to do.  She had to apologise.  Out the window goes the claim that she was just a naive girl who gets “confused” easily and doesn’t know right from wrong.

Finally, the theme of the “prank” is virtually identical to the prosecution’s case against the three accused.  The “prank” was committed against a housemate.  There were several people involved in the staging.  A portion of the staging was a simulation of a burglary.  No observer, apart from the most exceedingly dense, cannot see why it’s at least ill-advised for Knox to begin writing about such things.

I don’t know whether any of the “prank” was staged before Meredith arrived but there remains few doubts that Knox was capable of repeating the scenario, with a few variations, in the company of a new posse of losers and miscreants she picked up in Perugia.

Posted by Stilicho on 01/14/14 at 01:56 AM | #

@Grahame Rhodes
That makes sense, thank you so much!

I don’t think that AK realised that the Seattle-Prank was wrong. I think she apologised because it was expected from her, or to calm down the victim. She’s maybe still wondering why the victim hadnt found it funny!

Posted by Terry on 01/14/14 at 02:11 AM | #

Certain persons can ‘know’ something is wrong because they remember they have been told that it is considered wrong.

This does not mean that they necessarily can feel that it is wrong, or feel why it is wrong,( or know in their conscience.)

If they are without empathy at this point, they will be completely unable to feel any of the hurt or distress caused by their injurious and cruel conduct.

Hence a ‘flat’ reaction, and an insincere ‘apology’, merely because that is expected and expedient.

And to disclose it now, obviously still without feeling, - treating it, still, as a ‘joke’.

There has been precious little evidence that anyone in FoA has actually cared about Amanda, or what would be in her best interests, now or in the future.

To help someone, to truly help them, is often much harder than one first imagines.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/14/14 at 02:42 AM | #

Earthling wrote: “Amanda Knox saying “The Kerchers are not above criticism” is really unconscionable. Really low-road of you, Amanda. Why am I not surprised?”

“As to the faked break-in in Seattle, to me it could possibly reveal the genesis and “motive” of the murder. A faked break-in-slash-“prank” that went awry.”

“Meredith could not be allowed to end Knox’s fun times in Europe, could she? In the end, Knox has convinced herself that the victim deserved to die, for threatening (“minaccia”) to report her to the police. Sick stuff. “

This is, in a nutshell, the Prosecutor General Crini’s idea about motive. Even if he does not put a genesis theory inclusive of planned prank into the equation.

He says there is no evidence that the three had planned doing something specific to Meredith, like a prank or a planned sex assault. He calls a planned scenario “unnecessary”, while he does not state for sure that there wasn’t any; there is just no specific evidence of it.

However, this does not change the dynamic of the crime into nothing but details about the previous time, the genesis of the previous context.

Crini sticks to the most simple and stark elements needed for an explanation using the known factual elements, he says the background behind an emerging argument - the prior “genesis” of some conflict, especially that lead to possibility to spark arguments on Meredith’s part - should be considered the disagreements about house managements, meaning habits related to the sharing of the house.

The sharing of a common space is one certain background, one sure terrain where an argument or negative emotions must have sparked from.  (This obviously does not rule out likely contribution by other causal factors).

How did the potential conflict, anger or annoyance on Meredith’s part, come to emerge and generate an argument at a specific moment? And in what situation did this happen?

The path leading to this event, did it go through a planned prank? Through an annoying party or else? We don’t know.

It’s possible that something was going on which we will never know. However the one thing we know, somethign that must have occurred on this path, is the physical, certain elements, are the unflushed toilet and the presence of Rudy Guede.

These are elements that are certain and that must have played a role, as they would generate a complain on the part of Meredith, anger against Knox’s behaviours which were already complained about, and may well indicate that Meredith felt disturbed by the invading of her home space (unknown men, noise, dirt, and maybe the invasion of her private space, touching money in her private room as Guede’s testified). And this behaviour generated an argument.

The key point of reasoning of Crini was that the assault on Meredith had both the nature of sexual violence, and the nature of violent hate aggression. However, the component of rage aggression was predominant over the sexual violence component, which should be considered a minor aspect.

The aggression was triggered by rage more than by sexual arousal. The sexual violence is a kind of accessory. This is my understanding of Crini’s argument. But as being an accessory, it is also a kind of pretext.

A drugged-up Knox may not be able to stand the bursting humiliation of being insulted and threatned to be thrown out from the apartment or maybe accused of things involving stealing or maybe other aspects of behaviour (sex, cleaning etc). The sexual harassement is a response intended to “win” and humiliate, a letting out a feeling of rage.   

But at this point, when this happens, the actual motive sets in.

Only after all this, at this point, this is the moment when the “motive”, in Crini’s scenario, actually takes shape.

It is the motive that Earthling described: the motive for the killing is fear, on the part of Knox and Sollecito, about the ultimate consequences of their “prank”, or of Knox’s not being able to control her emotions and letting go her resentment in a way that she could not control - that none of the three was able to control.

When the three idiots realized that they had gone too forward, that they were committing a violence, and they would pay extreme consequence for it, they realized they were gone beyond a no-return point.

At this point, as for at least two of them, Sollecito and Knox, the victim needs to die. Because this was the only way they could silence her.

Crini explains this pointing at the element that summed up their terror and triggered their lethal response: Meredith’s scream. The traumatic memory about this scream, the terror that they themselves had, probably at the idea that someone could hear this scream, and their killing to stop the scream.

Posted by Yummi on 01/14/14 at 04:28 AM | #

Sometimes the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. So it’s not outside the realms of possibility that the burglary was initially staged as a prank as in repeat performance. If I’m right, then it went wrong when Knox decided to take it a step further. (I’ll show that stuck up bitch that I’m better than she is) kind of thing.

Meredith probably lost her temper and went off at Knox particularly concerning the rent money, strange men in for sex, slovenly behavior, dirty unwashed Amanda who stunk of BO and no feminine hygiene at all. Anyway I think it went something like that.

Amanda had been told all of her childhood that she was, and is, special but faced with the truth she couldn’t stand it and so it went down after that. Guede fancied Knox although I can’t imagine why unless he had a bad cold but went for Meredith when it became obvious that she was helpless by being held at knife point.

When Knox and Sollecito came back after Meredith was dead they embellished the staged burglary. (That must have been Sollecito who by this time was probably ‘Blood Simple’ where people in a panic after a murder make simple but telling mistakes such as the glass on top of the clothes and nothing stolen.)

Knox must have cleaned up, something she was hopeless at. It makes me laugh when the FOA come up with “There were no prints in the room?” Exactly. Would a rapist/murderer stay around to clean up when anyone could return at any moment? A murderer/rapist would not know that because he would run away as fast as he could. which of course Knox and Sollecito did only to return later.

Anything the FOA comes up with in this regard is laughable. Of course they shout people (who they dub as haters) down because they can’t face the simple facts and the truth. Anyway that’s my two cents worth for this evening.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/14/14 at 04:28 AM | #

Hi Yummi
While I was writing you posted your piece. We are in total agreement obviously and I think you said it better than I did since what we both wrote is almost parallel to mine although more concise. Good stuff and thank you for your insight.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/14/14 at 04:34 AM | #

If Amanda Knox is capable of doing all of the above (send condescending letters to judges, commit prank burglaries, put up and refuse to take down links that insult the memory of the victim, ferociously insult the family of the victim by saying they are not above criticism, etc., etc.) when she is sober ...

... just imagine what she is capable of when she is drugged. Scary.

Posted by Bjorn on 01/14/14 at 04:56 AM | #

@Terry re:  “I don’t think that AK realised that the Seattle-Prank was wrong. I think she apologised because it was expected from her, or to calm down the victim.”

That may be true too.  We don’t know.  But an apology isn’t required for a “silly college prank”, is it?

Knox is not a two-year old.  She deliberately intruded on a housemate’s space in Seattle, had to apologise, and then did the same thing in Perugia (by all accounts—including hers).  If she didn’t know that this was wrong after repeatedly being required to apologise for her behaviour then she should be committed to an institution until she learns the distinction.

Knox is a fully functional adult, with a very nasty streak, who will continue to behave this way until corrected by a long prison sentence.  I think she actually does know right from wrong and deliberately chooses any option that gives her the attentions she seeks.

Posted by Stilicho on 01/14/14 at 06:32 AM | #

Very good summary, Yummi…thank you

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/14/14 at 08:38 AM | #

Poor, poor Meredith.
How absolutely awful for her to have realized that she was sharing a house with someone of this dysfunction.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/14/14 at 12:56 PM | #

I do not think that there was any element of staging prior to Meredith’s murder. That occurred afterwards.

We have to remember that Meredith returned home at about 9 pm. There was activity (the last) on Sollecito’s computer at 9.15 pm and Curatolo first noticed the love birds in the Square at about 9.30 pm.

This suggests that Meredith was on her own at the cottage for at least half an hour before the stagers arrived to admire and take advantage of their handiwork.

Any prior messing of things around to suggest a burglary (and there wasn’t really any outside of Filomena’s room) would be pointless without evidence of forced entry. A window or door would have to have been forced as well.

Had Meredith been presented with such a scene (which has to include the broken window) on her arrival home she would undoubtedly have been in contact with one or other of the friends she had just left, if not the police, within minutes. As this did not happen I am satisfied that there was no prior staging.

Indeed that this was so would have left Meredith in no doubt as to who was responsible for her missing money.

Posted by James Raper on 01/14/14 at 01:15 PM | #

The world according to Amanda/Garp?:

I was only trying to terrorize her!

You can’t blame me if some people can’t just take a joke! (Eye-Roll)

If she hadn’t struggled, trying to grab the knife - and then that Scream! - she’d be OK!

I was as surprised as everyone-else!

It’s all her own fault!

Posted by Cardiol MD on 01/14/14 at 04:05 PM | #

Cardiol, that is the correct impression of Amanda Knox, and pretty much sums it all up. What a sad world.

Posted by Bjorn on 01/14/14 at 04:48 PM | #

@ James Raper:
We also have Guede’s statement that when he left the crime scene the window of Filomena’s room was not broken.

I believe Knox used her experience and skill of staging burglaries to alter and selectively clean the scene with Sollecito after they had attacked Meredith and left her for dead.

Posted by DF2K on 01/14/14 at 06:02 PM | #

It’s great to see thousands of people visiting the wiki website. I’ve just sent tweets to some of the main American legal analysts who appear in the US media. Please retweet my tweets. Thanks. My name on Twitter is @harryrag

Posted by The Machine on 01/14/14 at 06:04 PM | #

@Yummi, your comment is good, made me re-think the crime scenario. @SeekingUnderstanding, I continue to learn psychology of the perps from you. Recently you mentioned “duping delight”. Amanda enjoys it. She said a few months ago she would take a polygraph, never gonna happen. Now she revels in telling the world of past lies about a prank. Even her new label of fugitive could be a lie for shock value.

*Random thoughts:
  *@brmull @Ernest Werner…miss you guys. @aethelred, good stuff

*Amanda likened the case to “Count of Monte Cristo” meets “Midnight Express”. Latter movie has drug arrest theme based on true story; former is about confused identities, a helpful priest in prison, an escape. After prison Monte Cristo goes on extended vengeance spree using several disguises.

*“The Last Battle of Amanda Knox” by Meo Ponte (9 January 2014) quotes Amanda now saying she is sick. She claimed she was very sick when she left Capanne prison and returned to Seattle. Could it be fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome, some form of PTSD induced illness?

*Amanda named her new cats “Torrato” and “Amiel”. There was an Henri-Frederic Amiel who wrote a famous “Private Journal”, poetry, studies on Erasmus. If the cat is named for this Amiel, here’s a quote:

‘Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence.’ (Amiel)

*The only reference I could find for “Torrato” were ads for a wine and olive oil company in Florence, Italy. Torrato is the name of the grapes used in Chianti. Perhaps Torrato was named after gazing at a wine bottle.

*Xtreme random:  Colonel Meow would not approve.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/14/14 at 06:08 PM | #

As regards Meredith returning home to witness a “burglary” I believe she would indeed call the police and her friends almost immediately.

Well, anybody would really.

Apart from Amanda Knox of course - who appears there in broad daylight the next day, walks straight past a broken window staring her in the face into a house with the front door open, sees blood splattered everywhere and nobody at home, Meredith’s door locked and then walks around naked in the freezing cold house to take a shower in the bloody bathroom with a bloody footprint so clear to see it could be recognisable as a footprint from the hallway before proceeding to dry her hair in a bathroom with an unflushed toilet containing feces which had been left over night,refuses to flush it (EW) but makes a song and dance about it later to the police.

Amanda Knox is so quirky.

Posted by DF2K on 01/14/14 at 06:19 PM | #

@James:  Agreed.

In fact, Knox feels comfortable sharing the “prank” story precisely because she modified its operating premise when in Perugia.  Most importantly, however, are the denial she’d ever done such a thing before (“guilter fantasies”), the severity of the “prank” (needed apologies), and the admission that she had previously staged a crimescene.

This doesn’t explain how or when it was done but it sure speaks to the why and by whom.


Not only does Knox allegedly stumble into a blood-spattered crimescene, but she told Chris Cuomo in the CNN interview that she thought Meredith was in her room *before* fleeing to Sollecito’s with—of all things—a mop.  None of her story makes any sense at all:  not due to “confusion”, not due to “imagination”, not due to “naivety”.

Posted by Stilicho on 01/14/14 at 08:59 PM | #

Hi James you’re probably right. Still probing the mind of both of these two murderers is an exercise well worth the effort. Or to quote an old show biz axiom “Leave no turn un-stoned” As to your time line, it makes sense but of course Knox would have remembered that and got Sollecito to do it.

As to her avowed declaration of innocence I remember a movie where the accused finally blamed the garage doors for closing instead of herself. Her husband died of carbon monoxide poisoning. OK it was just a film but my belief is that Knox’s thinking follows along those lines. Oh sure she knows she is guilty, but this way she can distance herself by claiming that it wasn’t her at all, it was Sollecito with the knife. She can’t say that though because that is an admission of guilt.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/15/14 at 12:25 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Mignini And Giuttari Win Final Round In Spurious 2010 Conviction By Rogue Prosecutor And Judge

Or to previous entry Appeal Session #8: Sollecito Attorneys Today Try To Show Where Police And Prosecution Went Wrong