Amanda Knox… Trapped, In Her Own Words

Posted by The Machine





Newcomers to the case and casual readers may not realize this.

But it is an indisputable fact that Amanda Knox has spun the truth. Tells lies. Deliberately, repeatedly, and very incriminatingly. I think it’s worth revisiting a few of her many lies for any new visitors to this board, so that they can get a clearer picture of the real strength of the case.

Some of Amanda’s vociferous supporters have claimed that Amanda only lied once - and that was because she was “smacked around” by the police, or put under pressure. And that her confessions, in which she admitted to being at the cottage on the night of the murder, were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court.

It doesn’t take a careful examination of the known facts to conclude that both these claims really are nonsense. Amanda’s first known lie wasn’t to the police, but to her flatmate, Filomena, on 2 November, the day after Meredith’s murder.

Amanda phoned Filomena at 12.08 pm, and said she was worried about the front door being open and blood stains in the small bathroom. 


False claim one. Amanda said she was going to call Raffaele, but according to Raffaele, Amanda had already returned to his apartment at 11.30 am, and then they had gone back to the cottage.

At 12.34 pm Amanda and Filomena spoke again. Filomena said, “We spoke to each other for the third time and she told me that the window in my room was broken and that my room was in a mess. At this point I asked her to call the police and she told me that she already had.”


False claim two. Amanda and Raffaele didn’t actually call the police until 12.51 pm.

The postal postal police unexpectedly turned up at the cottage at 12. 35 pm.


False claim three. Amanda and Raffael told the police that they had called the police and were waiting for them.


False claim four. Amanda told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked. Filomena strongly disagreed with her, and told the postal police the opposite was true.

Amanda and Raffaele were then taken in for questioning.


False claim five. They said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis.

It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Long term use of cannabis may affect short term memory, which means that users might have difficulty recalling a telephone number. But it won’t wipe out whole chunks of an evening from their memory banks.


False claim six. Amanda accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith at the cottage.

It’s true that two of Amanda’s such statements were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court. However, Amanda repeated the accusation, in a note that she wrote to the police on 6 November.

This note was not thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court, and it was admitted as evidence.


False claims seven and eight. In her 6 November note Amanda claimed to have seen Diya Lumumba at the basketball court at Piazza Grimana; and outside her front door. He was actually at his bar.


False claim nine. Amanda’s supporters claim that she confessed to a lesser role in Meredith’s murder, and blamed Diya Lumumba, because she had been “smacked around” or put under pressure by the police.

But the real reason she had to say she was at the cottage was because she was informed that Raffaele Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi.

Raffaele had been confronted with phone records, and was now claiming that she was not with him the whole evening, and that she had only returned at 1.00 am. Amanda did not attempt to refute Raffaele’s claim, but now admitted that she had been at the cottage.

The significance of this about-turn cannot be stressed enough.

(Incidentally, Raffaele was also claiming that he had lied, because he had believed Amanda’s version of what happened and not thought about the inconsistencies. He is acknowledging that Amanda’s version had inconsistencies.)

If it had been true that Amanda had been “smacked around” by the police during questioning, why haven’t her lawyers ever filed a complaint? It was very telling that Amanda dropped her allegation of being hit by the police at her recent court hearing, and instead just claimed she had been put under pressure.

There’s a world of difference between police brutality and being put under pressure. It wasn’t the first time that Amanda has made a false and malicious accusation, as Diya Lumumba knows only too well.


False claim ten. Amanda claimed to have slept in at Raffaele’s until the next morning. However, her mobile records show that this was not so.  Amanda turned on her mobile at approximately at 5.32 am.

The only plausibe explanation for Amanda’s deliberate and repeated lies? That she was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

It should be no surprise to anyone following the case that the same three witnesses who have repeatedly lied, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede, have all been placed at the crime scene.

By a total of 23 separate pieces of forensic evidence.

Renato Biondo has just recently provided independent confirmation that the scientifc police’s investigation was carried out correctly. And that the forensic findings are accurate.


Comments



It seems obvious that Amanda was stressed because she was guilty and she messed it up and told so many lies.I hope her being rich won’t save her from jail.

Posted by Alice on 10/31/08 at 08:41 AM | #

Hi Alice,

Welcome to the True Justice For Meredith Kercher website. I hope you visit the site regularly for updates and to comment on the case.

Posted by The Machine on 10/31/08 at 10:44 AM | #

A sobering piece indeed. Why isn’t all this being acted on?

Posted by Sian on 11/01/08 at 05:43 PM | #

Analytical and compelling.  Great piece setting out the stall very well.  Big thanks to “Machine” for the clear, logical expression.

Posted by A Perls on 11/12/08 at 03:14 PM | #

I won’t believe one word of the so-called evidence against her. I live in Europe and we do trade with Italy. I was down there when the US troops shot an Italian spy in Iraq. I was there when the American tried to bring the terrorists from the cruiseship to justice.

They want a foreigner to hang for this murder. If the evidence and the witnesses had been there from the very start, they could have got her convicted in a fast track trial also, but they destroyed the crime scene having the entire police force wandering around in there.

Of course her DNA is in the apartment. She had been visiting the girl when she was alive. My DNA is also to be found everywhere I have been; even for days after I have left.

I have heard that students from the State are now avoiding this country. It is by the US students as we in Europe have kwown for years no longer regarded as civilized. Maybe in light of this revenge they should stop forever.

Posted by H. Jensen on 12/03/08 at 09:35 AM | #

Thank you H. Jensen, I have as an acquaintance a certain military man by the name of Sgt Larry Dyerson.  Based on what he relates to me and the content of your posting I sure as hell think we Yanks and the foreigners are better left treading separate and widely divergent paths.  Of course you are right, those Italians only want to hang a foreigner for this murder and what kind of developed and civilised country would not be content with having convicted a feeble African?

Why do they maniacally insist on smearing in their gutter press and trying to gain the conviction of our ill-treated sister from our free United States?  These Italians are inferior in every way and really do not grasp those fundamentals that we proud Americans hold so highly.

They have the degenerate that did it convicted already they should lay off American citizens if they know what is good for them!  You are either for us or against us, everybody hates us but we do not care because we are RIGHT.

Posted by green is the color on 12/03/08 at 11:34 AM | #

H.Jensen,

I don’t quite follow what the activities of the US military have got to do with the Meredith Kercher case.

You claim “they destroyed the crime scene by having the entire police force trampling around in there”. It’s always a good idea to support your opinions with evidence. I hope you’re not referring to the inaccurate comments made by Anne Bremner. You do know that she analysed the wrong crime scene?

Just for the record, the crime scene wasn’t destroyed by anyone. Renato Biondo provided independent confirmation that the forensic investigation was carried out correctly, following international protocol, and that the findings are accurate and reliable.

Just to clarify, Amanda Knox has not been charged with murder because her DNA is in the cottage. However, there are 7 pieces of forensic evidence that link Amanda to the crime, including her DNA on the handle of the double DNA knife found at Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment and Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade, and Amanda’s bare footprints set in Meredith’s blood.

The evidence against Amanda Knox is overwhelming and it doesn’t just include forensic evidence. Amanda gave multiple alibis and lied repeatedly to the police. She knew precise details about Meredith’s body that she couldn’t have known unless she had been present when Meredith was murdered. Incidentally, Amanda admitted she was present when Meredith was murdered in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November.

I completely agree with you that Amanda’s DNA will be everywhere in the cottage. That is to be expected. What the police and prosecutors find baffling is that there isn’t a single one of Amanda’s fingerprints in her own room or anywhere else in the cottage apart from on one glass in the kitchen. I’m sure you’ll agree that is extremely strange. Perhaps, you would like to offer an explanation.

Posted by The Machine on 12/03/08 at 06:20 PM | #

“What the police and prosecutors find baffling is that there isn’t a single one of Amanda’s fingerprints in her own room or anywhere else in the cottage”

She’s either done a very good job of cleaning her finger prints, or she’s one hell of a clean student!

Posted by Socrates42 on 12/04/08 at 10:33 AM | #

Why didn’t they give them a drug test to make sure the weed wasn’t laced with anything else? That could cause memory loss.Kinda nieve to assume drugs couldn’t possibly be laced with something else don’t ya think

Posted by becca on 12/06/08 at 11:37 AM | #

Hi Becca,

You’ve made several assumptions. Firstly, we don’t know whether Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio weren’t given a drugs test.

Secondly, you’re assuming that there is a recreational drug that causes such dramatic amnesia that it makes people forget most of what happened in an evening. I don’t know of a recreational drug that has this effect.

Finally, you’ve made the naive assumption that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito actually suffered memory loss. There was no memory loss. Amanda and Raffale knew they couldn’t provide satisfactory alibis for their whereabouts on the night of the murder, so they used the cannabis-induced amnesia as convenient excuse for giving very sketchy and vague details.

The huge problem for Amanda and Raffaele was that they gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder.

Raffaele originally said he was at a party with Amanda. Obviously, finding witnesses who attended an imaginary party was always going to be difficult for Raffaele. He then said he and Amanda were at his apartment. However, when the police confronted with him phone records that proved he was lying, he told them a third version of events. In this version, he was home alone at his apartment, with Amanda returning home at around 1 am.

Even though Raffaele admitted he had lied at Amanda’s behest and was given another opportunity to tell the truth, he lied again repeatedly. He didn’t speak to his father on the phone at 11pm, he didn’t surf the Internet between 11 pm and 1 am, and he did sleep until 10 am the next day.

Once Amanda knew that Raffaele was no longer providing her with an alibi, she gave a completely different version of events to her earlier one. She admitted that she had been at the cottage when Meredith was murdered and falsely accused Diya Lumumba of raping and murdering Meredith.

The Italian Supreme Court noted that both Amanda and Raffaele were reluctant to cooperate with the police and that they had lied.

Posted by The Machine on 12/06/08 at 12:56 PM | #

Becca, it can be shown without doubt, that Raffaele invented this cannabis induced amnesia. There is this famous bugged conversation between Raffaele and his Dad on Nov. 4th.
Father: Rafe, do me a favour, tomorrow don’t go to Questura with the knife in your pocket.
Son: It’s ok dad, don’t worry, those assholes are not even going to realize that.

On Nov 7th. Raffeale, now in prison, not knowing that he was bugged, writes in his “prison diary”:
“In police headquarters they tortured to me psychologically, put to me in shackles and made me strip in front of the scientific, I was even barefoot. I’m not even able to offer guilt, given my deep fu**ing stupidity for the fact that I smoke cannabis I even forget what I have eaten and also for that I carry behind a knife to nock the tables and the trees and I carry it so often that I brought it also to the police headquarters. I write to you the reconstruction of the facts.”

I took Raffe two days in prison, to invent the cannabis induced knife carrying.

Posted by Hans-Georg on 12/07/08 at 10:14 AM | #

Hi Machine

yes no prints in your own bedroom is fishy, especially as we know don’t we that our lovely Amanda wasn’t the most scrupulous about cleanliness
Is there anyway of getting more details about sarzanini fiorenzas book “Amanda and the others”?

thanks for the beautiful pictures
words fail me

Posted by Dave Richardson on 12/07/08 at 03:32 PM | #

I have been following that sad story from the start. Thank you, The Machine, for having summed it up without bias or emotion.
It might indeed be drugs that turned the trio mad. It is common knowledge that going mad collectively leads to more atrocities than going mad alone (remember the ‘Manson family’, Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia?). Everything suggests that Amanda, Raffaele & Rudy didn’t care of doses and fell into a collective delirium. Now they sure do recollect killing someone in a ‘dream’ but it is too shocking for them to admit that wasn’t a dream.

Posted by Valeri on 12/14/08 at 05:23 PM | #

This is an extremely persuasive and compelling article about a tragic case. I question why an innocent person would tell so many lies and I have certainly never heard of anyone suffering from cannabis induced amnesia

Posted by CR on 12/15/08 at 02:47 PM | #

Hi CR,

I agree that cannabis cannot cause amnesia; not to my knowledge, unless it is a variety of cannabis that has been tampered with in order to make it more potent by adding some other drug element to it. But whether they remember, or don’t remember, I think, is irrelevant. What is relevant is how they handle the parts of their memory which they CAN recall. It is here that one’s true colous shine through, so to speak.

An example: alcohol is extremely dangerous, can cause severe permanent amnesia, and make people act in very aggressive and completely ‘out-of-character’ ways. I can speak from personal experience; I have not touched alcohol for 9 years now; the reason being that I suffered severe permanent amnesia at one incident where I hadn’t even gone out intending to drink more than one or two glasses. Some people may find this unbelievable, but from experience I know that alcohol effects people differently depending on each person’s tolerance level. This tolerance level is not something fixed. Someone used to drinking copious amounts of beer won’t necessarily handle hard liqour too well, and vice versa. People who were once heavy drinkers but fell out of the habit will likewise have a lower tolerance than before.

My point is that all sorts of horrific & extreme ‘re-actions’ can arise out of situations where people drink to the extent where their tolerance level simply cannot support it & they’ll tell you (quite honestly & truly) that they don’t remember a thing! Read this latest saga in Britain about a guy who was horrified, when he was watching the news on TV, to find out that wilst drunk, he stabbed a girl:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7758955.stm

What’s ironic, of course, is that alcohol is legal & there is little public awareness raised as to its true consequences. Yet at the same time, we think that people who did suffer alcohol related amnesia are somewhat responsible for what they did when they were in that state, despite the fact that they may not recall a second of it!

I think it would be fair to say that they are guilty of getting so wasted that they made it possible to act ‘out of control’ to the extent of harming others; but it doesn’t make sense to say - like the judge claimed in the above case - that the person ‘intended’ the killing. To intend something, one needs to be a fully rational conscious agent. This is how a deliberate intentional action is formed. Hence to say that one was simply unconscious when they did something, then it means it isn’t an intentional deliberate action, but simply a ‘reaction’, or ‘behaviour’ - like a cow or a dog’s. The judge contradicted himself when he stated that the action was both ‘intentional’ AND ‘unconscious’ because the second cancels out the first.

What’s different in the case of above man (as opposed to dog) is that through drinking so much they consciously and somewhat intentionally got themselves in a state where they could no longer reason & think - the dog can’t be accused of this! Human beings and society, I think, have a responsibility not to allow themselves/people to get to this state, because it is a dangerous one. All sort of things can happen when someone is THAT wasted.

If Amanda & Rafaelle were the true perpetrators in this case, and if they were drunk, drugged, or whatever, such that they didn’t recall a thing except in flashes, we may wonder to what extent they were conscious of the murder and intended it. We might assume that in their own minds they hadn’t done anything (not that they recall, or perhaps they recall only little of it). Fine. We can go with this, but what shows someone’s real metal is how they then deal with this ‘accident’ once they’ve regained consciousness.

In the case of the frenchman in the article above, he went with his mother straight to the police & confessed “I Think it was me…I had half a bottle of whisky & remember nothing!”. So in some sense, you could say he dealt with the ‘accident’ honourably & confessed that he shouldn’t had got so drunk such as to commit such a horrible crime, and he took responsibility for it.

IF, on the other hand, AK & RS had gone through a similar experience of amnesia followed by an un-intentional ‘accident’ due to drugs / alcohol, then two things remain questionable & condemnable (I repeat…‘IF’...because I don’t want ‘That-Whose-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Mentioned’ accusing me of lible…so I must stress to the reader that this is a hypothetical line of thought, not a factual one):

1) When they regained consciousness, they should’ve gone to the police & not cleaned-up & covered up instead.

2) When they became conscious of what they’d done (the victim’s body was there to prove it, even if between the three of them they couldn’t decide who did it), why did they not confess to THEMSELVES, an in their own hearts, of where their debauchery had led them to?

A denial of 2) will necessarily be an explanation of 1).

I can’t say for sure if this is what happened with AK & RS, nor can I say if they are truly guilty (pending 16th of January). But I can say that even if they had done it & couldn’t remember a thing, this may mean that although their behaviour (murder part) was un-intentional, nevertheless, their subsequent actions (cover-up, denial, etc.) ARE intentional. The intentional ones will cancel out the non-intentional one.

In other words, we may not be able to hold someone responsbile for something they can’t remember doing (the crime), but we can still hold them responsible for how they respond to this, and for the other things which they DO remember (The getting wasted part, and the cleaning up & lying part).

Posted by Socrates42 on 12/16/08 at 09:38 AM | #

To think of it!  Three years ago, as I write, the Machine had posted this factual & analytical account of an Amanda already “trapped in her own words.”

The question is whether she can be redeemed because she is far from redemption & it is only a sentence of life imprisonment that could move her to face up to her predicament.

Not that she alone is to blame for her troubles.  Her family had much to do with her moral deformity & (although we hate to have it said so) the spiritual decay within her own society contributed its share.

I quite believe that Amanda Knox is primarily the guilty one in the rape & murder of Meredith Kercher, an unspeakable tragedy for poor Meredith which makes us doubt the benevolence of God.  I believe, too, that Amanda’s deliverance from a senseless tragedy in which she has involved herself may yet come from a searching & truthful confession.

Whether she can bring herself to this is open to question, but if she would set herself the task of writing out the ENTIRE TRUTH OF THE MATTER & then trace to its beginnings the origins of her attitudes & disposition, she could achieve her redemption as a human being.

It would be recognized that she had discovered herself & acknowledged her crime & that would be reason enough to shorten the time of her imprisonment or to release her.

She has no other hope, no other prospect & is condemned to a life in prison. So let Amanda face up to the woman she is & the tragic rape & murder in which she recklessly involved herself.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 08/27/11 at 06:21 PM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys

Please only ever click "submit" once, gently, or a double post may result.



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Sollecito Turns On Knox? This Is Extraordinary…

Or to previous entry Powerpoints #1: A CBS-Trashed Witness In Fact Looks Very Credible