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.




    Comments

    Hello all,

    (1) Still a large amount of s*** left in this sewage system of a ‘‘memoir’‘.  About 5-7 posts left.

    (2) When she testified in June 2009, Knox received questions in Italian from the court, and answered in English.  The interpreter then translated her answers back into Italian.

    Knox complains that the ‘‘useless’’ interpreter wasn’t answering the questions in the exact way that she wanted.  Perhaps not obfuscating enough.

    (3) Knox frequently complains that this wouldn’t have happened if she had done a better job of expressing herself, (saying improper things).  She either doesn’t see—or pretends not to—that she expresses herself very clearly, but that others see through her lies and manipulations.

    (4) Knox still goes on and on about a ‘‘brutal interrogation’‘, even though Cassation 1st Chambers had already confirmed her calunnia conviction, March 2013, before this book was published.

    (5) A point from end of the last post: Knox complains about the same jury hearing both the civil and criminal trials, and would not be able to compartmentalize.  She mentions her 5:45 statement being thrown out, as if it were the only piece of evidence.

    In Common Law systems, criminal law is ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt’‘, whereas civil lawsuits are ‘‘balance of probabilities’‘, which is a much lower burden.  What Knox doesn’t realize is that this jury won’t hand out that kind of money unless they are sure she did it—so it kind of ‘‘raises’’ the burden for a civil judgement.  They won’t bankrupt ‘‘and’’ acquit her.

    (6) I am firmly convinced that not only did no one at HarperCollins do any research beforehand, no one bothered to read the manuscript afterwards.  The writing is extremely poor, and contradicts itself.  Maybe they all assumed someone else would do it ....

    Posted by Chimera on 09/19/15 at 11:47 AM | #

    Great work Chimera. Vital task.

    The sheer remorselessness and quantity tells a stark story. Read a little and you might feel she’s just muddled. Read a lot and you’ll see there really isnt anyone she isnt nasty to. The mean lies go on and on and on. 

    This full dissection is the only one done for this book (other posters did similar for the Sollecito book, series to follow) although the book itself is now in Italian (paperback edition with new afterword) and starting to be spread around in Italy.

    Charges against Knox are quite certain, we are told, and if everyone she impugned hits back, this jumbo trial is going to be yet another legal nightmare for Knox’s team.

    Some say she shrugs off much or most charges and corrections but that is not an option for her in the long run. The calunnia trial she will lose. Italy is getting all the new translations, and Knox will have nowhere to hide.

    With the dawning recognition of the fellow-travelers and what they have been up to, anyone who thinks the State Department or the FBI or any politician will in future lift a finger to help her has to be smoking good weed.

    Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/19/15 at 12:29 PM | #

    @Chimera, you’re good. This book of lies is reduced to rubble by your knowledgeable analysis.

    Knox pretends in the book to react to a rumor that Guede found God in prison. Knox pretends she is so hoping he will testify to her innocence. ROFL

    The truth is more likely she was terrified Guede’s religious conversion might lead him to tell the unvarnished truth along with verifiable details of the murder that would have sunk Knox’s ship.

    Knox must have been shaking in her boots as she saw Guede led into the courtroom. No doubt she was greatly relieved when he walked forward and declared he would not testify. Her pretended indignation that his silence has harmed her is sidesplittingly laughable.

    Knox is great at expressions of alarm about things she’s secretly happy about. “What if something tragic happened?!” She is waiting to be believed, waiting to be sincere more like it. This book is good for kindling, got a match?

    As her book says, Knox is “a liar through and through.”

    She and David Cam and the delightful Ryan Ferguson seem to belong in a mutual club.

    There’s also the lovely Darlie Routier who when accused by police of stabbing her two young sons to death, answered that hideous accusation several times by saying that if she did it, she didn’t remember doing so! She repeated this highly suspicious statement several times in police interviews. “If I did do it (killing my children), I don’t remember it”....hmmmm…where have we heard this strangely foggy and indifferent denial before? 

    Police have learned that sometimes killers get very fuzzy memories when questioned about murders. Sometimes they suddenly see visions of who might have done it, or get dreams. Sometimes they imagine other people at the crime scene besides themselves. Usually they know these people in real life and don’t like them much. Imagination is a curious thing. Creative writing majors use it for good or evil, depending on need.

    In Routier’s case, the screen that was supposedly slashed for the intruder to gain entrance, somehow left a piece of screen wire on a blade of a knife that remained in its usual place in a wood block of kitchen knives owned by the Routier family. There was also stress, depression, and financial worries in days preceding the stabbings.

    But in prison Darlie is a lovely human being. Sweet, generous, interested in others. Irony of ironies, David Cam now freed after 3 trials of his own in the death of his wife and two children, plans to take on Darlie’s case as one of his first as an innocence and wrongful conviction case. Yes, birds of a feather do seem to find each other.

    Posted by Hopeful on 09/19/15 at 01:17 PM | #

    This claim was posted on Amanda Knox’s web site after the Fifth Chambers released their sentencing report:

    I am deeply grateful that the Italian Supreme Court has filed its opinion and forcefully declared my innocence.  This has been a long struggle for me, my family, my friends, and my supporters.  While I am glad it is now over, I will remain forever grateful to the many individuals who gave their time and talents to help me.  Today would not have been possible without your unwavering support.  I will now begin the rest of my life with one of my goals being to help others who have been wrongfully accused.

    Should be interesting to see what becomes of the report.  Early reviews don’t see it as a ‘‘forceful declaration of innocence’‘.

    Posted by Chimera on 09/19/15 at 03:34 PM | #

    Hi Hopeful

    I hadnt really followed the Darlie Routier case so I searched, and I found this smart well-argued compelling little site:

    http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/myth—2.html

    Any views? Its all seemingly the work of one woman called Mary who worried the facts like a dog with a bone:

    See the 15 myths? Wow. Tough list.

    We know of other such pro-truth pro-justice pro-victim sites although there doesnt yet seem to be a grand list.

    Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/19/15 at 04:43 PM | #

    Hi Chimera

    “forcefully declared my innocence… ”  Nuts. This is the precise subject of the first excerpt post next week by Machiavelli from chapters 4, 9 and 10.

    The huge silence from the RS and AK defense teams and families is directly caused by the fact that the Fifth Chambers did no such thing.

    Like Hellmann it cherrypicks and mangles evidence and simply leaves any inconvenient point out - but it leaves in that Knox’s felony conviction was just, roadblocks her ECHR appeal, and says repeatedly that RS and AK were in the house around the time of the attack and yes, they did rearrange the crime scene.

    The Fifth Chambers makes up a defense for them that they themselves and their lawyers never even thought to advance - that they were scared stiff that Guede had framed them, and so they helpfully cleaned up.

    Nothing illegal about that….. ?!?!

    I was just reading today of a US case where that really was just about what happened - and the cleaner-upper was sentenced to a long term in jail

    Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/19/15 at 04:52 PM | #

    On the great lie of Knox’s “innocence” finding, in the new Afterword of her book Knox credits her lawyer Dalla Vedova for this. - though no defense lawyers were quoted in Italian media as claiming that the verdict was “innocence” so Knox herself must have made it up.

    That Friday, the court withdrew into chambers around noon (3:00 A.M. for us). The Quarto Grado reporter was stationed outside the Palace of Justice in Rome and appeared on air every few minutes. Eleven long hours later Remo Croci appeared under the banner “Breaking News.” “The verdict’s coming down in fifteen minutes!” he said.

    Dad called Delaney at school. Minutes later she arrived at Mom’s still in her softball uniform. I couldn’t breathe. Time dissolved. Even the people on the show seemed frantic. I didn’t want to watch, but I couldn’t pull myself away.

    “Oh, the verdict’s come in!” Croci said, a cell phone in one hand, a microphone in the other.

    “Assolfi!” he exclaimed.

    When I’m shocked, I have the same opened-mouthed, wide-eyed look on my face no matter whether the news is good or bad. No one in my mom’s kitchen could translate. “Amanda, Amanda, What? What?” they shouted.

    “Assolta, Assolta,” I said, too dumbfounded to translate.

    The Quarto Grado host looked stunned. ‘Assolfi?” he asked Croci incredulously.

    “Wait for me to confirm,” Croci said excitedly.

    “Wait, wait,” I yelled. “I have to confirm.”

    With the phone still up to his ear, Croci shouted: “Confermo! Confermo!”

    “It’s confirmed!” I shouted. “We’re acquitted! We’re free! No more trials! It’s done!”

    I jumped up from the table. Everyone started whooping and crying, hugging one another—spitting out the fear and tension of the past seven and a half years.

    Minutes later Carlo Della Vedova, one of our two Italian lawyers, called.

    “Does ‘acquitted’ mean not enough evidence to convict?” I asked him. “Or did they find us innocent?”

    “They found you innocent. Amanda!” he said. “It’s the best result possible!”

    Yeah. Well. READ the report. It’s half a loaf at best. As the Knox camp now knows all too well.

    Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/19/15 at 05:55 PM | #

    Interesting that that was her first question…

    Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/20/15 at 07:51 AM | #

    Yes I hadnt thought of that but in itself its telling.

    Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/20/15 at 08:26 AM | #

    Excellent work yet again Chimera, this has been painful to read but entirely necessary.

    I often find its the lawyers who annoy me most of all in cases like this. In Scotland we have a famous defence lawyer called Donald Findlay who has won some very high profile murder cases despite the evidence of guilt being overwhelming. It becomes more about theatre and personality in the court room rather than evidence. I served as a jury foreman twice in Scotland and can testify that jury members are often too easily persuaded by lawyers who treat the courtroom like a stage. Findlay is a kind of Scottish Johnny Cochran.

    In both trials that I was part of, I was the only person who actually took notes to try and keep track of the evidence and who said what. Despite using these notes to counter some of the arguments that my fellow jurors came up with, we still got one verdict completely wrong. It truly is a lottery in this country.

    Quite how some defence lawyers sleep at night when they know they are often getting guilty people off with horrific crimes is beyond me. I understand that a lot of it will be professional pride and that they use every tool at their disposal within the law to get their clients off. When you actually know you are defending a blatantly guilty person though, I’ve no idea how you reconcile that with being a decent member of society. Johnny Cochran was way too bright a man not to know that OJ did it. But he consistently lied in interviews by saying he didn’t think he did.

    Knox/Sollecito lawyers are no better in my view. I’d be interested to hear if any of the TJMK lawyers have a view on this.

    Posted by davidmulhern on 09/20/15 at 10:29 AM | #

    @ davidmulhern, Alan Dershowicz once wrote about his feelings re defending a client he knew to be Guilty. Substituting “Meredith Kercher” for the name of the victim, and “Amanda Knox” for the name of the client he knew to be Guilty:

    I think especially of Meredith Kercher because she is the only homicide victim who was killed by someone I defended who I know for sure was guilty and went free….. I can’t be sure of any but Meredith Kercher, because my client in that case told me .....that he was guilty. I also think of Meredith Kercher because her family….constantly remind me…..of my role in freeing the murderers of their relative. Although I don’t believe in divine justice, it is true that Amanda Knox died at a very young age after an unsuccessful heart transplant. Her premature death didn’t make me feel any less responsible for the morally unjust, but legally proper, result I helped produce in his case.

    So Alan Dershowicz believes it to be morally unjust but legally proper.

    Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/20/15 at 02:11 PM | #

    Thanks @Cardiol, I hadn’t realised Dershowicz had been so frank. I wish there were more like him.

    I agree with him wholeheartedly too. There is no moral justification but absolutely it is legally proper within the frameworks that currently exist.

    It makes me wonder if the defence lawyer path attracts a certain type of person i.e. the type who worries less about the morals that drive us as human beings and more about filling their pockets with pieces of silver. I’m sure some go into it based on a desire to represent the poorest in society to ensure they get a fair crack of the whip but my strong feeling would be these types are in the minority.

    I’m sure prosecution lawyers may attract fairly amoral types also. I’m sure there are plenty of those who have knowingly convicted innocent people and that they have no problem sleeping at night either knowing that they acted within the framework of the law.

    I do feel less miscarriages of justice happen on the prosecution side though given that before a case even gets to court, it usually has to go through some fairly rigorous hoops and there has to be a fair chance of conviction before the state will even allow a prosecution to take place.

    We do need lawyers, of that there is no question. I just wish more of them were more honest a la Dershowicz about the murky world they inhabit and they didn’t defend the indefensible when questioned about perverse verdicts.

    I’m watching a programme just now about James Randi and his debunking of charlatan psychics etc. Despite his best efforts employing logic and common sense to dissuade credulous people from throwing money away on such nonsense, he has had a little effect in changing things. Even Popoff who was ruthlessly exposed and Uri Geller who was exposed on the Johnny Carson show, have gone on to bigger and better, and richer, things.

    I am reminded of the people who follow Knox so slavishly whenever I think of James Randi. There is no reasoning with credulous people.

    Posted by davidmulhern on 09/20/15 at 05:11 PM | #

    “The defense doubted that anyone could have heard these noises across a busy road and behind closed windows with double panes”

    So busy that Guede apparently chose the window that was most visible to the road to break in.

    Knox deserves all the Karma she gets.

    Posted by Sarah Phillips on 09/20/15 at 11:45 PM | #

    “She had a hat and a scarf obscuring much of her face”

    A straight out lie. Quintavalle never said that.

    This is what Quintavalle actually said about the scarf -

    MQ:
    .....A little bunched up here around her face, like this, not tight, in other words a scarf, like they are worn…
    GM:
    Please describe it because this is being written down, so if you make a gesture it will not come through in the description.
    MQ:
    Excuse me. The usual way you wear a scarf. Not tight…
    GM:
    Was it bunched up around here?
    MQ:
    Yes a little bit here around the collar of the coat, the neck part, let’s say.

    Probably to obscure the scratch on her throat.

    Posted by James Raper on 09/21/15 at 05:49 AM | #

    The other point about Quintavalle is that he described her garments quite accurately.

    Now, she was never photographed in what she was wearing on Nov 1, (or anytime much before 2pm on Nov 2) and we know she changed into the white skirt outfit (in which she was photographed) after the reported sighting by Quintavalle.

    I can’t see how Quintavalle could have had any notion of how she was dressed early on Nov 2 unless he saw her.

    Posted by Sallyoo on 09/21/15 at 09:58 AM | #

    davidmulhern: I’m interested to hear more about how Johnnie Cochran “consistently lied” about the OJ case.

    Was it not bought up in court that of the 5 blood drops found at the Bundy crime scene, only 1 of them [inexplicably] was fresh enough to be fully tested?
    Was it not bought up in court that a significant portion of the crime scene blood was found AFTER the crime scene had been washed & scrubbed down?!
    Was it not bought up in court that crucial evidence, such as the lenses from the glasses found at the scene, had disappeared by the time the defense came to examine it?
    Was it not bought up in court how nearly 20% of OJ’s blood sample was unaccounted for? after finding out the lead detective walked around for 3 hours with not just OJ’s blood sample in his pocket - he had obtained Nicole Simpson’s and Ron Goldman’s blood from the coroner’s office also! (absolutely unprecedented.)
    Was it not bought up in court how LAPD officer Fung perjured himself when he claimed to have collected the blood evidence, yet someone else appears on videotape collecting it?
    Was it not bought up in court that the prosecution claimed OJ’s blood must have “changed” when it became clear that the DNA and genetic material under Nicole Brown Simpson’s fingernails absolutely did not match OJ?

    THIS is why people need attorneys like Johnnie Cochran, and their ilk. So that people can be judged on facts presented in court, not irrelevant hearsay from trashy tabloids, or people speaking from a position of complete ignorance.

    Posted by Rocket Queen on 09/21/15 at 02:09 PM | #

    Hi Rocket Queen

    Interesting. That was the first trial many in the US (me included) ever followed closely on TV. Even now some of those legal talking heads are still around.

    Less than a week after the murders, I had a stopover of about 1/2 a day in LA when headed for Asia and I rented a Miata convertible and went to take a look.

    OJs house was easy to find. Nice enough area though there are wealthier with bigger houses nearby. Nicoles house was more difficult to find and the area was noticeably downscale from OJ’s.

    The one sign there was a yellow ribbon across the steps. No sign at either of the storm that was to come. Soon both houses were cordoned off.

    That indeed was prosecutor grandstanding, I agree, it got tiresome. We saw little or none similar in Perugia in 2009 except from Knox though the myth says otherwise.

    Last time I recall Marcia Clark raising her voice was after Casey Anthony got off. She thought the media had been too hot against Casey Anthony and the jury went the other way.

    http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/interesting_tilts_of_marcia_clark_and_alan_dershowitz_against_uss_non-/

    Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/21/15 at 04:07 PM | #

    Reporting in Italy since 2007 has actually been quite careful and low key, even though Knox pushed herself out a lot as did RS, and there were thoughtful chat shows allowing both sides.

    http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_each_of_the_three_subtly_but_surely_pushed_the_other_two_1/

    One of Marascas and Brunos many silly conclusions is that the media convicted the two, as if the PR campaign and Rocco Girlanda and Oggi and the many defense lawyers did not even exist.

    Bongiorno was the head of the Justice Comittee in Parliament at the time, that committee had influence over all the justice budgets for Italy and all the rules.

    Not worth mentioning that?!

    Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/21/15 at 05:13 PM | #

    I just don’t get why the Luminol footprints of Knox and Sollecito were not assumed to be in blood when they clearly had a bloody footprint on the blue rug, with its matching prints washed away. They clearly had Rudy’s tennis shoeprints in blood. Obviously the Luminol was hitting on blood on the floors.

    This takes a major leap to assume the prints were not made in blood. How did the PR defense manage this ultimate deception of the courts?

    Posted by Hopeful on 09/21/15 at 05:28 PM | #

    @Hopeful,

    One of the arguments Knox makes in her book is that the bare footprints in the hall (2 of her, 2 of Sollecito), tested negative for blood.  Therefore, they should be irrelevant to the crime scene.  She suggests that rust, cleaner, bleach, or other chemicals could have mixed with the luminol.

    She doesn’t contest the footprint matches, just says there is no blood.

    Assuming—for the sake of argument—that she is telling the truth, it raises the obvious question.  Why were the two of them walking around with bleach or cleaner on their feet?

    There are no other people’s footprints in this ‘‘rust’’ or this ‘‘cleaning agent’‘.

    Posted by Chimera on 09/21/15 at 06:34 PM | #

    No matter how long it takes we will prevail and justice in all its forms will fall upon the head of Amanda Marie Knox.

    Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/21/15 at 07:00 PM | #

    Rocket Queen. My statement regarding Johnny Cochran is an obvious one. In the interviews I saw him do post trial, he maintained that OJ was innocent when I believe he knew he was guilty. Mistakes by the prosecution, and I concede there were many, do not obviate that simple fact.

    I would be interested to hear if you genuinely believe OJ was innocent or are you maybe one of the conspiracy theorists who thinks his son did it? Whilst wearing a pair of his father’s Bruno Magli’s no doubt.

    I watched the trial in its entirety and I thought the prosecution did a terrible job. And OJ had lawyers who were better in every way. Indeed I remember thinking at the time that if I had been on the jury I may well have had to find him not guilty as well. Purely from a legal rather than a moral standpoint. Again this doesn’t change the fact that I was sure he did it. Most sentient beings agree that he did.

    We seem to be arguing legal semantics here and this probably isn’t the place for it. OJ had motive, opportunity and a ton of evidence against him. That it was terribly handled by the prosecution doesn’t change the facts my friend. He murdered those people.

    I’m fairly sure you know this too so your thinly veiled personal attack about people speaking from a position of complete ignorance (or being influenced by trashy tabloids) is ignorant in of itself. I made my mind up on OJ based on watching the vast majority of the trial live as it happened.

    And I’ve never claimed that people like Johnny Cochran aren’t necessary. You conflate a moral position with a legal one and there is no equivalence.

    Congratulations though, you’re the first OJ groupie that I’ve come across so you’ll be memorable from that viewpoint if nothing else!

    Posted by davidmulhern on 09/21/15 at 08:20 PM | #

    Hi davidmulhern

    Yeah, it seems the Toobin book on the case never doubts OJ’s guilt even if the prosecution was pretty grating to the jury. Common view. I dont know anyone who didnt think he was guilty.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Run-His-Life-Simpson/dp/0679441700

    We have this series based on that book to look forward to, some big names in the cast there.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/mark-fuhrman-role-cast-fxs-795625

    I’ve driven past his prison several times, its east of Reno in the desert, visible from the freeway. His hard times there are often reported.

    Knox also is not paying court awarded damages, those due to Patrick, but she has an almost certain conviction in the calunnia II trial now in its final phase which may shake her team into leaning on her harder.

    They may not want to represent her in the book trial as Bongiorno did not want to do for Sollecito. Overkill books which hardly helped their lawyers any.

    Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/22/15 at 05:10 AM | #

    davidmulhern - for what it’s worth I do not think OJ is [was] completely innocent. I simply believe it’s clearly disingenuous for anyone to say they “know” that he was guilty, based on the monumental flaws with the evidence, of which above is only a tiny portion, and DNA evidence at the scene which clearly points away from him.

    That does not make me a “groupie” or “conspiracy theorist” any more than it makes you a “hater.” It simply means I do not have any preconceived notions about guilt or innocence. Because, unlike some, I don’t “know” exactly what happened. And I don’t pretend to.

    Posted by Rocket Queen on 09/22/15 at 09:00 AM | #

    OJ was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but I seem to recall jurors having pretty simple gut reasons for rejecting the prosecution.

    OJ was found liable in the wrongful death trial with a lower threshold and ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages. In public opinion the trend has been steadily against him. Now this has happened:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/09/majority-of-african-americans-now-say-simpson-was-guilty/

    This seems to me where Knox could be heading.

    By the way Toobin seems to have written the book of record on the OJ case but he was badly wrong on the facts & law on Meredith’s case. He is on a CNN contract and CNN has been all over the map.

    Toobin and Jane Velez Mitchell and Anderson Cooper and Drew Griffin bashing Italy, only Erin Burnett and Paul Callan and Nancy Grace digging deeper. Steve Moore and Nina Burleigh used to be frequent “experts”.

    Second to the biased AP news service, CNN has been the most influential, not because it has vast numbers of viewers (though is has been recovering) but because it is available in US airports and many other countries. It dominates in legal talk shows.

    Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/22/15 at 10:36 AM | #

    Fair enough Rocket Queen. My “groupie” and “conspiracy theorist” comments were a direct riposte to your “people talking from a position of complete ignorance” jibe which seemed to have me firmly in its crosshairs. My comments were perhaps just as unfair as your comment was towards me. When I’m attacked, I tend not to the Christian philosophy of cheek turning. I hit back. Harder if I can.

    I agree that I cannot “know” of OJ’s guilt one way or the other but I find that a fallacious argument as there is virtually nothing about anything that we can actually know for certain. I am comfortable looking at evidence and deciding what, on the balance of probabilities the chances of something being true or not are.

    Having viewed the OJ trial in its totality, I am happy to conclude that it’s near certain that he did it. Not quite a probability of one but close to it. I was in a hotel in Miami the day the verdict came through live on TV. The cheers that rang out amongst the hotel staff that day will live with me until my dying day. And not in a good way.

    I dont know if you’ve read all of the content of Peter Quennell’s excellent site here but based on our brief encounter, I suspect you’d also find Knox not guilty had you been on the jury in her trial.

    If I’m ever in trouble and have actually done the crime, I’d always hope for someone like you on the jury!

    Posted by davidmulhern on 09/22/15 at 12:31 PM | #

    @ Rocket Queen
    Really! Then I suggest you read the trial transcripts and ALL the evidence.

    In this case you don’t need to be there to conclude that Amanda Marie Knox is guilty of the rape torture and murder of Meredith Kercher.

    There is and there cannot be any doubt whatever that it was Knox who struck the fatal blow while being high on crack cocaine. The evidence is overwhelming. Read it.

    Even if you discount 50% then it makes no difference whatever to the eventual conclusion. I personally will never stop until this travesty of justice is put right one way or the other and threats from Seattle in whatever form will not stop me either.

    Angry Damn Right. Do I hate Knox” NO! but I do hate others who are responsible…Take you pick as to just who they are.

    Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/22/15 at 03:19 PM | #

    OJ innocent?? Now that’s a stretch, even for Knoxophiles.

    Certainly the prosecution and investigation was flawed. However, it illustrates an interesting point - a botched investigation usually allows the guilty to go free.

    If I was a Knox supporter, the OJ trial is not a line I would pursue.

    Posted by bobc on 09/22/15 at 03:26 PM | #

    Yes indeed. But then among the Obknoxophiles there are even those who insist that Jody Arias is innocent. You can find these racist scum among the Donald Chump supporters. They alive and well and represent a portion of the illiterate bottom feeders who insist that Knox is a born again virgin.

    Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/22/15 at 04:28 PM | #

    Hi Peter

    Many thanks for the heads up re the upcoming FX series based on Toobin’s book. Fortunately I have a clever little media box which gives me access to all American television so I’ll definitely be tuning in. There are real parallels with OJ for Knox as you have pointed out and I do take some comfort from the fact that she knows that anyone with an IQ above that of a cabbage views her as a murderer who got away with it. This must eat her up.

    Like OJ, her time is coming and I’m sure I won’t be alone in celebrating mightily when it does.

    Posted by davidmulhern on 09/23/15 at 03:59 AM | #


    Make a comment

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

    Smileys



    Where next:

    Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

    Or to next entry Supreme Court Confirms All Three Were There And Lied, RS & AK Apologists Desperate To Downplay That

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