Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book: We Get Down To Nailing ALL Her Invented Claims #11
Posted by Chimera
More implacable nastiness in Star Wars. Click for Comments.
1. Overview Of This Series
My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.
Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith. And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either.
One more quick post after this one, on the new Afterword, and the series will be done here. Then we will repost the final version on a new Knox Liewatch page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The ten posts before this one can all be read here.
Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.
2. Dissection Of Pages 403 to Afterword
Chapter 31, Page 403 ] To the Kerchers, I wrote,
I’m sorry for your loss, and I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to say so. Pm not the one who killed your daughter and sister. I’m a sister, too, and I can only attempt to imagine the extent of your grief. In the relatively brief time that Meredith was part of my life, she was always kind to me. I think about her every day.
- Wow .... I was only kidding when I said Knox should send a ‘‘Sorry for your loss’’ letter.
- You can only attempt to imagine the extent of your grief? Right, you would have to care about Meredith.
- You are charged with her death, and you think of her everyday? Is that what you really meant?
[Chapter 31, Page 403] Disappointed and unsatisfied, I went back to my cell and came up with Plan B. I’d make a personal statement at the beginning of the trial. Unlike my declarations during the first trial, this one would be “spontaneous” in name only. I’d weave in Kassin’s work to explain why I’d reacted to my interrogation as I had. At the same time, I’d speak directly to Patrick and the Kerchers.I spent over a month writing drafts. Alone in my cell, I paced, muttering to myself as if I were speaking to the judges and jury.
- So, you are allowed to address the court, and you try to get ‘‘scientific’’ information in by the backdoor?
- You weren’t interrogated. I get tired of saying that.
- But at least since it is a defence appeal, prosecutors won’t be introducing any ‘‘evidence’’ in.
- You come off as fake and rehearsed. Now you admit you do rehearse.
[Chapter 31, Page 404] As I honed my statement, I decided it would be stronger to speak from my heart, without Kassin’s academic language. I’d tell the court about how I had been confused by the police and had lacked the courage to stand up to the authorities when they demanded that I name a murderer. During the first trial, I believed my innocence would be obvious. It hadn’t saved me, and I might never again have the chance to approach Patrick and the Kerchers. This time I was determined to help myself.
- Why are you honinh your statement if you are speaking from the heart?
- Do you normally include ‘‘academic language’’ when speaking from the heart?
- You’ll tell the police how you had been confused? If you were confused 3 years ago, how do you remember now?
- Which was it? They demanded you name a killer, or they wanted to know who Patrick was? It can’t be both.
- You believed your innocence would be obvious? Were you watching your trial, or someone else’s?
[Chapter 32, Page 405] 0ne must necessarily begin with the only truly certain, undisputed, objective fact: on November 2, 2007, a little after one P.M., in the house of Via dells Pergola, Number Seven, in Perugia, the body of the British student Meredith Kercher was discovered.”
Those were the opening words spoken at my appeal, by the assistant judge, Massimo Zanetti.
- Yeah, screw that mixed blood, footprints, false alibis, false accusation double DNA knife, and no alibi.
- Weren’t the closing words ‘‘the truth may be different’‘? (meaning AK and RS may not be innocent).
[Chapter 32, Page 406] Rocco and Corrado had given Laura money to buy me appropriate court clothes. She turned out to be an excellent personal shopper. My champagne-colored blouse and black pants told the judges and jury that I respected them and the law.
- Not flirting and smirking would also tell the judges and jury you respect them.
[Chapter 32, Page 406] The judge’s opening statement gave us hope that the court wanted a trial grounded in facts, not theories. Will we finally get a fair trial? Will the judges and jury finally listen to what we have to say?
- Judge Massei didn’t give you a fair trial?
- Judge Micheli didn’t give you a fair pre-trial hearing?
- Will the judges and jury listen to what you have to say? Will you agree to an unrestricted cross examination?
- Will Sollecito take the stand at all? (and no, giving speeches doesn’t count).
[Chapter 32, Page 406] I stood to deliver my declaration, the one I’d worked on for weeks. Speaking in Italian, without an interpreter, I sensed my voice quavering, my hands trembling:
- Yes, the ‘‘spontaneous declaration’’ that you spent weeks preparing ....
- You could agree to answer questions about Meredith’s death, couldn’t you
FOR A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE STATEMENT TO THE APPEALS COURT:
[Chapter 32, Page 410] My declaration left me feeling cleansed and relieved. I didn’t expect to change minds instantly—and I didn’t. Chris, Mom, and Madison told me later that the Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, had left the room at my first mention of Meredith’s family. “She bores me,” the London Guardian reported him saying. “Her speech lacked substance, was designed to impress the court and was not genuine.”
- Is he wrong? You said that you rehearsed for weeks trying to impress.
[Chapter 32, Page 410] Maresca cared more about seeing me convicted than finding justice for Meredith. He always spoke of me as if I were a monster who must pay for Meredith’s death with my life.
- So, someone who cashes in on the brutal killing of a ‘‘friend’’ is just quirky?
- If you are guilty, then convicting you does mean justice for Meredith.
[Chapter 32, Page 411] Since court hearings were held only on Saturdays, an excruciatingly slow week would have to pass before we’d know Judge Hellmann’s mind. While we waited, Italy’s highest court signed the final paperwork on Rudy Guede’s verdict, approving his reduced sixteen-year sentence in the belief that he had not acted alone. Could that news influence Judge Hellmann’s decision? By pursuing our trial, he might seem to be contradicting the Supreme Court and make Italy look foolish.
- It was slow for the Kerchers too. One hearing every 2 weeks, it took almost as long as the Massei trial.
- Guede’s sentence was reduced to 16 years because he chose the ‘‘fast-track option’’ that you referenced. That means he gets 1/3 less than you for murder. 24 years - 1/3 = 16 years.
- Hellmann would indeed make the Supreme Court and Italy look foolish, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. [Chapter 32, Page 411] “I’m convinced the case is complex enough to warrant a review in the name of ‘reasonable doubt,”’ Judge Hellmann told the rapt courtroom. “If it is not possible to check the identity of the DNA, we will check on the reliability of the original tests.”
- This sounds impressive, but bringing in of independent experts is meant for the ‘‘trial’’ phase, and not for the 1st level appeal.
- Hellmann would later go on to say that he brought the experts: Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, since he didn’t understand much about DNA.
- It would later be revealed that the 2 ‘‘independent’’ experts were not really independent.
[Chapter 32, Page 411] I hadn’t wanted to admit to my lawyers or to myself how petrified I’d been. Only when the result came back did I realize how much fear I had had pent up. I brushed away tears. We might finally have a real chance to defend ourselves.
Still, I was wary. The judge in the previous trial had granted our request for data and then sided with the prosecution’s interpretation.
- You had many chances to defend yourself. You went before Judge Claudia Matteini, November 8th, 2007.
- You went before a 3 judge panel chaired by Judge Massimo Ricciarelli, November 30, 2007.
- You agreed to be questioned (with lawyers present), by Prosecutor Mignini,
- You appealed to Cassation, headed by Judge Torquato Gemeli, in April 2008.
- You attended pre-trial hearings in front of Judge Paolo Micheli in October and November 2008
- You also had the opportunity to testify at your own trial in 2009.
- You seem unhappy that the expert opinion didn’t go your way? Sollecito says the same thing in ‘‘Honor Bound’‘.
- From page 107 [page 107] ‘’... Papà was spinning like a dervish to clear my name, but not everyone he hired was as helpful as he hoped. One consultant whom he asked to monitor the Polizia Scientifica demanded eight thousand euros up front, only to prove reluctant to make overt criticisms of the police’s work, the very thing for which he’d been hired. A forensic expert who also seemed a little too close to the police charged four thousand euros for his retainer with the boast, “I’m expensive, but I’m good.” He wasn’t. A computer expert recommended by Luca Maori didn’t know anything about Macs, only PC’s.”
- Vecchiotti and Conti would claim that there is too little DNA to do additional testing. However, when the Carabinieri got the knife back, they ‘WERE’ able to do an additional test.
- Therein lies part of the problem. It is not enough to say ‘‘there might have been contamination’‘. You have to at least show ‘‘how’’ it was likely to have happened.
- Curatolo was the key witness to contradict your alibi that you were with Sollecito at his apartment?
- Sollecito (in his November 5th, 2007 statement), says he was home alone, and that you went out.
- In 2008, Sollecito wasn’t giving you an alibi
- For most of the 2008/2009 court process, Sollecito’s lawyers try to turn suspicion onto you
- In July 2014, Sollecito says you went out alone.
- In February 2015, Sollecito says you went out alone
- Your own ‘‘alibi witness’’ repeatedly says you were not with him.
- Then of course there are those ‘‘witness statements’’ you signed, saying you were at the scene.
- Let’s not forget leaving your blood mixed with Meredith’s in several places at the cottage, and those footprints in the hall.
- This is a made up passage to smear Curatolo as being disconnected from reality, and hence unreliable.
- Hellmann would go on to discredit the witness without any real basis, and would be criticized for it
- The media is really figuring it out this time? God job, Dave Marriott.
- Those broadcasts? Were they in the courtroom, or just reporting a PR line?
- Worried about the judge and jury? Don’t worry, it was already decided.
- So, you are accusing the analyst Stefanoni of committing a contempt of court (dodging court orders)?
- You are accusing her of withholding documents and sabotaging your right to a fair trial?
- Pretty serious claims to make.
- Interestingly though, these ‘‘experts’’ only chose to test 2 pieces of DNA (Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp, and the DNA on the big knife). What about the other DNA evidence that had been introduced? Did Judge Hellmann even know about them?
- For someone supposedly wrongfully imprisoned (in part) to junk DNA, you seem really calm about this.
- Silly question, why did you lawyers never attend the DNA testing in 2008, when they had the chances to?
- You accuse (again) Chiacchiera of randomly selecting a knife and then calling it evidence
- You accuse a dark haired woman (who you now name as Ficarra), as assaulting you
- You accuse PM Mignini of an illegal interrogation, and of pursuing this case for his own career.
- You accuse PM Mignini of trying to ‘‘discredit you’’ for filing a complaint about false claims your parents made
- You accuse the citations as being ‘‘politically motivated’‘.
- Oh right, you falsely accuse Patrick of raping and murdering Meredith.
- Amanda, has it yet sunk in that making false accusations is not a good idea?
- Which parts of your ‘‘interrogation’’ did ‘‘Mayor’’ Mignini choose if he asked no questions?
- You accuse Anna Donnino of being a police plant, and not actually trying to be an interpreter.
- No evidence of you in Meredith’s bedroom? There is plenty just outside.
- And what about your shoeprint and the DNA of your ‘‘alibi witness’‘?
- To play devil’s advocate, you did write statements that you were in the kitchen, trying not to hear Meredith’s screams.
- Yes, jailhouse snitches are always reliable witnesses.
- This is quite the revelation. I thought Guede broke in to rob the place, and Meredith interrupted him.
- Interestingly, this ‘‘other man’‘, is never identified.
- Despite Guede leaving ‘‘vast amount of himself’’ at the crime scene, this unnamed accomplice apparently left none.
- So ... if the intent ‘‘was’’ to have a 3-some, perhaps the burglary really was staged, and the police were correct.
- Still wondering: why this other man left no traces in the murder room. After all, Knox reminds us again and again and again that that is impossible.
- Alessi seems to have a stunning memory. He can recall precise details of a story he only heard.
- However, he is a little vague: did Meredith greet them at the door, or does she just expect strange men in her home?
- Alessi also remembers that Guede went to the bathroom. Of course, it happens to be when ‘‘quirky’’ Knox refused to flush the toilet.
- Also, is this a tacit admission that a ‘‘lone-wolf’’ attacker was just not possible?
- It is farfetched. Why was there no trace of this ‘‘other man’‘? You keep saying it is impossible to murder without leaving traces.
- If you weren’t there, how could you know exactly how it could or couldn’t unfold?
- What verbal attack? The courts treated you fairly. As for the media, thank Curt for that.
- Why were you trying imagine Merediith’s murder if you were trying to put it out of your mind?
- Yeah, not that prosecutors were pushing a ‘‘multiple attacker’’ theory since November 2007.
- It forced you to focus on the torture? Why exactly?
- Well, your DNA is in your bathroom. Oh, right, that only proves you lived there.
- This ‘‘unidentified’’ DNA: was it blood, or something else?
- Humour me, is an unflushed toilet part of the ‘‘crime scene’’ if it is not in the ‘‘murder room’‘?
- Signs of another person? Like DNA on the victim’s bra? Oh, right Sollecito was at his home with you.
- Signs of another person? Such as lack of defensive wounds?
- (1) Guede was there; (2) Guede lied about us; (3) Guede tried to escape responsibility. Okay, let’s try this:
- (1) You were there, your statements say you were, your blood mixed with Meredith’s.
- (2) You lied about your alibi, according to Sollecito
- (3) You tried to escape responsibility by framing Patrick.
- Actually, you desperately hoped he’d be silent.
- Forget Guede, why don’t you simply testify (without restrictions), about what you were doing that night?
- Anyone who can kill lacks a conscience? Amanda, I think we are making progress.
- His statements were compromised? Great, there isn’t any other evidence I assume.
- It would be a comfort—that your frame job worked?!
- What if they did confirm it? What good is bleach then?
- The bra clasp being contaminated how exactly?
- Again, there are many other pieces of DNA evidence to tie you to the murder. Why cherry-pick these two?
- This is a court. People are not ‘‘punished’’ for telling the truth.
- You knew the prosecutor’s DNA testing was flawed? How much research have you done on the topic?
- The bra clasp, in a sealed crime scene, was contaminated .... how?
- Once again, why only test those 2 pieces of DNA evidence? Do you not contest them? Or not want Hellmann to consider them?
- Why not get independent experts for the trial? That is how things are normally done.
Posted by Chimera on 11/28/15 at 09:45 AM in
Where next:Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page
[Chapter 32, Page 411] After that, we were back to waiting again. The independent experts, Dr. Carla Vecchiotti and Dr. Stefano Conti, forensic medicine professors at Rome’s university, La Sapienza, were sworn in, and Judge Hellmann charged them with figuring out whether a new analysis of the DNA on the knife and bra clasp was possible. If not, he wanted to know if the original results of the prosecution’s forensic expert were reliable: Were the interpretations of the genetic profiles correct? Had there been risk of contamination? The experts were given three months from the day the prosecution turned over the evidence.
[Chapter 32, Page 411] During the first trial, Prosecutor Mignini had called the witness Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man referred to as “the stepping-stone leading us up to the murder.” Curatolo had testified that he’d seen Raffaele and me arguing on the basketball court in Piazza Grimana. It was key evidence in our conviction, because it contradicted our alibi that we’d never left Raffaele’s apartment. But it had been left unclear which night Curatolo, was describing—Halloween or November 1?
[Chapter 32, Page 413] Under the judges’ questioning, Curatolo, talked about his personal history: “I was an anarchist, then I read the Bible and became a Christian anarchist,” he said. He confirmed that he was now in prison, adding, “I haven’t quite understood why yet.” Asked if he’d used heroin in 2007, he answered, “I have always used drugs. I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen.”
[Chapter 32, Page 414] “Curatolo didn’t know what he was talking about, poor guy. If my life didn’t depend on his being wrong, I’d just feel bad for him,” I reported.
“The broadcasts here are saying that he’s a confused drug addict!” someone cried.
It was ironic that I learned from my family in Seattle what the journalists in the courtroom were thinking. “The media are really figuring it out this time,” my family reassured me. “It’s going to be okay.”
The media, yes. But what about the judges and jury? I wondered. Curatolo hadn’t been convincing in the first trial, either, but his testimony had contributed to our conviction.
[Chapter 32, Page 414] Before the first trial, the defense began requesting forensic data from the prosecution in the fall of 2008, but DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni dodged court orders from two different judges. She gave the defense some of, but never all, the information. Now it was Conti and Vecchiotti’s turn to try to get the raw data that Stefanoni had interpreted to draw conclusions about the genetic profiles on the knife and the bra clasp. Stefanoni continued to argue that the information was unnecessary. Not until May 11, under additional orders from Judge Hellmann, did she finally comply.
[Chapter 32, Page 415] Before the court withdrew to decide whether to approve the delay, I made a statement. “I’ve spent more than three and a half years in prison as an innocent person,” I told the court. “It’s both frustrating and mentally exhausting. I don’t want to remain in prison, unjustly, for the rest of my life. I recall the beginning of this whole thing, when I was free. I think of how young I was then, how I didn’t understand anything. But nothing is more important than finding the truth after so many prejudices and mistakes. I ask the court to grant the extra time, so that the experts may complete a thorough analysis. Thank you.”
[Chapter 32, Page 416] When Luciano came to Capanne for our weekly Wednesday meeting, he told me that a special award had been given to officers in the Squadra Mobile for its work on Meredith’s murder investigation. The citation read: “To recognize elevated professional capabilities, investigative acumen, and an uncommon operative determination. They conducted a complex investigation that concluded in the arrest of the authors of the murder of the British student that had taken place in the historic center of Perugia.”
Four of the sixteen police officers receiving the Police Holiday award were named in the police’s slander charge against me.
They included Vice Superintendent Marco Chiacchiera, whose “investigative instinct” led him to randomly select Raffaele’s kitchen knife from the drawer as the murder weapon; Substitute Commissioner and Homicide Chief Monica Napoleons; and Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra.
The news infuriated me. I knew it was just another face-saving ploy. How could they commend the officer who had hit me during my interrogation and those who had done so much wrong?
But I wasn’t surprised. It was completely in line with the prosecution’s tactics to discredit my supporters and me. Mignini had charged my parents with slander for an interview they gave to a British newspaper in which they told the story of my being slapped during the interrogation. He was the one who had charged me with slandering the police.
[Chapter 32, Page 417] British journalist Bob Graham interviewed Mignini for an article in The Sun that came out on Police Holiday. Mignini confided in Graham that he chose the parts of my interrogation that suited his purposes. He also said that my interpreter at the questura that night was “more investigator than translator.” When Graham asked the prosecutor why there was no evidence of me in Meredith’s bedroom, Mignini told him, “Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room.”
[Chapter 32, Page 418] Mario Alessi was a brick mason given a life sentence for murdering an infant boy in 2006. He was in the same prison as Rudy Guede, and had written to Raffaele’s lawyers that he had information for our defense: Alessi said he went outside for exercise with other prisoners, including Rudy Guede, on November 9, 2009. “Guede told me he wanted to ask me for some confidential advice,” Alessi said in his court deposition. “There wasn’t a day that Guede and I didn’t spend time together ...
“In this context, on November 9, 2009, Guede told me that in the following days, and in particular on November 18, 2009, he had his appeal and he was reflecting over whether to ... tell the truth about Meredith Kercher’s murder. In particular, he asked me what the consequences could be to his position if he gave statements that reconstructed a different truth about what happened the night of the murder.
[Chapter 32, Page 418] Guede told Alessi that he and a friend had run into Meredith in a bar a few days before the murder. On the night of November 1, Alessi said, the two men surprised Meredith at the villa and, “in an explicit manner,” asked her to have a threesome.
[Chapter 32, Page 418] Alessi said that Meredith “rejected the request. She even got up and ordered Guede and his friend to leave the house. At this point Guede asked where the bathroom was, and he stayed in the bathroom for a little while, ten to fifteen minutes at most. Immediately after, reentering the room, he found a scene that was completely different—that is, Kercher was lying with her back to the floor and his friend held her by the arms. Rudy straddled her and started to masturbate. While Guede told me these things, he was upset and tears came to his eyes ...
“The second part of his secret came out while we were in our respective cells ... at a certain point he and his friend changed positions, in the sense that his friend attempted to have oral sex with Meredith while Guede was behind. He specified in particular that his friend was in front of Meredith, who was on her knees, while Guede was behind Meredith, with his knee on her back. Kercher tried to wriggle out ...
“Kercher tried to get away, and at this point Guede’s friend took a knife with an ivory-colored handle out of his pocket. While Kercher tried to get away, turning around, she was wounded by the blade. At this point, seeing as she began to bleed, Guede, finding his hands covered in blood, let her go. While Guede tried to staunch the wound with clothes, his friend reprimanded him, saying,
‘Let’s finish her. If not, this whore will have us rot in prison: At this point, his friend killed her, stabbing her various times while Guede gathered clothes to staunch the wounds. Then, realizing that she wasn’t breathing anymore, he left.”
[Chapter 32, Page 419] Listening to Alessi testify, I felt frozen in my chair, my limbs numb. Alessi was a calm, direct, convincing speaker. Is this possibly what happened the night of November 1 ? Is this the horror that Meredith experienced? For three and a half years, I’d tried to imagine Meredith’s murder and had to push it out of my mind. When the prosecutor had put Raffaele and me into the scene, it hadn’t bothered me nearly this much. We weren’t there, so Meredith’s murder couldn’t possibly have unfolded the way Mignini described. His story was so far-fetched, and it was so painful to hear myself described in bloodthirsty terms, that I couldn’t help but focus on the verbal attack on me rather than the physical attack on Meredith.
[Chapter 32, Page 421] Real or not, it forced me to focus on the torture that Meredith was put through. And it opened up a question I’d never seriously considered and could barely handle: Had there been someone with Guede?
[Chapter 32, Page 421] My lawyers once told me that investigators had found unidentified DNA at the crime scene, but I’d never dwelled on it. The prosecution had never presented it. Wouldn’t there have been signs of another person in the room and on Meredith’s body? I didn’t know. This is what I was sure of: Guede was there, Guede lied about us, Guede tried to escape his responsibility for the crime. Guede would have to confess.
[Chapter 32, Page 421] I desperately hoped he’d be honest when he took the witness stand. With the Supreme Court’s seal on his conviction, his sentence couldn’t be extended no matter how he incriminated himself. Since he truly had nothing to lose, I thought he might admit his crimes—and the fact that Raffaele and I weren’t there that night.
[Chapter 32, Page 421] In the meantime, I was agitated. I had no reason to expect that Guede would admit what had happened—anyone who can kill is already lacking a conscience. Even if Guede acknowledged Raffaele’s and my innocence, it still wouldn’t be enough on its own to free us—his statements were compromised since he’d lied before and wasn’t impartial. But it would be a huge step in the right direction—and an even bigger comfort to me.
[Chapter 32, Page 423] Twenty-four hours before the court-appointed experts were to present their findings on the DNA, only two words were going through my mind. What if? What if their review somehow - impossibly - confirmed Meredith’s DNA on the knife blade? What if they found that the bra clasp couldn’t have been contaminated?
[Chapter 32, Page 423] Or what if the experts risked telling the truth and sided with the defense? I knew the prosecution’s DNA testing was flawed. But so little had gone right in this case, why would this go right?
Science was on our side. The knife blade had tested negative for blood, and there was a high likelihood that the bra clasp had been contaminated while it sat on the floor for six weeks. But I had no faith in facts anymore. They hadn’t saved me before. It was terrifying to hope—and impossible not to.
[Chapter 32, Page 423] I had to hear the words myself. I went to the TV, madly changing channels until I found the news. “Svoltaa Giudiziaria” - “Judicial Turning Point” - the headline read, behind an announcer who was talking about my case. The crawl at the bottom read: “DNA damning Knox and Sollecito deemed unreliable by court-appointed experts. New hope arises for the defendants.”