3. How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #17 To #26

The reason why there’s no similar shot of RS showing warmth to AK

Click here to go straight to Comments

Series Overview

The title above captures the point of this series in a nutshell.

My previous post listed numerous omissions by Knox in the book of damning exchanges that hurt her at trial. This and future posts show how Knox’s trial testimony contradicts with what the book did actively claim.

Of relevance is that we have identified 518 lies in the Knox book, and 90 demonizations some of which are expected to incur charges

2 Telling Contradictions 17 to 26

17. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

CP:  All right, I’ll reformulate the question. Meredith, before she was killed, did she have sex?
AK:  I don’t know.
CP:  Then why, in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45, did you say that Meredith had sex before she died?
AK:  Under pressure, I imagined lots of different things, also because during the days that I was being questioned by the police, they suggested to me that she had been raped.
CP:  And the police suggested to you to say this?
AK:  Yes.
CP:  And to make you say this, did they hit you?
AK:  Yes.

LG:  Now what interests me is that you should be precise about the term “hit”, because being hit is something…was it a cuff on the head, two cuffs on the head? How precise can you be about this “hitting”?
AK:  So, during the interrogation, people were standing all around me, in front of me, behind me, one person was screaming at me from here, another person was shouting “No no no, maybe you just don’t remember” from over there, other people were yelling other things, and a policewoman behind me did this to me [you hear the sound of her giving two very little whacks].

LG:  I wanted to know this precise detail.
AK:  Yes.
LG:  After all that, that whole conversation, that you told us about, and you had a crying crisis, did they bring you some tea, coffee, some cakes, something? When was that exactly?
AK:  They brought me things only after I had made some declarations. So, I was there, they were all screaming at me, I only wanted to leave because I was thinking that my mother was arriving, and I said look, can I have my telephone, because I want to call my mom. They said no, and there was this big mess with them shouting at me, threatening me, and it was only after I made declarations that they started saying “No, no, don’t worry, we’ll protect you,” and that’s how it happened.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 103]  November 5, 2007, Day Four Police officer Rita Ficarra slapped her palm against the back of my head, but the shock of the blow, even more than the force, left me dazed. I hadn’t expected to be slapped. I was turning around to yell, “Stop!”“”my mouth halfway open””but before I even realized what had happened, I felt another whack, this one above my ear. She was right next to me, leaning over me, her voice as hard as her hand had been. “Stop lying, stop lying,” she insisted. Stunned, I cried out, “Why are you hitting me?” “To get your attention,” she said. I have no idea how many cops were stuffed into the cramped, narrow room. Sometimes there were two, sometimes eight””police coming in and going out, always closing the door behind them. They loomed over me, each yelling the same thing: “You need to remember. You’re lying. Stop lying!”  “I’m telling the truth,” I insisted. “I’m not lying.” I felt like I was suffocating. There was no way out. And still they kept yelling, insinuating.

[Chapter 10, Page 116]  They pushed my cell phone, with the message to Patrick, in my face and screamed, “You’re lying. You sent a message to Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head. “Why are you hitting me?” I cried. “To get your attention,” she said.

[Chapter 10, Page 118]
“Why did he kill her? Why did he kill her?” I said, “I don’t know.”  “Did he have sex with Meredith? Did he go into the room with Meredith?”  “I don’t know, I guess so. I’m confused.”  They started treating me like someone who’d been taken advantage of. They told me they were helping me, that they were trying to get to the truth. “We’re trying to do our best for you.”

[WTBH, Chapter 26, Page 324]
I’d purposely tried to forget the emotional pain of the slap to my head.

Comments On This Above

AK uses the same two “smacks” in numerous different situations.  Obviously, they all didn’t happen, if she was even hit at all, which numerous witnesses denied. Here are seven different claims.

    (a) In 2009 testimony, AK claims police hit her to get her to say MK was victim of sexual assault

    (b) Also in 2009 testimony, AK claims she was hit because she didn’t remember

    (c) A bit later in 2009 testimony, AK implies that she was hit when she wanted to talk to her mother

    (d) In Chapter 10, AK claims she was hit because the police didn’t have her attention

    (e) Also in Chapter 10, AK claims she was hit after she dropped PL’s name

    (f) And, in direct contradiction to point “a”, AK claims the topic of PL forcing sex on MK comes up “after” she is hit.

    (g) And, another contradiction, AK claims she was hit only once

Nothing like a little inconsistency here…..........

18. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  Yes, it was really really cold. First, Raffaele gave me his jacket, but then the others saw that I was cold, really in shock, so they said come, come, let’s get in the car and get warm. And inside that car, we talked more about… we kept on saying “But what did you see? Who was there?” So in the car, heh, still using Raffaele a bit like an interpreter, they explained to me that they heard from someone, from someone else, from one of the officers who were talking, that she…
LG:  Meredith
AK:  ...that Meredith had had her throat slit, and at that point I became a bit…uh [sigh]...I closed myself off a bit inside…I cried a bit because I kept thinking but…how is it possible? No…[slightly desperate laugh], it was too much, so [sigh, voice trembling], and then, we went to the Questura.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 7, Page 78/79] As I sat waiting to hear what else the police needed from me, I asked the detective if it was true that it was Meredith who had been murdered. I still couldn’t let go of the tiniest hope that the body in her room hadn’t been Meredith’s, that she was still alive. The detective nodded and ran his finger in a cutting motion across his neck. I covered my mouth with my hands and shook my head back and forth. No. “I just can’t believe it,” I said softly.
He nodded again, soberly, looking me in the eye.

[WTBH, Chapter 7, Page 82]  When I wasn’t on the phone, I paced. I walked by one of Meredith’s British friends, Natalie Hayworth, who was saying, “I hope Meredith didn’t suffer.” Still worked up, I turned around and gaped. “How could she not have suffered?” I said. “She got her fucking throat slit. Fucking bastards.” I was angry and blunt. I couldn’t understand how the others remained so calm. No one else was pacing.

Comments On This Above

In the 2009 testimony, AK claims that RS found out how MK died, yet in the book, AK writes she was told (by the rather cold gesture) from a detective.  However, this gesture is actually meant to indicate death, not specifically that someone did have their throat slashed.  But AK does correctly know that manner of death—just like if she was there.  She also notes in the book “bastards” suggesting there was more than 1 killer—just like if she was there.

19. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

LG:  I’m asking you this because in your first interrogation, in the Questura, on the afternoon of Nov 2, you talked about a corpse in the closet.
AK:  Yes, in fact.
LG:  Can you explain to the court why you said this?
AK:  Well, outside of the house, everyone was talking and crying, people saying different things, asking and calling different things, and they were mostly talking about what they had seen inside the room. I was thinking, a foot? What could a foot be doing in Meredith’s room? So Raffaele asked certain people, for me, to explain what they had seen, and we heard that there was a corpse in the closet, covered with a cover, with one foot out, and that’s the image I understood, that there was a corpse in the closet, shut inside the closet, but there was a foot sticking out. That’s what I understood, but then it was all confusion…
LG:  Sorry, were you finished?
AK:  Yes.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 6, Page 72]  Sitting outside on the front stoop, I heard someone exclaim, `Aimadio” - “armoire.” They found a foot in the closet, I thought. Then, “Corpo!’ - “A body!” A body inside the wardrobe with a foot sticking out? I couldn’t make the words make sense. Filomena was wailing, “Meredith! Meredith! Oh, God!” Over and over, “Meredith! Oh, God!” My mind worked in slow motion. I could not scream or speak. I just kept saying in my head, What’s happening? What’s happening?

[Chapter 6, Page 66]  I felt a lurch of panic and the prickly feeling you get when you think someone might be watching you. I quickly grabbed my purse and coat and somehow remembered the mop I said I’d bring back to Raffaele’s. I scrambled to push the key into the lock, making myself turn it before I ran up the driveway, my heart banging painfully.

[Chapter 6, Page 66]  Forgetting the nine-hour time difference between Perugia and Seattle, I pressed the number sequence for home. My mom did not say hello, just “, are you okay? What’s wrong?” It was in the middle of the night in Seattle, and she was worried. “I’m on my way back to Raffaele’s,” I said, “but I just wanted to check in. I found some strange things in my house.” I explained my reasons for worrying. Then I asked, “What do you think I should do?” “Call your roommates,” she said. “Go tell Raffaele, and call me right back.”

[Chapter 6, Page 69]  I ran back upstairs and knocked gently on Meredith’s door, calling, “Meredith. Are you in there?” No sound. I called again, louder. I knocked harder. Then I banged. I jiggled the handle. It was locked. Meredith only locks her door when she’s changing clothes, I thought. She can’t be in there or she’d answer. “Why isn’t she answering me?” I asked Rafael frantically. I couldn’t figure out, especially in that moment, why her door would be locked. What if she were inside? Why wouldn’t she respond if she were? Was she sleeping with her earphones in? Was she hurt? At that moment what mattered more than anything was reaching her just to know where she was, to know that she was okay.

[Chapter 6, Page 69]  I climbed over the wrought-iron railing. With my feet on the narrow ledge, I held on to the rail with one hand and leaned out as far as I could, my body at a forty-five-degree angle over the gravel walkway below. Rafael came out and shouted, “! Get down. You could fall!”

[Chapter 6, Page 71]  “Not as far as we can tell,” I said. “But Meredith’s door is locked. I’m really worried.” “Well, is that unusual?” they asked. I tried to explain that she locked it sometimes, when she was changing clothes or was leaving town for the weekend,

Comments On This Above

In June 2009, AK claims to be confused about hearing of a foot, and that she has to have it explained to her later.  Yet in her book, she is immediately informed of a body.  And of course, let’s not forget these book quotes where AK is both worried and nonchalant.

Indicative that AK suggests to her mother about blood and the toilet, but Edda “doesn’t” suggest flush, and clean it up.  Almost as if she knew it had some later significance.  Also noteworthy, AK writes that she is worried something may have happened to MK, but when she is told of a body, she doesn’t make the connection.

20. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

LG:  Is it true? Do you remember?  AK:  [Sigh, voice trembling] As I was coming to understand what had happened in that house, I felt very very scared, scared even to get near the house, because I saw that there was blood also downstairs in the boys’ apartment, that they wanted to ask me “But is it normal for there to be blood in this apartment?” so I said “No”, and then they wanted me to look at all the knives, and it made a strong impression on me, and all the emotion that I had been keeping inside me escaped, because I’d had this shock, this inability to understand what had really happened, and since I didn’t want to accept it…

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 9, Page 100/101]  The police told me to go into my room, and they watched while I did. “Is anything missing?” they asked. “Everything looks okay,” I said, my voice small and quavering. I felt like a kid who’s terrified to go down the hall in the dark. Distraught, I forgot to check if my own rent money was still in the drawer of my desk. “Now come back to the kitchen.” I did. “Open the bottom drawer and look through the knives. Do you see any missing?” This is where we kept our overflow utensils, the ones we almost never needed. When I pulled open the drawer, stainless steel gleamed up at me. “I don’t know if there’s one missing or not,” I said, trembling. “We don’t really use these.” I reached in, pushed a few knives around, and then stood up helplessly. I knew the assortment in the drawer might include the murder weapon””that they were asking me to pick out what might have been used to slash Meredith’s throat. Panic engulfed me.

[WTBH, Chapter 27, Page 335] On the witness stand, Marco Chiacchiera of the Squadra Mobile had explained that “investigative
intuition” had led him to the knife. That flimsy explanation did not help me understand how the police could pull a random knife from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer and decide that it was, without the smallest doubt, the murder weapon. Or why they never analyzed knives from the villa or Rudy Guede’s apartment.Then we heard the prosecution’s hired forensic experts describe the knife as “not incompatible” with Meredith’s wounds. I wasn’t the only person who was perplexed. The experts debated the meaning of this phrase as intensely as they did the physical evidence being presented.

Comments On This Above

In Court, AK claims that the police wanted her to look at all the knives.  Yet in the book, she says she was asked if any were missing.  Not the same thing.

In the Prosecution testimony, AK claims it was “intuition” that led Marco Chiacchiera to the knife.  What she leaves out is that an impression of the knife had been left on the bedsheet in blood, and that they were looking for a specific impression.

21. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

LG:  Okay. I won’t show you myself, it would be ridiculous. [Laughing murmurs] Still on the day of Nov 4, you spent a lot of time in the Questura, you and Raffaele had a long conversation that was recorded. First you were in the Questura, then you went home, then you came back, and you were talking, it’s all in the dossier. At a certain point, you were talking about someone called either “Shaki” or “Icam”. Do you remember that circumstance and what you were talking about with reference to this person?
AK:  Okay, um, I thought of him because the police asked me repeatedly who I thought could be a dangerous person, someone who could be…who frequented the house, a man, they only wanted to know about males who visited the house, who were strange or seemed so to us for some reason, and the only person who for me, during the little time I had been in Perugia who had made a negative impression on me was this boy that also Meredith knew, whose nickname, not his real name, was Shaki, or “Shaky”. Meredith and her friends said they called him Shaki or “Shaky” because he moved in a strange way when he danced, and then one time I had a…he went for example to the place where I worked, at the time when I was supposed to go home, it was very late, and he offered me a ride home on his motorbike. But during the ride, he insisted that I go have some dessert with him, and I said, “Look, I really want to go home,” and he said “No, look, I’m giving you a ride, a bit of dessert is nothing,” and he took me to have it, and then he took me to his house, which to me… I kept telling him again and again, “Look, I really want to go home, it’s really late, I’m really tired,” and he kept saying “No, no, relax, relax, come on, sit down on my bed, relax, make yourself comfortable”. I said “No, look, take me home.” So he finally brought me home, and that was it, but it left me with an ugly impression because I thought he wanted to somehow try something, and he was the only person that had made an impression of strangeness on me, like he had intentions that were different from what I wanted. So he made that impression on me, but that’s all, because everybody else I met was nice.

Knox At Trial In 2009…

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 108]  “Why don’t you keep talking about the people who’ve been in your house””especially men?” he suggested. I’d done this so many times in the questura I felt as if I could dial it in. And finally someone there seemed nice. “Okay,” I said, starting in. “There are the guys who live downstairs.“As I was running through the list of male callers at No. 7, Via dells Pergola, I suddenly remembered Rudy Guede for the first time. I’d met him only briefly. I said, “Oh, and there’s this guy””I don’t know his name or his number””all I know is that he plays basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced Meredith and me to him in Piazza IV Novembre. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.”

Comments On This Above

AK claims in both the trial and in the book to have been asked about men visiting the house.  This is reasonable, especially because if a break in was faked, it would be useful to know who had access, and who had been by.  But on November 5th, while mentioning a brief description of Rudy (whose name she can’t remember), AK leaves out the fact of the list of names she had been painstakingly building, which was key in disproving Knox’s Interrogation Hoax.

22. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

LG:  When I talked about the piercings she got in her ears, I remember that she said she had a lot. If I say to Amanda, if I ask Amanda, eight on the left ear and four on the right ear, could that be the number of piercings?
AK:  Exactly.
LG:  More or less, to have an idea, because it’s a lot.
AK:  Yes.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 6, Page 65] I wasn’t alarmed by two pea-size flecks of blood in the bathroom sink that Meredith and I shared. There was another smear on the faucet. Weird. I’d gotten my ears pierced. Were they bleeding? I scratched the droplets with my fingernail. They were dry. Meredith must have nicked herself.

Comments On This Above

AK claims also to have taken her “newly pierced” earrings out to do that.  Bullshit.  You don’t take new earrings out for several weeks.  You clean them (best you can) in your ears.  Also, unless incredibly infected, there is no blood, but maybe some puss and blistering.  This seems like an attempt to talk away the obvious appearance of blood.  And of course, the obvious question: why the hell didn’t AK clean it up when she saw it there?

23. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

LG:  Okay. Then you were interrogated, let’s say interrogated, it was just for information. So you were interrogated.
AK:  Mm.
LG:  During the interrogation, there were several people in the room, did someone come who was involved in Raffaele Sollecito’s interrogation? He was being interrogated in one place, you in another.
AK:  So, there were lots and lots of people who came in and went out, and after one had come in and gone out, another policewoman told me that Raffaele said that I went out of the apartment—at least, Raffaele apparently said that I [stammering] had gone out of his house.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 113/114]  Just then a cop - Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa - opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,”she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.”My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded, devastated. What? I couldn’t believe that Raffaele, the one person in Italy whom I’d trusted completely, had turned against me. How could he say that when it wasn’t true? We’d been together all night. Now it was just me against the police, my word against theirs. I had nothing left.

Comments On This Above

AK claims both in court and in the book that she had been interrogated, and that during it RS destroyed her alibi.  However, the unanimous police version is that there never was an interrogation, and that until RS revoked his alibi (proven contradictions with his phone records) all that went on was list-building of names.

24. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

AK:  So, all papers they brought me to sign, at that point, they were all the same to me, so I can’t even say what I had to sign, arrest warrant, declarations, whatever, because at a certain point, I just wanted to sign and go home.
LG:  Right. But instead?
AK:  Instead, no. After a while they told me I had to stay in the Questura, so I had to stay, and I rolled up in a fetal position to try to sleep, on a chair, and I fell asleep, then I woke up, and I was there thinking and some people were going in and out, and during this period of time, I was telling them: “Look, I am really confused, these things don’t seem like what I remember, I remember something else.” And they said “No no no no no, you just stay quiet, you will remember it all later. So just stay quiet and wait, wait, wait, because we have to check some things.” And at that point I just didn’t understand anything. I even lost my sense of time.
LG:  And I wanted to ask you after how long they took you to prison. At some point there was a car, a police wagon that took you to prison. After how much time was that? You don’t know?
AK:  Well, I can’t say, but what I can say is that I stayed a while in the Questura, and during that time I kept trying to explain to the police that what I had said was not certain, and they took my shoes during that time and they took some pictures, they undressed me to take the pictures, and so it seemed like a long time.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 11, Page 125] Just a few more hours and I’ll see Mom, I thought. We’ll spend the night in a hotel. I asked permission to push two metal folding chairs together, balled myself into the fetal position, and passed out, spent. I probably didn’t sleep longer than an hour before doubt pricked me awake. Oh my God, what if I sent the police in the wrong direction?

Comments On This Above

Indicative that despite this brutal interrogation AK not only remembers it word for word, but remembers afterwards sleeping a fetal position.  She also claims to have been bombarded by questions, but if an interpreter is necessary, then it would have slowed things down considerably.

25. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

LG:  All right, I’ve finished the subject of the night in the Questura. When you made your first declaration, it was without the pubblico ministero. Then he came. Can you tell us if there was some discussion about a lawyer? If you remember, and whatever you remember.
AK:  So, before they asked me to make further declarations—I really can’t tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing—but at one point I asked if I shouldn’t have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn’t know, but I’ve seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn’t want to collaborate with the police. So they told me no.

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

[WTBH, Chapter 10, Page 118-120]  At 1:45 A.M. they gave me a piece of paper written in Italian and told me to sign it.  On Thursday, November 1, on a day when I normally work, while I was at my boyfriend Raffaele’s place, at about 20:30, I received a message on my cell phone from Patrik, who told me the club would remain closed that night because there weren’t any customers and therefore I would not have to go to work. I replied to the message telling him that we’d see each other right away. Then I left the house, saying to my boyfriend that I had to go to work. Given that during the afternoon with Raffaele I had smoked a joint, I felt confused because I do not make frequent use of drugs that strong. I met Patrick immediately at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana and we went to the house together. I do not remember if Meredith was there or came shortly afterward. I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her. As soon as I signed it, they whooped and high-fived each other. Then, a few minutes later, they demanded my sneakers. As soon as I took them off, someone left the room with them. Eventually they told me the pubblico ministero would be coming in. I didn’t know this translated as prosecutor, or that this was the magistrate that Rita Ficarra had been referring to a few days earlier when she said they’d have to wait to see what he said, to see if I could go to Germany. I thought the “public minister” was the mayor…
The pubblico ministero came in.

Comments On This Above

Knox knew very well who Mignini was. She and Mignini had been together for extended periods on each of the previous three days. Each time at the house. Both Knox’s book, and Ghirga’s own words, confirm that Mignini was not present for the 1st statement at 1:45.  So that part of the book (that he led the charge) has to be complete B.S.  Also indicative is that AK deliberately hedges her bets in wording everything in “maybe”. This hardly sounds conclusive.

26. Trial Versus Book

Knox At Trial In 2009…

LG:  All right, now I’ll pass to another subject, the recorded conversations of the 10th and the 17th of November. The dates aren’t important but it’s about two conversations in prison, the first one with your mother on Nov 10, we talked about it before, and the second on the 17th with your mother and your father, both. They were transcribed, they must be in the dossier of the GUP. In these conversations, on the 10th with your mother, on the 17th with your mother and your father, there is a sentence… [long pause, flipping pages] here it is: it’s the famous sentence “I was there. I can’t lie about this. I’m not scared of the truth.” Here it is, page 8, Presidente, of the transcription Nov 17. I repeat, she’s speaking with her parents, and she says: “It would be stupid to lie about this because I know I was there.” Do you remember that conversation?
AK:  Of course.
LG:  What did you mean by “I was there”.
AK:  I was in Raffaele’s apartment and I wasn’t afraid [laughing] to say it.
AK:  Yes.

AK:  Honestly, I thought, like the police had told me—the police had told me they had already found the guilty person. And they had suggested Patrick so much that I thought maybe it really was him. But apart from that, in that memorandum that I wrote in prison, the important thing for me was to tell what I knew, and what I knew was where I was on that evening.
CP:  Patrick was in prison because of YOU! You didn’t even say it to the PM on the 8th.

CP:  In the memorandum of the 6th you name Patrick. On the 7th you write another memorandum confirming that Patrick is the assassin. But on the 10th, you tell your mother that you feel terrible because you got him put in prison and you know he is innocent. Do you confirm this?
AK:  At the moment when I named Patrick, I didn’t know if he was innocent or not. I only said it because I was following the suggestion of the police. But when I wrote in the memorandum that I couldn’t accept the things I had said in the Questura, for me that meant I couldn’t know whether he was the murderer or not, I could only know that I wasn’t there.
CP:  But then why on the 10th, three days later, did you say “I feel bad about what I did to Patrick?” To your mother?

Knox In Her Book 2013-15

At trial, Knox tries to spin this to mean being at RS’ house (presumably screwing and getting high) and even that seems left out of the WTBH book on what she testified, chapter 26, pages 322-327).

Comments On This Above

AK had admited to being at the house in her three 5-6 Nov 2007 statements, two of them in evidence as the courts noted guaranteed not coerced. And AK gets questioned on why she would (a) tell her Mum Patrick is innocent but not tell PM Mignini; and (b) write PL is the killer, yet again, tell her Mum PL is innocent. Very valid contradictions to bring up in Court. Yet AK in the book version of the testimony omits all of this.


These contradictions are all proofs of lies. And as my Post #1 showed, the “rushed” version in the book of Knox’s two days on the stand omitted numerous details from the actual June 2009 testimony.

  • AK didn’t delete the message sent to Patrick (PL) since she’s “not a technical genius” and doesn’t know how
  • AK admits to knowing Guede, but not well
  • AK admits PL was nice to her, and she had no reason to fear him
  • AK doesn’t contest Guede lawyer Pacelli’s assertion that Mignini was not at the “1st statement”
  • AK leaves out that there were arguments in court regarding the admissibility of the 1st and 2nd statements
  • AK leaves out that she showed up uninvited on November 5, and was actually told to go home
  • AK leaves out that she volunteered the 3rd statement, asked for paper and a pen
  • AK omits the November 10 phone call to her Mom, where she says PL is innocent
  • AK wrote yet another note on November 7, (WTBH, Page 55), yet in her book omits that Pacelli asked her about it
  • AK was asked (by PL lawyer Pacelli) why she didn’t mention PL to Mignini on Nov 8 at bail hearing with Judge Matteini). That’s not in book
  • AK omits that she testified her lawyers knew PL was innocent and yet did nothing
  • AK omits that she answered questions about her movements the day before
  • AK omits that she was asked about the sink leak and the mop
  • AK omits in her book version that she was asked out November 6
  • AK omits that she was asked about the locked door
  • AK omits that she was asked if she saw Meredith’s body
  • AK omits that she testified to being asked by police about men who visited
  • AK omits that she tried to use her earrings as a way to explain away blood
  • AK omits that she was asked about her “mass email”

This list could be far longer. The point is made that the trial transcript covered far, far more than what AK lists.  True it was supposed to be restricted to the calunnia charge, and true, I don’t expect her to write a trial transcript.  However the book version does not remotely reflect what actually happened on those 2 days.

Posted by Chimera on 11/05/17 at 12:45 PM in Knox Provides ProofsExamples 17-26

Tweet This Post


Just something which came to mind:  I just recalled the Timothy Hennis case in the US in the 1980s. Hennis was accused of a triple murder in North Carolina.  As with the Knox case, people accused police and prosecution of a witch hunt. Hennis was convicted and went to death row for 4 years.

His attorneys then involved the Innocence Project who won him a US Supreme Court appeal,  VERY unusual and exceptional in the US.  He won the appeal, was exonerated and set free.  Like Knox, the media hailed him as wrongfully convicted, and there were documentaries, a popular film hailing him as a hero, and a best selling book about his exoneration.

Then the author of the best-selling exoneration book began to have dreams:  He dreamt it wasn’t over, and that there would be a third trial.  This seemed at the time absolutely impossible.  The author told himself it was a silly anxiety dream.

Then many years after, new DNA evidence came to light.  Hennis was a military man, and the military courts convicted him and put him back on death row.  I wonder if any one in the Knox camp has had a similar dream?

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/05/18 at 02:30 AM | #

@Chimera:  Am still going through your great post.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/05/18 at 02:33 AM | #

Well It has been a while. In any event Happy New Year to everyone. Let’s hope for something positive this year. Of course this will never stop and even if Knox lives to be an old lady she will always be a murderer.
In that regard I consider it fortunate that I do not live in Seattle because if I did then the only other person this site could go after would be Sollecito of course.  However in that regard there’s always time and nobody knows what the future holds with regard to the occasional trip.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/05/18 at 03:06 AM | #

Posted here for the Machine:

I don’t understand why so many Americans think the double jeopardy law is a good thing. It was abolished in England and Wales in 2005. The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when new and compelling evidence is produced. This has meant killers like Gary Dobson, David Norris, Mark Weston and Billy Dunlop could be brought to justice.

Timothy Hennis is a vicious sex killer:


I’m not surprised to learn that the Innocence Project supported this evil murderer because they’ve also supported Amanda Knox and Simon Hall. They are a deeply perverse organisation.

Greg Hampikian - the Director of Idaho Innocence Project - has carved a lucrative niche for himself defending convicted killers and sex offenders, including two child rapists: Bradley Roberts and Dennis Dechaine. I really don’t know how he can sleep at night.

[Comment by the Machine]

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/05/18 at 04:07 AM | #

@The Machine: 
I would agree, in an era of increasingly sophisticated forensic technology, double jeopardy is an outmoded protection.
Hampikian really got a shock with the Hennis reversal, and a well deserved one.  He told the press something like, “Well, ‘Innocence’ doesn’t mean pure as the driven snow.”, which was telling.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/05/18 at 04:21 AM | #

Hi Machine

On liking double jeopardy, I can see a point. The US is at an opposite extreme from Italy’s pro-perp stance, if things are looked at as a whole.

Here for example we still do have this:


And we still in some part have this.


And in many states we have this.


And all across the US we have this.


And in parts of the US we have this.


All of which results in this.


Maybe the UK waving double jeopardy is outbalanced by this?  ***


Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/05/18 at 04:40 AM | #

“As soon as I signed it, they whooped and high-fived each other.”  As if police would do that.

I recently watched West of Memphis. The Innocence Project are also there, playing down the importance of dna.  It is an outrageously biased ‘doc’

One of the commentators said the scratches on their bodies would have been caused by tortoises!

The programme also pointed the finger at one of the father’s in law!  It was shameful of them, horrible to watch and, as the Machine has said, how they sleep at night…

Posted by DavidB on 01/05/18 at 01:35 PM | #

Hi DavidB

I too agree with the Machine that the Innocence Project does not come out at all well here. Maybe Barry Scheck’s fault, certainly Greg Hampikian’s.



I’d throw into that mix several psychology groups and several bar associations which without any obvious due diligence paid fees to hear Knox out.

The Federal Government yanked some federal funding from Hampikian, and his desperation to get media exposure is not going so sweetly.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/05/18 at 03:20 PM | #

Comparing American and Italian justice further, two more dimensions:

(1) American police would have good reason to like and admire the large and conspicuous police presence in Italy with its high “trusted” polling.


(2) The tilt in the Italian system is toward judges (who do have to explain themselves in writing) whereas the tilt in the American system has been increasingly toward prosecutors.

Like almost all Italian prosecutors Mignini is career-path meaning he gets assessed periodically. He was subjected to rogue prosecution in Florence (sharply reversed) but his career-path assessments have been impeccable.

As we continue to learn, Mignini behaved more than fairly toward Knox throughout and in early days offered Knox several big breaks - go for manslaughter, blame drugs and/or mental health, say it was a spontaneous sex hazing rather than premeditated torture - but her hardline family was not hearing of it, and by 2008 the course of the case was solidly under the control of judges: first Matteini, then the Supreme Court, then Micheli.

It was those judges that hardened the line taken here, backed up by psychological profiles of RS and AK never made public.

My pet #1 reform? It would be to eliminate those juries at second level - they dont get to hear the prosecution case, and too often think what they hear from the defense is all of it. Too often the Supreme Court has to reverse them.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/05/18 at 03:40 PM | #

A question:  Had Knox’s family not gone the PR route, and she and RK had been charged in tandem with mitigating circumstances of drugs, impromptu hazing, etc., and the case not received global attention as a “witch hunt”— would the conviction have stuck, and what would the total prison time have been?

What strikes me chiefly is the massive, stunning difference between the length of Canadian, European, and Nordic prison sentences, and those in the US.  Someone in the former gets 4 or 8 years and for the same crime with the same mitigating circumstances in the US gets 30 or 50 or life .  Something is strikingly abnormal about this.  The US is completely out of step with all other Westernized democracies. So in the end by Italian standards Knox and Solledito were considered “time served”, even with being present, clean up, staging, and failure to report a murder or cooperate with an investigation.  As I originally stated, 4 years would never cover that in the US, for better or worse.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/05/18 at 05:57 PM | #

Addendum ( do not know how to edit a comment):  Sorry for being less than thoroughly informed about the final ruling, but if it included AK and RS as probable members of a multiple attack, this makes it even more baffling that they were “acquitted “.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/05/18 at 06:35 PM | #

Hi CBHeidegger

Yeah we could both have added “life without parole” in the US which I dont believe is a sentence found in most of the democracies, so what US prosecutors have to bargain or threaten with is a lot, and being mostly elected the checks and balances against them going for the max are not so great.

Chimera has written a 7-part series about real comparisons between the Italian and US/Canadian systems, showing both evolving but the Italian system generally ahead, resting with this:


Still, first degree murder in Italy and much of Europe still does incur up to 30 years. We dont have many here seeing the 26 year sentence as too harsh in light of the obvious cruelty and whole unyielding arc you mention, and some here have objected to the special circumstances Massei used to drop the sentences down from 30 years.

As for all that Mignini saw in the three perps and what he might have advised Matteini and Micheli had there not been that arc?

That’s a needed main post of some length coming up very soon, after several more posts on fact-finding at the Questura on 3 & 4 Nov 2007 which help to set the stage.

Also a much-needed post from James Raper, which is next, on how the knife and DNA evidence should be correctly weighted.

Italy goes in for weighting of pieces of evidence, often scientifically, more than common law juries do (understatement of the year!)(and its only 5 days old).

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/05/18 at 07:17 PM | #

Hi CBHeidegger

On your addendum: Supreme Court sentencing report writer Judge Bruno had to work really hard to show the pack attack maybe did not involve the two. His report was several months overdue and seemed to blink or wink in face of expected disbelief.

“Cassation 2015 critiques” The posts under that heading in our right column, all by lawyers or those steeped in Italian law, are a fine and sometimes very funny read and really should be taught in law-schools.

The mafia influence is not mentioned in all those posts as it remained below the radar for a time and is not yet presented in a court of law but do bear it in mind.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/05/18 at 07:33 PM | #

@PeterQuennell:  Thanks so much for your expert input,  and I will check out Chimera’s link and the Cassation critiques.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/05/18 at 07:48 PM | #

Just wanted to clarify that I should have said outside the US felons might wind up serving 4-8 years, despite being sentenced to far more, which no longer occurs in the US after Truth in Sentencing.

Yes, indeed, the Mafia must be borne in mind.

In closing, in 2015 I expected the Nencini ruling to be swiftly upheld and the respective 25-28 1/2 years sentences to be enforced, so that is where all the confusion and reflecting began on my part.

I actually quit thinking about the case altogether until recently reading Raper’s book and the Van der Leek series on Knox.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/05/18 at 08:19 PM | #

Thanks Chimera for listing Amanda Knox’s seemingly endless lies and contradictions. It’s inevitable that she will constantly contradict herself because she’s lying through her teeth and she will lose track of some of the lies she has already told. It’s a shame that not one single journalist or TV presenter has confronted Knox over her lies when intervening her.

Posted by The Machine on 01/06/18 at 04:33 PM | #

@ Peter Quennell:  “Also a much-needed post from James Raper, which is next, on how the knife and DNA evidence should be correctly weighted.”  Will keep an eye out for this.

Could something of that nature feasibly lead in the future to an overturning of the Bruno Maresca ruling? What process would have to begin/occur to get to that point?  Having seen the reversal in the Hennis case ( albeit with surprise DNA which was definitive, so very straightforward) it does make the thought arise sometimes…

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/06/18 at 06:49 PM | #

I don’t think Bruno and Marasca’s perverse and illogical ruling will be quashed.

Posted by The Machine on 01/06/18 at 07:06 PM | #

@The Machine:  I more or less surmised that by their closing, about no chance of future technology being able to answer questions as the DNA traces fall below evidentiary standard.  Just wondered if there existed any small opening.  Seems no. Thank you.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/06/18 at 07:24 PM | #

“Just wondered if there existed any small opening.  Seems no.”  Not so simple. We did cover this, under the previous thread.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/06/18 at 10:42 PM | #

@ Quennell:  Good grief, you’re right.  I took heart from those enumerations when I read them, too. You must think I’m a fool or a troll.  I simply got wrapped up in thinking about the Hennis case reversal with the new DNA testing, and then compared it to what Bruno/Marasca said in summation about no future technology tests due to traces below evidentiary standard.  My sincere apologies for wasting your time.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/06/18 at 11:27 PM | #

Sure thing. These among other posts warn not to take Marasca/Bruno on the scientific evidence too seriously (there is a perception in Italy that M & B themselves maybe didn’t). They show how formidable an appeal could be.

KrissyG 17 October 2015:

B-M state by implication RS DNA on the bra clasp was LCN and not replicable.  They claim its analysis was unscientific.  The truth is, it was not LCN.  It was repeated.  Each time, it showed a full profile of RS.  17 alleles matched 17 alleles.  There were 1300 RFUs.  Given MK’s DNA would swamp any other by the profusity of her blood, it was a wonder the Y-haplotype was even spotted.  Well done, Dr. Stefanoni!  The idea this solid 3bn to one against odds of it being random and not RS is “uncertain” is pure Gill.

Catnip 31 October 2015:

That the court is not slave to science, yet Bruno pronounces about repeatability and its scientific significance (which he mistakes for the significance of falsifiability). He makes repeatability a judicial truth. I expect Bruno will be surprised to “learn” that there are sciences where repeatability is not an option, yet they are still science.

James Raper 7 November 2015

Marasca-Bruno observe that there is a debate to be had here as to -

<blockquote>“The legal value attributable to scientific evidence, with particular reference to the genetic investigations, acquired in violation of the rules established by international protocols.”

The terms of the debate therefore define its conclusion.

There are, they say, two theories which have to be balanced -

(1) “that which puts an increasing amount of weight on the contribution of science, even if not validated by the scientific community,” 


(2)  “that which insists on the primacy of law and postulates that, in deference to the rules of criminal procedure, only those scientific experiments validated according to commonly accepted methodological canons may be allowed to enter.”

No cigars for guessing which self- formulated option they prefer. It is, of course, (2), but still they have already both begged and loaded the question with their insistence on “validation“ (which in this context means repeating the scientific test to obtain the same result) according to “international protocols”

Then, to disguise that selection, we have this -

“The court concedes that this delicate problem…..must find a solution in the general rules that inform our legal system….and not….in an abstract insistence on the primacy of science over law or vice versa…………………. Scientific proof cannot, in fact, aspire to an unconditional credit of self-referential trustworthiness in the trial setting, by the very fact that a criminal trial renounces all notion of legal proof.”

Marasca-Bruno would not be so stupid as to insist that science has primacy over law in a trial setting.  Would they? The law, having primacy, must find the means to accommodate the maxims of science, but within the general rules that inform the legal system.

They continue -

“The reference co-ordinates will have to be those attaching to the principle of cross examination and to the judge’s control over the process of formation of evidence, which must respect preordained guarantees, the observance of which must strictly govern the judgement of the relevant results’ reliability.”

Interesting. “Cross-examination”? Perhaps they are reminded of the decisive inadmissibility of the previously discussed section of Guede’s letter. Can the DNA traces on the knife and the bra clasp fall into the same category? Can “validity according to international protocols” be a preordained guarantee, in the same manner as the rights of an accused not to be incriminated by a witness who refuses cross-examination is guaranteed by Article 526 of the ICCP?

If so, then some compelling reason will have to be advanced - abiding by the rules of evidence that inform the legal system. They cannot refer to an Article on the point in the ICCP. There is none, and if there were, and if it stated that the repeatability of a scientific test was a guarantee for the test to be reliable and/or admissible, then sample 36b from the knife would not even have made it into the trial. And this is not the fault of the ICCP. There is no other body of law in the world that I am aware of that embodies any such guarantee, even for Low Copy DNA. And the reason for that, in part, is that there is no internationally recognized protocol, and precisely because there is no agreement in the scientific community as to this as yet.

Marasca-Bruno tend to treat “reliability” and “admissibility” as interchangeable concepts, and indeed, given the manner in which they consider these concepts, in the context of the topic under discussion, there is some logic to this, for surely if a piece of evidence is pre-ordained as unreliable then it must be inadmissible as well.

There then follows a lot more pompous waffle that need not detain us, other than to comment that none of this advances, and indeed does not even consider, any compelling reason for regarding repeatability as a pre-ordained guarantee from the point of view of admissible, or reliable, evidence.

Indeed, the ICCP does specifically take into account non-repeatable tests for we can find in Article 360 that provided the conditions therein are complied with then the results of non-repeatable technical tests are admissible.

Why the insistence on repeatability despite Article 360?

Does the testimony of an eye witness to a crime have to be corroborated by a video of the incident, or other eye witness testimony, before his testimony can be considered reliable and admissible?

Why is the result of a scientific test, conducted in accordance with a method which has already been repeatedly used in the scientific community to establish the validity of the method, be treated any differently?

The eye witness, of course, does not have a video of the incident by which to check his memory, whereas a biological trace may well be sufficient to allow for repeated tests. However in such cases, if there is no repeat, the result is not automatically ruled unreliable or invalid. It is for the defence to request a repeat and if they do not, then it does not happen.

There would, of course, be a capacity for repeat, which Low Copy Number might not have, but if repeats do not occur when the capacity exists, then this is because the result is unambiguous, as the results were, for the judge a quo, in the case of Meredith’s profile on the knife and Sollecito’s profile on the bra clasp.

However, Marasca-Bruno move on to declare that they do not share Nencini’s lack of hesitation in attributing evidentiary value to the knife and bra clasp results.

They quote the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, in genetic investigations, about it’s degree of reliability -

“full value of proof, and not merely as an element of circumstantial evidence according to Article 192.…”

adding that

“in cases where the genetic investigation doesn’t provide absolutely certain findings, circumstantial value can be attributed to it’s results (section 2,n. 8434 of 05/02/2013, etc……)……which mean that where identity is established, the findings of the genetic investigation assume significant evidence, while in the case of mere compatibility with a specific genetic profile, they only have circumstantial importance.”

It is at this point that I had to pause and consider the very real possibility that Marasca-Bruno may have the combined denseness of two planks of wood nailed together. 

The compatibility of trace B on the knife with the genetic profile of Meredith Kercher is such that it is full proof of the “identity” of the trace, certainly established, and that by any scientific protocol. That was acknowledged by all the trial experts and even, though with some reluctance, by Vecchiotti.

Even if not full proof of ID it certainly has significant circumstantial relevance, according to the above and pursuant to Article 190 (which is mentioned later).

With that uncomfortable thought perhaps lurking in the back of their minds, they seek to obfuscate matters -

“As a general rule it is possible to adhere to these conclusions, on the condition, though, that the activity of collecting samples, storage and analysis of the exhibits has respected the regulations approved by the protocols of the profession.”

They then, rather bizarrely, go on to aver that that the correct methods, to preserve authenticity, were stated by the Supreme Court…..“even if only on the subject of information technology evidence” 

Eh ?!

They refer to Article 192, section 2 -

“The existence of a fact cannot be deduced from pieces of circumstantial evidence unless they are serious, precise and consistent.”

They opine -

“Taking into account such considerations [ed: “such considerations” need not concern us - they were just preceding waffle] one really cannot see how the results of the genetic analysis - that were performed in violation of recommendations for the protocols regarding the collection and storage - can be endowed with the characteristics of seriousness and preciseness.”

John McEnroe and “You cannot be serious!“ springs to mind.

They are also confusing the information obtained from the electropherogram with sample collection methods.

It is, of course, important to maintain clarity of thought by keeping the issue of the value of the evidence [ed: it’s seriousness, precision and consistency] apart from the issue of contamination. As Nencini and others were able to do. Marasca-Bruno are running these issues together.

“It is absolutely certain that these methods were not complied with [cites the C-V Report] -

(a) The knife collected and then preserved in a cardboard box, of the sort used to package Xmas gadgets, agendas ……….

(b) The bra clasp [collected 46 days after] …………..the photographic documentation demonstrating that at the time of collection, the clasp was passed from hand to hand…. In addition wearing dirty latex gloves.”

Shall I comment? Oh, alright. What is the relevance of the cardboard box unless it was a conduit for contamination?  That was not even hypothetically plausible.

Yes, as we all know the bra clasp was recovered after 46 days. But where are these collection protocols that are internationally recognized and are a pre-ordained guarantee recognized by law?

As for dirty gloves the only evidence of this that I have seen is a photograph of the bra clasp being held in one gloved hand whilst the glove on another hand, patently belonging to the same operative, shows spots of some substance on it, which spots are most probably, in the circumstances, blood derived from the clasp the operative is holding.

Where is the common sense of the 5th Chambers?

What exactly was wrong with the in-depth common sense analysis of Massei and Nencini?

And so we swing back to the conclusion that was their premise.

“In essence, it is nothing less than a procedure of validation or falsification typical of the scientific method, of which we have talked before. And it is significant, in this regard, that the experts Berti-Berni, officials of the R.I.S Roma, carried out two amplifications of the trace (ed: 36I) retrieved from the knife blade.

In the absence of verification by repetition of the investigative data, it is questionable what could be the relevant value to the proceedings, even if detached from the scientific theoretical debate, of the relevance of outcomes carried out on such scarce or complex samples in situations not allowing repetition.”

Let us recall what actually happened with sample 36I. In 2013 this sample, which had not been analyzed by the Independent Experts, was analyzed by Berti-Berni. The sample was Low Copy Number and the quantum of DNA present was significantly less than was present with sample 36B. However they were able to carry out the test with a repeat because since 2007 there had been further technical advances in the equipment.

The repeat confirmed the evidential value of the first test (Knox) despite the low level of DNA. Low Copy Number, as an inherent problem per se, and as evidence of contamination per se, as argued in the case of 36B (Meredith), was shown not to be an issue. That was what was truly significant about the test, and it underscores that the result of the test on 36B had significant evidential value.

The knife and the bra clasp -

“….cannot take on either probative or circumstantial relevance precisely because, according to the aforementioned laws of science, they necessitated validation and falsification.”

The primacy of the rules of evidence has just been jettisoned with this dogmatic assertion, which is not even derived from the logic of the argument they have presented in support. Indeed much of the argument (or rather, the waffle) is merely this dogmatic assertion in numerous different guises and tediously extended formulations of itself.

Not only that but Guede was also convicted on the basis of DNA tests that were not repeated!

One wonders what criminal judges in Italy will make of this, and of the fact that judges from the 5th Chambers, who deal primarily in matters other than criminal law, have presumed to lay down law to them in this field.

The reality is that despite this nothing will change as to the rules of evidence and how forensic evidence is evaluated in the criminal courts. The system, understandably, will not countenance that. That will leave this case, as it pertains to Knox and Sollecito, as an exception, a bizarre anomaly in the judicial record.

Perhaps, in the future it will not present a practical problem, given that developments in technology are able to detect even smaller amounts of DNA, thus allowing for repeats.</blockquote>


Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/07/18 at 12:47 AM | #

@CBHeidegger Thanks for reflections on Tim Hennis case.

Its connection to Fort Bragg, North Carolina set me in mind of the Jeffrey MacDonald case, the Green Beret medical doctor who stabbed and beat his expectant wife to death along with his two small daughters. Army CID investigated but MacDonald got lucky the first time around. Many years later he was retried by civilian court in Raleigh and was found guilty. Author Joe McGinniss (sp?) wrote the book about it, “Fatal Vision”. It was made into a TV movie.

If the movie is correct, the jury from Raleigh was bussed to Fort Bragg to Castle Drive, the army housing where the murders took place, which had been sealed for over ten years. They were to walk through the house to get an idea of size and space to help them follow court testimony. MacDonald (in the movie) walked through the house, looked at the blood still on mattresses, floors and headboard in master bedroom where word “PIG” remained written in blood.

He stayed silent, assumed a stance of gravity for a few minutes inside the house, then walked back outside to jump into his attorney’s car alongside Joe McGinniss and said in a merry voice full of energy something like “Let’s get back to the hotel in time for me to use the gym and weights” or something flippant.

Which reminded me of Amanda’s shaking and weepy “breakdown” when she was led back to the cottage to inspect knives in the kitchen drawer and answer if any were missing.

Seems that she was able to cope by denial as long as she was absent from the cottage itself; when not actually standing there where the crime occurred, Knox probably could dismiss all of it from her mind as a drug-fueled nightmare. But Mignini led her right into the physical presence of Meredith’s death and sure enough, Knox pulled the drama stunt in effect to be allowed to leave the premises.

MacDonald had lived more than 10 years after his crime in California working as a medical doctor and befriending the local police who loved him. So he was inured to the crime scene ten years later, but Knox had only a few days before she was led back to the crime scene and her intense reaction spoke volumes. She may have been terrified to touch the knives even with police there as witnesses, fearing they were trying to make her put her fingerprints on the knives?

But other than that reason, which smacks of rather extreme paranoia perhaps, why would she have had such a breakdown? Neither Filomena nor Laura would have been so shaken up for a few moments return to their once happy home, being innocent of a crime.

The cottage would make them sad and they’d never want to live there again, but the knife drawer (good to know James Raper will soon share a post about the DNA) did shake up an already reeling Amanda Knox, still reeling from her crime and easily flummoxed when denial and distance were no longer easy escapes for her.

I recall the Hennis murders, but need to reread the details. Yes, like the Hennis latter day examination of DNA, the DNA from cottage may one day prove much more in the Kercher case.

Today is Epiphany. Also the recent news of extreme Arctic weather in our Northeast and eastern seaboard of U.S. has been quite shocking. Stay safe, Peter Quennell especially. Dangerous hard cold lasting several days: snow, ice and incredibly dangerous weather. I shivered so much reading the distressing headlines I didn’t feel like commenting on it. Even Florida received snow. Airplanes grounded, such misery.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/07/18 at 01:01 AM | #

@Hopeful: Yes, a telling difference (with some parallel) between MacDonald and Knox there. I read the book and saw the movie as well, and I recall his abrupt shift in mood and tone in the house and then leaving it.  Mignini was clever to take Knox to the drawer and get the raw reaction he did.

Yes, I think it could very well be that the Hennis case will be a precursor for others to come, including Knox’s.  It was an advance in technology which came back to haunt Hennis.

Five below zero Fahrenheit here; agreed, its dreadful.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/07/18 at 02:02 AM | #


Thanks for that treasure trove of information, and apt cause for optimism.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/07/18 at 02:05 AM | #

Well it would have been a smaller treasure trove, but James Raper was being both brilliant and funny there, and he nails many who took Marasca/Bruno to be their friend based on their misleading March 2015 announcement. In this case the devil as always is in the details which can be slow in emerging, and too many did not look before they leaped - as some have told us.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/07/18 at 04:26 AM | #

Yes, well said.

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/07/18 at 04:33 AM | #

Thank you everyone for the interest

Posted by Chimera on 01/07/18 at 09:51 AM | #

Amanda Knox to speak at Roanoke College.  Event set for Jan. 24 at 7:30 p.m.

SALEM, Va. - A woman who made international headlines after being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for murder in Italy will speak in Salem.

Amanda Knox will be speaking at Roanoke College later this month about what she went through and what she’s learned about truth-seeking in the process.
The conversation takes place Jan. 24 at 7:30 p.m. in the Wortmann Ballroom at the Colkett Center. You can also buy her book and get an autograph.

Posted by James Raper on 01/07/18 at 01:20 PM | #

“I have no idea how many cops were stuffed into the cramped, narrow room. Sometimes there were two, sometimes eight….”!

At most there were three plus the interpreter.

She describes a blow which left her stunned and dazed.

Her trial testimony -

“it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me.”

Posted by James Raper on 01/07/18 at 01:44 PM | #

Appreciated on Roanoke College & Knox, James.

Thats a smallish college in a pretty town off Interstate 81 in the valley and Blue Ridge Parkway atop the mountains. Both good fast routes to the Gulf coast. The next sizable town is Knoxville….

The talk by the professional bigot Knox is in part hosted by the college’s Pre-law group. The Netflix film will be shown too. We have time to spread around a headsup. Anyone emailing or tweeting staff and students there might wish to link to this.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/07/18 at 04:29 PM | #

Hi CBHeidegger,

You claimed “the DNA traces fall below evidentiary standard”. This is simply not true. I’ve written an article for TJMK today about the DNA evidence and addressed some pertinent questions to help you understand why you’re mistaken.

Posted by The Machine on 01/07/18 at 06:53 PM | #

@The Machine: Great, I look forward to reading it.  What I said, was that the closing of the Bruno Maresca report seemed to be stating this as fact. 😉

Posted by CBHeidegger on 01/07/18 at 08:36 PM | #

Hi CBHeidegger,

You will definitely understand why the DNA evidence was accepted as valid by the judges and lay judges after reading the article.

Posted by The Machine on 01/07/18 at 09:19 PM | #

I hereby offer 10% towards any trip for someone to represent us at Roanoke.
Even if you have to travel from Australia.

Posted by DavidB on 01/07/18 at 10:45 PM | #

So Knox admits during interview that she went back to the home of some mysterious, and shady,  character called “Shaki” or “Icam”. Whilst there she feels uncomfortable and that he might “try something” so she keeps rebuffing him and he eventually just takes her home?!! This is the same shrinking violet who had sex with a total stranger many years her senior on a train and she expects people to believe that she willingly went back to Shaki’s house but had developed a sudden set of morals despite her knowing exactly what he would have been after. Indeed, I’m sure she was after exactly the same thing, and got it, hence why she went back.

Yet this encounter is left out of her (work of almost complete fiction) book and Shaki gets replaced by Guede and a different scenario entirely. Is it possible that Shaki is Guede and that she was indeed much closer to him than she has ever admitted? I do believe Shaki exists and that the trip back to his house actually happened. I just don’t swallow the outcome that she described at all.

Of course, this may already have been discussed and solved a long time ago by posters on this site but if it has been, I have either missed it or I’ve forgotten about it. It’s very difficult to keep track of everything when the view is clouded by the threads of Knox’s fiction which are woven through every part of the fabric of this story. I suppose the police would likely have tracked Shaki down and eliminated him.

Incidentally, a very happy and a very belated New Year to you too Graham Rhodes, it was great to see your name pop up in the comments after your hiatus. I hope 2018 brings you all you wish for my friend.

I extend the same good wishes to Pete and the splendid group of contributors/commenters that make this site the only show in town for truth seekers in the Meredith Kercher case.

Posted by davidmulhern on 01/24/18 at 02:47 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry 2. How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #1 to #16

Or to previous entry 4. How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #27 To #34