Knox-Mellases And Candace Dempsey Display Extreme Contempt Of Court On CNN

[Candace Dempsey and Frank Sforza who in court soon may disavow her numerous false accusations]

Horrible horrible CNN story tonight on “Crimes of the Century”, in which they featured the Knox case. CNN shredded the case with dozens and dozens of half-truths and outright errors.

They did show some sympathy to Meredith using decent photos of her and some complimentary verbiage from various speakers, but CNN aimed to convince viewers that poor Amanda was persecuted by evil tyrants bound to medieval mindsets. They actually delighted in casting aspersions on Mignini for being an honest and devout Catholic as if that is some horrid slur.

The miserable program which aired at 8:00 pm Central Standard Time her on Sunday night in the U.S. showcased the malevolent faces of Candace Dempsey, Anne Bremner, Nina Burleigh and Dr. Mark Waterbury spewing out garbage and error, and they gave them so much face time on camera, it was awful.

The video footage of Mignini was trash photography with angles and poses meant to make him look bad, but it was an utter fail. His dignity was intact despite the worst they could throw at him. Yet it wasn’t hard to make the pro-Knox forces look ignorant on the show. Dempsey almost sounded mentally afflicted and looked very odd while Anne Bremner couldn’t say much with a straight face nor stop nervously batting her eyelids.

Everyone on the Knox bandwagon looked positively shifty. Thankfully Curt and Edda did not star in this production much, we were spared their serial nonsense. They were shown more as background figures.

Even Amanda was treated rather poorly despite the theme of “poor girl, she’s innocent and has been railroaded”, because they took bits and pieces from her recent TV interview in her sleeveless blue dress and they pulled out her most irrelevant and salacious remarks loosed from any context. They shredded her comments, using such junk as her remark that she was sexually active but not sexually deviant and thet she wasn’t dressed in leather and cracking a whip.

Tawdry stuff, and nothing in context. They used, “I wish I’d stood up to them more” and never showed her squirming and looking discomfited at many questions. No, the truth wasn’t well presented.

They only showed Mr. John Kercher once early in the show in a fleeting shot. Later they used footage of Arline Kercher alone, and had her saying, “We need to know what happened.” It was an absolute debacle of a news program if truth were the aim, and a total assault on Mignini from start to finish. They attacked all the DNA evidence. Attorney Ghirgha was shown briefly and so was Dalla Vedova surrounded by the press pack with microphones at his mouth.

Rudy Guede was again made to take the brunt of the entire murder, and CNN planted the false idea that he had his sentence shortened due to rolling over on Knox or cutting some deal with the prosecution. Courtroom scenes of the first trial in Perugia were abundant, with Sollecito being paraded in with his long hair and white jacket in the early days. Bongiorno was shown hugging him after the acquittal, and Amanda’s crying jag as she was acquitted.

The cameras were fixed on Mignini making him look like a sinister plotter of retribution, it was all so predictably malicious and unfair toward him. A complete abomination instead of accuracy in reporting.

I was appalled at the audacity and insolence of Candace Dempsey when she said Mignini is the kind of man who after finding a lovely British girl on the floor in blood could make up an entire scenario of a sex crime out of his own fantasies. She deviously left out the glaring fact that Meredith’s body was found with physical signs of sexual assault and half-nude. What a con artist she is.

The only piece of truth in the entire episode was a trite one when the male speaker (forgot his name, Darren? Kolinky?) he said Knox was extremely stupid. STUPID. As if we didn’t know that already. This grinning fellow seemed a silly adjunct to the other silly billy goats gruff namely Bremner, Dempsey, Waterbury, Burleigh. I give it a zero. It was a pathetic attempt to cover the Kercher case as one of the “Crimes of the Century”. An epic fail, and nobody fooled but the self-deceived cast of the show.

The program was nauseating to anyone who knows the facts. Nina Burleigh lamented the celebrations in the street at midnight when Knox’s guilty sentence was announced, as they yelled in Italian “American assassin!” Burleigh claimed it was as close as she’d ever get to seeing a mass mob use a scapegoat, this time the dear sweet Amanda, shudder.

Nina Burleigh and the other two women were set up as some kind of ludicrous experts. The more contained yet equally in the wrong Dr. Waterbury said that Meredith’s DNA was not on the knife. It was just one outlandish falsehood after another.

Posted by Hopeful on 08/19/13 at 06:45 AM in Hoaxers from 2007Knox-Marriott PRMore hoaxersHoaxers: media groupsCNN Network

Tweet This Post


Good catch. Fast report. Useful to the prosecution. This CNN report is on again at midnight and again at 3:00 am on the East Coast, times in Seattle may vary.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/19/13 at 07:26 AM | #

The arrogance of the fools involved in the Knox fan club has blinded them to the aftermath headed their way.

When the new trial details indisputable re-tested forensic evidence, they will all have egg plastered over their faces.

It will be more interesting still if Sollecito, who they protect merely as a necessity because he comes as a package with Knox, decides to spill his guts.  He is homeless, jobless, detested by his countrymen and broke!  Imagine the utter embarrassment of trotting across to Lugarno amidst the fanfare of a glamourous new home and an entrepreneurial new business, only to be booted out by both the locals and Swiss officials!  Add to this the shock of no further access to daddies purse, a purse depleted by legal fees etc.  In order to pay the next tranche poor Sollecito has resorted to begging on line.

His ego has taken a massive blow.

With his tail between his legs, he then trots off to America hoping to be comforted by his old pal Knox.  This is another big mistake.  He now knows after their little get together that Knox is staying most definitely in her camp and he is not welcome.

Sollecito will also be very aware of all of the Knox fans comments that she will never be extradited.  If he believes that to be true, which he likely will because he is gormless, he will imagine the scenario of himself back in Italy, found guilty and left to serve the time all on his lonesome.  Guede will be free and so will Knox!

He is not likely to tolerate this.  We know how he reacts when cornered and he will react this way again.  I suspect very strongly that he will throw Knox under the wheels in order to reduce his sentence.  The question will then be, how will her fans, including the slime balls on the programme above, try and wriggle their way out of this.

Basically, their professional reputations are now being set up for the biggest fall imaginable and well do they deserve it!

Posted by MHILL4 on 08/19/13 at 01:49 PM | #


Excellent summary. Agree 110%

Utter rubbish and I for one hope they all go down the pan in one collective flush. They all deserve it.

Shame on CNN for producing such utter drivel, and for giving these self serving blood hounds a platform to promote not only a false representation of the events, but also to catapult such bafoons onto a national/international stage.

Can’t wait for September and judgement day!!


Posted by Jeffski1 on 08/19/13 at 02:58 PM | #

I didn’t want to see the latest CNN item.  I haven’t anyway, I just saw a clip but it was enough.

There they all are - all the paid for shills in the employ of the Goggerty Marriot public relations company employed (still to this day) by the family of the murderess. This is one of the opening salvo’s of the PR company just starting to gear up for Sept 30th.


Candace Dempsey screeching about a “guy shower”.  Oh puhlease…  I have to say in all my years I have never heard this term before.  Rich, coming from someone like Dempsey - a woman no doubt who has spent many days looking doe eyed into Amanda’s face since her release and telling her how nice and innocent she is while all the while shamelessly promoting her drenched in blood book.

I’m sorry but I viewed the police crime scene videos just a couple of days ago and the shower of “Raffy” is there in all it’s glory but doesn’t look any different cleanliness wise from the shower Knox shared with her victim Meredith Kercher.

Also Dempsey seems as usual to have no knowledge at all regarding the nauseous hygiene habits of Amanda Knox - namely Knox urinating, defecating and disposing of her sanitary items in the bathroom she shared with Meredith without ever flushing, so much so that it became an issue with Meredith and Knox. Hey, she never even flushed Guedes deposit at the crime scene did she?  Ew!...

Not to mention of course the murder squad detectives statements that Knox had an horrendous case of B.O. on the day she told all and sundry she had showered in the bloody bathroom.

Yes Dempsey has been bought and sold by Marriot and co - selling her soul for her book and access to her hero and her family.  This coming from someone who described Knox’s book as “hot selling”.  Oh come on…

It is beyond belief what these people will do and say for money and I am only covering just one of the paid shills in this little comment of mine. Shame on Dempsey, shame on them all and the truth will out very soon.

R.I.P Meredith Kercher.

Posted by DF2K on 08/19/13 at 03:17 PM | #

Nina Burleigh and Candace Dempsey both risk prison terms for felonies.

Neither are very bright (I have met Nina Burleigh and thought her weak, naive and dimwitted, and Dempsey seems a clone) and dont seem to realise Italian courts are quite happy to try foreigners in absentia and land them with felony records worldwide.

Accusing police and prosecutors of being “too Catholic” is a mainstay of Mafia and Freemason put-downs in their incessant (but fading) skirmishes with Italian justice. There is nothing exceptional about the Roman Catholic faith of Dr Mignini that they rant on about, as does Doug Preston.

Millions of Italians are no less devout than he is. His faith has nothing to do with his day job. It never affects him in investigations or the courtroom. 

Burleigh, Dempsey and Doug Preston are acting as tools of the Mafia and Freemason in parroting those “too Catholic” charges, and make themselves easy targets for felony prosecution on the same lines as Frank Sforza - who is expected to sell both them and Curt Knox down the river.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/19/13 at 04:03 PM | #


Yes, i hope you are right and RS will confess their crime - and i hope he is able to tell a few new facts, to prove his version.

Otherwise Knox Fans will say, he confesses “under the pressure of 30 years in prison”.

Posted by AgentJasonBrowning on 08/19/13 at 05:12 PM | #

In the image above Frank Sforza exhibits a tense mouth and jaw, which usually indicates repressed anger (and is frequently seen in police mug-shots, unsurprisingly.

Dempsey doesn’t seem to have the same problem in her picture but the bags under the eyes do suggest heavy drinking: it can’t be easy defending the indefensible and, forgive the pun, keeping the personal neurosis bottled up.

It would be interesting to learn more about Dempsey’s case: what led her to this impasse? Judging by her ignorant and ill-considered comments about Mignini can we assume that men have, well, generally been a bit of a problem for her?

Has this meant one or more partnership breakdowns so that material insecurities have become unexpectedly present in her life (bit like Edda actually), thus the need to toe the line and file copy that ticks all the boxes for her employers but is light on her own integrity and the facts? 

This is typically the sort of dilemma that drives people to heavy drinking, unless they eventually and wisely decide their own integrity has to override neurotic insecurities, and they take the more heroic path to self-awareness and individuation.

Posted by Odysseus on 08/19/13 at 06:31 PM | #

See the TJMK post here for background.

Posted by Miriam on 08/19/13 at 06:51 PM | #


Very well said. I think you have RS to a T there.

Posted by Odysseus on 08/19/13 at 07:02 PM | #


Italy has the sort of self-respect when it comes to their own rule of law, vis-a-vis US pressure,  that is absent in many other countries (here in the U.K. for example).

Maybe that’s why Italian justice incurs the wrath of those Americans who reflexively and unconsciously must defend their fellow-citizens, in spite of the evidence.

Not to do so wouldn’t fit with the brainless, automatic assumption of US global hegemony that is fed daily by their mass media, and which typically goes unquestioned.

Still you sometimes really have to wonder how dumb you have to be to defend the literally and figuratively unfragrant Knox.

Posted by Odysseus on 08/19/13 at 07:40 PM | #

Hi Odysseus,

Guess he found out that being on Interpol’s list is not much fun. Now at least Knox knows what awaits her.

Posted by Miriam on 08/19/13 at 10:26 PM | #

I saw this piece a week or so ago. Since it was old I did not put it up, but it fits well with Hopeful’s post.

I do not know when the CNN documentary was made, but if it was recent then, this Dr. Waterbury is a liar, and as for Burleigh ......what a crackpot.

I do not wish any of them ill, but they sound deranged.  Mignini’s curse? More like Knox’s curse.

Posted by Miriam on 08/19/13 at 10:41 PM | #

As far as myself goes I have quite often considered the curse of Amanda Knox. All the negative energy Knox exudes. It is massive.

All her victims duped by her.. although some do not realise they are.  Look at them! they all fall by the wayside In some way or another.

Posted by DF2K on 08/19/13 at 11:25 PM | #

La Stampa

The CIA Agent who kidnapped Abu Omar:

“I will apologize to the Italians” 

A translation:

Robert Seldon Lady, the chief CIA agent, from Milan convicted for organizing the kidnapping of Abu Omar, is prepared to write a letter to President Giorgio Napolitano, in which he wishes to apologize to the Italians.

His lawyer, Tom Spencer, says that with this gesture he hopes to facilitate a pardon for himself and the other Americans and Italians involved in this incident.Through his lawyer, Lady speaks for the first time, after his arrest in Panama last month and our country’s failed extradition.

When will the message arrive for Napolitano?

Soon. We should have done so sooner.

What will it contain?

Apologizes to the Italians, for being in he center of an incident, that caused tension between two countries that are so friendly.

Why this step?

Bob loves Italy. He is devastated, depressed, and sorry for all that happened. He cares deeply for your country, he planned to retire and live there with his wife. The Abu Omar case destroyed his life.


Posted by Miriam on 08/21/13 at 12:14 AM | #

Sorry for changing subject and please don’t judge me, but i just have read AK’s book - and yes, I have a question now.

On page 353 of the German version, Knox tells of the trail in 2009, when Comodi explained how RS could have cut the bra while only leaving his DNA on the little clasp and not on the bra itself.

Can anybody destroy my now rising doubts in the bra clasp as evidence? I mean the clasp is not big, is this possible?

Posted by AgentJasonBrowning on 08/21/13 at 02:41 AM | #

By clasp, I don’t think they mean just a single hook.  If a bra is fastened on, the clasp would involve a bit of fabric with 2-3 hooks on it passed through their respective “eyes” on the opposite side.

It’s not very big, but it’s not minuscule either, and you could grip it between thumb and forefinger if you’re trying to cut the bra. If I remember correctly, the piece of evidence was a bit of white fabric, and not just a hook.

Posted by Vivianna on 08/21/13 at 03:04 AM | #


“Can anybody destroy my now rising doubts in the bra clasp as evidence? I mean the clasp is not big, is this possible?”

Are you serious?

The clasp could be held between the finger and thumb of one hand and cut-off using a knife with the other hand.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 08/21/13 at 06:20 AM | #

@Vivianna, Cardiol

Thank you, yes, I agree and thought so too. But still I have to imagine that RS cut the bra using his tips of his fingers and cuts with difficultly nearby his fingers. I just wonder why he didn’t grab it roughly with his hand, since they had a fight.

Remember, the bra clasp was collected days after the crime and from a different place in Meredith’s room.

I know the argument of the supreme court, that there was no source for contamination, but at least a view doubts remain now and the bra clasp was for me, till yesterday, the strongest evidence, that RS was at the crime scene.

But ok, i believe you, this has to be the explanation.

Grr, sorry another question, but it is working in me and I am 100% convinced that AK and RS are guilty, but I also cannot close my eyes, when Knox tells the following in her book in chapter 27 (1 September - 9 October).

The defence asked Patrizia Stefanoni first time in September 2008 to get ALL documents of the forensic investigation. But only after Massei ordered her to do so (on the day before the summer break in 2009) the defence got them from her.

Is it absolutely excluded, that Stefanoni held them back willfuly, because she knew the results where not so 100% safe, as everybody thought? Was it really only sloppiness, that the defence had to insist more than one time and to wait nearly one year?

I don’t want to disturb you. I only seek for explanations to upheld my opinion.

Thank you

Posted by AgentJasonBrowning on 08/21/13 at 08:00 AM | #


“I just wonder why he didn’t grab it roughly with his hand, since they had a fight.”

I think because the bra removal was part of the staging. Meredith was already dead when RS cut the bra off her and they arranged her corpse.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 08/21/13 at 08:15 AM | #


Perfect:) thank you!

Posted by AgentJasonBrowning on 08/21/13 at 08:51 AM | #


Why are you relying on Amanda Knox for your information? She gave three different alibis and repeatedly accused an innocent man of murder.

Time and time again Amanda Knox and her supporters have made numerous false claims about the case.

Posted by The Machine on 08/21/13 at 12:48 PM | #


To confirm your idea, that the cut bra clasp was part of the staging, I have two points:

* AK underlines that point in her book. I think because she knows that the prosecutors are on a wrong track when they assume that the bra was cut off during the fight. It is a “point for her”, when the prosecutors look ridiculous.

* I can hardly imagine what RS thought, when he cut the bra from Meredith’s body. That he used only his fingers and avoided to touch her, is reproducible.


Yes, you are right and I don’t rely on her. But my second question can be answerd by facts. Meanwhile i found a source in “Kermit14WithJamesRaperOnEvidence.pps” in chapter “6.1 the knife”: There is said - The defence team was invited to join the forestic investigations with their experts, but never showed up. But I am not sure if this fully answers my question.

Again: Knox tells the following in her book in chapter 27 (1. September - 9. Oktober).

The defence asked Patrizia Stefanoni first time in September 2008 to get ALL documents of the forensic investigation. But only after Massei ordered her to do so (on the day before the summer break in 2009) the defence got them from her.

Is it absolutely excluded, that Stefanoni or the prosecutors held them back willfuly, because they knew the results where not so 100% safe, as everybody thought? Was it really only sloppiness, that the defence had to insist more than one time and to wait nearly one year?

I am still struggling to find a stronger “YES” as answer for my questions.

My very basic conviction is, that the prosecutors have to be absolutely untouchable whether they are “playing a fair game” in the name of society and not in the name of their own interests.

I rely on the Italian justice system, yes, much more than on AK and RS, but sorry, I cannot close my eyes. I am very thankful for every stronger “YES”, than I found. I am sure there are some.

I hope you can understand me.

Posted by AgentJasonBrowning on 08/21/13 at 02:22 PM | #


It’s important to emphasise the fact that the collection and testing of the DNA evidence was open and transparent. The defence teams watched the collection of the DNA evidence. The judges at the Italian Supreme Court referred to the tests as having been performed “under the very eyes of the consultants of the parties” and noted that they had no objections at the time. The Scientific Police clearly had nothing to hide. The negative controls were carried out.

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

Professor Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it. Professor Novelli analysed the series of samples from all 255 items processed and found not a single instance of contamination, and ruled out as implausible that a contaminating agent could have been present just on one single result. Professor David Balding, a Professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London, recently analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded it was strong.

Posted by The Machine on 08/21/13 at 02:47 PM | #

“The judges at the Italian Supreme Court referred to the tests as having been performed “under the very eyes of the consultants of the parties” and noted that they had no objections at the time.”

I will check this soon. Is it said in the summary of the verdict from June?
Yes, that would be the strong “YES” I am searching for.

All other ponits of Knox book I could answer for myselfe.

Seems we have a result, thank you very much:)

Posted by AgentJasonBrowning on 08/21/13 at 03:07 PM | #


The quote is from the Supreme Court report.

Posted by The Machine on 08/21/13 at 03:12 PM | #


I doubt that your Now-rising-doubts Opinion can be Destroyed by your search; it seems like a red herring.  They do get caught-up in any trawl.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 08/21/13 at 03:38 PM | #


Give me chance, I am open minded and willing to learn^^

No, I already thought that the defence could have used this argument, so close to date of the verdict in 2009, with a “hidden strategy”.

If the supreme court rejected this argument, everything is fine for me.

Posted by AgentJasonBrowning on 08/21/13 at 04:26 PM | #


Maybe dont make too much of Knox’s wrong claims, which have been addressed here in great detail often years in advance. The chief Bergamo prosecutor is going though Knox’s book word by word and isolating out all the false claims and accusations of crimes, so you should see Knox in a court in due course being confronted by them. 

The Machine has it right on the immensely hard proof of the DNA. Add in the fact that the bra clasp was ONLY not collected for 46 days because the defence observers who were invited to watch were “too busy”. There was no legal compulsion for Stefanoni to hand over those papers, which proved nothing in favor of the defence, and would not have been handed over in the US and UK systems. They are one example of what Cardiol rightly calls red herrings.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/21/13 at 05:26 PM | #

Hi Odysseus,

You ask what drives Candace Dempsey.

“It would be interesting to learn more about Dempsey’s case: what led her to this impasse? Judging by her ignorant and ill-considered comments about Mignini can we assume that men have, well, generally been a bit of a problem for her? “

Others follow her more closely but it looks like main drivers were the absence of a career of her own (her husband is a lawyer) and competition with a go-go sister who made it several times into the pages of Playboy; the nude images are apparently still out there for anyone interested, they amused PMF a lot 3 or 4 years ago.

Dempsey seems to have a big chip on her shoulder about Italy in general; her family apparently came from the poor region of Calabria and not everybody who emigrated from there left with fond memories.

Her “reporting” is on a reader blog on the Seattle PI website for which she is or was paid nothing, and her main source in Italy was Frank Sforza who when she went to Italy early on helped her a lot because she speaks little or no Italian.

We found out she was writing a book long before she seemed to want that made public. At some point she may have got onto the Knox-Mellas PR payroll. She appears now and then with them.

She is indeed one of the ranters at a version of Dr Mignini which doesnt even exist in reality.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/21/13 at 05:38 PM | #


I had to read AK’s book in order to do a review, and like you I was determined to be fair and objective.

I found that as soon as I came to a questionable point, I was able to easily clarify everything by going straight to the Massei Report (it is on here) - the full one in translation of nearly 400 pages, not the four part Summaries (good though they are).

The amount of detail and careful investigation is astonishing. It was after reading this that I became 100% convinced of the original convictions.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 08/21/13 at 06:32 PM | #

Hi Seeking,

Just wanted to say that I found your comment such a perfectly tactful way to say: If you can’t say anything nice then…...
Perfect! I refer to this one:

Most people on this site have been seeking ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’...for years and years. Others are welcomed when they contribute to that effort

I’ll will be leaving the group, but before I go I would like to say thank you, to the Main Posters for so many interesting and informative posts. Thanks to all who answered my questions when I first joined. Keep up the good work! Best of luck to all. Ciao

P.S.If any of you plan to be in Florence for the appeal see you there.

Posted by Miriam on 08/21/13 at 07:30 PM | #

Best of luck and good wishes to you Miriam, and Thankyou for all your contribution, which I appreciate.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 08/21/13 at 07:47 PM | #

Hello AgentJasonBrowning,

This is the way I try and view this case. It is an analogy that works for me. Maybe I’m way out of line (or just dumb!) so I welcome comments.

I teach. We assess our students by subjecting them to class assessments, project assessment and examinations. These they need to pass in order to gain the qualification for which they are studying. In all my years of teaching no-one has attained 100% in all of these. Maybe in some topics, some do, but never in all. None of us is perfect.
We judge our students by a preponderance of their (holistic?) understanding of the field they are studying. No one fails because they answered a sub section of a question on a paper incorrectly. Were that to be the measure then nobody (ok, maybe one or two?) would ever gain any qualifications. The measure is preponderance: is there enough evidence, across all of the methods of assessment, throughout all the topics examined, to justify giving the student a qualification in the field they have studied. And then there is the classification of the award. Is it a pass, a merit or a distinction? And all of these assessments are examined and/or moderated by a first examiner, a second examiner, and an external examiner and subject to quality review. These people have to be involved to assure the integrity of the qualifications awarded. Imagine the “worth”, “value” of your own qualifications or the trust others could have in them were this not so.
Consider the three defendants being subject to “class assessments”, “project assessment” and “examination” given the questions that need to be answered (explanations regarding the evidence surrounding their behaviour and actions, all of it; their examination has many “papers”) do they get the qualification of innocence?

Posted by Miles on 08/21/13 at 07:50 PM | #

In me, you find a “200%” supporter of this site. Even if I have only 6 weeks experience, I worked a lot on the details and I am very impressed of the huge and mostly impartial information I find here - in your posts as well as in your answers. Thank you very much!

Maybe you remember “cmartins” with his annoying comments. I think I knew him already before from amazon. Like him, many Germans scratch only on the surface and buy Knox’s lies. For them, it is an “emotional adventure” to suffer with Knox, while reading her book. So they become angry fighters for her and spit out insults on everyone, who isn’t taking care of the “so helpless and so innocent beauty little girl”.

When you try to argue against, you have to take care, that your information sources are undoubtful impartial, otherwise you earn more insults.

In Germany we have a long tradition for a both side critical discussion. That’s why we chew the information like a gum - and as long as it is chewable, …, sorry I am losing the point:)

Posted by AgentJasonBrowning on 08/21/13 at 07:56 PM | #

Thanks for that insight into German thinking tradition . Where do you think it comes from?
e.g. Greek Socratic dialogue, or the German philosophers or ?
Tell us more. When do you know when to stop?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 08/21/13 at 08:16 PM | #

Hello AgentJasonBrowning

“a both side critical discussion”

I completely agree with you about this stance.

Posted by Miles on 08/21/13 at 08:17 PM | #

@seekingunderstanding and agentjasonbrownng

sorry about butting in…“When do you know when to stop”?

Without real hard evidence such as a recording of an event the evidence must be circumstantial. We make a conclusion on the basis of “sufficient” circumstantial evidence. Is there enough evidence to conclude without reasonable doubt that an event has occurred? That is a judgement we have to make. One way to approach this (I hear chami screaming here) is to take an hueristic model of how it might have occurred. We infer from the evidence a possible explanation. Then we apply the evidence to the explanation to see if we arrive at the event. This is not about motive. It is about piecing together the events, behaviours, etc to see if the final act is a reasonable conclusion based on the model. It is the degree to which the evidence fits the model that determines when we conclude. But we do not always get it right, hence hueristic.

In this case I think the model fits.

Posted by Miles on 08/21/13 at 08:40 PM | #

Miriam, so sorry to see you go. You will be missed!

Miles, SU, AJB, fascinating reading your comments and processes. I started out in the appeal thinking AK and RS were wrongly convicted and then looked at the people stood on the other side of that door before it opened. Once you acknowledge that the crime scene was faked/purposely arranged, then you realise that it was someone who knew Meredith. Not someone who cared about her as such, or loved her even, but someone who resented her. That was clear from the outset to me.

For me, I looked at reactions (reported and observed by the group) and AK time and again rose to the surface. Quirky my left foot! Quirky did not give AK xray vision into the room through a closed door.

Then I looked through the evidence. In trying to locate translations, I stumbled across this site and IIP. Also FOA around the same time. IIP and FOA focussed their attentions on rubbishing people (including Meredith and her family) and just stating it wasn’t AK. Hardly investigative. TJMk on the other hand presented reasoned arguments and documentation. AK has been dealt with here with far more respect than she warrants, but that’s just my opinion.

Whatever your route AJB, and anyone else reading this rambling post, just bear in mind that the scene that revealed itself behind the bedroom door and in the bathroom, hallway, across the bedrooms and kitchen/living area was arranged by someone. The entire cottage is the crime scene and that a young woman was slain in a most brutal and callous manner.

I sincerely hope that Justice presents herself at this final trial.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 08/21/13 at 09:41 PM | #


Thank you very much for your posts and translations.

Posted by Odysseus on 08/21/13 at 10:14 PM | #

@Truth:  I don’t think anyone can go wrong by beginning their search for answers by reading the key judicial motivations reports.  These include the Supreme Court motivations report on the final conviction of Rudy Guede.

The best place to start is really Massei because he summarises all the essentials of the case and fits them into a rational scenario. 

The worst place to begin is on an internet forum because there are so many misconceptions or flat-out mistakes in what’s being conveyed.  Recently, upthread, is a discussion of the defence lawyers’ requests for data.  In reality, we’re again in Disco Bus Defence Land because the requests for additional data could always have been made at the outset.  By making a very public demonstration, the lawyers for Sollecito (especially) and Knox (less so) created the impression of non-compliance that was nowhere found in any of the official records.  Remember that the same lawyers asked Massei to dismiss the entire case halfway through the first trial on similar grounds.

The appeal in Florence won’t come soon enough.  Bongiorno has run out of prison snitches and disco bus operators.

Posted by Stilicho on 08/21/13 at 10:37 PM | #

“Criminal Enterprise AKA AK defense”....I like it.
I heard Frank was going to court on Nov 6th for new charges…any body know what those new charges could be…if they be?

Posted by Bettina on 08/21/13 at 11:12 PM | #


I took a around about route and reached that conclusion: if you want to know what lead to AK and RS being charged, read the Massei report.

After Hellman, many said that Massei had been replaced. Not true. Not true at all. Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling, Hellman has been REVERSED, Massei is still there.

Well put; succinct.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 08/22/13 at 09:07 AM | #

Here’s that full Massei link again….just in case needed

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 08/22/13 at 09:37 AM | #

Dear Miriam,
I really am sad to see you go…perhaps you’ll consider coming back sometime, especially when you have some of your ‘hands on’ very valuable information.

It is an awful experience when a stranger on the Internet makes a personal derogatory comment. It happened to me on a completely different site (in the UK), and I left or withdrew for a while…it made me feel very vulnerable.

It’s a sign of a reasonable and balanced mind to show politeness and courtesy to others, as you always have. It’s considerate, moderate. I always feel that when someone puts out a comment that is a personal put-down (to someone they don’t even know) it is a sure sign that they have lost the argument, and maybe don’t even have the ability to examine the argument or logic in a reasoning way.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 08/22/13 at 09:51 AM | #

The need for justice and the achievement of a secure and evidenced-based final verdict is more important than ever - precisely because of the PR campaign.

We cannot have justice-via-media.

People are not entitled to indulge in a collective narcissism. People are not entitled to express their inadequacies through harming others - emotionally, mentally, or literally and physically. Of course there are degrees of harm, of which a cruel and callous group murder must surely be the worst degree.

But we need to be clear that all harm and maliciousness is ill will - undesirable and unconscionable

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 08/22/13 at 11:34 AM | #

This is a response to AgentJasonBrowning, albeit a few days after your posts, in reference to your questions about Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp.  Hopefully you will find/read.

I am an old-school layperson detective—the “Columbo” type, if you will (being German, you may not understand the reference—was an American detective show from the 80’s, before DNA testing).
There is more than enough collaborating circumstantial evidence in this case to convict Sollecito and Knox, both, w/out any DNA.  Then add the multitude of ways in which they both ‘told on’ themselves.  What do I mean? 

For one, no one w/ half of a brain cell wouldn’t recognize Sollecito’s guilt, IMMEDIATELY upon his pronouncement that he’d ‘inadvertently pricked Meredith, w/ that knife,’ while he was cooking when she was a dinner guest, one night.  If his wholly defensive and reactionary statement upon learning that Kercher’s DNA was on the knife was not enough, we then learn that Ms.Kercher HAD NEVER BEEN IN HIS APARTMENT.  Bam.

You see, AgentJason, before the days of DNA testing, we tended to rely on logic, common sense, and the blatant ways in which humans tell on themselves.  So in some ways, our modern reliance on DNA testing- often in lieu of the obvious- might just be blinding us to the obvious. 


Posted by Hellinahandcart on 08/25/13 at 10:15 AM | #


I agree with you completely.

Posted by Miles on 08/25/13 at 01:35 PM | #


I agree with you completely. 

It’s been baffling to me the way the FOA focuses on nitpicking the dna evidence, and most media outlets have gone along with it, ignoring the mountain of damning circumstantial evidence exclusive of the dna.

Posted by Ceylon on 08/27/13 at 02:53 AM | #

In agreement with Miles and Ceylon on the good comment by Hellinahandcart.

You all might know of the CSI Effect?

This has been much played on by the defense counsels, Hampikian, Halkidis, the consultants C&V, and finally Hellmann and Zanetti - who were both trying their first DNA case.

US juries and media are still suckers for this stuff, although prosecutors and judges (and juries) are trying to outsmart it.

In Europe they are generally further down the road in sophistication of testing and public understanding, and it is pretty amazing that C&V were tainted by the DNA fraud Hampikian.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/27/13 at 04:35 AM | #

Comments on TJMK are becoming sadder and sadder everyday.The saddest part definitely always refers to Meredith´s lonely death on a cold November day nearly six years ago. Soon it will have happened more than half a decade into the past.  If we could revisit the past and change it, we could alter destiny .Wouldn´t it be great to travel back to the year 2007 and stop Meredith from entering the cottage? Would this be feasible at all ?

Posted by aethelred23 on 08/28/13 at 04:53 AM | #

@aethelred23. Fabulous link. Morgan Freeman’s smooth voice and science. Time, space, wormholes, gravity. Thank you, I needed that breath of fresh air of facts and physics this morning versus some uncontrollable human emotions around me lately. Nothing like a CERN particle collider to get one’s mind back on physics and realities of the universe.

As for your point of the long time we’ve been wrapped up in this case, I agree. It shows how easily five or six years can fly in the legal universe (though I doubt in prison!). If we had a time machine to go back to 2007, I bet we’d find Knox there her same self still craving notoriety and being a barefaced fortune hunter choosing Raf her sly stooge who uses his denial to enter into what he secretly wants by leaving his conscience at the door to grant her every whim. But we could whisk Meredith out of their destructive pathway.

What a rescue, what a great contribution she could then make. Like those particles in quantum mechanics where you touch one photon and despite distance it affects another photon in some connected but invisible system.

Fascinating link.

Posted by Hopeful on 08/28/13 at 04:45 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 The Rise And Fall Of “Frank Sfarzo” And How “Sfarzogate” Ripples On And On

Or to previous entry How Greg Hampikian Abuses Two Positions of Trust In Serially Misrepresenting The Hard Evidence