Saturday, December 09, 2017

Exoneration Hoax: Murder Apologists Should READ The Supreme Court’s Final Words

Posted by The Machine

Emory Law Dean Schapiro; Martha Grace Duncan; Harvard Law Dean Manning

1. Overview Of This Post

This flows from our first post ten days ago.

Martha Grace Duncan credits many dozens for their research help. Really? For precisely what? 

This is more about the research that Martha Grace Duncan and the huge group she thanks (see Part 4 below) should have done.  We will see here how she makes false claims that even a mere hour or two of checking if the courts actually said what she claimed would have stopped those claims dead in their tracks.

Did neither Duncan nor any of those hapless dozens now associated with her fraud think to do that? Below, with quotes, I will show how it is done.

2. Misrepresentation Of Supreme Court

It is blatantly apparent from reading Martha Grace Duncan’s academic paper bizarrely titled “WHAT NOT TO DO WHEN YOUR ROOMMATE IS MURDERED IN ITALY: AMANDA KNOX, HER “STRANGE” BEHAVIOR, AND THE ITALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM”  that she hasn’t actually read Judge Marasca’s final Supreme Court report.

She is ignorant of what that court actually said, and so she thoroughly misrepresents it.

Remember: (1) An acquittal under paragraph 1 of article 530 is a definitive acquittal or exoneration, the much stronger outcome. (2) An acquitted under paragraph 2 of article 530 is an insufficient evidence acquittal or dropping of charges for now. 

Also remember: Knox received TWO convictions: (1) for murder and (2) for calunnia. Duncan falsely claims in her academic paper that Amanda Knox has been “fully exonorated by Italy’s highest court” implying both. Knox was not exonerated for either conviction in fact.

If Martha Grace Duncan had read the final Supreme Court report, she would have known that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were merely acquitted for murder for now under paragraph 2.

(That is appealable, as is overuling of the Nencini court and dabbling in the evidence, as both are against the code.)

Martha Grace Duncan further highlights her ignorance with regard to the contents of Marasca’s Supreme Court report by falsely claiming that the Supreme Court dropped all charges against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

“March 29, 2015: The Supreme Court of Cassation overturns the murder convictions of Amanda and Raffaele and drops all charges against them.”

The Supreme Court actually reconfirmed Amanda Knox’s conviction for calunnia. She served three years in prison for repeatedly accusing Diya Lumumba of murder despite the fact she knew he was innocent.

“It is restated the inflicted sentence against the appellant Amanda Marie Knox, for the crime of slander at three years of prison.”

Judge Marasca pointed out in his report that Amanda Knox’s conviction for calunnia cannot be overturned.

“On the other hand, in the slanderous declaration against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as a final judgement”.

There is a common misconception amongst Amanda Knox’s supporters that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) might overturn Knox’s conviction for calunnia.

However, she is believed not even to have asked for that. And the ECHR cannot quash or reverse verdicts anyway, it can only recommend. In other words, Amanda Knox will remain a convicted criminal, a felon, for the rest of her life. That cannot be wound back.

Appeal Judge Nencini pointed out in his report that Amanda Knox didn’t retract her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison, and the motive for her allegation was to deflect attention away from herself and Sollecito and avoid retaliatory action from Rudy Guede.

“Amanda Marie Knox maintained her false and malicious story for many days, consigning Patrick Lumumba to a prolonged detention. She did not do this casually or naively. In fact, if the young woman’s version of events is to be relied upon, that is to say, if the allegations were a hastily prepared way to remove herself from the psychological and physical pressure used against her that night by the police and the prosecuting magistrate, then over the course of the following days there would have been a change of heart. This would inevitably have led her to tell the truth, that Patrick Lumumba was completely unconnected to the murder. But this did not happen.

“And so it is reasonable to take the view that, once she had taken the decision to divert the attention of the investigators from herself and Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Marie Knox became fully aware that she could not go back and admit calunnia. A show of remorse would have exposed her to further and more intense questioning from the prosecuting magistrate. Once again, she would bring upon herself the aura of suspicion that she was involved in the murder.

Indeed, if Amanda Marie Knox had admitted in the days following to having accused an innocent man, she would inevitably have exposed herself to more and more pressing questions from the investigators. She had no intention of answering these, because she had no intention of implicating Rudy Hermann Guede in the murder.

“By accusing Patrick Lumumba, who she knew was completely uninvolved, because he had not taken part in the events on the night Meredith was attacked and killed, she would not be exposed to any retaliatory action by him. He had nothing to report against her. In contrast, Rudy Hermann Guede was not to be implicated in the events of that night because he, unlike Patrick Lumumba, was in Via della Pergola, and had participated [100] in the murder. So, he would be likely to retaliate by reporting facts implicating the present defendant in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

“In essence, the Court considers that the only reasonable motive for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba was to deflect suspicion of murder away from herself and from Raffaele Sollecito by blaming someone who she knew was not involved, and was therefore unable to make any accusations in retaliation. Once the accusatory statements were made, there was no going back. Too many explanations would have had to be given to those investigating the calunnia; explanations that the young woman had no interest in giving.”

The Marasca/Bruno court took no issue with that. Judge Marasca also believed Amanda Knox wanted to avoid retaliatory action from Rudy Guede and stated it was a circumstantial element against her.

“However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her.”

Apart from these two significant factual errors concerning the Supreme Court’s rulings in her academic paper, it’s clear that Martha Grace Duncan is labouring under the misapprehension that Amanda Knox was “fully exonerated” by the Supreme Court because there is some exculpatory evidence that provides definititve proof that Amanda Knox is innocent. However, she never explains what this exculpatory evidence is.

If Martha Grace Duncan had taken the time to read Marasca’s report, she would have known that the Supreme Court didn’t fully exonerate Amanda Knox at all. On the contrary, it actually implicated her in Meredith’s murder.

It ascertained the following: (1) there were multiple attackers (2) it’s a proven fact that Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith Kercher was killed (3) she washed Meredith’s blood off in the small bathroom (4) she lied to the police (5) she falsely accused Diya Lumumba of murder to cover for Rudy Guede in order to avoid retaliatory action and (6) the break-in at the cottage was staged.

I’ll substantiate each and every one of the claims above with quotations from Judge Marasca’s report to show Martha Grace Duncan how it is done and to give her the full picture of what’s in the report rather than the partial one that has been given to her presumably by Amanda Knox and her supporters.

1. There Were Multiple Attackers On The Night

“The [court’s] assessment of it, in accord with other trial findings which are valuable to confirm its reliability is equally correct. We refer to multiple elements linked to the overall reconstructions of events, which rule out Guede could have acted alone.

Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds observed on the victim’s neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons. And also, the lack of signs of resistance by the young woman, since no traces of the assailant were found under her nails, and there is no evidence of any desperate attempt to oppose the aggressor, the bruises on her upper limbs and those on mandibular area and lips (likely the result of forcible hand action of constraint meant to keep the victim’s mouth shut) found during the cadaver examination, and above all, the appalling modalities of the murder which were not pointed out in the appealed ruling.

“And in fact, the same ruling (p323 and 325) reports of abundant blood found on the right of the wardrobe located in Kercher’s room, about 50cm above the floor. Such occurrence, given the location and direction of the drops, could probably lead to the conclusion the young woman had her throat literally “slashed” likely while she was kneeling , while her head was being forcibly held tilted towards the floor, at a close distance from the wardrobe, when she was hit by multiple stab wounds at her neck, one of which - the one inflicted on the left side of the neck - caused her death, due to asphyxia following the massive bleeding, which also filled the breathing ways preventing breathing activity, a situation aggravated by the rupture of the hyoid bone - this also linkable to blade action - with consequent dyspnoea” (p.48).

“Such a mechanical action is hardly attributable to the conduct of one person alone.” (p.49)

2. Amanda Knox was there when Meredith was killed

“Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her own signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired in the room of same Ms Kercher, together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it. About this, the judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detective still did not have the the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy result, nor the witnesses’ information, which collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (Nara Capezalli, Antonella Monocchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to. We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] on 11.6.2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declaration against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as a final judgement [giudicato] [they] had a premise in the narrative, that is the presence of the young American woman, inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time - except obviously the other people present in the house - could have known (quote p.96). 

“According to the slanderous statements of Ms. Knox, she had returned home in the company of Lumumba, whom she had met by chance in Piazza Grimana, and when Ms. Kercher arrived in the house, Knox’s companion, directed sexual attentions toward the English woman, then he went together with her to he room from which the harrowing scream came. So, it was Lumumba who killed Meredith and she could affirm this since she was on the scene of the crime herself, albeit in another room. (p.97)

3. Amanda Knox washed Meredith’s blood off in bathroom

“Another element against her [Amanda Knox] is the mixed traces, her and the victim’s one, in the ‘small bathroom’, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing).

“The fact is very suspicious, but it’s not decisive, besides the known considerations about the sure nature and attribution of the traces in question.”

4. Cassation confirms Amanda Knox lied to the police

“Elements of strong suspicion are also in the inconsistencies and lies which the suspect woman [Amanda Knox] committed over the statements she released on various occasions, especially in the places where her narrative was contradicted by the telephone records which show different incoming SMS messages”.

5. Knox accused Lumumba of murder to avoid Guede’s retaliation

“However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her.”

6. The break-in at the cottage was staged

“And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she is accused of , is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards - apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside - on top of the clothes and furniture) a staging, which can be linked to someone who as an author of the murder and flatmate [titolare] with a formal {“qualified”] connection to the dwelling - had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself, while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the dwelling as quickly as possible.”

3. Duncan’s Misrepresentation Of Supreme Court

Writing an academic paper on the Amanda Knox case without having read Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report is akin to writing an academic paper on the assassination of JFK without having read the Warren Report and relying on Oliver Stone’s film and some books written by conspiracy nuts.

The fact Martha Grace Duncan hasn’t even read Marasca’s Supreme Court report, but has instead relied primarily on Amanda Knox and her PR and partisan supporters for her information is embarrassing, to say the least.

Amanda Knox admitted lying to the police in her Waiting to Be Heard. She was convicted of lying by all courts, including the Italian Supreme Court. Since when did the word of a convicted liar trump the official court reports?

Martha Grace Duncan is a professor of law, although you couldn’t tell that from reading her academic paper. Her mistakes e.g. getting basic facts wrong and not bothering to read Marasca’s Supreme Court report or any other official court reports for that matter are unforgivable.

An early version of this Article received the Judith Siegel Pearson Award for Nonfiction in 2014. I am grateful to the judges. Previous versions of this Article were presented at the Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Università  degli Studi di Torino; the European University Institute, Fiesole, Italy; the Emory Law Faculty, the Emory Psychoanalytic Studies Program, and the Emory Workshop on Geographies of Violence. My thanks go to the participants. My thanks also go to Robert Ahdieh, Giulia Alagna, Cathy Allan, Flavia Brizio-Skov, Michele Caianiello, Elisabetta Grande, Joe Mackall, Stefano Maffei, Alice Margaria, Claudia Marzella, Gaetano Marzella, Colleen Murphy, David Partlett, Lucia Re, Bob Root, Elena Urso, and Liza Vertinsky. Deep appreciation goes to my research assistants: Stefania Alessi, Mary Brady, Andrew Bushek, Peter Critikos, Sarah Kelsey, Tess Liegois, Zishuang Liu, Mike McClain, Jon Morris, Kaylie Niemasik, Sarah Pittman, Faraz Qaisrani, Deborah Salvato, Shannon Shontz-Phillips, Anthony Tamburro, and Michelle Tanen.


Another spot-on post by the Machine, Keeper of The Hard Facts.

I also keep wondering who all those researchers were and what if anything they did.

How do they feel about being associated with a nasty, obvious, and easy-to-prove fraud?

Did she just hijack their names?

If anyone knows who they are an email tip would be great. More are credited in footnotes.

Drop them a note? Or we will. Tip: FACEBOOK messages are proving the most reliable way to get through.

My thanks go to the participants. My thanks also go to Robert Ahdieh, Giulia Alagna, Cathy Allan, Flavia Brizio-Skov, Michele Caianiello, Elisabetta Grande, Joe Mackall, Stefano Maffei, Alice Margaria, Claudia Marzella, Gaetano Marzella, Colleen Murphy, David Partlett, Lucia Re, Bob Root, Elena Urso, and Liza Vertinsky.

Deep appreciation goes to my research assistants: Stefania Alessi, Mary Brady, Andrew Bushek, Peter Critikos, Sarah Kelsey, Tess Liegois, Zishuang Liu, Mike McClain, Jon Morris, Kaylie Niemasik, Sarah Pittman, Faraz Qaisrani, Deborah Salvato, Shannon Shontz-Phillips, Anthony Tamburro, and Michelle Tanen.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/09/17 at 07:05 PM | #

16 research assistants. All useless.

The Abstract is revealing.

“In this Article, I explore the Amanda Knox case in the context of our defective ability to judge. In Part One, I use the conceit of a “What Not To Do” list to highlight the role played by Amanda’s “strangeness” in bringing about her arrest and two convictions. In Part Two, I re-examine the usual rationale for Amanda’s behavior and suggest that a better explanation lies in her age and developmental stage. In Part Three, I shift from the interpreted to the interpreters, arguing that the latter were powerfully affected by the Madonna/whore complex and cultural differences between Perugia and Seattle. In Part Four, I analyze the impact of the Italian legal system, with its deep roots in the inquisitorial paradigm and its limited adversarial reforms.”

Gee whizz. What garbage.

Yes, she does use conceit. A lot. Conceit in her own “defective ability to judge” and in her own sloppy “exoneration” of Amanda Knox resting, as it does, on age (Knox was 20 at the time and a student at the University of Washington), developmental stage (well, probably lower than 20), opposing cultures (accounting, apparently, for her “strangeness”) and “the Madonna/whore complex”. The final conceit - to ignore everything else about the case.

Knox was not detained and brought to trial because she was strange.

And Duncan knows nothing about the Italian judicial system.

As to the Madonna/whore complex, well at least that’s topical, given Harvey Weinstein and recent sackings in the entertainment industry, but it is a conceit (well, more, it is a slur, and hitching her petticoat to a bandwagon) to suggest that this played any part in the investigative and judicial process in the particular case she is writing about. Selene Nelson nicely derided this faux feminism in her article in the post below.

And perhaps Duncan might like to explain how the Madonna/whore complex played out in the minds of (1) the head of the Murder Squad who was a woman, Monica Napoleoni, and (2) the officers who interviewed Knox - three, two of whom were women, Rita Ficarra and Lorena Zugarini, and (3) the interpreter, Anna Donnino.

There are a lot of women in this case. Knox’s two flatmates, Meredith’s english girlfriends, the prosecution DNA advocate Manuela Comodi, the principal forensic expert Dr Stefanoni, numerous female judges- all smart intelligent females doing well, not straitlaced and under the thumb of men, and certainly not influenced by a Madonna/whore complex.

I challenge Duncan to find any mention of, or disapproval of, Knox’s “strangeness”(in a cultural sense and other than specifically relevant to the case), or of her sex life, in any of the court motivations.

We can contrast this with Sollecito. Massei mentioned the fact that he had been investigated by his university for having pornographic videos and magazines with a violent content.

Duncan’s problem is that she thinks that what was written in the american media, and in books on sale in american bookshops, is all there is. Some research!

Posted by James Raper on 12/09/17 at 09:35 PM | #

Martha Grace Duncan should be given the Darwin Award for her academic paper on the Amanda Knox case. She and 16 other people researched the case and not one of them bothered to read Marasca’s Supreme Court report. It defies belief that educated people could be so stupid.

Posted by The Machine on 12/09/17 at 11:01 PM | #

Wasn’t Giulia Alagna one of Knox’s lawyers? The name is familiar.

Posted by jhansigirl on 12/10/17 at 01:21 AM | #

Giulia Alagna is a simple-minded gofer who worked as a freelance translator for American media organisations who openly supported Amanda Knox. She became part of Amanda Knox’s entourage and regards herself as Knox’s friend.

She’s never said anything intelligent about the case. Ever.

Posted by The Machine on 12/10/17 at 01:33 AM | #

Stefano Maffei thinks Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty:

“This is the simplest and fairest criminal trial one could possibly think of in terms of evidence,” said Stefano Maffei, lecturer in criminal procedure at the University of Parma. He has also lectured at Harvard Law School, has Ph.D in law from Oxford and is currently a guest lecturer at University of Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

“There were 19 judges who looked at the facts and evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”

Posted by The Machine on 12/10/17 at 01:38 AM | #

Hello Machine,

Great post.  This has to be the funniest comment that I have heard in a while.

Writing an academic paper on the Amanda Knox case without having read Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report is akin to writing an academic paper on the assassination of JFK without having read the Warren Report, and relying on Oliver Stone’s film and some books written by conspiracy nuts.

There were actually at least 5 times Cassation got involved in the case, and none of them are cited properly, if at all:

(a) 2008—Denial of bail/house arrest for AK/RS, on grounds they are dangerous and there is a strong case

(b) 2010—Guede’s appeals run out, but he is guilty ‘‘in conjunction with others’‘

(c) 2013—Hellmann/Zanetti ruling annulled as illogical.  Martha Duncan very briefly mentions the fragmented way Hellmann did things (as if that’s a plus) but shows no interest in researching it further.  She also admits that calunnia confirmed with ‘‘aggravating factors’‘, meaning it was done to deflect attention from the murder itself.  So the 2 are obviously linked.

(d) 2015—Bruno/Marasca acquit for ‘‘insufficient evidence’‘, and as you say, was not an ‘‘exoneration’‘.  Being present while washing off blood and then lying to cover it up is hardly innocent.

(e) 2017—Sollecito gets denied compensation since he repeatedly lied.  ‘‘Willful misconduct’’ is what they call it.

I’ve read Duncan’s paper.  She goes on and on about historical prejudice and assumptions about women, but avoids any of the actual court documents

It’s not like TJMK doesn’t have plenty of transcripts which have been available for years ....

Posted by Chimera on 12/10/17 at 05:37 AM | #

James Raper posts a good list of women involved in the case. Men were probably in the minority on the case and usually more at the wussie end of the scale.

What’s the opposite of Madonna/whore? This case was almost that.

Judge Claudia Matteini’s role is really hard to ignore, but Duncan somehow does that. Matteini was the supervising magistrate guiding the development of the case from the day of the first arrests. She collected most of her information directly from the women investigators James names. Somehow Duncan ignores her.

Manuela Comodi’s role as co-prosecutor is especially hard to ignore and she was generally firmer than Mignini, but somehow Duncan does it and ignores her.

Both defense teams included women lawyers; none at all of their questioning was about what had Duncan seeing red.

Ignored also: Dr Beatrice Cristiani as the co-judge at the 2009 Perugia trial.

Ignored also: Dr. Luciana Cicerchia as the co-judge at the 2013 Florence appeal.

Including those two, all the women on the juries were ignored:

Massei jury (6 of 8).
Hellman jury (5 out of 8).
Nencini jury (6 of 8).
Total 17 of 24.

The ONLY jury which was all men was????  Marasca Bruno! The guys Machine quotes above.

They dont think much of Knox but they did give her the final break. Those men…..

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/10/17 at 06:22 PM | #

The Madonna is in Duncan’s eye #1.

The Knox she sees is not the real Knox. Equating her with normal Americans in Italy is ludicrous. The real Knox was a loose canon from way back, who time and again got in over her head, and in Perugia ticked everyone off with her erratic brashness and drug habit - Sollecito not least of course.

Take a look there at the 518 Knox lies Chimera attacked. Is that normal? From someone guilt-free? A clear majority of those lies consist of

(a) Knox making herself out to be the weak naive put-upon young thing, and/or

(b) 1000 meanies putting her down; she sounds like some raving paranoid.

Unsurprisingly Knox omits how dangerous her drug dealer was (the one she sent to prison) that she brought by the house to shag - who put real fright in the other three.

Martha Grace Duncan sure swallowed (a) and (b). She’s very far gone on her little darling; but maybe these posts (by Italian women) could help warn others off her.

As many of us were expecting, Amanda’s testimony has backfired. She came across not as confident but arrogant, not as sweet but testy, not as true but a fake who has memorized a script, an actress who is playing a part but not well enough to fool the public.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/10/17 at 06:50 PM | #

The Madonna is in Duncan’s eye #2.

Knox was a loose canon long before her leaving for Europe.

Leave aside her mental quirks, suggesting a need for therapy, more responsible parents would never have cleared her trip to Perugia in light of these:

(1) Knox’s known Seattle drug habit;

(2) Knox having little money on arrival in Perugia, having never applied for Washington University funding which was easy to get;

(3) Knox avoiding WU supervision in Perugia by being in the 1% of American students in Perugia not in any exchange program.

(4) Knox having no European work permit and so no legal way to earn;

(5) Knox not enrolling at the main University, leaving way too much time on her hands, while all around her worked their tails off.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/10/17 at 06:59 PM | #

In reading anything from Marasca & Bruno, it pays to know that it is believed that TWO things were going on when they wrote.

(1) They had been leaned on back in March to spring the pair. Their final announcement was very unusually delayed, for nearly an hour. The initial theory was politics (Obama/Renzi) but all investigation has moved over to the process that began here:

(2) In the written report Machine quotes they were winding back from what their simple statement said in March, to add the sting in the tail and the betting both ways that the Machine describes.

They may not have cared personally which way the judgment went, but they still had to try to look their First Chambers colleagues in the eye. Hence what Machine quotes.

The big open question is what can be done about Knox, as the surefire leader of the pack, and as many see it the only real murderer with intent among the three.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/11/17 at 06:09 AM | #

Being reported. In The US more than 1 million forign students each year contribute $39 billion. But for first time there’s a drop in the numbers. Partly because countries in Europe are working on it, partly “concerns about political uncertainty, tuition increases, visa delays and reductions in scholarship money, an annual survey found.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/17 at 04:30 PM | #

Amanda Knox is going to host a television series about women who have been demonised in the media:

She is undoubtedly one of the most evil people that has ever lived.

Posted by The Machine on 12/13/17 at 04:38 PM | #

Ah! Thanks Machine.

Vice offices are here in Brooklyn (Williamsburg area) and they have just begun a very good nightly news program of 1/2 an hour without ads on HBO. They seem to have picked up some of the team the late Al Jazeera let go.

I was envisaging Vice as a main target for when we “outreach” on the Netflix hoax. Just a few days of work to go, all the material that came in in the last several years and now on the Wiki has resulted in a bunch of work for us but it is paying off. Many of the posts now contain facts we did not know this time last year.

So I am amused at this news. Demonization is Knox’s Achilles Heel. She is one of the most demonizing people on the planet, we could use a full list of those she has hit out at - there are a lot for starters in her book as Chimeras shows - maybe on a new page.

Any further ideas?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/13/17 at 06:29 PM | #

Dec. 13, 2017 Daily Mail headline: One-time convicted murderer Amanda Knox will host a web series on Facebook about women demonized in the media.

Her show is called “The Scarlet Letter Reports”. It is from VICE media and will be launching on Facebook’s video platform.

Knox will interview women to discuss their being sexualized, scrutinized and demonized by media coverage. She will interview the model, Amber Rose and also interview Daisy Coleman, a Missouri teen who became an advocate for sexual assault education.

Her show starts in Spring 2018. Knox says she hopes to rehumanize others who have been similarly shamed and vilified.

Knox tweeted: “In the midst of this important cultural moment, I’m thrilled to be partnering with VICE and Facebook to mind-meld with incredible women and address an issue very close to my heart. Look out for The Scarlet Letter Reports this spring.”

Knox also said she lost years of her life to prison because of “two-dimensional and misogynist stereotypes.”

Oh, here’s some irony. Knox’s show will be among 3 original weekly shows from VICE. The other two shows will be one called “Breaking and Entertaining”, a renovation reality show. The other show is “Hangover”, how to cure one.

Comments are all negative:

“She is guilty and will rot in hell.”
“Four years ago she still got lots of support in the comments. Glad to see more people have caught on.”
“Knox, a woman desperate for celebrity and fame. A woman who did cartwheels after her roommate was murdered.”
“For goodness sakes’ woman, GO AWAY.”
“Hot felon pass card.”

And other comments most saying she’s guilty.

This news about Knox’s Scarlet Letter show was written by Regina F. Graham and published 13 Dec. 2017 for Daily Mail. com

I had just returned from a happy Christmas trip to see Knox’s mug on the DailyMail online with pix of her in blue jeans curled up on a couch talking with Amber Rose, along with throwback pix of her with her earlier ghost chaser beau, a youthful pix of her wearing long sleeve turtleneck, and shot of her in navy blue floral from old TV interview.

Words fail to describe the chutzpah of Knox’s newest endeavor.

Posted by Hopeful on 12/14/17 at 03:47 AM | #

To play devil’s advocate, there is a silver lining in this:

Every time she appears in public, she comes across as fake, rehearsed and borderline psycho.  Here’s to hoping for a serious backfire.

Posted by Chimera on 12/14/17 at 09:46 AM | #

Chimera, she certainly does. Yet still she gets these media opportunities.Truly bizzare.
I’m loath to post any links which show her face but hopefully this guy analyzes more of her.

Posted by DavidB on 12/14/17 at 03:26 PM | #

Thanks..allways read…seldom need to add.

Posted by Tina on 12/30/17 at 04:30 AM | #
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 Interrogation Hoax #19: ALL Knox Q&A Sessions 2-6 November 2007 WERE Recorded #1

Or to previous entry The Academic Fraud By Martha Grace Duncan Enabled By Emory & Harvard Law Schools