Sunday, November 01, 2015

A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #5

Posted by James Raper

Image is of busy Rome at night

The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report

I conclude my critique of the final 34 pages of the Motivation Report, the decisions and verdict parts.

The four previous posts can be read here and here and here and here. A full translation of the Marasca-Bruno Report can be read or downloaded here.

The Critique Part 5

So, let’s do a brief recap now

1. The Report starts with sensationalized general slurs on the competence and motives of the investigators and judges.

2.  Marasca and Bruno misunderstand the relevance of motive. Nencini was not in error. It is not relevant, or of less relevance, if the evidentiary framework of guilt is by itself sufficient to establish guilt. In such circumstances the normal formula is to attribute futile and trivial motives that require no further definition. Conversely motive does acquire importance, an element in itself, if that framework is insufficient.

3. Their section on TOD produces nothing that is relevant.

4.  Having failed to establish a convincing connection between “the primacy” of rules of evidence and a guarantee of the repeatability of DNA analysis, such that the latter is required by the former, or at least can be tolerated by it for some specific reason, they assert that the latter must prevail anyway. It requires numerous inconsistencies, a failure to follow the ground rules of evidence, and the illogicality of failing to follow their own argument, such as it is, to assert that Meredith’s DNA on the blade of the knife, and Sollecito’s DNA in a mixed sample from the bra clasp, have no probative or circumstantial value simply because they were not capable of repetition. That is simply a dogmatic assertion and one, as we shall see, that has no connection with the permitted grounds for appeal.

5.  As if the foregoing was not enough, and perhaps conscious of it, they bring up the matter of contamination again. Which would not be relevant if the foregoing were true. The contamination argument has long been shown to have no mileage in it. The cardboard box (from the police station) is a stupid reference and that there was pre-existing dirt on a latex glove mere speculation, without context.

6. The section on luminol hits and removal of blood traces is characterized by many misrepresentations and a chronic misunderstanding of the evidence and the inferences that can be drawn from it.

7.  On the simulated break-in, which they accept, they declare that they are then stymied in the necessary inference by the feeblest of anomalies.

8.  Now up to this point we have encountered few, if any, mistakes, inconsistencies and contradictions, of any significance, other than those that Marasca-Bruno are making, or making up, themselves. 


Remember this?  -

“that fact finding is a task pertaining exclusively to the fact-finding judge, and not up to the Court of Legitimacy. The Supreme Court has to limit itself to whether the fact-finding judge’s reasoning is compatible with common sense and within the limits of an acceptable latitude (law cited) as well as compliant with the limits of evidence.”

In fact appeals to the Supreme Court can only be made under the precise circumstances provided for by the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

These are governed by Article 606. Of the provisions in this Article, only section 1, para (e) is applicable, as follows -

“(e)  defect, contradictoriness or manifest illogicality of the judgement reasoning, when the error results from the text of the provisioning appealed, or from other documents in the proceedings specifically noted in the reasons of encumberment.”

Therefore, although fact finding is the preserve of the lower courts, the Supreme Court can enter into the merits of the judgement appealed against on this ground.

The question arises as to what constitutes a fact to which para (e) would not relate.

There are probably not many, for most facts determined would require an element of reasoning. For instance, to hold that a particular witness was reliable, or otherwise, would require explanation, that is, reasoning, and so on.

To be clear, “defect”, “contradictoriness” and “illogicality” all relate to the judgement reasoning.

For instance, a failure to take into account contradictory evidence in the judgement reasoning must obviously be included as a defect.

Another defect would, of course, be misapplication or misinterpretation of the law in the judgement reasoning, an error to which the 5th Chambers have already shown themselves prone.

I am not quite sure how “contradictoriness” in the judgement reasoning is to be construed, but I suspect that there would be contradictoriness in asserting something contrary to the weight of the evidence, or indeed in the absence of any evidence in support. Another case might be in making a point which is then undermined elsewhere in the reasoning

In any event a clear restriction on the Supreme Court entering into the merits of the judgement appealed against, apart from the foregoing, would appear to be that in the case of illogicality, that it has to be manifest.

However, no particular instance of manifest illogicality is likely, on it’s own, to invalidate a verdict, unless it amounts to a serious defect from which the reasoning, as a whole, on the verdict, cannot recover.

Effectively, there have to be numerous manifest illogicalities in the reasoning of the judgement appealed against, for this to happen. Under those circumstances one might actually describe the judgement as “perverse” at one end of the scale, and “unsafe” at the other. Setting aside a conviction for such reasons I would understand.  Usually, at least in the UK, an unsafe conviction would result in a re-trial if the prosecution requested it.

However even the Supreme Court has to motivate it’s decision making process, free from such defects. Clearly that has not been the case.

The banal peppering of the Report with references to “manifest illogicality” and “intrinsically contradictory”, and so on, may impress the undiscerning reader, but the repetition and context are, frankly, “manifestly” unconvincing to the discerning reader.

What we find, on analyzing the 5th Chambers’ motivation, is that when it enters into the merit, it does not do so in a balanced way, and without logical inconsistency on it’s own part, but simply by making dogmatic assertions on the merit. That is hardly extending an acceptable latitude to the fact-finding judge nor is it explaining why his reasoning is incompatible with common sense.

In particular, I do not see how one can make the assertion that the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp has no probative or circumstantial relevance, because the tests were not repeated, when this can scarcely be described as a product of the application of section 1 (e) of Article 606.


Furthermore, one also has to consider the effect of Article 628. The 2nd paragraph states that -

“In any event a verdict issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand may be appealed only on the reasons that do not concern those that had already been decided by Cassation on the order of remand”¦.”

At the very least this should have served as a warning to the 5th Chambers.

The Chieffi ruling annulling Hellmann was not intended as a foray into the merit but it was a criticism of the procedural defects and reasoning methodology of the Hellmann court, which errors we can see repeated in the Marasca-Bruno Report.

The most obvious and most frequent error is the use of dogmatic assertion, the starkest example of the deployment of self-contained circular reasoning it is possible to have. Indeed, it does not warrant the description “reasoning”.

Another important error was the “atomizing” or “parceling out” of the circumstantial evidence in an attempt to exclude items prior to assessing it in an overall evaluation. This error underwrites the 5th Chambers’ approach to the case, manifestly in it’s use of dogmatic assertion to achieve the aim of eliminating or reducing the evidence.

Abstract hypothesizing on contamination is another.

The reprise of Hellmann’s reasoning as to the reliability of the witness Curatolo is another, and most objectionable, one.

Interestingly, the “validity” of the DNA testing was not an aspect raised by Galati and consequently not touched upon by Chieffi. The only conclusion has to be that the State (subsequently confirmed by Nencini) deemed the reliability of the results as perfectly safe.


Article 530, Section 2 and Conclusions

I now turn to the matter of the sufficiency of the evidence.

There is no formula as such.

The evidence is sufficient if the bar of culpable beyond a reasonable doubt is met, insufficient if it is not.

The starting point is clearly the evidence itself, and then the inferences that are drawn logically from it.

As to the evidence and inferences, we are assisted by the fact, under the Italian system, that all verdicts, whether at trial or appeal stage, are required to be motivated in writing. 

The final motivation, prior to the 5th Chambers, is, of course, the Nencini report. It seemed to me that Nencini, despite a few flaws, did an excellent job in unifying the evidence in a global way, as is required of what is essentially circumstantial evidence, fully in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on the matter, and with all the arrows pointing in the same direction and substantially corroborating each other. It left no reasonable doubt, in my humble submission, that the Florence court’s affirmation of the guilty verdicts was correct.

Now, we have already discussed the grounds on which an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court. The sufficiency of the evidence is not one of the stated grounds.That is a matter for the fact-finding judges of the lower courts. The 5th Chambers therefore knowingly exceeded their remit.

We also find, having gone through the Marasca-Bruno criticism of the Nencini Report, in some detail, that many, if not most, of these criticisms lack substance and lack logical consistency in their own right.

The overall effect has been to produce an improper, if not fraudulent, weighting (for want of a better word) on the matter of sufficiency, which should not have even been considered anyway.

In addition the result of the Report has been to produce an interesting scenario based on the following conclusions.

1.  Knox was present in the cottage at the time of the murder but in a non-participatory role. Very probably (if this is not a held fact) she had scrubbed Meredith’s blood off her hands in the small bathroom.

2.  Sollecito was very probably there as well, but it cannot be known when.

3.  There was certainly an assailant (and perhaps more than one) in addition to Guede.

4.  There was a staging of the break-in in Filomena’s room.

As to Knox having blood on her hands (literally rather than metaphorically) there are inconsistencies to be derived from this because, according to the Report, this would have been as a result of contact with blood outside Meredith’s room. Why? Where is that blood? Such blood could, of course, have been there prior to it being removed. However, to affirm that would be to prejudice a number of assertions they have already made. More likely is that Knox had been in Meredith’s room, during or after the event and without, we would have to observe with some interest, leaving any trace of herself there. That would also be the logical explanation for her lamp being on the floor there.

Guede was not charged with, and hence was neither acquitted nor convicted of, the offence of staging, but in any event Marasca-Bruno did not attempt to attribute the staging to him. This leaves either Knox, an unknown person, or Sollecito. As to an unknown person it is manifestly difficult to see how he would be “a qualified person” for the purpose of the inference that only someone with an interest in removing suspicion from himself would do this. Knox and Sollecito qualify whether there is an anomaly or not.

As to who Guede’s unknown accomplices may have been, Marasca and Bruno are silent. This is not surprising as there was no forensic trace of them. There were, in fairness, unidentified genetic profiles, male and female, obtained from cigarette stubs taken from the ashtray in the lounge/kitchen, but as with the mixed genetic profile of Knox and Sollecito on one of these, they cannot be dated and therefore cannot be placed within the time frame for the murder. For all we know they could belong to Romanelli and her boyfriend Marco Zaroli, both of whom were at the cottage earlier on the day of the 1st Nov, with Knox and Sollecito.

More pertinently, however, is this scenario regarding Knox.  It is not one that her defence team, even in their wildest dreams, would have considered advancing on her behalf. She had, throughout the proceedings, maintained that she was not there, whether or not in a non-participatory role.

That is not surprising. The scenario we have is that Knox and perhaps Sollecito were at the cottage with Guede, and at least one other, and that Guede and this other saw fit to commit a horrendous murder in their presence, without encouragement nor opposition from either of them it would seem, but certainly in the knowledge that such action, even if it met with cowed submission from them in the first instance, would meet with the utmost reprobation, and then they leave, trusting to Knox and Sollecito not spilling the beans. That really is stretching credulity well beyond the bounds of breaking point. Even more so if there was no unknown accomplice.

Furthermore, and if that is nevertheless so, then Knox has had more than enough chances to put the record straight, particularly since her return to Seattle. She still has the opportunity to do so.

What we have, therefore, is a fact that neither the defence nor the prosecution has ever advanced in the entire history of the proceedings, and not one that any previous judge has drawn.

Now it may be something that can be justified by a fact-finding judge, on remand, and in the light of the Marasca-Bruno Report.  Not.  But it is surely beyond the remit of the 5th Chambers to hold that as a fact and without even permitting prosecution and defence submissions on it. That runs counter to the principle of natural justice, a violation inherent in the final appeal and in the decision not to permit a remand to a 1st instance court of appeal.

It would have been interesting to have seen the defence submissions.


I said at the beginning that the Marasca-Bruno Report was a desperate attempt to bring home an incomprehensible verdict. It has been described elsewhere (by a reputable american reporter who had been present throughout the proceedings) as superficial and intellectually dishonest. It is not only that, it is a charade that sullies the good name of Italian justice.

A question to arise is what truly motivated the verdict? It seems to me that the only “glaring investigative omission” in the case, is this. However that is a murky world of connections and undue influence about which we can only speculate at this stage.

Had it been incompetence and had the five Supreme Court judges held up their hands and simply admitted that they had made a mistake, I might have had some sympathy for them. Instead they have persisted with a charade which is essentially corrupt.

By “corrupt” I mean that they have knowingly acted in bad faith. They cannot otherwise have been such simpletons. It is also abundantly obvious why they did not dare risk remanding the case to another appeal court.

As for Knox and Sollecito, sadly for them, they are anything but exonerated.



Thanks. A withering critique of the absurd crime scenario necessarily and unconsciously proposed by the 5th chamber report. How anyone, head in hands, can read the report without coming to the conclusion that the judgement was pre-ordained is beyond me. We are used to “intelligence being worked to fit around the policy”, a la Bush and Blair for the Iraq invasion, but for the judiciary to fit a judgement and reasoning around the desired acquittal is surely new, or maybe just new in this glaringly obvious and cack-handed way.

I’m permanently shell-shocked these days when it comes to the machinations of the powerful (or maybe I’m just naive). All sense of shame has seemingly disappeared from those in responsible positions, those you’d normally expect to have natural integrity (and what is the point of judges who lack this quality?). Grand deceptions by the powerful are now carried out in broad daylight, implicitly stating “suck it, there’s nothing you can do”. On the positive side, maybe we are simply becoming more healthily aware of corruption that was always previously underground. Otherwise we’d better look out, and I’m with W.B.Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…

Posted by Odysseus on 11/17/15 at 07:58 PM | #

Excellent analysis, James. Thanks for pointing out the similarities between the Hellmann and Marasca Bruno rulings.

Though arguments about the non repeatability of DNA tests were made by the defense at trial and appeals (also mooted by Conti and Vecchiotti) and rejected by the courts, they were introduced again by Bongiorno in her addendum to the appeal just one month before the Supreme Court heard the case, with heavy emphasis on Dr. Peter Gill’s error filled book and “international standards”.

She also repeated that argument before the court. Obviously, they were swayed 😊

Posted by Ergon on 11/17/15 at 09:13 PM | #

I read the motivation through and was none the wiser. All I was certain of was that the general public were unlikely to bother to sift through and try to assimilate and analyze it. Thank you James for this in-depth critique and for your unflinching statements “..what truly motivated the verdict? .. the only ‘glaring investigative omission’ in the case, is this.”  AND,  “.. that is a murky world of connections and undue influence.” The evidence that is out there so clearly points to, at the very least, AK and RS’s involvement in a smokescreen operation. Why are so many people twisting and turning, fabricating and outright lying, to save these two from a justified prison term. What makes saving them more important than reputations, an honest justice system and truth for Meredith.

Posted by YorkshireLass on 11/18/15 at 02:03 PM | #

Nice, excoriating piece to finish an excellent analysis James.

Although I understand that Hellman, Marasca and Bruno were/are careerist political appointments rather than judges who had done their time and had relevant experience in the field of murder (a route to promotion now closed off, albeit somewhat late given that this horse has already bolted), I am still left with the feeling that deep, insidious corruption lies at the heart of this decision rather than plain old incompetence.

This is extra sad when you consider Italy’s proud tradition of standing up to the likes of the Mafia and refusing to be cowed by executions of judges and senior legal figures in the past.

Who gains from this, apart from the two murdering rat bags who got away with it?

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/19/15 at 02:26 AM | #

@ davidmulhern:

“I am still left with the feeling that deep, insidious corruption lies at the heart of this decision rather than plain old incompetence”

Me too.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/19/15 at 05:56 PM | #


“Who gains from this, apart from the two murdering rat bags who got away with it?”

Everybody gains who has an interest in seeing Italian justice brought down a peg. Mafias and numerous fellow-travelers, rogue masons, the whole industry built upon Knox in the US, parties like Berlusconi’s which have had tough treatment for corruption and fear the Florence court going forward, media which would look foolish doing a u-turn, the political levels of government in Rome and Washington which had been fed very false stories and thought both would lose face in an extradition fight.

At the same time nothing is cast in stone. Already Marasca and Bruno have deviated massively since March. Exposes like James Raper’s and Chimera’s on eg the RS and AK books are very valuable indeed and will be more valuable in Italian soon. Even the Perugia and Florence courts dont have such a full view as we do, for example they still know little of the myths and libels put about in the US. Those in Italy who could take apart the M-B report with the depth of knowledge of the case and the law that Catnip and Machiavelli and James Raper have done could be counted on one hand.

So really, it’s a bit premature to lament! Things could look very different in six months. During this year alone, translations into English and now translations into Italian have peaked. This does not come cheap and justice officials do not have large official or personal budgets for this. But almost on a daily basis we get messages of gratitude flowing in.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/19/15 at 09:50 PM | #

Okay. So I’m somewhat behind the knowledge and expertise in this case but I’ve just read partly through the Matteini report again as it’s the closest judgement to the events. It is clear, incisively argued and presents the facts prior (or at least reasonably prior) to the concerted PR campaign.

The case as presented was remarkably close in it’s workings to the case as presented here by jamesraper, before Hellmann/Zanetti and Marasca/Bruno worked their ‘bad faith’ judgments into the ensuing saga. Time has wrought some very perverse arguments into the case but nothing alters the fact that there was a staged death scene and the reasoning for that is very clear.

It is also what I find the most sickening scenario of this whole sorry episode. How could such a simplistic reality evade the aforesaid judges, and what world do they live in? Skunk easily produces a psychotic state with all the loss of reality, confused thinking, paranoia that AK and RS displayed during this period and they admit drug use.

Maybe they remember now in muddled flashes, or maybe they knew all along, but I can see these two thinking that they shouldn’t be penalized for a period of madness. I find it hard to reconcile the allowable, tortuous Italian justice system with swift sentencing and an emphasis on rehabilitation, as in the case of RG.

Maybe the Kercher family could accept that because I am sure that they do not want SOMEONE to pay for Meredith’s death, they want to see the people responsible pay the penalty for their actions, because that is how they keep faith with their child.

Posted by YorkshireLass on 11/21/15 at 11:25 PM | #

Hi YorkshireLass

Judge Matteini had in front of her RS and AK in separate sessions and she invited them to explain themselves. RS did (throwing AK to the wolves), and AK didnt, because her lawyers restrained her - she had already come out with three contrasting explanations and they didnt want a fourth one.

Then came the Riciarelli panel of judges immediately after and a second opportunity for RS and AK to explain themselves.

That court was scathing and confirmed RS and AK should remain locked up pending trial.

Then came a third opportunity for AK to explain herself - at her request Mignini conducted a long interview in Capanne Prison. Instead of explaining herself, she became contradictory and flustered and eventually shed tears and that opportunity also was blown.

Then came a fourth opportunity, RS’s and AK’s appeal to the Supreme Court against house arrest, where they both AGAIN failed.

There were also other hearings by Matteini where they again failed, and finally the hearings by Micheli where they again failed.

Judge Micheli was very hard on Guede but he was also very hard on Knox, seeing no innocent explanation for the rearrangement of the crime scene.

This was linear. The defenses won no points and the PR which was below the radar in Italy made no dent at all.

Marasca and Bruno mentioned none of this incriminating process at all, and in effect merely declared over 30 judges and lay-judges incompetent in the law and the evidence.

However the guilty verdict in the report was in fact the weakest one possible under Italian law, and as such is open to legal challenge. It is NOT the final word, and besides Knox is already labeled a felon for life for framing Patrick.

As for the justice system, it is cautious and well-meaning, and the loopholes and weaknesses exploited by the defenses have come to be built in over the years by bad guys and those who carry water for them in the parliament.

Again, that is not the final word, the CSM and parliament between them are working on reforms now which would make this protracted, corruptible kind of process, a living hell for victims families, impossible in the future.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/22/15 at 04:28 PM | #

Thanks Peter for the timely reminder that we haven’t reached end game just yet. Although I may sound melancholy and somewhat lamentable in some of my posts, it’s often just a brain dump to get the negativity out of my head. I remain hopeful!

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/22/15 at 06:05 PM | #

Hi Pete, Thanks for finding the time to provide all these links. I haven’t read them yet but wanted to reply before this post is superseded - this site moves really quickly sometimes. So I can take it that the Matteini et. al. judgements were the ‘purest’ versions and to have discounted them is not only reprehensible but built the foundations for exploitation of these loopholes and weaknesses. I really hope that the proposed reforms move forwards quickly and that built in will be ways of legally reviewing the final verdict. I’ve read on this site that these reforms will be Meredith’s legacy and it’s good to think that her 21 years on this earth will have really counted.

Posted by YorkshireLass on 11/22/15 at 08:14 PM | #

Very nice series James.  You point out all the major holes.

Another pre-determined verdict.  But like Hellman/Zanetti, Bruno/Mascara don’t seem to realize how they have actually made things far worse.  These idiots don’t know how to properly fix anything.

(1) H/Z ‘‘should’’ have concluded in 2011 that there was never any intent or premeditation to commit murder.  If they had reduced it to manslaughter, maybe 8-10 years for everything.  I believe, despite the grumbling, it would have survived a Cassation review, rather than what did happen.  AK/RS would be out now, and they could truly ‘‘move on with their lives’‘.

Instead, H/Z conclude there is no evidence, jailhouse snitches are reliable, person ‘‘X’’ and ‘‘Y’’ helped Guede, and Knox’s false accusation was due to duress.  And in increasing the calunnia to 3 years, actually make AK’s sentence longer.  No surprise 1st Chambers wipes out the ruling.

(2) B/M ‘‘should’’ have (if it was Bongiorno who shopped for them), upheld AK’s conviction, while sending RS’s back down with instructions to consider a much lesser charge.  AK would spend years in the US trying to fight extradition, so RS would be ‘‘relatively’’ free.  5 years from now, RS gets sent back for a short time more, while AK is finally sent back.

Instead, B/M not only refuse to confirm, they annul the case completely, saying there is no evidence.  To ‘‘minimize’’ the blowback, they conclude (a) AK was there; (b) RS was probably there; (c) AK did make false accusation; (d) AK/RS repeatedly lied; (e) Someone staged a burglary.  These ‘‘conclusions’’ kill any chance of wrongful arrest claim, and make civil charges inevitable.

F***ing idiots.

Thanks again, James.

Posted by Chimera on 11/23/15 at 02:45 AM | #

This from our favourite “exoneree”, although clearly her definition of that word is somewhat different to that to which the rest of the sentient world subscribe. Apologies that I can’t seem to insert the link properly so that you can just click on it but the address is correct if you can be bothered typing it in.

I have no doubt now that she has more or less convinced herself of her innocence and has compartmentalised her actions of 1 November 2007 and subsequent behaviour somewhere in the “I wasn’t responsible for that” portion of her twisted brain.

She really has made a rod for her own back with her stated intention of advocating on behalf of so called wrongly convicted people. I have never seen her look comfortable in front of a camera or a crowd and, having had several years now of freedom to hone her skills, she still comes across as a glib and shameless liar.

As the pressure continues to build, I fully expect that we shall get a press release from Knox Towers (straight through the gates of Mordor, take a left at Shelob’s lair, you can’t miss it) in due course informing us that the tremendous pressure she has been under doing all this pro bono work for for the wrongly accused innocents of the world has caused her health to deteriorate.

Amanda has asked for privacy at this time whilst she takes a break from her entirely selfless and necessary work and she hopes to be back fighting this noble cause like a lioness protecting her Cubs at some point in the not too distant future.

Or something like that…..

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/23/15 at 02:43 PM | #

Hi David, So the campaign begins. Somehow I don’t think Italy, and maybe others, are going to wear this for much longer.She’s old news and the more that Meredith continues to burn brightly in the reforms of Italy, the more that Meredith lives on.

The book trial will go ahead, she will be held to account and she will have to pay the price for lying. The US can kick up all it wants, somehow I don’t see Italy being particularly interested anymore because this time she stands alone, no Bongiorno and RS backers to rescue her from retribution. As they say, what goes around comes around.

Posted by YorkshireLass on 11/23/15 at 11:43 PM | #

By the way, used your link and maybe didn’t get all of it but enough to get the gist - AK looking angst and hard done to - and spouting about her need to take time out because its all getting to her. Thanks David

Posted by YorkshireLass on 11/24/15 at 12:52 AM | #

Hi YorkshireLass

The great thing about you having joined the site relatively recently, and posting insightful comments, is that it gives all of the battle weary folks on here real heart that people are still interested in this story.

Your enthusiasm is infectious.

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/24/15 at 02:45 AM | #

If this sounds familiar it is.

“Narcissists are not necessarily liars, but they are notoriously uncomfortable with the truth. The truth means the potential to feel ashamed. If all they have to show the world as a source of feeling acceptable is their success and performance, be it in business or sports or celebrity, then the risk of people seeing them fail or squander their success is so difficult to their self-esteem that they feel ashamed and they will manipulate others into believing the face they show the world is their true self.”

“We call it the narcissistic injury. They’re uncomfortable with their own limitations. It’s not that they’re cut out to lie, it’s just that they can’t handle what’s real and if confronted with people or a person who perceives their true identity they will kill rather than face that they are the failures of human society. Therefore for security reasons they will attach themselves to people who are of the same sickness.”

  Jim Jones
  Joseph Stalin
  The infamous Angel of Death, Joseph Mengele
  Serial killer Ted Bundy
  Lee Harvey Oswald
  Saddam Hussein
  Amanda Knox

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 11/24/15 at 04:34 AM | #

AK is now claiming to have been interrogated for 53 hours. A very precise figure for someone to recall. A detail at odds with her weed addled brain which was hitherto unable to distinguish between flashes of blurred images and reality.

The alleged 53 hours, even accounting for breaks for her to murder a pizza and sleep and attend to her stomach ache, yielded such scant and inconsistent information as to render her interviews worse than useless to the police as they were led around in circles by the imaginative fantasist.

She is now presenting a very different image to the public. That of the serious sage, concerned only with justice. She arrogantly imagines that her incarceration qualifies her to advocate for those unjustly convicted. If I fall down and break my leg it doesn’t mean I’m a doctor.

Posted by pensky on 11/24/15 at 11:22 AM | #


Lee Harvey Oswald? I don’t think he was a narcissist by any definition. Compared to the others he was modest and self-effacing. Replace him with the smarmy narcissist Tony Blair and it’s a pretty good list (he’s been sharp enough so far to evade justice for his vainglorious and illegal invasion of Iraq.) Sometimes the narcissist in high public office, with the beaming smile, is the most difficult to spot.

Posted by Odysseus on 11/24/15 at 11:37 AM | #

“Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences.” - Robert Louis Stevenson

Bon appétit Knox and Sollecito.

Posted by Odysseus on 11/24/15 at 03:09 PM | #

Actually I paraphrased my comment from one on Donald Trump. with slight variations it fit so very well to Knox because underneath the image she presents to the world there is a sea of anger towards anyone with the temerity to question the view she has of herself.

Of course there are others such as Blair or perhaps Dick Chaney who are not in jail either but still narcissists, Vladimir Putin as an example. lee Harvey Oswald, on the other hand, was a dupe. If you consider Jack Ruby and the obvious ties to crime of both particularly Ruby it becomes apparent. Narcissists are everywhere. However in extreme cases it is still considered a disorder.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 11/24/15 at 04:08 PM | #

It’a a disorder in all cases, IMO! 😊

Posted by Odysseus on 11/24/15 at 07:03 PM | #

Hi davidmulhern and others:

On Knox’s Chicago Sun-Times editorial promoting her talk at Loyola U Law School on Thursday 3 December, about 10 days away. (We have an email suggesting its maybe not organized by the Law School but by some fan-girl in Chicago.)

Many have sent emails and tweets to Loyola and if 100% of the audience at the “luncheon” believes Knox was innocent and found innocent and was subjected to ANY interrogation (she wasnt) it will be a tad surprising.

Some of them at least may know that national law enforcement in Italy and the US are examining the close ties promoted by RS between the Knox-Sollecito campaign and these guys.

Unusual bedfellows for Loyola U Law School and the Sun-Times editors. Not to mention Steve Moore and John Gordon (ex FBI) and ex-Judge Heavey. 

It’s a messy website, that Sun-Times one, with a lot of pop-ups and a survey, and Knox’s full article only showing intermittently! Still, we have a page capture and here is all of what Knox wrote:

Sun Times Network
Chicago Sun-Times

Amanda Knox: I am resolved to clear the names of the wrongfully convicted

Written By Amanda Knox Posted: 11/13/2015, 06:34pm

This Labor Day, when the Italian Supreme Court filed the document making my innocence official, I was brought back to those numbing days in early November 2007. In less than a week, I learned of the murder of one of my roommates, underwent 53 hours of police questioning, was arrested, and found myself in a foreign prison facility that I would not leave for three years and eleven months.

At home in 2015 and just waking up to the day, my plans to go running, shop for groceries, do the laundry … dissolved around me. I was struck by the weight of the trauma that took seven years and ten months finally to resolve. Though a pressure valve released, I spent much of the day quiet and introspective. I felt sad, happy, agitated, calm, confused, clear-headed. I had what I suppose is that feeling of having just climbed a mountain. I was at the top, yes, but emotionally and physically exhausted.

My next thoughts turned to, now how do I get down? And what’s next? The thoughts kept coming, but I tried to put a pause on that thinking. I wanted to take in the view.

Io lo so che non sono sola anche quando sono sola. [I know I’m not alone, even when I’m alone.]

Over the past eight years, I must have written this line thousands of times. It was the way I closed every letter to my loved ones from prison. It meant to me that although none of my loved ones could hold my hand through imprisonment, they were with me in every other way possible. I repeated that line to myself throughout this Labor Day. For me, my experience was an experience shared with many people — family, friends and strangers — who believed in my innocence and who worked and advocated for it relentlessly. I was never alone. I will always be tremendously thankful for that.

I realized again on Labor Day that if my experience is going to have meaning beyond my own false imprisonment, it must be a catalyst for continued and increased public attention to the ways our criminal justice system can be improved to prevent injustices. The Italian Supreme Court recognized in its opinion that prosecutors and police detectives are not infallible. They can, as the Italian Supreme Court found in my case, make “glaring errors” and negligent “omissions.” They can fall prey to media pressure, putting speed above thorough analysis. They can, we know, wrongfully accuse, prosecute and imprison innocent people. The consequences can be staggering. People sentenced to life imprisonment, even death, have later been exonerated as a result of DNA evidence.

Throughout my own ordeal, I was sustained on hundreds of days and in countless ways by the resolve – and the hope, the kindness, the work – of others. At the end of my contemplation, I found my own resolve again. In the early days of November 2007, and for almost eight years more, I felt resolve to clear my name, but in tremendous need of help to do so. My name now cleared — by Italy’s highest court and directly as a result of tireless efforts on my behalf — my resolve turns outward. I am resolved to help others who have been wrongfully convicted to clear their names, and to help those who have finally been released from prison to re-adjust to their lives outside of four grey walls.

This coming Dec. 3, I will be speaking at Loyola University Chicago’s Sixth Annual Life After Innocence Luncheon.  Like many other local and regional innocence groups, Loyola’s Life After Innocence program advocates for innocent people released from prison, helping them reenter society, clear their records and start their lives over.  The luncheon will be my first public opportunity to direct the conversation away from my past, and towards our shared goal of ensuring that other innocents may be freed and, better yet, not accused in the first place. I very much look forward to turning that page.

Amanda Knox works as a writer and advocates on behalf of those wrongfully convicted. She is the author of Waiting to be Heard: A Memoir, which tells the story of her prosecution in Italy, one that drew international media attention, and her ultimate exoneration by the Italian Supreme Court.

Amanda Knox will be the featured speaker at Loyola University Chicago’s “Life After Innocence Luncheon” on Dec. 3. The noon luncheon will be held at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, 25 E. Pearson St. Proceeds from ticket sales will help to support the university’s Life After Innocence program, which advocates for innocent people released from prison, helping them reenter society, clear their records and start their lives over. For more information, go to

Follow the Editorial Board on Twitter: Follow @csteditorials

Tweets by @CSTeditorials

Send letters to: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/24/15 at 08:18 PM | #

Make no mistake underneath the image she tries to show the world is a seething mass of hate at anyone who has the temerity to question the veracity of her denials.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 11/24/15 at 10:10 PM | #

James, thank you for this thoughtful series of analyses of the M/B report. I faithfully read the first four, but somehow got stuck on this last one. The mental gymnastics to even try and understand the M/B reasoning just got to be too much.

Overall, though, this series has helped me understand the defects of their reasoning.

Happy Thanksgiving to all in the Meredith justice community!

Posted by Earthling on 11/25/15 at 11:02 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 A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #4

Or to previous entry The Marasca/Bruno Report, A Dissection In Four Parts: #4 Their Findings - Ambivalent In Spades