Thursday, June 13, 2024

Knox Lie-A-Thon #4: How Myriad Past Lies About “Forced Confession” Are Sinking Her Now

Posted by FinnMacCool

Breaking news 20 December 2013. This post goes live just as the news breaks that it was Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova who filed these patently false claims against the justice system of Italy with the European Court.

1. “There would be no need for these theatrics.”

Amanda Knox has not been present for any part of her latest appeal [at the Nencini court] against her own murder conviction. Nevertheless, she has made two meretricious contributions to the proceedings.

First, on the day that the prosecution opened its presentation of the case against her, she announced that her lawyers had filed an appeal against her slander conviction to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). ECHR hears only allegations of human rights abuses, which must be reported within six months of the alleged incident (or within six months after all local avenues have been exhausted; in this case none has even been explored).

This out-of-date application to an inappropriate body in pursuit of a groundless allegation is therefore bound to fail.

Knox’s second publicity stunt came on the day that her own defense lawyers began their own presentation. She sent a five-page email in English and Italian, with grammatical mistakes in each language, protesting her innocence and affirming that the reason she is not present in the court is because she is afraid of it.

There are many comments that could be made about the email, but perhaps its most grievous legal error comes in the aside where she claims that the “subsequent memoriali (sic), for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false ‘confession’.”

That singular document does not recant her previous statements (“I stand by what I said last night”), but does contain further accusations against Patrick Lumumba (“I see Patrik (sic) as the murderer”), as well as seeking to cast suspicion on Sollecito (“I noticed there was blood on Raffaele’s hand”), and on an unnamed “other person”.

However, by claiming that she has been “wrongfully found guilty” on that charge of calunnia, she is refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the Italian Supreme Court, which has definitively found against her on that count, and also of the Hellmann appeal court (the only court to date that has not found her guilty of the main charge of murdering Meredith Kercher).

Dr Alessandro Crini presented the prosecution’s case on November 25th/26th 2013. It was not a particularly theatrical performance, but rather a very long summary of the many items of evidence against Sollecito and Knox.

The most theatrical element of the case so far has been when one of the defendants insisted that the judge should read out five vacuous pages of her email immediately before her own lawyers presented their case on her behalf.

This gives a certain dramatic irony to Knox’s claim “If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics”.

Such ironies appear to be lost on Knox, however, since she seems incapable of reading back over her own work for solecisms or contradictions. (In the email itself, for example, in consecutive sentences she writes: “I had no contact with Rudy Guede. Like many youth in Perugia I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guede.”)

One of the many errors she makes in the email is to put in writing some of the wild claims that she and/or her supporters have previously made regarding the witness interview she gave on the night of November 5th/6th 2007.

The purpose of the current post is to consider that interview in greater detail, using as source material primarily Knox’s memoir “Waiting to be heard” (2013) and Raffaele Sollecito’s memoir, “Honor Bound” (2013), abbreviated here to WTBH and HB respectively.

2. “When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside.”

Amanda Knox was not even supposed to be at the police station on the evening of November 5th, 2007. She should have been attending a candlelit vigil, in which Meredith Kercher’s friends, classmates and supportive well-wishers met at eight o’clock at Corso Vannucci to proceed through to the Duomo, carrying candles and photographs of the victim.

A friend of Meredith’s “a young Polish student” texted Amanda Knox to invite her to this vigil, but Knox had better things to do. (WTBH: 82) She accompanied Sollecito to his friend Riccardo’s house for a bite to eat (HB: 29) where she absent-mindedly strummed a ukulele. (WTBH:82)

Knox writes of the vigil: “I wanted to be there but the decision was made for me” because “Raffaele had somewhere else to be”. (WTBH: 82)

One consistent feature of her narrative is her refusal to accept responsibility for anything, including her failure to turn up for her murdered roommate’s vigil, but we should note also that the vigil (eight o’clock) and the dinner (nine o’clock) both take place within the timeframe of her supposed series of interrogations, which according to her email involved “over 50 hours in four days”.

By her own account, when she ignored the police’s request not to accompany Sollecito to the Questura and just came anyway, it was the first contact she had had with the police in well over 24 hours.

Let us consider what was happening in the early part of the evening of November 5th, 2007.

The police are at the station studying the evidence; Meredith’s friends are proceeding downtown with candles and photographs of the victim; and Knox is playing the ukulele at Riccardo’s house.

Far from taking part in a lengthy coercive interview, Amanda Knox had gone to her University classes as normal, had bumped into Patrick Lumumba, whom she would later accuse of Meredith’s murder, and had later skipped the vigil to have dinner with Sollecito. (WTBH:83)

Meanwhile, back at the Questura, the police could see that Raffaele Sollecito’s stories simply did not add up.

They therefore called Sollecito and asked him to come into the station for further questioning. They told him that the matter was urgent; that they wanted to talk to him alone; and that Amanda Knox should not accompany him. (HB: 29) 

Sollecito responded that he would prefer to finish eating first. (The same meal is used as an excuse for not attending the vigil at eight o’clock, and for delaying their response to the police request at around ten.) By his own account, Sollecito resented being ordered what to do by the police (HB: 29), and so he finished eating, they cleared the table together, and Amanda Knox then accompanied him to the station. (HB:30; WTBH: 83)

Naturally the police were both surprised and disappointed to see her. Their civilian interpreter, who had worked flat out through the weekend accompanying not only Amanda Knox but also the rest of Meredith’s English-speaking friends, had gone home. The only person they were planning to speak to that night was Sollecito, and even he was late. According to Knox, the police were not expecting their interview with Sollecito to take very long:

When we got there they said I couldn’t come inside, that I’d have to wait for Raffaele in the car. I begged them to change their minds. (WTBH: 83)

The police were not prepared for an interview with Amanda Knox. They had asked her not to come, and they tried to send her away when she got there. It was late on a Monday evening and there were no lawyers or interpreters hanging around on the off-chance that someone might walk into the police station and confess.

However, that’s what happened. And it is on that basis that Amanda Knox is now claiming that the interview which she herself instigated was improperly presented by the police:

I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. (Knox email, December 15, 2013)

But she wasn’t a suspect. In fact, she wasn’t even supposed to be there.

3. “Who’s Patrick?”

We will now examine Knox’s claim that “the police were the ones who first brought forth Patrick’s name” (Knox blog, November 25th, 2013).

She has already admitted in court that this is not true. In fact, it is clear from her own book that the police did not even know who Patrick Lumumba was, at that point.

If they had suspected him or anybody else, they would have brought them in for questioning, just as they had already questioned everyone else they thought might be able to throw some light on the case.

The police plan that evening was to question Sollecito in order to establish once and for all what his story was. They would perhaps have brought Knox back the following day (together with the interpreter) to see how far Knox’s story matched Sollecito’s. In the event, their plan was disrupted first because Sollecito delayed coming in, and second because when he finally arrived, he had brought Knox with him.

“Did the police know I’d show up,” Knox asks rhetorically, “or were they purposefully separating Raffaele and me?” (WTBH: 83) She does not offer a solution to this conundrum, but the answer is (b), as the patient reader will have noticed.

She thus turned up to the police station despite being expressly asked not to come. The police asked her to wait in the car and she refused, complaining that she was afraid of the dark. They allowed her inside.

Today, she might complain that she “was denied legal counsel” (Knox email, December 15th 2013) as she entered the Questura, but there was absolutely no reason for a lawyer to be present, since by her own account, all the police were asking her to do is go home.

Knox did not go home. According to WTBH, while Sollecito is in the interview room, she sits by the elevator, doing grammar exercises, phones her roommates about where to live next, talks to “a silver-haired police officer” about any men who may have visited the house (she claims to have first mentioned Rudy Guede at this point, identifying him by description rather than name) and does some yoga-style exercises including cartwheels, touching her toes and the splits.

It is at this point “somewhere between 1130 and midnight” that Officer Rita Ficarra invites Knox to come into the office so that they can put on record Knox’s list of all the men she could think of who might have visited the house.

Knox takes several pages (WTBH 83-90) to explain how she went from doing the splits to making her false accusation against Patrick Lumumba. Like much of her writing, these pages are confused and self-contradictory.

One reason for the confusion is that Knox is making two false accusations against the police, but these accusations cannot co-exist. First, she attempts to demonstrate that the police made her give the name of Patrick Lumumba. Second, she wants us to believe that Officer Ficarra struck her on the head twice.

This is denied by all the other witnesses in the room, and Knox did not mention it in her latest story about applying to ECHR. In her memoriale (WTBH: 97), she claims she was hit because she could not remember a fact correctly.

But in her account of the interview (WTBH: 88), Knox explains that Ficarra hit her because, the fourth time she was asked, “Who’s Patrick?”, she was slow in replying, “He’s my boss.” This is the exact opposite of not remembering a fact correctly. Knox is so keen to make both false charges against the police stick that she fails to notice that one contradicts the other.

Knox at least provides us with two fixed times that allow us to verify the start and finish times of the formal interview. It began at 1230, when Anna Donnino arrived to interpret, and ended at 0145 when Knox signed her witness statement.

Bearing in mind that this statement would have needed to be typed up and printed before she signed it, the interview thus took little over an hour, and was not the “prolonged period in the middle of the night” that her recent blog post pretends. (We might also remember that Knox’s regular shift at Le Chic was from 9 pm to 1 am, meaning that the interview began during her normal working hours.) (WTBH:31)

WTBH also flatly contradicts Knox’s own claim that her accusation of Lumumba was coerced by the police.

According to her own account, she first mentions her boss (although not by name) in the less formal conversation, before the interpreter’s arrival, telling the police : “I got a text message from my boss telling me I didn’t have to work that night.” (WTBH: 84)

The police appear to pay no attention to the remark (which undermines Knox’s argument that the police were pressing her to name Lumumba) but instead keep questioning her on the timings and details of what she did on the night of the murder. And Knox finds those details difficult either to recall or to invent.

Donnino arrives at half past midnight, and the formal interview begins.

Again, the focus is on the timings of Amanda Knox’s movements on the night of the murder, and again she is having difficulty remembering or inventing them. Ficarra picks up Knox’s cell phones and observes: “You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?” and Knox answers, “My boss at Le Chic.” (WTBH: 86)

There is a short discussion about this text message, and then a second police officer asks her: “Who’s Patrick? What’s he like?” This time Knox answers: “He’s about this tall… with braids.” They then continue to discuss the text message, and then the police ask her a third time, “Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?” Knox again replies: “Patrick is my boss.” (WTBH: 87)

Donnino then makes the intervention about how traumatic events can sometimes affect memory. Such events certainly seem to have an effect on the memory of the police, because one of them asks Knox a fourth time: “Who’s Patrick?” At this point, Knox claims in her memoir that Ficarra struck her on the head. (WTBH: 87)

This is nothing to do with failing to remember a fact correctly, because the fact is correct: Patrick Lumumba is indeed her boss.

The police continue to believe that she is hiding something, and they ask her who she is protecting. After a few minutes of questioning along those lines, Knox has an epiphany in which she claims that the face of Patrick Lumumba appeared before her and she gasps: “Patrick… it’s Patrick.”

If we believe one of Knox’s other stories, that the police were cunningly trying to get her to name Patrick Lumumba, we might expect them to be quite pleased to have succeeded at this point. But according to Knox, their response is to ask her a fifth time, “Who’s Patrick?” The whole room must have wanted to chorus at this point, “He’s her boss!”, but according to Knox, it is she herself who simply repeats: “He’s my boss.”

4. “I was also hit in the head when I didn’t remember a fact correctly”

Shortly after lunch on Tuesday November 6th, Knox wrote a piece of paper (known as her “memoriale”) in which she makes her first accusation that the police hit her. She hands this memoriale to Rita Ficarra, the very person she would later name as doing the hitting. We have noted above that in her account of the interview, the context Knox provides for this alleged blow is as follows:

This singularly repetitive catechism is supposed to have taken place at around one o’clock in the morning.

However, writing the following afternoon, Knox describes the event like this:

Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn’t remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received. (WTBH: 97)

This makes no sense as a reflection on the interview as she has earlier described it. In her version of the interview, she claims that the police kept asking her the same simple question, to which she keeps replying with the same factual answer, and the blows to the head take place in the middle of all that. Yet in her “memoriale”, she claims that the blow was because she could not remember a fact correctly.

In case two mutually contradictory accounts of that false allegation are not enough, Knox also provides a couple more explanations for why she was hit. Her third bogus claim is that the police said they hit her to get her attention, which makes for a dramatic opening to Chapter 10 of WTBH:

Police officer Rita Ficarra slapped her palm against the back of my head, but the shock of the blow, even more than the force, left me dazed. I hadn’t expected to be slapped.

I was turning around to yell “Stop!” my mouth halfway open, but before I even realized what had happened, I felt another whack, this one above my ear. She was right next to me, leaning over me, her voice as hard as her hand had been. “Stop lying, stop lying” she insisted.

Stunned, I cried out, “Why are you hitting me?”  “To get your attention,” she said. (WTBH: 80)

This is a direct allegation against a named police officer, and not surprisingly it has resulted in another libel charge against Amanda Knox. It is a strong piece of writing, too: on its own, isolated from context, it reads like a trailer for the movie version. The trouble is, that when Knox later tries to set it in context, it makes no more sense than “because I didn’t remember a fact correctly” as an explanation as for why the blow came.

They pushed my cell phone, with the message to Patrick, in my face and screamed,

“You’re lying. You sent a message to Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”

That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head.

“Why are you hitting me?” I cried.

“To get your attention,” she said.

“I’m trying to help,” I said. “I’m trying to help, I’m desperately trying to help.” (WTBH: 88)

This makes no sense. They already have Knox’s attention, and she is having no difficulty giving them a factual response to their repeated question, “Who’s Patrick?”

It is difficult to explain any logical motivation for that slap in terms of any of the three suggestions Knox has made so far: (1) because she couldn’t remember a fact correctly; (2) because she failed to answer the repeated question “Who’s Patrick?” quickly enough; or (3) to get her attention. She’d got the fact right, she’d answered the question, and they already had her attention.

Knox then provides us with a fourth version of possible reasons for the alleged slap. She describes the following encounter between herself and Rita Ficarra on their way to lunch at around two o’clock on Tuesday afternoon:

With my sneakers confiscated, I trailed [Ficarra] down the stairs wearing only my socks. She turned and said, “Sorry I hit you. I was just trying to help you remember the truth.” (WTBH: 94)

Once again, this makes no sense in the context of a blow to the head while waiting for a reply to the question, “Who’s Patrick?” It is perfectly true that Patrick Lumumba was Amanda Knox’s boss, and she had already correctly answered the same question twice, by her own account.

These are the four main WTBH versions of how Amanda Knox was struck on the head by Rita Ficarra. Perhaps she hopes that readers will choose the one they like best and will ignore its discrepancies with the others.

When testifying in court, however, Knox provided three further versions of the same alleged incident.

First, when asked to explain why she had stated in her witness account that Meredith Kercher had had sex before she died, Knox answered that the police had suggested this to her and that they hit her to make her says so in her statement (Knox testimony, June 12 2009).

Second, a few minutes later during the same testimony, she claimed that the police hit her twice before she gave the name of Patrick, to make her give a name she could not give. (WTBH: 227-8; Knox testimony, June 12 2009)

Third, later still, she tells her own lawyer that the police were screaming at her “You don’t remember”, she was struck from behind, and when she turned around she was struck again. (WTBH:227; Knox testimony, June 12 2009)

These are seven different stories Knox has told about how she was hit during her interview. Even her most generous supporters would have to admit that at least six of them must be false. Everyone else in the room at the time has testified that it did not happen.

When Knox published her fantasy claim about appealing to ECHR last month, she neglected to mention that she was hit. This essentially confirms what has been obvious for some time: Rita Ficarra did not hit Amanda Knox during the interview.

Nobody did. All seven stories are false. 

5. “She was screaming in Italian ‘Aiuto! Aiuto!’ “

However, Sollecito provides an ear-witness account of Knox’s traumatic interview, claiming that he could hear her shouting from where he was being interviewed in a nearby room. Here’s his version:

Then came a sound that chilled my bones: Amanda’s voice, yowling for help in the next room. She was screaming in Italian, “Aiuto! Aiuto!” I asked what was going on, and Moscatelli told me there was nothing to worry about. But that was absurd. I could hear police officers yelling, and Amanda sobbing and crying out another three or four times. (HB:33)

If Sollecito’s aim here is to invent a story even more ridiculous than Knox’s, he has succeeded.

For one thing, it does not match any of Knox’s seven stories about how her interview went. But even on its own terms, Sollecito’s story makes no sense. If we imagine for a moment an Italian witness or suspect being interrogated in Italian by Italian officers in an Italian police station, what possible motivation could such a woman have for shouting “Aiuto!”? Who could she be hoping might conceivably respond to her call?

How much more absurd, then, to suppose that an American woman accompanied by an interpreter would shout “Aiuto!” when by her own account she was trying to help the police with their inquiries at that point.

Perhaps Sollecito wants us to believe that Knox was offering to help the police with their inquiries, and Donnino was loudly translating it to “Aiuto!” at this point. Or perhaps, as is often the case with Sollecito, he has given so little thought to his lies that he has not made the slightest effort to make them believable.

There are other occasions when Sollecito is cavalier with the credibility of his explanations for the evidence against him. For example, when confronted with evidence that the victim’s DNA is on his kitchen knife, he suddenly remembers an occasion when he accidentally pricked her while cooking.

(Astonishingly, he repeats this absurd fiction on page 49 of Honor Bound, although he shifts the pricking to Via della Pergola and makes it a knife local to there, since it is obvious that the victim had never visited his own apartment.)

Or again, on being confronted with the (incorrect) evidence that his shoeprints have been found at the scene of the crime, he speculates to Judge Matteini that someone might have stolen his shoes and committed the murder in them. (HB:42)

Even today, Sollecito is currently making a public appeal for funds for his defense, pleading financial hardship, while taking lengthy vacations in the Caribbean, with photographs of his tropical lifestyle appearing in Oggi.

In his book, Sollecito also decides to make a claim of his own that the police struck him:

One of my interrogators opened the door noisily at one point, walked over, and slapped me. “Your father is a fine upstanding person,” he said. “He doesn’t even deserve a son like you, someone who would stand by a whore like Amanda.” (HB:36)

This is actually one of his more plausible stories. He has not named the officer, and he has created an incident to which there are no witnesses; he gives the impression that he was alone in the interview room when this officer came in.

Of course, he has made no formal complaint about this, nor has he mentioned it before publishing it in his book, nor has he named the officer or given any clue as to his identity. Nevertheless, these details simply stand in contrast to Knox’s libelous allegation, in which she named the officer, gives several contradictory accounts of how the blow occurred, and there are several witnesses all of whom deny that any such blow took place.

6. “Maybe a cappuccino would help.”

Finally, it seems only fair to speak up for Anna Donnino, the much-maligned interpreter who was given the task of accompanying Knox as she made her slanderous accusation of Patrick Lumumba.

Knox describes her arrival at the station like this:

The interpreter sat down behind me. She was irritated and impatient, as if I were the one who had rousted her from bed in the middle of the night. (WTBH:86)

While someone else must have done the rousting, by Knox’s own account it is indeed her fault that Donnino was called into the police station that night. Knox was the only English-speaker present, and she had ignored the police’s request that she stay home while they interviewed Sollecito.

Although Donnino must have had every right to feel irritable and impatient, Knox gives little evidence of it in her transcript of the interview. On the contrary, Donnino patiently volunteers an explanation that might attribute Knox’s self-contradictory stories to trauma and stress rather than deliberate lying.

Amanda Knox has often repeated her assertion that police called her a liar during that interview. For example, in the movie-trailer-type excerpt at the beginning of Chapter Ten, she writes:

They loomed over me, each yelling the same thing: “You need to remember. You’re lying. Stop lying!” (WTBH:80)

However, in the more detailed version that she gives on pages 83-90, she does not mention a single police officer calling her a liar. Only once do the police even ask her “Why are you lying?” (WTBH:88) The only person to call Knox a liar, in her account, is Anna Donnino, in the following passage:

“In English, “˜see you later’ means good-bye. It doesn’t mean we’re going to see each other now. It means see you eventually.”

In my beginner’s Italian, I had had no idea that I’d used the wrong phrase in my text to Patrick””the one that means you’re going to see someone. I’d merely translated it literally from the English.

The interpreter balked: “You’re a liar.” (WTBH:87)

The verb “balked” makes no sense here, and so let us charitably call it a printer’s error for “barked”. However, that is the only instance of Knox being called a liar her entire remembered account of the interview.

It seems that she is so reluctant to admit to having said anything that her readers might think sounds like a lie that she forgets this gives the police no context for calling her a liar. This in turn means that the only “lie” she can be accused of is her demotic interpretation of the English phrase “see you later”, in which she presents herself as correct and Anna Donnino getting it wrong.

Ironically, Anna Donnino’s next intervention, for which there are several witnesses including Amanda Knox herself, is clearly intended to suggest that failing to remember the details of a traumatic event properly may NOT be an indication of lying, but instead may be the result of the stress of the trauma:

The interpreter offered a solution, “Once, when I had an accident, I didn’t remember it. I had a broken leg and it was traumatizing and I woke up afterward and didn’t remember it. Maybe you just don’t remember. Maybe that’s why you can’t remember times really well.”

For a moment, she sounded almost kind. (WTBH:88)

“Kind” is a key word for Amanda Knox, and she continually judges people by whether they are kind to her. On this occasion, she is quite right: Anna Donnino does sound kind and helpful in volunteering this intervention. It is not a kindness that Knox would repay, however. On the contrary, in her later account of the trial, she is scathing of prosecutor Mignini’s description of Donnino as “very sweet”:

As for my interrogation at the questura, Mignini described the interpreter”” the woman who had called me “a stupid liar” and had told me to “stop lying”“”as “very sweet.” “I remember that evening how she behaved toward Amanda,” he said. (WTBH:244)

Knox has evidently forgotten that she has failed to mention anybody at all calling her a “stupid liar” during the interview, or that anybody told her to “stop lying”. Even her claim that Donnino called a liar over a translation error is illogical and is out of keeping with Donnino’s subsequent intervention.

Knox has also forgotten that the only other mention she makes of Donnino at the questura is in the following passage, from the day before the interview. While Knox is going over the events of the night of the murder in her mind, she reports: 

“”¦the interpreter walked by, looked at me, and said, “˜Oh my God, are you okay?... You’re pale”¦ Maybe a cappuccino would help. Come with me.” (WTBH: 76-77)

Once again, Knox unwittingly provides evidence that supports Mignini’s description of Anna Donnino, and undermines her own. Once again, she unwittingly provides evidence that her human rights were perfectly safe at Perugia police station.

7. “What does this say about my memory?”

The accounts of all three defendants in this case are so obviously fictitious that the subject should no longer be open for discussion. Any level of reasonable doubt that might have been acceptable to the Hellman appeal court has been removed not only by the Italian Supreme Court but even more so by the self-penned accounts published by Knox and Sollecito themselves.

Their bizarre and delusional writings will appear incredible to any objective reader who troubles to read them. The physical evidence against them - the DNA, the footprints, the knife, the faked burglary, and so on - only serves to confirm the most likely explanation for their wildly unbelievable stories - namely that they are lying to cover up their involvement in a brutal murder.

Given that his own account was patently fictitious, Guede has been fairly well advised to opt for a fast track trial which offers a reduced sentence and an abbreviated process. (Better advice might have been to plead guilty, but that is for him to choose.)

As a result, he will be eligible for parole relatively soon, even as the longwinded trials of Knox and Sollecito grind toward their conclusions. Whether or not it is right and fair for Guede to be given that parole is a separate question that will be considered in due course - even his expressions of remorse sound false and are undermined by his continuing refusal to give a plausible and honest account of what happened that night.

However justice systems all over the world are obliged to balance the rights of victims against the rights of defendants, with resultant compromises that are often uneasy and unsatisfying. Victims’ families may want the truth, but the perpetrators don’t always want to tell it.

The situation for Knox and Sollecito is different because their preposterous stories have been shored up by a coterie of supporters who in the long run have done the two defendants no favors whatsoever.

The pair have chosen the full trial process which may have postponed the final decision for several years, but which is also likely to result in much lengthier prison sentences.

It is too late now for Knox and Sollecito to opt for a fast track process, and everyone, no matter how ill-informed, can surely agree at least that the path they have chosen has been painfully slow and longwinded.

But there were many other options that, although previously open to them, have now been closed down by their supporters’ stubborn insistence that the case against them was first concocted by a vindictive prosecutor who took an early dislike to them and was subsequently supported by a vast conspiratorial network of police, judges, journalists, shopkeepers, students, friends and relatives of the victim, and so on.

This conspiracy theory is not only daft, but it provides no help at all for the two people at its core whose words and actions remain delusional and psychotic.

Amanda Knox wrote in her memoriale,  “Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?” (WTBH 98-9). These words are a clear cry for help.

Whether or not this cry was genuine, or was simply a cunning attempt to diminish punishment, is a matter that could and should have been determined at the time by a qualified psychiatrist. Instead, Knox was provided with a set of lawyers and a PR firm both of whom were set the task of claiming and proving their client’s innocence.

Her false allegation against an innocent man was then explained as resulting from a coercive police process - another ludicrous claim, contradicted by all the available evidence, including the self contradictory accounts published by the defendants themselves.

Knox and Sollecito are damaged individuals whose grip on reality is loose and whose delusional ramblings suggest that they need urgent psychiatric help. Instead, their fantasies have been cocooned by highly vocal supporters who have enabled the fantasists to maintain a series of fictions that, in the final analysis, will almost certainly fail to stand up to legal scrutiny.

Posted by FinnMacCool on 06/13/24 at 02:00 PM in


Hi, FinnMacCool, and congratulations on this very fine piece. I’m going to digest it a bit and then yes, there are so many things wrong about this case, and how justice delayed, by the antics of two very entitled individuals, needs to be exposed to the fullest extent.

But, as to the matter of filing the appeal against Knox’s calunnia conviction to the ECHR, it’s all about the timing. The day that Florence prosecutor Alessandro Crini starts arguments in court, Nov. 25, is when Knox announces the appeal, and the day that Frank Sfarzo appears in court, December 06, is when the ECHR actually receives the application. The timing is, so transparent.

But my challenge to Ms. Knox, is why have you not released your appeal to your dwindling fan base? I don’t see it any where on your sites? Do they have to complain, just as they did when I obtained the full, unredacted 112 call tapes, that they have to come to PMF.NET to get copies of the appeal? (which I will release to this board as well, of course)

Because it will come out, one way or the other, so I challenge Ms. Knox to release copies of her appeal to the public instead of hiding behind strategic press releases. Go ahead, let the general public know and debate the merits of your case.

Posted by Ergon on 12/21/13 at 07:39 AM | #

I will clarify one thing though. Knox is not appealing her calunnia conviction. She contends that the way in which the conviction was obtained was a violation of her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Therefore, if she expects her appeal to be taken seriously, she will have to specify which right was violated, hence my earlier query, why, was she waterboarded? 😊

So, not only does it look like it’s too late to file an appeal, but also, if it is accepted, and she should win, the most that can be enforced is a fine, and that ministers should then work to ensure the upholding the rights in the future.

Why is she and her minions implying it will result in the overturning of ANY conviction?

Posted by Ergon on 12/21/13 at 08:53 AM | #

Thank you for the excellent analysis FinnMacCool.

Posted by Spencer on 12/21/13 at 09:01 AM | #

In her book Knox claims that she was left “dazed” and “stunned” by being “slapped” round her head.

Melodramatic licence I guess as in her trial testimony she mimes a couple of weak cuffs round the back of the head and says -

“and then there was this person behind me who—it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me…”

I would have thought that if one had been left dazed and stunned by a slap - no sorry, slaps - then one must have been physically hurt as well.

But she has to come up with some plausibly innocent explanation for why she implicates Patrick and something more punchy (excuse the pun) and believable than her trial testimony, something that actually connects with the next line in her book -  “In that instant, I snapped ..... I didn’t understand what was happening mind put together incoherent images”. We can envisage, can’t we, stars in front of her eyes from being dazed and stunned by the force of a blow which didn’t (according to her) really hurt and which didn’t (according to everyone else) in fact happen.

Incidentally I liked the above table of questions and responses. The police have got to be really thick, haven’t they?!

Posted by James Raper on 12/21/13 at 01:25 PM | #

I wouldn’t say that Sollecito is lying when he says that he heard Knox scream or shout. I say this because Giobbi refers (in so far as I understand the google translate of his testimony correctly) to Knox doing so and this being heard in the hall outside her interview room. However Giobbi says nothing about Knox shouting “Help!”

I attribute this however to the moment which the interpreter describes as Knox suffering an emotional shock and putting her hands over her ears.

Posted by James Raper on 12/21/13 at 01:40 PM | #

Finn:“The whole room must have wanted to chorus at this point “He’s her boss!” !!!

Thanks so much Finn for your excellent review of documentation. You probably had to bite your cheeks or clench your fists or roll your eyes when reading with attention to detail the corresponding books by Knox and Sollecito.

Your meticulousness is that of a lawyer (no offense, mate!), just the sort of care for detail that the Knox Entourage cares nothing for. This is because their objectives have short horizons and time frames: the sound bite, the headline in the local press, the KING5 special report that evaporates from memory as soon as it finishes.

Like a Mission Impossible instruction tape: .

Posted by Kermit on 12/21/13 at 02:00 PM | #

Chris Mellas seems to think that time runs from the date of the ISC Motivations Report which, if true, would make the submission of the ECHR application in time.

It is of course up to the ECHR to interpret their own rules but his assertion seems unlikely. The final disposal of the culunnia conviction was surely on the 26th March 2013 when it was announced that the conviction was upheld. End of story I would have thought. Why would it be necessary to await the written reasons? They wouldn’t be much different from the reasons given each time she was convicted previously. It’s not as if there ever had been an allegation of a human rights violation and neither of the lower courts that did convict her noted any breach of the convention.

I feel embarrassed for Carlo Dalla Vedova. It must be humiliating for him to be jerked about on the end of a piece of string like this.

Posted by James Raper on 12/21/13 at 02:34 PM | #

James:“I feel embarrassed for Carlo Dalla Vedova.”

This is the part that is slightly confusing for me: Ghirga admitted 3 years or so ago that Knox hadn’t been abused by police, but it was he who had to hand over to Judge Nencini Knox’s 10th version of her “Spontaneous” email.

Now we see it’s her other Italian lawyer Dalla Vedova who seems to have signed off the ECHR application.

From a professional point of view it makes little sense for them. I can only assume that after a colossal investment in the case, they are under some sort of threat of non-payment if they don’t play along at least as passive messengers in the police-beat-me-up routine.

In any case, IIRC, Dalla Vedova’s principal skill that he has brought to representing Knox is that he speaks English (isn’t he a corporate or contracts lawyer?). I’ll bet a pint of bitter that he discovered how to download the ECHR appication form at the same time as we did: when Knox announced it on her blog, but before it was actually submitted.

Posted by Kermit on 12/21/13 at 03:19 PM | #

Amanda’s other lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, did indeed confirm in OCTOBER 2008 at the time of Guede’s trial and Judge Micheli’s arraignment of RS and AK that Amanda had not actually been beaten or “smacked around”:

“There were pressures from the police but we never said she was hit.”

Remember, it was Ghirga who PUBLICLY told Knox to stop spinning more & more & more stories.  But even so, she figured out ways to dig herself in deeper.

When on the stand in mid 2009, they had to leap on her every 1-2-3 minutes to shut her up.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/21/13 at 03:27 PM | #

“Miss Knox, in light of your book, email to the court, and ECHR submission… would you like to take the witness stand?”

Kermit’s relevant post:

James’s relevant post:

Two group relevant posts

Another of Finn’s “under the microscope” posts

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/21/13 at 03:34 PM | #

Knox’s priorities are VERY odd.

If I were facing 30 to 40 years in prison for murder I would not be wasting time thinking up ways of swindling Patrick out of a $100,00 court award in contempt of the Supreme Court.

As in this case below perhaps her next move will be to say she had the most incompetent lawyers in the universe (in Dalla Vedova’s case probably right) and file for a whole new trial?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/21/13 at 03:43 PM | #

FOA supporter “Annella”, responded to my request to Knox to provide a copy of her recourse to the ECHR, saying “it wasn’t anyone’s business”.

Wow, the entitlement, transfers. Surely, the public would like to know? Many speculated she was making it up, and couldn’t believe she actually filed an application. I set the record straight, and they, as always, deflect.

We’ll find out any way, Ms. Knox. So do the brave thing, release the document.

Posted by Ergon on 12/21/13 at 05:46 PM | #


“As in this case below (Skakel/Moxley) perhaps her next move will be to say she had the most incompetent lawyers in the universe (in Dalla Vedova’s case probably right) and file for a whole new trial”

Yes! :

23. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “A murder without a motive is fallacious”

When Dalla Vedova made the above incompetent argument, I did wonder if it was the beginning of a Skakel-type set-up.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/21/13 at 06:17 PM | #

FinnMacCool, thank you for a meticulous analysis of Knox’s complaints about a forced confession. A woman skipping her murdered friend’s vigil to strum a ukele after dinner with strangers and then refuse to comply with police requests need hardly scream years later that Meredith was her friend and that she stayed in town to help the police.

It makes an obvious fraud of her current claims to want to honor Meredith with links to fundraising websites for her.

In her control freak power grab she gave away her game by refusing to cooperate with police requests of the simplest nature. Thus the police saw how rebellious and contrary she actually was and how greatly she feared to allow Raffaele to be questioned by himself. She was shadowing him, yet now she cannot even spell his name correctly in emails to judges.

I’ve been thinking more about the who and why of this crime. Did some girl at Seattle Prep offend Amanda badly but she never told anyone about it, or maybe some child in grade school had slapped her or done a “Mean Girls” on her after which Amanda steeled herself for revenge against that type of person. Perhaps Meredith reminded her of these earlier insults (not that Meredith would have been rude, but Amanda might have been quick to misinterpret and fear).

Amanda resented Meredith knowing how to mix 20 cocktails while Amanda simply cleaned up dirty glasses and bussed tables and had done only coffee barrista work. Meredith had worked in bars and had experience. Meredith would have been in Le Chic on the Friday to make her famed mojitos for Patrick had she not been killed shortly before that.

A few days later Patrick asked Amanda if she thought it was a good idea for him to help translate for English-speaking journalists who were investigatively reporting Meredith’s death. Amanda said, “No” and waltzed away from him. That shows she didn’t want to help solve Meredith’s murder or for Patrick to help solve it. It showed that perhaps she was envious of Patrick playing an important role in the case, for which she wanted to punish him. He might interfere with her need to be the main drama queen in the case, despite the danger of implicating herself. A few hours later she named Patrick as the killer.

Another limelighting lie:  Amanda gleefully claimed she was the one who found Meredith’s body, when we all know that it was Luca Altieri and Chief Inspector Battistelli who found the body by knocking the door down. Amanda was waiting in another room out of the line of sight. Battistelli closed the bedroom door and sent everyone outside. How does this equate with Amanda “finding the body”?

The email to the Florence court is yet another limelighting move as she lays her lawyers in the shade and tries to preempt all the action as usual. It’s yet another form of jumping up at the table to sing a loud song while people are gathered in restaurant to eat and converse. She is a one-trick pony and it’s always loud and clamorous for attention.

Posted by Hopeful on 12/21/13 at 06:37 PM | #

An outstanding overview of just one of the many elements that serve to underscore a basic principle of this case:  Whenever Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, or their supporters open their mouths or put pen to paper - THEY ARE LYING!!

They simply can’t help but do it.

Many thanks, FinnMacCool!

Posted by Fly By Night on 12/21/13 at 07:47 PM | #

Knox has been weaving a tangled web since November 2, 2007. The old adage “give someone enough rope and she will eventually hang herself” applies here. Knox has provided enough material, a lot of it written, to hang herself a hundred times over, and she shows no signs of stopping. In fact, she seems unaware of the self-inflicted harm at all.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 12/21/13 at 08:30 PM | #

Thanks, Finn.  This is a primer on why words really do matter.  It was a mistake for Knox to publish a “memoir” in the midst of an ongoing murder trial and she compounds this by creating an internally inconsistent narrative.  Details change. 

By her own admission in court, the police did not know who the text message was addressed to or at least did not tell her they knew.  In her book, she has the police not only knowing that the text was to Patrick but they suddenly become oblivious to her own answers to questions she just asked.

She has a problem sorting out fact from fiction.  Only yesterday, she admitted the statistics in her letter to the court were incorrect.  But, even in the “correction”, she omitted the NRE’s conclusions that chief contributing cause of wrongful convictions in homicide cases is deliberate misidentification by witnesses.

That didn’t happen to her.  However, in drawing all this attention to Patrick’s arrest and subsequent release, she underlines her own deliberate misidentification that led to her own arrest and finalised conviction for calunnia.

Posted by Stilicho on 12/21/13 at 09:10 PM | #

@Kermit:  Perhaps Knox ought to institute version control on her “spontaneous” statements.  You know, like a software manufacturer.  She could release:

Spontaneous 10.01 with Truthiness Patch v3.b

Here’s a relevant cite from WTBH [114]:

“When I talk, my thoughts rush together, and I say things that don’t always seem appropriate or make sense.  Writing brings order to my thoughts.”

That, too, has proved to be wrong.

Posted by Stilicho on 12/21/13 at 09:19 PM | #

Thanks all. There is an old Irish saying that keeps coming into my mind: “Is minic a bhris beal duine a shron.” To put it in English: “it often happens that a person’s mouth breaks their own nose”.

There have been so many instances of that self-inflicted injury down the years that it might serve as an epigraph to the whole case.

Posted by FinnMacCool on 12/21/13 at 09:55 PM | #

Hi, FinnMacCool; one small correction to your #1: “(or within six months after all local avenues have been exhausted; in this case none has even been explored).”

I would say her all her avenues were exhausted when the Supreme Court definitively rejected her appeal against the calunnia conviction on March 26, 2013. So, she did explore them.

Your wonderful Irish saying brings up a point another poster, “zorba”, noticed and we examined at PMFDotNet a few days ago. A mark on her nose in one of the photographs taken November 02, 2007, and to my eye it looked slightly out of shape. She, very likely had been hit on the nose by Meredith, either in an argument over the missing money or when she tried to defend herself from the attack by the three at the beginning.

The source of her blood, mixed with Meredith’s?

Posted by Ergon on 12/21/13 at 10:30 PM | #

Finn, outstanding article. Thank you for reading their books (something I could not bear to do) and slowly but assuredly demonstrating exactly how their web of lies have trapped them. They are their own worst enemies.

Posted by jhansigirl on 12/21/13 at 10:52 PM | #

Thanks Ergon, and especially for taking the trouble to trace the application itself. I note also Kermit’s guess about that, which made me laugh.

I am no expert, in fact I think about these things in a very simple and straightforward way and of course I might be wrong. But what I think is that to pursue a claim that your human rights had been abused, you would have to mention to someone that you felt your human rights had been abused.

Probably I have missed the parts where it was mentioned, but I didn’t notice the European Convention on Human Rights or possible abuses of it being discussed so far in any of the court documents from November 2007 through to the Supreme Court ruling.

Posted by FinnMacCool on 12/21/13 at 11:23 PM | #

Thanks also Jhansgirl. I am glad you liked the piece, and I think you have made a wise choice in not reading either WTBH or HB. There are many better books to read.

Posted by FinnMacCool on 12/21/13 at 11:28 PM | #

@ Skeptical Bystander

She cannot stop Fabricating enough rope to hang herself?

Is this a psychopathic excuse she can successfully plead Not Guilty-by-reason-of?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/21/13 at 11:35 PM | #

Hi, Finn McCool, Knox does say in WTBH that she informed her lawyers of the hit in the head right away, but Luciano Ghirga “thought it would be not go over well if she brought it up”. She also did bring it up before the Massei court, but could not identify Insp. Rita Ficarra then, so her testimony was discounted.

Not to forget her immediate appeal to the Supreme Court in 2008 when she made similar arguments as in her blog (I believe, but am not sure) so it’s not that it wasn’t ever raised.

However, going just by her blog statement, since I do not know if her application will be released until accepted by the court, then, it appears that her complaint has to do with being coerced into naming Patrick Lumumba, without a lawyer present, ‘in a language she did not properly know’, after being hit in the head.

Fair enough, and Rumpole at PMF ORG has identified a Ukraine murderer who made a similar argument (the complaint seems more serious) and ECHR made an order of about 8000 Euros. As pointed out, the court does not deal with criminal convictions, only human rights abuse.

At this point, I think the six month exclusion will be the deciding factor. It raises the question why Carlo Dalla Vedova? He’s a corporate lawyer, with no criminal or human rights experience:

It should be noted this argument (recourse to ECHR) was first floated in Groupie land 3 years ago, and it is these uninformed niwits who perhaps might have planted the idea in Knox’s head that this was a magical get out of jail free card.

At this moment, it is the most likely scenario, that her entire legal strategy is being driven by stupidity and desperation. Not to forget, delusional thinking.

Posted by Ergon on 12/22/13 at 04:41 AM | #

Correction: in her blog, she does not say she was hit. My mistake. I have a sneaking suspicion she did not mention that because there still is a pending calunnia charge against her on that matter.

Posted by Ergon on 12/22/13 at 05:53 AM | #

Very good article Finn and well done.

I personally found it an ordeal trying to read Knox’s tome. Please anyone, don’t buy it. From the boring index at the beginning (all chapters are dates) to the end, it was a dull boring read. I found myself skipping pages and when I landed on a new page it was as boring and dull as it was from where I had skipped from.

I started a review then gave up - I found myself becoming annoyed reading through all the drivel and then started to ask myself why am I reviewing this? it’s just not worthy. Anyways, here’s the first page of my review before I abandoned the project, thanks to NK for the idea of the title.


I was under no illusion that this book would provide any answers to this awful crime – the tragedy of the senseless and brutal murder of Meredith Kercher. Instead, we have the framed-innocent victim, Amanda Knox, setting out her case to the court of public opinion.

The front cover is indicative of what is to be found inside.

It shows an image of Amanda Knox that has been heavily doctored, depicting her with an elongated neck looking almost like that of a giraffe and an unnaturally tilted head reminiscent of those cute nodding toy dogs people used to have on the back shelf of their cars - certainly not the real Knox.

The book is a construct of obfuscation woven into an excruciatingly overlong and boring narrative of her day to day prison life no doubt sourced from her prison diaries. It is riddled with contradictions and discrepancies with the known facts of the case that are too numerous to mention in their entirety here. It begins with a prologue in which her creative writing skills are very much on show in the form of a courthouse mini-drama depicting her conviction and sentencing for the murder of Meredith.

Evidence of the histrionic manipulative character of Knox and the relationship between her mother and biological father can be seen as early as chapter 1 when she describes how she set up a meeting in order to obtain their permission to go to Perugia all on her own. Knox notes that “they were invisible to each other” and “also had another mission when I set up the two parent lunch” and “I’d never rehearsed any part in a play as I had this conversation”.

Still very early in the book and now landed on Italian soil, Knox begins to describe her sexual campaign but I have to admit I was already struggling with the story at this point. I couldn’t understand why she seemed to be so preoccupied with the subject and why she thought it was relevant at all and if indeed anyone would be interested, until I realised she is attempting to play down and dispel the image of herself as a man eater, and of course sex sells, so this had to be the motive here.

Pre slaying, Knox mentions Meredith in the sex section of the book with a tale of Meredith asking Knox for some of her condoms. I found this distasteful and I cannot think of any reason to include this if it did happen at all, apart from the implication that Meredith had sex too, so why is it me that is the bad girl?

Posted by DF2K on 12/22/13 at 09:48 AM | #

Thanks, Ergon. You are correct about those mentions of being struck, and also about the blog post not mentioning being struck. I share Ghirga’s view that raising the issue in court is unlikely to go down well, for obvious reasons, and I share your view that Knox does not mention it in her blog post for fear of the pending calumnia charge. In that sense she agrees with you, me and Luciano Ghirga - how nice to reach a point of common ground!

I read about Rumpole’s Ukrainian case, and I don’t see the similarities with this case, although it is entirely possible I am wrong about that. Also I don’t agree with you that mentioning being slapped is the same as alleging that the Convention has been breached, but again I might be wrong.

The following occurs to me as a possibility. The application will fail because the deadline expired in 2008, and therefore the merits of its case will not even be discussed by ECHR. I also think it is possible that the present court will find against both defendants. One of the defendants may then wish to fight extradition.

Her defense will then be in a position to argue that her appeal to ECHR was dismissed on a technicality, which would be quite true, and it could be that the application has been made with this in mind, as a way of complicating the extradition process.

Posted by FinnMacCool on 12/22/13 at 10:15 AM | #

Firstly, Thankyou Finn for all your work.

I agree with you that there are a lot of goings on now with an eye to the (possible or probable) extradition process.


I was asked to read the ‘book’ with a view to the psychology it might reveal.

It was a very unwelcome task. I had to read it in phases, as I couldn’t take too much at a time. I felt unclean, almost contaminated, reading it, and also found it fairly depressing and of zero literary value.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/22/13 at 12:29 PM | #

“She sent a five-page email in English and Italian, with grammatical mistakes in each language, protesting her innocence and affirming that the reason she is not present in the court is because she is afraid of it.”

Thank You, Finn, for this post.  Trying to decipher Knox’s sentences can be a task ... her statements are always full of contradictions and lies !

Posted by MissMarple on 12/22/13 at 04:34 PM | #

“Knox and Sollecito are damaged individuals whose grip on reality is loose and whose delusional ramblings suggest that they need urgent psychiatric help.”

I don’t know if such a thing as “psychiatric help” would exist for them or for anyone else committed to a psychiatric hospital for that matter. Psychiatry is less a branch of medicine than a tool for social control , in my opinion. I think its intention is to protect the innocent, law-abiding population against anti-social individuals ( such as felons as Knox and Sollecito certainly) who might become dangerous again.

Posted by aethelred23 on 12/22/13 at 09:53 PM | #

Hello aethelred,

Yes, unfortunately psychiatry does have to take on that function in some cases.

As we’ve said before, people have to want to be helped, before they can be. And if they refuse to acknowledge that they are less than perfect, and so may need some help, there is not a lot that can be done - except try and protect those who might be harmed from their dysfunction.

In my experience, whether people come voluntarily to a counsellor/ therapist, or involuntarily, makes all the difference.  There also needs to be good provision for a client to genuinely choose a therapist they feel they can work with - otherwise it won’t work, sadly.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/22/13 at 10:17 PM | #

Knox’s supporters always say “false confession.”  The correct term is “false accusation.”  Wish the press would start pointing that out…

Posted by Ceylon on 12/22/13 at 10:40 PM | #

Hi, Ceylon, I agree their use of the term is misleading. Even when you accept that it placed her at the scene of the crime, which is what her fans are trying to say, it never takes away from the fact she tried to deflect from her mistake by accusing an innocent man.

And now she’s trying to avoid paying damages to him by saying she was coerced? She’s driving her own bus off a cliff.

Posted by Ergon on 12/23/13 at 12:23 PM | #

Yes…a confession -  false or true - was precisely what we DIDNT get….

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/23/13 at 01:15 PM | #

The picture of Knox at the top (and to some extent those below) sums up a lot, for me. She looks - and probably still is on some level - like a spotty child stuck in development, and sadly someone who has never been adequately taught acceptable behaviour (to put it mildly).

This much is all quite clear from Knox’s behaviour on the way to, and in, Perugia. Of course, adolescents are always consciously (more or less) exploring limits , but it’s obvious to me that Knox was/is absolutely unconsciously driven for want of some absolutely basic early lessons about limits.

This trial isn’t really just about the child - it can also be seen as a judgement of parental care. The family are collectively indicted. We are all used to the bumper stickers at this time of the year proclaiming “a dog isn’t just for Christmas, it’s for life”. Projection much? Maybe Knox’s parents will learn that a child or two isn’t just an accessory that you’re “meant to have”, it’s a commitment to be entered into consciously -  or otherwise be prepared for the possibility of horrific consequences.

I don’t think there is any mitigation for AK in this since she was an adult abroad in every sense. It’s a very modern tragedy which has lessons for us all. There is only one proper verdict though, unless sentimentality rules.

Posted by Odysseus on 12/23/13 at 10:13 PM | #

Thank you for this excellent post, Finn.  The propaganda machine has falsely claimed on numerous occasions that Knox has remained consistent in her statements.  As you’ve clearly shown, using her own written statements and autobiography, Knox has changed her stories several times in the attempt to evade responsibility for falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba. 

Given the conflicting accounts she has provided to date, I think that filing the ECHR complaint was extremely misguided, as it only served to draw attention to these inconsistencies.

Posted by Vivianna on 12/23/13 at 11:20 PM | #

Merry Christmas to all! Gloria in Excelsis Deo!

Despite the nearness of Christmas Eve I found myself scouting through John Kercher’s book, “Meredith”, for some facts for a post. As I took notes in a purple notebook, I ran across some older notes about Knox’s letters to her unborn children. She named them Lotte, Astrid, or Natasha if they were girls and Serge, Ira, or Abe if boys.

Her letters were presented on the Today Show.

I found myself researching the meaning of name Ira (one of King David’s mighty men).

Then at 11th hour Christmas shopping lunch with my son at Panera, I shared with him from John Kercher’s book, how Mr. Kercher was so disturbed when Natalie Hayward said that Amanda claimed Meredith’s body was by the wardrobe. The blood spatter expert at trial said that Meredith’s face was pushed nearly to the floor and the fatal cut was made near the wardrobe. He had photographic evidence of it. Yet Meredith’s body had been moved away from the wardrobe, where it was found under the duvet. Even if Amanda had clearly seen the duvet and the scene that met Battistelli and Luca’s eyes, how had Amanda known about its earlier position nearer the wardrobe?

We talked for a long time about the January verdict and Hekuran Kokomani’s VW Golf that almost got hijacked by Raf, Guede, and Amanda who waved a knife at him as he threw olives and fled. He also saw the broken down car driven by tourists that broke down by the entrance to the cottage. They waited for a tow on the night of the crime, and Koko saw a dark car in the cottage driveway. He later said someone offered him 100,000 Euros not to testify.

It was nice to share some happier parts of Mr. Kercher’s book about Meredith’s good times, too. Then we got sidetracked on politics and Edward Snowden and soon had to dash to finish Christmas shopping.

Joy to the world, Emmanuel God with us. Safe travels to all.

Posted by Hopeful on 12/24/13 at 01:18 AM | #

Merry Christmas and Happy holidays to you all.

I was down for sometime and I have so much to read. But first I want to thank all the readers and posters for your commitment to justice. Let us spread the message of love and peace in the coming days.

Posted by chami on 12/24/13 at 04:49 PM | #

That sounds so false to say that AK was shouting “Aiuto!” during her questioning.  For an American who’d only been in Italy for a month or so, why would she yell in Italian?  The natural reaction to a stressful situation would be to yell in your native language like “Leave me alone!” or “Help” or “Ouch” Or “Stop”.  So much fiction.  LIkewise, it is very strange how the details of a day so many years ago are clear, in order to write books, but the details of the night of the murder were so fuzzy just a few days later.

Posted by believing on 12/24/13 at 04:58 PM | #

God Bless Each And Every-One. Merry Christmas to all. and a Happy New Year.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/24/13 at 07:52 PM | #

Merry xmas to all the good people who continue to fight for Meredith and for truth and justice..indeed to all around the world, to friends and family, to my dad in heaven to my mum alone in her living room tonight.

This night, for me is always a very sad time. I often think I’m alone, but thanks in no small measure to this website, i know i’m not. Merry xmas to the Kercher family, i would like to say to you especially…you are not alone either, I am with you tonight, we are all with you tonight.  as is your precious daughter Meredith. She is with us all tonight….

Very merry xmas to everyone. Lots of love and hugs from me in Bolton England

Goodnight Dad xxx

Posted by mollythecat on 12/24/13 at 08:12 PM | #

Happy Christmas to everyone. Be well in 2014!

Posted by Odysseus on 12/24/13 at 11:06 PM | #

Hi Finn,

Brilliant. Meticulous. Informative. It’s a shame that the vast majority of journalists covering the case aren’t as painstakingly thorough as you.

Posted by The Machine on 12/25/13 at 02:38 AM | #

There are many good people in the world, who continue the fight for justice for Meredith.

This time of the year must be hard for her family. Our thoughts are with them!

Let us hope and trust that true justice will be served in the New Year.

Thank you very much to everyone contributing.


Posted by Babushka on 12/25/13 at 10:36 AM | #

Thank you babushka…

There’s a post coming later today with thoughts for Christmas and also good wishes for Meredith’s family over the coming days…

Thank you to everyone who does their thoughtful part in contributing, and keeping the candle alight…best wishes of the season to all.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/25/13 at 11:24 AM | #

Happy holidays to everyone!  And remember that even though there might be an empty place at your table tonight, you are not alone.

Posted by Vivianna on 12/25/13 at 04:14 PM | #

Posted 13 June 2024. Vivianna’s cheerful comment above is the 47th and final one posted in 2013. If there is a new comment, it will show up just fine.

This original post is temporarily moved from the separate Knox Hoaxes page. With all comments we’ll move this original and leave a copy without 2013 comments. Thanks all.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/14/24 at 07:20 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to previous entry Knox Lie-A-Thon #3: Nailing New Lies In Florence Court On June 5th #1