Sunday, September 22, 2013

Questions For Knox: Ten Hard Questions That Knox Should Be Asked Monday On ITV’s Daybreak

Posted by The Machine

Amanda Knox will be interviewed for the first time in Britain on ITV’s Daybreak programme tomorrow.

No interviewer should unquestioningly accept everything Knox says as the gospel truth. Remember Knox served three years in prison and is labeled a convicted felon for life for malicious lying.

So let’s hope tomorrow’s interview is not yet another whiny mis-statement of the core facts, and not yet more sliming of Italian officials, of which we have just seen so many.

There are many questions on this site which Knox has never ever answered. Some arise from the evidence and some from her dishonest book.

See especially the tough questions here and here and here and here.  With luck the Daybreak hosts will ask Knox all of these tough questions below.

1. Multiple false alibis

You and Raffaele Sollecito gave completely different accounts of where you were, who you were with and what you were doing on the night of the murder. Neither of you have credible alibis despite three attempts each. Sollecito told Kate Mansey from The Sunday Mirror that you and him were at a party.

He told the police that you and him were at his apartment. He then told them that he was home alone and that you weren’t at his apartment from around 9.00pm to about 1.00am. You first told the police that you were at Sollecito’s apartment. After you were informed that he was no longer providing you with an alibi, you repeatedly claimed that you went to the cottage with Diya Lumumba.

You changed your story yet again and claimed that you were at Sollecito’s apartment, but he might have gone out. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified.

Extract of Sollecito’s witness statement.

“I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think.

Question 1. Why did you and Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly tell the police and others a pack of lies?

2. False accusation

You falsely claimed that Diya Lumumba killed Meredith in two witness statements and you repeated the false accusation in your handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. You served three years in prison for this felony and your appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.

Question 2. Why did you repeatedly accuse Diya Lumumba of murder when you knew full well that he was completely innocent and why didn’t you or your mother retract your accusation when he was in prison?

3. The Double DNA Knife

According to a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor, Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian - Meredith’s Kercher’s DNA was found on the blade of a knife from Raffaele Sollecito’s kitchen.

He falsely claimed in his prison diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking. Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory.

Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment, so contamination away from the laboratory was impossible.

Question 3. How do you think Meredith’s DNA got onto the blade of the kitchen knife?

4. The bra clasp

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s on the exact part of Meredith bra clasp that was bent out of shape during the attack on her.  His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Professor Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it.

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

Question 4. How do you think Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp?

5. The bloody footprint on the bathmat

According to two imprint experts - Rinaldi and Boemi - the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house which indicates that he didn’t go into the bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

See our past posts on this here and here.

Question 5. Who do you think left the bloody footprint on the bathmat?

6. Mixed samples of Amanda Knox’s DNA or blood and Meredith Kercher’s blood

According to the prosecution’s experts, there were five instances of your DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. Even your lawyers conceded that your blood had mingled with Meredith’s blood. In other words, Meredith and Amanda Knox were both bleeding at the same time.

Question 6. Why were you bleeding on the night of the murder and is it a coincidence that only your DNA was found mixed with Meredith’s blood?

7. The Luminol Enhanced Footprints

Bare bloody footprints were revealed by Luminol at the cottage. Three of them are compatible with your foot size and one of them is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s foot size.

Question 7. What do you think the Luminol was reacting to - Meredith’s blood or some other substance?

8. The staged break-in

There is absolutely no evidence that anyone stood outside Filomena’s window and climbed up the vertical wall on the night of the murder. There were no marks from soil, grass or rubber soles on the wall. The earth of the evening of 1 November 2007 was very wet, so if anybody had climbed the wall, they would have left some marks on it.

The glass on the window sill and on the floor show no signs of being touched after the window was broken, which would have been the case if the intruder had gained entry through the window.

There was not a single biological trace on any of the shards of glass. It would have been very likely that an intruder balancing on the window sill would have suffered some kind of injury or cut because of the shards of glass.

If the window had been broken from the outside, there would have been shards of glass outside, but there wasn’t even one.

Judge Massei and the panel of judges at the Italian Supreme Court specifically mentioned the shards of glass on top of Filomena’s clothes which had been tossed onto the floor in her room and regarded it as proof that the break-in was staged.

Question 8. Who do you think staged the break-in at the cottage?

9. Knowledge of the crime

Umbria Procurator General Galati’s pointed out in his appeal that you knew specific details of the crime that you could have only known if you had been present when Meredith was killed.

According to multiple witnesses at the police station, you said you were the one who had found Meredith’s body, that she was in the wardrobe, that she was covered by the quilt, that a foot was sticking out, that they had cut her throat and that there was blood everywhere. But you weren’t in a position to have seen anything at all when the door was kicked in.

In your witness statement you described Meredith’s scream. Other witnesses have corroborated your claim that there was a loud scream.

Question 9. How did you know so many precise details of the crime?

10. Shower and the “bathmat shuffle”

The Scientific Police found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom that Meredith and you shared. Prosecutor Mignini and Filomena have both expressed their surprise that you showered in a blood-spattered bathroom.

Filomena told Mignini during cross-examination:  “I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place.”

You told Mignini that you used the bathmat to shuffle to your room.

Question 10. Why did you shower in a bathroom that was splattered with blood, and did you notice the visible bloody footprint on the bathmat when you used it to shuffle to your room? And why so soon after did the police notice that you were stinking?

Lorraine Kelly and Aled Jones the ITV Daybreak hosts who should confront Amanda Knox


Right on Machine. I can think of a few myself.

Posted by Bettina on 09/22/13 at 10:52 PM | #

Hi Bettina,

Please add them to the comments. I hope others do the same.

Posted by The Machine on 09/22/13 at 10:54 PM | #

For question nunber one, would you be able to specifically state each of their three changing alibi’s, instead of just calling them a pack of lies?  Didn’t RS first state he and AK were at a party?

Posted by gardner on 09/22/13 at 11:38 PM | #

Thanks Machine.

In terms of questions, Knox visited Patrick on Nov 5th (before she would accuse him of being the murderer). She clearly testified, when asked if she was afraid of Patrick, “No.”

If she was apparently nowhere near the cottage, how on earth could Knox later say she was confident that Patrick was not the murderer?

Following on from that, does she believe that Rudy Guede was involved? surely she must be of the opinion that he is being ‘framed’ by the same people?!

Posted by Rocket Queen on 09/22/13 at 11:44 PM | #

Hi Gardner,

I’ve amended the post and briefly explained what their three alibis were.

Posted by The Machine on 09/22/13 at 11:58 PM | #

Thank you The Machine.  If she is asked this question, I was afraid she could easily dismiss it.  Hopefully the interviewer will state all the changing alibi’s.

Posted by gardner on 09/23/13 at 12:13 AM | #

Thanks to all the people who have sent e-mails and tweets to the Daybreak team. If anyone hasn’t done it yet, please do. It’s great to see so many people being proactive on Twitter - there has been a constant stream of tweets to them for a couple of hours. Everyone can make a difference. By telling the truth we give Meredith a voice. Let’s make sure the media hear it.

Posted by The Machine on 09/23/13 at 12:17 AM | #

People are sick of the Amanda Knox show.

Is she being paid to appear on ITV. And what about the interview for sure the questions will be shown to her in advance.

For sure only very soft questions like ‘how hard was it to be separated from your family’ would be permitted.

They are still trying to influence this coming Trial.

Posted by Mason2. on 09/23/13 at 12:23 AM | #

Also, related to point #9; Knox has previously stated to learning details of the crime-scene (specifically with regards to details in Meredith’s room) from Sollecito.

Sollecito recently told Stephern Sackur they didn’t see the crime-scene as the door was broken down.

Posted by Rocket Queen on 09/23/13 at 01:12 AM | #

Knox emphasises in no fewer than four places in her book (library copy, friends. I wouldn’t chuck a dirty penny in her direction) that Sollecito (who “met Meredith exactly twice”) could not possibly have had his knife in contact with her person.

- Meredith never set foot in his flat.

- He never transported his knife to the cottage.

- Knox never transported his knife to the cottage.

All of these claims make his jail cell admission of “pricking Meredith’s hand” tantamount to confessing his involvement in her murder.

Why else, unless you were well aware there was even the tiniest possibility that forensics would reveal a murder victim’s DNA on your knife (even if they had selected the wrong one!) would you volunteer such a story?

It’s like Knox’s mention of “fish blood” on his hand, after dinner. Is a germophobe such as Sollecito, who insists that his cleaner scrub his flat with Lysoform, going to clean a bloody fish and then not wash his hands?

And how does “eating late—perhaps around 11:00”, provide an alibi? Could they not have coldly consumed their bloody fish feast after having coldly left a young woman to bleed to death?

My favorite comical passage is where, after being visited by the magical Sister, Knox “totally freaks” and remembers her innocence. and (quoting Kassin) “this is why”. Magic!!!

Posted by mimi on 09/23/13 at 01:26 AM | #

FANTASTIC, Machine!!! 

Great questions.


Posted by thundering on 09/23/13 at 01:57 AM | #

Knox keeps claiming that she has matured and learned a lot from her experiences over the past six years.  She has demonstrably learned absolutely nothing.  She has decided to embark on a ghoulish media campaign against the wishes of Meredith’s family.

If she was so interested in defending herself publicly then why isn’t Knox on a plane to attend her appeal in Florence?  That’s the only forum that counts right now and the only one in which she can possibly appear contrite instead of being her old gloating, lying, arrogant self.

Posted by Stilicho on 09/23/13 at 02:00 AM | #

ITV Daybreak may be in a mood to listen. They cannot afford to anger too many viewers.

Their ratings have sunk and stayed down for a year or two against the BBC’s popular Breakfast. The two anchors in the mugshot at top are hanging on by their finger-nails now.


Question for Knox: In the torrid full-day closed-session reconstruction at trial of the horrific 15 minute attack on Meredith, all the marks on Meredith and the surfaces of the room were shown to require three people. Your own defenses brought in witnesses Alessi and Aviello to point to others, whose accounts then collapsed. The Supreme Court has concluded twice now that three people must be accounted for.

So why do you demonize and point only at Guede? Who were the second and third people present at the attack?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/23/13 at 03:00 AM | #

Bravo to The Machine for gathering the hard facts that Knox should be questioned on. Color coded for emphasis. I hope the Daybreak team uses this.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/23/13 at 03:08 AM | #

I hope some serious questions gets asked.

Why did you cancel your trip to Gubbio?

Why did you NOT call the police when you saw blood?

Your partner for the night claimed that you two were in a party. Any comments?

There are some questions about your cash withdrawals and deposits in your account: any comments?

Why did you not turn up at the memorial for MK?

Best of Luck!

Posted by chami on 09/23/13 at 05:24 AM | #

Great Questions !  Thank You, The Machine !

My favorite is #8 ... would really like to see Knox answer that one.  Ah, but she won’t ... but it sure would be interesting to see if she will blame it on Guede.

Posted by MissMarple on 09/23/13 at 08:03 AM | #

Just watching the Daybreak interview with Amanda Obknoxious. It’s not over yet and I’ll post more if there’s anything significant.

The interviewer is less fawning than expected, which was a pleasant surprise. Maybe all our e-mails concentrated minds!

Knox herself is her usual “butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth” self. The usual sharp exhalation of breath every now and then, as if to indicate how frustrating this all is.

She was asked if she would take a lie detector test (daft question, how is that going to happen?). For a moment she didn’t know quite what to do with this question then said it shouldn’t be necessary, it shouldn’t have come to this, etc. etc. Eventually she said she probably would when the interviewer pressed on the question.

Her main line in the interview so far seems to make it clear how wronged she is and “there’s no part of me that would ever do something like this”. Rudy,  she makes clear, is different - he has a record of house break-ins, etc.

Don’t know if The Machine’s questions were seen by the interviewers/producers but #1 and #2 have been touched on. We got her usual responses involving her youth, heavy-handed police interrogation (sharp exhalation of breath),etc.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/23/13 at 09:56 AM | #

Thank you Odysseus .

“there’s no part of me that would ever do something like this”

...this is an illustration, from a psychological perspective, of a protective mechanism usually used in narcissistic personalities.

There is the ‘accepted image of the self’, and there is the ‘rejected image of the self’. The self is split into these two aspects, and the rejected part of the self is projected and denied.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/23/13 at 12:41 PM | #

Thanks to Odysseus for the report. Psychologists like SeekeingUnderstanding are having a field-day with the loaded answers in these interviews. They reek of guilt.

Here are more of the questions on the site, these were posted by MediaWatcher in April of this year; some overlap with The Machine’s:

• Why did you call your mother in the middle of the night Seattle time prior to the murder having been discovered?  What was it you wanted to tell her?

• You tried calling Meredith the day after the murder took place and yet phone records show that two of the calls you made to her cell numbers lasted only three and four seconds and you left no messages.  How diligent were you in trying to reach her?

• Why do you think you falsely accused your boss Patrick Lumumba?

• Why didn’t you withdraw your accusation against Patrick Lumumba in the light of day, once you’d had time to rest and reflect?

• You have said - though never under oath - that you were treated terribly; can you summarize for us what happened the night you voluntarily gave your written statement and very specifically, any circumstances in which you were treated poorly?

• Were you given food and drink on the night you were questioned?

• Were you bleeding on the night or morning of the murder in any way that could have left DNA in the bathroom or in Filomena’s room?  If so, why were you bleeding?

• You’ve said that went back to your apartment to take a shower and to retrieve a mop to clean up some water at Raffaele’s apartment from the night before.  Why didn’t you simply use towels at Raffaele’s apartment to clean up the water - why wait until the next day?

• Reports indicate that Rudy Guede was a frequent visitor to the flat below yours.  How well did you know Rudy Guede prior to the night of the murder?

• Do you stand by the statement you made on the day the murder was discovered that Meredith always locked her door?

• You emailed to friends and family that you were panicked about what might have happened to Meredith given the locked door.  Did the two of you try to break the door down?  If not, why not?  And if Meredith always locked her door, why did the fact that it was locked worry you?

• Have you read the Massei report?

• Raffaele Sollecito said during his book tour that no one asked him to testify during the original trial.  Do you believe this is true?

• If your conviction is affirmed by the Supreme Court, do you think you should be extradited to Italy.  If not, why not?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/23/13 at 12:47 PM | #

She says she’d be “fine” with a lie detector test.

That’s what her whole trial has been hasn’t it - a lie detector? The result is overwhelmingly positive, she has lied through her teeth from day one.

I’ll give her one thing, she’s a consummate actress (well almost - until you realise her facial expressions often don’t match, or are just too short-lived, to totally match the emotions she is trying to convey). She could possibly have made something of a career treading the boards but as it is it looks like she might be treading the exercise yard for a good number of years. Inshallah.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/23/13 at 12:55 PM | #


Interesting, thank you. I thought it was a strange and convoluted way to say “I didn’t do it”.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/23/13 at 01:00 PM | #

Right, now the Daybreak interviews have aired.

First Lucy Watson, an English US correspondent, did an “at home with Amanda package.”  The structure was to headline the news with quotes from the interviews and then to recap with footage and voiceover of Knox.

When asked about lying and blaming Patick Lumumba.Knox gave the same old spiel about being confused, due to a heavy interrogation and being led to lie by the police.“I was just a kid , I am not the person the prosecution think I am.”

On the question “Why are you not going back to Italy?” Knox gave the same old oily reply. Not going back was she said really “it’s an admission of my innocence” , she was already imprisoned for 4 years unfairly…etc

More interesting was her reply to the question;“Amanda, what will you do if you are convicted again.?”

Her reply; “The life of a fugitive is not one I would like to live and I’d never… it drives me cray that someone can point the finger at me and say that I am a murderer, just like it drives me crazy that people can point their finger at me and say I am a slanderer but I am not”.

So is Knox planning going on the run?  Has she been reading the boards on TJMK, PMF ?

Next Lorraine Kelly interviewed Knox on a live link. This was much more interesting.

Firstly I thought that Lorraine was direct, and had a way with her that gave Knox space to open up a little.

She was asked twice again to say why it was that she was not going to Florence. Knox dissembled and when one of her points was that she could “not afford to go back” Lorraine asked her: How so,  given the 3.8 million dollar book deal? More twisting in the wind from KNox.

It seemed to me that Knox was giving rehearsed and coached responses, but at times began to answer in a more natural tone. It is a pity that this was a segmented interview.

I get the feeling that Lorraine Kelly would make a fine interviewer, and had she been given an hour with Knox on her own, it could have led somewhere.

Like Frost / David Frost said “It is not the questions you ask that are important but the reply and answer that you get.”

Knox told Lucy Watson that she was “confident of Italy” once again aquitting her. Well in the meantime apart from emoting to camera, feeding PR packages to the press… there is little hope for her, she is getting ready to run and hide.

When her best defence would be to turn up in Florence and simply tell the truth. If she really wants to regain a life with meaning.

Posted by Olliebear on 09/23/13 at 01:41 PM | #

Oh and yes Knox played cute and dissembled again when asked if she would take a lie detector test.

Also a final segment was a brief interview with Mom and Dad, bookending the sofa. Curt Knox looked distinctly uncomfortable as if he had an exocet missile up his arse.

Mom gave the same old bilge about caring for the loss the Kerchers have suffered while wanting to protect her daughter.

Posted by Olliebear on 09/23/13 at 01:51 PM | #

Thank you for the feedback on this interview, Olliebear. 

Some interesting points.  I found this one particularly interesting:

“More interesting was her reply to the question;“Amanda what will you do if you are convicted again.?”

her reply; “The life of a fugitive is not one I would like to live and I’d never… it drives me cray that someone can point the finger at me and say that I am a murderer just like it drives me crazy that people can point their finger at me and say I am a slanderer but I am not”.”

Perhaps they did read some of the tweets and emails. 

Let’s hope that this is the last we see of this woman on the chat shows.

Posted by thundering on 09/23/13 at 02:03 PM | #

Great post for those of us who didn’t have access to the interview, thanks again to everyone on here for the constant effort. Just read the follow up on the Daily Mail site, full of lies as usual, I’ve. Lost count of the amount of times I’ve written a comment on there, they NEVER post any of them, what a surprise!

Posted by Urbanist on 09/23/13 at 02:29 PM | #

Yes, absolutely Pete, this is true…I have just seen it, and there is so much. Rather than describe it all, I’m open to questions here in the comments…please ask, and I’ll do my best.

There are many dozens of examples of fleeting micro expressions (that escape control and acting)... these are very, very indicative .
There were also a few statements that are provably completely untrue.
I thought Lorraine was quite good, as fair as possible, given the deliberate disingenuousness in the situation.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/23/13 at 03:11 PM | #

Machine, thanks for your post, some of the questions surfaced directly or indirectly in the Daybreak show.

For as much rehearsing that Amanda must be doing with the PR hacks, she either is:
a) a bad actor
b) goes her own route instead of following good PR techniques
c) is totally uncomfortable being thrown under the inquisitive spotlight
d) feels arrogantly self-righteous
e) all of the above

Start packing your bags, Amanda. You’re going back to Italy one way or another.

I would be interested in seeing the Marriott/Gogerty post-mortem and debriefing on this interview.

Posted by Kermit on 09/23/13 at 03:38 PM | #

@ thundering

You are welcome, no bother at all. Like everyone I e-mailed Daybreak indignant that PR is allowed and encouraged when there is an ongoing legal process.

Btw…. the consistent Knox voiceover theme was not only that she was innocent but that she was being hunted. Seems this image of herself is how she sees her life now…and that is why her choice of words points to going on the the run. She has been in flight and denial ever since the aquittal.

She is not in the least persuasive nor honest. There is no way she would submit to a lie detector test. She has never ever been cross-examined about the evidence. That is one of her many reasons for not returning to Italy. It may be that while on the run she will make statements to the effect that being on the run is a sure sign of her innocence…  as she is, as always the persecuted victim.

Hopefully Sollecito or Guede or even Knox will tell the truth at some point and finish this parade of lies.  The Italian judicial system is thorough and scrupulous in its integrity. Here’s hoping that the Kercher family will find some clarity and justice in Florence.

Posted by Olliebear on 09/23/13 at 03:44 PM | #

@ Olliebear:

“The Italian judicial system is thorough and scrupulous in its integrity here,s hoping that the Kercher family will find some clarity and justice in Florence.”

Hear hear!

Yes, now she is being ‘hunted’! 

I wonder if she WILL go on the run?

Posted by thundering on 09/23/13 at 03:59 PM | #

@ Odysseus :  “Knox herself is her usual “butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth” self.”

Good one ! 

And Thank You, Odysseus, for the update from the interview this morning.

Posted by MissMarple on 09/23/13 at 04:05 PM | #

@ Ollibear:

“When asked about lying and blaming Patick Lumumba, Knox gave the same old spiel about being confused, due to a heavy interrogation and being led to lie by the police.  “I was just a kid , I am not the person the prosecution think I am.”

What a liar to use the word “kid” to confuse and to use as an “excuse”  ... she was a “college student”—20 years old ... which is NOT a “kid.”

Posted by MissMarple on 09/23/13 at 04:13 PM | #

@miss Marple
Yes, that ‘kid’ statement was dreadful.
a real evasion of responsibility, and much anger, I felt, at the question, which was, essentially,
‘Can you see why some people have doubts about your innocence?’

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/23/13 at 04:20 PM | #

Hi MissMarple

You’re very welcome. I’m going to get an early night tonight, I’m not used to getting up at the kind of ungodly hour that “Daybreak” airs (could also do without all the ersatz bonhomie and “lovely couple on the sofa” -mother and father? - ambience they try to convey in these shows)!

Posted by Odysseus on 09/23/13 at 05:50 PM | #

@ seeking understanding

It may be bias on my part but was there a part of the interview where Knox denied a point verbally but her head movement was unconsciously affirming “yes”.. somewhat similar ( sim- i- LIAR) to her reply to Diane Sawyer,s question. “Where you there?” Knox answers NO..but head nods a strong YES..

Would really be interested to hear you view on this.As I feel she does act the innocent but can not help herself sometimes.

Posted by Olliebear on 09/23/13 at 06:16 PM | #

Yes, Olliebear, there were a few instances of facial gestures saying something quite different to the words. Very definitely. There was also the fleeting insincere smile - no smile from the eyes or the correct muscles- which was frequent.
I thought I would re-watch and make a list of these discrepancies…will be back.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/23/13 at 06:27 PM | #

One more question could be: is Girlanda nice to Knife Boy and is Girlanda still helpfull?

Posted by Helder Licht on 09/23/13 at 06:30 PM | #

If you are on twitter please retweet

Thank you.


Posted by Jeffski1 on 09/23/13 at 07:11 PM | #

Ome more: ” Are you aware of xenofobe tendencies among some of your supporters (cantwell, Jane Doe, etc) and do they hurt your case? ( trump )

Posted by Helder Licht on 09/23/13 at 08:01 PM | #

@Helder Licht

That would be a very good question.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/23/13 at 08:15 PM | #

Here’s two examples of shaking the head, several times, meaning no or not, when the words are supposed to be affirmative:

When asked whether she would take a lie detector test, - she replies yes, yes…but is shaking her head continually, slightly. She ends up saying with a slight defiant tone, ‘I would be fine with that’, but then closes her eyelids, which is a negation.

We close our eyes at bad news.

She says, ‘I’m being hunted…’ etc. and narrows her eyes.( One would expect the one doing the hunting to narrow the eyes.) she then says she is fighting back while she has the opportunity. (opportunism)... And ‘it’s helping me psychologically.’ But she shakes her head again while saying this…and then swallows hard. It is very uncomfortable.

There is quite a lot of narrowing of eyes, noticeably and sustained. It often means negative emotion - expression of disagreement or dislike. Another time it is very noticeable is when she says, in answering about Meredith’s family, that ,‘I know where they are coming from…’ (Sub-text : and I don’t like it).

There was also pursing of the lips, fleetingly, and/or the slight swallow of the lower lip. (These are ‘micro-expressions’).  One happens when Lorraine says the Kercher family ‘said No’ (re visiting the grave).

Lip pursing can be very accurate…a reliable indicator that a person is completely rejecting what is being said.

If someone is making a deceptive statement, their voice often displays inconsistency - odd change of tone etc. - and notice any swallowing. There was lots.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/23/13 at 08:16 PM | #

I watched the ITV interview - and there were a lot of exasperated sighs from Amanda Knox - just seemed so contrived and not natural.

Lorraine Kelly did a decent job I thought - the questions on the 3.8m book deal seemed to touch a raw nerve with Knox - her answer suggesting she thought she deserved some money for “what she had been through”.

And the lie detector test - a great question, this really threw her - and she realised eventually that to continue her image of innocence she just had to say she would be happy to do this - even though for her its yet another lie.

Posted by gabster1971 on 09/23/13 at 08:52 PM | #

Sharlene Martin has claimed on Twitter that Raffaele Sollecito has hired John Q Kelly. The last time I saw John Q Kelly speaking about the case he embarrassed himself with his ignorance:

Posted by The Machine on 09/23/13 at 08:59 PM | #

FYI Polygraph exams become even less reliable when they are given to a subject more than once.  In other words the subject gets used to the process and the blood pressure and other data don’t react as they do with an untested subject.

How many lie detector tests do you think Ms. Knox has already taken?  If any of them were favorable, her camp would have trumpeted that fact by now.

Posted by Gonzaga on 09/23/13 at 09:42 PM | #

Some other points from the interview:

AK is claiming that there is proof of her innocence, and that this is that ‘there is no trace of me at all in the room where my friend was murdered.’

I think this is a very weak defence, especially when one considers that the staged break in and obvious partial cleaning are unexplained.

She also repeats and repeats ( we have often discussed this) about how she isn’t the person the prosecution think she is, how this shouldn’t be a trial of character and so on.

There seems to have been a massive by-pass on the reality of, for instance, the Massei report, where the trial is clearly shown to have been conducted on very particular, detailed and factual evidence.

The obsession with personality and character has been fostered by herself, and the media circus she has encouraged.

As a psychologist one is interested in aspects of the personality that reveal the true nature of the person. The first rule in psychotherapy is that one does not judge but understand. (She accuses people of judging her). One is actually interested in dispelling image(s), of going much deeper than image or soundbite.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/23/13 at 09:50 PM | #

To complicate or not to complicate?

AK openly contradicts herself.
“It should be clear…what happened. This case is not complicated….”
Then, later on, in the ‘just a kid’ scene, says,
“But I was just a kid…the reality is that it was a lot more complicated (than it seems)...”

Perhaps RS would like to make a few things more clear? We can but hope.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/23/13 at 10:49 PM | #


Indeed. She’s always over-explaining: “there is no trace of me at all in the room where my friend was murdered”. It’s almost “you haven’t got the evidence to place me in the room, ha ha”. How disingenuous can you get?

An innocent person, who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime, would not say this. Why would they bother? They would resolutely maintain they weren’t there at the residence, period. Take it or leave it.

For AK it’s come down to “Oh yeah? What have you got?”.

Of course the court have actually got an awful lot, as we expect to be confirmed shortly…At least I sincerely hope so, this totally weird and arrogant girl/woman is exasperating beyond belief.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/23/13 at 10:50 PM | #

Hi Machine

As you know like so many of the Knox sock puppets NYC lawyer John Q Kelly went underground back then. He dropped himself in it and we were pretty amused.

Charges against Sollecito for false claims of crimes in his book (ask his dad! he knows) should be made public in Florence very soon.

Sharlene Martin was one of those being observed for complicity and John Q Kelly will also be now.

Great time to hop on a sinking ship.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/23/13 at 10:58 PM | #


......‘How many lie detector tests do you think Ms. Knox has already taken?  If any of them were favorable, her camp would have trumpeted that fact by now’.

I completely agree. Who would take lie detector test, Foxy Knoxy or Snow White?

In a similar theme, the defense team have had 6 years to come up with a reasonable reconstruction as to how Guede gained access to the cottage through Filomenas window. How many scenarios have they imagined without fruitfulness

Posted by starsdad on 09/23/13 at 11:43 PM | #

” no trace of me at all in” the murder room?

AK’s lamp was found in the murder-room. Isn’t the lamp, in and of itself, a trace of AK, ? Didn’t the lamp, in turn, contain traces of AK?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/24/13 at 12:02 AM | #

Hi Cardiol

Right. A silly mantra.

There is actually SO MUCH evidence that Knox was in Meredith’s room for the attack though it is distributed around. The crime scene is the entire top floor of the house.

If I had to pick only five posts that go to prove that she absolutely was there at that scene, they would include these:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/24/13 at 12:39 AM | #

I’ve often wondered about AK’s lamp. Did it have evidence of AK and Meredith on it? Fingerprints perhaps?

Or just AK? Or more revealingly, no fingerprints at all.

(do police still check for fingerpints?)

Posted by TruthWillOut on 09/24/13 at 08:35 AM | #

Hi TruthWillOut

There has been a lot of puzzling over Knox’s lamp in Meredith’s room. For the cleanup? To find a missing earring?

Though its purpose is unknown, it continues to point strongly to guilt as Knox never claimed it and in court she even had to be prompted to admit it was hers. She had zero explanation for why it was there, an awkward moment, though it is possible she had realized it was behind the locked door in the morning of the cleanup (Merediths room had 2 other lights, her own had none).

It was photographed behind the door before it was moved, and then dusted for prints. There were none, as throughout the entire apartment including her room (gloves used in the cleanup?). It seems to have been some time before police figured out it was Knox’s and not one of Meredith’s.

DNA swabs in the room were limited, so whether there was DNA on it was not established. JAR on PMF explained why this was so:

Thinking about this again, so what if the lamp is seen on Meredith’s desk in the 18th Dec video? It’s only relevance for the investigation would have been for fingerprints and where it was found. The photos deal with where it was found and you don’t need to bag and move an object to a lab to dust it for fingerprints. As for DNA if they didn’t find any fingerprints then it is unlikely there would be any DNA. Fingerprint dusting is also pretty messy and would compromise to some extent swabbing for DNA. Dust or swab is just one of those choices that investigators have to make and the logical choice here was to dust. In the event it seems there were no prints and that, for me, suggests that whoever had brought it into the room had worn gloves and wiped it.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/24/13 at 09:47 AM | #

I’ve seen clips of Knox’s latest PR drive but not the full Daybreak version and what an awful dirty liar she is.

She’s almost ordering the Kercher family to take her to Merediths grave. She is more or less saying the Kercher family need her to find some closure. Just who does she think she is?

How she can keep a straight face and state she was imprisoned as an innocent beggars belief.  So she disputes that she slandered and ruined Patrick Lumumba’s life? She’s innocent of that crime too?

A question I would ask is why do you repeatedly claim Meredith was your friend?  (considering that at the time you are on record as only wanting to mix with Italians so as to get into the culture).

Posted by DF2K on 09/24/13 at 02:58 PM | #

@ Machine, TWO, & Pete:

Not only is there Proof-Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt that there was a Staged Break-In, if AK’s lamp had No Fingerprints on it, then isn’t that also Proof-Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt of an Actual-Selective-Clean-Up?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 09/24/13 at 04:15 PM | #

Hello everyone

Question for you. Were there any fingerprints found inside the room itself or was the entire place wiped down? If that’s the case then it points directly to Knox and Sollecito in that any other criminals would not have bothered to wipe down the surfaces. Were there no fingerprints in the lamp for example? Or the breakin?


The only way Knox can keep on saying this is an obvious case of total denial. Knox is a sociopath as is Sollecito. This attempted contact with Merediths family is a vain attempt at producing smoke. Point being that we all sometimes make the mistake of seeing Knox in a sane light. She is obviously mentally sick a la Jody Arias. I’m not suggesting innocence through sickness here either. No matter what she does she will always be guilty either in Italy or the US and that is for the rest of her life.

Thanks everyone

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 09/24/13 at 05:06 PM | #

This is in regard to Peter Quennell’s question:

“You tried calling Meredith the day after the murder took place and yet phone records show that two of the calls you made to her cell numbers lasted only three and four seconds and you left no messages.  How diligent were you in trying to reach her?”

Interesting you would bring this up, Peter—particularly in light of the fact that so many seem to be ignoring it. 

I am an ‘old school,’ Columbo-type investigator—and from where I come from, this is the classic type of circumstantial evidence that ‘pins the tail on the donkey.’ 

ANYONE truly concerned about this woman would wait for the voice mail and leave a message—and they would do it on both phones.  But calling and hanging up after a couple of rings is INDICTING.

Sometimes I think that all of the modern focus on DNA testing—and all of the rebuttals in reference to—are dangerous distractions away from simple, plain common sense.

Posted by Hellinahandcart on 09/24/13 at 07:13 PM | #

Yes, well said. I wonder, if all the ‘modern’ DNA evidence was temporarily withdrawn…would there be enough to reach a verdict beyond reasonable doubt, considering ALL the other evidence? I have no legal training, but I would have thought there was.
I also found it painful to listen to AK stating her ‘entitlement’ to go to the grave. I ached for the Kercher family. What gross insensitivity, and how deeply intrusive.

I also noticed, as you, a complete blanking out and glossing over of any inconvenient FACT, e.g. re Patrick.

Regarding her repeating assertion about Meredith being ‘her friend’. She said, defensively and angrily I thought, that :
“Meredith was my friend…she was really kind to me,...”
I’m sure she was, ...but how kind was Amanda towards Meredith ?
Perhaps she doesn’t understand that friendship needs to be reciprocal. Someone lacking in empathy would be inadequate or unable to reciprocate.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/24/13 at 07:35 PM | #

Amanda flunks her British interviews. She looks exhausted in the first with Lucy Watson, possibly due to sleeplessness or early hour or Valium? She talks slower than usual with Lucy, but then wakes up and speeds up voice adding hand motions to say how she was destroyed by the police interview.

She looks fresher and groomed for the second part of ITV Daybreak. They show Amanda with Seattle skyline behind her for Lorraine’s questions. She wears aqua blue top and her Holy Spirit dove necklace from Father Scarabatolli clearly in view. I wasn’t able to find a link or watch the interview with her parents, but comments about it on PMF and here on TJMK painted a tense disaster. Someone said Edda looked “terrorized”, Curt stiff and uncomfortable.

Most welcome was the Twitter storm denouncing Knox as “shady, actress, liar” and other terms that require a bleep, with few believing her. She flunked badly. People are seeing the truth.

Lorraine pressed her to say she would take a lie detector test. That threw her. She looked exasperated yet said she “would do anything to prove my innocence” which she has been working on “all my adult life”. (implying innocence; she was not working on it before age 21 since in 2007 at age 20 she was just “a kid” she claimed, an excuse she uses to scorn apologies for cartwheeling through the police station, kissing and cuddling there with Raf during the murder investigation of her “friend”.)  She won’t apologize for anything, folks.  Nothing was her mistake, or it was a mistake of youth. It was police who made all the mistakes, she said. The arrogance never dies.

When asked how she gets through all the legal pressure, she quoted Father Scarabatolli the prison chaplain. It’s probable he referenced First Corinthians 10:13 that God will not allow a believer to be tested or tempted beyond what he can bear, but will with the temptation make a way of escape “that you may be able to bear it.” One PMF commenter paraphrased this as the colloquial,“What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger”, a pretty good equivalent. Knox says she had a discussion about this with James her boyfriend about her struggle to survive. (“I feel I am being hunted,” says Foxy.)

Her takeaway from what the priest said to her was that God knew she had a deep interior strength she was not tapping. The God-given challenge to stand up and fight harder appealed to her. Whether it appealed to her better or worse self is the question, since the verse refers to fleeing temptation to sin or idolatry.

For a discussion of First Corinthians 10:13 in which it is coupled with 2nd Corinthians 1:8-10 where apostle Paul went through almost more than he could bear which made him finally rely not on himself but God, a theme further elaborated in 2nd Chronicles 20:17 (You have no need to fight, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord), see

Twitter’s saying she’s dodgy, cunning, manipulative, and shady.

I think she wears the dove necklace from the priest not as the normal symbol of love and purity but as “I shall attack more strongly”. Of course she did need the love of God and the church which the priest offered her in prison, and so the necklace is a token also of that encouragement that helped her survive, but she warped it into a steely resolve to persist in falsehoods to extricate herself.

Raf feels he only defended Amanda and has done it all for love and the honour of “correcting her mistake” and saving her. Raf can never be sure whether Amanda would have killed Meredith or not if the decision had been completely left in Amanda’s hands, so he doesn’t see himself as covering for a murderer, since he preempted the role. The arrest and prosecution of his girlfriend for the assault although minor compared to homicide was a risk he couldn’t take.

Amanda may have been culpable in a lesser degree but she can’t tell the whole story because it puts them both in too deep when Raf was trying to save her from a mess she had begun and which she perhaps “forced” him into. Each blames the other for the death and saves his or her conscience that way.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/24/13 at 07:44 PM | #

Hi, The Machine and Peter. I asked Raffaele the following:

Naseer Ahmad
“@Raffasolaries Can you confirm you have hired US attorney John Kelly? Will he defend you in Italy, or for extradition? Thanks.” - 23 Sep
Raffaele Sollecito
“@manfromatlan Yes I confirm him as a spokesman in my behalf, not as my lawyer” 05:48 PM - 23 Sep 13

His friends are warning him not to speak to me 😊 but I posted another question. Will wait to see if he replies.

Posted by Ergon on 09/24/13 at 08:41 PM | #

Hi Ergon,

I think Raffaele Sollecito has hired John Q Kelly because he knows that he’ll be convicted of Meredith’s murder, and he’s planning to go to America before the Italian Supreme Court confirms the verdict in order to avoid prison.

John Q Kelly will try to persuade the American authorities and the general public that Sollecito shouldn’t be extradited.

Posted by The Machine on 09/24/13 at 10:22 PM | #

@Truth Will Out

The ONLY fingerprint of Amanda Knox found in the cottage was on a water glass in the kitchen. DNA apparently flies all over the place but you can live in a house for months and leave no fingerprints. I don’t know how much dusting for fingerprints was done so the police may have missed some—but ONE fingerprint after two months of occupancy?

Posted by beans on 09/24/13 at 10:34 PM | #

Something significant happened on Sunday - the ITV Daybreak team were continuously bombarded with tweets and e-mails for hours on end. The presenters will have known about the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and I think it was reflected by the questions.

Posted by The Machine on 09/24/13 at 10:41 PM | #

I have a couple of questions regarding the lamp….
When Knox first returned to the cottage the morning after the murder, was her bedroom door locked?
If her bedroom door was locked then the person who took the lamp had to have a key to her room which would mean that if Knox unlocked her own door in the morning then, given her plea, she must account for at least 2 keys to the room.
If she did unlock her door then it would be interetsing to know how many bedroom door keys were given to her and then returned to the cottage owner?

Posted by Urbanist on 09/24/13 at 11:10 PM | #

@the Machine
Well done

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/24/13 at 11:45 PM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding, I felt no criticism and I saw your point re: Meredith’s rather than Knox’s unborn babies. I value your psychological experience and your comments. Keep them coming, please.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/25/13 at 02:44 AM | #

Hi, The Machine.

That was my impression too, that he was seeking counsel to discuss his extradition options and take them around when he blitzes American TV asking them to fight his extradition battles.

Now several of his friends have told him not to talk to me any more :(

Posted by Ergon on 09/25/13 at 03:31 AM | #

Sharlene Martin has issued a press release:

Update from Sharlene Martin:


(Seattle, WA)– September 25, 2013. A panel of experts will address congressional members and staff on the third trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito during “Update and Briefing on the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito Case,” a congressional briefing hosted by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA9) at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Room SVC 203, on Wednesday, October 2, 2013 from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. The trial is scheduled to begin on September 30, 2013 in Florence, Italy.”

Looks like the FOA got Senator Cantwell’s Office to rent the room in the Capitol Visitors Center for them is all. Looks to be a repeat of previous Moore/Heavey presentations in Seattle. It is NOT a “congressional briefing”, but that’s just agent talk 😊

Posted by Ergon on 09/26/13 at 03:56 PM | #

Re: Extradition, I posted this update from The Toronto Sun on Huffington Post a few days ago.

“Dalla Vedova said the high court’s decision does not raise a double jeopardy problem because the retrial would not be a new case but rather a continuation of the same case on appeal..

Other defendants who have been acquitted in other countries and then convicted on appeal have attempted to raise the double jeopardy principle to avoid extradition, without much success, said Mary Fan, a law professor at the University of Washington who specializes in cross-border criminal law.

The text of the treaty prevents extradition if the person has already been convicted or acquitted of the same offense by the “requested” country, which would be the United States in Knox’s case because Italy would be requesting extradition from the United States. Because Knox was never prosecuted or acquitted for homicide in the United States, the treaty’s double-jeopardy provision would not prevent Knox’s extradition, said Fan.

While the issue is rare in the United States, several courts have rejected the double jeopardy argument in similar cases. In 2010, a federal court in California found that a man who was acquitted of murder in Mexico and later convicted after prosecutors appealed the acquittal, could not claim double jeopardy to avoid extradition to Mexico. That court cited a 1974 decision from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, that reached the same conclusion with respect to Canadian law, which also allows the government to appeal an acquittal”

So there you have it. Knox’s OWN lawyer says it is not double jeopardy, and other US courts have rejected such claims 😊

Posted by Ergon on 09/26/13 at 04:07 PM | #

Great articles from Andrea Vogt, very clear and objective and excellent summary of the Narducci case!  Wish more American media would read her articles.

Posted by believing on 09/26/13 at 06:42 PM | #

By Andrea Vogt Seattle PI, June 2011
“PERUGIA – Rudy Guede refused to tell a jury Monday his version of what happened the night Meredith Kercher was killed, but stood by a letter he wrote pinning the blame on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

“The truth is what I wrote in that letter,” Guede said, referring to a letter he wrote in 2010.

At the beginning of Monday’s hearing, presiding Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman denied Knox the right to confront Guede directly, saying she could make a statement only after the witness had testified.”
Why in the world????  That would have been very interesting to hear.  Why did he deny that request?  Makes NO sense.  Like many things he denied.

Posted by believing on 09/26/13 at 06:46 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 Why Numerous Psychologists Now Observe Knox Skeptically

Or to previous entry Judge Nencini’s Guidelines Authorize Televising Of The Florence Appeal Live In Real Time