Monday, April 29, 2013

The Amanda Knox Book: Could Her Book Legally Entangle These Four?

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

[Image above: Curt Knox, Ted Simon, Robert Barnett, and David Marriott]

It seems probably that in every legal system on Earth, enabling or encouraging or inciting a crime may itself be a crime.

Could Amanda Knox’s forthcoming book be considered a crime, or more precisely a series of crimes? We wait to see what it says, but for starters its mere existence flouts Italian law. From our 22 April post:

Italy’s justice system so favors DEFENDANTS that it is perhaps the most pro-defendant system in the world. In fact many Italians feel its leniency has gone way too far. That is why there are these automatic appeals and why Knox could talk freely in court and have no cross-examination of her claims.

At the same time, officers of the Italian justice system are sheltered by huge powers hardly even needing to be invoked. The reason the law is so strong in this dimension is in part because a favored mafia tactic is to do what Sollecito and Preston and Burleigh have done in their books: slime the officers of the court.

Get that? Knox can talk her head off in court (as she did for two full days and many “spontaneous” interventions at the trial and annulled appeal) but because of a torrid history of false allegations against Italian courts, especially by the mafia and accused politicians, Italian law forbids her to do so outside in ways that misrepresent the evidence and impugn any officers of the legal system, prosecutors and prison staff counted in.

Sollecito’s book published six months ago made four kinds of mistake: (1) publishing for blood money while still accused; (2) including many false claims which contradict his own case at trial and will almost certainly contradict claims Knox makes; (3) defaming numerous officers of the court in freely accusing them of crimes - falsely, as his own dad admits; and (4) maligning the entire Italian justice system, the most popular and trusted institution in Italy with heavy protections at its disposal when it wants.

The criminal investigation into Sollecito’s book is under the wing of the same chief prosecutor in Florence who will oversee the re-run of the murder appeal. His investigation target is expected to be broad, and will certainly include the shadow writer and publisher and Sollecito’s own legal help. At the max, because Sollecito has impugned anti-mafia prosecutors and judges, he might face close to ten years.

PLUS the mitigating circumstances Massei allowed which brought his sentence down by five years will likely be disallowed by the Florence appeal court, adding five more years if the new appeal concludes guilt.

It seems an open secret in Perugia that Knox’s lawyers there have long shrugged off the US campaign and acted locally as if it really isnt there. They may or may not have attempted to forestall the book, though by now they certainly know it will make things far worse for Knox.

Sollecito’s lawyers have even more reason to know this as they are already under the gun, and they are probably sitting back and watching the trainwreck with ever-growing glee. 

Going forward, the prosecution is in a very sound and dominating position.

The evidence is very, very strong.  The Massei Trial Report is still unscathed. The Galati Appeal and the late-March Supreme Court decision absolutely destroyed the Hellmann appeal, and heavily implied that it had been bent. And the prosecutor who has been so unfairly maligned in the US has zero legal problems of his own, after Cassation nailed a rogue prosecutor for pursuing him and put his Narducci investigation back on track, and he was promoted and is set to be the Region of Umbria’s number one prosecutor very soon.

In contrast even without the albatross of the book Knox’s position was very weak.

She has already served three years for criminally lying to protect herself, and that sentence is subject to no further appeal. (Talk of taking it to the European Court is a joke.) Nobody in Italy will trust her word after that. As the post below this one shows, dozens of witnesses will speak up against any false claims. Who will testify on her behalf?

Also Knox seems intent on skipping the appeal, which is itself a contempt of court. And Sollecito, who has said he will be present, showed strong tendencies in his book to sell her short. If her book and her ABC interview are not roundly chastized on Italian TV as Sollecito’s was late last year, it will be a surprise. And complaints are already on their way to Florence - a prison guard she impugns in the book who earlier she herself had said meant no harm is moving forward. 

Curt Knox, Ted Simon, Robert Barnett, and David Marriott may end up in the crosshairs of the anticipated investigation for enabling or encouraging or inciting the book. And if Knox is handed extra years because of their zero due diligence, she may have a malpractice case against Simon and Barnett.

We hope their fingers are crossed.


Ted Simon has been saying some seriously dopey things on TV.

He repeatedly claims there is no evidence. WRONG. Has he even read Massei and the Galati Appeal? Or watched the guy in the video below?

He says Knox doesnt have to go to Italy for the apeal. WRONG. If she doesnt show up she is in contempt of court. An arrest warrant should be out for her soon.

He says the appeal is just some sort of adjustment. WRONG. The previous appeal was annulled. There is nothing to simply adjust.

It’s increasingly hard to be impressed.

<object width=“640” height=“480”><param name=“movie” value=“”></param></param></param><embed src=“” type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” width=“640” height=“480” allowscriptaccess=“always” allowfullscreen=“true”></embed></object>

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/29/13 at 06:18 AM | #

I don’t understand Ted “whack a mole” Simon’s role in the scheme of things here.

He appeared on Today recently and was talking as if he wasn’t aware that the acquittal had been annulled.  He was spouting the same old same old - there is no evidence, there was no evidence and there never will be any evidence against Knox.

Surely as a lawyer he must see there is?  Is he providing legal counsel or is he just a paid PR shill?

He certainly has no concerns about the book so in this respect he could have been encouraging it, as no one in their right mind would give the green light to something like this, considering the case is far from over.

Posted by DF2K on 04/29/13 at 06:30 AM | #

The only reasonable conclusion is that Ted Simon has been dealt a bad hand but is hoping to be paid for his services at some point. Hope he has the terms in writing. He is a lawyer, so probably the answer is yes.

Posted by Skeptical Bystander on 04/29/13 at 07:50 AM | #

Nice summary of the state of legal play in the case. I appreciate the perspective of the posters who understand the intricacies of the Italian judicial system, and how the many strong protections for the defendant are balanced by extremely strong deference to the officers of the court.

On a more silly note, I like the way the video in stop-action (before playing) makes it look like Ted Simon has a red Rudolph nose.

Posted by Earthling on 04/29/13 at 09:24 AM | #

I’m surprised it is still being said that there wasn’t a motive, or only a weak one.

The presence of Envy in Amanda would have been a strong motive, from the perspective of traditional psychological study. It would have been very deep rooted and capable of giving rise to profound anger, capable of taking over, even without the help of uninhibiting drugs.

Envy would give a stronger motive than jealousy : there is a distinction.

Didn’t Amanda send multiple messages to Meredith essentially asking for her friendship/company on Halloween? As Meredith had prior arrangements this wasn’t a possibility. However, given AK’s personality, this ‘rejection’ would have been experienced keenly.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 04/29/13 at 10:14 AM | #

Hi SeekingUnderstanding

Plus the message from Patrick saying dont come to work may have been absolutely key. In Italy they don’t knock themselves out over what “sex game gone wrong” meant because they all know what was really being suggested was a hazing to “cut Meredith down to size”.

The prosecution offering this connotation of a murder which was not intended except in the very short run could have been leapt on in 2008 by more experienced defenses (none had won a murder case before, and Dalla Vedova is a business lawyer) in seeking a lesser charge in exchange for a short-form trial.

Knox sure gets a ton of bad advice. Look everywhere and you are unlikely to spot any advice of the good type. A legal trainwreck, that’s for sure.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/29/13 at 12:36 PM | #

Yesterday, my visitor and I discussed whether she should voluntarily appear - he doesn’t know the case well but he does know cases, plural and he said what essentially the main posters are saying - that it would strategically unwise of her to “hide” in America behind John Kerry.

Not to mention what can be said in court without her there to refute it.  Not to mention, as this post above says, how Sollecito positions her in order to bolster his own position.

From what I can see, the Hellman/Zanetti travesty was not so much about Amanda Knox as about Raffaele Sollecito and getting him off.  The Knox PR machine was a different other issue.

Amanda Knox and parents are not in a good position.  They have no control over how the media use her book and the calumnies could come thick and fast, each occasioning a new lawsuit - it’s an utter nightmare for her, let alone the new first appeal to replace the annulled one [in other words, not a retrial].

Posted by James Higham on 04/29/13 at 01:24 PM | #

Hi James

Spot-on. Curt Knox of course is the man driving the bus. I guess we wont see Amanda bringing a malpractice suit against her own dad, but its thought in some circles in Seattle that its really his own tail he is covering, and not hers. We have posted on his troubled past.

Why do they all hate her so… ?!

It will be interesting to see Ted Simon and Robert Barnett and David Marriott fighting extradition if they too get the max.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/29/13 at 02:03 PM | #

@Peter Quennell

“...any advice of a good type”

In this aspect, and only this, one could say that Amanda has been a ‘victim’ - she has not received quality or pertinent advice, and has been guided badly.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 04/29/13 at 02:26 PM | #

I am puzzled about comments that AK is in contempt of court if she doesn’t show up for even the first hearing as I watched a clip of CDV (on the day of the SC ruling) say she need not attend.

Another question I have relates to Peter’s comment just above which suggests that Ted Simon and others may have to fight extradition.  Would their involvement really amount to that?

Posted by thundering on 04/29/13 at 05:26 PM | #

Hi Skep.

“Hope he has the terms in writing. He is a lawyer, so probably the answer is yes.”

As a lawyer, Simon knows that what he hasn’t got in writing, he hasn’t got, and will probably never get; what he’s got only in writing, he hasn’t got, and may never get.

@ Seeking…

Enjoyed: “Envy would give a stronger motive than jealousy”

I also believe the-teaching-of-the-lesson was motivated by AK’s envy,

P.S. Motive is not even part of the crimes. It’s more of a sop to Jurors who like to have a ‘logical’ reason to ‘explain’ crimes.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 04/29/13 at 05:30 PM | #

Hi Cardiol.

You posted “As a lawyer, Simon knows that what he hasn’t got in writing, he hasn’t got, and will probably never get; what he’s got only in writing, he hasn’t got, and may never get.”

You did put it so marvellously!

Posted by chami on 04/29/13 at 07:02 PM | #

“Motive is not even part of the crimes. It’s more of a sop to Jurors who like to have a ‘logical’ reason to ‘explain’ crimes.”

Several years back, we had a very famous case of a Washington DC judge and lawyer bringing up a case infamously called (those days) “the pants trial”.

I have mostly forgotten about the case, but I still vaguely remember that the motive was the theme song in the trial.

Is AK really do dumb and deaf that she cannot see her own future? She has nice big eyes that Heine would have written a couple of lines about!

Posted by chami on 04/29/13 at 07:11 PM | #

For those fairly new to the case the emergence of the prosecutor (Mignini) on top is HUGE.

He was ONLY the investigating prosecutor in 2007 and 2008 and the trial prosecutor in 2009 and after that had only an informal role at the annulled appeal in 2011 and no further role at all. At the Florence appeal it will be Florence prosecutors who will argue any appeal points.

So what is the big deal?  Well Mignini is a very bright guy who strongly stands up for the victim in court.

He did NOT interview Knox on the fatal night when Knox “confessed” about her being there with Patrick when Meredith died, and he was only briefly present in the wee hours to witness Knox write it all down. At trial he did an excellent job and he and his co-prosecutor Comodi ran rings around a despondent defense.

He did NOT simply invent a case because his back was against the wall (it never was) and he did not fool nearly 30 judges or the entire population of Italy for over 5 years. Nevertheless, rabid Knox forces for four years, with a demented Doug Preston in the lead, have bayed, for Mignini’s blood.

Obviously they have now failed big-time, and as a result they could face charges of their own.  Worse, they are absolutely bereft of a reason for WHY Italy keeps pursuing the case.

Lately Preston and another biased book-writer, Nina Burleigh, have begun baying at us, as if it is somehow all our fault that Knox so obviously messed up. As most of what we do on the site is translate and post what Italians can read and view, that’s stupid to say the least. .

Absent an “evil Mignini” to point to and anyone believing we orchestrate the whole thing, all their hatchet work will have been in vain, and Knox for sure and they quite possibly will face prison terms.

We have caught Preston lying a number of times which rattles him even more. He is a disaster at understanding the case. Read here:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/29/13 at 07:27 PM | #

I have a question. Some of the things I read say that if Knox just doesn’t return, she won’t be extradited, even if she loses the appeal and the final verdict by the Supreme Court. 

Others say that she would be extradited in that case. 

If the latter is true, why would she not show up for the appeal?  Is she over-confident that she could succeed in staying out of prison by ignoring the whole thing?

Posted by NCKat on 04/29/13 at 07:43 PM | #

Hi NCKat

Firsr read this excellent post by one of our lawyers here, James Raper.

Also read the passage in the post below this one on the US Embassy and State who are extremely unlikely to block extradition if that becomes required.

The arrest warrant is not yet out and the appeal re-run will not happen before late this year. My own guess is that when her forces see Sollecito heading for court they will have her there in the blink of an eye.

However, the book will guarantee her an audience of about 100% contemptuous people, as Sollecito’s book has done for him - hence his attempt to move to Switzerland.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/29/13 at 07:52 PM | #

The risky timing of Knox’s memoir is a gamble. Why dare with her life hanging in the balance? Maybe the short shelf life of her fame. Her PR advisors may have suggested strike while the iron is hot, sell this thing while you can get $4 million. If they haul you back to prison at least your money will be earning interest. We’ll draw up a trust. Try to sanitize the book to protect yourself legally but by all means publish fast. She probably wanted to “be heard” risk or no risk.

Instead she should have clammed up, continued her private writing, and given herself more time to adjust to normal life. Started doing things like volunteering through her local church or food pantry, cooking for elderly, children’s programs, Habitat for Humanity, go green, Save the Whales where the photo ops would put her in a good light. It would add more to any book, and she could have done it to honor Father Scarabatolli.

Once she knew she was in the clear, out of all legal danger she could explore her past and publish without fear of exposing her guilt. After Florence then finally double jeopardy might truly apply. If she had waited she could write a completely honest memoir. Perhaps the need to repay her legal fees did override Amanda’s choice of silence as self-protection.

Her squeaky courtroom lament that her friends used to beg her to stand up for her nerdy self, “Poindexter”, may be coming true all over again. She may be trying to defend herself in this book which could have the opposite effect. As to the Four Gents pictured above and their relative responsibility for letting Amanda put her head on the same chopping block twice if she gives the prosecution “a gift” in this book like she gave the police, there might be more moral than legal liability. Hard to say. What would you advise your daughter to do if she were penning such a book in the middle of her ongoing legal trial?

If she’s serious about a jaunt to Ecuador with a girl named Laura, who knows what could transpire? A three-continent circus if she gets in trouble down there. Maybe Ted could help then.

Posted by Hopeful on 04/29/13 at 11:27 PM | #

In anticipation of the April 30th full release of Amanda Knox’s US State Department cables, this excerpt from Andrea Vogt’s May 18, 2011 SEATTLEPI article,                                             

CABLES SHOW STATE DEPT. MONITORED KNOX CASE FROM THE BEGINNING                                                                

” ROME - Newly released diplomatic cables reveal State Department officials regularly monitored Amanda Knox since the day after her arrest and through her conviction for murdering her roommate.

The cables (PDF), released as part of a formal Freedom of Information Act request and made available to, reveal that U.S. embassy officials in Rome reported to the Secretary of State’s Office in Washington, D.C., on a regular basis regarding ‘Amcit Amanda Knox’ ( American citizen Amanda Knox ).

According to the U.S. Department of State, Knox, a University of Washington student, was visited in jail by embassy officials even before seeing her own father.”

Posted by True North on 04/30/13 at 03:49 AM | #

It begins.  A full hour special interview - that’s incredible.  We’ll see what is said.  10pm NY time tomorrow night, so 4am European time?  Strange way to phrase it “for all intents and purposes I was a murderer, whether I was a murderer or not” rather than “I had NOTHING to do with this crime” or some such thing. 

Certainly has learned how to dress and present herself with more poise over the years, with much coaching for this interview I am sure.

Posted by believing on 04/30/13 at 08:05 AM | #

I have just watched the latest preview.
She has got the quavering voice off to a tee now.

They keep showing a clip here in the UK on SKY in which she tells of her ordeal of being called a devil in court, do you know how that feels people?

Yet her harrowing ordeal in court doesn’t ring true going by the thousands of images an videos available of her joking, grinning,laughing, smiling from ear to ear and generally looking like she is absolutely delighted with the attention she is receiving.

A consummate actress and a liar is what I saw on the preview.
I would be interested in what a body language expert would have to say about this performance once it’s aired in full.

Posted by DF2K on 04/30/13 at 09:28 AM | #

“According to the U.S. Department of State, Knox…....was visited in jail by embassy officials even before seeing her own father.”
Posted by True North on 04/29/13 at 08:49 PM | #

If Knox had come-clean with those embassy officials, they would already have known she was guilty.

That is consistent with US non-intervention during her 4-years of jail time - and with US honoring their extradition treaty if now requested by Italy?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 04/30/13 at 12:53 PM | #

Hi Cardiol

We knew the cables released back then reported nothing wrong with the trial or (annulled) appeal so, so far, theres no paper trail to be used to refuse extradition.

The new interest is in how they reported her prison conditions. Her book description seems to vary a lot from what was reported during her time there. My guess is the new cables if Andrea Vogt has ‘em will do the same.

Posted by Doc 111 on 04/30/13 at 01:19 PM | #

Yes UK news reporting “she devil, Sphinx of Perugia"soundbite. Saw Sky clip…certainly does appear that Knox has been closely coached in what to say and in how to say it with a layer of emotion.It did appear to be more of a performance than natural emotion. Would appreciate an expert view on her full interview.(T test any bias) Certainly agree she did not say flat out anything along the lines of “I had nothing to do with this and intend to show and prove clearly that I had no involvement whatsoever in the murder of Meredith Kercher.Amanda says “for all intents and purposes I was a murder,whether I was a murderer or not”. Appears to be a wrtten and coached line with the purpose of claiming a built in bias against her. To my ear it sounded evasive, sidestepping the evidence into a contoversy. Will she ever meet the circumstancial and forensic evidence head on?

If that is her main motivation then why not go back to the courts in Italy and challenge them.

Playing this out in the press and through PR is in itself making a mockery of the courts.Peter’s analysis is accurate this is likely to be a public siplay of having enough rope.

Posted by Olliebear on 04/30/13 at 02:49 PM | #

Has Knox, at any time in the last few weeks or from what anybody has seen, mentioned Meredith Kercher by name? once?

Posted by Rocket Queen on 04/30/13 at 02:54 PM | #

It will be pretty easy to have witnesses testify as to conditions in her jail - roommates, other guards, her visitors.  Makes no sense that she would not lodge a formal complaint or protest against a guard making sexual overtures on a daily basis.  How is that even possible that he was allowed to meet with her privately?  Seems like something that would be against prison policy because if the obvious possibility for sexual advances in return for favors which would happen often in a women’s prison.  I’m sure the court will be looking closely at those claims and perhaps interviewing people.  Perhaps the guard dis say something to her. Its impossible to verify what was said and who said what if they were ever alone.  But I’m sure they can establish easily whether the prison was a hell-hole as I’ve read in the lead-up articles. P. s.  I have lost all respect for Diane sawyer as an unbiased reporter after her introduction of this interview.

Posted by believing on 04/30/13 at 03:32 PM | #

Three things…..

The forces of evil may let Knox return to Italy thereby boosting her profile and thereby her profitability. These people could care less about Knox as a person but only as a cash cow.
Don’t forget Curt Knox’s history as a money grubbing parent who had to be taken to court over and over for refusal to pay child support.
For these four it’s all about money. It always was.

Or they can refuse to let her go thereby ensuring the same thing. Just bet if that’s the case then there will be general call out for funds similar to Donald Trump who is just another publicity seeking money grubber anyway.

Finally: If things got too hot with the State Department she could go to Mexico or somewhere where there is no extradition treaty thereby creating the high profile scandal they want in order to boost sales.

It’s all about money, and Knox herself is toast anyway.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/30/13 at 04:48 PM | #


Thank you for that ABC TV snippet above, at moments zooming in on Amanda’s so-expressive face. Watched it twice with interest.

Just that shot of her smiling face during mention of her arrival at Perugia reminded me of the whole series of wild gestures & impulses she is associated with after her release from home.

While as for snippets from the interview: Hers is NOT the face of innocence. Absent candor, a word which used to mean whiteness or purity, she intrigues the viewer by slight turns of the head, shifting of eyes, varied expressions in the lips—one may see such things in liars, especially that loose-lipped breathy ending of a sentence in a word which calls for something clipped & definite. Because what candor calls for is frankness, directness, simplicity, truth.

And those words quoted twice above & spoken in the hour-long interview (“for all intents and purposes I was a murderer, whether I was a murderer or not”—Don’t they resemble, “If I Did It?” (as I seem to recall.)

Olliebear’s comment above: “Appears to be a written and coached line with the purpose of claiming a built in bias against her. To my ear it sounded evasive, sidestepping the evidence into a controversy.” Close to the mark & certainly coached: I would go a step farther, daring the hypothesis that just this phrasing may indicate a Knox-clan tacit knowledge of her guilt & even, conceivably, a readiness to confess in exchange for release (at this late date.)

But I do feel in TJMK’s posting above an element of wishful thinking. A Robert Barnett in trouble because of his helping Amanda find a way to the reported $4 million?  Oh no. Might as well indict Alan Dershowitz for conceding the civil case against her while reluctant to pronounce on definite guilt.

Big splash today (April 30)—a kind of splash heard round the world.  A fairly good initial sale of this overlong &, in places, tedious book (NY Times review, my language.)  It won’t last. This will not be a long-time best seller & it will not establish her fame—not like Amanda’s first trial.

What Amanda has going for her now (& one has to concede it)—she’s damned good-looking.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 04/30/13 at 04:52 PM | #

Hi Believing.

Check the previous post below, it explains about the guard and the well-known real conditions in prison.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/30/13 at 04:52 PM | #

Hi, Ernest Werners hypothesis that the line"for all intents and purposes I was murderer,whether I was a murderer or not” is possibly a tacit tilt towards acknowledging guilt in hope for a reprieve in the eyes of the world is interesting. It is however up to the courts in Italy to decide this case. Any sort of “Have I not suffered enough” from Amanda Knox and her need to be respected as a person can only really come from being honest about the truth of what really happened in this case. As Mr Brownstone said there is little evidence of Ms Knox showing respect for the person of Meredith Kercher. If she was honest about any involvement here then that could be seen as some kind of repect..possibly.

Posted by Olliebear on 04/30/13 at 05:43 PM | #

Amazingly the book (Kindle version) has gone on sale in Italy.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/30/13 at 06:05 PM | #

Hi Ernest

“But I do feel in TJMK’s posting above an element of wishful thinking. A Robert Barnett in trouble because of his helping Amanda find a way to the reported $4 million?  Oh no. Might as well indict Alan Dershowitz for conceding the civil case against her while reluctant to pronounce on definite guilt.”

No that’s no real comparison. Dershowitz has no direct interest. Robert Barnett has been misleading on TV here. In the Sollecito book case all those most involved will at minimum be looked at. Prison time not likely except for the chief perp, but nobody likes being mentioned as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/30/13 at 06:16 PM | #

Equally amazing! Amazon Italy has yanked the sale of the book already. For once we missed a screen capture.

Book sales on Amazon are looking poor. It is at only #45 in books and #112 in Kindle.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/30/13 at 06:31 PM | #

Nooooo, and my poor lame desk ???

Posted by ncountryside on 04/30/13 at 06:44 PM | #

Even more amazing. Theres a French version coming that will be on sale in Italy.

I do have a screen capture if this one disappears.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/30/13 at 06:47 PM | #

Yes, but the German version is surely better, give a look to the price …

Posted by ncountryside on 04/30/13 at 06:54 PM | #

Breaking news: an outstanding version in Eugubino Stretto is on the way … translator, obviously: Rocco Wreath Girlanda.

Posted by ncountryside on 04/30/13 at 07:12 PM | #

Euros 2.38? Heres the link (while it lasts) to that version:ört-werden-Amanda-Knox/dp/3426276062/ref=sr_1_8?s=english-books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367337612&sr=1-8&keywords=amanda+knox

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/30/13 at 07:13 PM | #

@ Ernest Werner “What Amanda has going for her now (& one has to concede it)—she’s damned good-looking.”

I could not possibly agree less. At least before there was something more or less natural looking about her. Alive. Aberrant as she was with the odd vacancy to the eyes.

Now to me she looks like a corpse. She really looks unwell. And the overdone lip gloss adds to the effect. She looks like she is rotting from the inside out.

And her “performance” in the clip seems so ill conceived as to be embarrassing. She’s a consumate actress only in that she is ALWAYS performing. Practiced. Not skilled. Because to be a good actress you need to listen. You need to be in tune with the people around you. You must absorb.

This clip shows someone who does not seem in tune. She has perhaps listened to her family or close supporters who seem to pity her and she may be speaking directly to them. And perhaps she has become so insulated that she believes that is the way most people perceive her.

But it’s like a guess - “I think I’ll show this emotion now. Look at this angle of my face. Do you like these tears?”  But no coaching in the world can give her the ability to truly grasp others’ perspectives and it is clearer than ever before!

Posted by carlos on 04/30/13 at 07:19 PM | #

Peter, the 2.38 euros are the saving, not the price.

Posted by Patou on 04/30/13 at 07:23 PM | #

Sems the book is on sale in France too.

Posted by Miriam on 04/30/13 at 07:50 PM | #

Germany too. If we go thru all the European countries, it is probably there.

Posted by Miriam on 04/30/13 at 07:54 PM | #

Has anyone tried to “vote” for the helpfulness of any reviews on Amazon? I just did this and Amazon recorded my “helpful” endorsement to a well written one star review as a negative. I kept trying and it was the same…

I’m going to see what happens if I “vote down” one of the five stars just to see if something funny is going on… Although it might be hard to tell because there are already so many responses and they must be coming in fast.

Posted by carlos on 04/30/13 at 07:58 PM | #

The book seems really overpriced, particularly considering that it also seems to be really boring from what I could gauge from the “look inside” link. She just seems to be all “me, me, me, look at me” yet again.

@Ernest - I am afraid I am with Carlos regarding the “good looking” comment. I don’t, in all honesty, find her good looking at all. She used to look like any other ordinary American white girl before, and now she looks really ghostly and pale. I am not saying this because I believe her guilty. I don’t know how to describe it but she looks really “empty” to me…

Posted by Sara on 04/30/13 at 09:58 PM | #

“Kercher family ‘won’t read Amanda Knox book’”—won-t-read-Amanda-Knox-book-.html

Posted by Miriam on 04/30/13 at 10:13 PM | #

@ carlos

As against my opinion about Amanda’s good-looks you see a woman who “looks like a corpse… looks unwell…” like someone “rotting from the inside out” & her performance you find ill-conceived & embarrassing.

I won’t take you up on that but as they say, De gustibus non est disputandum.

And for the rest, let God judge between us.  But watch out for thunderbolts!

Posted by Ernest Werner on 04/30/13 at 10:36 PM | #

Hi Ernest - Indeed. A chacun son gout.

I’m laughing because re-reading what I wrote I realize that I was pretty hyperbolic. It’s a latin thing 😊

I do like what Sarah said,

“I don’t know how to describe it but she looks really “empty” to me…”

I don’t concern myself with what her inner life or her spiritual health may or may not be, My reaction is far more superficial. I am shocked that this is the “best” her handlers and promoters can do.

It is with that lens that I view Knox because that is the vein in which she is being promoted.

I don’t “know” the person, nor am I being asked to get to know her. I “judge” only the marketing and profiteering.

Obviously I care because I am a part of this world. I do not pretend to be above it.

Posted by carlos on 05/01/13 at 12:13 AM | #

I agree with Carlos. That the Knox family can profit from this is stomach churning.It may only be due to knowing that she was reported by various sources to show no real feeling in the hours and days after Meredith Kercher was murdered. It may be her apparent deep seated narcissism in playing to the gallery during her trial.It may be coming from a profound need to to lie to herself while at the same time deeply wishing to manipulate others into seeing her the way she wants to be seen. All of which can bias me into feeling that she is giving a mime act. Her voice, delivery and manner appear coached, rehearsed and lack any depth of feeling. Look up Jon Ronson’s"The Psychopath Test and see if her behaviour would not rate a high score on the signs of a psycopathic personality test.

Being photogenic might sell news copy.However its the truth that is important here.Amanda Knox and her family have worked very hard at simply ignoring the fact that a judge and jury found both her and Sollecito guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher beyond reasonable doubt. Her book can only lie about her involvement and I hope it fails miserably.

Posted by Olliebear on 05/01/13 at 12:46 AM | #

Very good, Carlos!

And we are none of us above this world.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 05/01/13 at 12:47 AM | #

I just saw a 30-second clip of the interview on ET - AK saying it feels like she crawled through barbed wire and just when she thought she was at the end it turned out it was only the horizon (describing how she felt when she found out the appeal was annulled) - it made me sick not only because of her fakeness but mainly Diane Sawyer and the tone of the interview which was obviously poor Amanda how does she feel as she is a victim and she just wants to have a normal life

Posted by Mishadog on 05/01/13 at 02:17 AM | #

@Mishadog, was she really as stupid and fake as that? I don’t understand this need for constant pretense, really….what is her camp hoping to achieve? A nomination for the Pulitzer Prize?? I mean why not talk like a normal person who doesn’t need to hide behind ridiculous, evasive, made up language for once. Who on earth thinks “Oh, that was only the horizon” when they find out that they are going to be a convicted felon for life? “What the fu**, I didn’t do anything” would probably be the normal reaction of a normal, innocent person.

Posted by Sara on 05/01/13 at 04:00 AM | #

Book notes tidbit. Found the book on a shelving cart not yet on display (local Barnes & Noble has twenty copies.)

Just over 450 pages but yet not a heavy tome: nicely printed with space between the lines & no very great heft. But whether my interest will carry me beyond 140 pages or so—after which imprisonment—is doubtful.

It’s in just these early pages that she covers the time of the event & just after.

Amanda has received some very good editorial guidance (what to stress, when to introduce this or that, where interest lies & that sort of thing.) She names her literary helper Linda Kulman in her concluding author’s notes as essential to the task & they evidently enjoyed a first-rate rapport & spent much time together.

And all that shows. Written almost in a conversational style though never sinking to mere chat, Amanda has used most effectively the many journal entries she was forever making—a lunch, say, will be mentioned with an almost novelistic detail.  And so far, everything is carried mostly by the specificness of scene.  So yes, it reads like a novel, has that kind of interest & (like fiction) invites our “willing suspension of disbelief.”

And so far, much tact. She nowhere runs down the police here, or in the longish interview.  Accounts skillfully from her perspective of her bizarre behavior at the police station. Yet even so, posters here (& Peter) will seize on many things—that’s understood.

Literary quality?  She blasts Sollecito out of the water, by comparison. I do get a sense of that quality I call “voice,” Amanda’s voice.

Sample quote: “I felt an overpowering need to help track down the murderer.  I wanted to make sure he—I assumed it was a he—spent the rest of his life in prison. I wanted him to regret his wrongdoing every hour of every day. Forever.” (p. 80)

Well now: there’s a sentence for you. Will she be held to it?  A page later the assumed “he” morphs into a plural or at least a dual form: “Fucking bastards.” (Unconscious slip?)

Subject this morning was brought up on my morning dog walk: old gal (& good friend), middle-aged handsome fellow & I—we have four dogs between us & they romp in fields nearby. I mentioned a possible extradition. Both negated, firmly. The Italian government doesn’t want to stop the influx of students or tourists. That may well prove to be the American assumption.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 05/02/13 at 05:47 PM | #

The rest of Europe, especially Britain, won’t think well of the US if it doesn’t honour any extradition.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/02/13 at 08:38 PM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Although The YouTube Trailer Suggests Diane Sawyer Wimped Out And Turned All Mushy…

Or to previous entry Demonizations By Knox: Book Claims About Prison Traumas Contradicted By Many Solid Sources