Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Judge Nencini Issues Harsh Warning To Tell The Truth - So Amanda Knox Does The Precise Opposite

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




1. Substance Of The Nencini Explanatory Report

The Florence Court of Appeals released the Nencini Motivations Report in Florence one week ago today.

This report explains the rejection of Knox’s and Sollecito’s own first appeal against the Massei trial outcome of 2009. Four years were lost because the Hellmann court, which heard the first iteration of that appeal was bent as Cassation, the competent judge displaced, and now Judge Nencini have all concluded.

The Hellmann outcome of 2011 was mostly annulled, as in “ceased to exist”. The main findings and verdict have zero legal standing, and zero relevance to today’s process though (see below) Knox and Sollecito repeatedly try to ride that dead horse again.

Cassation confirmed Knox’s three-year prison sentence for framing Patrick (for which she has served the time). And Cassation referred the methods and recommendations of the Conti & Vecchiotti consultancy, which Cassation had hammered on legal grounds, to the Florence appeal court for the substance to be reviewed.

Our evidence and law experts here and in Italy have been looking at Judge Nencini’s 347 page report and find it hard-hitting and unequivocally blunt.

It will be extremely hard to appeal against within the very narrow limits Cassation allows. It removes all of Judge Massei’s ambiguities about motives, it reaffirms the witness statements of Curatolo and Quintavalle, and it judicially affirms the validity of the DNA and other forensic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

There is overwhelming proof of the presence of all three perps, Knox, Sollecito and Guede, in the cottage that night.  Guede is considered to have been brought inside by Knox, who had the only key, and he could not possibly have broken in through Filomena Romanelli’s window in the manner asserted by their defense.

Especially troubling for the defense, the report hints at an illegal suborning of the independent forensic experts appointed by the Hellmann court, and it also hints that the two “supergrass” witnesses, the prisoners Aviello and Alessi, may have been illegally tampered with by Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, as first claimed 30 months ago.

The report warns that criminal slander of justice officials and other contempts of court will be heavily leaned on.

So the report demolishes the last remnants of Judge Claudio Hellmann’s now annulled acquittal, and substitutes for its fatally flawed reasoning a tightly crafted report that confirms the convictions of Knox and Sollecito.

It confirms that they acted in concert with Guede as Cassation itself long ago concluded had to be the case, and it appears to close any possible argument against the verdict that will carry weight at the Supreme Court.

2. Amanda Knox’s Press-Release Statement In Response

Knox issued a seven paragraph statement later the same day. Maybe not the smartest bit of work.

It is riddled with factual inaccuracies and innuendo, is typically arrogant and condescending in tone, includes the trademark racial innuendos about Italians and the black guy in the case, and shows no signs in its compiling of competent legal help.

Here below we show the various ways in which Knox flouts Judge Nencini’s warning and attempts to mislead. None of what Knox stated was the truth.

Claim: The Hellmann Court Found Knox “Innocent”

I have stated from the beginning of this long ordeal that I am innocent of the accusations against me. I was found innocent by the only court in Italy that retained independent forensic experts to review my case. I want to state again today what I have said throughout this process: I am innocent of the accusation against me, and the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the fact of my innocence.

First even if she was provisionally released following the now-annulled appeal, Amanda Knox was never, repeat never, found innocent. Only Cassation can make that final ruling, and they strongly found against the lower court that had jumped the tracks midway-through.

Even Judge Hellman himself said after his verdict that ‘the truth might be otherwise’ and suggested any reasonable doubt as to guilt has not been categorically and legally dismissed. He seemed to divine that he had failed in his task of bending the outcome in a way that would stay bent.

Second the court that Knox thinks found her innocent no longer exists as a legal fact. It seems to endemically escape Knox that the Hellmann outcome was annulled. Annulled. As in: wiped off the books. It is surprising that even Curt Knox and Ted Simon and David Marriott, while admittedly themselves no masters of Italian law, cannot help Knox to grasp that simple fact. It weakens her to keep clinging to a myth.

One reason it was annulled (and the reasons were overwhelming, one of Italy’s most decisive annullments ever) was that both Cassation and Dr Nencini had good reason to suspect the Hellmann court had been corrupted and had deliberately departed from the evidence and the law. Knox needs to ask herself why the highly qualified Judge Chiari was pushed aside (and immediately resigned in anger) in favor of a wrongly-qualified business judge (who is now ignominiously retired).

Third, it needs to be grasped by Knox that the Conti/Vecchiotti consultancy, far from being legally right and acting independently (and scientifically), was suggested as illegal by Perugia’s chief prosecutor Dr Galati, as appeal judges are forbidden from appointing consultants at that stage. While Cassation passed in ruling on that one, the consultancy outcome was criticised as illogical and legally unsound by both Cassation and Judge Nencini, as biased, full of baseless innuendo about contamination, and possibly tampered with by an American academic hired by the defense.

Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.

Claim: Only Rudy Guede’s DNA Was Found

The recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the forensic evidence: experts agreed that my DNA was not found anywhere in Meredith’s room, while the DNA of the actual murderer, Rudy Guede, was found throughout that room and on Meredith’s body. This forensic evidence directly refutes the multiple-assailant theory found in the new motivation document. This theory is not supported by any reliable forensic evidence.

The forensic evidence is not just the DNA on the knife or in the room. It also includes the extensive traces deposited by Knox in the rest of the crime scene (bathroom, corridor and Filomena’s bedroom), and it also includes all of the autopsy.

Meredith’s room itself was not comprehensively tested for DNA. The room was dusted only for fingerprints, as the investigators had to make a call on prints or DNA.

Guede’s DNA was not found “throughout that room” or all over Meredith’s body. Guede’s DNA was found only in one instance on Meredith’s body, on a part of Meredith’s bra, mixed with Meredith’s blood on a sweatshirt cuff and the purse, and on toilet paper in a bathroom.

Knox’s DNA was found mixed with the blood of Meredith in multiple places, the only known source for which was the pool of blood in Meredith’s bedroom:  multiple prints of Knox’s bare right foot in the hallway and in Knox’ bedroom, and at least five instances of mixed samples containing the DNA of both Meredith and Knox, including in the north bathroom and Filomena’s room, places where Guede did not go.

The court ruled that the blood and mixed DNA evidence found throughout the crime scene places her and Sollecito there at the time of the murder at the same time as Rudy Guede.

Though not DNA, there was one bloody shoe print in Meredith’s bedroom estimated to be Euro size 36-38, compatible with Knox size 37 and with no one else known of who could have left it there.

No fingerprints of anyone were found in the room, just a palmprint of Rudy Guede. Fingerprints were not found even on Knox’s own lamp, which she only confirmed grudgingly at trial was her own, and not found even in Knox’s own bedroom. Overwhelming sign of a cleanup? The courts all believed so.

Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.

Claim: The Knife As Murder Weapon Was Disproved

The forensic evidence also directly refutes the theory that the kitchen knife was the murder weapon: the court-appointed independent experts confirmed that neither Meredith’s blood nor her DNA was on the alleged murder weapon, which experts also agreed did not match the stab wounds or the bloody imprint of a knife on her pillow.

Judge Nencini’s finding is that two knives HAD to have been involved from both side of Meredith’s throat and the final blow was by a large knife the same size as the one in evidence.

Regarding the large knife, Knox rehashes the same arguments her defense made to no avail before the original trial court that found her guilty. We posted explaining the solid proof here and here.

The only DNA tests that matter with regard to the big knife are (1) the sound finding by Dr Stefanoni that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade - Knox is wrong, the independent experts did not refute that; (2) the sound findings by Dr Stefanoni and the Carabinieri lab that Knox’s DNA was on both the blade and the handle of the knife. None were overturned; contamination was ruled out; and the defense was left without a shot.

The Hellmann-appointed experts confirmed that the genetic profile found on the knife blade was the genetic profile of Meredith Kercher.  The TMB test did not confirm if it was blood, but defense experts were forced to concede that TMB erroneously fails to confirm that blood is present about half the times in assessing minute quantities.

The Hellmann-appointed experts tried to explain away the genetic profile as being the result of contamination, but were never able to identify any scenario by which a knife that had supposedly never left Sollecto’s kitchen contained biological material yielding a clear genetic profile of Meredith Kercher.

Accordingly the Appeals court has ruled the kitchen knife is in fact the one that was wielded by her to strike a final blow, and at the same time there was a second knife in the room used by Sollecito to torture Meredith.

London DNA expert Dr David Balding certified Raf’s DNA as being on the bra clasp. This proves by itself that Sollecito was there. Knox belatedly claimed she stayed at the Via Garibaldi apartment with Sollecito all evening and now and then Sollecito belatedly backs her up. But how could that be if the court has positives of his footprint on the bathroom rug and on the bra, showing he was over at Meredith’s cottage that night? Proof of him present equals proof of her.

The Hellmann-appointed experts were not charged with analyzing the stab wounds, or whether the imprint on a sheet was of a knife or of something else and the result of the fabric being folded - nor was this within their field of expertise.  Defense experts testifying on these issues were in conflict.

Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.

Claim: The Circumstantial Evidence Is “Unreliable”

In fact, in the prior proceeding in which I was found innocent, the court specifically concluded that the forensic evidence did not support my alleged participation in the crime and further found that the circumstantial evidence was both unreliable and contrary to a conclusion of guilt.

The recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the fact that the forensic evidence still does not support my participation and the circumstantial evidence still remains unreliable and contrary to the conclusion of guilt.

Knox appeals to Hellmann’s ruling on the circumstantial evidence being unsound. But the Supreme Court, in annulling Hellmann, explained why it found his arguments illogical, and reminded the court of the standards by which circumstantial evidence must form a coherent whole. Judge Nencini in our opinion amply meets those standards in an elegantly argued report which will be hard to defeat at Rome’s Supreme Court.

Knox herself has proved the “unreliable” one, proven over and over again to be a liar who attests to her own bad memory in written statements, who talks of “dreams her mind made up”, who repeatedly goes vague.

We cannot rely on Knox’s recall of phoning mom, the timing of which moves and sometimes disappears. Knox claims she can’t remember where she was that night, she told a whopper of a lie on her boss, she can’t remember if the door to Filomena’s room was open or closed, she can’t remember her own lamp, she claims she rarely looks at a clock. On and on.

The strongest example of circumstantial evidence Knox can’t shake is the five spots of her DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood. Maybe 2 or 3 spots could be put down to unlucky chance, but five really removes reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.

Claim: No “Legitimate” Motive Is Identified

And the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – identify any legitimate motive for my alleged involvement in this terrible crime. No fewer than three motives have been previously advanced by the prosecution and by the courts. Each of these theories was as unsupported as the purported motive found in the new motivation document, and each of these alleged motives was subsequently abandoned by the prosecution or the courts. Like the prior “motives”, the latest “motive” in the new motivation document is not supported by any credible evidence or logic. There is simply no basis in the record or otherwise for this latest theory.

“Proof” of motive is not required in any legal system in the world. The serial misleader Ted Simon should at least admit to that. The motives advanced were not withdrawn or abandoned by successive judges; they were fine-tuned chronologically only within very narrow limits. The sex hazing that went too far was weighted downward and pushed back, and a battle over theft of money was weighted upward and pushed forward.

The court found very compelling evidence that Knox committed the murder and led the pack. It postulates that Meredith and Amanda were incompatible with each other, and that Knox, Sollecito and Guede, high on drugs, first assaulted Meredith, restrained and abused her, and then murdered her with two knives.

Knox was known to be in serious rejection by those she encountered in Perugia for her sharp-elbowed brashness - growing rejection by her flatmates, her employer and the bar customers, and just about everyone she encountered except initially for Sollecito. But soon even he was being given a hard time and has semi-rejected Knox in return ever since. The first words of his 8 November 2007 statement to Judge Matteini were “I wish to not see Amanda ever again.”

And money was a huge looming problem which could have had her back in Seattle in weeks. Knox was known to want to head for China, and was known locally to have an expensive drug habit which had cut her savings in half. She really needed to hang on to that job at Patrick’s bar, especially as she had no work permit.

Sollecito’s bank balance was minimally topped up by his father each month. Francesco seemed to realise cocaine is an expensive habit and didnt want to see his son off down that slippery slope. So with Knox’s own habit, her remaining savings would have run out in weeks. How then to explain to Curt Knox that she really needed a whole lot more? He would have given her a very hard time before any more money flowed.

Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.

Claim: The Supreme Court Will Allow Another Full Appeal

I will now focus on pursuing an appeal before the Italian supreme court. I remain hopeful that the Italian courts will once again recognise my innocence. I want to thank once again, from the bottom of my heart, all of those—family, friends, and strangers—who have supported me and believe in my innocence.

Cassation wont “once again” recognise innocence. Knox should be encouraged to get real. So should her dummy followers - all her immediate circle know she was involved. There are no obvious grounds for Cassation to second-guess Judge Nencini, a very senior and very respected judge, considering the thoroughness of the Nencini Report. The disjointed series of statements on her blog arguing to the contrary look like the opinions of her friends and fans, not legal minds, and it is time she realizes they have feet of sand and no power to help.

Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.


Three lawyers and five others supplied the rebuttals for Amanda Knox’s false claims here and elsewhere, such as Knox’s email to Judge Nencini and her interviews on TV. Posts on those follow soon. Below: the careful way in which Italian media explain what Judge Nencini released.




Comments

Thanks Pete and others.

Amanda Knox is exposing the mediocrity of her mind in her statement. It shows how she is quite unable to assimilate analysis, apply logic even in a basic way, prioritize and focus on what is important, or recognize legally acceptable definition.
Her vacillating and unreliable memory is already well known, as is her propensity to lie and invent to suit.

A shame that she has been ‘allowed her head’ in this way. Perhaps her fame/infamy has given her a momentum that is now uncontrollable, from her ‘advisors’.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 03:34 AM | #

Very nice summary - thank you all.

I particularly like “And money was a huge looming problem which could have had her back in Seattle in weeks. Knox was known to want to head for China, and was known locally to have an expensive drug habit which had cut her savings in half. She really needed to hang on to that job at Patrick’s bar, especially as she had no work permit..”

It hadn’t struck me before just how crucial it probably was to keep the job. And then for Meredith of all people to be rumoured (or was it more than that?) to be in line for work behind the bar - well, that would be the last straw for any self-respecting narcissist.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/06/14 at 05:28 AM | #

Thanks SeekingUnderstanding and Odysseus. Much-appreciated input from over half a dozen man posters here including three lawyers.

Regarding the issue of Knox’s money. We are looking more and more closely at what actually happened at the interviews on the night of 5-6 November 2007 because we think the magic key may be there.

We now know from the Wiki witness transcripts that both statements Knox signed on 5-6 November were her idea - she insisted on them and dictated what appeared and both times overruled urgings that she wait for a lawyer.

Click on these excerpts below to read the Acrobat versions of incriminating excerpts. You will see that in both statements, heading out right away seemingly to confront Patrick about work was Knox’s intention.

Right after he had texted “dont come to work” when she knew Meredith was in line for a job in the bar.


First statement. See fifth line down: “we would meet immediately, therefore I went out…”

For the full version click here: http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2007KnoxFirstStatementImage.pdf


Second statement:  See third line down: “I met him ... after sending him a message “I will see you” “




For the full version click here: http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2007KnoxSecondStatementImage.pdf

Some vital questions. Is this in the Massei Report? We dont see it yet. Did Knox drag Raffaele along? It suggests not, but who knows? Did they encounter Guede in the park?

Did they turn left at the park with Guede now in tow to confront Meredith and not Patrick instead? Did Knox actually storm into the house, raging to confront Meredith on the spot?

Is all of this why the big knife went along?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/06/14 at 06:00 AM | #

@Peter

God saves us.“I vaguely remember that he killed her”. Yes - it must be hard to recall such trivial detail clearly.

“...the African boy who owns the pub…”

It boggles the mind that her marked sociopathy wasn’t picked up before the mayhem in Perugia. That’s another question that surely needs to be addressed when this is all settled.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/06/14 at 06:53 AM | #

This jumps out.
“The African Boy??!”

Patrick Lamumba is a man who is older than Knox. He was also her boss. So for her to name him as “Boy” indicates to me in the strongest possible terms just another aspect of her racial discrimination. This is Knox, and by extension her family and most of her supporters. It is their view and proof of their latent white trash superiority and racial discrimination. Knox and her supporters are of the same view as Susan Smith who drowned her children then blamed a none existent black man.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/06/14 at 08:40 AM | #

Great report, Peter. There are so many inaccuracies in her statement to the press, it would have been hard to report them all. But here’s one:

“Rudy Guede was an orphan turned drug dealer and burglar.”

No, his parents are alive, but divorced, like hers. He’s a drug user, like her and Sollecito, but never was charged or convicted of those offenses.

If she’s basing it on innuendo, one might then mention her drunken and drug fueled binges and assault ‘prank’ in Seattle. Also, Sollecito being found in possession of hashish, and his alleged assault on a girl at school with scissors. Plus his knife and violent porn fetish.

Or her creative writing, which reads very like a confession to me.

Posted by Ergon on 05/06/14 at 12:20 PM | #

Hoo boy!, there Graham. you are right about that. Patrick is /was a man at that time.

As to the conclusions of TJMK writer (s), none of what Knox stated was the truth. thx

Posted by Bettina on 05/06/14 at 12:39 PM | #

In the US, the use of the term “boy” to describe an African man is considered very, very racist. Her white supremacist attitude shows through clearly there. Documented in “black and white.”

When examining the events of 5 November 2007, it is worth remembering her bank transactions from that same day, the first transactions since 29 October 2007, and virtually the last in that account:

11/5/2007 UNICREDIT B PERUGIA PERUGIA 1105 M -$361.54
11/5/2007 *FORIEGN TRANSACTION FEE -$3.61
11/5/2007 *CUSTOMER DEPOSIT +562.00
11/5/2007 MC-CIELLE PERUGIA -$62.18
11/5/2007 *FOREIGN TRANSACTION FEE -$0.62
RUNNING BALANCE $4,465.89

Only enough money left for about 3 months, at that rate of expenditure. Although if Grandma hadn’t boosted the account at the beginning of October, the money would have run out by the end of the year. So much for the “independent, self-sufficient” meme. By the way, the MC-CIELLE is likely the underwear purchase. So much for the “just underwear you would find at Target (for $60!?)” meme.

Posted by Patrizio on 05/06/14 at 12:57 PM | #

Isn’t ‘Boy’ the term that used to be used many, many years ago (pre-second World War, colonial?), as in calling a servant from that time, e.g.  a (House) boy?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 01:12 PM | #

On the night she was seemingly headed out to take down one black man (Patrick) and ended up ensnaring another (Rudy). I wonder if Patrick realizes that for a short time on the fatal night she was seemingly headed HIS way with a huge knife.

On the racist mentality if you read Knox long enough (good luck!) you will observe that she takes a nasty crack at EVERYONE which has the odd effect of putting her in a one-person race. The racism may really be a symptom of her deeper-seated and untreated pathologies which fly off the pages of her book: 

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_amanda_knox_trainwreck_how_tv_and_book_suggest_knox/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_amanda_knox_trainwreck_what_the_newly_published_knox_writings_reve/

Curt Knox once said he would never never never get Knox into therapy. Remember he skipped his own anger-management therapy which a judge recommended - unfortunately without mandating it

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/should_the_amanda_knox_defense_maybe_point_the_finger_at_an_angry_dadd/

What if the judge HAD mandated therapy and it had worked and Curt had been a lot nicer to Edda and their two daughters? Especially to Amanda who was old enough (a tot) to witness Curt and Edda beating one another’s brains out?

Would Meredith still be alive?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/06/14 at 01:33 PM | #

You cannot make this stuff up…

Amanda Knox is adding MORE false claims to the version of her statement that is on her blog site.

We quoted the entire media version which was sent around a week ago - actually with limited traction, media are becoming much more iffy.

What Ergon quotes in his comment above is from the “evolving” version of Knox’s blog site:  “Rudy Guede was an orphan turned drug dealer and burglar.”

None of those three claims is true. Gee thanks Knox. That’s helpful. Keep going.

We need to capture the statement as it appears on Knox’s blog site, as our repudiations above will not be the last of them.

At least some of Knox’s myriad false claims on her blog site could be “disappeared” soon - before Judge Nencini gets there.

*************

Full versions of Knox’s two “confessions” are now linked to in the comment with the excerpts above. Read here also:

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2007KnoxFirstStatementImage.pdf

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2007KnoxSecondStatementImage.pdf

************

Thank you, Patrizio, for that terrific addition on the money angle. We need a post on these lines. Really does look like smoking-gun country.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/06/14 at 01:44 PM | #

One nice thing, and I see it all over the web with the security camera footage, is that there are scores of people just waiting to take Knox down, While the footage on it’s own means very little the fact of the headlines speak for themselves.

ie “Is this the footage which will destroy Knox alibi?”

This tells me that there are many people, and gathering more steam as time goes by, who are realizing more and more that they have been sold a bill of goods. This also proves that the entire PR maneuver was one vast mistake and the people responsible will leave the sinking ship like the rats they are.

another thing is, perhaps Knox can delay her extradition for a long time. Perhaps even years but the idea of her going to jail even if shes mid to late thirties is a vindication.

the more she twists in the wind the better because she can run but not hide. Also perhaps it would be better if some of her supporters understood the difference between a trial and an appeal which does not equate an innocence just at begets another trial

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/06/14 at 01:50 PM | #

I agree with Pete about AK’s style of relating to anyone who crosses her will, as coming from deeper pathology.

If I may refer again to the second link :

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_amanda_knox_trainwreck_what_the_newly_published_knox_writings_reve/

Under ‘Observable Behaviours’, point (2) :

There is reference to the inability to deal with ‘the shadow self’ (in Jungian terminology), and consequently only identify with the ‘light’ self, the ‘angel’ self, the Good Girl.

The Bad Girl, the shadow self, is rejected in a dangerous and unstable splitting of the personality. This rejected fragment is then the part projected onto someone who ‘fits’ this (dark) shadow.

So quite literally a dark or darker skinned person receives the projection of the Shadow. (“They are the dark, the bad, person”). This process underlies a lot of prejudice.

But a mind with this disorder will ‘dump’ the projected Shadow Self onto absolutely any poor soul who happens to be there - otherwise, to own it as part of oneself is unbearable.

The same personality type is recognizable by the fact they are unable to say “Sorry”. They will not say, I’m sorry, I made a mistake. Not ever. That’s partly why this painful charade is continuing now.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 02:07 PM | #

Hi, Peter, Here’s another big mistake on her statement a week ago to the press:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/amanda-knox-full-statement-italian-court-reasoning

“which experts also agreed did not match the stab wounds or the bloody imprint of a knife on her pillow.

Actually, it is the imprint of a knife on her bed sheet, which was discussed right here on TJMK.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/an_investigation_into_the_large_knife_provides_further_proof/

Prosecutor Alessandro Crini, quite successfully it seems, argued in his closing statements that it did fit the dimensions of the kitchen knife.

Knox is relying on fraudulent reports sourced from IIP, and disproven arguments from her defense.

Posted by Ergon on 05/06/14 at 02:09 PM | #

@Peter

“Would Meredith still be alive?”

Quite possibly I would think.

I’m not a psychologist and this is all assumption on my part but without the parents separating AK would hardly have developed as she has, seemingly with the need to incorporate in herself the more masculine qualities she was lacking from the father during early years.

Clues here are her early “tomboy” persona (“foxy knoxy” while playing soccer), “pranking” her father like a boy might, pranking her housemates and organising a small riot in Seattle, and even now her contemptuous,  barely repressed anger - I would bet copied from Curt - whenever she faces hostile questioning on TV.

Not to mention out-knifing knife boy.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/06/14 at 02:23 PM | #

@Patrizio and @Odysseus,

Sociopathic behaviour will often, or usually manifest in the two areas : money..  and sex.

I have long thought the missing money a core part of the case.

Also, this personality type would/could be fixated over a money issue whether or not they actually needed the money. It’s more a question of their power, in their warped vision, or sometimes revenge, and envy.

One can see this in excessive litigations - where a more ‘normal’ person would just let the issue go.

Another sociopathic characteristic is a chilling kind of displacement - where the destructive person won’t themselves do the violent deed, but incite or direct others to do it for them - and then see them take the blame.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 02:25 PM | #

I also rarely tune into statements from her fans any more, I know enough about their psychology, thanks smile

But this statement from Amanda Knox herself, on her blog, is quite revelatory. On being asked why she has refused to pay the damages awarded to Patrick Lumumba, she writes:

Amanda says

May 4, 2014 at 09:28  

“Luis,

The definition of slander is to knowingly and willing accuse an innocent person. I did no such thing. I have been wrongfully convicted of slander.

Those who are responsible for compensating Patrick Lumumba are the police who arrested and detained him without evidence and long after they had been presented proof of his innocence.

I invite you to read the following studies:

Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendations

False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform”.

Wow.

Posted by Ergon on 05/06/14 at 02:36 PM | #

@Odysseus

What one can certainly say - from much that is known, and public - is that there is a unhealthy failure to integrate in her personality.

Either seeing the spilt as ‘light’ and ‘dark’ or ‘heavy’, or as the masculine and feminine sides; the potential mother and father sides; perhaps even introvert and extrovert sides…what is crucial is that there is splitting, and deep discomfort and unease, and hence dangerous instability, as said, that can erupt unpredictably, and, unfortunately, with rage and violence.

Hence it’s perfectly possible for such a person to seem gentle and mild and charming on the one hand, and then erupt suddenly into the Other. (Probably why some of her followers just can’t see the whole picture).

It’s the lack of integration that matters, and that’s a life-long task (as you know).

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 02:42 PM | #

Wow, Ergon, as you say. What a direct lie. Lies.

(Psychology not directed at you. Or anyone . Just general interest.)

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 02:46 PM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding smile

———-

Andrea Vogt will be discussing the case on Nancy Grace tonight.

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt · 14m

Honoured to be speaking with @NancyGraceHLN today from Italy w/the latest details from the #AmandaKnox case. Tune in!

Posted by Ergon on 05/06/14 at 02:55 PM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding

Interesting. Knox certainly seemed fixated on money and sex.

Curt wasn’t a very good role model as far as keeping money in perspective was concerned (thus his disinclination to pay Edda for maintenance). As for sex, I couldn’t say…

I like your Jungian description of our “light” and “dark” aspects and it’s certainly the psychological suffering involved in facing our dark aspects that keeps us from wholeness.

I was speaking to someone the other day who said that she had sat with her father in hospital as he was dying from cancer and that she was able to just simply and compassionately be with him, she felt, as he began to make his journey from this life, because she had faced and integrated a lot of her own suffering through psychological work. Sometimes our over-busy ministrations to others, even if they seem to be prompted by the ‘angel’ self , can be ways we avoid our own suffering.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/06/14 at 03:34 PM | #

@Odysseus
So true. The age-old problem of pain. And psychological pain has just as much reality, as we know, helping people to face mental illnesses, or terrible trauma, and try and find enough hope to go forward.
The mind and the body truly do work together.

There is one technique, used in pain management (chronic physical pain), where essentially, one ‘bargains’ with the pain, talks to it, communicates with it - rather than shunning it or denying it, or attempting to drown it out with ever heavier drugs. Not seeing it as ‘the enemy’. It can be quite successful.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 03:49 PM | #

LATEST FROM ANDREA VOGT TWITTER,

” For latest on #amandaknox case, tune in to @NancyGraceHLN at 8 ET, with @andreavogt dispatch from Italy: .....”

https://twitter.com/andreavogt

Posted by True North on 05/06/14 at 04:26 PM | #

Hi seekingUnderstanding

Could you expound upon the ‘inner child’ please particularly in relation to Knox and her seeming lack of same.

My understanding is that if there are issues unresolved from childhood then the ‘inner child’ will lash out if confronted by what it perceives to be threatening behavior.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/06/14 at 05:14 PM | #

By the way. Good for Nancy Grace, who, I would guess, is going to take it slowly and carefully.

It would indeed be a tremendous feather in her cap with regard to Knox where others are mistaken as to Knox and Sollecito’s innocence.

Not only that but it will guarantee the continuation of Grace’s TV show.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/06/14 at 05:19 PM | #

[In process of factual correction at poster’s own wish]

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 05/06/14 at 06:00 PM | #

I’ve just been reading Dr. Lillian Glass on the body language of AK from the latest Cuomo interview. She’s good. She talks about the inappropriate and very odd laugh AK gives when asked about the knife and the final wound. She notes it isn’t a nervous laugh, but a genuine one, and asks, why?

It’s interesting. In addition to what she says, I wonder this :  Sometimes, some people can laugh out of a combination of embarrassment, tension, and a sense of the ridiculous.

I intuit that AK feels that her position is somewhat ludicrous - she has no choice but to continue to play this character role she has created for herself, this lead in the story, this fiction that she set rolling when she first asked for pen and paper to make her first ‘best version’.

She is enjoying it. She likes the limelight. She feels clever, she is getting away with it. She thinks she can ‘win’. (Another dreadfully inappropriate word).

But, unbeknown to her, she is getting further and further away from a grounded reality - where we are when we tell the truth. There is actually a risk she is on the edge of becoming unhinged…hence the laugh. It’s crazy, quirky, wacko…

Karma though. Remember Karma.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 07:14 PM | #

PS Friendsof…

Do you think as much as four years old? Maybe more like 18 months?

More on the infantile later…

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 07:17 PM | #

SeekingUnderstanding

You are right-she is more an 18 month old. I think tho, I would like to craft a petition and put it on change.org. Seriously, people would never realize it was a satire. And I find making fun of people - especially someone like Amanda-would break her act - not the response she’d expect.

I have spent rather a bit of time working with violent people and the old adage “when the going gets rough, the rough get weird” I can out weird anyone and I really want to FWAK Ms. Knox.

By the way, SeekingUnderstanding, I read your brilliant analysis of her book of idiocy. Great, I think you caught all the main pathology.

Here is something for people to watch with Ms. Knox in an interview. The eyes (neurolinguistics). to her right is memory, to her left is creativity.  When you are remembering, you eyes scan left to right, when you are creating, eye scan right to left - (but you do have to check to determine if someone is right or left eyed.)

Now, looking up is visual (good tip when you are feeling pain or emotional suffering - look up - there is a reason dentists put posters on the ceilings), to the sides is auditory - right is remembering conversations while left is imagining them. To the bottom is emotions and physical feelings. To the right, you are overwhelmed by the feeling, to the left you are playing tape loops to cause you to feel a certain emotion (actors do that a lot).

Now Amanda Knox is always going straight up or straight up and to the left to create her stories. When she reaches for emotions, it is down and to the left (have to find those tape loops).

Also watch her pupil dilation. When she is asked things or confronted with things that upset her, pin point eyes - shrink, shrink, shrink those pupils. Actually she looks to me to be in a sombulistic state-(hypnotherapy talk now) or fantasy world - she is in a state of hypnosis and parrots whatever she thinks she is suppose to pay - facial muscles lax, no laugh lines on her face, breathing is in the upper chest and very shallow.  That is why she gasps and sighs once in a while - no air taken in.

She is an auditory-tactile that the hypers are trying to turn into a visual and she is not very good at it - that is why they have to groom her very carefully for the cameras.

And interesting, when she was found guilty in the appeals - she cut her hair off, just like she did the first time she lost - thinking that cutting her hair makes her a different person. Why she is using the present tense “I am not there. I am not that person”-“it could not cannot be true”

All in the present-rather than I wasn’t there, that wasn’t me, It was not true - all present tense like AK in Italy was someone else-

I really want to know what kind of drugs she is on - she’s a puppet now - no one is home.

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 05/06/14 at 07:55 PM | #

Hi, Friendsofstfrank,

Yes, satire. I like it very much, in its place of course. I thought it very good, cathartic for the Perugians, and gave a good jolt.

Thanks for the info on the facial expressions, very good…I had gleaned a lot of that myself - it’s especially noticeable the calculating looks just constructing things, and very few spontaneously flowing emotions. And many other looks. So many in fact.

Is definitely without a natural visual orientation, quite agree. And closes the eyelids a lot.

And finally, this strange thing of “I am not there” etc, in the present. She is ‘not at home’ - good way to put it.

Could she also be re-living the fateful day ( as the court describes the crime again), but re-inventing it as an ‘alternative reality’? ( her fans are using this phrase). In other words, re-inventing a parallel 1/2nd November 2007 , where ‘I am not there’....

She’s full of invention! Oh, the terribilita of it, that she has no idea that constructed fiction STAYS in BOOKS. (Sorry to shout).

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/06/14 at 08:32 PM | #

Peter Wrote:

>What if the judge HAD mandated therapy and it had worked and Curt had been a lot nicer to Edda and their two daughters? Especially to Amanda who was old enough (a tot) to witness Curt and Edda beating one another’s brains out? Would Meredith still be alive? < 

Certainly this case shows that children in broken families are seriously harmed by it. As mentioned this is true of Guede as well in that he came from a divorced family although we don’t know as much about his family.

But another aspect to which people see Amanda is that she is the poor abused women. Never mind what she did. If she was a guy of around the same age I doubt very much there would be the level of sympathy, that the guy is a victim.

And sadly the family in the US sees all family problems as the man is the problem and the woman is the victim. From being in the world in other situations, that is usually not true and it takes two to tango. Knox’s mother does not seem like a decent person in her own right and Curt being “nice” to her isn’t going to change that.

For all we know Curt’s anger could have been provoked by her mother. We don’t know. Women do some disgusting things to men sometimes. It isn’t a one way street. Men can be jerks but so can women and putting all the blame on the father actually many times is exactly what causes problems because the guy rightfully is offended that he is blamed for things that are beyond his control.

I will say family breakdown is part of the problem and I don’t think blaming the guy 100% for the problem will solve it. IN fact this may make women completely psychotic if they see (with their mother or even just in their own life)  they can do anything and then find a guy to blame for the whole thing and people will believe that and that the women is a “poor victim”.

I think it has a lot to do why some are seeing Amanda as this abused women as society plays this image sometimes without any evidence and it works.

Posted by adamk on 05/06/14 at 09:58 PM | #

So, per Ergon (one of the few with the stomach to bear AK’s blog - what fortitude!) AK says:

“The definition of slander is to knowingly and willing accuse an innocent person. I did no such thing. I have been wrongfully convicted of slander.”

And yet in her first statement she said: “I vaguely remember that he [Patrick] killed her.”

Doesn’t this statement “knowingly and willing accuse an innocent person”?

And yet in the second statement she said “What I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith’s room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen ... at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming ...” AK’s kinder and gentler form of framing - but either way there is a murder and a person named Patrick.

Doesn’t this statement “knowingly and willing accuse an innocent person”?

Of course, AK in both statements is essentially using Patrick as a placeholder for RG: “Patrick [i.e. RG] had sex with Meredith with whom he was infatuated,” and again in the second statement “[RG] went into Meredith’s room ... ”

So, like the “precognition” of the wounds, AK also knew that Meredith was sexually assaulted, long before this was confirmed publicly. 

It seems useless to curse AK, but now we have a new expression, thanks to Friendofstfrank:

FWAK you AK, several times and quite hard!

Posted by Patrizio on 05/06/14 at 10:42 PM | #

adamk:  And RS parents were divorced and I believe his mother committed suicide - that is what AK says in her book. So we have unity among killers. As a woman, I will also agree with you regarding a lot of the women “victims” - they are not, but perpetrators - AK, Jodie Arias, Casey Anthony, Susan (Smith?) - PC gone way to far.

SeekingUnderstanding - bingo on the alternate reality - I really don’t think she is in reality - living in a “reality tv show”. She is not home - no one there - very robotic. She is in a somnambulistic state of hypnoses - the eyes always closing, the lax muscular tone with the shrinking pupils and jaw lock up when she is upset. The words she uses - she is in a dream state - alternate reality.

And I want to know what type of psychotropic drugs she is on - she protests in her book that she will NEVER take any “mental health drugs” but at the same time she is a mental health hypochondriac. Grabs every single psych therory she can get her grubby hands on and applies it to herself while cutting no slack in behavior to anyone else.

I don’t like her. I couldn’t work with her as a patient. I’ve worked with killers, and convicts and all sorts - but she is empty, no one is home and she is so insulated in her plastic world that she will never admit a sliver of truth. The perfect Manchurian Candidate - except she pulls the strings.

Look at her handwriting with her big signature and compare it to the Zodiac Killer’s notes. You are right, a trainwreck waiting to happen and what FOA (as opposed to FWAK) is she is not done - I am very serious - unless that young lady is contained, she will kill again. She reminds me rather a lot of Charlie Manson.

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 05/06/14 at 11:00 PM | #

Hi adamk

Actually American cable TV seems to be on a “mean women who kill” gig and there are certainly plenty of examples. See YouTube. We posted here previously about Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony from a point of view that conviction was merited, and the Machine posted on some European killers. No unfair breaks because we see killer women as victims that I can see.

But in the Knox case which is all I was talking about (or asking a question about) Knox herself in her book describes the situation as one where her father was stiff, disinterested and uncaring. She had a bedroom at his house, then she didnt. It was Curt appearing in front of a judge for not paying living expenses for his own daughters not Edda, and Curt who was seen to have the anger management issue and told to have therapy not Edda, and Curt who drives the pedal-to-the-floor trash-Italy campaign. So its perhaps a tad hard to see Curt as the victim.

Knox is clearly not and maybe never was hard-wired for empathy and has trouble reading people and is mostly now hostile to everybody; but there WAS apparently another side to her way back where she could be very naive and clinging, at least early on in relationships.

She was naive and clinging both to Meredith and Mignini (yes Mignini) but although neither unfairly put her down and both tried in a sense to help her, the slightest misreading of signs that they would separate from her and the hellcat emerges and the former ally becomes the target of destruction. Meredith. Patrick. Mignini. Now and then Sollecito. Read the book and its 1/2 of Italy.

I agree with all that Friendofstfrank sees in her as the current (worsening) mental state of play. She’s dangerous, and if she kills again my guess is it will be someone very close to her who she gave trust to and then misreads. Maybe a kid, if she has one. She is said now to be living alone. Hmmm. Is Paxton watching her own back? Is the guitar playing “boyfriend”?

A lot of people might sleep easier when she is back in Capanne and out of mischief. Not least the harrased and terribly hurt family of the real victim.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/06/14 at 11:50 PM | #

I will make a prediction. Regardless of what happens to AK, she will kill again. If left to her own devices, she will kill at some point. If she is returned to Italy-she will commit suicide. Her cutting her hair thing when found guilty, her bizarre behavior. She lives in a fantasy world-hallucinating. But she will kill again-someone else or herself-I base this on working with violent people for over 25 years-She will kill again.

Actually, honestly, when looking at the full range of her behavior, memory problems, etc. I think I would go for an old tried and true diagnosis of Schizophrenia-I think she actually believes what she is saying-I don’t think she is always acting. I think she hallucinates-maybe a few splintered personalities. Like I said when she is not parroting what she is suppose to stay, she slips back into that no one home zombie state-schizophrenia-which tends to onset in the late teen years. I would love to see where she lives-it would give a lot of clues, whole lot of clues-I know she is a slob and hygiene deficit-if she is not on psychotropic medication-she is zoning out-hallucinating-rather big time. no string of logic to her thought process, and the crises junky effect-life would be boring if she didn’t have all these “horrible things” happen to her.

Same birthday as Jodi Arias. Odd that,

Posted by Friendofstfrank on 05/07/14 at 01:08 AM | #

I don’t think AK knows she is, in effect, acting. I don’t think she knows herself.
I see that she flips into character, and maybe the laugh - just this side of hysteria - is in the moment when she flips into role, and goes into the voice and arranges the face.
I think she is in an unstable, possibly dangerous, place, and have been hinting this for some time.

I see dissociation, and I see splitting (see next comment) - which has advanced. Her inability with logic has rung alarm bells for some time.
The obvious (which is always worth looking at) would be a disturbed early childhood, with neuronal susceptibility (which was badly handled), followed by early use of cannabis as a teenager onwards, when the brain is still developing.
It is a known trigger of schizophrenia, in susceptible persons, and she has openly admitted her use of it. Doctors have been warning of the dangers, especially with the stronger stuff, - apparently now readily available, - for some time.

In the therapist and client relationship, both parties need to choose that they wish to commit themselves to working together.
The therapist too can (rarely,  I’m glad to say) come to the conclusion that it is not workable. Sometimes, there is a prioritising, that is, WHEN this substance use/abuse has been tackled and sorted,- perhaps we can begin to get somewhere.

Interesting, though depressing, if Curt Knox said, as reported, that he would never ever put Amanda into therapy.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/07/14 at 03:34 AM | #

If there is someone with a talent for satire (not me, I think I’m too serious!), AK’s email to Judge Nencini is something that is ripe for satire, - is asking for it.

Personally, I wouldn’t want to get onto the Knox Black List!

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/07/14 at 03:40 AM | #

OK…Hi Grahame,
Thanks for asking the question about the inner child lashing out.
There is a school of thought, which I am inclined towards, that believes problems can be traced back to early days - very early days, like infancy, and the initial bonding experiences - the first relationships with the Carer, the Other…usually the Mother. How the Mother relates to her Other (usually the Father) will also matter here.

The dissociative state, or lack of integration of the basic two sides of the psyche, is said to stem from here.
Melanie Klein describes this in her paper ‘Envy and Gratitude’, ( if you don’t already know of this).

If problems from these early days persist and remain unresolved, a) it can be very serious, and b) are likely to be extremely well concealed and deeply buried, as they stem from a pre-verbal time. Verbosity will simply avoid the issue(s).
This is why they can break out unpredictably in sudden explosion or implosion. They relate to the very deepest emotions, and to survival.

What will trigger this can be very different in different persons. Sometimes it can be an known threat, sometimes something seemingly innocuous, or incidental. I think this is related to the pre-verbal associations. In therapy, we work to know these individual triggers. It is difficult work, and takes courage.

So much easier to blame another.
So much easier to say, ’ You (the police, Mignini, Patrick, for example) Make me angry… So it’s ALL your fault’.
Rather than: ’ I am angry, (I seem to have repressed anger)... Certain people or situations seem to be my trigger for this anger rising up in me.’  And so on.
Anger management isn’t an optional extra in life. It is at the very core of our behaviour.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/07/14 at 04:12 AM | #

Attention: Peter Quennell

Peter: Can you give any indication when TJMK will post the full English translation of the Nencini Report?

Kind regards,


“Mealer”

Posted by Mealer on 05/07/14 at 06:26 AM | #

[In process of factual correction at poster’s own wish]

Posted by annieb on 05/07/14 at 08:12 AM | #

Annieb

The forensic evidence on all three suspects has been confirmed as reliable, - this has been gone into with assiduous care and the highest professional detail.

Amanda asked to make her two spontaneous written declarations. There was nothing forced about them. They were at her insistence. She also didn’t recant the accusation during two weeks when Patrick was suffering in prison.

Re the very regrettable media circus - the Knox camp initiated her PR campaign, and still continue giving interviews etc.

This site emerged in response, in order primarily to give support to the Kercher family, who, we are all agreed, have suffered too much and unnecessarily.

When someone has been proven to have been lying, seriously, it makes the ongoing situation much, much harder to deal with.

The only reservation I have over the execution of Italian justice is with the sudden appointment of Judge Hellman, and the inadequacy of the subsequent process, causing eventual annulment and delay.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/07/14 at 09:00 AM | #

[In process of factual correction at poster’s own wish]

Posted by annieb on 05/07/14 at 09:51 AM | #

SeekingUnderstanding
Hi and yes you’re correct. As I see this situation it becomes very apparent that in early infancy the child is the parents and the parents are the child.

In other words the child does not know where it stops and the parents begin. Therefore if the father figure, be it male or female is weak or has abandoned the family unit so there just remains the single mother figure to which the child cleaves at the exclusion of everyone else while desiring the abandoned father figure.

This builds resentment in the child of course. In most circumstances the arrangement of one parent or one (or more) child works quite well provided both are of a stable mentality.

The huge problem with Knox and others in similar situations is that by the age of nine or ten something happens whereby the image of the all protective mother figure is destroyed and the resentment towards the father is switched to rabid disappointment of the mother.

This creates a huge backlash of confusion in the child who then switches allegiance back to the father who does not care which produces male like efforts to impress the father and deny the mother.

Of course Edda was a “free spirit” married/had sex (obviously) with Chris Mellas who Knox, according to reports, dislikes intensely, and why not since he destroyed (as far as Knox is concerned) the original family unit of just Edda and her.

By the time of twelve/fourteen in puberty when most children rebel in order to create their own identity,
this image will lash out because in order to protect the inner child a semblance of balance (adult to inner child) must psychologically occur which is paramount in everyone.

Not so in Knox because in order to protect herself from being hurt she has invented this world where she feels safe. This would indicate the desire for instant gratification be it drugs or sex and or more important the power over others as exhibited by the desire for money which equates to freedom from the psychological pain of continuous disappointment.

My understanding is that upon her return from Italy she moved out of her mothers house straight away and moved
to a squalid part of Seattle but I’m not sure of that since there are reports to the contrary since she has to be close to her job at the library.
Safety in the fantasy world of literature I would think?

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/07/14 at 10:08 AM | #

Hi annieb,

Most murder trials are resolved on the basis of ‘circumstantial evidence’, barring direct witness testimony, forensic evidence, or confessions.

It IS Meredith’s DNA on the knife along with Amanda Knox’s, and Raffaele Sollecito’s on Meredith’s bra. Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s, and the bathmat footprint a reasonable match for RS’s.

Quintavalle and Curatolo were deemed to be reliable witnesses.

The break in was staged, thus pointing to someone inside the house with a key.

Drug habits are notoriously expensive, but you appear to be bending over backwards to implicate Guede alone instead of accepting, as regular contributors here do, that he was one of three participants in the murder. If Guede was no angel, nor was Knox or Sollecito.

You appear to be applying a ridiculous standard of “reasonable doubt” that does not exist in any jurisdiction I know of. If Professor Alan Dershowitz, who only happens to be the youngest ever professor of law in the US says the evidence is sufficient to convict them then who are you to say otherwise, but thanks for your opinion.

But your faux sympathy for the Kerchers and Meredith is grating. Her family has said over and over again they don’t want their daughter to be forgotten, and John Kercher, in his book Meredith, personally thanked all of us who support her cause.

We’ll be here till justice is done, thanks.

Posted by Ergon on 05/07/14 at 10:10 AM | #

annieb
Please take the time to examine on this site all the evidence, particularly the hi-resolution photos of the knife stain on the sheet, the scientific proof of the Sollecito footprint plus the realization that there were no fingerprints at all in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was murdered since they had all been cleaned off. Ask yourself why this would be so when an
‘off- chance’ killer would have fled as soon as possible. Knox knowing the position of the body without seeing into the room. Sollecito saying “Nothing had been stolen.” when he didn’t go into the room where the supposed break-in had occurred and was only an occasional visitor to the house anyway. There is so very much more. It will take some time and is a daunting task which perhaps we who have been involved for the last seven years forget. But, if you really desire the truth in this matter then you will do this and not get sucked into all the hyperbole and outright lies of the FOA.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/07/14 at 10:21 AM | #

@Grahame
Yes. The Envy and Gratitude essay goes into both gratification and gratitude deeply. The ability to defer gratification, and to be grateful for what one has ( even though ‘imperfect’), MK sees as fundamental steps in development, which, if skipped, will have repercussions later.
They form the building blocks of inner security, so, yes, insecurity is an important issue.

@annieb
I had understood that the judiciary have agreed. Even judge Hellman qualified his conclusion with ‘the truth might be otherwise’.
Also, of course, they do not have all the actual facts - none of us do - and the best way to help the situation would be for those who know more of the facts to speak up about them, truthfully.

As a psychologist, I am not interested in derogatory speculation - projecting onto people the All Bad. People are people - human beings. I seek to understand them.
I don’t read about all those things you mention.
Perhaps Amanda would be better off - even at this late stage - not reading them herself? Could she withdraw from her own publicity? It might be better, if she could.

I am sure none of that came out of the courts. There’s a difference between the judicial proceedings and the media effluence. The judiciary have been dignified, restrained, learned and thorough. Time to respect them?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/07/14 at 10:56 AM | #

Hi Annie,

You need to apply a little common sense. Anyone who thinks that an abundant of Sollecito’s DNA was carried by a gust of air or floated on a speck of dust and landed with laser-like precision on the exact part of Meredith’s bra clasp that was bent out of shape during the attack on her instantly deserves a Darwin Award. Ditto for anyone who thinks there is an innocent explanation for the numerous lies that Knox and Sollecito told.

I and mainly other people object to the PR campaign because the FOA version of events is a pack of lies. These are the main lies that have been told to convince people that Knox and Sollecito are innocent:

1. Amanda Knox had never been trouble with the police.
2. In days following Meredith’s murder, she voluntarily stayed behind to help the police in Perugia.
3. All Meredith’s friends left immediately.
4. Knox was called to the police station on 5 November 2007.
5. She was subjected to an all-night interrogation.
6. She wasn’t provided with an interpreter.
7. She wasn’t given anything to eat or drink.
8. She was beaten by the police.
9. She was asked to imagine what might have happened.
10. During her questioning, Knox made a statement that said she had a “vision” she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.
11. Mignini questioned her on 5 November 2007.
12. She didn’t confess until 6.00am.
13. She retracted her allegation against Lumumba immediately.
14. There were only two tiny pieces of DNA evidence that implicated her, but they were probably contaminated.
15. The knife has essentially been thrown out.
16. The knife doesn’t match any of the wounds on Meredith’s body.
17. The DNA on the blade could match half the population of Italy.
18. Meredith’s DNA wasn’t found on the blade of the knife.
19. No other knives were taken from Sollecito’s apartment.
20. The knife was chosen at random.
21. No control tests were done.
22. None of the Luminol stains contained Meredith’s DNA.
24. Prosecutor Mignini claimed Meredith was killed as part of a satanic ritual.
25. He called Amanda Knox a “she-devil”.
26. He was imprisoned.
27. Rudy Guede was a drifter
28. He had criminal record at the time of the murder.
29. He left his DNA all over Meredith and all over the crime scene.
30. He left his DNA inside Meredith’s bag.
31. He left his bloody fingerprints all over the crime scene.
32. He left his hair at the crime scene.
33. He pleaded guilty.
34. He didn’t implicate Knox and Sollecito until much later.
35. Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede.
36. Raffaele Sollecito had never been in trouble with the police.
37. He couldn’t confirm Knox’s alibi because he was sleeping.
38. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that Amanda Knox’s interrogation was illegal.
39. The Supreme Court threw out Amanda Knox’s witness statement.
40. Dr. Stefanoni and the forensic technicians broke international protocols.

I’ve never come across an Amanda Knox fan who is not ignorant of the basic facts of the case. They’ve unquestioningly accepted most, if not all, of the key PR lies above. I wonder how many of these lies you believe.

Posted by The Machine on 05/07/14 at 11:10 AM | #

Hi, annieb, if you still believe there is reasonable doubt regarding AK’s and RS’s guilt, I encourage you to “switch” to the “other” side, if you feel you really must do something (sitting tight is another option, you may consider that, too). For me, what is really bewildering is the sheer amount of evidence, and the sheer number of people still thinking these two idiots can somehow be innocent. Frankly, I am *very* disappointed that after all these years there is doubt in people’s minds, including yours.

But, I grant you that some of the newer trends in the comments here have prompted me to take a step back and turn to silence - the needless, overkill, racist explanation and giddiness at the possibility of sticking such a label in these “favorable” times on a murderous idiot (not to be confused with Grahame’s early, highly competent observations, for which he was undeservedly slammed), and the joy at the possible involvement of some politicians (or their wives) I do not think too highly of (also overkill, in my opinion). Also, calling AK a “f*cktard” merely provides ammo to the friends of the murderers, and makes it easy for them to attract innocent bystanders to their lost cause.

Make no mistake, however, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede HAVE killed Meredith Kercher, and the evidence is overwhelming. Please read the posts themselves (and the court documents!), which are extremely professional and to the point, and maybe pay less attention to the comments (we are all humans, therefore emotional, therefore fed up with lies and half-truths and murderers who now write books and blogs). (As I write this, a bunch of really competent comments have already been posted in response to you, please read them). Also, keep in mind that there is very little censorship here, which is why thicker skin may be desirable at times. All the best to you.

Posted by Bjorn on 05/07/14 at 11:19 AM | #

So.. Is the Nancy Grace interview a deferment?

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/07/14 at 12:36 PM | #

Hi Grahame

No, Andrea Vogt was on her show briefly by phone, as was Ann Bremner; Ted Simon was invited but didnt show.

The whole segment was only 3-4 minutes long. As you may know it was only on the possible Knox on the parking facility CCTV capture, and the pointers to it being Knox do seem quite strong.

Above, I said I couldnt see a reason for Knox to be there, at that middle level, but now I see it being said that drug dealers maybe operate from there. That could fit. 

There might perhaps be a post in this; plus a YouTube upload or video download. Hang around.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/07/14 at 12:49 PM | #

The video is compelling, but the prosecutor’s office may have been wise not to use it, without a witness to definitely state that that’s her, it’s not very useful.  I deal with footage like that a lot as a defense lawyer, and when there’s a genuine question as to identity, the only way to settle it that I’ve seen is if the person has a birthmark, tattoo, or other distinguishing characteristic that’s captured on the footage.  Haven’t seen anything like that mentioned yet.

Posted by Ceylon on 05/07/14 at 01:50 PM | #

A new movie is being produced on this case, starring Kate Beckinsale as Barbie Latza Nadeau and German actor Daniel Brühl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVsaGXNTB08

Posted by aethelred23 on 05/07/14 at 03:32 PM | #

I confess I did not have the stomach to watch Knox’ latest interview (I have not watched any of her interviews for this reason), but the statement which several people have commented on has also drawn my attention. 

“His hand prints and foot prints in her blood. None of that exists for me and if I were there, I would have had traces of…Meredith’s broken body on me…and I would have left traces of myself….around…around Meredith’s corpse….and I…I am not there…and that proves my innocence.”

I think there is a fairly simple, albeit somewhat difficult to explain, reasoning behind the “I am not there” statement.  This would have been a good time for Knox to clearly state that she did not kill Meredith.  Instead, she says that since no biological traces of her were found on Meredith’s body, she is innocent.

This made me consider the difference between factual innocence and legal innocence.

In the context of pure fact, she would only be innocent if she did not murder Meredith or assist in her murder.  In the context of a court of law, however, which does not have access to a recording of the murder (i.e. The Truth) and must reconstruct the events by piecing together evidence, she could conceivably be found innocent because there was no evidence or insufficient evidence against her.  Obviously, we know that such evidence exists, but in the absence of evidence, a court, acting in good faith, could conceivably pronounce Knox innocent.

Innocent as per fact and innocent as per verdict are not the same thing at all, however, as someone may be guilty as per fact, but found innocent by a court. 

The version of innocence she seems to put forward is innocence in a legal sense - the evidence is not there; therefore, I am innocent. However, she is not affirming her innocence in a factual sense, which is more important from the point of view of absolute truth than a court’s findings.

Because of this, I am not convinced that she believes the script she has been repeating for several years now (perhaps because the details of this script have changed numerous times since 2007 and because her statements have been challenged in a very precise manner).

Aside from that, she’s lying about the absence of hand or foot prints, given the size 36-38 foot print which was identified at the scene.  She is also partially lying about the absence of Meredith’s biological traces on her, given the existence of the mixed blood traces for which she offered no credible evidence. 

However, if you want to be very technical about it, sure - no traces of Meredith were found on her because no one swabbed her person or her clothing immediately after the murder.  Meredith was discovered many hours after her death, during which time a clean-up was performed (for which there is evidence) and during which Knox showered, by her own admission.  Therefore, that type of evidence could have not been found even if Knox had been immediately identified as a suspect and apprehended (which she was not).

The direct lies and the impossible scenario she puts forth undermine the credibility of her legal innocence - the only kind of innocence she seems able to claim at this point.

What other posters said about the “broken body” and the “corpse,” as well as about the transition from one to the other, makes a lot of sense.  I’d also add that it’s a very clinical and objectifying description, despite her attempt to inject a bit of pathos into the situation.

I would have to re-read the statements of Meredith’s true friends or of family, but I suspect (and please correct me if I am wrong), that they don’t refer to Meredith’s “body,” but to “Meredith.”  That’s because they think of her as a person.  Amanda does not, and this betrays the objectifying manner in which she regards Meredith.  I’d venture that, in a way, she takes ownership of the “broken body” and “corpse” because it was she, along with the other two, who turned Meredith from a person into a lifeless body.  The implication is chilling because it suggests Amanda relishes the idea of taking away Meredith’s personhood, of reducing her to something physical and non-functional (from “she” to “it,” since both “broken body” and “corpse” can be reduced to an “it”).

I am not sure why her handlers allow her to talk and write posts when she has such a hard time producing a convincing denial and a solid, consistent scenario. If I were running her PR campaign, I would have absolutely had someone else write her statements - not necessarily because a professional writer could produce more polished prose and be constantly aware of possible objections, but because a third person could affirm, in all honesty, that “I did not kill Meredith” and “I was not there.” Obviously, their arguments could still be challenged; the evidence is such that probably even a Demosthenes or Cicero would have enormous trouble putting forth a believable defense.  However, the truth of their personal declarations could not be challenged; there would be no hairs to split because that person would be speaking from a place of absolute innocence as far as the murder is concerned (although I can’t help wondering if their own knowledge or suspicion of Knox’ guilt would manifest itself somehow).

I think the reason this is not happening is not necessarily due to the sheer incompetence of her PR people, but because Knox insists on producing her own narrative.  I’m not a psychologist, but it seems to me that it’s a manifestation of the same rather inflated (and irresponsible) ego which can’t abstain from gloating about taking away Meredith’s personhood.  You see, this is HER story and SHE needs to figure prominently in it - that’s why there shall be little or no mention of Meredith unless the latter can be appropriated (MY friend, MY roommate, or “broken body” and “corpse”) and why Amanda shall be front and center talking about HER own experiences and how HER life has been destroyed (ironically, that’s one context in which she doesn’t assert her agency, but only because it’s convenient to play the victim’s part).

She doesn’t realize how, in light of the evidence against her and of her demonstrated lies and omissions, this comes across as obscene and unrepentant.  If she ever decides to tell the truth, she will have a very hard eliciting compassion - not only because she lied so much and deceived so many people, but also because she didn’t have the decency to keep a low profile and restrict herself to court statements.

Posted by Vivianna on 05/07/14 at 08:05 PM | #

Yes Vivianna that is correct. I would hasten to add though that Knox believes that with the passage of time this will simply all go away.

Unfortunately for her one of these days she will start her prison term. In the meantime of course she believes what her supporters tell her. I doubt very much that she reads this site, but even if she did she would dismiss it since living in a world of her own imagination it’s easy to dismiss anything which she believes does not impact upon her future in any way.

However it is not going away and it never will.  Sure I fully expect that with the usual delaying tactics she can put off being extradited for some years. But (and it’s a big ‘But’) The passage of time will not shorten her sentence, even if she got pregnant. But that will not happen because of course that would detract the attention away from her and her ego which is far too big.

Speaking of the inner child (Thank you SeekingUnderstanding) Knox inner child is shouting as loudly as it can “Look at me. Look at me!”

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/07/14 at 08:25 PM | #

Thanks Vivianna, excellent read.

Posted by Spencer on 05/08/14 at 03:12 AM | #

A phrase which always struck me as odd is: “I vaguely remember that he killed her”. It’s like saying “I vaguely remember that there was an earthquake or that I was struck by lightning”. A momentous and psychologically traumatic event such as a murder should surely elicit a more extreme response than ‘vagueness’.

Posted by pensky on 05/08/14 at 05:29 AM | #

Thank you, Vivianna, and for being principled in general.

@pensky. ‘Vaguely killed…’
As you say, impossible to be vague about. As I recall, this declaration was full of non-committal to her statements, with an excuse of being confused.
E.g. ‘This may be so, or I may have mis-remembered’.
Is it what is known as ‘hedging one’s bets’?
It is certainly obfuscation.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/08/14 at 06:51 AM | #

@pensky. What stuck in my mind: She meets Patrick earlier in the city, and every thing is normal, and later she accuses him of murder?

Not the actions of a normal person. She manufactures a narrative, she believes in it, otherwise she would not be able to maintain the lie. Interesting, her power to convince others of her narrative.

Posted by Ergon on 05/08/14 at 09:17 AM | #

Hi everyone, Im new to this site, although I’ve been following the case for a while.
I do believe amanda and rafaelle are guilty based on the evidence and the odd behavior amanda has shown since the murder. Also, this might sound crazy but I have a friend who works in national security and is well trained in deception recognition, and he believes 100% that amanda is lying and is involved.

Although i have to admit that sometimes I doubt about rafaelle’s involvement. He seems kind of sincere on his interviews. Maybe he has mastered the art of lying?
What do you think about rafaelle?

Posted by Tatiana on 05/08/14 at 09:50 AM | #

What I think about Raffaele: he does the ‘prisoner for life act’ since childhood.

Posted by Helder Licht on 05/08/14 at 09:59 AM | #

Hi Tatiana,

Whether Sollecito appears sincere in his interviews or not is completely irrelevant. He has repeatedly lied through his teeth. He claimed he and Knox were at a party on the night of the murder. He then said they were at his apartment. In his witness statement he admitted that he had lied to the police and claimed Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the night of the murder.

There isn’t an innocent explanation for his numerous lies, the abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp or his bloody footprints at the cottage.

Posted by The Machine on 05/08/14 at 11:11 AM | #

Hi Tatiana,
It is difficult to know the extent of Rapheale’s involvement and part in the crime, although we do know he was involved, as the forensic evidence for this is not in dispute, (bra clasp and bathmat footprint).
Also, that he had a knife fetish has been established. The excuse he made about Meredith’s DNA/ blood on the large knife is incriminatory, as he expected it to be on the knife.

My own feeling is to go to what a person has actually said - and therefore revealed about themselves, in their own words, early on.
Raphaele said, just a few days after the murder, that he had ‘believed’ Amanda’s version, and that what she had asked him to say ‘was a load of lies’. I think this indicates what was going on.
Perhaps she has successfully persuaded him that they will be exculpated, or that she ‘will get them off’, or words to that effect….if only,repeat, if only, he will just not say anything about his part (whatever that was). Hence he exercised his right not to speak at his trial. He seems to have trusted in her power, which sadly shows a lack of good judgement. His father knew this.

I think it’s a great shame : it would surely have better for everyone if he could have talked. Perhaps, tragically, far too late in the process, he is now realizing this?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/08/14 at 11:17 AM | #

Some discussion on PMF Net about what happened that night.

—-

November 01 is a holiday. Knox and Sollecito are already high. Based on her declining bank balance, she must be blowing it all on drugs. Rudy, known around Perugia not as a dealer, but a facilitator, has already met Knox through the boys downstairs. Witnesses testify to seeing her, Guede, and Sollecito together on at least one other occasion.

Knox gets a call from Patrick around 8:18 PM telling her not to come in to work. She was somewhere by Piazza Grimana at the time, where she may have met Rudy, and placed an order for drugs. She arranges to meet him later by the cottage. Now, here’s the crux: we don’t know exactly when the money was stolen. Meredith had already left earlier that day, and Knox could have stolen it any time after, as a prank like what she played in Seattle, and, as she was going to go on her day trip to Gubbio the next day, it would just be a simple theft, deniable as to whether she’s responsible.

But the call from Patrick is what might have set off her deep levels of narcissistic rage. Once Popovic frees Sollecito from his obligation to take her to the station, she heads back to the cottage with him, with knife in bag as added intimidation. They arrive there with Guede, shortly after Meredith gets there. Knox starts making out with Sollecito in front of Meredith. Rudy, rebuffed by Meredith, helps himself to the Apricot juice in the fridge, then hies to the toilet. Meredith discovers missing money, confronts Knox, there’s a fight which turns into the sexual assault and murder.

Guede, shocked runs out the door. Only one shoe has blood on it, so we see one set of shoe prints. Knox and Sollecito, already partly naked, get some blood on their feet but do an almost complete cleanup in the bathroom, missing somehow the bathmat foot pint in the near dark.

The staging takes place later that night.

——

These are the essential points, IMO:

I reduce it to the essentials:

1) Knox stole the money, probably before Meredith came home, but could be after the assault, since we don’t have to believe Guede’s account.
—Twists: when were the credit cards stolen?
——Was the money given to Guede or Kokomani for drugs?
2) She took the knife to the cottage. Sollecito always carries his Brian Tighe knife.
3) The three perps arrived shortly after Meredith.
4) Escalating violence, sexual assault leading to murder.
5) Staging and clean up by Knox and Sollecito all night, Curatolo sees them later, Quintavalle sees her the next morning.
6) Guede takes off. He isn’t going to run back through the city with blood all over him. He takes the country road which leads right to his home, disposes of the phones.
7) He flees to Germany. Knox and Sollecito get caught waiting for Filomena to return home.
8) Sollecito tops up his phone, calls 112 afterwards, from Knox’s bedroom.

——

What Silenzi reported: Rudy may have a mild form of narcolepsy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcolepsy which typically hits in teen years and causes people to inadvertently fall asleep at inopportune moments. Happens with some drug users whose brains are predisposed to that.

But I don’t think he fell asleep on the toilet that night. Why was he there in the cottage in the first place? Waiting for a drug delivery? (Kokomani?) Knox told him Meredith was amenable to his advances, he finds out very quickly she is not?

Knox and her past history. If she had an April Fool prank in Seattle (her version) could she plan one for post-Halloween? Perhaps she did plan something to humiliate Meredith with. Her past behaviors (parading nude in front of her Seattle room mate’s boyfriend - the one she had assaulted by her friends in ski masks -typical dominance maneuver) there’s a pattern here. Quite possible she directed Guede and Sollecito like she did her friends in Seattle, but if it was planned, it was Knox alone, and the other two tagged along.

I don’t think it started as a sexual assault though. Sexualised behavior in front of Meredith, to make her uncomfortable, a knife to intimidate her, then claim it was just a joke? She competes sexually with women (Her mother, her room mate, Meredith? Silenzi? “You can have him”?) She is reported to be bi-sexual. Did she have issues with Meredith on many levels? Did she also make sexual advances on Meredith that night? I am one of the few that believes there were blondish hairs found on Meredith, since lost, that indicate her participation at close hand.

I don’t think they planned to murder Meredith. But they were drugged out of their minds, they didn’t stop to think, they are all guilty of murder.

Posted by Ergon on 05/08/14 at 11:28 AM | #

King 5 in Seattle has now reported on the story about the CCTV images of the woman who resembles Amanda Knox:

http://www.kgw.com/news/Italian-show-claims-security-video-busts-Amanda-Knoxs-alibi-258465671.html

Posted by The Machine on 05/08/14 at 12:46 PM | #

At least now being reported as news and not special pleading as was done in the past by King 5.

Posted by Ergon on 05/08/14 at 01:31 PM | #

@ The machine and SeekingUnderstanding

It makes sense. Based on his biography, lies and odd behavior he seems to be a very weak and disturbed individual. This combined with Amanda’s dominant behavior made him be part of the murder and the cover-up. I think now he realizes he’s on his own so he’s trying to distance himself from amanda.

- Now, about Amanda. I dont find her behavior complex at all. I think she is simply an entitled, jealous bully who thought she could have her way in all of this. The rest it’s an act to distract people: the odd, quirky, carefree bubbly girl doing drugs and enjoying life, the victim, the strong woman,  the enviromental hipster etc.
She is trying to put layers and spin things around so people won’t see the obvious

Posted by Tatiana on 05/08/14 at 01:52 PM | #

Tatiana…it’s obvious to those who can see it! Some can’t see when they’re being spun…

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/08/14 at 02:09 PM | #

Tatiana, I would recommend reading Sollecito’s book.  My first impression, from videos I saw when I started following the case, was that Sollecito was awkward and perhaps a bit slow - rather passive, in any case.  I thought that perhaps he might have participated in the assault, but not necessarily inflicted a knife wound.

Then I read his statements, journal, book, etc. and realized that he is extremely spoiled and arrogant.  According to him, everyone (including his own lawyers, minus Bongiorno) is stupid, uneducated, and incompetent.  That sort of elitism is difficult to stomach when it comes from a genuinely accomplished person who may just be a bit overconfident or emotionally immature; coming from him, it’s sickening.

It helps you realize that he is the kind of person who regards others as undeserving vermin, forgetting that the only reason he’s ever had a good life was because his father provided for him.  He is incapable of accepting responsibility, whiny, self-entitled, self-serving, and cruel. 

He probably has a fair bit in common with Knox, but I’d say that the most striking commonalities would be narcissism, disregard for others, and inability to take responsibility for their own actions.  The thought that a girl like Meredith was thrown in with beasts like these is sickeningly unfair.

Posted by Vivianna on 05/08/14 at 02:42 PM | #

Andrea Vogt wrote the following on her website:

“Last week, CCTV footage leaked to an Italian television show convinced many that Amanda Knox was near the murder scene when her alibi was that she was elsewhere.”

http://thefreelancedesk.com/amanda-knox-trials-meredith-kercher-case/

This explains why most media organisations in Seattle don’t want to report on the story.

Posted by The Machine on 05/08/14 at 05:56 PM | #

Andrea also mentions that George Clooney’s writer was in Florence to scout locations for the Monster of Florence movie. Since it is still listed as being “in development” it won’t actually get made until the sage of Amanda will be well and truly over.

Still, unlikely the movie will be more than a fictionalized account. No innocent people named, nor prosecutors slimed, no dead writers words plagiarized, and Clooney gets to live in Italy.

Posted by Ergon on 05/08/14 at 08:44 PM | #

“Saga of Amanda” smile

Posted by Ergon on 05/08/14 at 08:50 PM | #

Great article Peter.
I have thought the money is very relevant to this case for a long time.
Druggies need money or no drugs - it’s as simple as that.

Why does the 3 or 4 hundred dollars that Knox all of a sudden had, be so hazy?
How does a ‘student’ who has to work in a bar for small money, all of a sudden come upon this amount of money?
Of course her family want us to believe that their angel face is near enough a millionaire and didn’t need any money (4000 dollars, gosh)so why work in a bar?

Knox is now falling very rapidly, things are becoming clearer to a lot of previously duped people.
The arrogant statement Goggerty Marriot released in response to the Nencini report is just that.
It has Amanda Knox written all over it.

One has to look at the mindset of Amanda Knox and her statement bares testament to her bizarre world.
Of course she must be innocent because they have no traces of her…
Because she cleaned them up.

Posted by DF2K on 05/09/14 at 12:43 AM | #

Tatiana wrote, “I think she is simply an entitled, jealous bully who thought she could have her way in all of this. The rest it’s an act to distract people: the odd, quirky, carefree bubbly girl doing drugs and enjoying life, the victim, the strong woman,  the enviromental hipster etc.”

Tatiana - Well put. I’ve been thinking this for a while. Even the drug taking part wasn’t quite authentic. Everything she does seems to be about manipulation.

Posted by carlos on 05/09/14 at 01:48 AM | #

On reading the many refutations of evidence by Amanda’s so-called friends two things have struck me lately. The blood found in the shared bathroom being explained by ‘extensive ear piercing’ is one. I foolishly had my ears pierced in many places when I was young and they barely bled. Any bleeding was so limited as to be localised around the piercings. They certainly didn’t drip. If they had been dripping to the extent we are expected to believe that Amanda’s did, they would have dripped on to her shoulders. If she had been bending over a sink, they may have dripped on to the sink and she would have seen the blood and maybe it would have occurred to her to rinse the blood away. The other quite amusing protestation is that ’ local Perugian climber, Ricardo Panella demonstrates how easy it would have been for Guede to make the climb from outside the cottage up to Ms Romanelli’s window and to open the shutters.’ Exactly: He was a climber. That’s why it was easy! If they had asked a layperson to scale the wall, rather than a mountaineer, the experiment would have carried more credence.

Posted by pensky on 05/09/14 at 10:30 AM | #

There appears to be an ongoing meltdown between the Sollecito and the Knox camps

https://twitter.com/cri_magnani/status/464506005964226560

Reporter Cristina Magnani, who claims to be a close personal friend of Raffaele Sollecito, has a lot to say about Amanda Knox, claims that he wasn’t there, calls her supporters “intelligence optional”, and tells them off for approaching Aunt Sara Achile telling her wot to do, lol. Especially Doug Bremner smile

Very sarcastic abt. Knox.

Posted by Ergon on 05/09/14 at 12:44 PM | #

Cristina Magnani ‏@cri_magnani · 6h
@Annella @sara_achille Exacly. And I think it’s very disrespectful that Doug told Sara what she has to do or not to do for her nephew.

Posted by Ergon on 05/09/14 at 12:45 PM | #

Hi Tatiana and Carlos

Tatiana certainly has nailed Knox’s demeanor at the 2009 trial.

the 2011 black widow Knox at appeal was a startling transformation with her teary opening and closing remarks and worried looks and no grins.  It sure worked on Hellmann and his besotted group.

I do suggest to you, though, that drugs on the night were not made up - only that they were not marijuana unless she stumbled on the sometime-deadly skunk kind.

There is a lot of public evidence and some things we know that indicate she was on amphetamines (the cops believe cocaine but crystal meth is an amphematine too).

Post by an expert on this in due course.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/09/14 at 12:49 PM | #

She pleads:

@cri_magnani Tutte le cose che fa la knox , i suoi fans e la sua PR riflettono negativamente su RS. Mandateli a quel paese e pensate a lui.

(My translation) All the things that Knox, her fans and PR does gets back to this country and reflects badly on him.

Posted by Ergon on 05/09/14 at 12:51 PM | #

I’m currently reading “Honorable Men” by Louis Auchincloss.  There’s a great scene in the novel where the protagonist’s brother-in-law quits the family firm and the protagonist tells him that he’ll regret it.  The brother-in-law asks why, and the protagonist says, “Because after she (brother-in-law’s wife, protagonist’s sister) can’t turn on us anymore, she’ll turn on you.” 

That’s Sollecito. When he goes to prison, he’ll have no one left to turn on—except Knox.  And he’ll do it.  He’s already made some forays in that direction.

Posted by Ceylon on 05/09/14 at 02:18 PM | #

@Ceylon, Louis Auchincloss quote is apt. I stumbled across one of his books at my aunt’s beach cottage, “The Rector of Justin”. Auchincloss was born to write, what a voice.

So many fabulous posts and comments lately since Nencini report. Knox as good as tells Nencini “your motivations report can’t make me guilty, nothing you write matters.” Unbelievable guff.

@aethelred23, Kate Beckinsale movie about Meredith’s case may actually be quite important to keep her name alive decades from now. Many historical things survive because of one simple movie or book.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/09/14 at 03:22 PM | #

I could not help but notice that Sollecito’s denial of involvement in Meredith’s murder comes in the form of “I did nothing wrong”.

Of course, Sollecito was involved in the murder for any number of reasons, (most probably as the poodle of Knox, carrying out her “plan” to “teach” Meredith a “lesson”), and so deceptively construe that he did “nothing wrong”.

This kind of ambivalent claim of having done “nothing wrong” would NEVER, in my opinion, fall from the lips of a truly innocent person, who would simply state, “I did not kill Meredith nor was I involved, in any way, in her murder”.

The innocent have nothing to fear from and in fact, insist on speaking out clearly and unambiguously and certainly do not create a conflicting new version of the “truth” each time their latest one starts to unravel in the light of new, factual revelations.

Likewise, Knox sees herself as “innocent”, not because she knows it to be true, (as an innocent person would assert repeatedly), but rather that there is “no evidence” of her involvement in the murder.

Thus, Knox is less interested in proclaiming her “innocence”, (probably because she knows that she is guilty as hell), but rather in “winning the evidence game” and thereby proving herself “smarter” than the prosecution.

Such breath-taking arrogance from both of them!

Posted by Mealer on 05/10/14 at 12:37 PM | #

Hi Mealer

Yeah, right-on. “I did nothing wrong” is almost a laughline these days in the United States. We hear it all the time as white-collar crime suspects are rounded up and get squeezed into the back of cop cars. And we all go “uh-oh!!!”

SeekingUnderstanding etc have posted repeatedly on Knox being totally unable to go the whole way in denying any role at all, and using “I’m innocent” as a surrogate for “she really had it coming”.

There’s also an “I’m smarter than the cops are” tone to Knox’s statements oincluding the email to Judge Nencini and the contradiction of Judge Nencini we took apart.

We see the same in Sollecito’s statements, Doug Preston’s statements, Steve Moore’s statements (when it comes to Italian cops), and on and on. All these geniuses are smarter than Italian cops.

In the case of Amanda Knox, Marriott and Ted Simon would have been involved in the new statement against Nencini for sure.

Ted Simon has yet to do even one thing that suggests to me “Yes he’s competent, understands the case, and is doing his best for Knox”.

The post below on the anti-Nencini statement suggests Ted Simon is absolutely appalling at his job and is getting the most basic things wrong.

There have been hits that Ted Simon has been let go - his name was not on Knox’s blog among the list of help. I wonderw hy…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/11/14 at 08:25 AM | #

Yes, ...as suggested here:
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_amanda_knox_trainwreck_what_the_newly_published_knox_writings_reve/
..being seen to be ‘innocent’ - in her public persona - does seem to be more important than the facts.
‘Whether I am a murderer or not,’ she said, ’ I am seen as one.’ That appears to be what is making her so angry, -how she is seen - and determined ‘to win’ as she puts it.

The other phrase heard repetitively from her, is :
‘I don’t deserve this’.

Does ‘this’ refer to the media circus? It needs to be remembered that, along with her family, she chose ‘this’.
She chose to implicate Patrick, and asked to give her voluntary statements. According to Raphaele, she chose to ask him to lie, straight afterwards.
Somebody chose to take away Meredith’s phones, and leave her so terribly. Somebody chose to stage a break-in.
She made choices all along the way - including whether or not to go for a fast track trial, and so on.

We all have to learn to take responsibility in life for the choices we make. When we have made a bad choice, we need to acknowledge this and learn from it.
If we don’t own our choices, then life will keep coming back at us, over and over again, until we do.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/11/14 at 09:35 AM | #

Hi Peter, I have been following the Harok family murders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Dahlgren#Kevin_Dahlgren

for an overview of how the courts might treat an extradition request for an American citizen.

Kevin Dahlgren was arrested on an international arrest warrant by US police after returning from the Czech Republic, for the knife murders of several members of his family while on vacation from mental health problems. He left DNA behind at the crime scene, and got on a plane immediately after the murder, but arrested as soon as he arrived. A US judge has already ruled on probable cause and ordered his extradition.

From the cite above, “He is represented “in absentia” by a court appointed attorney, Richard Špíšek, in the Czech murder proceedings,[3] and by Theodore Simon, formerly Amanda Knox′s attorney, in extradition proceedings taking place in Alexandria, Virginia.[4] If convicted, Dahlgren, who denies responsibility for the murders,[5] could be sentenced up to life imprisonment in the Czech Republic.[2]

I’m sure that Ted Simon will be hired again by Amanda Knox as soon as the extradition warrant is received, if for no other reason that he’s more ‘media spokesperson’ than effective attorney.

The Dahlgren family is wealthy and fighting the proceedings. Perhaps the Innocence Project franchise and several DNA/ex-FBI experts for hire might snap at this? Ron Hendry to peruse crime scene photographs to say where the investigators ‘got it all wrong’? Too bad they didn’t have a convenient black man to blame for the killings.

Posted by Ergon on 05/11/14 at 05:02 PM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Amanda Knox’s Awkward, Robotic TV Appearances: New Science Could Blow Away Such Fraud

Or to previous entry See Sollecito’s & Gumbel’s Myriad Defamatory Attacks On Italian Justice; Charges Are Expected