Heads-up: Netflix's "Amanda Knox" is in possible line for a TV Emmy award in category 28. Via hundreds of key facts omitted that production, by longtime Knox PR flunkies (which Netflix kept secret), convinced millions globally that Italian justice sucks, and that Knox had zero role in Meredith's death - not even the Italian Supreme Court said that.



Kercher Family Lawyer Walks Out As Amanda Knox Engages In What Looks Like Yet Another Stunt

Posted by Peter Quennell


The other day Meredith’s father John made a strong plea for the cruel and callous PR games to stop.

John Kercher made it pretty clear that he disbelieves EVERYTHING now that Amanda Knox and her parents say in their endless media quotes and appearance.  The English version of John Kercher’s letter is here and the Italian version is here.

Amanda Knox’s mother Edda Mellas was almost immediately reported as reacting to John Kercher thus:

Mellas also addressed the issue today on KIRO Radio in Seattle saying the Kerchers do not “know the whole story.” She said they were not in court except for a few days during Amanda’s trial and feels that they fell “hook, line and sinker” for what their lawyer and prosecutors told them. “They may not have the whole picture,” she said.

That callous and inaccurate reaction did Edda Mellas no good at all. Many who were still cutting her a little slack were appalled by this dishonest and smearing attack.

In fact the Kercher family have been extremely well informed and they have remained singularly cool-headed, dignified and truthful throughout. .

Unlike Edda Mellas they have actually read the Massei Sentencing Report. Unlike Edda Mellas they show no signs of having swallowed anything hook line and sinker. Unlike Edda Mellas they do not again and again lie about basic facts of the case. Unlike Edda Mellas, they did not hide the fact that an innocent man, Patrick Lumumba, was in jail because Amanda Knox lied to put him there. 

And unlike Edda Mellas their view of Amanda Knox’s guilt is no different from maybe 95 per cent of the Italian population. They do get the whole picture.

Time for damage control?  Today in court, Amanda Knox seemed to set out to try something completely different. A limited qualified evasive emotional non-explanation of an explanation. An “I didnt do it but I am so sorry for Meredith and her family anyway” kind of hangout.

To underline his contempt for this ploy, Mr Maresca conspicuously walked out of the court when Amanda Knox started her rambling nervous statement. If the statement actually won any new sympathy for her among the case-watchers in Italy, we are not seeing this reflected in the Italian media reports.

Here is Nick Pisa reporting objectively from Perugia in the Daily Telegraph - in his final para below, it seems he has the same interpretation of the real purpose of Amanda Knox’s statement as we do. 

Knox, 23, broke down several times as she delivered an emotional 20-minute address to the court hearing her formal appeal against conviction, her voice sometimes quavering as she claimed that she had nothing to do with Miss Kercher’s brutal death.

The American dismissed the prosecution’s view of her, saying she was not the “dangerous, diabolical, jealous, uncaring and violent” person depicted during her original trial, telling the court: “That girl is not me.”

Knox also expressed her sympathy towards’s Miss Kercher’s family and friends and said through tears: “I am very sorry that Meredith is no longer here. I have little sisters as well and the thought of being without them terrorises me.

“What you are going through and what Meredith went through is unacceptable and incomprehensible. I remember Meredith and my heart breaks for you. I am honoured to have known her. I don’t know how you must feel, your suffering over a lost life.”

Knox’s words appeared to be in response to John Kercher, Meredith’s father, who recently complained that Knox had been accorded the “status of a minor celebrity” while his daughter was a forgotten victim.

Amazingly, all three of the largest US networks had Ella Mellas on their breakfast shows, unchallenged and fawning, to claim that Amanda Knox’s performance was amazing. Edda Mellas of course speaks no Italian.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Italian reporting highlighted Mr Maresca walking out and reported his highly critical statement verbatim. NO media website today carried a majority of pro-Knox comments.

And in making herself so obviously the center of the universe in her statement, Amanda Knox may have already cooked her own goose with the new judges.

[Below: This now is a full audio recording of the full statement of Amanda Knox with court images ]

 




Comments

The Italian media in their final reports for the day are stating that both defense teams explained further their requests for new witnesses and for more forensic tests.

Decisions on these requests will be announced by the judge at the next appeal session on December 18th.

Next thursday the 16th the Cassazione (roughly Italian supreme appeals court) will start to hear Rudy Guede’s final appeal.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/11/10 at 04:21 PM | #

I noticed Patrick Lumumba was there…did he make a statement?

Knox’s demeanor is quite different now…maybe she realizes proceedings in a court for murder is serious business?

Who can blame the Kercher’s attorney for storming out of court room?

Posted by giustizia on 12/11/10 at 04:50 PM | #

Here from the news service ADNKronos is the most complete report of Amanda Knox’s statement to the judge to appear yet.

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

“We are paying with our lives for a crime which we have not committed” said Amanda Knox in the voluntary statement made before the Assize Court of Appeals, after requesting to speak. “I am innocent and Raffaele is innocent. We did not kill Meredith”

She repeated this over and over again in the very long 15 minute statement in tears and added “Perhaps we should have said this before. A mistake was made by the judges and no justice will be arrived at for Meredith by condemning us who had nothing to do with it. No justice is done by taking away our lives”

To the family of Meredith “I want to say I am very sorry that she is no more here. Also I have small sisters and it even scares me to think that they could suffer…. Every day I remember Meredith and my heart is broken…”

“The death of Meredith was a terrible shock for me. She was my new friend. A reference point for me here in Perugia… and she was killed. With her death I recognize my own vulnerability”

Amanda stated that she trusted Raffaele and he proves a source of reassurance, comfort, availability’ and love. She also trusted authorities’ investigation “because I want to help bring justice to Meredith.”

Amanda said her arrest and conviction was unjust and she was aware than ever of this “harsh and undeserved” experience and reality…. I still have hope in justice and a dream of a future, although this experience of three years of anguish and fear weighs heavy”

She termed it “a shock” at being arrested and charged. “I took a long time to face the reality’ of being wrongly accused. I was in prison, my face was everywhere. They would gossip about me, almost always insidiously, unjustly and badly about my private life. My experience of this is unacceptable.”

She said she hoped for a long time that “this huge mistake would be recognized.” Because of this “every single day in jail or in the prison was one day closer to my freedom.. This was my consolation.”

“I’m not the person that the prosecution insists that I am. Not at all…  According to them I am a dangerous, evil, jealous, violent and uncaring girl. Their hypotheses are dependent on this, yet I’ve never been that girl…never once” she insisted.

People who know me can testify to my person, my real past, no one told the tabloids about this, it would show what I have always been, as I really am.”

“If this is not enough, I invite you to ask people that I have remained with for the past three years. Ask if I have ever been violent and uncaring about the sufferings that are part of the broken lives in prison. They will tell you that I’m not so”

“I have never resembled the person that reflected the charges… How could I be capable of such violence as Meredith has suffered? That girl is not me. I am not the girl who I was claimed to be.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/11/10 at 04:54 PM | #

Francesco Maresca is being reported as saying “I got up and walked out of the courtroom when the American student started to speak.”

“I left because apologies seem very late and they only took place after the father of Mez, in one of his few statements, said that he never hears anyone mention his daughter.”

“These excuses now seem entirely inappropriate, they seem designed solely to affect this appeal process, and as I do not like such controversy I dutifully left the court.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/11/10 at 05:06 PM | #

Her defence are going to question the forensic gathering process - hence the crime scene images displayed on the big screen in the courtroom today after the first break.

From what I can see today they are selling a ‘before and after’ presentation initially, with images of the crime scene when first encounted and then images of the same room juxtaposed with when the bra clasp with abundant amounts of knifeboys DNA on it was collected.

Of course any attempt to discredit the forensic scientists in this case (if successful) would then have to follow on and explain why the techniques and procedures they employed in gathering evidence of Rudy Guede were flawless, but then again we all know this dont we.

Posted by Black Dog on 12/11/10 at 05:11 PM | #

Those eyes, that smirk/smile still unnerve me, yet in her speech today, from what I have heard, there seemed to be genuine, deep felt emotion, with her voice quivering and faltering.  Sounded tearful and on the verge of breaking down.  Are we dealing with a real dual-personality psychopath?

Posted by Lola on 12/11/10 at 05:29 PM | #

By Storm Roberts (Innai)

Big change from the words on the stand last June where Knox explained her feelings as, and I paraphrase, she’d known Meredith about a month and she was trying to get on with her life.

I can’t help but agree with Mr. Maresca.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 12/11/10 at 05:34 PM | #

Hi Lola,

Amanda Knox was lying through her teeth - again. She said exactly what her lawyers wanted her to say. I’m sure she was genuinely upset that she’s currently serving a life sentence and is worried that she won’t win her appeals.

Posted by The Machine on 12/11/10 at 05:46 PM | #

Apparently the theatrical stuff she is doing in prison has served her well.  If we didn’t know that she is a self-centered lying murderess we might have believed this performance!  Nice try Foxy Knoxy, but you’re not fooling anyone.

Posted by Mo-in-Mass.,USA on 12/11/10 at 06:16 PM | #

Amanda Knox shows typical narcissistic traits. Even when she is talking about Meredith, she always come back to how it has affected her (Amanda). Her emotional plea is probably heartfelt, but it is based on the prospect of spending years in jail, rather than the death of Meredith, where previously she has had a casual and even jaunty attitude.

The degree to which the media hang on the words of the accused (and now convicted) killers and their relatives, has always surprised me in this case. I can’t think of any other cases where they have aligned so closely with the accused. I perhaps can see why Mr Kercher has refrained from comment before, when the media give such a platform to the relatives of the killers.

Posted by bobc on 12/11/10 at 07:08 PM | #

A quick survey of English-language website moods don’t make things look any better for Knox - in fact, today she really seems to have lost her crowd..

1) Barbie Nadeau on the CNN website.

Comments trending strongly against Amanda Knox.

2) Andrea Vogt on the Seattle PI website.

Only 3 comments right now none pro-Knox.

3) Daily Mail staff on the Daily Mail website.

Comments and commentt ratings trending strongly against Amanda Knox.

4) The usual suspects on Perugia Murder File.

Comments trending strongly against Amanda Knox.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/11/10 at 07:12 PM | #

A 20 minute plea for leniency, for her life?  I wonder how long Meredith pleaded for mercy?

Too bad in a speech, again about herself, Amanda did not pick an alibi which might finally correspond with the other 2 convicted murderers in this case. The courts and investigators and Kercher family have been waiting for the answers on the alibi discrepencies for years now and it looks like there won’t be any answers with this appeal. 

But back to the show…

Posted by Jumpy on 12/11/10 at 07:44 PM | #

Amanda Knox takes a leaf from Bill Clinton’s notorious diversionary manouevre:  “ It all depends on the meaning of the word “is.”

Her current effort to manipulate her world uses emotion, reinforced by tears, to divert the issue into a debate about what she “is”, away from the actual issue, which is what she did..

I have confidence that the Italian System will keep its focus on the issue of what she did.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/11/10 at 10:33 PM | #

Earl Grey over on PMF came up with a sarcastic re-translation of the “condolences” of Knox to Meredith’s family and her brazen attempts to equate her deserved loss with their very real and very undeserved loss:

“My lawyers told me that my lack of human empathy and display of extreme callousness didn´t go over so well at the previous trial, so it is my hope that if I say certain things—things which—and let´s be perfectly frank—I don´t actually feel on account of my narcissistic, psychopathic tendencies—it will make everyone feel a little better and I´ll hopefully get that much-needed reduction in my sentence that I´ve got a strong hankering for like you wouldn´t believe.”

“So, in conclusion, peace to all. Certain mistakes were made; but the important thing for all of you to know is that the inconveniences of prison have worked a change in me for the better and have made me wish for simpler, pre-murder times that I dearly and earnestly want to get back to. So please won´t you help me get back to that life? Why, the chances of my reoffending are—pfft—practically astronomical.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/11/10 at 11:20 PM | #

“I don’t know how to face the time ahead”...therein you gave yourself away, ms. knox—naturally, it’s really all about you!

Posted by mojo on 12/11/10 at 11:46 PM | #

“So hungry I could murder a pizza” -Amanda Knox

Something’s not right.

Posted by Jumpy on 12/12/10 at 12:00 AM | #

Of all the disturbing, distasteful images of Amanda Knox that we have seen in the past 3+ years since the horrific murder of Meredith Kercher, the photo that accompanies this post is the most awful and telling. It’s the most blatant, creepy, stomach-turning, portrait of false, manipulative humility and supplication I’ve ever seen. 

For the first act, she played the *guileless coed* in silly, frilly bright-colored t-shirts. Now, for the second act (when she tries to make everyone forget the unbelievably thoughtless, foolish things she said and did during the trial), she will appear in somber tops that look like hairshirts.

I am copying a couple of (astute) comments to Barbie Nadeau’s article:

“What an amazing physical transformation she’s undergone in prison—from foxy knoxy to glowing Saint Joan. I say light the torch and see if God allows the fire to burn.”

“LOL - Couldnt put my finger on it ... but the Saint Joan image it is…which makes her even more scary. “

Perhaps after ten years in prison, Knox will learn to identify with the character and it will appear less as an early rehearsal and more as a role she has grown into.

The performance today only added insult to the injury of taking Meredith’s life and telling a string of lies to cover up for the crime. I salute Francesco Maresca for leaving the courtroom. I think he acted on behalf of many thousands of people around the world who would have liked to demonstrate their disgust by doing the same.

The endless references to her ‘plight,’ her family and finally to Raffaele for his “consolance,” “love,” etc. (gag me) were really more than anyone should have to listen to—certainly more than I could stand. Not only do these statements demonstrate her extreme narcissism, but the exaggeration and high drama gestures used to express them only draw attention to their feckless, empty core. Let’s see… Raffaele, the friendless loner, avid fan of violent and bestial pornography… love? consolance? Really? 

Anyway, as pointed out by Cardiol, who cares? Much as the Knox/Mellas melee would like to distract us from this truth, she’s not on trial for who she is. She’s on trial for WHAT SHE DID.

And, by the way, when Knox got to the part about the huge mistake, she forgot to reference the earliest scenes in the play when she herself made the first and biggest mistake of all: the mistake she made when she decided to let ‘Amanda be Amanda’ and play Russian roulette with Meredith Kercher’s life.

Posted by wayra on 12/12/10 at 02:16 AM | #

Wayra, I could never say it better.  Thank you.

Posted by Jumpy on 12/12/10 at 02:28 AM | #

p.s. the photo i was referring to seems to have been replaced by a video. peter, perhaps we could get it back up there. most of the media outlets aren’t using it—for obvious reasons.

Posted by wayra on 12/12/10 at 02:34 AM | #

Hi Wayra. Great interpretation. The photo is back up because it does tell a key part of yesterday’s story. In two or three minutes she was into that statement and pulling out all the emotional stops. Her demeanor did affect several or some in the court though the words still tell an “its all about me” story that would be immensely hurtful to Meredith’s family.

There are actually several dozen images of her like this taken over the past two years including several more yesterday where a weird mood change is captured. One yesterday had her laying her head on her lawyer’s shoulder.

On the whole we didnt use such shots because seen together they feed the impression that she is really out to lunch. Although most of us think she is damaged, none of us think she is so far gone that she deserves out on a mental incompetence plea.

She knows what she is doing and she is following a learning curve. Our poster Some Alibi who is a lawyer pointed out on PMF that images of Knox like that in court do subvert the new Joan of Arc act and that her lawyers should help her with a bit more leaning there.

By the way there really are no images like those images of Sollecito or Guede. Theirs range from smiling through cold calm to anger. Sollecito does look at times a little psycho but not in this telling kind of way.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/10 at 09:46 AM | #

Here’s an interesting quote from Patrick Lumumba, who Knox falsely accused of rape and murder, from Andrea Vogt’s Seattle PI article:

‘In a break after Knox’s statement, Lumumba told seattlepidotcom he felt her apology lacked sincerity, however.

“If she had said it to me in the first weeks, after I got out of isolation, and we were both going in front of the judge, well then I would have believed her. But now, three years later, well, it seems like strategy. It as if she’s playing a card game and she’s losing, so she’s playing every card she’s got.”’

Seems as if Lumumba is not buying the Saint Joan act.

Posted by giustizia on 12/12/10 at 09:58 AM | #

I have said this before; she is a consummate actress of the highest order. A true thespian.

I personally do not buy her impassioned plea, simply for the reason that it has been 3 years in coming.

3 years? You expect people to believe you right now at the start of your appeal when you have had 3 long and hard years to say this?

People have speculated since yesterday about her scriptwriter for this performance.  It seems to me that her mother Edda Mellas and Madison Paxton wrote her speech with some input from Ted Simon.

Look at what she said - it is identical to the tired and old mantra from her mother and her friend Madison Paxton.

Madison may wish her relationship with Amanda will be consummated some day but in the meantime she may realise that she has been under her spell - just like every other of her supporters.

Posted by Black Dog on 12/12/10 at 10:11 AM | #

Hi Black Dog. Very true. Shots available yesterday of Maddy Paxton in the courtroom make her look equally weird.

Soon there is going to be a “loopy girls in love” meme, which seems to me quite a PR disconnect if the new Knox is a shot at normality.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/10 at 11:14 AM | #

Isn’t it interesting how even when Knox tries to express “sympathy” with the Kercher family, it remains all “me me me me me me me” ?

Posted by Janus on 12/12/10 at 11:46 AM | #

Is that Raffaele’s handsome new lawyer who is the beneficiarie of her upward gaze and smile?

Posted by Lola on 12/12/10 at 01:10 PM | #

Hi Peter and co., don’t really know where to post this and apologies if it has appeared before but this is one of the best analyses of Knox’s written statement I have read.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/08/amanda-knox-statement.html

Posted by pensky on 12/12/10 at 01:44 PM | #

Great find Pensky. Certainly I had not been aware of that before though some of the others may know of it. An excellent analysis.

Can you Pensky or anyone spot a way to be in touch with the author, Seamus O’Reilly?  We should ask him if we can run it.

He seems to have been blogging previously as Peter Hyatt and adopted “Seamus O’Reilly” for his investigative analysis.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/10 at 02:05 PM | #

did amanda and madison and edda make a pact that they will never ever comb their hair again until amanda is out of prison?

Posted by wayra on 12/12/10 at 03:49 PM | #

“Great find Pensky. Certainly I had not been aware of that before though some of the others may know of it. An excellent analysis. “

Interesting that independent sites such as Seamus and Eyes for Lies conclude that Amanda is lying. They look at several cases and appear to have no preconceived opinion.

The Statement Analysis is interesting, it chimes with some research on the difference in the way people recall events, and the way liars fabricate a story. It’s not so hard to fabricate a story with some logical thought, but it is a lot harder to present the details in the same way as if they had actually been experienced.

The FOA seem to be making great play of Steve Moores claims. He claims Amanda was interrogated for 43 hours over 5 days? Surely that is not right?

Posted by bobc on 12/12/10 at 07:27 PM | #

Hi bobc. FOA? Steve Moore? Yawn. The commenters over on PMF have been watching them with passive amusement in the past couple of weeks. They are so tangled in their inaccurate facts and suppositions and obsessional hatred for Italy and the au8thorities that now nobody is listening -if they ever were.

All these claims of gigantic interrogations stem from Amanda Knox herself, who of course they believe like a bible. Ask them what came out of all those interrogations. Knox and Sollecito both broke easily on the night they were interrogated as witnesses and suspects. What else did they “confess” after that?

They seriously need to read Massei. The jury did NOT arrive at its verdict simply based on some supposed coerced confession.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/12/10 at 08:48 PM | #

By Storm Roberts (Innai)

.....and…..the latest I have just seen: Mr. Meresca was trying to upstage Knox!

Have a read: http://amandaknoxappealforum.blogspot.com/2010/12/amanda-knox-december-11-franceso.html

Sadly my comment didn’t seem to manage to upload - but here it is:

“I am disgusted that Mr. Maresca who has worked so hard and diligently for Meredith’s family and who has always shown such great compassion is now being attacked for continuing to show such deep respect for the victim, Meredith Kercher.

He is a lawyer, and of course he has more than one client at his practice.  I am sure that his workload is not all about Knox.  A busy, successful practice will have many clients being represented for many different cases.”


It is my understanding that Mr. Maresca was appointed by the court to look after the interests of Meredith’s family.  Can anyone confirm this?

Posted by Nolongeramember on 12/13/10 at 03:48 AM | #

Innai: That site doesn’t seem to accept any critical comments. It’s probably an FOA site.

Posted by CarlosNL on 12/13/10 at 05:13 AM | #

pensky: Thanks so much for that link (http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/08/amanda-knox-statement.html). I always felt Knox’s statement was weird. Now I know why.

Posted by CarlosNL on 12/13/10 at 05:19 AM | #

Mellas has been reported to have said:

“At the same time [when Amanda was making her statement] it was very moving,” he said. “Half the jury was crying. Members of the media were passing around tissues. Raffaele was choking back tears. I could see his lips quivering. Everyone said that when she was speaking, her voice had the very raw sense of pain and an incredible degree of honesty and emotion.”

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/12/12/news/amanda-knox-appeals-court-new-jury-members-cry

Is this true?

I just fail to see how anyone can believe her, it takes a quick look at her track record to realize that this is all an act or at the very best a ‘new’ Amanda. It does not change who she was and what she did to sweet Meredith.

Posted by Giselle on 12/13/10 at 05:27 AM | #

Mellas also made a point of Knox writing the statement herself: “This statement was all written down and written by her.” Reading http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com - statement analysis - and applying common sense; it seems strange that he had to state the obvious, making me question if it was actually Amanda who wrote the statement. I know there has been speculation about this here on TJMK also.

I found another strange statement in the same article:

Mellas explained, “The judge finished up his summary of the Massei Report, his synopsis of the judgement which is the ruling against Amanda and Raffaele, and he told the court, ‘The only thing we know for certain in this complex case is that Meredith was murdered.’ An attorney with an American TV network leaned over to me and said, ‘Oh my God, he just established reasonable doubt.’ This is a big deal.”

Posted by Giselle on 12/13/10 at 05:36 AM | #

Mellas also made a point of Knox writing the statement herself: “This statement was all written down and written by her.” Reading http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com - statement analysis - and applying common sense; it seems strange that he had to state the obvious, making me question if it was actually Amanda who wrote the statement. I know there has been speculation about this here on TJMK also.

I found another strange statement in the same article:

Mellas explained, “The judge finished up his summary of the Massei Report, his synopsis of the judgement which is the ruling against Amanda and Raffaele, and he told the court, ‘The only thing we know for certain in this complex case is that Meredith was murdered.’ An attorney with an American TV network leaned over to me and said, ‘Oh my God, he just established reasonable doubt.’ This is a big deal.”

Posted by Giselle on 12/13/10 at 05:37 AM | #

Giselle: If the judge had said “I know for sure that Amanda Knox killed Meredith”, the defence would, rightly, immediately ask him to recluse himself or ask for a mistrial. In other words the judge is merely indicating that he has an open mind, as he should have. Since when does that “establish reasonable doubt”?

Posted by CarlosNL on 12/13/10 at 07:38 AM | #

What we saw yesterday was an act of desperation (excuse the pun) followed by another act of desperation with the bizarre statement of Chris Mellas; our favourite man of the truth.

You go Chris! tell it as it is!

Of course the judge and jury members were all in floods of tears during the speech the Maid of Orleans gave to the whole world.

Seems to me that in the Knox/Mellas alternate universe there wasn’t a dry eye in the house.

But they would say that wouldn’t they?

If there are any doubting Thomas’s out there who perhaps maybe tended to give these people (and in particular Chris Mellas) the benefit of the doubt, I don’t think in all honesty they could do so now.

R.I.P. Meredith Kercher.

Posted by Black Dog on 12/13/10 at 07:48 AM | #

These inaccurate claims about Knox’s statement reposted in comments above were posted on low-volume sites in the US controlled by the Knox PR campaign.

We already had an example last year of misleading spin on how Knox came across. Claims were made that Knox’s two days on the stand were just great. The reporting and reactions in Italy were quite different and to Italian-speakers who watched live she did not come across at all well. And the Massei report showed she won no points

The Italian media and the few mainstream-media reports in the US (for example that by Andrea Vogt in the Seattle PI linked to above) all stated that the judges and lay judges sat there stony-faced and not visibly affected.

The lay judges had probably already been instructed in how to watch such statements, including taking note of facial expressions and body language. Also the demeanor of Sollecito who showed no expression and generally stared straight ahead.

Judge Hellman did NOT make the statement Chris Mellas claimed he did, he simply said the case was being approached with open minds, so the clained comment of the “attorney with an American TV network” about reasonable doubt is wrong or simply made up.

The Italian media and our own sources reported that Knox’s defiant statement went on and on for what seemed like forever, it was contemptuous of the police and investigators, it repeated the slander that Knox was made to finger Patrick by the interrogators, it was contemptuous of the judges in her main trial who had apparently made “a huge mistake”,  and it was in surprisingly disjointed and incorrect Italian for a language student who has been in Italy for three years.

The excellent lawyers posting on PMF have taken the statement as a big mistake and a sure sign of defense weakness. They have really taken the statement apart. Several have pointed out that if Amanda Knox does not take the stand to testify now (where she will probably be roasted in cross-examination) she will be cooked for not having done so.

With no explanation for all the damning evidence and no demonstrated sign that she is capable of rethinking or learning anything or showing any contrition, she may well be in line now for a tougher sentence.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/13/10 at 07:59 AM | #

Carlos, I hope you did not take my quote from Mellas as my personal opinion - I was putting it out there as an ‘odd’ statement - just another turn of the PR wheel. I think it is a ‘lost in translation’ kind of comment and of course as you say it is only to show the judge has an open mind.

But the jury “crying” - did this really happen? I read that the judge did not so much as twitch whilst he listened to her 20 minute plea for freedom. I just wonder if anyone commenting here was in the courtroom or could comment on this?! Its bizarre! and has not been reported anywhere else, yet.

If it is true, then the FOA can this time believe that the jury are impartial and not influenced by anything but the facts! When they are shown the evidence, they will become all the more aware of what a self-centered lying and manipulating girl they are dealing with.

Posted by Giselle on 12/13/10 at 08:07 AM | #

Looking into the jury’s “reported” tears by Mellas - Andrea Vogt reported “The judges and jury showed no emotion.”  As already presumed. another lie from boy toy Mellas.

Posted by Giselle on 12/13/10 at 08:27 AM | #

12/13/10
Song of the Murderess

I am the ghost that haunts my own dreams.

Hear me sing. My voice breaks, quakes. It falters and shakes. The police made mistakes. I sing loud with passion at all the wrong notes.

My new song rises on wings of horror. An Edward Munch scream is the music you hear. I’ve destroyed everything, now I’m here. I quiver and sob at the thought of my rotten cell.

My thousand year Reich lasted a few days. Twilight of the false gods, hear me crescendo at all points in my appeal speech that start and end with me. O solo mio…me me me me me, la la la la la, do a deer a female deer, ray me fa so la ti do re me me me me. Let me clear my throat.

Posted by Hopeful on 12/13/10 at 09:47 AM | #

Hopeful, you always have such a personal way to put things into place, thank you!

She said she was into shock for being arrested ????  Is it the reason she smirked all trial long, and had this daring attitude? She did not look much in shock to me.

Have you noticed, on the link provided by Giselle, Steve Shay created a match made in heaven: he mentions Amanda’s step-father, Curt Mellas wink

Posted by Patou on 12/13/10 at 10:04 AM | #

Perhaps not completely OT.

Roma, Dec. 13, 2010

The Attorney General of the Supreme Court (Cassazione), dott. Galati, asked the judges of the Supreme Court to confirm the life sentence against Mario Alessi, a laborer who seized Tommaso Onofri, just 18 months, near Parma, March 2, 2006. The child was killed the same evening of the kidnapping. Also asked confirmation of the sentence to 30 years in prison for his partner. Alessi’s lawyer has asked to set aside the conviction.

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/topnews/2010/12/13/visualizza_new.html_1670653868.html

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

Chris Mellas = The Benefactor of the Doubt.

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

I was wondering if the Kerchers could not testify? Amanda and her gang keep repeating that she and Meredith were “friends” which obviously is not the truth. They always relied, it seems, on the Kercher’s elegance: they did not testify, they did not say anything until lately.

The gang’s reaction then spoke volumes: they are scared to death that the Kerchers will eventually show their teeth. Eddas & Curt kept “explaining” why they did not present their condolences, and Amanda presented hers on Saturday.

To me, it shows they want sympathy, yes, but also they do not want the Kerchers to get too nervous. Certainly Mrs Kercher, who spoke daily with her daughter and therefore also discussed the small & big mutual frustrations, should know in what state of spirit Meredith was the last days…

We all know, but to know it publicly would be a blow for the PR parade ....

Posted by Patou on 12/13/10 at 02:15 PM | #

Patou, I am not a lawyer but it seems, since Kercher family are “la parte lesa” in the concurrent civil trial, there should be “technical” problems about their eventual deposition, giving an help to the defense. Maybe their lawyer prefers avoid it.

Of course only italian:

http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=7196
http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=7197

Posted by ncountryside on 12/13/10 at 03:57 PM | #

The Supreme Court has definitively confirmed the life sentence against Mario Alessi and annulled the sentence to 30 years in prison for Antonella Conserva, for her, a new trial to clarify her responsibilities in Assize Court of Appeal of Bologna

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo498133.shtml

Posted by ncountryside on 12/13/10 at 04:20 PM | #

Grazie ncountryside! Certo che così ... forse meglio di no!

Posted by Patou on 12/13/10 at 04:40 PM | #

I have always been disgusted by the many photos showing Amanda’s demeanour in court, smiling and smirking often, uncharacteristic for an innocent person standing trial for murder, one would think.

Looking at this new photo from her, I cannot help it, but she looks absolutely crazy. She looks like a begging dog and at the same time she smiles. Everything is always about her, nothing changed.

Listening to her spontaneous statement, I cannot believe anyone (except her family) has been moved by her latest outbreak of “emotion”.

Posted by Nell on 12/13/10 at 08:13 PM | #

It is just me or do others think Sollecito looks proud in the photos of his latest court appearance? I suppose he could be trying to look confident, but there seems to be certain smugness there, to me anyway.

Posted by CarlosNL on 12/14/10 at 08:32 AM | #

CarlosNL,

In an earlier post, some of us were discussing changes in Raffaele’s appearance and behavior. We surmised that he may be on antidepressants, which would account for the weird affect. Or, shall we say, heightening an already weird affect, ie. smugness—the counterpart to Knox’s barely disguised smirking.

Posted by wayra on 12/14/10 at 11:39 AM | #

I have only just realized how much emphasis the FOA place on the DNA and forensic evidence. For the past month I have been reading up on cases where convictions have been upheld based on much less DNA evidence - in some cases the victim survives (so there is no doubt that they have the right man so to speak) yet there is no DNA evidence at a brutal scene where others have been murdered.

Whilst reading these cases, I came across the “CSI effect” - though I always assumed that CSI shows had an effect on how people looked at cases I did not realize that there had been so many studies into the subject by criminologists. Apparently it is a major problem, especially in the US, where juries want to see forensic evidence - just like on TV !!

This is the “market” Knox PR have penetrated. Unfortunately it will take time for people not in law enforcement or forensics etc to understand that what happens in the movies is NOT what happens in reality. The costs are too high, the technology is often not there and so much evidence goes unnoticed…I wish I could open these FOA brains and deposit this information in there so they would stop supporting a couple of murderers simply because they have watched too much TV.

Posted by Giselle on 12/14/10 at 02:47 PM | #

12/14/10\

Amanda quotes The Simpsons, “Stand up for yourself, Poindexter.” This Simpson episode is “The Summer of 4 Foot 2”. The “Stand up for Yourself, Poindexter” line I think is prompted by Bart and Homer playing the game of “Mystery Date”. It was popular with girls in the ‘60s.

Bart had picked up the dud card which bore a striking resemblance to Milhouse. Homer did much better with his date card: “Ooooo, the captain of the football team. He’s a dreamboat! Don’t wait up, Marge.”

Mystery Date was a fun board game with a white plastic door in the center. The door has a big raised question mark on it painted bright metallic. Girls move around the gameboard for a chance to open the door. Sometimes a good looking date awaits, sometimes a dud.

The Summer of 4 Foot 2 was about Lisa Simpson. School’s out and she finds few autographs in her yearbook, so she drastically changes her personality to acquire new friends.

I think Amanda feels she got the dud card in life. “Poindexter” refers to a nerdy type who lacks the brains of a true nerd.

This info from “Earl Camembert” poster on a Simpson website. You can find “Mystery Date” 60’s commercial on YouTube. I’ve lost e-dress, sorry.

Amanda’s wobbly, off focus speech at appeal is a flop. She’s sure not standing up for herself. She seems less innocent than ever. She agonizes over her inability to save herself with words, as if verbal skills were the issue of truth. She despairs at this intellectual weakness because it makes her unable to erect a powerful enough lie to protect her. She really believes that with just the right words on her tongue, she could elude the justice system and erase truth.

She spends too much introductory time in the appeal speech digging into her own psyche and examining her brain functions and wondering why she is too compliant. This trait has snagged her for 26 years in prison, she implies. If only she could stand up for himself, all would be revealed as a mistake. “Stand up for yourself, Poindexter.” This bizarre and tedious examination of her personality begins one of the most important speeches of her life.

Maybe it’s an improvement on the vibrator description at her first trial. After her opening words in a long and circular detour with needless vagaries about her mental process, her much later inclusion of Meredith’s name, included several times near the end for emphasis, seems contrived. “Imagine” a bathtub of volume versus a teacup.

Amanda’s real interests? She clearly states them as wishing to get her words heard by those who are not here. What does that mean, those who are not here? David Johnsrud? Seattle admirers? anyone outside the prison? She says this is her only real concern, getting the word out, her words. One would think the main concern would be clarifying her every action on the night of the murder rather than referring prison inmates as character references. Ludicrous.

As Patrick said, she’s in a desperate game now and playing all of her cards. Her brazen tendency is intact, to overplay her hand. It’s the firstborn- hardcore-manipulate-and-dominate, don’t tell me what to do style. Any good lawyer could have told her what to say, or drafted her a sensible, pared down speech with emphasis on the most vital aspects of her innocence, the simple things that jurors wait to hear.

Amanda dodges the basics as always and forces her eager listeners to chase her and listen twice to get the slightest glimmer of her message. Passive-aggressive tactic? If there’s ever a time for plain speaking, it would be in a murder appeal.

Like Patrick, I was touched by Amanda’s sad, weeping voice and incoherent wordshake because it’s hard to see raw suffering. I think most of her tears were for herself, but no doubt she is truly suffering and unhappy. Jail has a way of doing that. Other than this natural sympathy, she irritates and angers me because she is misleading people again, hiding from the main issues in a storm of words.

Same song, second verse.

Posted by Hopeful on 12/14/10 at 04:59 PM | #

Thank you Hopeful for your insightful post. It was a great read.

Her trembling voice was horrible to hear for me, first because I thought of Meredith’s tears, her pain and her last scream for dear life - second because I feel it must make it so much worse to bear prison while her parents and friends constantly tell her she is innocent and does not deserve to be in prison, and how it is wasting her life and she should study for when she gets out etc and how it will all be better soon. She knows she isnt going anywhere for a long time, it must make amplify her misery.

If only she would confess - it would be a weight of her shoulders and perhaps her conscious could be somewhat easier that she has given the Kercher family the peace they are asking for.

Posted by Giselle on 12/14/10 at 10:14 PM | #

The disturbing photo above shows an Amanda we haven’t seen before despite all the many pictures of this face.

(And compare her remark on that occasion when testifying: “I was in prison, my face was everywhere.”  A metaphor unconsciously suggestive of “splits” in the personality.)

Because this face is surely a study in the young woman’s psychopathology:

(a) Whatever else, this is not the candid open face of innocence.

(b) Tilted somewhat needlessly with the effect of its being thrust forward.

(c) Eyes fairly inviting some sort of intimate bond.  Almost like conspiracy.

(d) Her smile is the most disturbing feature. Deliberate yet suggestive of a deep pleasure restrained—if also promised.

Only contrast the entirely expressionless face atop today’s (Thursday’s) page. Although not beautiful Amanda is good-looking. 

I see not the least hint of a crease between the eyebrows on that smooth forehead: no hint of worry, thought or concern.

Amanda tries to repudiate the deed of which she stands convicted by repudiating an earlier Self: “I am not that woman.” 

Altogether the wrong direction: she seeks to flee that aspect of herself she must acknowledge before any change can be hoped for.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 12/16/10 at 12:04 PM | #

I have now listened twice to the full recording of Amanda’s self-testimony (very good to have this even though I don’t know Italian.)

Apart from tears, sniffles & quavering voice, it doesn’t flow. She must have written it out with some care but she reads it haltingly & at first with a certain dulness—as if (at first) it suffices her just to get through these sentences which end rather flatly.

Vivacity is mostly lacking. In consideration of what she sets out to say & given such Italian as she has learned in three years’ time, she would have been far more effective speaking spontaneously & holding herself to, at most, a few minutes.

As she has not the face of innocence, so this is not the voice or manner of innocence. I have no wish to be harsh but do endeavor to be honest. This longish artificial speech, I feel, is a failure.

As an exegetical detail, her claim to be “terrified” at the thought of such atrocity happening to her little sisters (“terrified” echoes the Italian) is psychologically implausible.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 01/16/11 at 01:42 PM | #

Good that TJMK is to focus on Sollecito after its Memorial page on the anniversary of Meredith’s death with poems & comments & Albinoni’s baroque Italian music, which is inexpressibly moving. Sollecito invites attention following his current interviews which go beyond anything Amanda has been allowed, although in seeming irony there’s much to be seen & read of her in British tabloids or Hollywood’s TMZ.

I slip into an older post to comment on her current role, which strikes me as imposture.  Although no longer victim of an Italian legal system & its theft of years—not now that the cage is sprung & the bird has flown—she continues to figure as a victim of the news itself & specifically of such tabloids (Mirror or Telegraph) as print her many photos.  Like any reluctant celebrity she wants her privacy. She wants her own life.

And her fans understand this.  The least notice of a new boyfriend (?) in the SeattlePI brings out a host of Knox supporters howling against such constant intrusions.  Said notice by the way, abbreviated & with photos is borrowed from the UK Mirror, showing yet again that a Seattle newspaper is unable to produce its own news of this famous local woman.  In truth, the howling of the fans serves the aims of a managed PR program which foists its contrived product as “news” to keep Amanda visibly before the public in her daily effort to return to normal life while “keeping a low profile.”

In the photo of Amanda walking with a new & bearded “boyfriend” she is shown walking hand in hand in studied ostentation because these locked hands are held shoulder high lest we overlook them.  Or you may see in other photos the white & red flag stripes of Amanda’s bold kerchief as a specimen of the modest effort on her part to “keep a low profile.”

She goes through the motions of her several assignments willingly enough, as it seems, but an underlying pathology in flagrant defiance of restrictions & morality is no doubt yet fully alive.  It was exactly this dark passion that drove her away from family oversight four years ago & nothing has been done to address it.  We are told by Mr. Knox that she will not be counseled.  Very well, then!  But how long can she be programed day by day to serve a purchased image in hopes of TV cash?  And for that matter, how long before the TV networks decide to turn away from mere PR in a case like this?

Were the full imposture to be seen, or seen through, the Knox balloon might burst & with it, farewell big winnings. I think an inherent contradiction of the sort here described is necessarily unstable, but time will tell.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 11/05/11 at 01:29 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 Video Of The Last Scenes Poor Meredith Saw In Her Life Before She Arrived Home Fatefully

Or to previous entry The Two Convicted Seen Arriving For Their Weekly Date In Appeal Court