Revenge of the Knox, Series 4: Exposing The Tortured Logic That Permeates Her Book #2
Posted by Chimera
1. Series Overview
This is the second in a two part series contexted at the top of the previous post here.
Further context can be found in our numerous posts on the Knox psychology here. These passages go to show to what extreme lengths Knox had to go in contradicting her own self to make the big lie stick.
They are vital to all the hoaxes being pulled off.
It is deeply shameful that the book agent did not pick up on this, or the shadow writer, or the publishers, or any of the US media, or more than a very few readers - there are dozens of unquestioning 5-star reviews seething venom against Italy and the officials that handled the case.
2. Examples of Tortured Logic (Continued)
Tortured Logic #21: AK and RS go Before a Judge to Determine if They can be Released
[Chapter 14, page 164] ” ... Also in the room were three women. The one in black robes was Judge Claudia Matteini. Her secretary, seated next to her, announced, “Please stand.” In an emotionless monotone, the judge read, “You, Amanda Marie Knox, born 9 July 1987 in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., are formally under investigation for the murder of Meredith Kercher. How do you respond? You have the right to remain silent.”
[Chapter 14, Page 166] ” .... The report continued: “It is possible to reconstruct what happened on the evening of November 1.
Sollecito Raffaele and Knox Amanda spent the entire afternoon smoking hashish.”
Judge Matteini claimed that I met Patrick at a “previously arranged” time and that Raffaele, “bored of the same old evening"—a phrase Raffaele had once posted online about himself—came along.
She went on to say that we hadn’t called 112, the emergency number for the Carabinieri military police; that the Postal Police arrived at 12:35 P.M., and that our calls to 112 came afterward, at 12:51 P.M. and 12:54 P.M., suggesting that the police’s appearance at the house took us by surprise and our calls were an attempt at orchestrating the appearance of our innocence. It wasn’t until our trial that this accusation was proven to be erroneous.
The report said that in Raffaele’s second statement, made on November 5, he changed his story. Instead of saying that we’d stayed at his apartment all night, as he’d done originally, he told police we’d left my apartment to go downtown at around 8:30 or 9 P.M., that I went to Le Chic and he returned to his apartment. He said that I’d convinced him to
[Chapter 14, Page 168] ” ... “It’s the judge’s paperwork,” the male guard explained, his voice without inflection. “The confirmation of your arrest. It says the judge ‘applies the cautionary measure of custody in prison for the duration of one year.”’ “One year!” I cried out.
Commentary: This even though bail for such crimes does not exist and house arrest is very rare. If bail doesn’t exist, then why is she getting what amounts to a bail hearing?
Tortured Logic #22: Dalla Vedova and Ghirga Have Never Heard of a SECONDARY CRIME SCENE
[Chapter 27, Page 330] Carlo, who’d never sugarcoated my situation, said, “These are small-town detectives. They chase after local drug dealers and foreigners without visas. They don’t know how to conduct a murder investigation correctly. Plus, they’re bullies. To admit fault is to admit that they’re not good at their jobs. They suspected you because you behaved differently than the others. They stuck with it because they couldn’t afford to be wrong.”
Commentary: Just because a murder occurred in a single room, does not mean the surrounding areas are not relevant. If you consider Meredith’s room to be the primary crime scene:, then (a) Filomena’s room—the entry point; (b) the bathroom where Guede took a sh**; (c) the other bathroom where AK/Meredith’s blood was; (d) the hallway with Guede’s shoeprints and the cleaned prints of AK/RS; (e) AK’s room where the lamp was taken should all be considered secondary crime scenes.
Of course, one could also argue that the entire house is the primary crime scene, and that: (a) RS’s home (where the knife was, and the computers for his alibi); (b) the yard where Meredith’s phones were tossed; (c) RS’s car—if he transported evidence would all be considered secondary crime scenes.
Tortured Logic #23: Guede is Both a Skilled Burlgar and a Disorganized One
(Illogical) Guede breaks in through Filomena’s window, the most visible one from the street.
(Illogical) Guede “breaks in” some time between 8 and 10pm, when people are usually home and awake.
(Illogical) Guede chooses an entry point with a difficult climb.
(Organized) Guede is able to get into Filomena’s room without leaving a trace of himself.
(Brilliant) Guede breaks the window after it is open from the inside, making police suspect an insider.
(Disorganized) Guede leaves plenty of evidence (which AK assures us is strong, in Meredith’s room
(Brilliant) Guede ransacks the place, and then breaks the window, again, making it look like an insider.
(Brilliant) Guede leaves not his blood, but AK and Meredith, leaving himself a patzy.
(Illogical) Guede takes a dump in 1 bathroom, but “cleans up” in the other.
(Illogical) Guede cleans up bare footprints of AK/RS, but leaves his own shoeprints.
(Illogical) Guede’s accomplices—“Mr. X’’ and ‘‘Mr. Y’’ leave no traces of themselves at the entry point, murder scene, or elsewhere.
Commentary: Having trouble classifying Guede as an offender? Me too.
Tortured Logic #24: A Burglar or Killer’s Point of Entry is not Relevant
[Chapter 6, Page 68] ” .... Then I opened Filomena’s door. I gasped. The window had been shattered and glass was everywhere. Clothes were heaped all over the bed and floor. The drawers and cabinets were open. All I could see was chaos. “Oh my God, someone broke in!”
Commentary: Ask any police officer, and they will tell you that how a person breaks in and how they leave are very relevant to the crime investigation. However, AK downplays this for 2 reasons: (1) As shown in the last point, #23, breaking in through Filomena’s room was an illogical place, for many reasons; and (2) Guede’s blood/DNA is not in that room, but AK’s is, mixed with Meredith’s.
Tortured Logic #25: A Sh***y Bathroom is Relevant, While a Bloody Bathroom is not
[Chapter 6, Page 65] ” .... I wasn’t alarmed by two pea-size flecks of blood in the bathroom sink that Meredith and I shared.
There was another smear on the faucet. Weird. I’d gotten my ears pierced. Were they bleeding? I scratched the droplets with my fingernail. They were dry. Meredith must have nicked herself. It wasn’t until I got out of the shower that I noticed a reddish-brown splotch about the size of an orange on the bathmat. More blood. Could Meredith have started her period and dripped? But then, how would it have gotten on the sink?”
[Chapter 6, Page 66] ” .... I went to the big bathroom to use Filomena’s blow dryer and was stashing it back against the wall when I noticed poop in the toilet. No one in the house would have left the toilet unflushed. Could there have been a stranger here? Was someone in the house when I was in the shower? I felt a lurch of panic and the prickly feeling you get when you think someone might be watching you.”
[Chapter 6, Page 75] ” .... In the middle of my muddy thoughts I had one that was simple and clear: “We have to tell the police that the poop was in Filomena and Laura’s bathroom when I put the hair dryer away and was gone when we came back,” I told Raffaele. The poop must have belonged to the killer. Was he there when I took my shower? Would he have killed me, too?”
[Chapter 7, Page 77] ” ... I was the first person to come home that morning. I was anxious to explain everything I’d noticed, starting with the open front door and the droplets of blood in the sink.”
Commentary: So the killer cleans up in one bathroom, but then takes a dump in the other? I would be more concerned with the bloody bathroom. While a sh***y bathroom may indicate carelessness, or a plumbing malfunction, no one but AK would instinctively think that it belonged to the killer, and she seems to give them equal weight. And at this point it must be 12+ hours old and REALLY reek. AK never says she ever thought about flushing, as would any normal person.
Tortured Logic #26: AK and RS Walk Around With Bleach on Their Feet
[Chapter 27, Page 339] ” .... The situation was similar to the prosecution’s claim throughout the investigation, the pretrial, and now the trial that my feet were “dripping with Meredith’s blood.” My lawyers and I had spent hours trying to figure out why they thought this. We knew that investigators had uncovered otherwise invisible prints with luminol. Familiar to watchers of CSI, the spray glows blue when exposed to hemoglobin. But blood is not the only substance that sets off a luminol reaction.
Cleaning agents, bleach, human waste, urine stains, and even rust do the same. Forensic scientists therefore use a separate “confirmatory” test that detects only human blood,
Under cross-examination during the pretrial, Stefanoni was emphatic. “No,” she responded. It wasn’t until Dr. Gino read the documents Judge Massei had ordered the prosecution to share with us that she, and then the rest of my defense team, began seeing a pattern. As with the knife, it turned out that Stefanoni’s forensics team had done the TMB test and it came out negative. There were footprints. But they could have come from anything—and at any time, not necessarily after the murder. What matters is that there was no blood.
Commentary: In Honor Bound, Andrew Gumbel argues that there were measurement errors. Here, AK just says the foot prints weren’t blood. Okay, if it were just a cleaning agent, , then wouldn’t we expect to see stains from other people who may have walked through it at some times? Or was there a special cleaner used this time? Rust? The floor is not metallic. So the question is: why are AK and RS walking around with bleach or cleaning agents on their feet?
Tortured Logic #27: CDV and Ghirga Don’t Think AK Needs to Know What her Legal Options Are
[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third…’‘
Commentary: After 11 months in custody, AK is now just being told about this?!
Tortured Logic #28: CDV and Ghirga Fight For Knox, But DON’T Report Her Being Sexually Assaulted and Mistreated in Prison
[Chapter 11, Page 137] ‘’ ... Still, what came next shocked me. After my arrest, I was taken downstairs to a room where, in front of a male doctor, female nurse, and a few female police officers, I was told to strip naked and spread my legs. I was embarrassed because of my nudity, my period—I felt frustrated and helpless. The doctor inspected the outer lips of my vagina and then separated them with his fingers to examine the inner. He measured and photographed my intimate parts. I couldn’t understand why they were doing this. I thought, Why is this happening? What’s the purpose of this? ....’‘
[Chapter 12, Page 149] ‘’ .... I was hit on the head, twice.” I said. The doctor gestured to the nurse, who parted my hair and looked at my scalp. Not hard,” I said. “It just startled me. And scared me.” “Ive heard similar things about the police from other prisoners,” the guard standing in the background said.
[Chapter 16, Page 191] Doctor-patient confidentiality didn’t exist in prison. A guard was ever-present, standing right behind me. This bothered me so much that, as time went on, I skipped a needed pelvic exam and didn’t seek help when I got hives or when my hair started falling out. Whatever happened in the infirmary was recycled as gossip that traveled from official to official and, sometimes, back to me.
How each visit went depended on the doctor, and I was grateful for any gesture that wasn’t aggressive or disdainful. A female physician liked to talk to me about her trouble with men. And one day, when I was being seen by an older male doctor, he asked me, “What’s your favorite animal?”
“It’s a lion,” I said. “Like The Lion King—Il Re Leone.”
The next time I saw him he handed me a picture of a lion he’d ripped out from an animal calendar. I drew him a colorful picture in return, which he taped to the infirmary wall. Later, when he found out that I liked the Beatles, one of us would hum a few bars from various songs to see if the other could name the tune.
[Chapter 16, Page 194] ‘’ ... Luciano looked revolted, and Carlo urged me, “Anytime Argirò calls you alone into an office, tell him you don’t want to speak with him. He could be talking about sex because Meredith was supposedly the victim of a sexual crime and he wants to see what you’ll say. It could be a trap.”
[Chapter 17, Page 197] ‘’ ... Vice-Comandante Argirò broke the news. Instead of his usual greeting—a lecherous smile and a kiss on both cheeks—he stayed seated behind his desk. His cigarette was trailing smoke. His face was somber. Something was wrong….’
Tortured Logic #29: Accomplices Who Go ‘‘Short Form Trial’’ For the 1/3 Deductions Should Serve LONGER Jail Sentences
[Chapter 30, Page 384] ” .... That feeling was compounded when, about three weeks after Raffaele and I were convicted, the appeals court cut Rudy Guede’s sentence nearly in half, from thirty years to sixteen. Meredith’s murderer was now serving less time than I was—by ten years! How can they do this?! I raged to myself. It doesn’t make sense! The unfairness of it burned in my throat.
Guede’s fast-track conviction for murder and rape in collaboration with others had earned him the maximum. The appeals court had also found him guilty on the same count. But the prosecution’s new view—and the reason for the reduced sentence—was that Guede had not had the knife in his hand, and therefore had played only a supporting role, more responsible for Meredith’s rape than for her murder.
Here, AK answers her own questions
[Chapter 21, Page 254] “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede.’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... The first day of the pretrial was mostly procedural. Almost immediately Guede’s lawyers requested an abbreviated trial. I had no idea the Italian justice system offered this option. Carlo later told me that it saves the government money. With an abbreviated trial, the judge’s decision is based solely on evidence; no witnesses are called. The defendant benefits from this fast-track process because, if found guilty, he has his sentence cut by a third…’‘
Commentary: While AK tries to act stunned, Guede went ‘‘short-form trial’’ for 2 reasons: (1) AK/RS tried to pin it all on him; and (2) the short-form trial offers a lesser sentence. The fast track trial ended with him getting the maximum “allowed under those rules”, which was only 30 years, AK leaves that detail out. And AK lies when she says the reduction from 30 to 16 was due to a less participatory role. AK/RS got 24 years for the murder itself—and they chose the long form trial—and 1/3 less is 16 years. Guede would have gotten more if he had staged the crime scene, transported a weapon, or falsely accused an innocent person.
Tortured Logic #30: The Hardworking CSIs Who ‘‘Nail’’ Guede, are the Same Incompetents Who ‘‘Contaminate’’ Things for AK/RS
On the evidence against Guede .....
[Chapter 10, Page 105] ‘’ .... There was a bloody handprint smeared on the wall and a bloody shoeprint on the floor. A blood-soaked handkerchief was lying in the street nearby.’‘
[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... “Amanda, the investigators are in a conundrum,” Carlo said. “They found so much of Guede’s DNA in Meredith’s room and on and inside her body. But the only forensic evidence they have of you is outside her bedroom. Raffaele’s DNA evidence is only on the bra hook. If you and Raffaele participated in the murder, as the prosecution believes, your DNA should be as easy to find as Guede’s.” “But Carlo, no evidence doesn’t mean we cleaned up. It means we weren’t there!” “I know,” Carlo said, sighing. “But they’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede. I know it doesn’t make sense. They’re just adding another link to the story. It’s the only way the prosecution can involve you and Raffaele when the evidence points to a break-in and murder by Guede.”
[Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... Guede’s lawyers must have realized that he was better off in a separate trial, since the prosecution was intent on pinning the murder on us. The evidence gathered during the investigation pointed toward his guilt. His DNA was all over Meredith’s room and her body, on her intimate clothing and her purse. He had left his handprint in her blood on her pillowcase. He had fled the country. The prosecution called Guede’s story of how he “happened” to be at the villa and yet had not participated in the murder “absurd”—though they readily believed his claims against Raffaele and me. One of the big hopes for us was that with so much evidence against Guede, the prosecution would have to realize Raffaele and I hadn’t been involved….’‘
[Chapter 23, Page 274] ... He didn’t look like a murderer. He was wearing jeans and a sweater. It was almost impossible to imagine that he had cut Meredith’s throat. But if he hadn’t, his DNA wouldn’t have been everywhere in Meredith’s room.”
[Chapter 27, Page 339] ” Copious amounts of Rudy Guede’s genetic material had been found in Meredith’s bedroom, on her body, in her purse, and in the toilet.”
[Chapter 27, Page 342] ‘’ .... Had Raffaele been in the room, his DNA would have been as abundant as Guede’s. It would be illogical to suggest that it was left on a single small hook on Meredith’s bra and nowhere else.’‘
[Chapter 28, Page 352] ‘’ ... Guede had stolen! He had killed Meredith! He had left a handprint in Meredith’s blood! He had fled! He had lied!’‘
Afterword, Page 464] ” .... None of my DNA was found in my friend Meredith Kercher’s bedroom, where she was killed. The only DNA found, other than Meredith’s, belonged to the man convicted of her murder, Rudy Guede. And his DNA was everywhere in the bedroom. It is, of course, impossible to selectively clean DNA, which is invisible to the naked eye. We simply DNA and left Guede’s and Meredith’s behind. Nor was any other trace of me found at the murder scene, not a single fingerprint, footprint, piece of hair, or drop of blood or saliva. My innocence and Raffaele’s was irrefutable. Like my legal team, I believed that the Corte di Cassazione would affirm the innocence finding.
And on the evidence against AK/RS ......
[Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... The knife was a game changer for my lawyers, who now feared that the prosecution was mishandling evidence and building an unsubstantiated case against me. Carlo and Luciano went from saying that the lack of evidence would prove my innocence to warning me that the prosecution was out to get me, and steeling me for a fight. “There’s no counting on them anymore,” Carlo said. “We’re up against a witch hunt. But it’s going to be okay.”
[Chapter 17, Page 203] ‘’ ... I was choked with fear. The knife was my first inkling that the investigation was not going as I’d expected. I didn’t accept the possibility that the police were biased against me. I believed that the prosecution would eventually figure out that it wasn’t the murder weapon and that I wasn’t the murderer. In retrospect I understand that the police were determined to make the evidence fit their theory of the crime, rather than the other way around, and that theory hinged on my involvement. But something in me refused to see this then…’
[Chapter 23, Page 276] ” ... Starting right after we were indicted, Raffaele’s and my lawyers had requested the raw data for all Stefanoni’s forensic tests. How were the samples collected? How many cotton pads had her team used to swab the bathroom sink and the bidet? How often had they changed gloves? What tests had they done - and when? Which machines had they used, at what times, and on which days? What were the original unedited results of the DNA tests?”
[Chapter 25, Page 304] ‘’ ... When the defense questioned her, Napoleoni’s manner switched from professional —albeit dishonest—to exasperated, incredulous, and condescending. For instance, when Raffaele’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno asked if the gloves police used at the crime scene were sterilized or one-use gloves, Napoleoni took a snarky tone, saying, “It’s the same thing.”
[Chapter 27, Page 335] ‘‘On the witness stand, Marco Chiacchiera of the Squadra Mobile had explained that “investigative intuition” had led him to the knife. That flimsy explanation did not help me understand how the police could pull a random knife from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer and decide that it was, without the smallest doubt, the murder weapon. Or why they never analyzed knives from the villa or Rudy Guede’s apartment.’‘
[Chapter 27, Page 338] ‘’ ....Gino said. Stefanoni had met none of the internationally accepted methods for identifying DNA. When the test results are too low to be read clearly, the protocol is to run a second test. This was impossible to do, because all the genetic material had been used up in the first test. Moreover, there was an extremely high likelihood of contamination in the lab, where billions of Meredith’s DNA strands were present.
[Chapter 32, Page 414] Before the first trial, the defense began requesting forensic data from the prosecution in the fall of 2008, but DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni dodged court orders from two different judges. She gave the defense some of, but never all, the information. Now it was Conti and Vecchiotti’s turn to try to get the raw data that Stefanoni had interpreted to draw conclusions about the genetic profiles on the knife and the bra clasp. Stefanoni continued to argue that the information was unnecessary. Not until May 11, under additional orders from Judge Hellmann, did she finally comply.
Commentary: Either the police got the right suspects, or they completely f***ed up the crime scene. It can’t simultaneously be both. AK/RS never argue that contamination wrongfully put Guede away.
Tortured Logic #31: Judge Paolo Micheli is the Wise Judge Who Convicted Guede, and the Moron Who Sent AK/RS to Trial
[Chapter 23, Page 276] ” .... The pretrial judge, Paolo Micheli, allowed testimony from two witnesses. The first was DNA analyst Patrizia Stefanoni for the Polizia Scientifica. Starting right after we were indicted, Raffaele’s and my lawyers had requested the raw data for all Stefanoni’s forensic tests. How were the samples collected? How many cotton pads had her team used to swab the bathroom sink and the bidet? How often had they changed gloves? What tests had they done - and when? Which machines had they used, at what times, and on which days? What were the original unedited results of the DNA tests?
Her response was “No. We can’t give you these documents you continue to ask for, because the ones you have will have to suffice.”
[Chapter 23, Page 277] ” .... The other testimony came from a witness named Hekuran Kokomani, an Albanian man the prosecution called to prove that Raffaele and I both knew Rudy Guede. Our lawyers argued that Raffaele had never met Guede. I’d said “Hi” to him once when we hung out at the apartment downstairs. My other encounter with him was taking his drink order at Le Chic.
Kokomani said he’d seen the three of us together on Halloween, the day before the murder. A massive lie. Kokomani’s testimony made the pretrial seem like a farce. According to him, after dinner on Halloween, driving along Viale Sant’Antonio, the busy thoroughfare just above our house, he came upon a black garbage bag in the middle of the road. When he got out of his car, he realized the “bag” was two people: Raffaele and me. He told the court that Raffaele punched him, and I pulled out a huge knife the length of a saber, lifting it high over my head. “Raffaele said, ‘Don’t worry about her. She’s a girl,”’ Kokomani testified. “Then I threw olives at her face.”
Commentary: Seriously? This is how your pre-trial went? Why no complaints? And why no defence that Guede may be wrongfully convicted? After all, that is your new calling in life.
Tortured Logic #32: AK is Both A Daffy, Clueless Woman, and a Careful Observer During the Trial
[Chapter 13, Page 161] ‘’ ...As I gathered this insider’s information, I felt more like an observer than a participant. I found that being watched by a guard every time I peed or showered or just lay on my bed seemed less offensive when I looked at it with an impersonal eye. 1 saw the absurdity in it and documented it in my head.’‘
Commentary: AK projects herself as being observant and following the proceedings very carefully. Yet her antics throughout the 2009 trial showed that she was very unaware (or just didn’t care), what she showed to others.
Tortured Logic #32: Pacelli (Lumumba’s Lawyer) and Prosecutors ‘‘Grill’’ AK on the Witness Stand, but Don’t Ask any Questions about the Evening Meredith was Murdered
[Chapter 23, Page 323] ” ... The first person to question me was Carlo Pacelli, Patrick’s lawyer. Lawyers technically aren’t allowed to add their own commentary at this point, only to ask questions. But he made his opinions known through pointed questions like “Did you or did you not accuse Patrick Lumumba of a murder he didn’t commit?” and “Didn’t the police officers treat you well during your interrogation?”
[Chapter 23, Page 324] ” .... Pacelli tried to insinuate that I’d come up with Patrick’s name on my own in my interrogation. “No,” I said. “They put my cell phone in front of me, and said, ‘Look, look at the messages. You were going to meet someone.’ And when I denied it they called me a ‘stupid liar.’ From then on I was so scared. They were treating me badly, and I didn’t know why.
“It was because the police misunderstood the words ‘see you later.’ In English, it’s not taken literally. It’s just another way of saying ‘good-bye.’ But the police kept asking why I’d made an appointment to meet Patrick. ‘Are you covering for Patrick?’ they demanded. ‘Who’s Patrick?”’
[Chapter 23, Page 325] ” ... I slapped my own head to demonstrate.
“One time, two times?” Luciano asked.
“Two times,” I said. “The first time I did this.”
I dropped my head down as if I’d been struck and opened my mouth wide in surprise.
“Then I turned around toward her and she gave me another.”
[Chapter 23, Page 326] ” .... Then it was Mignini’s turn. “Why did you say, ‘Patrick’s name was suggested to me, I was beaten, I was put under pressure?”’
As soon as I started to answer, Mignini interrupted with another question. He’d done the same thing to me during my interrogation at the prison. This time, I wasn’t going to let it fluster me. I was going to answer one question at a time. Showing my irritation, I said, “Can I go on?”
I described my November 5 interrogation again. “As the police shouted at me, I squeezed my brain, thinking, ‘What have I forgotten? What have I forgotten?’ The police were saying, `Come on, come on, come on. Do you remember? Do you remember? Do you remember?’ And then boom on my head.” I imitated a slap. “‘Remember!’ the policewoman shouted. And then boom again. ‘Do you remember?”’
[Chapter 23, Page 326] ” .... When the hearing ended, I got two minutes to talk to my law-yers before the guards led me out of the courtroom. “I was nervous when you first spoke,” Luciano admitted, “but by the end I was proud of you.”
Commentary: The reason AK’s 2 days on the witness stand (June 12/13, 2009) only focused on this was because of pre-arranged rules limiting the scope of questioning.. It didn’t help.
Tortured Logic #34: CDV and Ghirga Keep Trying to Put AK on Trial Again and Again
[Chapter 31, Page 397] ” .... The appeal wouldn’t be a redo of the first trial. Italy, like the United States, has three levels of justice—the lower court, the Court of Appeals, and the highest court, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, their version of our Supreme Court. The difference is that, in Italy, someone like me is required to go through all three levels, all the way to the Cassazione, whose verdict is final.
Cases often take turns and twists that would surprise and unsettle most Americans. Even if you’re acquitted at level one, the prosecution can ask the Court of Appeals to overturn the verdict. If the appeals court finds you guilty, it can raise your sentence. Or it can decide that a second look is unnecessary and send you on to the Cassazione for the final stamp on the lower court’s decision—in Raffaele’s and my cases, to serve out our twenty-five- and twenty-six-year sentences. At each level, the verdict is official, and the sentence goes into immediate effect unless the next court overturns it.
In Italy’s lower and intermediate levels, judges and jurors decide the verdict. And instead of focusing on legal errors, as we do in the United States, the Italian appellate court will reopen the case, look at new evidence, and hear additional testimony—if they think it’s deserved.
In our appeal request, we asked the court to appoint indepen-dent experts to review the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp, and to analyze a sperm stain on the pillow found underneath Meredith’s body that the prosecution had maintained was irrelevant. In their appeal request, the prosecution complained about what they thought was a lenient sentence and demanded life in prison for Raffaele and me.
Commentary: While AK’s summary is fairly good in some ways, she neglects to mention that the DEFENCE actually filed the appeal, (the one that ended up before Hellmann/Zanetti). AK/RS were convicted at trial, and they appealed the convictions. The Prosecution CROSS-APPEALED, saying that AK/RS should actually have been given a longer sentence. This happens fairly often in Common Law Countries. AK also omits that the 3 tier system also lets convicted defendants, like herself, get 2 automatic appeals, something the Common Law does not permit—those require a higher burden. AK also leaves out that an appellate trial is not a full trial, and that calling in expert witnesses should be done at the trial level. No appellate court in the Common Law is asked to “re-try” the case.
3. The New 2015 Afterword
[Afterword, Page 465] ‘’ .... But in March 2013 the high court ordered yet another trial, directing the next appeals court to reexamine certain aspects of the case. My world was shattered—again. The court gave three primary reasons.”
Commentary: Casstion “allowed” AK/RS to refile their first level appeal, but did not “mandate” them to. The appeal that went to Judge Nencini was AK/RS’s own appeal. AK also minimizes just how thoroughly Hellmann/Zanetti had been repudiated
[Afterword, Page 463] ” .... We’d been through one lower court trial, two appellate trials, and a prior decision by the Corte di Cassazione. We had been found guilty, innocent, and guilty again. Based on this past, the best possibility my lawyers, my family, and I could imagine was that the judges would send the case back down to the appellate court for a fourth trial.
Commentary: So, at best, Cassation would allow you a 3rd attempt at your own appeal?
[Afterword, Page 466] ” .... Once again, our case had to go to the Corte di Cassazione. But my confidence had dissipated. If the Florence court could find us guilty after incontrovertible proof that we had no connection to Meredith’s murder, I didn’t know what to expect from the high court. I didn’t know how I would survive if I were made to go back to prison with no hope of an appeal.
Commentary: Without hope of appeal???? This Cassation appeal was AK/RS appeal against the Florence Appeals Court where Nencini (2014) upheld Massei (2009). It seems like AK/RS need better lawyers. These ones keep trying to put their clients on trial
(a) DEFENCE appeal—2011 (Hellman/Zanetti)
(b) PROSECUTION appeal—2013 (Cheiffi at Cassation)
(c) DEFENCE appeal—2013/2014 (Nencini)
(d) DEFENCE appeal—2015 (Bruno/Marasca at Cassation)
(e) DEFENCE appeal—2016 (hypothetical proposed by AK on page 463)
Tortured Logic #35: Prosecutors Don’t Feel the Need to Present Evidence at These ‘‘New Trials’‘
[Afterword, Page 466] ” .... The new court-ordered test on the knife revealed the source of the trace DNA. It was not Meredith’s. It was mine, likely left there when I used it to cook in Raffaele’s kitchen, as I had in the days before the murder. This reconfirmed the independent experts’ earlier finding that there was no proof that the knife was the murder weapon. I wasn’t surprised, but I was elated. This was the only new material evidence the prosecution presented and it undermined their case. Without new condemning evidence, everything was on track to clear us again and finally end this nightmare.”
Commentary: Yes, the knife was tested, but the DNA which AK refers to was found in the HANDLE, and it did strengthen the Prosecution’s case. And since when is the Prosecution expected to present more evidence when the “Defence” files an appeal? They presented their evidence in the trial stage.
Tortured Logic #36: Guede’s Prior Break in is ‘‘Relevant’‘, but AK’s ‘‘Staged Break in’’ is not
[Chapter 28, Page 352] ‘’ ....Evidence of Rudy’s crimes was everywhere, and his history of theft matched the burglary. Poor Rudy? Guede had stolen!
Commentary: Since we are getting into the character assassinations, then let’s include this one. Yes, Rudy, with his prior break in could have done it. Then again, Knox, with her prior “staged” break in could also have done it.
Tortured Logic #37: Business Judges Make Great Substitutes at Murder Appeals
Commentary: This is left out of AK’s book entirely, but Hellmann wasn’t supposed to be the lead judge at the 2011 appeal. It was a qualified judge named Chairi, who was pushed out in favour of Hellmann, who as it turns out is a business judge.
Tortured Logic #38: Prison Snitches Are Reliable Witnesses
[Chapter 32, Page 418] ” .... Mario Alessi was a brick mason given a life sentence for murdering an infant boy in 2006. He was in the same prison as Rudy Guede, and had written to Raffaele’s lawyers that he had information for our defense: Alessi said he went outside for exercise with other prisoners, including Rudy Guede, on November 9, 2009. “Guede told me he wanted to ask me for some confidential advice,” Alessi said in his court deposition. “There wasn’t a day that Guede and I didn’t spend time together ...
“I responded that I wasn’t a lawyer, and I didn’t know what to say, but that I believed it would be useful to tell the truth. So he confided in me, describing what happened the night of the murder.” Guede told Alessi that he and a friend had run into Meredith in a bar a few days before the murder. On the night of November 1, Alessi said, the two men surprised Meredith at the villa and, “in an explicit manner,” asked her to have a threesome.
Alessi said that Meredith “rejected the request. She even got up and ordered Guede and his friend to leave the house. At this point Guede asked where the bathroom was, and he stayed in the bathroom for a little while, ten to fifteen minutes at most. Immediately after, reentering the room, he found a scene that was completely different—that is, Kercher was lying with her back to the floor and his friend held her by the arms. Rudy straddled her and started to masturbate. While Guede told me these things, he was upset and tears came to his eyes ...
Commentary: Yeah, forget those false alibis, false accusation, turned off phones, mixed blood, bloody footprints .... I’m convinced.
Tortured Logic #39: Allegations of Bribery of Witnesses are Not Relevant
[Chapter 32, Page 420] ” ... Alessi’s story, however, sickened me when I heard it and haunted me long after. I knew it was only hearsay and that even though two of Guede’s other prisonmates corroborated it, it couldn’t be used as direct evidence. Real or not, it forced me to focus on the torture that Meredith was put through. And it opened up a question I’d never seriously considered and could barely handle: Had there been someone with Guede?
Commentary: AK leaves out the name of Luciano Aviello, how testified but alleged to have been bribed for this testimony. Some tell all book. And had someone been with Guede? Not that the prosecution was trying a “multiple-attackers” theory
Tortured Logic #40: Sending a Email Works Just as Well as Showing up to Court
[Afterword, Page 466] ” .... No legal process was issued to request my return to Italy for the September 2013 appellate trial in Florence. My lawyers presented my defense in my absence.”
Commentary: This seems like a tortuous way of saying AK didn’t show because she couldn’t be forced to. In reality, she hit the media circuit claiming to be afraid. She also claimed she couldn’t afford to go back which caused disbelief, given her book deal. But apparently was still concerned, as she sent an email to the Florence Court.
Tortured Logic #41: Cassation Learned as Much in 2 Days as the Massei Trial Court did in a Year
[Afterword, Page 478] ” .... On Wednesday, March 25, the Corte di Cassazione began hearing arguments by the prosecutors, the civil parties, and my defense attorneys. Unlike the previous high court hearing, the justices listened to all sides without interrupting the defense. The hearing took so many hours the court decided to reconvene in two days.
Commentary: Odd, how Cassation, even over 2 days, can learn as much as the 2009 trial court did. No witnesses, evidence, experts, or AK herself ever presented. And how can AK know how the 2013 and 2015 hearings differed? She attended neither. More likely, she remembers Carlo Dalla Vedova “filibustering” Mignini during her June 2009 questioning and assumes that Supreme Court appeals work the same way
Tortured Logic #42: Guede is an Accomplice to Murder, With no Actual Killer
Commentary: Guede’s Cassation appeal in 2010 confirmed he was guilty, but did not act alone. AK/RS 2013 Cassation hearing annulled the Hellmann acquittal, so those 5 judges believed that they were involved as well. AK/RS 2015 Cassation hearing clears them, but since no one else was ever charged, it leaves Guede as an accomplice with no actual killer.
Tortured Logic #43: AK was Present, RS Probably Was, but Meredith was Killed by ‘‘X’’ and ‘‘Y’‘
Commentary: Just read these fine summaries.
Tortured Logic #44: AK Still Hasn’t Learned not to Publish a Book Before the Cassation Report Comes Out
[Afterword, Page 480] ‘’ ... Minutes later Carlo Della Vedova, one of our two Italian lawyers, called.
“Does acquitted mean not enough evidence to convict?” I asked him. “Or did they find us innocent?”
“They found you innocent. Amanda!” he said. “It’s the best result possible!”;
0ne trial. Two appellate court retrials. Two Italian Supreme Court decisions. Four years in prison.
Seven and a half years of suspended life.”
Commentary: AK originally released the book after the March 2013 hearing, but before the report came out. She does the same thing here again: re-releasing in June 2015, after this ruling, but before the report was released in September 2015. Judges Bruno and Marasca stick the knife in AK/RS’s backs (how’s that for a metaphor), concluding AK was at the scene—though did not participate—and RS probably was there too.
See #43 for the summaries.
Bruno/Marasca can be explained in 1 word FINALITY
(1) B/M don’t want the ECHR reviewing the case too carefully, so they sabotage AK’s appeal for calunnia
(2) B/M don’t want AK/RS crowing about their innocence, so they write it this way to shut them up.
(3) B/M don’t want a civil suit from AK/RS, so they make it clear they don’t believe they are innocent. RS sues anyway.
(4) B/M don’t want to be investigated for corruption, so they try to make it more plausible than Hellmann/Zanetti.
(5) B/M don’t want the Kerchers going ahead, so they placate them, but stop just short of outright guilt.
Tortured Logic #45: Hellmann/Zanetti and Bruno/Marasca Must Have “Forgotten” About AK Falsely Accusing PL
[Epilogue, Page 444] ” .... “For the charges prescribed in letters A, B, C, D, and E,” Judge Hellmann continued, “La torte assolve gli imputati, per non aver commesso ifatfi7—“the defendants are acquitted by the court, for not having committed the acts.”
[Afterword, Page 480] ” .... “It’s confirmed!” I shouted. “We’re acquitted! We’re free! No more trials! It’s done!”
I jumped up from the table. Everyone started whooping and crying, hugging one another—spitting out the fear and tension of the past seven and a half years.
Minutes later Carlo Della Vedova, one of our two Italian lawyers, called. “Does ‘acquitted’ mean not enough evidence to convict?” I asked him. “Or did they find us
“They found you innocent. Amanda!” he said. “It’s the best result possible!”
0ne trial. Two appellate court retrials. Two Italian Supreme Court decisions. Four years in prison. Seven and a half years of suspended life.
The relief I felt was so sudden, so unexpected, so encompassing, I felt as weightless as a bubble. I feel freer than I have felt since I was twenty.
I’m as grateful for the reversal of Raffaele’s wrongful conviction as I am for my own. But I’m acutely aware that the loss of Meredith can never be reversed. This story cannot end happily. That is not possible. Nothing will bring Meredith back to her loved ones.
Commentary: For all her proclaimed mindfulness to detail, AK leaves out that Bruno/Marasca did not touch her calunnia conviction. In fact, they later sabotaged her ECHR appeal. In the original edition of the book, AK left out that Hellmann not only upheld that conviction, but raised it to 3 years. And how can it be a wrongful conviction, when she spent 3 years, 11 months in jail, but received a 3 year sentence? It is more or less “time served”.
Tortured Logic #46: AK Still Hasn’t Learned That Making False Accusations is not a Good Idea
Commentary: At the time ‘‘Waiting to be Heard’’ was released in April 2013, AK’s: (1) calunnia for falsely accusing PL of rape and murder had been confirmed, as had the 3 year sentence; (2) calunnia for falsely accusing police officers of assault, coercion and intimidation was still before the courts.
So you think any intelligent ghost writer (Linda Kulman) or publishing agent (Robert Barnett) or publisher (HarperCollins) might have had second thoughts about any of the following? Did they ever read it?
Tortured Logic #47: A Creative Writing Graduate Needs a Professional Writer for HER Story
[Acknowledgements, Page 460] ” .... I wouldn’t have been able to write this memoir without Linda Kulman. Somehow, with her Post-it Notes and questions, with her generosity, dedication, and empathy, she turned my rambling into writing, and taught me so much in the meantime. I am grateful to her family—Ralph, Sam, Julia—for sharing her with me for so long.”
Commentary: A university graduate in writing needed someone else to ghostwrite her book. I know university standards are steadily declining, but come on.
Tortured Logic #48: AK got paid $3.8 million for SOMEONE ELSE to Write This
Commentary: Originally I was just going to put “fuck my life”, but here is something more productive
AK’s take was $3.8M. It is reasonable to assume that there was a large advance, say a million upfront, with the rest based on sales. It is also reasonable to assume that Linda Kuhlman and Robert Barnett also got a significant chunk. And for easy numbers, let’s say publishing costs were $1M as well. (750,000 copies originally produced at $1.33/book is $1M).
While stores like Chapters/Coles/Indigo may sell the book for $30 retail, the publisher, HarperCollins does not get all that. Bookstores have employees and overhead, so HC may be able to get half of that, or $15 per book. Considering that nearly all books have large amounts of unsold copies, higher margins have to be factored in.
Also, keep in mind that bookstores routinely discount prices, even on relatively new books. And online options, like Kindle or Amazon, while lower overhead, sell for much, MUCH less than bookstores. If a copy is sold for $5.99, then rest assured H.C. is not getting $15/book.
A more likely scenario is HarperCollins getting about $8/book, and that is generous. Low margin sales, while they are “sales”, undermine profitability
***Scenario A: Very Few Books are Sold
AK still gets her $1M advance, and HarperCollins still has to pay $1M for publishing
RESULT: Loss of $2M
***Scenario B: 250,000 Books are Sold
AK gets $1M advance, and $1M for sales; H.C. incurs $1M for publishing. Total spent is $3M.
However, 250,000 copies sold at $8/copy is a $2M income.
RESULT: Loss of $1M
***Scenario C: 500,000 Books are Sold
AK gets $1M advance and $2M for sales. H.C. incurs $1M for publishing. Total spent is $4M.
However, 500,000 copies sold at $8/book is $4M income
RESULT: Approximate break even
***Scenario D: All 750,000 Books are Sold
AK gets all $3.8M; H.C. incurs $1M for publishing. Total spent is $4.8M.
However, 750,000 copies sold at $8/copy is a $6M income.
RESULT: Profit of $1.2M on $4.8M spent, a return of 25%
While a return of 25% is decent, it makes many assumptions: (a) That most or all books are sold; (b) That H.C. actually gets $8/book; (c) Kuhlman’s and Barnett—and anyone else’s—fees are neglible; (d) That H.C. won’t be sued by anyone or have the book forcibly pulled (see #46). Those are huge assumptions, and considering how successful HarperCollins is, this seems like a very bad business deal. Having to sell 70%+ just to break even?
So, I have to ask, did someone at HarperCollins get a bribe or a kickback to see this loss-making deal go through?
4. And So In Conclusion
This concludes the series, “Revenge of the Knox”, which was meant to expose just how completely false and malicious this “memoir” really is. It is insulting, inflammatory, literally makes hundreds of false claims, slimes many, accuses others of crimes, whitewashes AK’s history—including banging a coke dealer for drugs, greatly distorts the factual evidence, and makes very little sense, even to those who have not followed the case closely.
There is very little of this book that is not either exaggerated or outright made up. AK gets the major dates right, and most of the names, but that is about the extent of it.. This book reads like it was written by an angry 12 year old girl, detached from reality. Ironically, that part actually rings true. Pardon the cheap shot, but the quality of the writing sucks.
AK claims that she relies on court documents, but the only one she significantly references is her November ruling from Judge Matteini. She holds it up as proof that PL was framed. This is rather bitter, as she directly caused him to be wrongly arrested. She includes her 3rd statement (where she muddies the waters), but omits the 1st and 2nd where she conclusively accuses PL.
On a personal note, I actually enjoyed other research topics more. This book just gets me worked up. However it gets far higher readership. Oh well.
Hope you’ve enjoyed the s**tshow. Don’t get any on you.
I don’t believe for a moment that any “due diligence” or fact-checking was ever done on this book. Moreover, I seriously doubt that anyone at HarperCollins ever actually read it, beyond some quick skimming.
Knox, while smearing others on drug use, was actually f**king (or prostituting) herself for drugs from Federico Martini, aka “Cristiano”.
Knox, with a confirmed calunnia (against Lumumba), and an outstanding calunnia against Italian police, gets a book deal which includes dozens of false accusations, and hundreds of smears.
Knox, in 2007, with her minimal Italian is able to remember “verbatim” long quotes in Italian.
Knox, in 2007, while claiming to be brutalized, can remember “verbatim” her interrogation from Mignini.
It is almost comical the stark contrast “Waiting to be Heard” has in describing the legal proceedings between AK/RS and Guede, even though the same police officers, prosecutors and some of the judges were involved.
A tale of 2 proceedings ......
Knox/Sollecito: (1) unreliable/minimal evidence; (2) police corruption; (3) brutal interrogation; (4) Mignini is evil; (5) Judge Micheli in particular is incompetent; (6) media made a fair trial impossible.
Guede: (1) rock hard evidence; (2) solid police work; (3) normal police questioning; (4) Mignini is not a factor; (5) Judge Micheli acting fairly; (6) media attention did not effect outcome.
As for Point #48 (the $3.8M book deal with 750,000 copies), I am speculating about the returns, but HarperCollins had to know that this was a very unsound business investment.
At a minimum HC should have put the book on hold until after the appeals were done. If they still wanted to go ahead afterward, the publishers should have gotten copies (and translated them) of court documents, and then had a “very” long sitdown with Knox.
This book was edited? Bullshit.
I would like like to thank Chimera for this excellent series.It must have took a lot of hard work and perseverance to get it finished.
I know this for a fact as I was very kindly sent an electronic copy at the time of release and found it almost impossible to read.
Even the chapter listing was boring! Just bland dates.
The parts that did stand out (in the bits I did actually read) was how Knox really is a cunning and manipulative liar - for instance getting here mother and father together for a meeting with her own pre prepared script ready for them.
Again thank you Chimera, I have to go now as I am falling asleep.
Or as I wrote in Knox blog
To those of you reading this who have reservations regarding Amanda Knox guilt. Then here is a simple solution.
“Follow the Money”
Even if you discount the mountain of evidence that is absolutely conclusive as to the guilt of these too. The theft of the rent money in order to buy drugs is undeniable.
It’s all ‘me, me,me’. There seems to be hardly any genuine consideration for Meredith.
I am also amazed at the lack of due diligence.
I’d like to comment on the alleged ‘point of entry’.
Meredith was of course attacked in her bedroom. And if Guede entered through Filomena’s window he would have created a heck of a noise. The rock smashing through the window (first time lucky) - not to mention the noise of the smashing glass, climbing up the wall, rummaging through Filomena’s room. Meredith would have heard and wouldn’t have stayed in her room. It’s just not feasible that Meredith would have stayed in her room.
Chimera, great post. Thank you for an incredible catalogue of Knox’s quibbles and lies. It took a huge amount of work and steady focus. Knox puts such a self-serving construction on everything.
Then she throws shade on her lawyers, especially “Carlo”. She says that he called the Perugian police “small town detectives….They don’t know how to conduct a murder investigation correctly.” Nice to know, I’m sure the police got all warm and fuzzy hearing that.
Knox tattles on her lawyers. She wants attorney-client privilege for herself, of course, but what about her attorney having some expectation of privacy in what he says to his client in confidence? Knox says Carlo calls the Perugian police “bullies.” So they’re small town bullies who can’t investigate. What a compliment.
“They suspected you because you behaved differently than the others. They stuck with it because they couldn’t afford to be wrong,” Knox claims her lawyer said about the police. In other words, the police were biased, hostile to Knox personally, illogical, and then too proud and frightened to admit a wrong. She lays all that on Carlo dalla Vedova’s head.
She goes on: “Carlo said sighing, “They’ve already decided that you and Raffaele faked a break-in to nail Guede….I know it doesn’t make sense. They’re just adding another link to the story. It’s the only way the prosecution can involve you and Raffaele….”
Yep, police dreamed up a senseless story, as in a lie, in their determination to frame Knox. Knox claims her lawyer said and believed this.
Her lawyers’ reaction to Meredith’s DNA on the knife blade:”...my lawyers…feared that the prosecution was mishandling evidence…Carlo and Luciano….warning me that the prosecution was OUT TO GET ME….”
Carlo said, “We’re up against a witch hunt.”
Methinks Knox is putting her own words and fears into the mouth of her lawyers. She has Carlo dalla Vedova as much as slander the police and prosecutors. His only salvation is that the world knows Knox is a big liar, so that maybe her book will not be believed. Her testimony at trial certainly wasn’t!
She claims her lawyers never told her of the option of a fast-track trial. I imagine Edda and Curt were in conference with both Amanda’s lawyers, with an interpreter in tow.
Surely Edda and Curt asked about all of Amanda’s options. She writes the book as if her parents were not in discussions with her attorneys, that it was simply Amanda in a huddle with Carlo and Luciano, a bewildered Amanda.