Friday, April 22, 2011

Will Savive On Amanda Knox On The Witness Stand On The Afternoon Of June 12 2009 (2)

Posted by Peter Quennell





Knox’s other defense lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, then took the floor to question Knox.

Before questioning began, Mr. Dalla Vedova and Judge Massei asked Knox if she was too tired to continue. Knox stated that she was “ok to proceed.” Judge Massei advised Knox that being fresh and lucid is important while on the stand and that if at any time she feels tired and wants to stop to say “Basta” and the court will take a short recess. Knox thanked the judge and the questioning resumed.

Mr. Dalla Vedova began with a puzzling line of questioning that didn’t seem to have a purpose, but somehow he connected the questioning to Knox’s prison diaries and how she was told that she may have had AIDS—a ploy claimed to be a plot to extract from Knox how many sexual partners that she’d had.

Dalla Vedova began by asking Knox about her family and why she decided to come to Perugia. They then began discussing a particular writing course that she had taken at Washington State University. It was unclear, at this point, where Dalla Vedova was leading with this line of questioning; though prosecutors made no objections as the questioning was virtually irrelevant to the case and was not helping her defense anyway. One would assume that prosecutors would let this continue all day.

Mr. Dalla Vedova led the questioning to Knox’s writing, which she described as a way of expressing herself. Knox claimed that she often kept a diary, even back home, as a way to “let off steam” and to “understand herself.” While in prison, Knox kept a diary up until 29 December 2007, which at that time was confiscated by prison officials and held in her dossier.

Knox testified that she was faced with the choices of surrendering her diary willfully to prison officials or they would come retrieve it with a warrant; Knox gave it wittingly. The confiscated diary was at one point analyzed by one of Britain’s top criminal psychologists, Dr. David Wilson. In the diary Knox describes that when she first arrived in prison, blood was taken from her. Later, prison officials explained to her that the results of the blood test indicated that she may have AIDS.

She claimed he asked her to write down all of the men that she had slept with up to that point, which totaled “seven men.” Knox claimed to the court that for two weeks she was made to think that she had AIDS, but in fact, they were only trying to dig-out from her how many men she had slept with in order to paint her in court as a promiscuous woman. All of this was apparently done on the sly.

Also in that diary, Knox turned on Sollecito for the first time, speculating that he could have killed Meredith and framed her. “This could have happened: Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and killed her and then, having come back home, pressed my fingerprints—I was asleep—onto the knife,” Knox wrote.

Seeing how Mr. Dalla Vedova’s questioning was leading them nowhere, the more skilled Luciano Ghirga took over the questioning. Ghirga takes Knox back to her arrival in Perugia. They briefly discuss how well her Italian has gotten since she first arrived and what languages she spoke with some of her friends and roommates in Perugia. Knox claimed that she had been spending most of her time in prison studying, which is why her Italian has improved so much over the last two years.

Knox claimed that she was currently reading Hadrian’s Memoirs by Marguerite Yourcenar; a French writer, and she was reading the Italian version.  Mr. Ghirga then asked Knox to describe her relationship with her three female roommates. Knox stated that Laura was a lawyer during the day and a free-spirited guitar player at night. They often played guitar together—Knox borrowing Laura’s second guitar—and practiced yoga.

With Meredith, Knox testified that they would often discuss literature, because Meredith was always reading. Ghirga spent the next several minutes establishing the relationship between Knox and Kercher. At some point the discussion turned to Meredith’s English friends who had testified on day four of the trial.

Luciano Ghirga: Did you also get together with Meredith’s English friends?

Amanda Knox: Yes, but not much. [Laughs] Not much, because in the end, after I got a job with Patrick, we didn’t get together much, because they didn’t go to my university, they went to Meredith’s university. So we didn’t meet there, and then I wasn’t going around having fun any more, I was going to work. But that was fine.

Luciano Ghirga: But you preferred to be with Italians or foreigners?

Amanda Knox: I preferred to be with Italians, because I wanted to feel Italian, I didn’t come to Italy to feel English.

Mr. Ghirga then asked Knox what she thought about the assertions of Meredith’s English friends. The question was intercepted by Judge Massei who wanted Ghirga to be more specific with his question: the reason for this is, as Italian law prescribes, the witness (Knox in this case) is not permitted to give his or her impressions on the testimony of others.

After a brief discussion Ghirga clarified, asking Knox what she thought of the assertions of the girls that there was friction between Knox and Kercher towards the end. Knox disagreed with these assertions, claiming that for her there was no friction in the house.

According to Knox, the reason why she hadn’t been hanging around with Meredith towards the end was because she was working at Le Chic and had no time to go out and socialize. Ghirga asked Knox if she had been aware of any “candeggina” (“bleach”) in the cottage at the time of the murder. “I didn’t know if there was any there, in the house,” Knox replied.

Knox stated in her testimony (which was confirmed by her cell phone records) that she had asked Meredith via text messaging to meet up with her on Halloween night. Oddly, Knox testified that she had met a male friend (not Sollecito) at Merlin’s Pub, but she did not go inside the pub. Meredith was at this pub with friends and Knox met the boy outside as he exited the pub, but she did not go inside to speak to Meredith.

Knox alluded that she did not know that Meredith was inside the bar, and that she only knew that Meredith had gone to dinner with friends. This may have been because Meredith had not replied to the last two text messages sent by Knox. Maybe there was a reason why Meredith did not want Knox to know where she was going for the evening? In any event, it was well known that Merlin’s Pub was Meredith’s favorite bar in the area and that she often frequented that establishment.

Mr. Ghirga then takes Knox back to the night of 1 November 2007. There was nothing new that came out of this questioning, just reiteration of information that had already been said. One can wonder what the good lawyer was trying to accomplish by this line of questioning. In fact, Ghirga was trying to go through the day of November 1st with Knox, but she could not remember the times that any of the events had occurred.

As Ghirga prodded into the day’s events, he made several suggestions—leading the witness. This was met by objections from Francesco Maresca. There was, however, one interesting piece of testimony to come out of this exchange; one that did not necessarily help the defense. Ghirga asked Knox if she usually turned her phone off at night. Knox responded, “Not usually, because I use it as a clock, an alarm clock, so usually I don’t, but on that night I did.”

Ghirga wisely left that response alone and moved on to November 2nd, but again there was nothing new or helpful to her defense. At several points during Ghirga’s questioning of Knox, it seemed as if he hadn’t ever met with her before. Usually in criminal cases such as this, the suspect’s lawyer will rehearse the questions with the defendant or at least ask questions that he is aware that his client can answer. Yet, as the questioning continued it became evident that this was not a well thought-out interview.

Mr. Ghirga then requested the judge’s permission to play the court an audio taped conversation between Amanda and Filomena on 5 November 2007, at 10:29p.m. The call—which originated from Knox’s phone—was intercepted by police. T

The two spoke mostly in Italian, then at one point Filomena switched to speaking English. Her English was hard to understand. Ghirga stopped the tape periodically to ask Knox a question or two then restarted the tape. At the time of the call Knox was in the police station.

Knox had gone with Sollecito to the police station and she was waiting by the elevators for him to reappear. During the call Filomena asks Knox her whereabouts. Knox responds, “At the police station.” Filomena seems surprised and asks, “So you’re there again today?”

The reason for the call was apparently to discuss where they were going to live. The remaining roommates (Laura and Filomena) were trying to get out of the contract with the agency that they had rented the cottage from and find another place. Filomena informed Knox that she had an appointment the following day (November 6th) with that agency to discuss the situation.

Again, the purpose of Ghirga playing the call was unclear, other than to show that Knox’s main preoccupation was where she was going to be living-out the rest of her days in Perugia. Following the ending of the conversation, Ghirga discusses why neither Knox nor her family were concerned about the continued questioning by police.

Luciano Ghirga: I see. So, in all these days, following the discovery of the body, did you ever think about turning to the American Embassy, or to a lawyer?

Amanda Knox: No.

Luciano Ghirga: Because they were calling you every day to the Questura.

Amanda Knox: No, no. More than anything, I thought they wanted to talk to me so much because I was the closest person to Meredith in the house. And then, I was the person who went back to the house and found the mess. I never thought I needed a lawyer or to talk to the Ambassador, because I thought, okay, I’ll just answer a couple of questions, and then I can get on with my life, I don’t know. And I still had to orient myself in the world around me; I never even thought of contacting someone like a lawyer.

Luciano Ghirga: And the fact that you were being called every day to the Questura, didn’t that worry you and your family?

Amanda Knox: [Sigh] For me, I didn’t understand why, but I really never, never thought that they suspected me; never.

Luciano Ghirga: When they arrested you, did they tell you why? When they put the handcuffs on your wrists, on the morning of the 6th?

Amanda Knox: If they told me, I didn’t understand it. Because in the end, when I found myself—

Luciano Ghirga: And what did you think, when they put the handcuffs on you?

Amanda Knox: I was surprised. I thought—they told me “Come on, it’s just for a couple of days, because we’re protecting you,” so I said “All right, fine, but actually, you’re not even listening to me.” And then in those following days, when I was like ah—when I was alone in the cell, in those days, I was suddenly brought in front of the judge, with two lawyers, and they said “Ah, you are accused of murdering Meredith,” and I just stood there with my mouth open with everybody staring at me like “Hmmm.”

Luciano Ghirga: On the morning of the 6th, you didn’t understand why they were arresting you.

Amanda Knox: No. No. I—they—I thought that, as I had understood from them, that it was a formality that they had to do because there was some testimony that I had been near the scene of the crime or something like that.

Luciano Ghirga: But in the days that you spent in prison before that, before you met the undersigned lawyer Ghirga, what were you thinking during those days? What did you think was happening?

Amanda Knox: In those days, I only wanted to clarify the things that I hadn’t understood before, those images that I had imagined, that contradicted the reality that I remembered. This was my main preoccupation. For me, those days were a big moment of crying and confusion, and fear, and cold. Really, it was freezing.

Mr. Ghirga then requests that the remainder of the defenses’ questioning be suspended until the following day because he sensed that Knox was getting tired. Judge Massei denied the request, citing that the following days proceedings were scheduled for cross-examination by the prosecution.

Knox’s defense had squandered precious time on irrelevant issues, and now they were feeling the pressure. Perhaps it was just that Knox didn’t really have much to offer in the way of her defense.

A discussion ensued, and Judge Massei conceded that he would allot time the next day—only in the morning—for the defense to continue if need be. In the meantime, Judge Massei ordered a ten-minute break.

The questioning recommenced at 5:16p.m., with Carlo Dalla Vedova again taking the floor. Dalla Vedova began by bringing Knox back to the 17 December 2007 interrogation. Conducting the seven hour interrogation was the public prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini.

Knox recalls that she had an interpreter—Australian born Giulia Clemish. Knox explained that she was quite frustrated with her because she was not a very good interpreter and this led to much confusion. Dalla Vedova interjected that they had to get a different interpreter to translate the translator.

Dalla Vedova then asks about how she got the nickname “Foxy Knoxy.” Knox explains that the nickname came out of the fact that she was a defender in soccer and that it also rhymed with her name, “fox,” “Knox.”

Alessandro Clericuzzio, the interpreter responsible for retranslating the whole December 17th interrogation, translated “Foxy Knoxy” to “Mean Fox.” Mr. Dalla Vedova was clearly trying to demonstrate how the phrase “Lost in translation” had applied to this situation, which then shows that this could have applied to things Knox had said during other interrogations.

Knox was asked if she knew that Meredith had taken out money prior to her death. Knox said she did not, and then she corrected herself. “Wait, one time she told this thing to Filomena that she could already give her the money and Filomena said no, let’s wait a little, but I didn’t know if she carried it around in her wallet or left it at home.”

As Knox indicated in earlier testimony, this conversation was in regard to the rent for November 2007, so Knox did have prior Knowledge to the fact that Kercher had already taken out money to pay the rent.

The final discussion of the day centered around Knox’s cell phone discussions with Filomena on the day that Meredith’s body was discovered. The final discussion also touched upon the time between when Knox first arrived at the cottage and when the first officers arrived.

Judge Massei took over the questioning at one point on the matter to get clarification on Knox’s story. His questioning continued for several minutes. Judge Massei asked Knox whether she knew if anyone was home the first time she claimed to arrive at the cottage on the morning of 2 November 2007 (allegedly after leaving Sollecito’s flat in the morning and returning to the cottage).

Knox told the court that she had called out the names, Filomena and Meredith, thinking that maybe they were home. She said that she knew Filomena was going to a party the previous night and she wasn’t sure if she had returned home by then or not. The brief segment that followed was just a reiteration of prior testimony, with Carlo Dalla Vedova retaking command of the floor.

At the conclusion of the defenses’ questioning of the witness, Judge Massei asked the prosecution if they wanted to begin their cross-examination. The prosecution seemed eager to get to questioning with Manuela Comodi saying, “We can start now or we can start tomorrow.”

Judge Massei asked Knox if she could continue, but Knox asked if questioning could be suspended for the day as she was tired. There was no doubt that the day had been long, drawn-out, and grueling for all present—particularly Knox. Realizing this, Judge Massei suspended the proceedings, announcing that they would continue the following morning at 9:00.


Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/22/11 at 08:13 PM in The officially involvedTrials 2008 & 2009Amanda Knox


Comments

Again, another great article. Thanks Will and Peter.

Like the article already points out, the questioning of Amanda Knox in Court by her lawyers wasn’t well prepared. It is unclear why. Are her lawyers simply useless or was it Amanda Knox who wanted to play by her own rules? More than once it seemed to me that her own lawyers let her walk right into the trap. Damning to say the least.

Posted by Nell on 04/22/11 at 11:47 PM | #

Hi Nell. Good question.

A remark I posted several times previously. The prosecution at trial was fast, smooth, efficient, passionate, and no time was lost. They didnt do everything they could have done (Guede had offered to testify, for a break) but Masssei shows they closed the deal.

The defenses in contrast were slow, lame, halting, indecisive, and four or five times they simply canceled a whole day’s discussion. They added at least a month to the trial with this time wasted. And they fell over one another at summation. I put it down to

(1) all the backseat driving

(2) plus difficult defendants with zero sum interests in helping one another who could get up and talk when they wanted to (no cross examination)

(3) plus a very tough case coupled with indecision on what were the possible killer points

(4) plus AK getting on the stand for 2 days to waffle irritatingly on the charges about framing Patrick

(5) plus they simply wre not experienced at this - Dalla Vedova for example does not do criminal trials and Ghirga has mainly done small stuff.

The FOA talking point thse days that at trial they demolished all the prosecution case is actually not true.

And at appeal they are not doing any better. There is still the 80,000 pound gorilla in the room. They have barely laid a finger on him or her.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/23/11 at 06:21 AM | #

Amanda Knox:
“No. No. I—they—I thought that, as I had understood from them, that it was a formality that they had to do because there was some testimony that I had been near the scene of the crime or something like that”

Then there’s this gem:
“In those days, I only wanted to clarify the things that I hadn’t understood before, those images that I had imagined, that contradicted the reality that I remembered”

Astonishing…
How her family, friends and supporters buy all her nonsense wholesale is beyond belief and I don’t believe them, either.

Posted by Black Dog on 04/23/11 at 06:46 AM | #

I was once accused as an accomplice in my friend’s disappearance. The police were absolutely convinced that I knew more than I was saying and that I was lying when I did talk. I was terribly distraught, but I didn’t go about making up facts… “Maybe I did this,” “Maybe he did that,” “Maybe I told him to meet me…” I always stuck with what I knew, which was very little. I couldn’t even begin to imagine claiming scenarios like “Maybe he pressed my fingers into the knife and that’s why I’m here.” That was utterly preposterous and my mind never, ever traveled down that road.

I was not about to say anything that I knew was not true or to give any possibility scenarios. I told what I knew, I was terrified that they thought I was lying, but when they supoenaed my emails and instant messenger conversations, I was cleared—like I knew I would be, although I was terrified that maybe there was something else I knew that I had forgotten, and they would think I was hiding that fact and would take the charges even further.
But, I was convinced I told everything I knew, and that’s what my records proved. But I sure as hell did NOT start making things up, and I knew better than to talk and speculate about things I didn’t know and potentially incriminate myself for something I never did.

I don’t see that at ALL with Amanda. A truly innocent person will always have the exact story they stick to. They won’t have alternative scenarios. They’ll shut up about anything they aren’t directly asked. And they’ll never, ever, EVER even think of putting themselves anywhere nearer to the crime scene than they already are. Amanda has failed to do all of these things.

If she’s innocent, I can empathize with the terrorizing feeling of being accused of something you didn’t do. But every time she talks, she continues to point herself further down the road of guilt.

Posted by kpva33 on 04/23/11 at 07:40 AM | #

I found it very odd (although in line with Knox’s many attempts to feign ignorance and innocence) that she claims not to have realized why she was arrested. How does one clarify images seen in ones imagination? That’s just utter nonsense.  Remember she had a long time to think about her defense. And she doesn’t give one.

Posted by lilly on 04/23/11 at 08:11 AM | #

@Peter Quennell

I agree with you. I believe the defendants were difficult to work with from the start, because Raffaelle Sollecito relies too much on the influence his family would have to turn things around (or so he thinks) and Amanda Knox believes that this is merely a show trial and the one with the most airtime is going to make it.

Until now I thought that Ghirga and Dalla Vedova were experienced lawyers in criminal law though. My mistake. I always wondered that they wouldn’t guide her more through the process. On the other hand, Guilia Buongiorno hasn’t done anything noteworthy for Raffaele Sollecito either. Right now I have problems recalling even one single day that could be interpreted as a “win” for the defence. Probably, because there never was one. Everything looked more like defeat to me.

@Black Dog

I wondered about these two statements as well.

Astonishing that this is the same woman they say speaks I don’t know how many languages fluently, studies in prison and is so talented and creative that her mother considers her an “artist”. A few crocheted flowers, a rape story and debunked lies are enough to be considered “above average” in that family of hers. Hurray.

Posted by Nell on 04/23/11 at 08:30 AM | #

@ nell
When did AK crochet flowers?

Posted by aethelred23 on 04/23/11 at 10:19 AM | #

@ Black Dog
Which is why the family’s default statement is always “that’s just Amanda being Amanda.” IOW, since her behavior—at any time, ie. at the police station—doesn’t fall w/in even the broadest of ranges for an appropriate, competent adult, they just make up their own rules for her.

Posted by wayra on 04/23/11 at 12:39 PM | #

Prick her conceit with silly responses, that’s how I’d trip up Amanda on the stand. Make her think in unlinear fashion. Confuse her as to where you are coming from, that’s how to knock her false preplanned script out of her hands. Of course, hindsight is 20-20 and I’m no lawyer, but the prosecution might have made her react without thinking and more of the “blrrrrggh..yucky” truth would have fallen through the holes in logic.

The topic of Meredith’s money is the first time she really chokes. She says at first No, she didn’t know if Meredith had money, then she pretends to think about it and correct herself, as if in a show of careful honesty. Balogney. Rehearsed, rehearsed.

I agree with Will (whom thanks very much for this marvelous post, Peter, too) that the whole testimony seems rambling and uncharted, as if the lawyers had not spent adequate time coaching the client. What is rehearsed and canned is probably more from Amanda’s playbook and her private mental preparations for the Big Day on the Stand, than help from her lawyers. I guess they were hamstrung and laboring under the old truth, “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” or “You can’t get blood out of a turnip”. There’s nothing there, no real defense, so they ramble about what she is reading in prison. “Hadrian’s Memoirs”, what to make of that? Beats me.

It sounds negative if she truly said “mess” about finding the disheveled cottage crime scene. It seems if she had really had tender feelings for Meredith she would have used a term that showed more shock and horror, or a much gentler, kinder description of the cottage. I realize “mess” is a common and easy catchall word in English, I use it myself too often, but in this context it has the ring of disgust rather than anger and terror that should be attached in response to a friend’s suffering.

A group of Seattlites who happened by chance to be in Perugia for a conference when Edda first arrived in the city, went to bat for fellow Seattlites and told Edda about Ghirgha, I think. They steered her to him, so now they are probably pulling for him to win because they’d feel bad if he doesn’t, since they led Edda to him. Ghirgha doesn’t speak English, but dalla Vedova does. (IIRC)

@aethelred,
I think AK crocheted flowers or what also might have been white snowflakes that were popular in the States to hang as small ornaments on Christmas trees in 70s, 80s, very Victorian. People would starch them and make dozens of different designs, or sew them onto pillows. They’re very pretty. She gave them as gifts to Madison to hang on a ribbon as necklace and she sent them to many others in Seattle. They would be small, lightweight to mail or carry on flight, and a good way to do handwork and pass her time in prison. Reflecting the Christmas season, so she probably made them around Christmas 2007? in prison but don’t quote me, I’m just guessing. She may have crocheted many items, flowers too. Nell may know more accurately.

@kpva33 really knows the truth about being faced with accusations when being truly innocent, how the natural honest response is to stick closely to the truth, not dare to create fantasy what-if scenarios for the police who might misinterpret them. Thanks, kpva33 for showing the flaws in Amanda’s supposedly innocent imaginings to “help the police”. You’re darned tootin I would act like kpva33 and keep it simple, keep it straight, tell them only the hardcore verifiable facts I could stand behind without a doubt. There would be nothing else, certainly no fantasy. The stress is real in either case. To add lies and confusion to that stress would be self-destructive except if one had a pressing reason to lie. “...lies are all I have…” (to unfairly edit a quote from the Fox, but that’s how she strings words together, forcing us to tweezer out her meaning and leaving all in doubt, her real endgame). My response to that? “When in doubt, there is no doubt.” She’s guilty.

Posted by Hopeful on 04/23/11 at 02:01 PM | #

@Hopeful: I think ‘mess’ only concerns the disorder in Filomena’s room and possibly the blood stains, and that one must not read too much into it.

‘And then, I was the person who went back to the house and found the mess.’

She means that she found it normal that they wanted to ask her again and again how things were when she arrived at the house on 2 November, and that she did not think of taking a lawyer or contacting the ambassador, because that was all she had to do with the murder: finding the ‘mess’ (not the crime scene). At least, that is what she wanted the judges to believe.

Posted by Marc D. on 04/23/11 at 03:36 PM | #

So, after multiple trips to the Police station where she’s continually questioned about the murder of her housemate, whom she claims she is closest too of all the housemates…..........

a) she’s arrested and handcuffed
b) she’s put in a cell for days, not seconds, minutes or hours
c) she appears in front of a judge and is charged with murder

........and the best she can come up with is to stand there with her mouth open ?

Is she just exceptionally dim ? or can she only realise that at this point she daren’t open her mouth for fear of incriminating herself further. She’s separated from her former alibi, doesn’t know what is happening outside of her own little world and has no way of finding out.

Were I innocent etc etc noisy, complaining blah blah blah.

Posted by Smacker on 04/23/11 at 04:00 PM | #

4/23/11
Marc D.
Yes, I overreacted to the connotations of the word, “mess”, though I knew AK was referring to Filomena’s window and blood in bathroom, not the worse scene in Meredith’s bedroom. I found fault with Amanda’s word choice but I was stretching a point too far. Your explanation makes more sense.

Posted by Hopeful on 04/23/11 at 05:04 PM | #

@ aethelred23

She had one of those crocheted flowers hanging from a ribbon used as a bracelet when she was in court and I believe it was Edda Mellas who mentioned in an interview that she had learned how to make them in prison. I don’t remember when that photo was made, but I am sure it was during the first trial.

Here is a photo: http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?style=6&album_id=17ℑ_id=1403

Posted by Nell on 04/23/11 at 10:29 PM | #

Knox’s logorrhea—her seemingly uncontrollable need to express herself ad nauseum—yielded volumes of diarrheas—oops, Diaries, presumably still in her room in West Seattle. Those pages might offer an insightful ( or stultifyingly boring) look into her developing psyche. Perhaps the parentals will be reduced to publishing the collected treasures when they’ve exhausted all other avenues of financial revenue.

For her “there was no friction” in the cottage. For six months I had to share a bath with a disgusting slob of a flatmate. Her reply to my complaints was “I don’t care”. I’m not surprised if Knox perceived no big problem; the pig is rarely offended by its own stench.

A mess would have to be considerable for her to label it thus.

Posted by mimi on 04/24/11 at 01:09 AM | #

4/24/11
Happy Easter everyone! Alleluia!
______________________

Guede once said that the knife used on Meredith was an ivory handled pocket knife.

Guede also called Alessi an ogre. Guede has a peaceful yet florid writing style, quite poetic. He said in a poem something about Meredith being in a land of peach blossoms. He also wrote that he should be dead instead of her, he felt so ashamed for not saving her, or maybe more truthfully, of helping kill her.

Guede’s dad once got angry and broke a stick over his head, he said. The blood flowed freely from that and frightened him but he said that was nothing compared to all the blood he saw at Meredith’s murder scene. He emphasized the terrifying effect on him of all the blood. He also said the bed had a red duvet.

When Guede fled to Germany he met a man at some homeless shelter who told him he could rig a new life for Guede. He took him to a MacDonald’s and fed him, and told Rudy to pick a new false name. Rudy picked Roger Wheid (sp?). His father’s name is Roger. He claims his parents were not bad. He refuses to sharply criticize them and adds that he could have been a better son.

I hope Rudy will write more. It would help him and he has a nice style. As for the truth he goes too light on that.
_______________________

It’s Resurrection Day. “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” “He who believes in me (Jesus Christ) shall never die.” “This is the new covenant in my blood”. God is love.

Posted by Hopeful on 04/24/11 at 11:18 AM | #

I agree with Hopeful’s first interpretation. I can’t think of a single aspect of the condition of the cottage at that point that would be appropriately described as a “mess.” Even Knox admits that circumstances at the cottage—ie. broken glass, blood—caused her some concern. It wasn’t because something was a “mess,” like dirty dishes in the sink.

To me, it’s just another instance of Knox trying to minimize the situation—ie., as in “yucky” death, “just wanted to get on with my life”—because she can’t begin to face, let alone comprehend or take responsibility for, what really happened, and the enormity of the crime against Meredith Kercer: that Meredith was murdered as a result of Knox’s actions.

Posted by wayra on 04/24/11 at 02:08 PM | #

I agree with wayra’s interpretation about the use of the word “mess”. It’s a minimisation.

—-

@ aethelred23

I noticed that the link to my earlier posted photo doesn’t work now, so I took the time to look it up at iberpress as the photo was initially published by them. While clicking through the images, I couldn’t help but notice how plain and unremarkable Amanda Knox was dressed and styled throughout the trial and how she dressed up for the verdict. I am under the impression that Amanda Knox and her parents really must have felt she would be acquitted. One wonders why? They must have been absolutely convinced that her testimony and her “I don’t remember’s” were convincing enough to neutralise the evidence. Unbelievable how someone can be that naive.

Here is the photo of her crocheted bracelet/embellishment: Crocheted bracelet / embellishment

If that link for some reason doesn’t work for your, just go to iber-press.com and look up “Amanda Knox” in the quick search (right now it would be on page 28, but that can obviously change when new photos are added to their database). The two images have the image reference 50280 and 50281.

The photo was taken on the 20th November 2009.

Posted by Nell on 04/24/11 at 10:33 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 Why The FOA’s Increasingly Hapless Steve Moore Should Probably Stay Well Away From TV

Or to previous entry Sad To See Anne Bremners Brother Doug Increasingly The Hottest Of The FOA Hotheads