TJMKAKBook

5. Knox Book Lies 172 To 222

Posted by Chimera

Also Implacably Nasty…Click here to go straight to Comments.

1. Overview Of This Post

My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith. And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

I previewed this series and explained why “Revenge of the Knox” in this post here. Series post #1 dissected pages 1 to 66 of the new paperback edition. Post #2 dissected pages 67 to 107. Post #3 dissected pages 108 to 172. And Post #4 dissected pages 173 to 207.

2. Dissection Of Pages 207 to 243.

[Chapter 18, Page 207] ‘’ ... “Foxy Knoxy” also helped sell newspapers. The tabloids mined my Myspace profile and drew the most salacious conclusions. I resented that they took my posts and pictures out of context, emphasizing only the negative. A photo of me dressed in black and reclining provocatively on a piano bench, a shot my sister Deanna had taken for a high school photography class, circulated. They published parts of a short story I’d written for a UW creative writing class, about an older brother angrily confronting his younger brother for raping a woman. The media read a lot into that. There were pictures of me at parties and in the company of male friends, and a video showing me drunk. These were snippets of my teenage and college years. Not shown were the pictures of me riding my bike, opening Christmas presents, playing soccer, performing onstage in my high school’s production of The Sound of Music. Looked at together, these latter images would have portrayed a typical American girl, not as tame as some, not as experimental as many, but typical among my age group””a group that had the bad judgment to put our lives online. Now, at twenty, all I could think was, Who’s writing these articles? Is no one being fair? ...’‘

You post this stuff online, and HOW EXACTLY is it taken out of context?

Yes, posing on a piano bench. Good impression

You are charged with sexual assault, and previously published a rape story? Go figure.

You posted a video of yourself drunk? Great idea.

[Chapter 18, Page 208] ‘’ ... My supposedly obsessive promiscuity generated countless articles in three countries, much of it based on information the police fed to the press. It seemed that the prosecutor’s office released whatever they could to bolster their theory of a sex game gone wrong. They provided descriptions of Raffaele’s and my public displays of affection at the questura and witness statements that portrayed me as a girl who brought home strange men. Whatever the sources, the details made for a juicy story: attractive college students, sex, violence, mystery…’‘

Supposed obsessive promiscuity? You published accounts of 4 random sexual encounters IN THIS BOOK.

Supposed obsessive promiscuity? You were known for random and casual sex BEFORE leaving for Italy.

Prosecutors never claimed it was a sex game gone wrong, that was something your PR people fed the press.

Yes, boning your boyfriend is an odd way of showing grief over your dead ‘‘friend’‘.

Funny, you don’t seem to detail all the actual evidence that would be listed at trial.

[Chapter 18, Page 209] ‘’ ... Soon after I got to Capanne, I started getting fan mail””some from people who thought I was innocent, and some from strangers who said they were in love with me. I appreciated the encouraging letters and was shocked, and baffled, by the others. It seemed to me that these men””often prisoners themselves””had written me by mistake. Their passionate, sometimes pornographic scribbling had nothing to do with me and everything to do with the media’s creepy, hypersexual creation. I’d never imagined that I would be bombarded with such perverted attention. And if I was drop-dead sexy, it was news to me….’‘

People who thought you were innocent? Good job, Dave Marriott.

All these people write to you by mistake? Care to explain?

Their pornographic scribbling? What about the book I am reading now?

You never imagined such perverted attention? You flirted with people in court. You wore a ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt.

Agreed, you are not drop dead sexy, but in your prison writings you compare yourself to Helen of Troy.

[Chapter 18, Page 209] ‘’ ... I felt terrible that my mom and dad had abandoned their regular lives to come to Italy, and that their spouses back home were being hounded by journalists and paparazzi, who staked out their houses, waiting for them to come or go, knocking on the door and phoning them incessantly…’‘

Do you feel bad for the Kerchers? Or for Meredith?

Do you feel bad for Patrick and his family?

[Chapter 18, Page 211] ‘’ ... The idea that Meredith and I had been at odds ramped up quickly in the press. A couple of weeks after Robyn’s statement came out, investigators announced they’d found my blood on the faucet in the bathroom that Meredith and I had shared. Prosecutor Mignini hypothesized that the two of us had gotten into a fistfight and I’d wound up with a bloody nose. The truth was far less dramatic””and less interesting. I’d just gotten multiple piercings in both ears, and I took out all eleven earrings so that I could wipe my ears each morning while the shower water heated up. When I noticed the tiny droplets of blood in the sink the day Meredith’s body was discovered, I thought the blood had come from my ears, as it had on another day, until I scratched the porcelain and realized the blood was dry. That must have been what was on the faucet….’‘

It wasn’t just an idea. Meredith’s friend’s testified that she was growing to dislike you.

Why take out fresh earrings? That is how the holes close up.

Really, that amount of blood from ear piercings isn’t normal? Why were there no visible signs of infection?

You scratch the porcelain and realize they are dry ... why not just remove the blood?

Well, the blood could have come from the scratch on your neck, I mean hickey.

And the ‘‘orange shaped’’ lump of blood on the bathmat, you thought that was Meredith ‘‘dripping’‘?

Makes sense in a way, you see day old poop in the toilet and don’f flush it.

[Chapter 18, Page 212] ‘’ ... Meredith had been dead for just three weeks. I still could barely process the loss of my friend. It infuriated me that the media were rewriting our relationship to fit their storyline. I was a monster. Meredith was a saint. The truth was that we were very much alike. She was more contained than I was, but we were both young girls who studied seriously and wanted to do well, who wanted to make friends, and who’d had a few casual sexual relationships…’‘

Give it up. Meredith was not your friend.

The media was not ‘‘rewriting’’ anything.

You were not alike. Meredith was a serious student, and a kind, caring person to be around. You were a loud, unfocused, slob who did drugs, and brought random strangers home for sex. You took 1 simple language course.

Meredith did not have any casual encounters. This was completely made up.

[Chapter 18, Page 212] ‘’ ... I didn’t know what to think about Raffaele. Hearing that he’d destroyed my alibi was as baffling as it was incensing. Saying I’d put him up to lying was inexcusable and painful. And now this, I thought. Did I misjudge him? I didn’t think so, but I wasn’t at all sure what to make of him. One day we were really close, and the next he announced that he’d dropped me. Had this come from him? His lawyers? Journalists? I rationalized that I wasn’t the Italian girl he needed. I tried to be forgiving. If Raffaele doesn’t want to talk to me again, I’ll understand. This has been traumatic for everyone…’‘

You didn’t know what to think about Raffaele? Because you couldn’t control him

Why was it baffling that he destroyed your alibi? After all, if you were ‘‘beaten’‘, wouldn’t it make sense that he was? Wait….

Yeah, dragging him into a murder tends to be ...(murder) on relationships. Pardon the pun.

He needs an Italian girl? More likely he needs a stable girl, regardless of nationality.

Forgiving, you don’t seem to be the type.

[Chapter 18, Page 213] ‘’ ... Argirò was standing a foot behind me when I got the news. “Maybe you should have thought about that before you slept with lots of people,” he chided. I spun around. “I didn’t have sex with anyone who had AIDS,” I snapped, though it was possible that one of the men I’d hooked up with, or even Raffaele, was HIV-positive.

“You should think about who you slept with and who you got it from.” Maybe he was trying to comfort me or to make a joke, or maybe he saw an opening he thought he could use to his advantage. Whatever the reason, as we were walking back upstairs to my cell, Argirò said, “Don’t worry. I’d still have sex with you right now.

Promise me you’ll have sex with me.” But sometimes I was just angry….’‘

Yet another entertaining tale of sexual harassment ... that you did not report.

[Chapter 18, Page 215] ‘’ ... I got out my diary to think this over rationally, imagining who could have infected me, replaying my sexual experiences in my mind to see where I could have slipped up. I wondered if a condom had broken, and if so, whose. If it had, did he know? I’d had sex with seven guys””four in Seattle and three in Italy. I tried to be logical, writing down the name of each person I’d slept with and the protection we’d used. Writing made me feel a little better. I knew I needed to get out of prison and get checked by someone I trusted before I started thinking and acting as if my life were over. I forced myself not to anticipate the worst.

That Saturday, I told my parents what the doctor had said. My mom started crying immediately. “But I haven’t had unprotected sex,” I said, trying to reassure her. “I’m sure it’s going to be fine.” My dad was skeptical. He asked, “Do you even think they’re telling you the truth?” That possibility hadn’t occurred to me. But when I told them, Luciano and Carlo seconded that idea. “It could be a ploy by the prosecution to scare you into an even more vulnerable emotional state so they can take advantage of you,” Carlo said. “You need to stay alert, Amanda, and don’t let anyone bully you.”

Okay, this ‘‘list’‘, while amusing on some level is quite irrelevant to a murder case.

4 guys in Seattle, 3 in Italy? In THIS BOOK, you list Cristiano/Frederico, Mirko, Bobby and Raffaele. That is 4 just in Italy. Can’t you count?

Your roommates complained you brought MANY men home. So it was more than 3 in Italy.

You have random sex with drug dealers, but it’s okay because you used protection?

Wow, you think this was all a ploy to scare you? That is paranoid. Are you sure you’re not doing coke anymore?

You tried to be logical? Then why do this at all?

[Chapter 18, Page 216] ‘’ ... I wondered what they were hoping to find. Did they want to search my clothing for traces of Meredith’s blood? I felt almost smug, because I knew they wouldn’t find anything incriminating, and I hoped it might convince them that I truly had nothing to hide….’‘

You knew they wouldn’t find anything incriminating? Wow.

You felt almost smug? Probably.

Were you feeling smug because you knew they found Guede’s handprint, DNA, shoeprint and shit? The stuff you left behind .....

You might convince them? Well, you initially convinced the police….

[Chapter 18, Page 217] ‘’ ... A few months after that, they released my prison journal to the media, where instead of reporting that I’d had seven lovers altogether, some newspapers wrote that Foxy Knoxy had slept with seven men in her six weeks in Perugia….’‘

You are accusing the prison staff of violating medical confidentiality? Did you report this?

Or, was this a ‘‘sympathy’’ leak from your own lawyers?

Whether you slept with 7 men in Perugia, or 7 men overall, that is the least of your worries.

[Chapter 19, Page 219] ‘’ ... I was stunned one morning when I looked up at the TV and noticed a breaking news report. There was now a fourth suspect, and an international manhunt for him had been launched. The police didn’t say who the suspect was or how this person fit into the murder scenario they’d imagined, only that they’d found a bloody handprint on Meredith’s pillowcase that wasn’t mine, Patrick’s, or Raffaele’s. The news rattled me, but it also gave me hope. Maybe this meant the police hadn’t completely given up trying to find the truth. For the next twenty-four hours I was consumed by the question Who is this unnamed person? ...’‘

Stunned because you expected him to be caught SOONER, or LATER?

Fit into the murder scenario THEY imagined? Your statements include all sorts of things ‘‘your mind made up.’‘

Great idea, to leave that handprint. They got your accomplice.

Just because the police see through your B.S., doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to see the truth.

Or, more likely consumed with the question of whether he would talk.

[Chapter 19, Page 219] ‘’ ... The name didn’t click until I saw his mug shot. Oh my God, it’s him. I thought back to November 5, when I was sitting in the hall at the questura, assuming I was just waiting for Raffaele, and talking to the silver-haired cop. As I’d been doing for days, I was trying to recall all the men who had ever visited our villa, when I suddenly remembered one of Giacomo and Marco’s friends. It had annoyed me that I couldn’t remember his name. “I think he’s South African,” I told the detective. “All I know is that he played basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced him to Meredith and me in Piazza IV Novembre in mid-October. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.” I’d seen Guede just one time after that. He’d shown up at Le Chic, and I had taken his drink order. Those few words were the only ones we ever exchanged…’‘

In your email to Judge Nencini (December 2013), you said you had no contact with Guede

In that same email, you said that you crossed paths with Guede exactly once.

In this passage, you describe meeting Rudy at your apartment, and at Patrick’s bar. That is TWICE.

Even though, you never met Rudy, you remember him joking with the guys (and finding out), he was into you.

Even though Guede is into you, the only words you exchange is when he orders a drink?

Is Guede some kind of love-sick stalker, that you never had contact with, and never spoke to?

So, how many times exactly did you meet Rudy Guede?

Chapter 19, Page 220] ‘’ ... I learned that Guede was twenty and originally from Ivory Coast. He’d been abandoned by his parents and taken in by a rich Perugian family who treated him like a son. He was a talented basketball player who’d made a lot of friends on the court. But over time, he’d been more inclined to loaf than to work, and his surrogate family disowned him. He’d lost his job in the fall of 2007, before Meredith and I met him. Guede had been caught breaking into offices and homes and stealing electronics and cash…’‘

His parent abandoned him? I thought he was an orphan, at least that’s what FOA says.

Over time he’d been more inclined to loaf than work? You seem to know a lot about his work status, despite not knowing him.

He lost his job? You seem to portray him as a drifter and drug dealer. Most drug dealers are not employed.

So, did you find out about these break ins when you met him the ‘‘one-time’’ at your apartment?

So, Guede has a history of break ins, you stage break ins as a prank, he has the hots for you, and this never came up?

[Chapter 19, Page 221] ‘’ ... All I could think was that if he’d been put behind bars then, Meredith would still be alive.
It didn’t make sense to me that they had let him go but had leapt to arrest me. I’d met but didn’t know Rudy Guede. I didn’t know if he was capable of murder. I couldn’t imagine why he might do something so brutal. But I believed that he was guilty, that the evidence could only be interpreted one way. Finally the police could stop using me as the scapegoat for some phantom killer whom no one could name””a phantom whose place I’d been filling…’‘

The same could be said if Seattle police had locked you up for that stone throwing riot. Oh wait, you have no record.

They didn’t leap to arrest you. You wrote multiple statements saying you were at the scene, and witnessed (but did not report,), PL murder Meredith.

You believed he was guilty? How do you know? You ‘‘met him once’‘, and didn’t know much about him. It is almost as if you intimately knew what evidence was at the crime scene.

The evidence can only be interpreted one way? Evidence like phone records, or lying to police?

They weren’t ‘‘scapegoating’’ you for some phantom killer. You gave statements saying you witnessed PL doing it.

[Chapter 10, Page 222] ‘’ ... Still, I was surprised it was Guede who had been named, because the two times I’d met him were under such ordinary circumstances. There was nothing distinguishable about him. He’d seemed interchangeable with almost every guy I’d met in Perugia “”confident, bordering on arrogant. Not threatening. Not like a down-and-out thief. Not even odd…’‘

The two times you met him? Again, you emailed Judge Nencini you never met him, but crossed paths exactly once.

Perugia men are confident and arrogant? How many exactly did you sleep with? Never mind, not relevant.

[Chapter 19, Page 222] ‘’ ... “Rudy?” I asked, repeating his name to make sure I’d heard correctly. “You mean the guy who police are calling “˜the fourth person’?”

“Yes, Rudy. You know him?” “Vaguely,” I answered, shrugging. “Vaguely, huh? We’ll see what he says about that,” the cop said.

I didn’t respond but tried to act confident so he wouldn’t think he was getting to me. I was thinking, Guede won’t have anything to say about me. He doesn’t know me. ...’‘

You know him vaguely? Once again, you emailed the judge at YOUR Florence appeal, saying you didn’t know him

You know him vaguely, but he doesn’t know you? So, is knowing someone a one-way affair now?

Guede won’t have anything to say about you? Hmm… almost like you have something on him.

[Chapter 19, Page 222] ‘’ ... Within hours, I learned that, before his arrest, he told a friend over Skype, as Perugian detectives listened in, that he’d been at the villa the night of the murder. “I was in the bathroom when it happened,” he said. “I tried to intervene, but I wasn’t able. Amanda has nothing to do with this . . . I fought with a male, and she wasn’t there.” Neither was Patrick, he said. “The guy was Italian, because we insulted each other and he didn’t have a foreign accent.”

When his friend asked if it was Raffaele, “the one from TV,” Guede said, “I think so, but I’m not sure.”

And this is the PROOF you are innocent?

So, Guede weakly identifies Raffaele, but is sure you are not there? Okay.

[Chapter 19, Page 223] ‘’ ... Guede apparently tried to establish an alibi by changing clothes and heading to a downtown dance club hours after the murder. His lawyers later said he’d been so frightened by the murder that he’d gone there to calm himself down. He went to Domus again the next night””attracting attention when he continued dancing during a moment of silence for Meredith. He left town the following day. Carlo and Luciano told me he probably got spooked by the media’s attention to the case and decided it was best to leave and take his bloody clothes and shoes with him. They guessed that Guede had probably been in the middle of robbing the villa when Meredith came home, and he had attacked her. As soon as they suggested this scenario, it made perfect sense to me. I hadn’t been able to put all those pieces together before. Meredith’s murder had been so horrific, and my arrest too absurd, it had been impossible for me to think logically about it…’‘

Carlo and Luciano? Hmmm…. so when does Rome lawyer Giancarlos Costa join your team?

Guede tried to establish an alibi? Seems he is not the only one.

Guede was in the middle of robbing the place, when Meredith came home, but he doesn’t take anything, just murders her, takes a dump and leaves?

And how did he break in? The police thought the break in was staged.

How do you know what happened to his bloody clothes and shoes?

[Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ ... I saw it as a momentary problem that Guede was fingering Raffaele, but this was huge! Guede had backed up my alibi: I hadn’t been at the villa. And since I hadn’t been there, since I’d been at Raffaele’s apartment, Raffaele would be cleared, too. We would both be freed….’‘

Guede backs your alibi, but fingers you alibi witness?

How is this a momentary problem?

[Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ .... Seeing how the prosecution treated Patrick in the two weeks since his arrest should have given me insight into how they worked. My lawyers told me it had been widely reported the week before that Patrick had cash register receipts and multiple witnesses vouching for his whereabouts on the night of November 1. A Swiss professor had testified that he’d been at Le Chic with Patrick that night from 8 P.M. to 10 P.M. But even though Patrick had an ironclad alibi and there was no evidence to prove that he’d been at the villa, much less in Meredith’s bedroom at the time of the murder, the police couldn’t bear to admit they were wrong….’‘

Patrick was arrested due to the accusatory statements that YOU wrote.

Give you insight into how they worked? Yes, they investigated his alibi, and released him once it was corroborated.

Yes, no evidence of him at the home would surely speed up his release.

The police did admit they were wrong. They released Patrick.

[Chapter 19, Page 224] ‘’ ... Patrick went free the day Guede was arrested. Timing his release to coincide with Guede’s arrest, the prosecution diverted attention from their mistake. They let him go only when they had Guede to take his place…’‘

You seriously think they kept Patrick was held until they had someone else?

[Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... I dreamed about the interrogation almost every night during these early days in prison. I would be back in the crowded, close interrogation room, feeling the tension, hearing the officers yelling, reliving the primal panic. I’d wake up sweating, my heart banging. Nothing in my life up to then had compared to that experience. What had happened to me that night? How I could I ever have named Patrick? ...’‘

You dreamed about the “interrogation”? You seemed to be dreaming during it too.

Primal fear? Is tea and chocolate that chilling to you?

How could you name Patrick? Better question would have been ‘‘why’‘.

[Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... Then I immediately felt embarrassed, self-conscious that, in one way or another, the few prisoners and guards who happened to see this would misread my actions as selfish. I didn’t know whether the guards were reporting directly to the prosecution, but I knew that everyone thought I was a liar and that anything I said and did would be viewed from that angle””that I was trying to make people think I was innocent by acting happy for Patrick. The police would almost certainly think this was one more instance of Amanda Knox behaving inappropriately””one more example of me as a manipulative, depraved person ....’‘

You accuse someone of murder, who is totally innocent. How are people supposed to view it?

Yes, people probably did think you were a liar.

Yes, it would seem to strange to be happy for someone you said you were afraid of, and who you falsely accused.

Well, it might be less inappropriate, except for the fact you caused this dilemma.

Manipulative? Reasonable conclusion. Depraved? Not my place to say.

[Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... Even if my cellmates didn’t see my reaction as putting on an act, I didn’t want anyone to know what I was actually thinking and feeling. I was protective of myself in that environment. I felt vulnerable and scared, and I didn’t want anyone to see that, even if that’s how I really felt….’‘

You just said you didn’t want people to see you as manipulative, but you are now saying you put up a front.

[Chapter 19, Page 225] ‘’ ... In truth, I did see Patrick’s release as my vindication. By writing my two postinterrogation statements””my memoriali””I had tried to convince the police that Patrick was not Meredith’s murderer. And now the prosecution knew that when I retracted my declarations from that night, I was telling the truth: Patrick was innocent. Raffaele and I had been together at his apartment the whole time…’‘

You tried to convince the police Patrick was not involved? Then why all the ‘‘stuff my mid made up’’ crap?

You went from clear and accusatory to confusing and contradictory. Hardly truth telling.

You were with Raffaele? Didn’t he recently say that you asked him to lie for you?

[Chapter 19, Page 226] ‘’ ... The prosecution would understand how, under pressure during my interrogation, I had pictured a scene that wasn’t true. I had faith that my lawyers could prove the knife with Meredith’s and my DNA was a mistake. My confidence was bolstered by Guede’s arrest. I didn’t know him. If he was Meredith’s murderer, I was sure people would see that Raffaele and I had had nothing to do with it. Soon I’d be cleared as a suspect….’‘

So, when faced with the loss of your alibi, you pictured a scene that wasn’t true—to divert suspicion?

Your lawyers can prove the double DNA knife is a mistake? Why didn’t they attend the testing? Right, to use as an excuse later.

Why would Guede’s arrest make people believe in you? People can commit crimes with accomplices.

You seem obsessed to be seen in a positive light.

[Chapter 19, Page 226] ‘’ ... The prosecution could have redeemed themselves. Instead, they held on to Raffaele and me as their trophies.

I learned that when he signed the warrant for Patrick’s release, Giuliano Mignini said that I’d named Patrick to cover up for Guede. It was his way of saying that the police had been justified in their arrest of three people and that any confusion over which three people was my fault. I was made out to be a psychotic killer capable of manipulating the police until my lies, and the law, had caught up with me….’‘

They did redeem themselves. They now had the right people in custody, in spite of your lies.

The prosecution held onto you as suspects, only psycho killers take trophies.

Naming Patrick to cover for Guede? Reasonable suspicion.

You ‘‘DID’’ manipulate the police until your lies caught up to you.

[Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... Patrick gave only one interview condemning the police for his unfounded arrest before his lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, advised him to side with the prosecution, who had taken him away in handcuffs, humiliating him in front of his family, in the intimate hours of the morning. After that, he announced that he would never forgive me for what I had done, that I’d ruined him financially and emotionally. He talked about my behavior in his bar, saying that he’d fired me for flirting with his customers. He called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.”

Patrick was taken away at YOUR instigation. Get this straight.

Sided with the prosecutors? Would he side with the defendant who framed him?

He wouldn’t forgive you for this humiliation in front of his family? Who would?

Fired you for not doing your job? What an evil man. Wait, that is just what you told police.

[Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... The truth is that he had hired me not just to serve cocktails but to bring in customers. He had cut back on my days because I was a mediocre waitress and not enough of a flirt to add to his bottom line. Then, after Meredith’s murder, I quit because I was afraid to be out alone at night…’‘

You have casual sex with random men, and are not enough of a flirt?

You quit because of fear of being alone? So, why would Patrick still be expecting you to work?

[Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... I absolutely understood why he was angry with me. I’d put his reputation, his livelihood, and possibly even his life at risk. I felt sick with guilt. I thought he deserved an explanation and an apology from me. When I asked my lawyers if it would be okay for me to write him, they shook their heads no. “I’m afraid it’s not as simple as that anymore,” Carlo explained. “Patrick’s lawyer will hand over anything you send Patrick to the press.”

You understand why he was angry with you? Well, you seemed to be justifying it by saying he wanted you to flirt more.

Yes, he does deserve an explanation and apology.

Well, if you want to clear something up, why not put it in writing? Not that it has ever backfired on you before. Wait….

You flirt with people in court, and are anxious about a letter ending up in the press?

[Chapter 19, Page 227] ‘’ ... Any communication with Patrick would be publicized and scrutinized and played to my disadvantage, especially if I explained why I’d said his name during my interrogation. I’d have to go into how the police had pressured me, which would only complicate my already poor standing with the prosecution. If I said I’d imagined things during the interrogation, I’d be called crazy. If I said I’d been abused, it would be seen as further proof that I was a liar….’‘

Yes, written statements by defendants tend to be scutinized.

An explanation would be nice. Something without any references to drugs, or stress, or visions.

Yes, those pesky police-abuse accusations (if false) tend to leave a bad impression.

You wouldn’t be seen as crazy, just a B.S. artist.

[Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... When I first told Carlo and Luciano I wanted to talk to Prosecutor Mignini, I didn’t think of it as a rematch between opposing sides. I saw it as a chance to set the record straight. Finally….’‘

Was it not Luciano Ghirga and Giancarlo Costa who were with you in this questioning? We haven’t even started and you are already lying.

Set the record straight? You are going to confess?

[Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... “I’m sure if I talk to him in person, I can show him I’m sincere,” I told my lawyers. “I can convince him he’s been wrong about me. It bothers me that everyone””the prosecutor, the police, the press, the public””thinks I’m a murderer. If I just had the chance to present my real self to Mignini I’m sure I could change that perception. People could no longer say I’m a killer.”

Carlo and Luciano looked at me doubtfully. “I’m not sure it’s the best idea,” Carlo said. “Mignini is cagey. He’ll do everything he can to trick you.”

You can show Mignini you are sincere? Didn’t you say in chapter 10 how he bullied a false statement from you? Right, he wasn’t there.

Present your ‘‘real-self’‘? This is a murder investigation, not a job interview.

Trick you? Or expose your lies and inconsistencies?

[Chapter 20, Page 229] ‘’ ... “I feel like it’s my only hope,” I said. “My memoriali didn’t change anyone’s mind “”they just made the prosecution and the media portray me as a liar. I didn’t get to tell the judge what happened before she confirmed my arrest. I think I have to explain face-to-face why I named Patrick. I’ve got to make Mignini understand why I said I’d met Patrick at the basketball court, why I said I’d heard Meredith scream.”

Did you actually read the memoriali you wrote? Who wouldn’t conclude you were lying?

You have to explain yourself? Do you want to make things worse?

Yes, how did you know that Meredith screamed? Guede, and neighbour Nina Capellazi both confirmed this ‘‘wee’’ detail.

[Chapter 20, Page 230] ‘’ ... “It’s risky,” Carlo said. “Mignini will try to pin things on you.” “He already has,” I told them. The first time I met Mignini at the questura, I hadn’t understood who he was, what was going on, what was wrong, why people were yelling at me, why I couldn’t remember anything. I thought he was someone who could help me (the mayor), not the person who would sign my arrest warrant and put me behind bars…’‘

You want to meet with the man who tried to pin things on you?

Yet, you think that this will clear everything up?

You think Mignini is the mayor? Do city officials typically get involved in murder investigations?

Wow, the ‘‘Mayor’’ is a douche, spending all this time at court, police stations and crime scenes. No wonder those potholes aren’t getting filled.

[Chapter 20, Page 230] ‘’ ... This time I was ready. This time my lawyers would be there. I’d be rested. My mind was clear. I was going in knowing what I was getting into. I’d take my time and answer all his questions in English. I didn’t think I’d be released immediately, but I hoped that giving the prosecutor a clear understanding of what had happened would help me. Then, as new evidence came forward proving my innocence, Mignini would have to let me go….’‘

You were ready? So you had time to rehearse?

Your mind was clear? So, no more ‘‘best truths’‘, let’s hope.

You did answer in English, but in the transcript, you were able to understand Mignini’s questions quite well in Italian.

How would giving a clear understanding help you? Unless it is a straightforward alibi?

What ‘‘evidence’’ would be coming forward, proving your innocence? Did you stage something?

[Chapter 20, Page 231] ‘’ ... But I wasn’t good at censoring myself. I had only two hours a week with my mom and dad, and they were the only people I could open up to. It made me feel better to vent, and my parents needed to know what I was thinking. I couldn’t see the danger in discussing with them my day-to-day prison life, my interactions with my cellmates and guards, or my case. Since I hadn’t been involved in the murder, I figured that anything I said would only help prove my innocence…’‘

Right, you aren’t good at censoring yourself: Meredith’s friends all complained about just that problem

How would sharing the day-to-day help prove you are innocent? You were arrested AFTER the murder, correct?

[Chapter 20, Page 231] ‘’ ... I hadn’t considered that the prosecution would twist my words. I didn’t think they would be capable of taking anything I said and turning it into something incriminating, because everything I said was about my innocence and how I wanted to go home. I was saying the same thing again and again…’‘

Mignini didn’t try to twist anything. He wanted to clear up many unanswered questions

Yes, you talk about your innocence, and the details (from the transcript), are even MORE confusing.

If you were saying the same thing over and over, we wouldn’t be here.

And this book (even with publishing help), changes considerably. Everything you say has new versions.

Even your lawyers come in new versions. This book omits Giancarlo Costa.

[Chapter 20, Page 232] ‘’ ... On their first visit after the knife story came out, Dad and Mom were telling me my lawyers’ theory””that the police could be using the knife as a scare tactic to get me to incriminate myself. “The police have nothing at all on you,” Mom said. “So they are trying . . . to see if you[‘ll] say something more.”

The police don’t need to intimidate you. And this might get you a new calunnia charge.

They have plenty on you. False alibi, false accusation, DNA, incriminating statements….

So, has Dad shared his new ‘‘secret weapon’‘? A PR firm, with David Marriott… ? No?

[Chapter 20, Page 232] ‘’ ... “It’s stupid,” I said. “I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there. I mean, I can’t lie about this, there is no reason to do it.”

What I meant by “I was there” was that I was at Raffaele’s apartment the night of Meredith’s murder, that I couldn’t possibly implicate myself. I hadn’t been at the villa. I wasn’t going to slip up, because I wasn’t hiding anything….’‘

Well, your explanation seems reasonable, but would be far more believable except that your alibi witness withdrew his alibi, and signed a statement saying you asked him to lie for you.

You can’t say anything but the truth? I bet Patrick would beg to differ.

You didn’t implicate yourself. You claimed to be a witness to someone else doing it, (and placed yourself there).

[Chapter 20, Page 233] ‘’ ... Being more careful in the future wouldn’t immediately resolve this serious misunderstanding. A few days later the judge considered those words when deciding if I could be moved to house arrest. In another crushing blow that characterized my early months in prison, my request was denied. I was stuck alone behind bars….’‘

Meredith was murdered, and it was a ‘‘misunderstanding’‘?

Or rather, lies, false accusations, DNA evidence, and incriminating statements are ‘‘misunderstandings’‘?

You were denied house arrest? Go figure.

You were also psychologically tested, and the results were alarming. Yet you omit that as a major reason to keep you.

[Chapter 20, Page 233] ‘’ ... Calling the intercepted conversation a “clue,” the judge wrote, “it can certainly be read as a confirmation of the girl’s presence in her home at the moment of the crime.” He went on to describe me as “crafty and cunning,” saying that I was “a multifaced personality, unattached to reality with an elevated . . . fatal, capacity to kill again.”

It wasn’t until my pretrial, the following September, that a different judge agreed with my defense that it was obvious I was talking about Raffaele’s apartment, not the villa, and removed this “evidence” from the record….’‘

Well, your false accusation of Lumumba was crafty and cunning. Wait, that was ‘‘under pressure’‘.

Unattached to reality? Have you seen the stuff you write?

Actually, the ‘‘evidence’’ was never removed. In fact, Judge Paolo Micheli found enough cause to send you to trial.

[Chapter 20, Page 234] ‘’ ... Not even my lawyers understood my journal musings on Raffaele and the knife that made their way into the newspapers. I’d written a hyperbolic explanation about him taking the knife from his apartment behind my back. I had to explain to Carlo and Luciano that I’d concocted it because the possibility of a knife with Meredith’s DNA coming out of Raffaele’s apartment had struck me as so preposterous: ‘’ Unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned it off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that…’‘

I’m sure your lawyers don’t understand your journal writings.

What is the purpose of these writings? Were they deliberate, did you assume they would be read?

It sounds like a silly passage from ‘‘Honor Bound’’—Amanda’s DNA on Meredith’s bra, because Amanda wore it too.

Or this excuse from Raffaele—Meredith’s DNA was on his knife because Meredith pricked her hand while cooking. (Despite Meredith was never there).

[Chapter 20, Page 234] ‘’ ... But I didn’t have the luxury of explaining what I’d written to everyone who read it. After my passage was translated into Italian and then retranslated back into English, it bore little resemblance to the original””and a great resemblance to the prosecution’s theories about what had happened the night of November 1:

‘‘That night I smoked a lot of marijuana and I fell asleep at my boyfriend’s house. I don’t remember anything. But I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed her. And then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he put my fingerprints on the knife. But I don’t understand why Raffaele would do that…’‘

How would you know exactly what it said? The writing was confiscated, and according to your 2013 interview with Amazon editor Neal Thompson, (available online), you didn’t get anything back that was confiscated.

Actually, (marijuana aside) there are the same elements, Raffaele killing Meredith, then putting your fingerprints on the knife.

You could always have taken the stand (without restricted questioning), to explain it.

[Chapter 20, Page 235] ‘’ ... As the date for the interrogation approached, Luciano and Carlo offered me a few pointers. “Don’t let him get to you. Don’t say anything if you don’t remember it perfectly. It’s okay to say, “˜I don’t remember.’ You don’t have to be God and know everything. It’s better to say, “˜I don’t know,’ and move on.”

Luciano and Carlo? Again, no Giancarlo Costa? See this.

Don’t say anything if you don’t remember perfectly Is this advice to withhold?

She isn’t God, but according to her writings, Amanda is Helen of Troy.

[Chapter 20, Page 237] ‘’ ... It bothered me that as I answered him as fully as I could through an interpreter, Mignini would usually repeat the question. I was afraid I wasn’t making myself clear. At first, Carlo, acting as a second interpreter, spoke in measured tones. He would interrupt and say, “What she is really saying is . . .” or “She’s already answered that question!”

Actually, the ‘‘interrogation’’ was nothing like what Amanda describes. Here are the transcripts: one, two, three, and four.

And it is Giancarlo Costa, not Dalla Carlo Vedova, who is with Luciano Ghirga.

[Chapter 20, Page 239] ‘’ ... I was more frustrated than I’d ever been. “Because I thought it could have been him!”

I shouted, starting to cry. I meant that I’d imagined Patrick’s face and so I had really, momentarily, thought it was him. Mignini jumped up, bellowing, “Aha!” I was sobbing out of frustration, anger.

My lawyers were on their feet. “This interrogation is over!” Luciano shouted, swiping his arm at the air….’‘

Read the transcripts above. Knox stopped the questioning, not Luciano.

[Chapter 21, Page 241] ‘’ ... Now I was moving in with Cera. Young, with the tall, lean looks of a model, she worked as a portavito, delivering meals from a rolling cart. She was also in my weekly guitar class, another prison “rehabilitation” activity like movie time. But I was still secluded from the main prison population””a special status to protect young, first-time suspects. The downside was that it prevented me from participating in group activities or talking to anyone but my cellmates. Thankfully, Don Saulo convinced prison officials to let me attend the guitar lessons, just as he had weekly Mass….’‘

You had a weekly guitar class? Wow, can you name one American prison that does that? Probably not.

There is movie time? Wow, such a hard place to be in.

You were secluded because you were a young first timer? Really, or secluded until they determined if the accused sex killer was a danger?

So, how long exactly were you in ‘‘seclusion’‘? You are very vague on this.

[Chapter 21, Page 242] ‘’ ... Cera had managed to make her cell homey, clean, and organized. There were bright colored sheets on the beds, postcards taped to the walls, and a colorful curtain tied to the bars at the window. We had a heart-to-heart talk while I unpacked. She was sitting cross-legged on the bed closest to the window. “I should probably tell you right off, I’m bisexual,” she said.

“That’s cool,” I replied. “I’m not, but I’m definitely live-and-let-live.”

“You’re not my type, anyway,” she said. “I thought you might be gay when you asked to live with me, but I decided you weren’t.” She hesitated. “You know, your former cellmates said you’re spoiled.”

Wow. Why hadn’t I realized they would trash me behind my back? They gossiped about everyone else. Cera read my disappointment. “They’re fake. Almost everyone in prison is fake. You’ll see.’‘

Prison is not the most socially progressive place, and you wish to publish that your cellie is bisexual? Some friend.

Yes, almost everyone in prison is fake. Amanda, care to comment on this link?

[Chapter 21, Page 243] ‘’ ... Cera scoffed. “You don’t know what they say about you when you’re outside”””˜Who does Kuh-nox think she is? She’s saving worms from the rain but killing people.’ Even Lupa says you’re guilty.” I knew the prosecution didn’t believe me, but I’d assumed the people I interacted with every day would see me for who I was and not imagine the worst. As soon as Cera said this, it seemed obvious””of course the guards would assume I was a murderer. Everyone did….’‘

So, is this conversation in English, or is your Italian fluent by now?

Why would the guards make this assumption? They watch over all kinds of people.

You have been formally charged with murder, and a judge has said there is cause to hold you. People might think you are a killer.

Posted on 08/04/14 at 09:02 PM by Chimera • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Knox False Claims, Examples 172-222
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (8)

6. Knox Book Lies 223 To 275

Posted by Chimera

Also Implacably Nasty… Click here to go straight to Comments.

1. Overview Of This Post

2. Dissection Of Pages 243 to 291.

[Chapter 21, Page 244] ‘’ ... At twenty, I still had a childlike view of people. I looked for the saving graces in everyone. I thought people were naturally empathetic, that they felt ashamed and guilty when they mistreated someone else. That faith in humanity was being picked away, but I held to the belief that people were basically good. And that good people would believe me and set me free….’‘

You look for the saving graces in everyone, yet you assume everyone thinks you are a monster?

People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T tell someone that their friend had ‘‘their throat fucking slit’‘?

People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T say that ‘‘shit happens’’ regarding a murdered friend’?

People are naturally empathetic .... so they DON’T claim someone is a friend, then that you want to get on with your life?

Why would being good have anything to do as to whether you are believed or not? Murder cases hinge on evidence, not feelings.

[Chapter 21, Page 244] ‘’ ... Part of the growing up I did in prison was learning that people are complicated, and that some will do something wrong to achieve what they think is right. Since my second interrogation with Mignini, I knew the prosecution was intent on undermining my alibi. Over the coming weeks and months, I would learn just how far they would go to try to prove me guilty….’‘

Some will do something wrong to achieve what they think is right? So, falsely accusing PL, because getting away was right?

Which alibi was Mignini intent on undermining? The one that Raffaele refused, the party that he made up, or the one that he was alone on his computer while you went out? Or was it your alibi (statements), that you were a witness to PL killing Meredith? Or the one where you and Raffy were at his apartment?

2nd interrogation? It was his first ‘‘interrogation’‘. To recap:

Mignini was not present at your 1:45 statement. Chapter 10 in your book is 100% fiction.

Mignini was present (he was called from home), at your 5:45 statement, but asked you no questions.

You seem to remember your number of interrogations the way you remember how many times you met Guede

How far Mignini would go? You mean, present your lies, false statements, phone records, DNA evidence .... that is what prosecutors DO. There are these things (both in Italy and in America), called TRIALS. You will learn more.

[Chapter 21, Page 245] ‘’ ... The prints couldn’t have been made by Raffaele’s newer Nike Air Force 1s, he said. “They had just seven concentric circles.” By show’s end he had removed the possibility that Raffaele had been at the murder scene and put another strike against Guede. Raffaele’s family must have felt euphoric….’‘

Well, the shoes might not implicate Raffy, but those bare feet, and that ‘‘hammer toe’’ will

Euphoric, at another strike against Guede? Hmmm…. were you trying to frame him or something?

[Chapter 21, Page 245] ‘’ ... I knew this “evidence” could hurt us. I also knew that Raffaele had as much chance of coming into contact with Meredith’s bra as Meredith had meeting up with a knife from Raffaele’s apartment. Neither could be true, but the prosecution would use both these findings to tie us to the crime….’‘

Well, this is true, but in a manipulative way. Yes, Raffaele would have as much chance, namely both incidents would only happen, if Raffaele were involved in the killings.

Victim’s DNA on suspect’s knife, and suspect’s DNA on victim’s bra? Why would the prosecution see that as evidence?

Yes, they do tie you to the crime. No need to be sarcastic.

[Chapter 21, Page 246] ‘’ ... I wasn’t implicated by the clasp, but I knew that the prosecution would never believe that Raffaele had acted without me. They’d say I gave him access to the villa. I was the reason he’d met Meredith. We were each other’s alibis. If they could show that Raffaele was directly connected to the crime, I would, at the very least, be charged as his accomplice…’‘

You are being disingenuous again. While the DNA conclusively links Raffaele to the scene, you are implying that the police would leap to conclusions to connect you as well.

While you present these as fantasies, they are quite reasonable. Raffaele’s connection to the house was you, his ‘‘girlfriend’‘. You claimed you were with him, yes, you were each other’s alibis. Yes, disproving the alibi of one would cast suspicion on the other.

[Chapter 21, Page 248] ‘’ ... This new claim was another barricade separating me from my real life””one more accusation on a growing list. Too many impossible things were being served up as “truth”””Meredith’s DNA on Raffaele’s kitchen knife, Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, and now Meredith’s blood on the soles of my feet….’‘

Separating you from your real life? What, you just want to get on with your life?

Did you see the crime scene photos? There was a lot of blood in Meredith’s room. Yes, you could have stepped in some.

[Chapter 21, Page 248] ‘’ ... It was crazy enough to be told that “investigative instinct” had convinced the police I was involved in Meredith’s murder””that I was dangerous and evil. Now forensic science””the supposedly foolproof tests I was counting on to clear me””was turning up findings I knew were wrong. I, like most people who get their information from TV crime shows, was unaware that forensic evidence has to be interpreted, that human error and bias can, and do, upend results…’‘

It wasn’t investigative instinct. It was those damn false accusation statements you insisted on writing.

Well, innocent people don’t write such things, and they tend to have just one (1) alibi.

The foolproof tests you were expecting to clear me ... and implicate Guede?

You are unhappy and surprised that TV and CSI lied to you? Okay ....

Human error and bias can upend results. So can falsely claiming to witness someone doing the crime.

[Chapter 21, Page 249] ‘’ ... I always liked seeing my lawyers, but now I had to brace myself for each visit. I didn’t have to wait long before they brought more devastating news. Less than a week later, investigators reported that they’d found my DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood ringing the drain of the bidet in our shared bathroom. The implication was that I’d rinsed my hands and feet in the bidet after slashing her throat. They said that my skin cells had shown up””not Raffaele’s or Rudy Guede’s””because I was the last person to wash up in that bathroom…’‘

You are unhappy because the lawyers only bring bad news?

Mixed DNA in the bathroom? What about the mixed DNA in Filomena’s room—you omit that.

You know, for all your TV interviews, you claim ‘‘no evidence’‘, but your own book lists quite a lot of it.

You were the last person to wash up there? Finally, another truthful statement.

You sure didn’t ‘‘shower’’ in that blood soaked bathroom the morning after, did you?

[Chapter 21, Page 250] ‘’ ... The pictures of the chemical-stained bathroom did what, I have to assume, the police wanted. The public reaction proved that a picture””especially a “bloody” picture from a crime scene””is worth a hundred thousand words. At least. I knew what people were thinking. Who but a knife-wielding killer would take a shower in a “blood-streaked” bathroom? Who but a liar would say there had been only a few flecks of blood? The answer? Foxy Knoxy….’‘

You are trying to be flippant and sarcastic here, but most people would draw the same conclusions.

[Chapter 21, Page 250] ‘’ ... My lawyers complained to the judges that the prosecution was using the media to our disadvantage, but the judge said that whatever was reported in the press wouldn’t be held against us. The flow of information between the prosecution and the media was an accepted but unacknowledged fact….’‘

Using the media to your disadvantage? Did the prosecution hire a PR firm or something?

The PR didn’t convict you, the evidence, which you have been listing so well in your book, does.

[Chapter 21, Page 251] ‘’ ... The denial, fear, and bafflement I felt in the beginning of this nightmare had turned into quiet indignation and defiance. I finally accepted that I was my only friend inside Capanne. I clung to my dad at every visit. The rest of the time, I used the only coping tool I knew: I retreated into my own head….’‘

You are your only friend? What about the bisexual Cera, or Lupa, who believes in you?

Retreating into your head is okay, just please don’t sign any more statements.

[Chapter 21, Page 251] ‘’ ... Cera’s sense of control came from cleaning. When I moved in I liked that her cell was spotless. I didn’t understand that it was her obsession, until she demanded that I dry off the walls of the shower before I dried myself; place the shampoo and lotion bottles in a perfect line on the counter, equally spaced apart; tuck in my bedsheets with military precision; arrange the apples in the fruit bowl stem up; and avoid using the kitchen sink. I tried hard to get along with Cera. I helped her with her schoolwork and either cleaned alongside her or stayed out of the way. My job, after she was done mopping and drying the floor, was to take a panno spugna””a spongelike cloth””and clean the baseboards on my hands and knees. I complained bitterly to Mom about these things when she came to Italy over her spring break…’‘

Why include any of this? It doesn’t help clear anything up.

You are falsely imprisoned, and you are complaining about having to clean?

[Chapter 21, Page 252] ‘’ ... One morning, when I was walking into the bathroom to put something away, I bumped into Cera, and she kissed me on the lips. I just stood there staring at her, too surprised to know what to say. “Your face is telling me that was not okay,” she said quickly. “I’m really sorry.” She never made physical advances after that, but she did once ask if I was curious what it was like to have sex with a woman, like her. My stock answer””an emphatic no “”made her feel bad…’‘

So, you proudly announce (and publish) that you are a random slut, but being a lesbian puts you off?

Even if any of this is true, why include it? Are you just trying to humiliate Cera, they way you publish personal details about Meredith?

[Chapter 21, Page 253] ‘’ .... My only hope and constant thought during that winter and spring was that the judge might allow me to live with my family in an apartment, under house arrest. My first plea had been rejected, but my lawyers had another hearing scheduled for April 1. Even though Carlo and Luciano weren’t confident about the outcome, I was sure it would happen. I was counting the days….’‘

This portion is somewhat accurate. This is when Knox appealed to Cassation for house arrest.

If Knox wanted a full record, she would include what happened at the hearing. No surprise that she doesn’t. Here is the link.

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_17/

[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... Luciano and Carlo came to see me the next day. They reassured me that no one, not even the prosecution, believed Guede. “He ran away, he’s a liar, a thief, a rapist, a murderer,” Carlo said. “No one could ever consider him a reliable witness, because he has everything to gain from blaming you. The prosecution is making a big deal about it because it incriminates you.” “Please, Amanda,” Luciano said. “This is not what you need to worry about. You need to stay strong.” Still, I couldn’t be consoled. With Guede’s testimony against me, there was absolutely no chance a judge would free me from prison….’‘

Knox is distorting things once again. Yes, accomplices turning on each other is powerful, but prosecutors usually suspect that the one is minimizing his own involvement for a reduced sentence.

And it is not Guede that got house arrest denied. There was PLENTY of other evidence.

There was also those psychiatric evaluations, which were a large factor, yet you don’t publish them

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_17

[Chapter 21, Page 254] ‘’ ... In early April, Carlo came to Capanne. His face gave away his worry. “Amanda,” he said, “the prosecution now says there’s evidence of a cleanup. They contend that’s why there’s no evidence that you and Raffaele were in Meredith’s bedroom””that you scrubbed the crime scene of your traces.”

No evidence of you in Meredith’s room? What about that size 37 shoeprint, which was NOT Meredith’s? Or Raffy’s DNA (which you describe), or the bra clasp?

This is a twist of what the prosecutors believe. They thought you tried to selectively clean up, but that there was still evidence there.

[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.”

This is once again twisting things. Five (5) spots of mixed DNA Amanda/Meredith were found, including in Filomena’s room. Guede’s DNA was NEVER found in Filomena’s room, even though it is where he ‘‘supposedly’’ broke in.

Just because these 5 mixed spots were not in the bedroom, does not mean they must be ruled out.

And what about your shoeprint in Meredith’s room? Wait, that is not on Meredith’s body.

Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the bathroom mat, should that be excluded simply because it was not in the ‘‘murder room’‘?

Should that bathroom in general be excluded, simply because Meredith was not killed in the bedroom?

Should Filomena’s bedroom be excluded, despite the (alleged) burglary point of entry, simply because Meredith wasn’t killed there?

Should the other bathroom, where Guede left his poop be excluded, since Meredith was not killed there? Wait, that is evidence against Guede ....

Should the hallway, where the luminol revealed bloody footprints be excluded, just because Meredith was not killed in the hall?

Should Sollecito’s kitchen, where the murder weapon was found, be excluded, simply because Meredith was not killed there?

So, there may be no evidence here… but only if you redefine what the crime scene is.

[Chapter 21, Page 255] ‘’ ... Judge Matteini sent me her decision about house arrest on May 16: “Denied.” By then the prosecution had stacked so much against me that Guede’s testimony hadn’t even figured in her decision. Even though I hadn’t left the country before my arrest, the judge was certain that Mom would have helped me leave when she was to have arrived in Perugia on November 6. That, she said, is why the police planned to arrest me before Mom could get to me. It turned out that they’d gotten her itinerary the same time I did””by bugging my phone….’‘

Judge Matteini send the decision about house arrest on May 16th? That long? Matteini is the Judge who you saw back in November 2007, and it was the Ricciarelli court in Noivember 2007 and the Italian Supreme Court (Cassation) in April 2008 who heard the appeal and denied house arrest. You are mixing these up, either accidently, or on purpose.

The police planned to arrest you? Okay, so when they called Raffaele about his alibi, they knew you would show up? They knew you would beg to be let in (after they told you to go home)? They knew you would bring your homework, and start doing guymnastics? They knew that after some questioning, your mind would suddenly imagine an innocent man committing the crime? They knew you had such communication problems, that your statements would only get more confusing? Wow, these cops are diabolical.

If they knew your Mother was coming, wouldn’t they have ‘‘set the trap’’ sooner, to make sure you were locked up in case Mom came early?

[Chapter 21, Page 256] ‘’ ... This new setback conjured up all the desperation, the nauseating helplessness, I’d felt that morning. I could hardly breathe thinking about it. I remembered how relieved I’d been that my mom was flying over, how much I needed her. As soon as she said she was coming to Italy, I realized I’d been stubbornly, stupidly insistent that I could help the police find Meredith’s killer on my own. I’d been tricked…’

You could help the police find Meredith’s killer? Well, you did, you just layered it in total B.S.

After days of claiming to know nothing, you had a vision, or conniption, that you witnessed someone else do it.

In your later statement, you said that Raffaele ‘‘might’’ be there.

In the statement after that, you say you don’t know what is true, and you made things up

You helped, in that you left some of Rudy’s forensic traces behind.

You’d been tricked? You mean CSI and TV lied to you?

[Chapter 21, Page 256] ‘’ ... Cera started trying to prepare me for the chance of another fifteen years in prison. “I think you should say you’re guilty,” she advised me one day, “because it will take years off your sentence.” “I will not lie!” I yelled, spitting out one word at a time. “I’m not scared of Guede or the prosecutor! I’m ready to fight! I don’t know anything about this murder, and I will go free!”

You will not lie? Wow, that is a first.

You’re not scared of Guede? More likely he is scared of you.

You’re not scared of the prosecutor? You found out he’s not the Mayor?

You don’t know anything about the murder? Ummm…. those statements you signed….

[Chapter 22, Page 261] ‘’ ... Oh my God. I’ve been formally charged with murder. I wanted to scream, “This is not who I am! You’ve made a huge mistake! You’ve got me all wrong!” I was now fluent enough in Italian to see how ludicrous the charges were. Along with murder, I was charged with illegally carrying around Raffaele’s kitchen knife. It was galling. Real crimes had been committed against Meredith; the police owed her a real investigation. Instead, they were spinning stories to avoid admitting they’d arrested the wrong people…’‘

Not who you are? That is irrelevant, it is what you did on one day. Why do you seem so concerned with how you appear?

No, I think they have it pretty right.

Police did owe Meredith an investigation, and it overwhelmingly concluded that you, Sollecito, and Guede were involved.

They arrested the wrong people? Well, Lumumba was innocent, but who was it who got him locked up?

[Chapter 22, Page 262] ‘’ ... Finally we could combat all the misinformation leaked to the media. We could explain that the knife had never left the kitchen, the striped sweater had never gone missing, the receipts weren’t for bleach, the underwear I bought wasn’t sexy. We could describe how the prosecution had come up with the bloody footprints. We’d explain why Meredith’s blood had mixed with my DNA in our shared bathroom, how my blood got on the faucet, and correct the notion that the crime was a sex game gone wrong. We could object to the prosecutor painting me as a whore and a murderer. My lawyers would finally get to see the prosecution’s documents. No more surprises….’‘

Yes, you could combat the misinformation leaked to the media. You still have Marriott’s number?

You could ‘‘explain’’ the knife never left the kitchen, but you aren’t actually saying here that it never did.

You could ‘‘describe’’ how the prosecution came up with the bloody footprints?

You would ‘‘explain’’ Meredith’s blood mixed with your DNA, how your blood got on the faucet?

The prosecution never claimed it was a sex game gone wrong. It was a ‘‘misinformation leaked’’ by your own people

Objecting to the prosecutor calling you a whore might be difficult, as he never did that.

Objecting to the prosecutor calling you a murderer… well, that is what trials are for.

Your lawyers would get to see the prosecution’s documents. It is called ‘‘discovery’’ and is standard in Western courts.

For all your ‘‘no evidence’’ claims, you oddly seem to be listing a lot of evidence here. I am confused.

[Chapter 22, Page 263] ‘’ ... “We’re taking you off your restricted status.” Just like that. While I was being investigated, I was under judge’s orders to be kept separate for my own safety. But now, as an accused criminal, I passed from the judge’s responsibility to the prison’s…’‘

Like much of the book, this makes little sense.

If you were being kept separate, it would be for your protection, or because you were deemed to be a threat to other inmates. The state of your investigation would be irrelevant.

Once you entered Capanne, you were the responsibility of the prison. The judge is responsible for reviewing the legal case, but the prison monitors your welfare. Are you being deliberately deceptive? (And am I being rhetorical)?

[Chapter 22, Page 263] ‘’ ... Prison officials had always claimed I was kept separate””I had cellmates but, with the exception of a few prescribed events, couldn’t interact with the broad population “”because other inmates would probably beat me. Now, with only the mildest caution “”“Be careful of the other girls!”””Argirò opened a second door. Instead of having passeggio by myself, I was in the company of fifteen sweaty women.

As soon as I walked outside, the gaggle of prisoners started hooting and hollering, “She’s out! She’s with us! Way to go!”

You were in danger of being beaten up? Did you report this when you had representatives from the state department visiting?

Really? You got a cheering for being out with other women? Ego tripping here?

[Chapter 22, Page 265] ‘’ ... Wilma’s behavior wasn’t that different from that of other prisoners””most were manipulative and liked to stir up drama””but she wasn’t smart enough to recognize this and to fake loyalty to the other women. People were able to see through her actions….’‘

Most are manipulative and like to stir up drama? It’s a shame you didn’t fit in better here.

People can see through her actions? Too bad you didn’t realize that people can see through yours.

[Chapter 22, Page 266] ‘’ ... As soon as I read the letter, I realized it was real. I was shocked that he was writing me. I’d felt betrayed by the months of silence and by his comments in the press distancing himself from me. And of course there was the issue of his previous claim that I had left his apartment the night of the murder and asked him to lie for me. He wrote that he’d been aching to contact me, and that it was his lawyers and family who hadn’t permitted him to get in touch. He said everyone had been afraid when we were first arrested, but that now he realized it had been a mistake to abandon me and wrong to submit to police pressure and acquiesce to their theory. “I’m sorry,” he said. “I still care about you. I still think about you all the time.”

You feel betrayed by Raffaele’s ‘‘distancing’’ comments? But isn’t he serving time rather than throw you under the bus? Hell that was the whole premise of ‘‘Honor Bound’‘. Wait, it was all a crock.

So, you acknowledge Raffaele ‘‘did’’ say you asked him to lie. So you are admitting evidence of a false alibi exists?

He realizes ‘‘now’’ that abandoning you was a mistake?

He submitted to police pressures? You told Oggi that you broke up with Sollecito after he withdrew your alibi, yet considering you were ‘‘pressured’’ as well, you think you would be a bit more understanding. Wait, the ‘‘pressures’’ never happened.

Raffaele is in this mess largely due to Amanda. He likely DOES think about her a lot.

[Chapter 22, Page 266] ‘’ ... I felt completely reassured by his letter. It wasn’t lovey-dovey, and that suited me fine. I no longer thought of us as a couple. Now we were linked by our innocence. It was a relief to know we were in this fight together. It was only much later that I learned how his interrogation had been as devastating as mine. I wrote him back the next morning. I was explicit about not wanting a romantic relationship anymore but added that I wanted the best for him and hoped he was okay. I knew I shouldn’t write about the case, so I only said I was optimistic that our lawyers would prove the prosecution wrong….’‘

You are fine with not seeing Raffaele and yourself as a couple? Guess you moved on with your life.

You were linked by your innocence, or in the hollow claims of your ‘‘innocence’‘?

If you wanted the best for Raffy BEFORE Meredith’s death, you would not have involved him in your scheme.

If you wanted the best for Raffy AFTER Meredith’s death, you wouldn’t have dragged this court case for 7+ years.

You were in the fight together? Good to know Raffaele would corroborate your alibi at trial, and wouldn’t ask to sever the Florence appeals, or say on American TV that he has questions about your behaviour, or hold a press conference to denounce you, or go on Porta a Porta to denounce you….

[Chapter 22, Page 269] ‘’ ... All this happened while Luciano and Carlo were preparing the defense for my pretrial. They didn’t have everything they needed to break down the case completely “”Meredith’s DNA on the knife and my “bloody” footprints were going unanswered. Two days before the pretrial started, we got news that was both heartening and unnerving. Police investigators revealed that they’d found an imprint of the murder weapon in blood on Meredith’s bedsheets, making it clear the weapon wasn’t in fact the knife with the six-and-a-half-inch blade the prosecution was claiming. The imprint was too short to have been made by Raffaele’s kitchen knife….’‘

You are omitting a lot here. Forensic evidence is not the only thing the defence needs to ‘‘break down’‘. There is also those false accusation statements you insisted on writing, your false alibis, you and Raffaele turning off your phones, the details you knew (such as Meredith screaming and having her throat cut). These things have not been successfully challenged EVER.

Actually, the knife imprint WAS quite clear, so the police knew exactly what kind of knife they were looking for.

And the impression doesn’t have to be for the ENTIRE knife, if it is fairly distinctive.

[Chapter 22, Page 269] ‘’ ... I reminded myself that we also had common sense on our side. There was no motive. I had no history of violence. I’d barely met Rudy Guede. Raffaele had not met him at all…’‘

Common sense is telling me that it is odd, you keep saying you had no history of violence, rather than just saying you didn’t do it.

You had barely met Guede ... but the details on that are very ... flexible.

Raffaele and Guede lived 100m apart, yet never met.

Speaking of motive: Raffaele is your ‘‘boyfriend’‘, and from this book, Guede has the hots for you. Coincidence?

Speaking of motive: While it is useful to be able to explain a crime, motive is not required to prove in any country.

[Chapter 22, Page 270] ‘’ ... Carlo, the pessimist, said, “Don’t get your hopes up, Amanda. I’m not sure we’ll win. There’s been too much attention on your case, too much pressure on the Italian legal system to think that you won’t be sent to trial.”

So, your lawyer is telling you that the justice system is being leaned on to prosecute you? If someone called Carlo Dalla Vedova, would he confirm this?

[Chapter 23, Page 272] ‘’ ... “You’re going to be a good girl so we don’t have to handcuff you, right?” another guard said. I had always been so polite and docile that a guard had once said to me, “If all the inmates were like you, we wouldn’t need prisons.”

True, Knox and Sollecito were not handcuffed going into court, but there is speculation this was a visual in order to seem ‘‘less harsh’‘

This seems a bit illogical, if all inmates were like you, we wouldn’t need prisons? Yet you need to go to prison to be an inmate.

Yes, Knox was polite. The guards also called her controlled and manipulative.

[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... My first thought wasn’t They think I’m a murderer. It was Meredith’s parents? I finally get to meet them…’‘

Well you are charged with their daughter/sister’s killing. They probably do think you are a murderer.

You finally get to meet them? Surely, they would delighted to get to know you.

[Chapter 23, Page 273] ‘’ ... I was devastated. I’d anticipated meeting them for a long time. I’d written and rewritten a sympathy letter in my head but had never managed to put it on paper. Now I felt stupid. How had I not anticipated their reaction? Why are you so surprised? What do you think this has been about all along? My grief for Meredith and my sadness for her family had kept me from thinking further. Of course they hate you, Amanda. They believe you’re guilty. Everyone has been telling them that for months….’‘

You anticipated meeting them for a long time? Killing Meredith is an odd way to expand your circle of friends.

A sympathy letter? Saying sorry for your loss?

Your grief for Meredith? Didn’t you say at trial that you only knew her for a month, and you were trying to move on with your life?

They hate you? Well, they might hate you less if you told the truth about what happened, and showed actual remorse.

[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…’‘

Guede requested the abbreviated trial because he feared you and Sollecito would pin it all on him, yet you omit that part.

Of course witnesses are called. Who do you think has to testify about the evidence? However, all least some facts have to be agreed upon to go short-form.

If he is guilty, his sentence is cut by 1/3. Absolutely right. THAT is why Guede got those deductions, not from any deal, or testifying against you.

Out of curiosity, why didn’t you or Raffaele opt for the short form trial?

[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….’‘

In your book, your lawyers say there is no evidence against you.

No evidence against you? Did you read your own book?

In your book, you reference the missing sweater (Filomena saw you wear that day), but it still was never found.

In your book, you mentioned the writings (you said you would kill for a pizza)

In your book, you claim the blood on the faucet was from your pierced ears. (According to Barbia Badeau, your mother said the blood was from your period).

In your book, you acknowledge Raffaele took away your alibi.

In your book, you claim that Guede backs your alibi, but refutes Sollecito, which doesn’t make sense if you were together.

In your book, you say you were there. (You claim it meant RS apartment), yet you let PL remain in prison.

In your book, you admit writing a letter (you claim it was misinterpreted), claiming that Raffaele killed Meredith and planted your fingerprints.

In your book, you sarcastically admit you were the last person to wash up in a bloody bathroom.

In your book, (the Matteini decision) you say that the prosecution had stacked so much evidence Guede’s testimony wouldn’t have mattered.

In your book, you mention the police arresting the wrong people, but hypocritically, omit your false accusation of PL

In your book, you reference Meredith’s DNA on the knife (which RS claimed was during a cooking accident)

In your book, you reference your bloody footprints

In your book, you reference the bra clasp having Raffaele’s DNA

In your book, you acknowledge claims of a partial crime scene cleanup.

And we still haven’t gotten to those pesky statements you wrote and signed.

No evidence against you?

[Chapter 23, Page 274] ‘’ ... I felt the way about Guede that Meredith’s family felt about me. As soon as I saw him, in a subsequent hearing, I thought angrily, You! You killed Meredith! 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. And he wouldn’t have lied about Raffaele and me. The other thing I noticed: he wouldn’t look at me….’‘

Why would you feel angry? You said in court you only knew her for a month.

He didn’t look like a murderer? Don’t you keep repeating that you are not the type of person to do this.

It is difficult to imagine he cut Meredith’s throat? Right, because you knew before the police did that her throat was cut.

There were traces of Guede’s DNA, but it was not everywhere. And you omit your own DNA mixed with Meredith’s

He wouldn’t have lied about you? Well, you lied to Judge Nencini in your email, and claimed you never met Guede.

[Chapter 23, Page 275] ‘’ ... The prosecution spun this assumption further. According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that? In their scenario, I hated Meredith because we’d argued about money. Hearing Mignini say that I told Guede to rape Meredith was upsetting. He added that I was the ringleader, telling Raffaele to hold her down. When he said that I threatened Meredith with a knife, I felt as if I’d been kicked. Even worse was hearing him say that when Meredith refused to have sex, I killed her…’

Again, prosecutors never said it was a sex game.

Who thinks like that? Well, who stages a break in on her Seattle roomies for fun?

Hearing Mignini say you told Guede to rape Meredith was upsetting? Didn’t you publish a rape story on MySpace?

You were the ringleader? Well, you arranged the ‘‘break-in’’ in Seattle. You have leadership skills

[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?

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.”

If this were actually true, it would be grounds to open up the case. Did you actually appeal on these grounds?

Interestingly, lawyers for you, Sollecito, and Guede all refused to attend the testings, but later claimed contamination.

[Chapter 23, Page 279] ‘’ ... I was morbidly curious about Guede and simultaneously completely repulsed. Mostly I was disappointed. I had thought we’d have the chance to confront him. But he let his lawyers do all the talking…’‘

You only testified at trial with strict protections as to what topics would be covered. Your lawyers constantly interrupted.

Raffaele never took the witness stand at trial.

You never took the stand at the 2011 Hellmann appeal

Raffaele never took the witness stand at the 2011 Hellmann appeal.

You refused to attend the 2013/2014 Florence appeal.

Raffaele refused to take the witness stand at the 2013/2014 Florence appeal.

You were refusing to attend the 2015 Cassation appeal.

Yet… Guede let his lawyers do all the talking? Pot, meet kettle.

[Chapter 23, Page 279] ‘’ ... “Isn’t that possible?” Biscotti asked. “Isn’t that what the evidence shows? It shows him being there, and he’s admitted to that. He says he left because he was scared. Of course he was scared! He’s a young black man, living the best he could, abandoned by his parents. He stole sometimes, but out of necessity. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say that he killed. The knife has Amanda’s DNA, and the bra clasp has Raffaele’s. Rudy admits that he was there, he tells what happened, and I believe him.” No witnesses were called for Guede. His lawyers could only interpret the evidence the prosecution had provided. They argued that his DNA had been found at the crime scene because he was scrambling to help Meredith and that he left because he was afraid. I remember his lawyer saying Guede didn’t go to the disco to give himself an alibi but to let off steam. He escaped to Germany because he was worried that he’d be wrongly accused….’‘

It’s too bad Guede didn’t have the money and PR to proclaim his innocence the way you did.

[Chapter 23, Page 280] ‘’ ... Still, there were reasons to be worried. Because the prosecution was withholding information, there was evidence I couldn’t refute: the knife, my “bloody” footprints, Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp. And how would we fight the prosecution’s claim that we’d cleaned up the crime scene? I went to sleep every night telling myself that it would work out because we were innocent””and because it was so clear that Guede was guilty and lying. My lawyers argued exhaustively that Meredith and I had been friends””that there was no animosity between us. They argued that we had no connection to Guede, that Kokomani was a lunatic. But the case hinged on DNA, not on logic…’‘

What is the prosecution withholding? It seems they released very powerful evidence.

Accusing prosecutors of withholding evidence, if false, is calunnia. Don’t you ever learn?

It was so clear Guede was lying? Well, you would know better than anyone, except maybe Raffy.

Your lawyers argued exhaustively you and Meredith were friends? Why wouldn’t you just testify to that? Oh, right, cross examination.

Also, why wouldn’t any of Meredith’s other friends testify to how things were between you? Oh, right, they did.

Murder cases often do hinge on DNA, and not lawyerly logic. Good point.

[Chapter 23, Page 281] ‘’ ... When the prosecution rested their case, Mignini demanded a life sentence for Guede and a full trial for Raffaele and me. After the judge retired to his chambers, we were each taken to a different empty office in the courthouse to wait for his decision. Raffaele folded a page from that day’s newspaper into a flower, which the guards brought to me. But I was focused on Guede, who was being held in the room next to mine. I could hear him talking with the guards, cracking jokes, and chuckling. I was fuming! I wanted to beat on the wall and tell him to shut up. His nonchalance incensed me. I thought, Does no one else feel this?...’‘

His nonchalance? Were you not the one flirting with people in court?

Were you not the one wearing the ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt to court?

Rested their case? Listening to ABC or CNN, I thought there was no evidence against you.

[Chapter 23, Page 282] ‘’ ... I entered the courtroom. I could barely walk. Judge Micheli read Guede’s verdict first: Guilty for the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher, with a sentence of thirty years. The verdict didn’t surprise me at all””for a second, I was enormously relieved. I thought, He’s the one who did it. The judge’s delivery was so flat he could have been reading the ingredients off a box of bran flakes. Still, my chest clenched when I heard “thirty years.” Not because I pitied Guede. I’d been so focused on whether he would be found guilty or innocent, I hadn’t thought about the length of his sentence. I was twenty-one; thirty years was more time than I’d been alive””by a lot. I breathed in. “The court orders that Knox, Amanda, and Sollecito, Raffaele, be sent to trial.” I broke down in huge, gulping sobs. I’d made a heartfelt plea””“I’m telling you I’m innocent! I’m sorry for any of the confusion I’ve contributed.” The judge hadn’t believed me….’‘

Just to be clear on this: Guede’s 30 year sentence was the MAXIMUM the judge could hand down in a short-form trial.

Was your chest clenched, because you weren’t sure how merciful the judge(s) might be in this case?

Maybe if you had actually testified, you might be believed a bit more.

The confusion you caused? Getting an innocent man locked up is more than just confusion.

It surprised you that the judge didn’t believe you? You listed so much evidence against you just in this book.

[Chapter 24, Page 286] ‘’ ... “Spiegare che cosa?” I asked, baffled. “Explain what?” I could see that the headline said something about me. “It’s an interview,” she said. “It talks about Cera.” “You know I don’t give interviews!” I said. The inspector turned the paper around so I could read the article. The reporter claimed to have interviewed my mother, who talked about things I’d said. “You need to tell your mother to refrain from speaking about the inner workings of the prison,” the ispettore said sternly. “My mom would never do that!” I screeched. “She only gives interviews to talk about my innocence. She would never reveal our private conversations.” But the article was full of insider information. They’d gotten Cera’s name and certain details right. They said she kissed me once and that I feared further sexual harassment. They knew she was a cleaning fanatic and that she wouldn’t let me make coffee because it would leave water spots on the sink….’‘

Yes, Amanda Knox, who has written a book on her prison experience (well it sure wasn’t to clear up where she was when Meredith was murdered), and has given 20+ interviews on TV, radio and magazines ‘‘DOESN’T GIVE INTERVIEWS’‘.

For the full list: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_revenge_of_the_knox_how_the_lies_phase_built/

[Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... Cera had been the one to tell me how mean, how crazy, how awful, prisoners could be to one another. I hadn’t wanted to believe her, and I’d promised myself that I’d never become bitter like she was. But I was getting closer. I refused to become so cynical and angry that I felt spite, but my natural hopefulness was flagging….’ The only place I found peace was inside my own head. I started expecting nothing. The one thing that surprised me was the occasional time another prisoner, like Fanta, treated me kindly. As excruciating as this was, it forced me to develop a sense of independence, a faith in myself.

Really? You claim you are innocent, yet you have been in jail a year, have just had Judge Micheli (at pretrial), send you off to trial, and you’re hopefulness is flagging? Why is that? You thought you’d be able to lie your way out of it?

Innocent people wrongfully in jail would be pissed off. You aren’t. Why?

[Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... Don Saulo was the one person who cared about any of us. In spite of the awful way the other prisoners treated me, he restored some of my faith in humankind. “It doesn’t matter what people think you did,” he told me. “What matters is what you did do. Don’t worry if people can’t see your goodness. The only important thing is your conscience. You have to take heart and strength in that.”

Father Saulo, normally that is good advice, but what happens if the person doesn’t have a conscience?

[Chapter 24, Page 287] ‘’ ... We held onto the belief that the law would be on my side when my trial started. I was innocent. No matter how the prosecution misconstrued things, there would never be evidence enough to convict me. And I had the great consolation of knowing that prison wasn’t my world. In time, I’d be set free. I could survive this as long as it took. But I never thought it would take years….’‘

The law on your side? The law isn’t supposed to be on anyone’s side. It is supposed to apply to all.

The prosecution didn’t twist anything. They gave you every chance to explain things.

There would never be enough evidence? Did you read any of the earlier chapters in your book?

(Chapter 13) you mention a LONG list of what you and Raffaele talked about, but don’t remember if you read or had sex?

(Chapter 17) you reference the missing sweater (Filomena saw you wear that day), but it still was never found.

(Chapter 17) you mentioned the writings (you said you would kill for a pizza).

(Chapter 18) you claim the blood on the faucet was from your pierced ears. (According to Barbie Nadeau, your mother said the blood was from your period).

(Chapter 18) you acknowledge Raffaele took away your alibi.

(Chapter 19) you claim that Guede backs your alibi, but refutes Sollecito, which doesn’t make sense if you were together.

(Chapter 19) you acknowledge the knife with your DNA on the handle, Meredith’s on the blade””the infamous double DNA knife.

(Chapter 20) you say you were there. (You claim it meant RS apartment), yet you let PL remain in prison.

(Chapter 20) you admit writing a letter (you claim it was misinterpreted), claiming that Raffaele killed Meredith and planted your fingerprints.

(Chapter 21) you reference RS DNA on the bra clasp but saying it does not implicate you directly.

(Chapter 21) you admit (and I believe this), that much of your knowledge comes from crime TV.

(Chapter 21) you sarcastically admit you were the last person to wash up in a bloody bathroom.

(Chapter 21)””the Matteini decision””you say that the prosecution had stacked so much evidence Guede’s testimony wouldn’t have mattered.

(Chapter 22) you mention the police arresting the wrong people, but hypocritically, omit your false accusation of PL.

(Chapter 22) you reference Meredith’s DNA on the knife (which RS claimed was during a cooking accident).

(Chapter 22) you reference your bloody footprints, and mentioned Raffaele’s

(Chapter 23) you reference the bra clasp having Raffaele’s DNA

(Chapter 23) you acknowledge claims of a partial crime scene cleanup.

(Chapter 25) you acknowledge Filomena testifies you brought other ‘‘friends’’ to the house.

(Chapter 25) you acknowledge the cut on your neck, which you claim was a hickey.

(Chapter 25) you acknowledge telling the police Meredith always locked her door, though you try to spin it.

(Chapter 25) you acknowledge your cellphone and Raffaele’s were turned off, though you give different reasons why.

How much evidence does the prosecution need? These notes all came from YOUR book. THIS BOOK.

[Chapter 24, Page 288] ‘’ ... The only place I found peace was inside my own head. I started expecting nothing. The one thing that surprised me was the occasional time another prisoner, like Fanta, treated me kindly. As excruciating as this was, it forced me to develop a sense of independence, a faith in myself….’‘

You developed a sense of independence? By relying on your family to clean up your mess?

You could find more peace if you would own up to what you did to Meredith.

[Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... The pretrial had been like the first reading of a play. No costumes, no audience, no reporters, and very few players. It was held in chambers and closed to the press. The lawyers wore suits. Only two witnesses””the prosecution’s DNA analyst and a man who claimed to have seen Rudy Guede, Raffaele, and me together””testified….’‘

I hope you are being sarcastic here. The pretrial was like the first reading of a play? This is a murder case, not some theatre production.

Really? None of the police officers (whom you accused of police brutality), testified here?

Really? None of the CSI’s from the home, only the DNA guy, testified?

You still could have testified on your own behalf, if this was a misunderstanding. Why didn’t you?

[Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... The full trial for Raffaele and me was like opening night. I wasn’t prepared for the spectacle…’‘

Again, this is a murder case, not a theatre.

Although, if you are this detached from reality, is that why you wore the ‘‘ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE’’ shirt?

[Chapter 25, Page 289] ‘’ ... Three no-nonsense guards””one in front of me and one on either side””led me in through the door in the back of the packed courtroom. Police officers, including some who had interrogated me fourteen months before, were lined up against the back wall. I knew that almost every observer thought I was guilty and wanted me to suffer….’‘

The police didn’t interrogate you. You were giving a witness summary, until you were informed Raffaele removed your alibi. You then proceeded (without provocation), to try to frame Patrick, and it backfired.

14 months ago, and now you are at trial? Wow, that seems a bit faster than the U.S. and Canadian systems.

They don’t want you to suffer, they want to know exactly what happened to Meredith.

[Chapter 25, Page 290] ‘’ ... I knew I wasn’t alone. I gave them a little wave and a big smile to let them know how glad I was they were there. I never anticipated that that smile would be reported as “Amanda Knox beamed as she was led into an Italian court.” And the Daily Mail amped up my regular walk: “She made her entrance like a Hollywood diva sashaying along the red carpet.” I don’t know if the reporting was skewed to sell papers or if the presumption of my guilt colored the way the reporters saw me. Anyone reading or watching the TV reports would have come away believing the girl called Foxy Knoxy was amoral, psychotic, and depraved…’‘

Really? You were reported as flirting with court officers. What should people think?

Was this taken out of context too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApiM3hU4VQw

[Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... In the United States, civil and criminal trials are held separately; in Italy, they’re combined. The Italians clearly believe their jurors can compartmentalize””the same eight people decide all the verdicts. Moreover, jury members are not screened for bias, nor guarded from outside influence. The government was trying Raffaele and me for five crimes: murder, illegally carrying a knife, rape, theft, simulating a robbery, and a sixth just for me: slander. The Kerchers, believing Raffaele and I had killed their daughter, were suing both of us for â‚¬5 million””about $6.4 million””â‚¬1 million for each of Meredith’s five family members, to compensate for their loss and emotional anguish. Patrick Lumumba was suing me for slander for a yet to be determined amount. The owner of the villa was suing me for â‚¬10,000 for damages and lost rent….’‘

You are insulting, but there is a logic to it. In the U.S., if someone were found guilty in a criminal case, often a civil one would follow. Of course, not being convicted would make the civil case harder.

Jurors are screened for bias. You are being blatantly dishonest—again.

You are being sued by the family of the woman you murdered, the man you tried to frame, and the homeowner whose property you damaged, and had turned into a crime scene. Makes sense.

Posted on 07/13/14 at 02:09 AM by Chimera • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Knox False Claims, Examples 223-275
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (36)

7. Knox Book Lies 276 To 323

Posted by Chimera

The Dark Force: evil for evil’s sake? This is a long post, click here to go straight to Comments.

1. Overview Of This Post

My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone she ever encountered, while falsely making the notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed Knox look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

2. Dissection Of Pages 291 to 327.

[Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... Some evidence, including my 5:45 A.M. “confession,” when I confusedly described Patrick as the murderer, wasn’t allowed to be introduced in the criminal case. At that moment I had already officially became a suspect and had a right to a lawyer. The same evidence could be, and was, discussed in front of the jury in the civil cases….’‘

It was not a confession. You claimed to witness Patrick, and it was a false accusation. Big difference.

You weren’t confused. You were stressed that Raffaele took your alibi, and this accusation was your ‘‘solution’‘.

Your 1:45am statement was also thrown out, but you neglected to list that.

Your line about becoming a suspect is the correct reasoning (for once). However, it is undermined by your claims that you were mistreated. You were not abused, and the only reason the first 2 statements were suppressed was because your status changed from ‘‘witness’’ to ‘‘suspect’‘.

[Chapter 25, Page 291] ‘’ ... The way the Italian justice system works is that during deliberations, each of the judges and jurors gets to say what he or she believes the sentence should be””from nothing to life imprisonment. Unlike in the United States, where the decision has to be unanimous, what’s required in Italy is a majority consensus””the maximum sentence supported by at least five jurors….’‘

You say this in an insulting way. A 5 juror minimum is still a significant burden to meet.

[Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... It took hearing only a few sentences for me to know that the interpreter was giving me the condensed version. The one plus to prison was that my Italian had improved so much that I could think in the language. I decided not to use her anymore. My lawyers could explain what I didn’t understand….’‘

This is touching, but you spoke Italian quite well before ever being arrested.

Now you are getting cocky, and saying you think in the language?

You didn’t use her anymore? There was an interpreter when you testified. She was in the photo ‘YOU’ provided (page 200)

Your lawyers could explain what you didn’t understand? Like the prosecution having a strong case?

[Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... The first thing discussed was the motive. The prosecution’s simple story was absolutely false, but it apparently rang true for the authorities. They added flourishes in the course of the trial””Meredith was smarter, prettier, more popular, neater, and less into drugs and sex than I was. For some of or all these reasons, she was a better person, and I, unable to compete, had hated her for it. I had cut her throat in rage and revenge. It was idiotic….’‘

Meredith wasn’t into drugs at all. You are lying on this point.

Less into sex than you? Well, Meredith didn’t seem to need to write and talk about it all the time.

People have killed out of jealousy before.

Their theories are not idiotic, but it was idiotic to kill her in the first place.

[Chapter 25, Page 292] ‘’ ... Mignini relied heavily on the testimony of Meredith’s British girlfriends. Robyn Butterworth testified that my unconventional behavior had made Meredith uneasy. The others agreed””they said I brought male friends over, didn’t know to use the toilet brush, and was too out in the open about sex. Small details built up to become towering walls that my defense team couldn’t scale. I was done in by a prank gift and my unfamiliarity with Italian plumbing….’‘

You are being disingenuous here. These issues may have been brought up, but they are not what convicted you. There is plenty of actual evidence.

[Chapter 25, Page 293] ‘’ ... My frustration doubled when Robyn talked about the bunny vibrator. I had to clarify this. When Brett gave it to me, TV shows like Friends and Sex and the City were an American obsession, with characters using vibrators as gags. The prosecution put the emphasis on sex””and me. The vibrator was proof that I was sex-obsessed””and proof that my behavior had bothered Meredith….’‘

You frustration doubled? Being wrongly accused isn’t too bad, but misrepresenting the situation with your vibrator is?

The prosecutor’s emphasis is on sex? Did you read chapters 2, 3, 4 of your own book?

Did you write about your strip search, and include questions about Meredith liking anal in your emails?

The vibrator isn’t proof you are sex-obsessed, but this book might be.

[Chapter 25, Page 294] ‘’ ... I stood. “Good morning, Judge,” I began. I was suddenly burning up, even on that cold February day. “I want to briefly clarify this question of the beauty case that should still be in my bathroom. This vibrator exists. It was a joke, a gift from a girlfriend before I arrived in Italy. It’s a little pink bunny about this long . . .”

I held up my thumb and index finger to demonstrate.

“About this long?” Judge Giancarlo Massei said, holding up two fingers to clarify.

“Yes,” I said, turning red with embarrassment.

“Ten centimeters [four inches],” he said for the court record.

“I also want to say that I’m innocent, and I trust that everything will come out, that everything will work out. Thank you.”

I remember thinking while I was speaking, Oh my God, I hope I don’t sound as stupid as I think I do. I sat down fast….’‘

Funny, I can actually picture Knox saying something like this.

The vibrator’s a joke. Hope it all works out? Okay ....

[Chapter 25, Page 295] ‘’ ... It did seem I’d won a small victory when Mignini questioned my former housemate Filomena. She insisted that Meredith and I got along fine and hadn’t had a falling-out “”only that we’d “developed different personal interests.” She didn’t make a big deal over the friends I brought home…. Other parts of Filomena’s testimony irked me. When Mignini asked how we divided up chores in the villa, she said that we took turns. “Turns were not always respected,” she added….’‘

So, you are okay with Filomena implying you are a slut, but offended when she says you neglected your housework?

[Chapter 25, Page 296] ‘’ ... Smoking pot was one of the ways we socialized together. But when Raffaele’s lawyer Luca Maori cross-examined her about her drug use, Filomena rewrote our shared history. “To tell you the truth, I sinned once,” she said, looking down at her lap. “I sinned.”

Knox is trying to minimize her own drugs problems and smearing others in the process.

[Chapter 25, Page 296] ‘’ ... During her testimony a week later, Laura also avoided eye contact””and it was every bit as hurtful. But I was pleased that, at least under questioning, she didn’t make it seem that my behavior had been out of step with the rest of the house. When Mignini brought up names of guys who’d come over, Laura replied, “Those are my friends.” When he asked if anyone in the villa smoked marijuana, she said, “Everyone.”

Your behaviour WAS out of step with the others. Meredith was on a serious student exchange, and Laura and Filomena were working in their careers. You just wanted to sleep around and do drugs.

[Chapter 25, Page 297] ‘’ ... Then the prosecutor mentioned the hickey Raffaele had given me when we were fooling around the night of November 1. “Did you see if Amanda had an injury, a scratch, some wound?” he asked her. “I noticed that Amanda had a wound on her neck when we were in the questura,” Laura answered, “precisely because Meredith had been killed with a cut to her neck. I was afraid that Amanda, too, might have been wounded.”

Photos of the ‘‘hickey’’ are widely available, and it doesn’t look like a hickey—AT ALL.

[Chapter 25, Page 297] ‘’ ... I liked Laura and had looked up to her. She’d lent me her guitar and thought it was cool that I practiced yoga. There was only one reason why she would turn a love bite into a sign of my involvement in the murder. My stomach plunged to my knees. I can’t believe Laura, of all people, thinks I’m guilty…’‘

Lending you her guitar and practicing yoga doesn’t make someone blind to what is staring them in the face.

You looked up to Laura? Perhaps if you were a better person, she would look up to you as well.

Again, it was not a hickey. It doesn’t not look like a hickey at all.

[Chapter 25, Page 298] ‘’ ... Still, I wished I’d pushed my lawyers to let me speak more often. Luciano and Carlo’s intentions were good, but I believe they underestimated the power of my voice and the damaging effect of my silence. Even with my clumsy efforts to defend myself””and with other people describing me as the girl with a vibrator, a slob, a girl with a “scratch” on her neck””what did the most damage in those early weeks was a simple T-shirt, and that was my own fault…’‘

When are we going to hear the good stuff, like false alibis, and bloody footprints, or the double DNA knife?

You have that all wrong. Your lawyers (and Patrick) understand full well the power, and damage caused by your voice. If only you had kept silent.

Clumsy efforts to defend yourself? Like writing accusatory statements that could easily be disproved?

The Beatles T-Shirt is not what did the most damage. You are trying to deflect the hard evidence.

[Chapter 25, Page 298] ‘’ ... I’m glad I didn’t wear a cross, but in hindsight I do wish someone had told me that my clothes should reflect the seriousness of the setting and my situation””that they were another way to convey my respect to the court. So when I wore the “All You Need Is Love” T-shirt, the press dwelled on what I meant by it. Is Amanda trying to say all she needs is love from the jury? One British newspaper headlined its story about that day’s hearing, “Obnoxious: Murder Trial Girl’s Love-Slogan T-Shirt. “Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality,” the article said….’‘

You really didn’t know that clothes reflect the seriousness of the setting and situation? Wow.

Attention grabbing + Nonchalance = Psychopath? Maybe.

[Chapter 25, Page 299] ‘’ ... The press wrote that I had to be the center of attention. In reality, prison had taught me I was nothing. Nothing revolved around me. Nothing I said mattered. I had no power. I was just occupying space. I wanted to disappear. I didn’t want to be me anymore….’‘

Well, you definitely want to be the center of this book.

Nothing revolves around you? You mean it revolved around that young woman who got her f***ing throat cut?

You didn’t want to be you anymore? As in, facing a possible life sentence?

[Chapter 25, Page 303] ‘’ ... I expected the prosecution to call police officers who’d been at the villa and those who were in the interrogation room, but initially I didn’t recognize Officer Monica Napoleoni. I’d never seen her dressed to suit her title””head of the Division for Homicide Investigation. Usually she wore skin-tight jeans, form-fitting shirts, and flashy sunglasses. Wearing a dark blue jacket adorned with medals the size of silver dollars, she now looked so unlike herself that it seemed she was playing dress-up to convince people of her authority. Everything she did and said””her choice of words, the content, and the emphasis””was to impress the judges and jury with her professionalism. She defended the shoddy work of her investigators. She was repellent. She was in control of herself, sitting in a court of law and lying without a second’s hesitation. When she answered Prosecutor Mignini’s questions, she was clear, straightforward, and self-serving. She was smarter than her fellow officers. She knew the court was looking for police slipups. “We did our jobs perfectly, all the time,” she testified. “We didn’t hit Amanda.” “We’re the good guys.”

Impress the judges with her professionalism? Do I detect some jealousy here? Please don’t kill her.

Lying without a second’s hesitation? You are accusing her of perjury? You already falsely accused Patrick of murder, falsely accused Rita Ficarra of assault…. your track record is not encouraging. Be careful, you have enough calunnia charges already.

[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.”

Funny, even with the best lawyers, you were never able to prove or even demonstrate contamination.

[Chapter 25, Page 305] ‘’ ... I knew it was the police’s job to analyze the scene of a crime, gather clues, and determine who did it. But here in Perugia the police and the prosecutor seemed to be coming at Meredith’s murder from the opposite direction. The investigation was sospettocentrico””“suspect-oriented”: they decided almost instantly that Raffaele and I were guilty and then made the clues fit their theory. Instead of impartiality, the prosecution’s forensic experts were relentless in their drive to incriminate us. Their campaign was astonishing for its brashness and its singleness of purpose….’‘

This is contradicted in your own book. Chapter 7, you write that EVERYONE from your house was detained until 3am: Yourself, Laura, Filomena, Giacomo, Marco, and the other 2 men downstairs. They did not focus on you.

You were not even supposed to be at the police station. Raffaele was called to come —alone—to clear up inconsistencies with his alibi. You say, in this book, you had to beg them to let you into the police station, as you were afraid.

Their ‘‘drive’’ is to find out the truth, and to let the forensic clues lead them to it.

[Chapter 25, Page 305] ‘’ ... Napoleoni added that, later, at the questura, we “were absolutely indifferent to everyone. They sprawled in the waiting room, sprawled on the seats, kissed each other, made faces at each other the entire time . . . They talked to each other under their breath. I noted their behavior because it seemed impossible that these two kids thought to kiss each other when the body of their friend had been found in those conditions.” My housemates and their friends reacted more appropriately, Napoleoni said. They “were all crying,” she told the court. “Some despaired.” To Napoleoni, Raffaele and I were self-centered narcissists. We lacked basic compassion. And we were liars through and through….’‘

Meredith’s British friends, and the other housemates, including Giacomo, all corroborated this. Were they all lying?

You are a liar through and through .... ironically, a very true statement.

[Chapter 25, Page 306] ‘’ ... I was surprised but didn’t doubt her. Realizing that someone had broken in, I’d been afraid when I went back in the villa with Raffaele. I looked at the toilet from a distance and, not seeing anything in the bowl, assumed someone had flushed it. Clearly, I was wrong. Apparently the feces had slid down farther into the bowl. But Napoleoni acted as if, in discovering the unflushed toilet, she’d caught us in a lie and that we’d ineptly scrambled to come up with a cover…’‘

A cover? As in why not just flush day old poop?

[Chapter 25, Page 306] ‘’ ... Napoleoni went on, twisting each aspect of the case. “I immediately noted that the house couldn’t have been broken into from the outside. It seemed to have been done after the room was made a mess. I immediately noted that there was glass on the windowsill, and if a stone came from the outside, the glass should have fallen below.” She also said that when the Postal Police came to the villa with the phones Meredith had been using, “they asked Amanda if it was normal that Meredith locked her door. Amanda said Meredith always locked her door, even when taking a shower.”

Yes, the police saw signs the break in had been staged.

That is what you told the police. The ‘‘clarifications’’ you try to add later in this book are deceptive.

[Chapter 25, Page 307] ‘’ ... The homicide chief added that by checking telephone activity tables, the police discovered that both my cell phone and Raffaele’s had been inactive the night before Meredith was found. “Amanda from 8:35 P.M. and Sollecito from 8:42 P.M.” That fact meant nothing, but Napoleoni presented it as if, in turning off our phones, we had had an ulterior motive. That we’d wanted to watch a movie without being interrupted did not come up. “We looked for contradictions,” Napoleoni told the court, “and the contradictions always came from Amanda and Raffaele, because the account they gave us was too strange. It was improbable.”

Knox says this in a defiant way, but police did wonder why the phones were turned off, as they never had been before.

When the police have suspects, they do look for contradictions, and improbabilities. It is called ‘‘DOING THEIR JOBS’‘.

[Chapter 25, Page 308] ‘’ ... On the stand, my chief interrogator, Rita Ficarra, seemed much smaller than she had at the police station. Middle-aged, with dull, shoulder-length brown hair, she came across as reasonable. Who would believe that she’d been ruthless, questioning me for hours, refusing to believe that I didn’t know who’d murdered Meredith? I wondered how this woman, who now struck me as average in every way, had instilled such fear in me. Like Napoleoni, Ficarra insisted, “No one hit her.” She was serene and straight-faced as she testified. Ficarra elaborated. “Everyone treated her nicely. We gave her tea. I myself brought her down to get something to eat in the morning,” she said, as if she were the host at a B&B. Then she added, “She was the one who came in and started acting weird, accusing people.”

Ficarra can say things straight faced. Amanda, are you jealous you can’t lie like that?

We don’t believe that she was ruthless and grilled you for hours .... because it never happened

Yes, falsely accusing an innocent person is a bit weird.

[Chapter 25, Page 309] ‘’ ... She told the jury that when she had returned to the questura at around 11 P.M., she and her colleague came through the door and into the hall. “I found Amanda . . . My astonishment was that I found her demonstrating her gymnastic abilities. She did a cartwheel, a bridge, she did splits,” Ficarra said. “It honestly seemed out of place to me.”

On her May 1, 2013 interview with Diane Sawyer, Knox clarified that she only did the splits.

[Chapter 25, Page 309] ‘’ ... The longer Ficarra testified, the more she made it seem that the pressure the police exerted on me to confess was all in my head, that I’d blown the interrogation out of proportion. “In the end it was a calm dialogue, because I tried to make her understand that our intent was to seek collaboration,” she said…’‘

They weren’t pressuring you to confess. Since you insisted on being there, they asked if you could think of anyone else who might have visited the house. You made a list of 7 men (including Patrick, Rudy, Spyros and Juve), and drew maps. However, this ‘‘list’’ is not mentioned in your book

[Chapter 25, Page 310] ‘’ ... Judge Massei asked Ficarra if I spoke to her in English or Italian.

“In Italian,” Ficarra answered. “I repeat that she speaks Italian. She spoke only Italian with me. I don’t understand a word of English.”

I remembered my interrogation, when they yelled that if I didn’t stop lying and tell them who had killed Meredith they would lock me up for thirty years. That was still their goal. I was terrified now that I was the only one who saw through them….’

You did speak Italian, even in 2007. Read the December 2007 transcript with Mignini. You understood most of his questions.

[Chapter 25, Page 310] ‘’ ... The gossip at Capanne was that Guede had found God in prison, and when he walked to the witness stand, looking less cocky and more disheveled than during the pretrial, my hope surged. Maybe he’d been seized by his conscience. I imagined that he’d face Raffaele and me and say straight out that neither of us had participated in the murder. But after Guede was sworn in, he uttered just six words: “Riservo il diritto di non rispondere”””“I reserve the right not to respond.”

Then he stepped down. He didn’t look at me or anyone else as he was led through the double metal doors in the back of the courtroom, flanked by guards just as Raffaele and I always were. He wore an expression of blank indifference. Guede knew his silence could cost us our freedom. But there was no way to make him tell the truth. People have the right not to incriminate themselves””and in protecting himself, he helped to damn us…’‘

You only testified in the 2009 trial because the scope of questioning was limited.

You refused to testify at the 2011 Hellmann appeal

You refused to even attend the 2013/2014 Nencini appeal

You refused to even attend the 2015 Cassation appeal

Sollecito refused to testify at the 2009 Massei trial

Sollecito refused to testify at the 2011 Hellmann appeal

Sollecito refused to testify at the 2013/2014 Nencini appeal

Yet, it is Guede’s silence that damned you?

[Chapter 26, Page 313] ‘’ .... After I was accused of murder, people read new meaning into everything about me. A hickey on my neck became a scratch from Meredith in her last, desperate moments. An awkward encounter about a dirty toilet became a murder motive. Male friends I brought home became mysterious lovers of questionable character. Rudy Guede’s aside to the guys downstairs about my being cute became proof that he would do anything to earn my attention and approval….’‘

Turn these things around, and they do explain your PR attempts somewhat.

A scratch, a wound from Meredith was explained away as a ‘‘hickey’‘.

A motive for wanting to kill Meredith, could be explained away as a ‘‘dirty toilet encounter’‘.

Lovers of questionable character, could be explained away as ‘‘just friends’‘.

A jealous male wanting your attention and approval, could be explained as ‘‘just thinking that you’re cute’‘.

Okay what did Sollecito use to give you that hickey? His mouth? Fingernails? Knife?

So who were these ‘’ male friends’’ if they weren’t lovers? What were you doing? Do you even know their names?

Disingenuous on the dirty toilet, the toilet was just one thing in many of you being messy?

Guede thought you were cute. Did you know this ‘‘before’’ Meredith’s murder?

[Chapter 26, Page 314] ‘’ ... It wasn’t necessary for any of these people to be right. It was enough for them to raise doubts, to make it seem that I was lying. They had to be only marginally convincing…’‘

So, are you accusing the prosecution of suborning perjury?

If there is no evidence, as you repeatedly claim, what exactly were they all testifying about?

[Chapter 26, Page 314] ‘’ ... Marco Quintavalle, a storekeeper who lived near Raffaele’s apartment, told the court that he saw a girl waiting for the shop to open at a quarter to eight on the morning of Friday, November 2. “She had a hat and scarf obscuring much of her face but what struck me was how pale she looked and the color of her blue eyes . . . she went to the section at the back of the supermarket on the left, where there are the cleaning products. I can’t remember if she bought anything.”

You imply that Quintavalle is lying. Any thoughts as to why that may be?

His description is quite detailed, but then again, your ‘‘interrogation with Mignini’’ November 6th, was quite detailed too.

Silly question, you didn’t just shoplift some bleach, did you?

[Chapter 26, Page 314] But when he saw my picture in the paper a few days later, his memory was precise. “I recognized her as the same girl,” he said. When asked if the girl was in the courtroom, Quintavalle pointed at me. “It’s her,” he said. “I’m sure of it.” I’d gone to the little store once to pick up milk and cereal. Once. I’d never been in the back, where the cleaning products are apparently shelved.

You have such a poor memory about the time of Meredith’s murder, yet you are absolutely certain you only went there once—for cereal?

And you are absolutely certain that you only went to ‘‘certain parts’’ of the store?

Little store? Is this an insult, or were you there enough to remember what it looks like.

Apparently stored? A pretty weak denial.

[Chapter 26, Page 314] He [Quintavalle] hadn’t wanted to get involved in the murder case and had come forward only at the urging of a journalist friend in August 2008. I relaxed a little. The jury would see what was true and what wasn’t. The media purposely did not. “A New Hole Appears in Amanda Knox’s Alibi” and “Witness Contradicts Amanda Knox’s Account.” News stories like this infuriated my family and friends. But strangers, no doubt, would think, There goes Amanda, lying again.

That is not true at all, it was not a journalist friend that urged him to get involved?

Stories like this infuriated family and friends? How? Do any of them speak Italian? Although present in court, could your family understand what was said?

Strangers would think you were lying? Your own lawyers thought you were lying about being hit by police.

If people might think you are lying, was that the reason to hire a PR firm? To set things straight?

[Chapter 26, Page 315] ‘’ ... Nara Capezzali was a widow in her late sixties who lived in an apartment building behind the parking lot across the street from our villa. She testified that she heard a scream between 11 and 11:30 P.M. “It made my skin crawl, to be honest,” she said. She was certain of the time because she took a nightly diuretic and always woke up around 11 P.M. to use the bathroom…’‘

Interesting that you try to discredit her, but you and Guede (2 co-accused) had both confirmed Meredith screaming.

In your own (false accusation) statements, you include this detail about Meredith screaming. Oops.

[Chapter 26, Page 315] Before falling back asleep, she said she heard footsteps running up the metal stairs by the parking lot. “At almost the same moment,” she heard the crunching of feet on gravel and leaves coming from the direction of our driveway. Never mind that our driveway wasn’t gravel; it was mostly dirt. Meredith’s room was on the back of our house, as far as possible from Capezzali’s. The defense doubted that anyone could have heard these noises across a busy road and behind closed windows with double panes. But the prosecution clung to Capezzali’s account, which was a linchpin used to approximate Meredith’s time of death.

Yes, because after hearing a ‘‘skin-crawling’’ scream, most people would just head off to bed.

You say Meredith’s room was ‘‘at the back, as far as possible from Capezzali’s’‘. Yet, you also say that she was ‘‘across the road’‘, so your qualifier doesn’t do much to discredit her.

Really? The road was busy at 11PM on a holiday? Interesting.

Of course the ‘‘defense doubted’‘. It is their job to doubt things.

The scream was ‘‘the linchpin’‘? I guess hearing screams that ‘‘make your skin crawl’’ are common there.

[Chapter 26, Page 316] ‘’ ... One of the few points on which the prosecution and defense agreed was that the police had made an inexcusable blunder shortly after the body was found. They prevented the coroner from taking Meredith’s temperature for hours, squandering the best chance to gauge her time of death. The second option””analyzing the contents of Meredith’s stomach””was far less reliable. The third””Capezzali’s memory””wasn’t reliable at all…’‘

The prosecution agreed that there was a blunder made? Show us a transcript that says that.

Body temperature can give a rough estimate of T.O.D., based on the ‘‘1 degree an hour’’ guideline. Meredith had been dead at least 14 hours at that point. Even if the police had waited a few hours more, they still could have gotten an approximate T.O.D. Body temperature (of living people) has a very small range, and you can still work backwards to get it.

Stomach contents, and analysing digestion, can give an estimate on how long since a person last ate until death. A guideline, once again.

Stomach content analysing is far less reliable? It is used in the U.S. as well. However, in the next page you say that it is far more reliable than the scream Nara heard.

No medical examiner with any integrity, would ever give an exact T.O.D., but rather a range, or an estimate. Scientists are not supposed to make claims they do not know for certain.

Capezzali’s memory is not reliable? Read any of your own statements or emails?

So, she frequently hears screams that make her skin crawl and forgot the date? Or she could not have heard a scream from across the street that you and Guede both confirm happened?

And, did Capezzali testify to ‘‘things her mind made up?’’ Wait, you yourself make exactly those types of claims.

[Chapter 26,Page 317] ‘’ ... Instead they glossed over these facts and used Capezzali’s testimony to determine what time Meredith had died. Based on the scream, they decided that she died at 11:30 P.M. Even though Meredith’s digestion indicated an earlier time of death, they were fixated on that scream. Meredith had been murdered by 10 P.M., based on her stomach contents, but the prosecutors invented a scenario in which Meredith was home alone between 9:30 P.M. and 11:30 P.M. According to their argument, the sphincter between the stomach and the small intestine tightens at the moment of trauma, and digestion temporarily stops. Left unanswered was what trauma in that two-hour space interrupted her digestion””the same two hours when the prosecution said she was relaxing on her bed with her shoes off, writing an essay due the next morning. They were ignoring basic human physiology and hanging Meredith’s time of death on an older woman’s urination habits….’‘

So you say that stomach digestion should have been the determining factor, even though you acknowledge that body temperature was taken, and you yourself say it is reliable.

You say that stomach digestion should be used, but it the last page you say it is far less reliable that body temperature.

They weren’t hanging Meredith’s T.O.D. on Nara’s bathroom habits, but on when she heard Meredith scream

So you are able to keep up with a medical examiner’s testimony (in Italian)? Impressive.

You think you know more than the actual professionals? Okay….

[Chapter 26, Page 317] ‘’ ... The problem: Meredith’s body wasn’t discovered until after 1 P.M. on November 2. When Mignini asked Capezzali if she might have heard the scream on Halloween and not on November 1, she snapped, “I don’t remember these things, these hours, these things. I don’t remember them anymore.”

I was sure there was no way the jury would put their faith in someone who said she didn’t remember….’‘

Not true. She was sure when she heard the scream.

Put their faith in someone who doesn’t remember? Like someone whose mind makes things up? Hypocrite.

[Chapter 26, Page 318] ‘’ ... The basketball court was made to order for the prosecution. The most direct walk from Raffaele’s apartment to my villa was through Piazza Grimana. It was also the place where Rudy Guede was known to play pick-up games and hang out. It was where I’d once tried to shoot hoops with the guys from downstairs and ended up watching from the sidelines. I hadn’t argued with anyone there, and I’d never been back, but what if the jury bought this guy’s story? And why was the prosecution bringing it up? If the story was true, we would have had an alibi. If Curatolo had seen us in the piazza that early, we couldn’t have committed the murder between 9:30 P.M. and 10 P.M., when the defense believed Meredith died. And if he’d seen us as late as midnight, we couldn’t have made Meredith scream at 11:30 P.M., as Nara Capezzali had reported. His account undermined the prosecution’s theory….’‘

You tried shooting hoops at the piazza before? Another time you met Rudy? You say he was known to play there.

The most direct route between your route and your boyfriend’s, but you’d only been through once?

You are being disingenuous. There was not an ‘‘exact’’ T.O.D., but rather the range of a few hours. Whether Curatolo saw you before or after the murder does not give you an alibi.

[Chapter 26, Page 320] ‘’ ... I dreaded Patrick Lumumba’s testimony for his civil trial. It still gnawed at me that I’d never apologized to him. I was sure the man I’d wrongly named would rail against me. He had told the media that he would never forgive me, he’d lied about firing me, and he had called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.” His lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, had called me “Luciferina” and said I had “an angel’s face with a demon’s soul.”

It gnawed on you that you never apologized? Did it ever gnaw on you for doing it in the first place?

[Chapter 26, Page 321] ‘’ ... At first my lawyers said letting me testify was a risk. I could be provoked. They worried the prosecution would push me to unwittingly say something incriminating. I’d fallen for Mignini’s word-twisting when he interrogated me in December of 2007. I’d dissolved into tears at my pretrial.

But I was adamant. “I’m the only one who knows what I went through during the interrogation,” I told Luciano and Carlo. “Having you defend me isn’t the same as defending myself. I need to show the court what kind of person I am.”

Mignini didn’t twist anything you said in December 2007. He did ask for clarification many times.

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/knox_tied_in_knots_by_her_own_tongue_translation_1

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/knox_tied_in_knots_by_her_own_tongue_translation_2

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/knox_tied_in_knots_by_her_own_tongue_translation_3

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/knox_tied_in_knots_by_her_own_tongue_translation_4

Yes, you need to show what kind of person you are. How did that work out for you?

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/italy_shrugs_why_the_defendants_testimony_seems_to_have_been_a_real_fl/

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/this_testimony_does_not_seem_to_have_gained_much_traction_here_in_ital/

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_defendants_mostly_dont_testify_those_devils_that_lurk_in_the_detai/

[Chapter 26, Page 321] ‘’ ... Raffaele didn’t testify. That may have been the right choice for him. Most of the media attention had landed on me””Raffaele was seen as someone who had gone along with his evil girlfriend…’‘

Really, Raffaele is ‘‘falsely’’ accused of a gruesome sex killing, and he doesn’t want to clear things up?

He doesn’t want to at the Hellmann appeal either?

Or at the Nencini appeal?

[Chapter 26, Page 322] ‘’ ... In testifying, I wanted to make a point: You guys make me sound like I was crazy that I found three droplets of blood in the bathroom sink and didn’t call the police immediately. But I was a twenty-year-old who handled the situation the same way a lot of inexperienced people would have. It’s easy to look back and criticize my response, but when I went home that day I didn’t know there had been a break-in or a murder. To me, it was a regular day. Yes. The door was open. But I’d known since I moved in that the lock was broken. Maybe it was a cause for concern, but I just figured one of my roommates was taking out the trash or had run to the corner store. I was focused on getting ready for our romantic weekend in Gubbio. My thoughts were mundane. I’ll grab a shower. I’ll pack. I’ll get back to Raffaele’s, and we’ll go…’‘

Where to begin with this one? You found ‘‘smears’’ in the sink, not droplets.

You also found ‘‘an orange shaped lump’’ of blood on the bathmat.

You then do the bathmat shuffle to your room.

Open door? Totally normal.

Right, and that rank smelling toilet you still never flushed.

You are going for a trip to Gubbio, but you never do pack, and just forget about it.

Inexperienced people ... in what context? First time killers?

[Chapter 26, 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? The lawyer looked disgusted with me. I sat as straight as I could in my chair and pushed my shoulders back””my I-will-not-be-bullied stance.

Within a few minutes I realized that the interpreter hired to translate my English into Italian””the same useless woman I was assigned earlier in the trial””wasn’t saying precisely what I was saying…’‘

You are facing civil and criminal charges for calunnia (making false accusations), and you are annoyed about being asked it directly?

The interpreter hired to translate your English into Italian? Wait, you said you didn’t have an interpreter. (Photo on page 200).

Useless woman? Was she not good at spinning your B.S. the way you wanted her to?

Why not answer in Italian? You said your language improved so much ...

Even in English, you are not clear and precise.

[Chapter 26, 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?’ “

Pacelli didn’t insinuate you came up with Patrick’s name on your own. The police all said you did

You didn’t understand that a simple, common expression from English means something different in Italian? Some language student.

[Chapter 26, Page 324] ‘’ ... I’d purposely tried to forget the emotional pain of the slap to my head. Other memories had become muddled by time. For instance, I remembered calling my mom only once after Meredith’s body was found, but cell phone records indicated that I’d made three calls while Raffaele and I were standing in my driveway….’‘

You have spent the better part of 2 years preparing for this, but your memories are muddled by time?

Aren’t you harshly critical of Capezzali and Quintavalle for having ‘‘muddled memories’‘?

The phone records contradict your account. Which is more reliable?

[Chapter 26, Page 325] ‘’ ... “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.” “So you said what you said, and then you had a crisis of weeping. Then they brought you tea, some coffee, some pastries? When did this happen? If you can be precise,” Luciano asked. “They brought me things only after I made declarations”””depositions””“that Patrick had raped and murdered Meredith, and I had been at the house covering my ears….’‘

Again, you were not hit, not even once. You still have outstanding calunnia charges for this.

Tea, coffee, pastries? So much for being starved.

You made these declarations freely, and then were hungry afterwards.

You made these declarations .... and corroborated the ‘‘scream’’ detail.

[Chapter 26, Page 325] ‘’ ... “Before they asked me to make other declarations””I can’t say what time it was””but at a certain point I asked, “˜Shouldn’t I have a lawyer or not?’ because I didn’t honestly know, because I had seen shows on television that usually when you do these things you have a lawyer, but okay, so should I have one? And at least one of them told me it would be worse for me, because it showed that I didn’t want to collaborate with the police. So I said no.”

You were advised of your right to a lawyer, after you admitted witnessing a crime you didn’t report.

You had previously collaborated, drawing up maps of ‘‘other suspects’‘, to divert attention.

[Chapter 26, Page 326] ‘’ ... When Mignini told me I still hadn’t proved that the police had suggested Patrick’s name, my lawyers jumped up. The exchange was so heated that Judge Massei asked if I wanted to stop….’‘

Silly Mignini, mentioning that you have no evidence to back up your accusations.

[Chapter 26, Page 327] ‘’ ... Carlo said, “Amanda, you nailed it. You came across as a nice, intelligent, sincere girl. You left a good impression.” I took this to mean that I didn’t come across as “Foxy Knoxy.” For a while during the trial, the guards would let my parents say hello and good-bye to me in the stairwell just before I left the courthouse for the day. My mom, my dad, Deanna, Aunt Christina, and Uncle Kevin were waiting for me there that day. They hugged me tightly. “We’re so proud of you,” they said. I hadn’t felt this good since before Meredith was murdered. After another few days in court, the judge called a two-month summer break.

Left a good impression? Okay ....

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/italy_shrugs_why_the_defendants_testimony_seems_to_have_been_a_real_fl/

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/this_testimony_does_not_seem_to_have_gained_much_traction_here_in_ital/

When asked if you still thought about Meredith, you said you only knew her a month, and wanted to get on with your life.

You actually came across as cold, callous, insincere, and deceptive. You seemed to find this amusing.

You hadn’t felt this good since Meredith was murdered? Ummm…. not going to try to answer that one.

The break was 6 weeks, not 2 months. Rounding error i guess.

Posted on 06/18/14 at 05:11 AM by Chimera • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Knox False Claims, Examples 276-323
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (30)

8. Knox Book Lies 324 To 382

Posted by Chimera

Implacable nastiness - in NYC’s Central Park. Click here to go directly to Comments.

1. Overview Of This Series

Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. In the first seven posts there are 350, many with several lies bundled together, and in this post I identify another 60 making the total 410 so far with more pending.

None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith. And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either. All it really does is to muddy the waters, which may be the real desired benefit.

This series is previewed and it’s explained why the “Revenge of the Knox” motif in this post here. The seven posts before this one can all be read here.

Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

2. Dissection Of Pages 313 to 354

[Chapter 26, Page 313] After I was accused of murder, people read new meaning into everything about me. A hickey on my neck became a scratch from Meredith in her last, desperate moments. An awkward encounter about a dirty toilet became a murder motive. Male friends I brought home became mysterious lovers of questionable character. Rudy Guede’s aside to the guys downstairs about my being cute became proof that he would do anything to earn my attention and approval.

Okay, what did Sollecito use to give you that hickey? His mouth? Fingernails? Knife?

Disingeuous, the toilet was just one thing in many of you being messy?

So who were these ‘’ male friends’’ if they weren’t lovers? What were you doing? Do you even know their names?

Guede thought you were cute. Did you know this ‘‘before’’ Meredith’s murder?

[Chapter 26, Page 314] It wasn’t necessary for any of these people to be right. It was enough for them to raise doubts, to make it seem that I was lying. They had to be only marginally convincing. The thought that these witnesses might wow the jury and judges terrified me.

So Judge Massei writes up a 400 page report, and Judge Nencini a 350 page report of ‘‘marginally convincing’‘?

Wtnesses are not supposed to ‘‘wow’’ a jury and judge. They are supposed to present what they saw or heard.

Why would it terrify you? Do they know things you wish they didn’t?

[Chapter 26, Page 314] But when he saw my picture in the paper a few days later, his memory was precise. “I recognized her as the same girl,” he said. When asked if the girl was in the courtroom, Quintavalle pointed at me. “It’s her,” he said. “I’m sure of it.” I’d gone to the little store once to pick up milk and cereal. Once. I’d never been in the back, where the cleaning products are apparently shelved.

So, you are accusing police of ‘‘coaching’’ a witness?

He spoke up and said it was you? Was he speaking Italian? Sorry to keep beating this dead horse.

You have such a poor memory about the time of Meredith’s murder, yet you are absolutely certain you only went there once—for cereal? And you are absolutely certain that you only went to ‘‘certain parts’’ of the store?

[Chapter 26, Page 314] He [Quintavalle] hadn’t wanted to get involved in the murder case and had come forward only at the urging of a journalist friend in August 2008. I relaxed a little. The jury would see what was true and what wasn’t. The media purposely did not. “A New Hole Appears in Amanda Knox’s Alibi” and “Witness Contradicts Amanda Knox’s Account.” News stories like this infuriated my family and friends. But strangers, no doubt, would think, There goes Amanda, lying again.

That is not true at all, it was not a journalist friend that urged him to get involved?

Stories like this infuriated family and friends? How? Do any of them speak Italian? Although present in court, could your family understand what was said?

Strangers would think you were lying? Your own lawyers thought you were lying about being hit by police.

If people might think you are lying, was that the reason to hire a PR firm? To set things straight?

[Chapter 26, Page 315] Nara Capezzali was a widow in her late sixties who lived in an apartment building behind the parking lot across the street from our villa. She testified that she heard a scream between 11 and 11:30 P.M. “It made my skin crawl, to be honest,” she said.She was certain of the time because she took a nightly diuretic and always woke up around 11 P.M. to use the bathroom.

Interesting that you try to discredit her, but you and Guede (2 co-accused) had both confirmed Meredith screaming.

[Chapter 26, Page 315] Before falling back asleep, she said she heard footsteps running up the metal stairs by the parking lot. “At almost the same moment,” she heard the crunching of feet on gravel and leaves coming from the direction of our driveway. Never mind that our driveway wasn’t gravel; it was mostly dirt. Meredith’s room was on the back of our house, as far as possible from Capezzali’s. The defense doubted that anyone could have heard these noises across a busy road and behind closed windows with double panes. But the prosecution clung to Capezzali’s account, which was a linchpin used to approximate Meredith’s time of death.

Yes, because after hearing a ‘‘skin-crawling’’ scream, most people would just head off to bed.

You say Meredith’s room was ‘‘at the back, as far as possible from Capezzali’s’‘. Yet, you also say that she was ‘‘across the road’‘, so your qualifier doesn’t do much to discredit her.

Really? The road was busy at 11PM on a holiday? Interesting.

Of course the ‘‘defense doubted’‘. It is their job to doubt things.

The scream was ‘‘the linchpin’‘? I guess hearing screams that ‘‘make your skin crawl’’ are common there.

[Chapter 26, Page 316] One of the few points on which the prosecution and defense agreed was that the police had made an inexcusable blunder shortly after the body was found. They prevented the coroner from taking Meredith’s temperature for hours, squandering the best chance to gauge her time of death. The second option””analyzing the contents of Meredith’s stomach””was far less reliable. The third””Capezzali’s memory””wasn’t reliable at all.

Body temperature can give a rough estimate of T.O.D., based on the ‘‘1 degree an hour’’ guideline. But far from exact, regardless of what C.S.I. says.

Stomach contents, and analysing digestion, can give an estimate on how long since a person last ate until death. A guideline, once again.

No medical examiner with any integrity, would ever give an exact T.O.D., but rather a range, or an estimate. Scientists are not supposed to make claims they do not know for certain.

Capezzali’s memory is not reliable? So, she frequently hears screams that make her skin crawl and forgot the date? Or she could not have heard a scream from across the street that you and Guede both confirm happened?

And, did Capezzali testify to ‘‘things her mind made up?’’ Wait, you make those types of claims.

[Chapter 26, Page 316] There were many bad days during my trial. The worst was the afternoon when evidence was presented to establish the time of Meredith’s death. Since the judge had ruled that to protect Meredith’s privacy the press and public couldn’t see her autopsy photos, he cleared the courtroom of everyone who wasn’t directly involved in the trial. Pictures of Meredith’s dissected stomach were projected onto a screen like the kind used for home movies. I knew that if I looked, I’d have the same reaction as the juror who bolted for the ladies’ room. Even more devastating than the actual image of the stomach was knowing it was my friend’s.

Yes, the court was cleared when Meredith’s autopsy photos were shown. Damn those courts to show the victim and her family a little consideration.

Considering that you publish personal details of Meredith’s sex life, I can see why this would bother you?

Were these ‘‘bad days’’ as there was less chance for scrutiny, or did you really want Meredith ‘‘put out there’’ like that?

[Chapter 26, Page 316] Throughout the display, the prosecution delivered a primer on the human digestive system. We learned it takes about two to four hours to digest a meal. Meredith’s friends had said that they’d started dinner around 6 P.M. Since the food hadn’t yet passed into Meredith’s small intestine, my lawyers said she died between 9 and 9:30 P.M.-10 P.M. at the latest. Any later and her stomach contents would have shown up in her small intestine. According toMeredith’s friends, she had gotten home at around 9 P.M.

’‘Meredith’s friends’‘? You really don’t like dropping names, do you?

The digestion rates are only estimates, not exact.

’‘Around 6PM’’ is not exact, and could be 6:30, or 6:45 for all we know before she actually ate. When you order meals, do they actually arrive right away?

Meredith had ‘‘partially digested’’ her meal, so your claim is a red herring

Of course ‘‘your lawyers’’ say things like that. Doesn’t mean they are true.

Also, do you have an interpreter or are you following the trial in Italian (in real time)?

[Chapter 26, Page 316] On the only computer the police hadn’t fried, Raffaele’s laptop, the hard drive showed that we’d finished watching Amelie and clicked Stop””the last “human interaction” th the computer””at 9:15 P.M. The tight timing gave us an alibi that even the prosecution didn’t try to disprove.

An alibi how? Even by your ‘‘version’’ of events, your last ‘‘human interaction’’ on the computer is 9:15PM, and Meredith could have been killed as late at 10:00PM.

Your flat is a few minutes away from Sollecito’s.

And in Sollecito’s November 5th/6th statement, he says he went out from 9PM to 1AM, and he doesn’t know where.

You yourself write statements saying you were at your home, covering your ears to drown out Meredith’s screams.

[Chapter 26, Page 317] What made their theory even weaker was Capezzali herself. She testified that the morning after she heard the scream, some kids ran by while she was cleaning her apartment and told her a girl in the villa had been killed. Then, at around 11 A.M., when she went out to buy bread, she saw posters with Meredith’s face at the newsstand.

The problem: Meredith’s body wasn’t discovered until after 1 P.M. on November 2. When Mignini asked Capezzali if she might have heard the scream on Halloween and not on November 1, she snapped, “I don’t remember these things, these hours, these things. I don’t remember them anymore.”

I was sure there was no way the jury would put their faith in someone who said she didn’t remember.

Knox is trying to smear Capezzali as unreliable, and Mignini as coaching her, but misses the point.

Obviously the poster wasn’t up PRIOR to Meredith being discovered, but if Mignini were to lead the witness, it would have made far more sense to ask if Capezzali had seen the poster on November 3rd or 4th, to have the story make sense

Juries are not supposed to believe witnesses with memory problems, just defendants? Okay ....

[Chapter 26, Page 317] The basketball court was made to order for the prosecution. The most direct walk from Raffaele’s apartment to my villa was through Piazza Grimana. It was also the place where Rudy Guede was known to play pick-up games and hang out. It was where Id once tried to shoot hoops with the guys from down-stairs and ended up watching from the sidelines. I hadn’t argued with anyone there, and I’d never been back, but what if the jury bought this guy’s story?

The most direct walk to your ‘‘boyfriend’s’’ home is through Piazza Grimana where Guede plays?

You admit you have been there with the men from downstairs?

Oh, wait, you have never crossed paths with Rudy Guede

[Chapter 26, Page 320] I dreaded Patrick Lumumba’s testimony for his civil trial. It still gnawed at me that I’d never apologized to him. I was sure the man I’d wrongly named would rail against me. He had told the media that he would never forgive me, he’d lied about firing me, and he had called me “a lion,” “a liar,” and “a racist.” His lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, had called me “Luciferina” and said I had “an angel’s face with a demon’s soul.”

He didn’t lie about firing you. He was going to replace you for being lazy

You never apologized to him? Did you ever try?

[Chapter 26, Page 320] He was also far more forgiving than I’d expected. I wasn’t the best waitress, but I was a fine person, he said.I can only guess why Patrick had decided to tone down his anti-Amanda commentary. Either he felt he had to be honest under oath or his lawyer had advised him to act meek and likeable””and let the venom be rained down by Pacelli himself. Whatever the reason, Patrick told the court, “We always had a good relationship.”

You weren’t acting like a waitress at all? You were flirting with everyone instead of working.

You always had a good relationship? Was that before or after you had him falsely arrested?

He had ‘‘to be honest under oath’‘, so now he suddenly starts saying nice things about you?

[Chapter 26, Page 321] Then it was my turn. At first my lawyers said letting me testify was a risk. I could be provoked. They worried the prosecution would push me to unwittingly say something incriminating. I’d fallen for Mignini’s word-twisting when he interrogated me in December of 2007. I’d dissolved into tears at my pretrial.

But I was adamant. “I’m the only one who knows what I went through during the interrogation,” I told Luciano and Carlo. “Having you defend me isn’t the same as defending myself. I need to show the court what kind of person I am.”

I felt it was crucial that I testify. I wanted to talk about my relationship with Meredith. I needed to explain my behavior in the wake of her murder.

Raffaele didn’t testify. That may have been the right choice for him. Most of the media attention had landed on me-Raffaele was seen as someone who had gone along with his evil girlfriend.

Yes, your lawyers don’t want you to say anything (else) incriminating? Good call.

’‘Showing the court what kind of person I am’’ isn’t the reason people should testify. It is to have your version of events heard.

You wanted to talk about your relationship with ‘‘your friend’‘? You mean, it hadn’t soured, as others testified to?

Yes, conflicting alibis, lies, false accusations, etc .... do need to be cleared up

Sollecito didn’t testify. In fact, he would never take the witness stand.

Knox however, did not agree to full cross examination. The questions (agreed in advance), were limited to the ‘‘calunnia’‘.

[Chapter 26, Page 322] In testifying, I wanted to make a point: You guys make me sound like I was crazy that I found three droplets of blood in the bathroom sink and didn’t call the police immediately. But I was a twenty-year-old who handled the situation the same way a lot of inexperienced people would have. It’s easy to look back and criticize my response, but when I went home that day I didn’t know there had been a break-in or a murder. To me, it was a regular day. Yes. The door was open. But I’d known since I moved in that the lock was broken. Maybe it was a cause for concern, but I just figured one of my roommates was taking out the trash or had run to the corner store. I was focused on getting ready for our romantic weekend in Gubbio. My thoughts were mundane. I’ll grab a shower. I’ll pack. I’ll get back to Raffaele’s, and we’ll go.

It was not ‘‘3 droplets of blood’‘. The bathroom was soaked in blood.

And what about the ‘‘unflushed toilet’’ you wanted everyone to know about?

And that broken window (Filomena’s), facing you as you walk towards the house?

You were excited for Gubbio, but then just forget all about it?

This is all academic though. The questioning was restricted to the police interrogation (Nov 5th/6th).

[Chapter 26, Page 323] I knew Mignini liked to intimidate people. I gave myself a pep talk. He scared and surprised you the first and second times. But three times? I don’t think so!

As the date got closer, I slept little and talked less. Journalists reported that I was pale and had dark circles under my eyes.

True. I was wearing my anxiety on my face. The day before I had to testify, a nasty cold sore appeared on my lip. My mantra for myself ran through my mind. You are not afraid. You are not afraid of Mignini. This is your chance.

When I saw the prosecutor in court, Mignini seemed like a blowhard in a silly robe. I wished I had felt that way when he questioned me before.

Yes, Mignini intimidated you by telling you to seek legal advice before answering potentially incriminating questions.

The second time? Is that when you had legal counsel, and the ever elusive Giancarlo Costa was one of your lawyers?

Mignini seemed ‘‘like a blowhard in a silly robe’‘? Good to know you take this seriously?

[Chapter 26, 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?’‘

The lawyer looked disgusted with me. I sat as straight as I could in my chair and pushed my shoulders back””my I-will-not-be-bullied stance.

Within a few minutes I realized that the interpreter hired to translate my English into Italian””the same useless woman I was assigned earlier in the trial””wasn’t saying precisely what I was saying.

Pacelli isn’t giving commentary. He is asking pointed questions. This is a murder trial.

Looking disgusted qualifies as ‘‘bullying’‘? Okay.

Useless? She was hired by the court to help you.

The interpreter isn’t saying precisely what you are saying? Do you mean her translation isn’t word for word, or she is off of the content? Or is she not being as evasive as you hoped she would be?

And when asked questions in Italian, you answer in English, and have the translator go English-to-Italian in return? Why do this? Are you hoping for mis-communications to be made?

If you don’t need her, why not just have the questioning completely in Italian?

Note: 323-327 is Knox’s account of her testimony. In reality, she was on the stand June 12th and June 13th. Notice that she is never questioned about the evidence of the murder. The scope of the questioning was limited beforehand.

[Chapter 27, Page 329] Carlo [Dalla Vedova] leaned across the table in the visitors’ room. “Amanda,” he said. “They’re wrong!” His customary pessimism had vanished. “There was no blood on the knife,” he said. “And there was so little DNA present they didn’t have enough to get valid results. We have everything we need to overturn the case!”

This conversation likely never took place, and if so, Dalla Vedova is truly incompetent. There was plenty of evidence, both forensic and non-forensic to tie Knox and Sollecito to the crimes. This knife was not a make-or-break.

[Chapter 27, Page 330] That had been in September 2008. By then it was July 2009. Ten months had passed. On the day the court recessed for the summer, Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to give us the data. They still held back some information, but within the papers they did give us, our forensic experts found the prosecution had failed to disclose a fact that should have prevented us from ever being charged. There was no way to tie this knife””and therefore, me””to Meredith’s murder. I’d always known that it was impossible for Meredith’s DNA to be on the knife, and I’d long known that the prosecution had leaked assumed evidence to the media. Now I knew that these mistakes weren’t missteps. Stefanoni and her team had made giant, intentionally misleading leaps, to come up with results designed to confirm our guilt.

Knox claims the prosecution withheld evidence that would exonerate her. Serious charge to make.

How do you know that it was impossible to have Meredith’s DNA or it? Did you clean it, or use a different knife?

It had Meredith’s DNA on the blade, yours in a groove in the handle, (the double-DNA knife). Seems pretty conclusive.

So, Stefanoni commits misconduct, lies about, and leaks false results? Did you ever file a complaint?

[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.”

Earlier you quote Dalla Vedova as saying the detectives don’t know what to do, as they haven’t had a murder to investigate in 20 years. Yet, you refer to your home and town as a ‘‘deathtrap’‘.

Dalla Vedova claims they are incompetent, and withhold information to cover up their mistakes? Did he ever say this publicly?

[Chapter 27, Page 331] And for Mignini, appearing to be right superseded everything else. As I found out that summer, the determined prosecutor had a bizarre past, was being tried for abuse of office, and had a history of coming up with peculiar stories to prove his cases. His own case is currently pending on appeal.

Update on that: the appeals court (and Cassation), ruled that the charges were baseless and threw them out.

[Chapter 27, Page 331] Mignini had a habit of taking revenge on anyone who disagreed with him, including politicians, journalists, and officials. His usual tactic was to tap their telephones and sue or jail them. The most famous instance was the arrest of Italian journalist Mario Spezi, and the interrogation of Spezi’s American associate Douglas Preston, a writer looking into the Narducci case, who subsequently fled Italy.

In the hour we had each week to discuss my case, my lawyers had never thought there was a reason for us to talk about Mignini’s outlandish history. Carlo and Luciano told me only when it became apparent that, for Mignini, winning his case against Raffaele and me was a Hail Mary to save his career and reputation.

“The whole story is insane!” I said. I couldn’t take it in. It struck me that I was being tried by a madman who valued his career more than my freedom or the truth about Meredith’s murder!

Mignini is required to file complaints about people who make false accusations. Otherwise the prosecutor’s office could easily be pushed around.

Doug Preston was interrogated by Mignini? Explains a lot about one of your ‘‘allies’‘.

Yes, lucky for Mignini’s career that Meredith happened to come along and get killed.

’‘It struck you that you were being tried by a madman’‘? Did telling all those lies ever strike you as the reason for being tried?

[Chapter 27, Page 332] Giulia Bongiorno made a speech that gave me even more cause for optimism. Keeping the raw data from us until July 30 had violated our rights as defendants. If we’d had it earlier””when we first requested it””it would have altered the trial from the beginning. “The question for the court,” Bongiorno said, “is the DNA evidence decisive or not? If you believe it’s not, then there hasn’t been an injury to the rights of the defense. But if the DNA is decisive, you have to ask yourselves: Did the defense have the possibility to examine the data to be able to counter the conclusions? Did the defense have the diagrams, the electropheragrams, the quantity of DNA, the procedures? You have the answer.

So, either the DNA is conclusive or it is not.

If it is conclusive, then, it must be contaminated.

If it is conclusive, then the defences should have been able to examine it, and to witness

Reality: defence lawyers WERE given the chance to be present, but chose not to, so they could later claim contamination.

[Chapter 27, Page 332] Our lawyers’ arguments stirred up all my outrage. The prosecution had kept Raffaele and me in jail for twenty-one months for no reason. If the judges and jury were fair, they’d see that the prosecution had tried to thwart us.

Yes, the prosecutors are trying to thwart you by having defense lawyers choose to not attend DNA testing.

[Chapter 27, Page 332] Adjusting his glasses, Judge Massei droned in his unassuming voice, “There will be no annulment. We’ll hear both sides discuss the forensic evidence.” I swallowed hard and closed my eyes, willing my tears back in their ducts.

Massei droned? Way to take pot-shots at the lead judge.

Silly Massei. Wanting to hear both sides before making a decision.

[Chapter 27, Page 334] No one was contesting the brutality of Meredith’s death””only how it had happened and who was responsible. Everyone believed that Rudy Guede had been there and that he had killed Meredith. He was already serving a thirty-year sentence for her sexual assault and murder.

The goal of the prosecution was to prove that I had been there, too.

Originally you, Sollecito and Guede were to be tried together. But Guede asked for a short form trial when you and Sollecito teamed up against him.

For some reason, short-form trials go quicker than full trials.

[Chapter 27, Page 334] During the testimony phase, from January to July, witnesses discussed everything from my housekeeping habits to my character and sexual activity. It was intensely personal, and sometimes mortifying.

Mortifying? Really? Have you read your own book? You splash around everyone’s secret’s true or false.

[Chapter 27, Page 334] Picking up after the summer break, the forensics phase lasted only three and a half weeks, but it was still interminable: hour after hour of examination and cross-examination. Witnesses were called to talk about the knife, the bra clasp, my “bloody” footprints, how my DNA could have mixed with Meredith’s blood in the bathroom, and our alleged cleanup of the villa. Each expert explained how the evidence was found and documented, how results were calculated and interpreted. They were dissecting a crime I hadn’t committed, blaming me using terminology I didn’t know. I felt like an observer at someone else’s trial. The experts would say things like “Amanda’s DNA was on the knife handle,” and I would think, Who is this Amanda?

Huh? I thought there was no forensic evidence against you. Okay.

[Chapter 27, Page 334] I’d rest my chin in my hand, trying to look contemplative””a skill I’d developed during boring college lectures. But no matter how hard I tried to focus, my attention would wander, my head. would bob, and the agente standing behind me would awaken me to the nightmare. More than feeling embarrassed, I was terrified that my inattention would be interpreted as my not caring and become another mark against me””even though some of the jurors also habitually dozed off.

Wow, you are comparing your murder trial to college lectures

Why are you having trouble focusing? Is it that boring to hear about these things?

You are terrified about being seen as not caring? Your behaviour in court would contribute more to that (All You Need Is Love?)

The jurors dozed off regularly? Can I assume that you put that in your appeal? No ... ?!

[Chapter 27, Page 335] When testimony wasn’t dull, it was disturbing. I couldn’t stand thinking about Meredith in the starkly clinical terms the scientists were using to describe her. Did her bruises indicate sexual violence or restraint? What did the wounds to her hands and neck suggest about the dynamics of the aggression? What did the blood splatter and smears on the floor and armoire prove about her position in relation to her attacker or attackers?

Turn that first sentence around. ‘‘When testimony wasn’t disturbing, it was dull.’‘

You can’t think of Meredith in those terms? In May 2014, you told Chris Cuomo Meredith was a ‘‘corpse’’ and a ‘‘body’‘.

Yes, bruises indicating ‘‘restraint’‘. Kind of suggests there were ‘‘multiple attackers’‘.

You seem rather interested in blood spatter and smears.

[Chapter 27, Page 335] The hearings were tedious, gruesome, and enormously upsetting. But we were no longer at the crippling disadvantage we’d been at for two years. Now that the prosecution had been made to show their notes, testing, and some of the raw data, we finally had facts. And the facts supported what I had always known: Raffaele and I had had nothing to do with Meredith’s murder. Meredith had never come into contact with Raffaele’s kitchen knife. I hadn’t walked in her blood.

The hearings were upsetting? To you or to the Kerchers?

You know, the defence lawyers could have had the data and seen the testing, but they refused to attend. Makes it difficult to claim ‘‘contamination’’ if it is done in front of them.

So, the evidence and facts were never shared with you? So what information did Cassation rely on in 2008 to deny house arrest?

You say that the facts supported you and Raffaele having nothing to do with the murder. Which facts in particular?

Meredith never came in contact with Raffaele’s knife? Why did he invent a story about Meredith pricking her hand while cooking?

You hadn’t walked in Meredith’s blood? Were you hopping? Bathmat shuffling?

[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.

Okay, let’s hear this ‘‘flimsy explanation’’ that you refer to, and we can decide for ourselves.

One of the knives had left a distinct imprint on Meredith’s bedsheet. Police were looking for knives that could possibly match. Why lie?

[Chapter 27, Page 336] Then we heard the prosecution’s hired forensic experts describe the knife as “not incompatible"with Meredith’s wounds. I wasn’t the only person who was perplexed. The experts debated the meaning of this phrase as intensely as they did the physical evidence being presented. During cross-examination, Carlo demanded, “‘Not incompatible?’ What does that even mean? If the knife was compatible, wouldn’t you have written ‘compatible’? You wouldn’t have bent over backward, twisting words around to create this ambiguous meaning. ‘Not incompatible’? Am I to understand, perhaps, that the confiscated knife is ‘not incompatible’ if only because it’s a pointy knife with a single sharpened edge? Am I to understand that any pointed knife with a single sharpened edge””most knives””would equally qualify as ‘not incompatible’ with Meredith’s wounds? Yes?”

Knox is being facetious here, at best. It is virtually impossible to conclusively tie a specific knife to am injury, especially if the body had undergone any decomposition. You can however, exclude potential weapons. What was being testified to was that the smaller knife (Sollecito’s) could not be ruled out

[Chapter 27, Page 336] The third and fatal wound was a gash to the throat. The pathologist said Meredith had been stabbed at least three times in the same spot.

This is extremely confusing. The 3rd wound was fatal, meaning that the first 2 would not have been. So, if Meredith was stabbed at least 3 times in the same spot, would these not be the 3rd, 4th, 5th (and possibly 6th or 7th stab wounds)?

Or does Knox mean that Meredith was stabbed 3 times in the exact same place, and that the third time was fatal?

[Chapter 27, Page 336] Under Carlo’s questioning, Professor Torre, a serious man in his sixties who favored lime-green glasses, explained that in a moment of homicidal frenzy, it would be highly unlikely for a killer to plunge a knife in only halfway, to 3.149 inches. And the odds would rise to impossible when you considered driving a knife in, to precisely the same depth, measurable to a thousandth of an inch, three times in a row.

Why refer to Professor Torre as a ‘‘Serious Man’‘? Is that praise for him, or insults at other experts?

Actually, as a knife goes deeper it does get harder to push in. More surface area in contact with knife means more resistance. Would you like to borrow a physics textbook?

Seriously? The killer plunged the knife 3 times the exact same depth in the exact same location? The killer has that level of control, yet wasn’t able to drive the knife in deeper?

Can you refer to where the police/prosecutors claim 3 identical stab wounds? That information is news to me.

[Chapter 27, Page 337] Torre brought in a foam bust and an exact copy of the knife to demonstrate how implausible this feat would be. I thought it was a good idea, but I couldn’t watch anyone stab anything””even a dummy. The notion that anyone thought I could have done that to a person””to my friend””made me not just heartsick but feeling like I might throw up. I squeezed my eyes shut.

Again, why are you trying to simulate 3 identical stab wounds? That was never claimed by the prosecution.

Besides, a knife doesn’t have to go it all the way. It can strike a bone, or the killer could be new to killing.

[Chapter 27, Page 337] At the next hearing Manuela Comodi, the co-prosecutor in charge of forensics for the trial, swept into the courtroom triumphantly carrying a flat cardboard box, a little smaller than the ones used for carryout pizza. After opening it, Comodi paraded it in front of the court, as though she were displaying the queen’s jewels. Her pride showed on her face as the jurors and experts stood up, straining in her direction to get a good look at what was inside””the knife that had been confiscated from Raffaele’s apartment was wrapped in a baggie. Only Comodi was allowed to touch it, to pick it up and hold its plastic-shrouded blade up to the light. Her theatrics were exasperating.

Is this a strange attempt at humour?

’‘A box a little smaller than the ones used for carryout pizza’‘?

Comodi ‘‘paraded it in front of the court’‘?

As if ‘‘she were displaying the Queen’s jewels’‘?

’‘The pride showed on her face’‘?

’‘Only Comodi was allowed to touch it’‘?

Comodi’s theatrics?

[Chapter 27, Page 338] During the pretrial, Stefanoni testified that she had tested enough DNA from the knife to get an accurate reading. But now, a year later, Dr. Gino had seen the raw data, including the amount of DNA that was tested. If there was any DNA there at all, it was too little to determine using the lab’s sensitive instruments, 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.

So, DNA tests are conducted, but now your expert claims (if there is any DNA), it is too little to be tested?

So, which international standards were not met? This sounds impressive, but please be more exact.

If there is little DNA, the protocol is to run MORE tests? Makes sense

You claim contamination is the lab. Any precise information on the exact route of contamination?

Dalla Vedova/Ghirga and Maori/Bongiorno could have been present during previous testing, but then, how would they explain ‘‘errors’’ going on under their noses?

[Chapter 27, Page 339] What I couldn’t understand was why this infinitesimal, unconfirmed sample found on a random knife that didn’t correspond with Meredith’s wounds or the bloodstain on the bedsheet””the murderer’s signature”” held any sway. 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.

Well, bleaching a bloody knife tends to destroy most of the DNA.

And a knife doesn’t have to ‘‘go in all the way’’ to be the murder weapon.

Yes, why bother with this small DNA amount, when there were 5 large mixed blood samples of you and Meredith. Oh wait, you lived in that house for a month.

And of course, the police found Guede’s DNA in Filomena’s room (the break in point)? No, just yours mixed with Meredith’s.

Correct, Rudy’s crap was found in the toilet, the toilet that anyone else in the world would have flushed immediately.

[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, to be sure a stain contains blood. Had the Polizia Scientifica done this follow-up test? Under cross-examination during the pretrial, Stefanoni was emphatic. “No,” she responded.

Okay, even if it were another substance, why is it in the shape of your feet and Sollecito’s feet? What was on the floor that you were tracking from Meredith’s room?

If it was a cleaning agent, or rust, why weren’t other people’s footprints found in it?

Why is this ‘‘other substance’’ limited to 2 of your footprints, and 2 of Sollecito’s?

If Guede left, as his shoeprints indicate, why did he leave a bare bloody print on the bathmat?

Also, how did Guede leave the footprint on the mat, but none in the hall? Can ‘‘Spider-Man’’ fly?

[Chapter 27, Page 340] 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.

With a good ‘‘scrubbing’‘, the TMB tests would have been irrelevant anyway.

Yes, but they were your footprints, and Sollecito’s, and there were no one else’s that reacted. So, you 2 had stepped in something, very recently.

[Chapter 27, Page 340] November 2. Of course my DNA would be mingled with Meredith’s in the common hallway between our bedrooms””we’d lived in the same house and walked on the same floor tiles for six weeks.

The prosecution had no evidence against us, and worse yet, they’d withheld information likely to prove our innocence.

More infuriating was that Stefanoni continued to argue the prosecution’s inaccurate points during cross-examination.

So, the forensic evidence is irrelevant because you and your lawyers say it is? Let’s get you out right away then.

Things like repeated false alibis, making false accusation, and repeatedly lying are not evidence against you? Most think it is.

Yes, it is frustrating that prosecution witnesses do not automatically agree with half-truths from the defence.

[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. Furthermore, one of Raffaele’s defense experts pointed out that the genetic profile was incomplete, and could have matched hundreds of people in Perugia’s small population.

Merely being in a room doesn’t result in an abundance of DNA

It doesn’t mean everything was tested for DNA. If an area was dusted for fingerprints, DNA testing would not be possible on that spot

The result was 17 of 17 loci, which was very conclusive

Interesting argument. There is none of Raffaele’s DNA. If there was, it was due to contamination. And even if so, it could have been anyone’s.

And contaminated from what? If DNA was trekked in, it would have been everywhere. From your own words, this was the only place.

[Chapter 27, Page 342] One morning, Manuela Comodi, the co-prosecutor, told the court that to show her dedication to the case, she had brought in her own bra. She was carrying a white cotton underwire bra, the closest match in her drawer to what Meredith had been wearing, although, she said, chuckling, it was larger than Meredith’s. Comodi hung the bra on a hanger to mimic a person wearing it. Using her index finger, she showed the mesmerized court how Raffaele could have hooked his finger to pull the back strap of Meredith’s bra (somehow leaving DNA on the clasp but not the cloth) and then sliced off the fastener section with a knife.

Prosecutors trying to explain how DNA is present? Go figure.

Well, to cut someone’s clothing off, holding it at some point seems reasonable.

[Chapter 27, Page 343] Another day, the prosecution said that finding my DNA in the bathroom was proof I’d been involved in the murder. They didn’t consider that I had lived in the villa and used that bathroom every day for weeks. Even rookie forensic scientists know that roommates leave DNA in bathrooms, but the prosecution insisted it was incriminating evidence. They claimed that the only way my DNA could have been collected with the samples of Meredith’s blood was if I’d been washing her blood off my hands.

While DNA in your own bathroom is very common, mixed blood is not. You omit that detail.

You also leave out that you had said before that the blood was not there the day earlier.

[Chapter 27, Page 343] The prosecution said they were certain the murder had been a group attack. Why, then, was none of my DNA or Raffaele’s DNA in Meredith’s bedroom? Their answer: because Raffaele and I had scrubbed the crime scene clean of our DNA, leaving only Guede’s. That theory gave me super powers. DNA is not something you can cherry-pick; it’s invisible. Even if I could somehow magically see DNA, there is no way I could tell one person’s DNA from another’s just by looking””no one can.

You’re right, you can’t always see DNA. That is how your blood was left (mixed with Meredith’s) in 5 places

And footprints, even if invisible to the naked eye, can be raised—via luminol

DNA is just one type of evidence to consider. The real world is not a C.S.I. episode.

[Chapter 27, Page 344] The prosecution contended that, as representatives of the state, they were the impartial party and maintained that their conclusions were legitimate. Our experts, they said, couldn’t be trusted because they were being paid to defend us. And our critiques, objections, and conclusions were just smoke screens created to confuse the judges and jury.

Your experts are just trying to throw up smoke screens. Screaming ‘‘contamination’‘, and ‘‘too small to test’’ without some basis is just creating noise.

[Chapter 27, Page 344] It distressed me that Meredith’s family thought I was guilty, but I always had huge empathy for them.

It distressed you enough to write this nasty book? To include details of Meredith’s sex life?

The woman you only knew for a month must have suffered, since she had her fucking throat cut? Well, shit happens, but you need to move on with your life.

[Chapter 27, Page 345] But I was still so blinded by hope, and my faith in my own innocence, that I actually read this news as positive. I could be accused, but they couldn’t possibly convict me of something I hadn’t done. There was only one honest outcome. I couldn’t imagine that the jurors would side with the police without question. They couldn’t ignore everything that our defense had put forth. “They must think we don’t need the review because there’s already enough reasonable doubt,” I said to Luciano.

They didn’t convict you for something you didn’t do. They convicted you for murdering Meredith and framing Patrick—things you actually did.

Again, you need some basis to make these claims. Merely objecting without offering something isn’t helpful.

[Chapter 27, Page 347] In the weeks leading up to the closing arguments, I put our chances of winning at 95 percent. Carlo gave us fifty-fifty. “Judge Massei challenges the defense a lot more than he does the prosecution,” he said. “And the judges and jury nod whenever the prosecution or the Kerchers’ lawyer talks, but look bored when it’s our turn.” Still, I held tight to optimism. Not without reason. Journalists told Mom and Dad they weren’t convinced by the prosecution’s arguments. Even the Italian media, uniformly negative since the beginning, seemed to be turning around. A show I saw on the second anniversary of Meredith’s death replayed Rudy Guede’s first recorded conversation, in which he said that I wasn’t at the villa. If the press can see the truth, surely the judge and jury can, too.

You put your chances at 95%? Any reason, or just a number you made up?

The Italian media was with you? Maybe the misinformed American media.

Yes, Guede’s conversations are so reliable. Did they play the ones where he accused you and Sollecito of the murder?

[Chapter 27, Page 347] A public opinion poll on TV said that more than 60 percent of Italians thought I was guilty. The people who only watched television reports most likely sided with the prosecution. That realization spawned a deep-down fear that I’d be convicted, my innocence be damned. Prisoners gossiped about my case all the time, behind my back and to me. “Come on, Amanda. You can tell me.”

This is confusing. You said that the media was now with you a few pages back, yet you claim that people who only watch television reports most likely sided with the prosecution

The media is with you, but they report negative things?

And if the people watching at home think your’re guilty, (which is about 60%), does that mean the other 40% of Italy attended the trial?

[Chapter 28, Page 350] One day I got up the courage to ask Chris, who was in Perugia leading up to the closing argumentsand verdict, “What would a conviction mean?” So afraid to acknowledge that uncharted, dark place, I could only whisper. “There would be an appeal, and if you didn’t get acquitted, then the Supreme Court would exonerate you. At the most, Amanda, it would take five years,” Chris explained. “Five years?!” That was way more than I wanted to know. Chris jumped in to reassure me. “If that happened, Amanda, we’d find a way to save you! But don’t worry! It’s not going to happen! And if for some utterly bizarre reason it goes the wrong way, I’m moving to Italy.”

Well, finally some truth. Convicted defendants get an automatic appeal, then a Cassation (Supreme Court) hearing. 2 automatic appeals.

A huge cry from the ‘‘put on trial again and again’’ that we keep hearing about.

[Chapter 28, Page 351] Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini gave his closing argument first. Alternating between a calm, almost quiet recitation of the “facts” and the fiery rants of a preacher at a tent revival, Mignini summarized Raffaele’s and my part in the savagery that took Meredith’s life. He started with the idea that Filomena’s window was too high to be a credible entry point into the villa and ended with our tossing Meredith’s stolen British and Italian cell phones over the garden wall. Raffaele and I had accused “this poor Rudy,” as Mignini called him, of “being the only one” to attack Meredith. “He has his own grave responsibility, but the responsibility is not only his own,” Mignini intoned.

Wow, you call his closing the ‘‘rants of a preacher at a tent revival’‘.

Not only was Filomena’s room too high, there was nothing to grab onto, and it was the most visible point of entry. Lousy place to break into.

Tossing the phones was seen as a way to divert attention, though it ultimately backfired.

Knox and Sollecito did try to pin it all on Guede as the ‘‘lone wolf’‘.

[Chapter 28, Page 351] I couldn’t believe what the prosecutor was saying. He, who was championing himself as the bearer of truth for Meredith’s family, was calling the murderer “Poor Rudy”? Evidence of Rudy’s crimes was everywhere, and his history of theft matched the burglary. Poor Rudy? Guede had stolen! He had killed Meredith! He had left a handprint in Meredith’s blood! He had fled! He had lied! Poor Rudy?

Interesting how you knew about Guede’s prior break in. It’s almost as if you knew him.

And what of Guede’s ‘‘staged burglary’’ on his roommates as an April Fool’s Day prank? Oh, that was you.

Yes, we know he left the handprint. You were careful not to remove it.

Guede fled to Germany. According to your November 4, 2007 email, you wanted to flee Italy, but weren’t allowed to.

Guede has lied. However, he never claimed to be in the kitchen with his hands over his ears, vaguely remembering Patrick killing Meredith.

[Chapter 28, Page 351] “By now it was an unstoppable game of violence and sex. The aggressors initially threatened her and demanded her submission to the hard-core sex game. It’s easy to imagine Amanda, angry at the British girl for her increasing criticism of Amanda’s sexual easiness, reproaching Mez for her reserve. Let’s try to imagine””she insulted her. Perhaps she said, ‘You were a little saint. Now we’ll show you. Now you have no choice but to have sex.”’ He’s perverse! How did he come up with such a twisted scenario? He’s portraying me as a psychopath! Is Mignini allowed to put words in my mouth, thoughts in my head? I would never force anyone to have sex. I would never threaten or ridicule anyone.

You say you want Meredith’s family to read your book, and you include this?

How perverse to stage a burglary as a joke, or to throw rocks at cars.

You wouldn’t force anyone to have sex, you just write rape stories (like Baby Brother)

You are ridiculing just about everyone in this book.

[Chapter 28, Page 354] Then he recalled from earlier in the trial, when Judge Massei questioned me about my interrogation. “Your Honor asked, ‘But a suggestion in what sense? Did they tell you, ‘Say that it was Lumumba?’ Because a suggestion is just that ... And Amanda said, ‘No. They didn’t tell me that it was him.’ And so what suggestion is it? “Amanda said, ‘But they told me, Ah, but we know that you were with him, that you met with him.’ The police were doing their job ... they were trying to make this person talk ... These are the pressures, then. Completely normal and necessary investigative activity. There were no suggestions because a suggestion is: Say it was Lumumba.” Mignini knew how my interrogation had gone. The police were yelling that I knew who the murderer was, that I had to remember, that I’d gone out to meet Patrick that night. They made me believe I had trauma-induced amnesia. They threatened me if I didn’t name the murderer””even though I said I didn’t know who the murderer was! How is that not suggestion? How is that not coercion?

Where to begin with this?

There were no pressures. You went the police station uninvited when Sollecito was called in.

You were told to go home but refused. You agreed to draw up a list of potential contacts.

The only pressure came when Sollecito pulled your alibi

You were not yelled at.

You were not threatened.

You were not hit either. Oh, you forgot to include that.

It is not coercion because none of the above happened.

[Chapter 28, Page 354] Mignini’s rant lasted one day, from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M.

Show the ‘‘Mayor’’ some respect, you stupid liar…

[Chapter 28, Page 354] “I’d like to show the court a visual prop we’ve constructed to demonstrate our theory of the murder,” Comodi said. This introduced the most surreal moment of my nightmarish trial: a 3-D computer-generated animation with avatars representing me, Raffaele, Rudy Guede, and Meredith. Carlo and Luciano were apoplectic. They shouted their objections, insisting that the film was unnecessary and inflammatory. Judge Massei allowed it. I didn’t watch it, but my lawyers said the avatar of me was dressed in a striped shirt like one I often wore to court. Raffaele, Guede, and I were depicted sneering. Meredith’s avatar had an expression of horror and pain. The cartoon used real crime scene photos to show the blood splatters in Meredith’s room.

Trying to use a video simulation to explain a crime? Happens regularly in U.S. courts.

So, should Meredith be sneering, and Knox, Sollecito, Guede have horrified expressions?

Posted on 05/24/14 at 03:30 AM by Chimera • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Knox False Claims, Examples 324-382
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (9)

9. Knox Book Lies 383 To 418

Posted by Chimera

Implacable nastiness in Star Wars. Anakin is about to kill his wife here. Click for Comments.

1. Overview Of This Series

Four more quick posts and the series will be done here. Then we will post everything on a new Knox Lies page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The eight posts before this one can all be read here.

Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

2. Dissection Of Pages 355 to 394

[Chapter 28, Page 355] “I’d like to show the court a visual prop we’ve constructed to demonstrate our theory of the murder,” Comodi said. This introduced the most surreal moment of my nightmarish trial: a 3-D computer-generated animation with avatars representing me, Raffaele, Rudy Guede, and Meredith. Carlo and Luciano were apoplectic. They shouted their objections, insisting that the film was unnecessary and inflammatory. Judge Massei allowed it. I didn’t watch it, but my lawyers said the avatar of me was dressed in a striped shirt like one I often wore to court. Raffaele, Guede, and I were depicted sneering. Meredith’s avatar had an expression of horror and pain. The cartoon used real crime scene photos to show the blood splatters in Meredith’s room.

Trying to use a video simulation to explain a crime? Happens regularly in U.S. courts.

So, should Meredith be sneering, and Knox, Sollecito, Guede have horrified expressions?

[Chapter 28, Page 356] I kept my head down, my eyes on the table. My stomach was churning. The courtroom was suddenly hot. I was boiling with anger and near tears. How are they allowed to make up what happened? I tried to block out Comodi’s voice as she narrated the imagined event.

Angry, why? For having the brutality of it finally shown?

Was she supposed to narrate you in the kitchen covering your ears while Lumumba kills Meredith?

Was she supposed to narrate the one where Guede uses his 6 arms and spider-strength to overpower Meredith?

[Chapter 28, Page 356] The cartoon couldn’t be entered as evidence, so no one outside the courtroom saw it. But the prosecution had achieved their goal. They’d planted an image in the minds of the judges and jury. When the lights came up, Comodi closed with a straightforward request: Give Amanda and Raffaele life imprisonment.

Nobody outside the courtroom saw the cartoon since it “couldn’t” be entered as evidence? In fact it was purely a choice of the prosecution and judge to stop it leaking to the media.

The points of clearing the court are to protect the dignity of the victim, and to prevent word of it from inflaming the public via the media.

The point is not to ‘‘plant an image’‘. It is to provide the best interpretation of what happened.

Finally a truthful statement. Yes, they did ask for life in prison.

[Chapter 28, Page 357] Then he [Pacelli] descended on me as if I were a witch on trial in the Middle Ages. “So who is Amanda Knox? In my opinion, within her resides a double soul””the angelic and compassionate, gentle and naive one, of Saint Maria Goretti, and the satanic, diabolic Luciferina, who was brought to engage in extreme, borderline acts and to adopt dissolute behavior. This last was the Amanda of November 1, 2007 ... It must be spelled out clearly: Amanda was a girl who was clean on the outside because she was dirty within, spirit and soul.. .”

Pacelli didn’t descend on you as if it were the middle ages. He descended on you for having committed heinous acts.

Extreme, borderline acts? I guess sexual assault and murder, then framing someone are ‘‘mainstream’’ ....

[Chapter 28, Page 357] How can any girl defend herself against a guy armed with a knife? “It’s a very long list of lesions: to the face, neck, hands, forearms, thighs. Try to understand the terror, the fear, the pain this girl suffered in the last seconds of her life in the face of the multiple aggression, an aggression brought about by more than one person.” Maresca didn’t mention that the prosecution’s own coroner””the only person who’d analyzed Meredith’s body””had said it was impossible to determine whether one or more people attacked Meredith.

How can any woman defend herself against a guy armed with a knife? Many have before.

This is disingenuous. The coroner is NEVER able to make the determination of multiple attackers based solely on injuries. They can make reasonable assumptions and say things are likely, but few things are 100% certain.

That said, that many injuries with so few defensive marks leads to two possibilities: (1) The victim had been restrained; or (2) Multiple attackers were present.

[Chapter 28, Page 358] Maresca, like Mignini, criticized any media that had questioned his work. But what most enraged me was the false contrast he set up between the Kerchers and my family. “You’ll remember Meredith’s family for their absolute composure. They taught the world the elegance of silence. We’ve never heard them on the television ... in the newspapers. They’ve never given an interview. There’s an abysmal difference between them and what has been defined as the Knox Clan and the Sollecito Clan, which give interviews on national television and in magazines every day.” Thank God for my “clan,” I thought. They’re the only ones on my side.

Meredith: likeable, ambitious, driven student.

Knox: crass, lazy, does drugs and brings home strange men.

Kercher family: kept a low profile during the trial.

Knox family: parents hired a PR firm to rail about how Knox was being railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor, and ancient judicial system

[Chapter 28, Page 358] Meredith’s family is grieving, but my family knows that Pm not the cause of the Kerchers’ grief. Just as Meredith’s family came to Perugia to seek justice for their daughter, mine have come to seek justice for me. Both families are good. Both families are doing the best they can, the best way they know how..

Meredith’s family is grieving? So that’s what grief looks like? Good to know.

Well, your mother knew you were the cause of PATRICK’S grief, and did nothing about it.

If your family were here to seek justice, they would have let things play out.

The way they know how? Oh, Judge Hellmann .....

[Chapter 28, Page 358] “Raffaele and Rudy Guede never met, went out together, or saw each other,” Maori said. “The two young men belonged to completely different worlds and cultures. Raffaele comes from a big and healthy family. Rudy rejected his family. Raffaele has always been a model student. Rudy was never interested in school or work. Raffaele is timid and reserved. Rudy is uninhibited, arrogant, extroverted.” “Accomplices who don’t know each other . Bongiorno said, drawing out the words to emphasize the paradox that they couldn’t have been accomplices if they didn’t even know each other! Raffaele, she told the court, was “Mr. Nobody”“”put in by the prosecution as an afterthought. “There was no evidence of him at the scene.” The prosecution had contradicted themselves. “He’s there, but he’s not. He has a knife, but he doesn’t. He’s passive, he’s active.”

Vanessa losing her job while interfering with the case is ‘‘healthy’‘?

Since we are talking about ‘‘work ethic’‘, Sollecito is the only one of the 3 who never held a job.

Rudy is uninhibited, arrogant, extroverted? Umm…. so is Knox.

People with different personalities can still know each other. Sollecito knew Knox.

And despite the claim Sollecito didn’t know Guede, they both knew Knox.

Sollecito wasn’t put there as an afterthought. He was Knox’s alibi witness, until he said she made him lie.

[Chapter 28, Page 359] In defending Raffaele, she also defended me. “If the court doesn’t mind, and Amanda doesn’t mind, the innocence of my client depends on Amanda Knox,” she said. “A lot of people think that she doesn’t make sense. But Amanda just sees things her way. She reacts differently. She’s not a classic Italian woman. She has a naive perspective of life, or did when the events occurred. But just because she acted differently from other people doesn’t mean she killed someone….

Sollecito’s innocence depends on Knox? Wasn’t his ‘‘official’’ position that she went out?

She reacts differently? Yeah, shit happens.

Her reactions don’t mean it, but false alibis, false accusations, turning off phones, mixed blood, etc ... do mean it.

[Chapter 28, Page 359] “Amanda looked at the world with the eyes of Am6lie” she said, referring to the quirky waif in the movie that Raffaele and I watched the night of Meredith’s murder. Amelie and I had traits in common, Bongiorno said. “The extravagant, bizarre personality, full of imagination. If there’s a personality who does cartwheels and who confesses something she imagined, it’s her. I believe that what happened is easy to guess. Amanda, being a little bizarre and naive, when she went into the questura, was truly trying to help the police and she was told, ‘Amanda, imagine. Help us, Amanda. Amanda, reconstruct it. Amanda, find the solution. Amanda, try.’ She tried to do so, she tried to help, because she wanted to help the police, because Amanda is precisely the Am6lie of Seattle.”

Knox looks at the world with the eyes of Amelie? Are you arguing innocence or insanity?

Knox didn’t ‘‘confess’’ to anything. She falsely ‘‘accused’’ Patrick of something.

Knox didn’t ‘‘imagine’’ anything, except a possible way out after Sollecito pulled his alibi.

She didn’t go to the Questura to ‘‘help the police’‘. She claimed she went because she was scared to be alone, and told to go home.

Knox wasn’t told to ‘‘imagine’’ how anything went. She started writing a list of possible males who visited.

Sorry to pick up an old topic, but Knox is remembering all this as it was said? Or did she get the trial transcripts?

[Chapter 28, Page 360] “At lunch hour on November 2, 2007, a body was discovered,” Luciano began. “It was a disturbing fact that captured the hearts of everyone. Naturally there were those who investigated. Naturally there were testimonies. Naturally there was the initial investigative activity. Immediately, immediately, especially Amanda, but also Raffaele, were suspected, investigated, and heard for four days following the discovery of the body. There was demand for haste. There was demand for efficiency. There was demand.

Knox has frequently claimed she was ‘‘interrogated’’ for days, but this is the first time, I am hearing about it happening to Sollecito.

’‘ALL’’ of the residents of the house were detained, as Knox admits earlier in the book. She was not targeted.

There was no ‘‘demand for haste’‘. On November 5, 2007, the police asked him to come in to clear up his alibi. Knox was not invited, and when she did show up, was asked to leave.

Again, how does Knox remember this summation, more than 3 years before she would write her book?

[Chapter 28, Page 360] “Such demand and such haste led to the wrongful arrest of Patrick Lumumba””a grave mistake.” Carlo picked up the thread. “There is a responsible party for this and it’s not Amanda Knox. Lumumba’s arrest was not executed by Amanda Knox. She gave information, false information. Now we know. But you couldn’t give credit to what Amanda said in that way, in that moment and in that way. A general principle for operating under such circumstances is maximum caution. In that awkward situation there was instead the maximum haste.” Having heard what they wanted to hear and without checking further, the investigators and Prosecutor Mignini arrested Patrick””bringing him in “like a sack of potatoes,” Luciano said.

Knox admitted in her June 2009 testimony that she was the one to bring Patrick’s name up.

She did this because Sollecito revoked his alibi, and she was suddenly desperate for a new one.

Caution? Knox claimed to be a witness to the rape and murder.

Lumumba’s arrest WAS executed by Knox. Judge Massei (2009), Judge Hellmann (2011), and Cassation (2013) all said it was.

They did check the facts. Patrick was released once they investigated.

You guys are taking pot shots at the cops in your summation? Somehow I doubt it.

[Chapter 28, Page 361] Maria Del Grosso criticized Mignini for the fiction he’d invented. “What must be judged today is whether this girl committed murder by brutal means. To sustain this accusation you need very strong elements, and what element does the prosecution bring us? The flushing of the toilet. Amanda was an adulterer. l hope that not even Prosecutor Mignini believes in the improbable, unrealistic, imaginary contrast of the two figures of Amanda and Meredith.”

The prosecution brought hard evidence to the trial. What did you bring?

[I haven’t seen the trial transcript on this. Defence lawyers spin and distort things, but this may actually have been said.]

[Chapter 28, Page 362] Then Raffaele and I made our final pleas. Raffaele talked about how he would never hurt anyone. That he had no reason to. That he wouldn’t have done something just because I’d told him to. I’d spent hours sitting on my bed making notes about what I wanted to say, but as soon as I stood up, every word emptied from my brain. I had to go with what came to me, on the few notes I had prepared.

Yes, Sollecito, gave speeches about how he had no reason to hurt her, but refused to actually testify.

Likewise at the Nencini appeal, Sollecito gave speeches, but wouldn’t answer questions.

You have to make notes? I guess it just doesn’t come naturally.

[Chapter 28, Page 362] “People have asked me this question: how are you able to remain calm? First of all, I’m not calm. I’m scared to lose myself. I’m scared to be defined as what I am not and by acts that don’t belong to me. I’m afraid to have the mask of a murderer forced on my skin.

You were VERY calm after Meredith’s murder

Scared to lose yourself? You mean, yet your cold-blooded side slip out? Okay, probably true here.

Scared to be defined as something? This is a murder trial.

Mask of a murderer? Sweetheart, it’s not a mask.

[Chapter 28, Page 362] “I feel more connected to you, more vulnerable before you, but also trusting and sure in my conscience. For this I thank you ... I thank the prosecution because they are trying to do their job, even if they don’t understand, even if they are not able to understand, because they are trying to bring justice to an act that tore a person from this world. So I thank them for what they do ... It is up to you now. So I thank you.” My words were so inadequate. But at least I remembered to thank the court again. Now I had to put my faith in what my lawyers and our experts and I had said month after month. I had to believe that it was good enough.

While I’m at it, I’d like to thank the director, the producer, and the supporting cast.

One more time people. I don’t yet have the feel of this character.

Dammit guys! We are shooting this film just great.

Your words are inadequate? You should have hired Linda Kuhlman to ‘‘ghostwrite’’ your speech. No, it would still suck.

[Chapter 28, Page 364] My head pounded as I shot from excitement to terror and back again””and again. My brain bounced between Please, please, please and Finally, finally, finally””THE END.

Yes, sequels are lame. Like the sequel (or paperback) of this book.

[Chapter 28, Page 364] After dinner Tanya turned on the TV. Every channel was talking about my case: The big day! The world is hanging on, waiting to see what the decision will be in the “Italian trial of the century.” Raffaele and Amanda have been charged with six counts. Meredith’s family will be there to hear the verdict. Amanda’s family is waiting in the hotel. The Americans believe there’s no case, but the prosecution insists that Meredith’s DNA is on the murder weapon and Raffaele’s DNA is on Meredith’s bra clasp. The prosecution has condemned the American media for taking an incorrect view of the case.

Well, the whole world wasn’t watching until Dad hired a PR firm.

Americans believe there is no case. Probably due to a biased media that doesn’t bother to check their facts

Meredith’s DNA on the knife and Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp were only just 2 pieces of evidence, yet you try to portray it as about the only evidence.

Actually the prosecution condemned the US media notion that he was framing 2 ‘‘kids’’ for his career.

[Chapter 29, Page 370] My life cleaved in two. Before the verdict, I’d been a wrongly accused college student about to walk free. I was about to start my life over after two years. Now everything I’d thought I’d been promised had been ripped away. I was a convicted murderer.

Well, before the conviction Marriott portrayed you as the ‘‘wrongly accused’’ college student.

You were only taking the one course, so is that really a college student? Not a full time load.

Everything you had been promised? What kind of deal did you make?

[Chapter 29, Page 370] Carlo stopped us just before we started down the stairs. He was breathless. “I’m so sorry! We’re going to win! We’re going to win. Amanda, we’re going to save you. Be strong.”

You’ve got the business judge directory?

[Chapter 30, Page 377] “Can you possibly put me on the list for a two-person cell instead of the five-person cell?” I asked, sniffling. “That would mean a lot to me.” It was all I had. Begging for a better cell. It had come to this. This was my new life. I was in a position to ask. Twenty-six-year sentences were uncommon in Italy, especially at Capanne, which usually housed petty criminals and drug dealers serving sentences of a few months to a few years. After twenty-five months, not only had I earned seniority””I’d been there longer than almost everyone else””but I had a reputation as a model prisoner.

You poor dear. It is jail, not a 5 star hotel.

Yes, murderers tend to get much longer sentences than petty criminals and drug dealers

You had a reputation all right, but it wasn’t really as a model prisoner.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/meredith-kercher-killer-amanda-knox-3100098

[Chapter 30, Page 384] As Lupa said, my lawyers would obviously appeal my conviction. But I couldn’t count on the Court of Appeals to free me. My case, tried daily in the media, was too big and too notorious. It was awful to hear that strangers believed I had killed my friend. 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.

Cases are tried by the courts, not the media.

It was awful to hear stranger thinking you killed your friend? Why so obsessed with what people think?

Your friend? Meredith I assume?

Didn’t make sense? Did you read this quote from pages 273/274 of this book? Fast track trial ... ?

[Chapter 30, Page 384] But when the emotionless guard pushed the paper across the desk, I saw, to my astonishment, and outrage, that it was a new indictment””for slander. For telling the truth about what had happened to me during my interrogation on November 5-6, 2007. In June 2009, I testified that Rita Ficarra had hit me on the head to make me name Patrick. I also testified that the police interpreter hadn’t translated my claims of innocence and that she’d suggested that I didn’t remember assisting Patrick Lumumba when he sexually assaulted Meredith.

Actually, it was a ‘‘long haired woman’’ you testified against. Ficarra wasn’t named until this book came out.

You ‘‘didn’t remember assisting’‘? Well, after days of lying, you admitted you were present.

[Chapter 30, Page 385] According to Prosecutor Mignini, truth was slander. All told, the prosecution claimed that I’d slandered twelve police officers””everyone who was in the interrogation room with me that night””when I said they’d forced me to agree that Meredith had been raped and pushed me into saying Patrick’s name. It was my word against theirs, because that day the police apparently hadn’t seen fit to flip the switch of the recording device that had been secretly bugging me every day in the same office of the questura leading up to the interrogation.

Actually, according to ‘‘Mayor’’ Mignini, falsely accusing someone of crimes is criminal slander (calunnia).

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/The_Knox_Interrogation_Hoax_1_overview/

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_amanda_knox_calunnia_trial_in_florence_1/

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_amanda_knox_calunnia_trial_in_florence_2/

12 officers in the room at one time? Did you get ‘‘any’’ names? Or did you just accuse everyone who was in the police station that night? In fact the room was quiet and few officers entered and only whispered.

They didn’t ‘‘flip the switch’’ because it was not ever a suspect interrogation. You showed up uninvited that night, demanding to be let in.

[Chapter 30, Page 385] Mignini and his co-prosecutor, Manuela Comodi, had signed the document. The judge’s signature was also familiar: Claudia Matteini, the same woman who’d rejected me for house arrest two years earlier because she said I’d flee Italy. I hadn’t expected this maneuver by the police and prosecution, but it now made sense. They couldn’t admit that one of their own had hit me or that the interpreter hadn’t done her job. Above all, they couldn’t admit that they’d manipulated me into a false admission of guilt. They had their reputations to uphold and their jobs to keep.

Judge Matteini was right. You refused to attend the 2013 Cassation appeal, your own 2013/2014 Florence appeal, your own 2015 Cassation appeal, and are skipping the September 2015 calunnia trial.

So, the interpreter is refusing to translate properly .... to help frame you?

A police officer (whom you only now identify as Ficarra), assaults you, and everyone covers it up?

So, police and prosecutors are framing you to retains their jobs and reputations?

[Chapter 30, Page 385] I’d calculated that I could be released in twenty-one years for good behavior. Now this looked unlikely. If I were called to testify in the slander trial, I’d have to restate the truth: I had been pressured and hit. They’d say I was lying. If the judges and jury believed the police, that would wipe out my good behavior and add three years to my jail time. Could Mignini, Comodi, and the whole questura keep going after me again and again? Would I be persecuted forever?

So which is it? You will (a) Tell the truth; or (b) Restate that you had been hit?

Yes, ‘‘aggravated calunnia’’ has a tendency to add years to jail sentences.

Mignini, Comodi and the Questura are not ‘‘going after you again and again’‘. They are obligated to report such complaints.

Not ‘‘persecuted’’ forever, but if you keep this pattern up, you may be ‘‘prosecuted’’ forever.

[Chapter 30, Page 386] The indictment was a dark reminder of how completely vulnerable I was. Not only had the prosecution successfully had me convicted for something I hadn’t done, but also legally, my word meant nothing. I was trapped.

Yes, the word of someone convicted of making false accusations generally means nothing. Quite true.

[Chapter 30, Page 387] As I did for Mina’s mom, Gregora, I helped prisoners write letters, legal documents, grocery lists, and explain an ailment to the doctor. The Nigerian women treated me as an honored guest, setting me up at a table and offering tea and cake as they dictated to me. This was my way of being part of the prison community on my own terms, of trying to find a good balance between helping others and protecting myself. No matter how much I was hurting, I didn’t think it was right to ignore the fact that I could help other inmates with my ability to read and write in both Italian and English. At bedtime each night, I made a schedule for the next day, organized task by task, hour by hour. If I didn’t cross off each item, I felt I’d let myself down. I wrote as much as I could””journals, stories, poems. I could spend hours crafting a single letter to my family.

The writing part is true.

The touching details about helping other inmates is not. Knox kept to herself almost exclusively.

[Chapter 30, Page 387] The ways other prisoners had tried to kill themselves were well known””and I imagined myself trying them all. There was poisoning, usually with bleach. Swallowing enough and holding it in long enough was painfully difficult. Usually the vomiting would attract the attention of the guards too soon, and then they’d pump your stomach. It seemed an agonizing way to go if success wasn’t guaranteed. There was swallowing shards of glass from a compact mirror or a broken plastic pen, hitting your head against the wall until you beat yourself to death, and hanging yourself. But the most common and fail-safe method of suicide in prison was suffocation by a garbage bag””two prisoners on the men’s side did this successfully while I was there. You could even buy the bags off the grocery list. You’d pull the bag over your head, stick an open gas canister meant for the camping stove inside, and tie the bag off around your neck. The gas would make you pass out almost instantaneously, and if someone didn’t untie the bag immediately, that was it. Less effective but, I thought, more dignified was bleeding yourself to death. I imagined it would be possible to get away with enough time in the shower. The running water would deter cellmates from invading your privacy, and the steam would fog up the guard’s viewing window. I imagined cutting both my wrists and sinking into oblivion in a calm, quiet, hot mist. I wondered which straw would need to break for me actually to do any of these. What would my family and friends think? How would the guards find my body? I imagined myself as a corpse. It made me feel sick, not relieved, but it was a fantasy I had many times””terrible, desperate recurring thoughts that I never shared with a soul.

Not sure why Knox is telling us this. Is it for shock value? Is she reveling in it?

[Chapter 30, Page 387] I thought about how much I wanted to get married and have kids. If I get released on good behavior when I’m forty-three, I can still adopt.

Yes, adoption agencies won’t have an issue with a 43 year old woman who spent nearly her entire adult in jail for rape and murder now adopting a child.

[Chapter 30, Page 388] My mom couldn’t accept my sadness. She wrote, and talked to me, many times about how scared she was for me. “You’re changing, Amanda,” she said. “You’re not sunny anymore. I hope when you get out you can go back to being the happy person you were. “Mom,” I wrote back, “good things don’t always work out for good people. Sometimes shit happens for no reason, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

You’re not sunny anymore? Well, after Massei didn’t buy it, I’d be pessimistic too.

Shit happens for no reason? Sorry, Meredith.

[Chapter 30, Page 388] I desperately didn’t want to be forgotten. But more than worrying about the logistics of such a life, I was terrified that we were coming to a point where we wouldn’t understand one another. They still had the right to choose what to do with their lives; they had freedom. I didn’t. I was at the mercy of my wardens. I worried that my new prison identity wouldn’t make sense to them, and my mom was evidence of that. If enough time passed, we’d be speaking two different languages””and it would have nothing and everything to do with their English and my Italian.

The first statement seems truthful, you really are desperate to not be forgotten.

But if you wanted to lessen the burden, you could have just come clean, and gotten a much lighter sentence.

[Chapter 31, Page 393] Sitting beside me in the visitors’ room at Capanne, my friend Madison reached over and brushed my cheek. I flinched. “Baby, don’t worry. It’s just an eyelash,” she said. My skittishness horrified me. “I guess I’m just not used to people touching me anymore!’

Too easy. I won’t even try with this one.

[Chapter 31, Page 394] After I was convicted, my family, my lawyers, my friends, other prisoners””even, bizarrely, prison officials””tried to console me by telling me that I’d surely have my sentence reduced, if not overturned, on appeal. Rocco and Corrado assured me that in Italy about half the cases win on appeal.

Not true at all. Very few cases are overturned on appeal.

You’d surely have your sentence reduced? Are you working on those fake tears?

[Chapter 31, Page 394] But I’d been burned so often I was terrified. Why would the Court of Appeals make a different decision from the previous court? Or from the pretrial judge? Both had accepted the prosecution’s version. With my case, the Italian judicial system was also on trial. My story was well known, and the world was watching. It’d be difficult for the judicial authorities to back down now.

Good question. Why would they make a different decision?

So, Mignini/Comodi’s case that you were involved in Meredith’s death was just a ‘‘version’‘? Was it their version of the truth?

The judicial system is always on trial. Judgements have to be able to withstand public and legal scrutiny.

You won’t get a fair appeal because their is media attention?

[Chapter 31, Page 394] One thing had changed: me. I was different. In the year since my conviction I’d decided that being a victim wouldn’t help me. In prison there were a lot of women who blamed others for their bad circumstances. They lived lethargic, angry lives. I refused to be that person. I pulled myself out of the dark place into which I’d tumbled. I promised myself I’d live in a way that I could respect. I would love myself. And I would live as fully as I could in confinement.

Are you kidding? Being a ‘‘victim’’ got you all this fame, I mean notoriety.

There are a lot of women who blame others for their circumstances? Others like Mignini, Ficarra, Guede….

They lived lethargic, angry lives? Your book is dripping with rage.

You refused to be that person? How exactly?

Live in a way you can respect? You seem to have pretty low standards.

Posted on 04/24/14 at 11:00 PM by Chimera • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Knox False Claims, Examples 383-418
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (3)

10. Knox Book Lies 419 To 446

Posted by Chimera

More implacable nastiness in Star Wars. Click for Comments.

1. Overview Of This Series

Two more quick posts after this one and the series will be done here. Then we will repost the final version on a new Knox Liewatch page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The nine posts before this one can all be read here.

Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

2. Dissection Of Pages 394 to 403

[Chapter 31, Page 394] The questions and choices I made during the first trial ate at me. What if Id spoken up more, clarified more when other witnesses took the stand, pleaded my innocence more forcefully Would it have made a difference? I’d waited for the jury and the world to realize that there was no evidence against me. I wasn’t going to make the same mistake twice.

What if you’d spoken up more?

You did speak up that you ‘‘vaguely remembered’’ Patrick murdering Meredith. It got you 3 years for calunnia.

You did speak up in June 2009 that you were hit by police. You have another calunnia trial pending.

You got you parents to speak up that you were being mistreated. It got calunnia complaints against them.

You frequently spoke up that you were mistreated. Your own lawyers told you publicly to shut up.

’‘Not speaking up enough’’ is not the problem. The opposite in fact.

You waited for the jury to realize their was no evidence? So, what were Mignini/Comodi presenting to the court?

You were waiting? Well, when the defence files an appeal, the prosecution won’t be presenting ‘‘any’’ evidence. Hmm…..

You won’t make the same mistake twice? You keep making the same mistakes.

[Chapter 31, Page 395] Though I trusted my lawyers completely, this time I wanted to be involved in every decision. I owed it to myself. I couldn’t survive another guilty verdict if my team and I overlooked a single speck of favorable evidence.

You trust them completely, but now want to start micromanaging?

If you overlook a ‘‘single speck’’ of favourable evidence? Are you reduced to looking for ‘‘specks’‘?

[Chapter 31, Page 395] Once I started thinking about what might be possible, nothing seemed out of reach. Should I write to the new judge? The U.S. secretary of state? Why not the president?

You later tried that with Judge Nencini, while skipping your Florence appeal. Didn’t go over well.

The Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton at the time)? Sure, she doesn’t have any pressing foreign matters to deal with.

The President (Barack Obama)? Sure, running the free world is just a part time gig.

Why might U.S. oficials be reluctant to get involved in ongoing murder trials? Don’t know.

[Chapter 31, Page 395] Rather than write, I read. The 407-page report from Judge Massei explained why we’d been convicted and how Raffaele, Guede, and I had murdered Meredith. The supposed motive was as far-fetched as a soap opera plot. “Amanda and Raffaele suddenly found themselves without any commitments; they met Rudy Guede by chance and found themselves together with him at the house on the Via dells Pergola where ... Meredith was alone,”

You and Raffaele suddenly found yourselves without any commitments? Well you did get that text not to come to work.

Sollecito doesn’t have a job, so he likely didn’t have any commitments either.

You met Guede by chance? You do seem to know him.

Guede ended up at the house with you? You mean he didn’t break in leaving your blood mixed with Meredith’s?

Meredith was alone? Okay, that is actually true.

[Chapter 31, Page 395] The judges and jury hypothesized that Raffaele and I were fooling around, and that Guede started raping Meredith because we turned him on. Instead of helping Meredith, we inexplicably and spontaneously joined Guede, because it was “an exciting stimulant that, although unexpected, had to be tried,” he wrote. “[The criminal acts were carried out on the force of pure chance. A motive, therefore, of an erotic, sexually violent nature which, arising from the choice of evil made by Rudy, found active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.” The report rejected the prosecution’s claim that Meredith and I had had a contentious relationship. The judge wrote “the crime that was carried out ... without any animosity or feelings of rancor against the victim. . .”

You have said you want the Kerchers to read your book, but you put information such as this in?

Judge Massei didn’t contradict the claim of a strained relationship.

Meredith took your job at Le Chic .... and no hard feelings?

[Chapter 31, Page 395] They allowed that there was no evidence of contact between Guede and me””no e-mails, phone calls, or eyewitnesses. They discounted the testimony of Hekuran Kokomani, the witness from the pretrial and the trial who said he threw olives at me and who “identified” me by the nonexistent gap between my teeth. And they conceded that Raffaele and I were not likely killers. Rather we were “two young people, strongly interested in each other, with intellectual and cultural curiosity, he on the eve of his graduation and she full of interests . . .”

No evidence of contact between you and Guede? You admit that he visited the men downstairs.

No contact? You say that their was laughter when Guede was asking if you were available.

No contact? You admit to taking his order at Le Chic.

No contact? You admit to contact in THIS VERY BOOK.

Casual sex, drugs and alcohol are ‘‘cultural events’‘? Wow, the travel brochure leaves all this out.

If drugs and sex are ‘‘cultural’‘, that might explain things with Federico Martini.

You were interested in hooking up with Harry Potter. Is that ‘‘cultural’‘?

’‘Strongly interested’‘? You knew each other for a week.

[Chapter 31, Page 396] Another factor, the judge wrote, was that Raffaele and I read comic books and watched movies “in which sexuality is accompanied by violence and by situations of fear . . .” He brought up the disputed theory that Raffaele’s kitchen knife was the murder weapon, in addition to a new theory that I’d carried the knife in my “very capacious bag.” Why would I? “It’s probable, considering Raffaele’s interest in knives, that Amanda was advised and convinced by her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, to carry a knife with her ... during the night along streets that could have seemed not very safe to pass through at night by a girl.”

Yes, you were convicted on the basis of Manga porn and Amelie..

The theory is disputed because your own lawyers dispute it. Self fulfilling prophecy?

Raffaele is guilty because he collects knives .... not the bloody footprint, DNA on Meredith’s bra, or false alibis.

Perugia is not safe? Right, it’s a deathtrap that hadn’t seen a murder in 20 years.

[Chapter 31, Page 397] The lining of my bag wasn’t cut. The police found no blood in my bag. How can I prove what Ididn’t do?

The knife could also have been wrapped in something else.

The knife could still have been transported ‘‘to’’ the scene without blood.

Well, you can prove where you actually were when Meredith was killed. That might help.

[Chapter 31, Page 397] The prosecution had based their case on misinterpreted and tainted forensic evidence and had relied heavily on speculation. But Judge Massei’s faith was blind. Patrizia Stefanoni would not “offer false interpretations and readings,” he wrote.

This all sounds impressive, but do you care to elaborate as to what evidence was misinterpreted or tainted?

Do you care to elaborate on what this ‘‘heavy reliance on speculation’’ is?

As for tainted evidence, why did your lawyers refuse to attend the testing?

[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.

The appeal wouldn’t be a redo if the first trial? So Hellmann releasing you was not double jeopardy.

Since you seem to understand the 3-level trial process, why lie and say it was over?

Getting 2 automatic appeals would suprise and unsettle most Americans? Surprise them at least.

Yes, appeals court (in the Common Law courts too), can increase sentences for frivilous appeals.

To quote Alan Dershowitz, being released by an appeals court is not double jeopardy.

With this paragraph, Knox throws out her claim of being ‘‘retried’’ again.

[Chapter 31, Page 397] 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.

So you get an automatic appeal that allows the case to be reopened?

And this appeal allows for additional witnesses and evidence to be called? Not restricted as a Common Law appeal?

Many defendants in the U.S. would be envious of such a legal avenue.

[Chapter 31, Page 398] In our appeal request, we asked the court to appoint independent 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.

You did ask for experts. However, criminal procedure only allows for it to be done at the lower trial level.

If this stain wasn’t analysed, then how exactly do you know it’s semen?

You appealed your convicted, and the prosecution ‘‘cross-appealed’‘, asking for a sentence increase. Makes sense.

[Chapter 31, Page 398] I read and reread the Massei report, looking for discrepancies and flawed reasoning. I’m not a lawyer, but I had an insider’s perspective on the case, three years in prison, and eleven months in court. In one of Guede’s depositions, he claimed I’d come home the night of the murder, rung the doorbell, and that Meredith had let me in. Obviously he didn’t know it was our household habit to knock, not buzz. It was a little catch, but it was something my former Via dells Pergola housemates, Laura and Filomena, could confirm.

You are reading a 400 page legal document in Italian? Guess we can drop all pretence you are limited in the language.

Looking for discrepencies? How about all your different stories and alibis? And Sollecito’s?

Looking for flawed reasoning? Plenty of it. Oh, you mean the prosecution’s flawed reasoning?

You had an insider’s perspective on the case? You mean a front row seat with a lead role?

So, if someone buzzes the doorbell, you would not answer?

[Chapter 31, Page 398] For example, Madison wrote, “Witnesses: the prosecution knowingly used unreliable witnesses.

“Interrogation: the police were under enormous pressure to solve the murder quickly.
“There’s a pattern of the police/prosecution ignoring indications of your innocence. This must be pointed out. You were called guilty a month before forensic results, you were still considered guilty even though what you said in your interrogation wasn’t true, obviously false witnesses were used against you.

So, Madison Paxton accuses the prosecution of suborning perjury? Nice to drop her in it, Knox.

Police have a pattern of ignoring signs you are innocent? What signs did they miss?

You were called guilty before forensic results? What about those statements where you say you were there?

Knox claims to be a witness to someone committing the crime. Why would anyone think she was there?

False witnesses were used against you? Patrick could make that claim.

[Chapter 31, Page 399] I knew that the most critical point was to be able to say why I’d named Patrick during my interrogation.

Once again, you were not interrogated. Raffaele was called to the police station, and you came along.

Since you insisted on being there, Rita Ficarra asked if you would help make a list of potential contacts

Sollecito revoked your alibi, and you named Patrick, thinking it would get you off the hook. It backfired.

That about covers it.

[Chapter 31, Page 399] The prosecution and civil parties argued that I was a manipulative, lying criminal mastermind. My word meant nothing. The court would always presume I was a liar. If, in their mind, I was a liar, it was an easy leap to murderer.

I had been done in by my own words. I’d told the judges and jury things like “I didn’t mean to do harm” and “You don’t know what it’s like to be manipulated, to think that you were wrong, to have so much doubt and pressure on you that you try to come up with answers other than those in your memory.”

To go out on a limb here: if you are a manipulative liar, your word probably means nothing.

To prove the point, you are manipulating words to make it seem like people assume you are a killer.

You were done in by your own words. For once, ‘‘best truthing’’ didn’t work.

You false accuse Patrick of rape and murder, but you didn’t mean any harm?

The only pressure was having to come up with a new alibi on the spot.

[Chapter 31, Page 399] Thankfully Madison had researched the science on false confessions. She found Saul Kassin, a psychologist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. A specialist in wrongful convictions, he took the mystery out of what had happened to me.

Blaming an innocent person is not ‘‘falsely confessing’‘. It is ‘‘falsely accusing’‘.

Saul doesn’t seem to be a very good psychologist if he can’t distinguish between ‘‘confessions’’ and ‘‘accusations’‘.

Saul also doesn’t seem to grasp any of the hard facts in the case, but hey, nobody’s perfect.

A specialist in wrongful convictions? From the Susan Smith School of Criminal Justice?

What about Saul’s realization that ‘‘false confessions’’ generally happen to weak-willed people? Something you are not.

Saul Kassin must be connected to Saul Goodman (scummy lawyer in Breaking Bad). Mystery solved.

[Chapter 31, Page 399] Before my interrogation, I believed, like many people, that if someone were falsely accused, they wouldn’t, couldn’t, be swayed from the truth while under interrogation. I never would have believed that I could be pressured into confessing to something I hadn’t done. For three years I berated myself for not having been stronger. I’m an honest person.

You were not interrogated. You were asked for a list of contacts, when Sollecito withdrew his alibi for you.

You were swayed by the loss of your alibi witness.

You didn’t ‘‘confess’‘. You ‘‘accused’’ Patrick of raping and murdering Meredith while you were in the kitchen cowering.

Of course, to false accuse, you have to claim to be present, and to be a witness.

For not being stronger? Like not having a ‘‘better’’ backup alibi?

You are an honest person? I just threw up in my mouth.

[Chapter 31, Page 399] During that interrogation, I had nothing to hide, and a stake in the truth-1 desperately wanted the police to solve Meredith’s murder. But now I know that innocent people often confess. The records kept of people convicted of a crime and later exonerated by DNA evidence show that the DNA of 25 percent of them didn’t match the DNA left at the scene. The DNA testing showed that one in four innocent people ended up confessing as I did.

Once more, you were not interrogated.

You wanted to solve Meredith’s murder? Makes sense, you left Guede’s traces intact.

DNA testing shows that 1 in 4 innocents falsely accuse others of crimes?

[Chapter 31, Page 400] According to Kassin, there are different types of false confessions. The most common is “compliant,” which usually happens when the suspect is threatened with punishment or isolation. The encounter becomes so stressful, so unbearable, that suspects who know they’re innocent eventually give in just to make the uncomfortably harsh questioning stop. “You’ll get thirty years in prison if you don’t tell us,” says one interrogator. “I want to help you, but I can’t unless you help us,” says another.

This was exactly the good cop/bad cop routine the police had used on me.

So which were you, the ‘‘compliant’’ false accusation, or the ‘‘internalized’’ false accusation?

Not having an alibi from Raffy was that stressful, unbearable, you just had to make it stop?

Patrick will be relieved to hear it was just those ‘‘Jedi mind tricks’‘.

Who were the good cop(s) and who were the bad cop(s)?

[Chapter 31, Page 400] Besides being compliant, I also showed signs of having made an “internalized” false confession. Sitting in that airless interrogation room in the questura, surrounded by people shouting at me during forty- three hours of questioning over five days, I got to the point, in the middle of the night, where I was no longer sure what the truth was. I started believing the story the police were telling me. They took me into a state where I was so fatigued and stressed that I started to wonder if I had witnessed Meredith’s murder and just didn’t remember it. I began questioning my own memory.

You showed signs of? I think the term is ‘‘malingering’‘.

43 hours? You told Judge Nencini is was over 50 hours.

You also said (in this book), everyone from the house was detained, and that you spent most of your time sitting around with Meredith’s British friends.

You went to class on Monday, and skipped Meredith’s memorial to go strum a ukulele.

You also went underwear shopping with Raffaele, and had some ‘‘fun’’ with him.

You were also with Federico Martini (a.k.a. Cristiano) and got more drugs in return for sex.

When were these 43+ hours? You seemed to have a lot of free time.

Does an ‘‘internalized false accusation’’ make someone really bad at time and math?

[Chapter 31, Page 400] Kassin says that once suspects begin to distrust their own memory, they have almost no cognitive choice but to consider, possibly accept, and even mentally elaborate upon the interrogator’s narrative of what happened. That’s how beliefs are changed and false memories are formed. That’s what had happened to me.

This sounds impressive, but the questions stopped at this point. There was no narrative to elaborate on.

Beliefs are changed? As in the police don’t believe you now, but maybe if you come up with something .....

False memories? Like you cowering in the kitchen with your hands on your ears, WHILE SOMEONE ELSE killed Meredith?

That’s what happened to you? Is that your ‘‘best truth’‘?

[Chapter 31, Page 401] Three years after my “confession,” I’d blocked out some of my interrogation. But the brain has ways of bringing up suppressed memories. My brain chooses flashbacks - sharp, painful flashes of memory that flicker, interrupting my conscious thoughts. My adrenaline responds as if it’s happening in that moment. I remember the shouting, the figures of looming police officers, their hands touching me, the feeling of panic and of being surrounded, the incoherent images my mind made up to try to explain what could have happened to Meredith and to legitimize why the police were pressuring me.

Did you also ‘‘block out’’ what happened to Meredith?

There was no shouting except from you, when you faked having a fit?

You ‘‘remember’‘? This from the woman who writes about things her mind made up….?!

How were they pressuring you when they stopped asking questions?

[Chapter 31, Page 401] In my case they’d put several interrogators in a room with me. For hours they yelled, screamed, kept me on edge. When they exhausted themselves, a fresh team replaced them. But I wasn’t even allowed to leave to use the bathroom.

There were teams of interrogators waiting for you? Why exactly?

You showed up unexpected that night, and Rita Ficarra told you to go home.

You weren’t allowed to use the bathroom? Your own lawyers have publicly said you were not mistreated.

[Chapter 31, Page 402] It had been the middle of the night. I’d already been questioned for hours at a time, days in a row. They tried to get me to contradict myself by homing in on what I’d done hour by hour, to confuse me, to cause me to lose track and get something wrong. They said I had no alibi. They lied, saying that Raffaele had told them I’d asked him to lie to the police. They wouldn’t let me call my mom. They wouldn’t let me leave the interrogation room. They were yelling at me in a language I didn’t understand. They hit me and suggested that I had trauma- induced amnesia. They encouraged me to imagine what could have happened, encouraged me to “remember” the truth because they said I had to know the truth. They threatened to imprison me for thirty years and restrict me from seeing my family. At the time, I couldn’t think of it as anything but terrifying and overwhelming.

How was this elaborate trap in place if it was night time, and you showed up unannounced?

All they were asking was a list of potential men who might have visited the home.

That part was truthful. Sollecito did say you asked him to lie, which left you without an alibi.

Why does a 20 year old need to call her mom, when being asked questions about a murder? Never mind.

Actually, you were free to leave at that point.

You didn’t understand the language? What was your interpreter, Anna Donnino there for?

If you didn’t understand the language, how did you know they thought you had trauma-induced amnesia?

Police are looking for a killer, and they ask you to ‘‘imagine’’ things? Right.

Yeah, getting busted for murder can be pretty overwhelming. No argument here.

[Chapter 31, Page 402] Number one, I would have written to the Kerchers. I wanted to tell them how much I liked their daughter. How lovingly she spoke of her family. Tell them that her death was a heartbreak to so many.

Well, you could help them by not publishing embarrassing details.

Please don’t tell them you like their daughter. And please don’t ask to see the grave.

Her death was a heartbreak to so many. Oh, right, I was one of them.

[Chapter 31, Page 402] Number two, I’d have written Patrick an apology. Naming him was unforgivable, and he didn’t deserve it, but I wanted to say that it wasn’t about him. I was pushed so hard that I’d have named anyone. I was sorry.

Yes, naming him was unforgivable.

No, it wasn’t about him, it was about saving your own ass.

You pushed yourself to come up with something once Sollecito said you went out—alone.

You did name anyone: Patrick, Rudy, Juve, Shaky, Spiros, Federico Martini ....

You were sorry that it didn’t work out?

[Chapter 31, Page 403 ] Dear Patrick,

The explanation you’ve heard a number of times about my interrogation is true and I’m sure you understand well since you were arrested the same night without being told why. Ifee1guilo and sorry for my part in it.

He was arrested ONLY because of you, but shit happens, right?

Posted on 03/26/14 at 05:35 PM by Chimera • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Knox False Claims, Examples 419-446
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (10)

11. Knox Book Lies 447 To 476

Posted by Chimera

More implacable nastiness in Star Wars. Click for Comments.

1. Overview Of This Series

One more quick post after this one, on the new Afterword, and the series will be done here. Then we will repost the final version on a new Knox Liewatch page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The ten posts before this one can all be read here.

Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

2. Dissection Of Pages 403 to Afterword

Chapter 31, Page 403 ] To the Kerchers, I wrote,

I’m sorry for your loss, and I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to say so. Pm not the one who killed your daughter and sister. I’m a sister, too, and I can only attempt to imagine the extent of your grief. In the relatively brief time that Meredith was part of my life, she was always kind to me. I think about her every day.

Wow .... I was only kidding when I said Knox should send a ‘‘Sorry for your loss’’ letter.

You can only attempt to imagine the extent of your grief? Right, you would have to care about Meredith.

You are charged with her death, and you think of her everyday? Is that what you really meant?

[Chapter 31, Page 403] Disappointed and unsatisfied, I went back to my cell and came up with Plan B. I’d make a personal statement at the beginning of the trial. Unlike my declarations during the first trial, this one would be “spontaneous” in name only. I’d weave in Kassin’s work to explain why I’d reacted to my interrogation as I had. At the same time, I’d speak directly to Patrick and the Kerchers.I spent over a month writing drafts. Alone in my cell, I paced, muttering to myself as if I were speaking to the judges and jury.

So, you are allowed to address the court, and you try to get ‘‘scientific’’ information in by the backdoor?

You weren’t interrogated. I get tired of saying that.

But at least since it is a defence appeal, prosecutors won’t be introducing any ‘‘evidence’’ in.

You come off as fake and rehearsed. Now you admit you do rehearse.

[Chapter 31, Page 404] As I honed my statement, I decided it would be stronger to speak from my heart, without Kassin’s academic language. I’d tell the court about how I had been confused by the police and had lacked the courage to stand up to the authorities when they demanded that I name a murderer. During the first trial, I believed my innocence would be obvious. It hadn’t saved me, and I might never again have the chance to approach Patrick and the Kerchers. This time I was determined to help myself.

Why are you honinh your statement if you are speaking from the heart?

Do you normally include ‘‘academic language’’ when speaking from the heart?

You’ll tell the police how you had been confused? If you were confused 3 years ago, how do you remember now?

Which was it? They demanded you name a killer, or they wanted to know who Patrick was? It can’t be both.

You believed your innocence would be obvious? Were you watching your trial, or someone else’s?

[Chapter 32, Page 405] 0ne must necessarily begin with the only truly certain, undisputed, objective fact: on November 2, 2007, a little after one P.M., in the house of Via dells Pergola, Number Seven, in Perugia, the body of the British student Meredith Kercher was discovered.”

Those were the opening words spoken at my appeal, by the assistant judge, Massimo Zanetti.

Yeah, screw that mixed blood, footprints, false alibis, false accusation double DNA knife, and no alibi.

Weren’t the closing words ‘‘the truth may be different’‘? (meaning AK and RS may not be innocent).

[Chapter 32, Page 406] Rocco and Corrado had given Laura money to buy me appropriate court clothes. She turned out to be an excellent personal shopper. My champagne-colored blouse and black pants told the judges and jury that I respected them and the law.

Not flirting and smirking would also tell the judges and jury you respect them.

[Chapter 32, Page 406] The judge’s opening statement gave us hope that the court wanted a trial grounded in facts, not theories. Will we finally get a fair trial? Will the judges and jury finally listen to what we have to say?

Judge Massei didn’t give you a fair trial?

Judge Micheli didn’t give you a fair pre-trial hearing?

Will the judges and jury listen to what you have to say? Will you agree to an unrestricted cross examination?

Will Sollecito take the stand at all? (and no, giving speeches doesn’t count).

[Chapter 32, Page 406] I stood to deliver my declaration, the one I’d worked on for weeks. Speaking in Italian, without an interpreter, I sensed my voice quavering, my hands trembling:

Yes, the ‘‘spontaneous declaration’’ that you spent weeks preparing ....

You could agree to answer questions about Meredith’s death, couldn’t you

FOR A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE STATEMENT TO THE APPEALS COURT:

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/scientific_statement_analysis_4_amanda_knoxs_statement_to_the_appeal_c/

[Chapter 32, Page 410] My declaration left me feeling cleansed and relieved. I didn’t expect to change minds instantly””and I didn’t. Chris, Mom, and Madison told me later that the Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, had left the room at my first mention of Meredith’s family. “She bores me,” the London Guardian reported him saying. “Her speech lacked substance, was designed to impress the court and was not genuine.”

Is he wrong? You said that you rehearsed for weeks trying to impress.

[Chapter 32, Page 410] Maresca cared more about seeing me convicted than finding justice for Meredith. He always spoke of me as if I were a monster who must pay for Meredith’s death with my life.

So, someone who cashes in on the brutal killing of a ‘‘friend’’ is just quirky?

If you are guilty, then convicting you does mean justice for Meredith.

[Chapter 32, Page 411] Since court hearings were held only on Saturdays, an excruciatingly slow week would have to pass before we’d know Judge Hellmann’s mind. While we waited, Italy’s highest court signed the final paperwork on Rudy Guede’s verdict, approving his reduced sixteen-year sentence in the belief that he had not acted alone. Could that news influence Judge Hellmann’s decision? By pursuing our trial, he might seem to be contradicting the Supreme Court and make Italy look foolish.

It was slow for the Kerchers too. One hearing every 2 weeks, it took almost as long as the Massei trial.

Guede’s sentence was reduced to 16 years because he chose the ‘‘fast-track option’’ that you referenced. That means he gets 1/3 less than you for murder. 24 years - 1/3 = 16 years.

Hellmann would indeed make the Supreme Court and Italy look foolish, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. [Chapter 32, Page 411] “I’m convinced the case is complex enough to warrant a review in the name of ‘reasonable doubt,”’ Judge Hellmann told the rapt courtroom. “If it is not possible to check the identity of the DNA, we will check on the reliability of the original tests.”

This sounds impressive, but bringing in of independent experts is meant for the ‘‘trial’’ phase, and not for the 1st level appeal.

Hellmann would later go on to say that he brought the experts: Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, since he didn’t understand much about DNA.

It would later be revealed that the 2 ‘‘independent’’ experts were not really independent.

[Chapter 32, Page 411] I hadn’t wanted to admit to my lawyers or to myself how petrified I’d been. Only when the result came back did I realize how much fear I had had pent up. I brushed away tears. We might finally have a real chance to defend ourselves.

Still, I was wary. The judge in the previous trial had granted our request for data and then sided with the prosecution’s interpretation.

You had many chances to defend yourself. You went before Judge Claudia Matteini, November 8th, 2007.

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_10_/

You went before a 3 judge panel chaired by Judge Massimo Ricciarelli, November 30, 2007.

You agreed to be questioned (with lawyers present), by Prosecutor Mignini,

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/knox_tied_in_knots_by_her_own_tongue_translation_4/

You appealed to Cassation, headed by Judge Torquato Gemeli, in April 2008.

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_16/

You attended pre-trial hearings in front of Judge Paolo Micheli in October and November 2008

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_knox_interrogation_hoax_18_micheli/

You also had the opportunity to testify at your own trial in 2009.

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/italy_shrugs_why_the_defendants_testimony_seems_to_have_been_a_real_fl/

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/this_testimony_does_not_seem_to_have_gained_much_traction_here_in_ital/

You seem unhappy that the expert opinion didn’t go your way? Sollecito says the same thing in ‘‘Honor Bound’‘.

From page 107 [page 107] “˜’... Papà was spinning like a dervish to clear my name, but not everyone he hired was as helpful as he hoped. One consultant whom he asked to monitor the Polizia Scientifica demanded eight thousand euros up front, only to prove reluctant to make overt criticisms of the police’s work, the very thing for which he’d been hired. A forensic expert who also seemed a little too close to the police charged four thousand euros for his retainer with the boast, “I’m expensive, but I’m good.” He wasn’t. A computer expert recommended by Luca Maori didn’t know anything about Macs, only PC’s.”

[Chapter 32, Page 411] After that, we were back to waiting again. The independent experts, Dr. Carla Vecchiotti and Dr. Stefano Conti, forensic medicine professors at Rome’s university, La Sapienza, were sworn in, and Judge Hellmann charged them with figuring out whether a new analysis of the DNA on the knife and bra clasp was possible. If not, he wanted to know if the original results of the prosecution’s forensic expert were reliable: Were the interpretations of the genetic profiles correct? Had there been risk of contamination? The experts were given three months from the day the prosecution turned over the evidence.

Vecchiotti and Conti would claim that there is too little DNA to do additional testing. However, when the Carabinieri got the knife back, they ‘WERE’ able to do an additional test.

Therein lies part of the problem. It is not enough to say ‘‘there might have been contamination’‘. You have to at least show ‘‘how’’ it was likely to have happened.

[Chapter 32, Page 411] During the first trial, Prosecutor Mignini had called the witness Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man referred to as “the stepping-stone leading us up to the murder.” Curatolo had testified that he’d seen Raffaele and me arguing on the basketball court in Piazza Grimana. It was key evidence in our conviction, because it contradicted our alibi that we’d never left Raffaele’s apartment. But it had been left unclear which night Curatolo, was describing””Halloween or November 1?

Curatolo was the key witness to contradict your alibi that you were with Sollecito at his apartment?

Sollecito (in his November 5th, 2007 statement), says he was home alone, and that you went out.

In 2008, Sollecito wasn’t giving you an alibi

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/sollecito_turns_on_knox_this_is_extraordinary/

For most of the 2008/2009 court process, Sollecito’s lawyers try to turn suspicion onto you

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_each_of_the_three_subtly_but_surely_pushed_the_other_two_1/

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_each_of_the_three_subtly_but_surely_pushed_the_other_two_2

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_each_of_the_three_subtly_but_surely_pushed_the_other_two_3

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_each_of_the_three_subtly_but_surely_pushed_the_other_two_4

In July 2014, Sollecito says you went out alone.

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/Spitting_In_the_Wind_Sollecito_News_Conference/

In February 2015, Sollecito says you went out alone

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/sollecito_on_italian_tv_seems_rs_and_ak_selling_out_one_another/

Your own ‘‘alibi witness’’ repeatedly says you were not with him.

Then of course there are those ‘‘witness statements’’ you signed, saying you were at the scene.

Let’s not forget leaving your blood mixed with Meredith’s in several places at the cottage, and those footprints in the hall.

[Chapter 32, Page 413] Under the judges’ questioning, Curatolo, talked about his personal history: “I was an anarchist, then I read the Bible and became a Christian anarchist,” he said. He confirmed that he was now in prison, adding, “I haven’t quite understood why yet.” Asked if he’d used heroin in 2007, he answered, “I have always used drugs. I want to clarify that heroin is not a hallucinogen.”

This is a made up passage to smear Curatolo as being disconnected from reality, and hence unreliable.

Hellmann would go on to discredit the witness without any real basis, and would be criticized for it

[Chapter 32, Page 414] “Curatolo didn’t know what he was talking about, poor guy. If my life didn’t depend on his being wrong, I’d just feel bad for him,” I reported.

“The broadcasts here are saying that he’s a confused drug addict!” someone cried.

It was ironic that I learned from my family in Seattle what the journalists in the courtroom were thinking. “The media are really figuring it out this time,” my family reassured me. “It’s going to be okay.”

The media, yes. But what about the judges and jury? I wondered. Curatolo hadn’t been convincing in the first trial, either, but his testimony had contributed to our conviction.

The media is really figuring it out this time? God job, Dave Marriott.

Those broadcasts? Were they in the courtroom, or just reporting a PR line?

Worried about the judge and jury? Don’t worry, it was already decided.

[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.

So, you are accusing the analyst Stefanoni of committing a contempt of court (dodging court orders)?

You are accusing her of withholding documents and sabotaging your right to a fair trial?

Pretty serious claims to make.

Interestingly though, these ‘‘experts’’ only chose to test 2 pieces of DNA (Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp, and the DNA on the big knife). What about the other DNA evidence that had been introduced? Did Judge Hellmann even know about them?

[Chapter 32, Page 415] Before the court withdrew to decide whether to approve the delay, I made a statement. “I’ve spent more than three and a half years in prison as an innocent person,” I told the court. “It’s both frustrating and mentally exhausting. I don’t want to remain in prison, unjustly, for the rest of my life. I recall the beginning of this whole thing, when I was free. I think of how young I was then, how I didn’t understand anything. But nothing is more important than finding the truth after so many prejudices and mistakes. I ask the court to grant the extra time, so that the experts may complete a thorough analysis. Thank you.”

For someone supposedly wrongfully imprisoned (in part) to junk DNA, you seem really calm about this.

Silly question, why did you lawyers never attend the DNA testing in 2008, when they had the chances to?

[Chapter 32, Page 416] When Luciano came to Capanne for our weekly Wednesday meeting, he told me that a special award had been given to officers in the Squadra Mobile for its work on Meredith’s murder investigation. The citation read: “To recognize elevated professional capabilities, investigative acumen, and an uncommon operative determination. They conducted a complex investigation that concluded in the arrest of the authors of the murder of the British student that had taken place in the historic center of Perugia.”

Four of the sixteen police officers receiving the Police Holiday award were named in the police’s slander charge against me.

They included Vice Superintendent Marco Chiacchiera, whose “investigative instinct” led him to randomly select Raffaele’s kitchen knife from the drawer as the murder weapon; Substitute Commissioner and Homicide Chief Monica Napoleons; and Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra.

The news infuriated me. I knew it was just another face-saving ploy. How could they commend the officer who had hit me during my interrogation and those who had done so much wrong?

But I wasn’t surprised. It was completely in line with the prosecution’s tactics to discredit my supporters and me. Mignini had charged my parents with slander for an interview they gave to a British newspaper in which they told the story of my being slapped during the interrogation. He was the one who had charged me with slandering the police.

You accuse (again) Chiacchiera of randomly selecting a knife and then calling it evidence

You accuse a dark haired woman (who you now name as Ficarra), as assaulting you

You accuse PM Mignini of an illegal interrogation, and of pursuing this case for his own career.

You accuse PM Mignini of trying to ‘‘discredit you’’ for filing a complaint about false claims your parents made

You accuse the citations as being ‘‘politically motivated’‘.

Oh right, you falsely accuse Patrick of raping and murdering Meredith.

Amanda, has it yet sunk in that making false accusations is not a good idea?

[Chapter 32, Page 417] British journalist Bob Graham interviewed Mignini for an article in The Sun that came out on Police Holiday. Mignini confided in Graham that he chose the parts of my interrogation that suited his purposes. He also said that my interpreter at the questura that night was “more investigator than translator.” When Graham asked the prosecutor why there was no evidence of me in Meredith’s bedroom, Mignini told him, “Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room.”

Which parts of your ‘‘interrogation’’ did ‘‘Mayor’’ Mignini choose if he asked no questions?

You accuse Anna Donnino of being a police plant, and not actually trying to be an interpreter.

No evidence of you in Meredith’s bedroom? There is plenty just outside.

And what about your shoeprint and the DNA of your ‘‘alibi witness’‘?

To play devil’s advocate, you did write statements that you were in the kitchen, trying not to hear Meredith’s screams.

[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 ...

“In this context, on November 9, 2009, Guede told me that in the following days, and in particular on November 18, 2009, he had his appeal and he was reflecting over whether to ... tell the truth about Meredith Kercher’s murder. In particular, he asked me what the consequences could be to his position if he gave statements that reconstructed a different truth about what happened the night of the murder.

Yes, jailhouse snitches are always reliable witnesses.

[Chapter 32, Page 418] 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.

This is quite the revelation. I thought Guede broke in to rob the place, and Meredith interrupted him.

Interestingly, this ‘‘other man’‘, is never identified.

Despite Guede leaving ‘‘vast amount of himself’’ at the crime scene, this unnamed accomplice apparently left none.

So ... if the intent ‘‘was’’ to have a 3-some, perhaps the burglary really was staged, and the police were correct.

[Chapter 32, Page 418] 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 ...

“The second part of his secret came out while we were in our respective cells ... at a certain point he and his friend changed positions, in the sense that his friend attempted to have oral sex with Meredith while Guede was behind. He specified in particular that his friend was in front of Meredith, who was on her knees, while Guede was behind Meredith, with his knee on her back. Kercher tried to wriggle out ...

“Kercher tried to get away, and at this point Guede’s friend took a knife with an ivory-colored handle out of his pocket. While Kercher tried to get away, turning around, she was wounded by the blade. At this point, seeing as she began to bleed, Guede, finding his hands covered in blood, let her go. While Guede tried to staunch the wound with clothes, his friend reprimanded him, saying,

‘Let’s finish her. If not, this whore will have us rot in prison: At this point, his friend killed her, stabbing her various times while Guede gathered clothes to staunch the wounds. Then, realizing that she wasn’t breathing anymore, he left.”

Still wondering: why this other man left no traces in the murder room. After all, Knox reminds us again and again and again that that is impossible.

Alessi seems to have a stunning memory. He can recall precise details of a story he only heard.

However, he is a little vague: did Meredith greet them at the door, or does she just expect strange men in her home?

Alessi also remembers that Guede went to the bathroom. Of course, it happens to be when ‘‘quirky’’ Knox refused to flush the toilet.

Also, is this a tacit admission that a ‘‘lone-wolf’’ attacker was just not possible?

[Chapter 32, Page 419] Listening to Alessi testify, I felt frozen in my chair, my limbs numb. Alessi was a calm, direct, convincing speaker. Is this possibly what happened the night of November 1 ? Is this the horror that Meredith experienced? For three and a half years, I’d tried to imagine Meredith’s murder and had to push it out of my mind. When the prosecutor had put Raffaele and me into the scene, it hadn’t bothered me nearly this much. We weren’t there, so Meredith’s murder couldn’t possibly have unfolded the way Mignini described. His story was so far-fetched, and it was so painful to hear myself described in bloodthirsty terms, that I couldn’t help but focus on the verbal attack on me rather than the physical attack on Meredith.

It is farfetched. Why was there no trace of this ‘‘other man’‘? You keep saying it is impossible to murder without leaving traces.

If you weren’t there, how could you know exactly how it could or couldn’t unfold?

What verbal attack? The courts treated you fairly. As for the media, thank Curt for that.

Why were you trying imagine Merediith’s murder if you were trying to put it out of your mind?

[Chapter 32, Page 421] 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?

Yeah, not that prosecutors were pushing a ‘‘multiple attacker’’ theory since November 2007.

It forced you to focus on the torture? Why exactly?

[Chapter 32, Page 421] My lawyers once told me that investigators had found unidentified DNA at the crime scene, but I’d never dwelled on it. The prosecution had never presented it. Wouldn’t there have been signs of another person in the room and on Meredith’s body? I didn’t know. This is what I was sure of: Guede was there, Guede lied about us, Guede tried to escape his responsibility for the crime. Guede would have to confess.

Well, your DNA is in your bathroom. Oh, right, that only proves you lived there.

This ‘‘unidentified’’ DNA: was it blood, or something else?

Humour me, is an unflushed toilet part of the ‘‘crime scene’’ if it is not in the ‘‘murder room’‘?

Signs of another person? Like DNA on the victim’s bra? Oh, right Sollecito was at his home with you.

Signs of another person? Such as lack of defensive wounds?

(1) Guede was there; (2) Guede lied about us; (3) Guede tried to escape responsibility. Okay, let’s try this:

(1) You were there, your statements say you were, your blood mixed with Meredith’s.

(2) You lied about your alibi, according to Sollecito

(3) You tried to escape responsibility by framing Patrick.

[Chapter 32, Page 421] I desperately hoped he’d be honest when he took the witness stand. With the Supreme Court’s seal on his conviction, his sentence couldn’t be extended no matter how he incriminated himself. Since he truly had nothing to lose, I thought he might admit his crimes””and the fact that Raffaele and I weren’t there that night.

Actually, you desperately hoped he’d be silent.

Forget Guede, why don’t you simply testify (without restrictions), about what you were doing that night?

[Chapter 32, Page 421] In the meantime, I was agitated. I had no reason to expect that Guede would admit what had happened””anyone who can kill is already lacking a conscience. Even if Guede acknowledged Raffaele’s and my innocence, it still wouldn’t be enough on its own to free us””his statements were compromised since he’d lied before and wasn’t impartial. But it would be a huge step in the right direction””and an even bigger comfort to me.

Anyone who can kill lacks a conscience? Amanda, I think we are making progress.

His statements were compromised? Great, there isn’t any other evidence I assume.

It would be a comfort—that your frame job worked?!

[Chapter 32, Page 423] Twenty-four hours before the court-appointed experts were to present their findings on the DNA, only two words were going through my mind. What if? What if their review somehow - impossibly - confirmed Meredith’s DNA on the knife blade? What if they found that the bra clasp couldn’t have been contaminated?

What if they did confirm it? What good is bleach then?

The bra clasp being contaminated how exactly?

Again, there are many other pieces of DNA evidence to tie you to the murder. Why cherry-pick these two?

[Chapter 32, Page 423] Or what if the experts risked telling the truth and sided with the defense? I knew the prosecution’s DNA testing was flawed. But so little had gone right in this case, why would this go right?

Science was on our side. The knife blade had tested negative for blood, and there was a high likelihood that the bra clasp had been contaminated while it sat on the floor for six weeks. But I had no faith in facts anymore. They hadn’t saved me before. It was terrifying to hope””and impossible not to.

This is a court. People are not ‘‘punished’’ for telling the truth.

You knew the prosecutor’s DNA testing was flawed? How much research have you done on the topic?

The bra clasp, in a sealed crime scene, was contaminated .... how?

[Chapter 32, Page 423] I had to hear the words myself. I went to the TV, madly changing channels until I found the news. “Svoltaa Giudiziaria” - “Judicial Turning Point” - the headline read, behind an announcer who was talking about my case. The crawl at the bottom read: “DNA damning Knox and Sollecito deemed unreliable by court-appointed experts. New hope arises for the defendants.”

Once again, why only test those 2 pieces of DNA evidence? Do you not contest them? Or not want Hellmann to consider them?

Why not get independent experts for the trial? That is how things are normally done.
Posted on 02/28/14 at 02:45 PM by Chimera • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Knox False Claims, Examples 447-476
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (18)

12. Knox Book Lies 477 To 518

Posted by Chimera

1. Overall How The Afterword Misleads

#477 [2015 Afterword]

Again Knox goes on and on about how there is no evidence against her or Raffaele in the ‘‘murder room’‘, or the ‘‘murder scene’‘. This is false and seriously misleading for several reasons:
#478 [2015 Afterword]

While Knox predictably misconstrues the evidence against her, she doesn’t talk about the other things we would like to see addressed.

Of course, in this new addition to her book, Knox doesn’t talk about any of the hard evidence (of a non forensic nature). She doesn’t address any of the multiple false alibis that she and Sollecito gave.

Amanda Knox”¦ Trapped, In Her Own Words

Raffaele Sollecito”¦ Trapped, In His Own Words

#479 [2015 Afterword]

Knox does briefly mention the false accusation against Lumumba, but again reiterates that it only happened due to police pressure. A stunningly stupid thing to say, as she is facing a calunnia trial over exactly this issue. But that is not disclosed.

Updates: Sollecito’s Trial For Vilipendio And Diffamazione, Knox’s Trial For Calunnia #2

#480 [2015 Afterword]

In this new afterword, Knox fails to mention that the Italian magazine, Oggi, got into legal trouble from publishing parts of her book.

(1) The Oggi Article Which Conveys To Italy Knox’s Claims Of Crimes Oggi Is Now Charged For

(2) The Oggi Article Which Conveys To Italy Knox’s Claims Of Crimes: Our Claim By Claim Rebuttals

#481 [2015 Afterword]

Knox also fails to mention Sollecito’s current legal troubles over his own book which also made many false claims.

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #1

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #2

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #3

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #4

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #5

#482 [2015 Afterword]

Knox leaves out that this may not be the end (probably to secure the next publishing at this time).

A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy Begins

A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy #2

#483 [2015 Afterword]

Knox writes positively about Sollecito, but leaves out his ‘‘bride-shopping’’ efforts and anger at her.

Interview Part 1 With Kelsey Kay About Her Sad Experience With Serial Exploiter Sollecito

Interview Part 2 With Kelsey Kay About Her Sad Experience With Serial Exploiter Sollecito

#484 [2015 Afterword]

Knox omits Sollecito’s various efforts to throw her under the bus (Mr. Honour Bound wants to save himself), most amusingly. Sollecito’s line since the Florence appeal is that he doesn’t really know where Knox was that night.

Sollecito Suddenly Remembers He Wasnt There But Cannot Speak For Knox Who (As She Said) Went Out

Spitting In the Wind: Sollecito News Conference Backfires On Him AND Knox - What The Media Missed

Sollecito On Italian TV: Seems RS And AK Selling Out One Another Is Gravitating To A Whole New Plane

#485 [2015 Afterword]

Knox leaves out the resentment and bitterness she herself feels toward ‘‘Mr. Honour Bound’‘.

Seeds Of Betrayal: In Interview Knox Reveals To Italy Her Considerable Irritation With Sollecito

#486 [2015 Afterword]

Knox leaves out that Guede said after the March verdict that he will push for a new trial.

In Big Complication For Cassation Guede Demands New Trial To Prove He Was Not “Accomplice Of Myself”

#487 [2015 Afterword]

Knox still spends more time talking about her sex life in the early chapters than Cassation 1, Florence, Cassation 2 combined.

#488 [2015 Afterword]

Knox lies, and distorts much of the body of facts. Her recollections are totally unreliable despite all the malicious quotes.

#489 [2015 Afterword]

Knox leaves out any information on the upcoming adventures of her, Sollecito and Guede. She acts like this is settled.

#490 [2015 Afterword]

The paperback was released June 9th, the same day her 2nd calunnia trial started in Florence. No coincidence I’m sure.

#491 [2015 Afterword]

Much of the ‘‘I love my family’’ is fake and contrived and is contradicted by (1) her moving out of her mother’s house at the first possible instance and (2) complaints about her father..

2. Dissection Of Specific Knox Claims

Here are dissections of the new part of Knox’s book. Not all of it is included, just the most blatant stuff.

#492 [2015 Afterword]

My friend and co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, but the past 7 1/2 years have shown that innocent people can be wrongfully convicted. And that some minds will not be changed by the truth.
- Well, Patrick Lumumba came close to being wrongfully convicted, as a result of your statements, remember that?
- Some minds will not be changed by the truth? Well, maybe Edda and Madison, they noticeably backed away.
#493 [2015 Afterword]

We’d been through one lower court trial, two appellate trials, and a decision by Corti di Cassazione. We had been found guilty, innocent, and guilty again.
- Finally, Knox seems to understand the difference between a trial and an appeal. Those verdicts were all only provisional, under Italian law.
#494 [2015 Afterword]

My hopes had been high during my first trial, in 2009, but Raffaele and I were convicted amid a media circus.
- Yes, there was a ‘‘media circus’‘, but it had nothing to do with Knox being convicted. Strong evidence, and a cold, sarcastic, evasive demeanor on the stand is what did her in.
#495 [2015 Afterword]

But our first appellate trial, in which ended in October 2011, resulted in a clear and unequivocal finding that we were innocent, setting me free, and allowing my immediate return to the United States. The presiding judge, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, had renewed my belief that innocent people are ultimately vindicated.
- Hellmann also spoke the infamous and telling words: ‘‘The truth may be different.’‘
- Hellmann released Knox even though she had a pending calunnia trial, for falsely accusing the police of brutality.
- The prosecution didn’t get to present any evidence at all at this ‘‘new trial’‘, so it was very one sided.
- Just to be clear, this was a defence appeal. The prosecution did not ask for it.
#496 [2015 Afterword]

In Italy, every case is reviewed by the Corti di Cassazione before it is officially closed. It seemed impossible that just seventeen months after we were found not just not guilty, but innocent, the justices would reverse the decision and send the case back for a retrial—especially since our appeal court-appointed experts rejected the prosecution’s handling of, and conclusions from, the DNA evidence.
- Well, in this case the prosecution had valid reasons for asking Cassation to annul the Hellmann verdict. More on that later.
- The Massei trial court in 2009 saw all the evidence, and concluded guilt. Hellmann only saw the cherrypicked pieces of evidence the defence contested, nothing else.
- Cassation didn’t ‘‘send the case back for a retrial’‘. They allowed you to file another appeal. Big difference between the two.
- C&V were not “independent” experts, they worked with the defense, and in fact were not really even experts as was later shown. Consultants should not have been allowed at the appellate level.
#497 [2015 Afterword]

In fact, the DNA evidence cleared us conclusively. It was straightforward: people leave DNA—lots of DNA—wherever they go. None of my DNA was found in my friend, Meredith Kercher’s bedroom, where she was killed. The only DNA, 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.
- Very little usable DNA normally gets shed. There was even very little of Guede’s DNA in the room, in fact, and the entire room was not fully swabbed.
- Knox’s DNA wasn’t found in Meredith’s bedroom, but your blood was found mixed with Meredith’s in Filomena’s room, (where the ‘‘burglar’’ broke in), and in the bathroom, where a killer cleaned up.
- And while DNA might not be in the room, the alibi witness, Raffaele, has his on Meredith’s bra clasp.
- It is also impossible to clean bloody footprints in the hallway, luminol brings them right out.
- Even if defence claims about a few pieces of DNA had been valid, still it did not clear Knox conclusively. It still doesn’t explain so many things: false alibis, false accusations, confusing accounts of your movements, shutting off your phones, and the other forensic evidence that was ‘‘not’’ in the appeal.
#498 [2015 Afterword]

We simply could not have cleaned our DNA and left Guede’s and Meredith’s behind. Nor was any trace of me found at the murder scene: not a single fingerprint, footprint, piece of hair, drop of blood or saliva. My innocence and Raffaele’s was irrefutable. Like my legal team, I firmly believed that Corti di Cassazione would affirm the innocence finding.
- First, Knox’s shoeprint (a woman’s size 37), WAS found in the room, so that is not true.
- Knox’s lamp, wiped clean of prints, was also found in Meredith’s room and Knox was struck dumb trying to explain that.
- Again, Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp, which had been cut off.
- Bloody footprints (matching Knox and Sollecito), had been in the hallway, and cleaned. Luminol revealed them.
- Sollecito’s footprint in Meredith’s blood was found on the bathmat. It was unquestionably his.
- An imprint (a clear one), in blood, on Meredith’s bed, matched a knife found in Raffaele’s home.
- Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s and found in the bathroom and in Filomena’s room.
- Knox associates only ‘‘forensic’’ evidence, but omits many other types of circumstantial evidence.
- There was no trace of Guede in Filomena’s room, where the ‘‘break-in’’ took place, or on the ground or wall where he ‘‘climbed up’‘.
- Again, Knox associates only ‘‘forensic’’ evidence with the guilty verdict , but omits many other types of circumstantial evidence.
#499 [2015 Afterword]

But in March 2013 the high court ordered yet another trial, directing the next appeals court to re-examine certain aspects of the case. My world was shattered again. The court gave 3 primary reasons.
- Cassation didn’t order a new trial, but did give her the opportunity to appeal again. Not the same thing.
- Cassation gave many reasons, we’ll get to that. But to focus on yours ....
#500 [2015 Afterword]

The first concerned the supposed murder weapon. The independent experts had found there was no scientifically reliable proof that Meredith’s DNA was on it, but there was one micro-trace of DNA they deemed too small to test. Based on the prosecution’s claim it could prove to be Meredith’s DNA, the justice’s said it should be tested in the new trial.
- So, these experts deemed it too small to test, and therefore never actually did try to test it? Some experts.
- If a victim’s DNA could be on the murder weapon, that is a great reason to test it.
- This is not a retrial. It is Knox and Sollecito’s appeal.
#501 [2015 Afterword]

Second, during Guede’s appeal in 2009, the theory that there were multiple attackers worked in both the favour of the prosecution and Guede’s defence, which was aiming to reduce Guede’s sentence. Neither Raffaele nor I could present evidence at that trial, so no evidence was presented that there was a single attacker. In our hearing Corte di Cassazione said that Judge Hellmann had not properly factored in the findings of the court sentencing Guede that there had been—
- Yes, strange that Knox can’t introduce evidence in the trial of someone she claims not to know.
- It was more than just Guede’s appeal in 2009. Judge Micheli in 2008 at the fast track trial, the 2009 appeal, and the 2010 Cassazione appeal all ruled that Guede was involved, but most likely was not alone. Hellmann ‘‘should’’ have factored in the findings of the top court a year earlier.
#502 [2015 Afterword]
—this in spite of the fact that the only forensic at the murder scene belonged to Guede. The court directed that the new trial must account for the other alleged attackers.
- Knox repeats her 2 main lies: (a) Forensic evidence is the only type that matters; (b) The ‘‘murder scene’’ is exclusively Meredith’s bedroom, not the whole house.
- Again, it is not a new trial. Knox and Sollecito have been allowed to redo their appeal.
#503 [2015 Afterword]

As for the third issue, the high court noted the Judge Hellmann looked at each piece of circumstantial evidence and found each to be unreliable. The court directed that the circumstantial evidence should be reviewed ‘‘as a whole’’ in the new trial.
- Again, it is not a new trial, it is an appeal.
- But otherwise, Knox is actually correct. Cassation was very critical of how ‘‘piecemeal’’ and disjointed Hellmann seemed to view the evidence. Cassation said that evidence should be considered in a way that best explains everything.
- However, Knox seems to have preferred the disjointed method.
#504 [2015 Afterword]

My lawyers argued that this was like saying zero+zero+zero+zero=one. Nonetheless the court ordered another trial.
- This is getting repetitive, but Cassation did not order another trial. It allowed Knox and Sollecito to redo their appeal.
- 0+0+0+0=1 is a red herring. Cassation thought that Hellmann considered everything to be unreliable because he viewed everything separately. As a whole, the evidence makes sense, but only when trying to come up with (separate) explanations does Hellmann make sense.
- Cassation was also critical as Judge Hellmann only considered a few pieces of evidence, rather than everything that was presented at trial. Perhaps if a judge is to throw out the prosecution case, he/she should actually review it all.
- Hellmann, while finding Guede unreliable, chose to reframe the time of death based solely on Guede’s statements.
- Hellmann allowed Alessi and Aviello to testify for the defense, despite their history of making false claims.
- Hellmann was critical of Antonio Curatolo, (who saw them together), and without cause found him to be unreliable.
- Hellmann twisted parts of Marco Quintavalle’s testimony (who saw Knox in his shop the next morning).
- Hellmann claimed Knox’s calunnia against Lumumba was due to duress, caused by a long interrogation. This came despite the testimony in the 2009 Massei trial (and admitted by Knox herself), that she was treated well. See, this is what happens when you have a one-sided trial. Hellmann then increased Knox’s sentence for calunnia from 1 year to 3.
- Speaking of the calunnia, Knox doesn’t mention this at all, but Cassation found that it was in fact done to divert attention from herself. But this is left completely out of her ‘‘afterward’‘.
- Cassation was critical of Hellmann for cherry-picking his facts. Now, ironically, Knox does the same thing with her summary of Cassation’s verdict.
#505 [2015 Afterword]

No legal process was issued to request my return to Italy for the 2013 appellate trial in Florence. My lawyers presented my defence in my absence.
- It is expected that all accused will attend their own proceedings, especially when this is their own appeal.
- Is this just a confusing way of saying she couldn’t be forced back?
- Knox hit the talk shows claiming she is innocent, and afraid, and despite her $3.8 million book deal, can’t afford to go back.
- Knox didn’t skip out of fear of prison officials, or the drug dealer, Federico Martini, that she got locked up, did she?
- Yes, Knox’s lawyers did present in her absence. Judge Nencini wrote it up as ‘‘FAILED TO APPEAR’‘.
#506 [2015 Afterword]

The new court-ordered test of the knife revealed the source of the trace DNA. It was not Meredith’s, it was mine, likely left there when I used to cook in Raffaele’s kitchen, as I had in the days before the murder. This reconfirmed the independent experts’ earlier finding that the knife was not the murder weapon. I wasn’t surprised, but 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 and finally end this nightmare.
- Yes, it was Knox’s DNA, in a groove in the handle. The issue wasn’t whether it was used on Meredith (her DNA was also on it), but whether it could definitively be linked to Knox.
- Knox’s DNA on a knife used to kill Meredith is actually pretty strong evidence.
- The only new material evidence?
- On her May 2014 interview with Chris Cuomo, Knox claimed the evidence presented ‘’ has been proven less, and less, and less’‘.
- On her own website, Knox claims ‘‘NO’’ new evidence was introduced at this ‘‘trial’‘.
#507 [2015 Afterword]

It made what came next even harder to stomach. On January 30, 2014, the Florence court found Raffaele and me guilty again. The court fell back on the multiple-attacker theory, even though there was no evidence to support it.
- Hard to stomach? Perhaps this is why Knox skipped her own appeal.
- Meredith had 47 injuries, with no defensive wounds. Unless Guede is Spiderman ....
- Guede climbed Filomena’s wall, and broke in without leaving a trace outside. Spiderman could do it ....
- Guede was able to hop on one foot (one was bare, one had a shoe on it. Spiderman could do it ...
- Guede telepathically caused Knox and Sollecito to give multiple false accounts. Did Spiderman have telekinesis?
- Guede left Sollecito’s bloody footprint and DNA behind. Did Spiderman even know him?
- Okay, we get it…. Guede is Spiderman.
- While the first prosecutor initially that the murder was the result of a bizarre sex game gone wrong, the court now speculated that Meredith and I had fought over Guede’s presence in the apartment or money. and that an argument between us had somehow led Guede, Raffaele, and me to kill her.
- Prosecutors never said it was a sex game gone wrong. (Well, it might have been for Knox), but rather that it was a hazing/humiliation.
#508 [2015 Afterword]

My original sentence was 26 years, 4 of which I had served. The new sentence was 28.5 years. The extra time was for ‘‘aggravating circumstances’‘, meaning I’d purposely slandered Patrick Lumumba (when I’d been pressured into falsely implicating him—and implication I’d quickly recanted), in order to undermine the police investigation.
- Knox is correct, in that the ‘‘aggravating circumstances’’ were because it was an attempt to undermine the investigation, and it did increase her sentence.
- However, she is wrong elsewhere. She was not pressured into doing it. Sollecito pulled her alibi, and this was the solution she came up with.
- Also, Knox did not quickly recant. Her 3rd statement was confusing as hell (probably intentionally), and she let PL sit in jail.
- Knox did tell her mother that an innocent person was in prison, but neither of them did anything about it.
- And of course, Knox would do what anyone who skips their appeal would do—issue a press release, and go to an ‘‘Innocence Convention’‘.
#509 [2015 Afterword]

Judge Hellmann, who had retired from the bench, did a rare and welcome thing—he publicly responded to the verdict, calling its decision ‘’ the result of fantasy’‘. he told CNN. ‘‘The Florence Appeal Court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book when it should have considered only the facts and evidence.’‘
- Knox is being partially true here. Hellmann did publicly criticise the Nencini verdict.
- Knox, however, omits the fact that Hellmann was forced to retire by the CSM after his bungling of the 2011 appeal.
- Knox also fails to detail the full reasons why Cassation so completely rejected his verdict.
#510 [2015 Afterword]

Once again, our case had to go to the Corti 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 don’t know if I would survive if I were made to go back to prison with no hope of an appeal.
- It didn’t have to be this way. No one forced Knox to file yet another appeal.
- The Florence Court didn’t find incontrovertible evidence Knox was not involved. In fact, Nencini wrote about a ‘‘lengthy pattern of untruths’‘.
- Curious how Knox knows what was presented at the Florence appeal. She skipped the entire proceedings.
- Knox makes no mention of the rambling email she sent to Judge Nencini in December 2013. Probably for the best.
- Knox omits mentioning that Sollecito tried to separate his position during the appeal.
- Knox omits Sollecito being picked up near the border with Slovenia and Austria the day the verdict was handed down.
- Knox omits Sollecito going on TV saying that he questions her ‘‘peculiar behaviour’‘.
#511 [2015 Afterword]

If the guilty verdict was upheld, Raffaele’s word would shrink to the size of his cell. And there would be nothing that his family, his lawyers, or I could do about it. Neither of us deserved jail, but being free while he wasn’t would torment me.
- I suspect the real reason it would torment Knox is because she could never be sure if/when he would talk.
- So…. those statements accusing Lumumba were just ‘‘getting her feet wet’’ with creative writing?
- This book has been written with anything but absolute candor.
- Knox won’t attend her own appeals, but somehow a book will help?
- Influence the court of public opinion as well? Is that not a contempt of court?
- Writing it helped me work through what happened to me.
- Telling the truth once in a while might help too.
#513 [2015 Afterword]

The book advance helped repay some of the money my parents and step-parents had borrowed—the maximum allowed against their homes and retirements—and the mounting legal fees I owed my Italian lawyers.
- The book advance? Was Knox not paid $3.8 million? Or was only a portion of it given?
- So, Knox admits to using blood money to clear her family’s debts.
- Knox also admits to using blood money to pay her legal bills.
#514 [2015 Afterword]

My notoriety left me vulnerable at times I least expected. A couple of students in one of my large lecture classes at UW posted pictures of me online saying they were in class with a murderer.
- Knox seemed to enjoy the limelight while in court.
- Knox would then launch a book tour and dozens of media appearances. So much for Miss Humble.
#515 [2015 Afterword]

I had read Raffaele’s book and was surprised that there were things I hadn’t heard before. This was my chance to ask him. In it he describes himself as ‘‘Mr. Nobody’‘. Although he had been falsely imprisoned as long as I had, the prosecution and media portrayed him as a second fiddle, manipulated by me. The prosecution always said he took orders from me. The media referred to him as ‘‘Amanda’s ex-boyfriend’‘.
- There are probably many things in the book Raffaele hadn’t heard before. He claims Andrew Gumbel wrote it, in his latest court proceedings.
- This is Knox’s chance to ask him? To get your stories straight?
- He was falsely imprisoned for as long as Knox had? Sollecito got 3 years for calunnia as well?
- Yes, the media did portray it as the ‘‘Amanda Knox Show’‘. He was just a secondary actor.
#516 [2015 Afterword]

He also writes that the prosecution had contacted his defence unofficially to suggest cutting a deal if he testified against me. His family was willing to consider it, but Raffaele resolutely refused. ‘‘I had no idea.’’ I said. ‘‘Thank you.’‘
- Francesco Sollecito, Raffaele’s dad, has gone on television to denounce that this proposal ever came up.
- Such deals are completely illegal to make in Italy, and word of it never surfaced until this book came out.
- In fact, this is one of the claims against Sollecito in his current trial.
#517 [2015 Afterword]

In April 2013, when my memoir was published, I did my own media tour in New York. I did a Primetime special with Diane Sawyer and made an appearance on Good Morning America! I was featured in articles in USA Today and People. I spoke with reporters as far away as Australia. I gave so many interviews in my publisher’s office—one person after another—that my picture was being taken for one media outlet when the next reporter and photographer were coming in. It was exhausting, but their was a huge upside. I was sure once people hear me tell my story, they will embrace my innocence.
- Yes, Knox did a primetime special with Diane Sawyer. It didnt go so well.
- The book was hardly incredibly insightful or well written
- Knox’s book is hardly super detailed or accurate.
- Nor was it well received by the book-buying public. In fact, a whopping 5% of the published copies were sold.
#518 [2015 Afterword]

Unlike the previous high court hearing, the justices listened to all sides without interrupting the defence.
- As Knox did not attend the 2013 Cassazione hearing, she would not know how often they were interrupted.
- Knox did not attend the 2015 Cassazione hearing, so she would not know how attentively they listened.
- In fact neither in 2013 or 2015 were the Perugia or Florence prosecutions even represented at the Supreme Court at all.
Posted on 01/06/14 at 07:35 AM by Chimera • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Knox False Claims, Examples 477-518
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (0)

Knox Book Lies - Retrospective Assessment

Posted by Chimera

Phew. The nasties do finally go down. Click here to get to Comments fast.

1. Overview Of This Series

My opinion is that this book is essentially Amanda Knox’s way of getting back at everyone in Italy she ever encountered, while falsely making her notoriously brash, sharp-elbowed, frequently drugged-up persona look endearing, naive, and squeaky-clean.

Knox includes numerous lies, smears, and stories to compromise literally dozens of others. None of them help clear up what happened to Meredith. And given how rampant the lies are, it doesn’t really clarify anything about Amanda Knox either.

One more quick post after this one, on the new Afterword, and the series will be done here. Then we will repost the final version on a new Knox Liewatch page with each of her false claim numbered, and draw the attention of the media. The ten posts before this one can all be read here.

Page numbers are those of the expanded 2015 paperback.

2. Overall How The Afterword Misleads

1. Again Knox goes on and on about how there is no evidence against her or Raffaele in the ‘‘murder room’‘, or the ‘‘murder scene’‘. This is false and seriously misleading for several reasons:
2. While Knox predictably misconstrues the evidence against her, she doesn’t talk about the other things we would like to see addressed.

Of course, in this new addition to her book, Knox doesn’t talk about any of the hard evidence (of a non forensic nature). She doesn’t address any of the multiple false alibis that she and Sollecito gave.

Amanda Knox”¦ Trapped, In Her Own Words

Raffaele Sollecito”¦ Trapped, In His Own Words

3. Knox does briefly mention the false accusation against Lumumba, but again reiterates that it only happened due to police pressure. A stunningly stupid thing to say, as she is facing a calunnia trial over exactly this issue. But that is not disclosed.

Updates: Sollecito’s Trial For Vilipendio And Diffamazione, Knox’s Trial For Calunnia #2

4. In this new afterword, Knox fails to mention that the Italian magazine, Oggi, got into legal trouble from publishing parts of her book.

(1) The Oggi Article Which Conveys To Italy Knox’s Claims Of Crimes Oggi Is Now Charged For

(2) The Oggi Article Which Conveys To Italy Knox’s Claims Of Crimes: Our Claim By Claim Rebuttals

5. Knox also fails to mention Sollecito’s current legal troubles over his own book which also made many false claims.

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #1

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #2

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #3

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #4

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #5

6. Knox leaves out that this may not be the end (probably to secure the next publishing at this time).

A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy Begins

A Shaky Castle Of Cards At Best: The Long-Term Fight For Legitimacy #2

7. Knox writes positively about Sollecito, but leaves out his ‘‘bride-shopping’’ efforts and anger at her.

Interview Part 1 With Kelsey Kay About Her Sad Experience With Serial Exploiter Sollecito

Interview Part 2 With Kelsey Kay About Her Sad Experience With Serial Exploiter Sollecito

8. Knox omits Sollecito’s various efforts to throw her under the bus (Mr. Honour Bound wants to save himself), most amusingly. Sollecito’s line since the Florence appeal is that he doesn’t really know where Knox was that night.

Sollecito Suddenly Remembers He Wasnt There But Cannot Speak For Knox Who (As She Said) Went Out

Spitting In the Wind: Sollecito News Conference Backfires On Him AND Knox - What The Media Missed

Sollecito On Italian TV: Seems RS And AK Selling Out One Another Is Gravitating To A Whole New Plane

9. Knox leaves out the resentment and bitterness she herself feels toward ‘‘Mr. Honour Bound’‘.

Seeds Of Betrayal: In Interview Knox Reveals To Italy Her Considerable Irritation With Sollecito

10. Knox leaves out that Guede said after the March verdict that he will push for a new trial.

In Big Complication For Cassation Guede Demands New Trial To Prove He Was Not “Accomplice Of Myself”

11. Knox still spends more time talking about her sex life in the early chapters than Cassation 1, Florence, Cassation 2 combined.

12. Knox lies, and distorts much of the body of facts. Her recollections are totally unreliable despite all the malicious quotes.

13. Knox leaves out any information on the upcoming adventures of her, Sollecito and Guede. She acts like this is settled.

14. The paperback was released June 9th, the same day her 2nd calunnia trial started in Florence. No coincidence I’m sure.

15. Much of the ‘‘I love my family’’ feels fake and contrived.

3. Dissection Of Specific Knox Claims

Here are dissections of the new part of Knox’s book. Not all of it is included, just the most blatant stuff.

My friend and co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, but the past 7 1/2 years have shown that innocent people can be wrongfully convicted. And that some minds will not be changed by the truth.
- Well, Patrick Lumumba came close to being wrongfully convicted, as a result of your statements, remember that?
- Some minds will not be changed by the truth? Well, maybe Edda and Madison, they noticeably backed away.
We’d been through one lower court trial, two appellate trials, and a decision by Corti di Cassazione. We had been found guilty, innocent, and guilty again.
- Finally, Knox seems to understand the difference between a trial and an appeal. Those verdicts were all only provisional, under Italian law.
My hopes had been high during my first trial, in 2009, but Raffaele and I were convicted amid a media circus.
- Yes, there was a ‘‘media circus’‘, but it had nothing to do with Knox being convicted. Strong evidence, and a cold, sarcastic, evasive demeanor on the stand is what did her in.
But our first appellate trial, in which ended in October 2011, resulted in a clear and unequivocal finding that we were innocent, setting me free, and allowing my immediate return to the United States. The presiding judge, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, had renewed my belief that innocent people are ultimately vindicated.
- Hellmann also spoke the infamous and telling words: ‘‘The truth may be different.’‘
- Hellmann released Knox even though she had a pending calunnia trial, for falsely accusing the police of brutality.
- The prosecution didn’t get to present any evidence at all at this ‘‘new trial’‘, so it was very one sided.
- Just to be clear, this was a defence appeal. The prosecution did not ask for it.
In Italy, every case is reviewed by the Corti di Cassazione before it is officially closed. It seemed impossible that just seventeen months after we were found not just not guilty, but innocent, the justices would reverse the decision and send the case back for a retrial—especially since our appeal court-appointed experts rejected the prosecution’s handling of, and conclusions from, the DNA evidence.
- Well, in this case the prosecution had valid reasons for asking Cassation to annul the Hellmann verdict. More on that later.
- The Massei trial court in 2009 saw all the evidence, and concluded guilt. Hellmann only saw the cherrypicked pieces of evidence the defence contested, nothing else.
- Cassation didn’t ‘‘send the case back for a retrial’‘. They allowed you to file another appeal. Big difference between the two.
- C&V were not “independent” experts, they worked with the defense, and in fact were not really even experts as was later shown. Consultants should not have been allowed at the appellate level.
In fact, the DNA evidence cleared us conclusively. It was straightforward: people leave DNA—lots of DNA—wherever they go. None of my DNA was found in my friend, Meredith Kercher’s bedroom, where she was killed. The only DNA, 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.
- Very little usable DNA normally gets shed. There was even very little of Guede’s DNA in the room, in fact, and the entire room was not fully swabbed.
- Knox’s DNA wasn’t found in Meredith’s bedroom, but your blood was found mixed with Meredith’s in Filomena’s room, (where the ‘‘burglar’’ broke in), and in the bathroom, where a killer cleaned up.
- And while DNA might not be in the room, the alibi witness, Raffaele, has his on Meredith’s bra clasp.
- It is also impossible to clean bloody footprints in the hallway, luminol brings them right out.
- Even if defence claims about a few pieces of DNA had been valid, still it did not clear Knox conclusively. It still doesn’t explain so many things: false alibis, false accusations, confusing accounts of your movements, shutting off your phones, and the other forensic evidence that was ‘‘not’’ in the appeal.
We simply could not have cleaned our DNA and left Guede’s and Meredith’s behind. Nor was any trace of me found at the murder scene: not a single fingerprint, footprint, piece of hair, drop of blood or saliva. My innocence and Raffaele’s was irrefutable. Like my legal team, I firmly believed that Corti di Cassazione would affirm the innocence finding.
- First, Knox’s shoeprint (a woman’s size 37), WAS found in the room, so that is not true.
- Knox’s lamp, wiped clean of prints, was also found in Meredith’s room and Knox was struck dumb trying to explain that.
- Again, Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp, which had been cut off.
- Bloody footprints (matching Knox and Sollecito), had been in the hallway, and cleaned. Luminol revealed them.
- Sollecito’s footprint in Meredith’s blood was found on the bathmat. It was unquestionably his.
- An imprint (a clear one), in blood, on Meredith’s bed, matched a knife found in Raffaele’s home.
- Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s and found in the bathroom and in Filomena’s room.
- Knox associates only ‘‘forensic’’ evidence, but omits many other types of circumstantial evidence.
- There was no trace of Guede in Filomena’s room, where the ‘‘break-in’’ took place, or on the ground or wall where he ‘‘climbed up’‘.
- Again, Knox associates only ‘‘forensic’’ evidence with the guilty verdict , but omits many other types of circumstantial evidence.
But in March 2013 the high court ordered yet another trial, directing the next appeals court to re-examine certain aspects of the case. My world was shattered again. The court gave 3 primary reasons.
- Cassation didn’t order a new trial, but did give her the opportunity to appeal again. Not the same thing.
- Cassation gave many reasons, we’ll get to that. But to focus on yours ....
The first concerned the supposed murder weapon. The independent experts had found there was no scientifically reliable proof that Meredith’s DNA was on it, but there was one micro-trace of DNA they deemed too small to test. Based on the prosecution’s claim it could prove to be Meredith’s DNA, the justice’s said it should be tested in the new trial.
- So, these experts deemed it too small to test, and therefore never actually did try to test it? Some experts.
- If a victim’s DNA could be on the murder weapon, that is a great reason to test it.
- This is not a retrial. It is Knox and Sollecito’s appeal.
Second, during Guede’s appeal in 2009, the theory that there were multiple attackers worked in both the favour of the prosecution and Guede’s defence, which was aiming to reduce Guede’s sentence. Neither Raffaele nor I could present evidence at that trial, so no evidence was presented that there was a single attacker. In our hearing Corte di Cassazione said that Judge Hellmann had not properly factored in the findings of the court sentencing Guede that there had been—
- Yes, strange that Knox can’t introduce evidence in the trial of someone she claims not to know.
- It was more than just Guede’s appeal in 2009. Judge Micheli in 2008 at the fast track trial, the 2009 appeal, and the 2010 Cassazione appeal all ruled that Guede was involved, but most likely was not alone. Hellmann ‘‘should’’ have factored in the findings of the top court a year earlier.
—this in spite of the fact that the only forensic at the murder scene belonged to Guede. The court directed that the new trial must account for the other alleged attackers.
- Knox repeats her 2 main lies: (a) Forensic evidence is the only type that matters; (b) The ‘‘murder scene’’ is exclusively Meredith’s bedroom, not the whole house.
- Again, it is not a new trial. Knox and Sollecito have been allowed to redo their appeal.
As for the third issue, the high court noted the Judge Hellmann looked at each piece of circumstantial evidence and found each to be unreliable. The court directed that the circumstantial evidence should be reviewed ‘‘as a whole’’ in the new trial.
- Again, it is not a new trial, it is an appeal.
- But otherwise, Knox is actually correct. Cassation was very critical of how ‘‘piecemeal’’ and disjointed Hellmann seemed to view the evidence. Cassation said that evidence should be considered in a way that best explains everything.
- However, Knox seems to have preferred the disjointed method.
My lawyers argued that this was like saying zero+zero+zero+zero=one. Nonetheless the court ordered another trial.
- This is getting repetitive, but Cassation did not order another trial. It allowed Knox and Sollecito to redo their appeal.
- 0+0+0+0=1 is a red herring. Cassation thought that Hellmann considered everything to be unreliable because he viewed everything separately. As a whole, the evidence makes sense, but only when trying to come up with (separate) explanations does Hellmann make sense.
- Cassation was also critical as Judge Hellmann only considered a few pieces of evidence, rather than everything that was presented at trial. Perhaps if a judge is to throw out the prosecution case, he/she should actually review it all.
- Hellmann, while finding Guede unreliable, chose to reframe the time of death based solely on Guede’s statements.
- Hellmann allowed Alessi and Aviello to testify for the defense, despite their history of making false claims.
- Hellmann was critical of Antonio Curatolo, (who saw them together), and without cause found him to be unreliable.
- Hellmann twisted parts of Marco Quintavalle’s testimony (who saw Knox in his shop the next morning).
- Hellmann claimed Knox’s calunnia against Lumumba was due to duress, caused by a long interrogation. This came despite the testimony in the 2009 Massei trial (and admitted by Knox herself), that she was treated well. See, this is what happens when you have a one-sided trial. Hellmann then increased Knox’s sentence for calunnia from 1 year to 3.
- Speaking of the calunnia, Knox doesn’t mention this at all, but Cassation found that it was in fact done to divert attention from herself. But this is left completely out of her ‘‘afterward’‘.
- Cassation was critical of Hellmann for cherry-picking his facts. Now, ironically, Knox does the same thing with her summary of Cassation’s verdict.
No legal process was issued to request my return to Italy for the 2013 appellate trial in Florence. My lawyers presented my defence in my absence.
- It is expected that all accused will attend their own proceedings, especially when this is their own appeal.
- Is this just a confusing way of saying she couldn’t be forced back?
- Knox hit the talk shows claiming she is innocent, and afraid, and despite her $3.8 million book deal, can’t afford to go back.
- Knox didn’t skip out of fear of prison officials, or the drug dealer, Federico Martini, that she got locked up, did she?
- Yes, Knox’s lawyers did present in her absence. Judge Nencini wrote it up as ‘‘FAILED TO APPEAR’‘.
The new court-ordered test of the knife revealed the source of the trace DNA. It was not Meredith’s, it was mine, likely left there when I used to cook in Raffaele’s kitchen, as I had in the days before the murder. This reconfirmed the independent experts’ earlier finding that the knife was not the murder weapon. I wasn’t surprised, but 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 and finally end this nightmare.
- Yes, it was Knox’s DNA, in a groove in the handle. The issue wasn’t whether it was used on Meredith (her DNA was also on it), but whether it could definitively be linked to Knox.
- Knox’s DNA on a knife used to kill Meredith is actually pretty strong evidence.
- The only new material evidence?
- On her May 2014 interview with Chris Cuomo, Knox claimed the evidence presented ‘’ has been proven less, and less, and less’‘.
- On her own website, Knox claims ‘‘NO’’ new evidence was introduced at this ‘‘trial’‘.
It made what came next even harder to stomach. On January 30, 2014, the Florence court found Raffaele and me guilty again. The court fell back on the multiple-attacker theory, even though there was no evidence to support it.
- Hard to stomach? Perhaps this is why Knox skipped her own appeal.
- Meredith had 47 injuries, with no defensive wounds. Unless Guede is Spiderman ....
- Guede climbed Filomena’s wall, and broke in without leaving a trace outside. Spiderman could do it ....
- Guede was able to hop on one foot (one was bare, one had a shoe on it. Spiderman could do it ...
- Guede telepathically caused Knox and Sollecito to give multiple false accounts. Did Spiderman have telekinesis?
- Guede left Sollecito’s bloody footprint and DNA behind. Did Spiderman even know him?
- Okay, we get it…. Guede is Spiderman.
- While the first prosecutor initially that the murder was the result of a bizarre sex game gone wrong, the court now speculated that Meredith and I had fought over Guede’s presence in the apartment or money. and that an argument between us had somehow led Guede, Raffaele, and me to kill her.
- Prosecutors never said it was a sex game gone wrong. (Well, it might have been for Knox), but rather that it was a hazing/humiliation.
My original sentence was 26 years, 4 of which I had served. The new sentence was 28.5 years. The extra time was for ‘‘aggravating circumstances’‘, meaning I’d purposely slandered Patrick Lumumba (when I’d been pressured into falsely implicating him—and implication I’d quickly recanted), in order to undermine the police investigation.
- Knox is correct, in that the ‘‘aggravating circumstances’’ were because it was an attempt to undermine the investigation, and it did increase her sentence.
- However, she is wrong elsewhere. She was not pressured into doing it. Sollecito pulled her alibi, and this was the solution she came up with.
- Also, Knox did not quickly recant. Her 3rd statement was confusing as hell (probably intentionally), and she let PL sit in jail.
- Knox did tell her mother that an innocent person was in prison, but neither of them did anything about it.
- And of course, Knox would do what anyone who skips their appeal would do—issue a press release, and go to an ‘‘Innocence Convention’‘.
Judge Hellmann, who had retired from the bench, did a rare and welcome thing—he publicly responded to the verdict, calling its decision ‘’ the result of fantasy’‘. he told CNN. ‘‘The Florence Appeal Court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book when it should have considered only the facts and evidence.’‘
- Knox is being partially true here. Hellmann did publicly criticise the Nencini verdict.
- Knox, however, omits the fact that Hellmann was forced to retire by the CSM after his bungling of the 2011 appeal.
- Knox also fails to detail the full reasons why Cassation so completely rejected his verdict.
Once again, our case had to go to the Corti 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 don’t know if I would survive if I were made to go back to prison with no hope of an appeal.
- It didn’t have to be this way. No one forced Knox to file yet another appeal.
- The Florence Court didn’t find incontrovertible evidence Knox was not involved. In fact, Nencini wrote about a ‘‘lengthy pattern of untruths’‘.
- Curious how Knox knows what was presented at the Florence appeal. She skipped the entire proceedings.
- Knox makes no mention of the rambling email she sent to Judge Nencini in December 2013. Probably for the best.
- Knox omits mentioning that Sollecito tried to separate his position during the appeal.
- Knox omits Sollecito being picked up near the border with Slovenia and Austria the day the verdict was handed down.
- Knox omits Sollecito going on TV saying that he questions her ‘‘peculiar behaviour’‘.
If the guilty verdict was upheld, Raffaele’s word would shrink to the size of his cell. And there would be nothing that his family, his lawyers, or I could do about it. Neither of us deserved jail, but being free while he wasn’t would torment me.
- I suspect the real reason it would torment Knox is because she could never be sure if/when he would talk.
- So…. those statements accusing Lumumba were just ‘‘getting her feet wet’’ with creative writing?
- This book has been written with anything but absolute candor.
- Knox won’t attend her own appeals, but somehow a book will help?
- Influence the court of public opinion as well? Is that not a contempt of court?
- Writing it helped me work through what happened to me.
- Telling the truth once in a while might help too.
The book advance helped repay some of the money my parents and step-parents had borrowed—the maximum allowed against their homes and retirements—and the mounting legal fees I owed my Italian lawyers.
- The book advance? Was Knox not paid $3.8 million? Or was only a portion of it given?
- So, Knox admits to using blood money to clear her family’s debts.
- Knox also admits to using blood money to pay her legal bills.
My notoriety left me vulnerable at times I least expected. A couple of students in one of my large lecture classes at UW posted pictures of me online saying they were in class with a murderer.
- Knox seemed to enjoy the limelight while in court.
- Knox would then launch a book tour and dozens of media appearances. So much for Miss Humble.
I had read Raffaele’s book and was surprised that there were things I hadn’t heard before. This was my chance to ask him. In it he describes himself as ‘‘Mr. Nobody’‘. Although he had been falsely imprisoned as long as I had, the prosecution and media portrayed him as a second fiddle, manipulated by me. The prosecution always said he took orders from me. The media referred to him as ‘‘Amanda’s ex-boyfriend’‘.
- There are probably many things in the book Raffaele hadn’t heard before. He claims Andrew Gumbel wrote it, in his latest court proceedings.
- This is Knox’s chance to ask him? To get your stories straight?
- He was falsely imprisoned for as long as Knox had? Sollecito got 3 years for calunnia as well?
- Yes, the media did portray it as the ‘‘Amanda Knox Show’‘. He was just a secondary actor.
He also writes that the prosecution had contacted his defence unofficially to suggest cutting a deal if he testified against me. His family was willing to consider it, but Raffaele resolutely refused. ‘‘I had no idea.’’ I said. ‘‘Thank you.’‘
- Francesco Sollecito, Raffaele’s dad, has gone on television to denounce that this proposal ever came up.
- Such deals are completely illegal to make in Italy, and word of it never surfaced until this book came out.
- In fact, this is one of the claims against Sollecito in his current trial.
In April 2013, when my memoir was published, I did my own media tour in New York. I did a Primetime special with Diane Sawyer and made an appearance on Good Morning America! I was featured in articles in USA Today and People. I spoke with reporters as far away as Australia. I gave so many interviews in my publisher’s office—one person after another—that my picture was being taken for one media outlet when the next reporter and photographer were coming in. It was exhausting, but their was a huge upside. I was sure once people hear me tell my story, they will embrace my innocence.
- Yes, Knox did a primetime special with Diane Sawyer. It didnt go so well.
- The book was hardly incredibly insightful or well written
- Knox’s book is hardly super detailed or accurate.
- Nor was it well received by the book-buying public. In fact, a whopping 5% of the published copies were sold.
Unlike the previous high court hearing, the justices listened to all sides without interrupting the defence.
- As Knox did not attend the 2013 Cassazione hearing, she would not know how often they were interrupted.
- Knox did not attend the 2015 Cassazione hearing, so she would not know how attentively they listened.
- In fact neither in 2013 or 2015 were the Perugia or Florence prosecutions even represented at the Supreme Court at all.
Posted on 01/03/14 at 05:00 AM by Chimera • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Knox False Claims, Overall Assessment
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (16)

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

Posted by Our Main Posters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope their fingers are crossed.

Posted on 04/29/13 at 04:52 AM by Our Main Posters • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, The officially involved, The defenses, The wider contexts, N America context, Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2, Hoaxers: media groups, ABC Network
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (52)

Demonizations By Knox: Book Claims About Prison Traumas Contradicted By Many Solid Sources

Posted by Our Main Posters

[Above and at bottom: an animated Amanda Knox in red t-shirt at a prison rock concert]

1. Knox Claims: Hell-hole Of Sin And Debauchery

That opening remark of a preview by the National Enquirer of Amanda Knox’s forthcoming book has been widely parroted in other American media reports.

Putting out new claims in the book like that is apparently considered to be worth the huge risk of extra years behind bars for contempt of court described in the post below this one.

Still, the US edition was sanitized after the annullment by the Supreme Court of the Hellmann appeal, and the UK publication of the book was canceled altogether.

So what are these remaining shock-horror claims? We intend to post commentary on them all.

Several concern Knox’s time in Capanne Prison where, it should be remembered, she actually served a three year sentence for lying. This was a sentence recently ratified by the Supreme Court, for criminal lying about the involvement of Patrick Lumumba in Merediths murder.

Main prison claim 1: sex advances by staff

One of the prison claims made public names a now-retired senior prison guard who Knox now claims asked her for sex. Actually this is hardly new news. Knox made the claim but in a far weaker form in 2011.

Then as CBS reported she had in fact concluded the guard was not even serious about sex. He was seeking to understand her.

Investigative journalist and CBS News Consultant Bob Graham, reading from Amanda’s letter to him: “”˜He was fixated on the topic of sex, with whom I’d done it, how I liked it, if I would like to do it with him. When I realized that he really wanted to talk to me about sex I would try to change the subject.’”

Correspondent Peter Van Sant: “What does this letter say to you about what she’s been going through?”

Graham: “It says in a time when she was clearly traumatized by the events of the death, the murder of her flatmate, that there she was, an innocent abroad, because she was innocent, she is innocent”¦ and here she was being pressured, further pressured in a prison system, a system that at least she should have had some degree of safety.”

Graham, reading Amanda’s letter: “I realize that he was testing me to see if I reacted badly, to understand me personally. He wanted to get a reaction or some information from me. I did not get the seriousness of the situation.’”

Knox’s claim seems to have left Italians contemptuous. “Yet more lies.” Here is a commentary on Knox’s claim of sexual harrassment in Il Giornale.

AMANDA: “THE WARDER WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH ME”.

Nino Materi - Monday 15/04/2013 - 15:38.

And in the end do you want to see that we will have even have to compensate Amanda Knox for the “psycho-sexual” abuse suffered in prison in Perugia? By now we have become used to everything in the ugly story of the murder of poor Meredith Kercher.

But you really need a strong stomach to get used to the idea that the girl from Seattle should even be earning millions of dollars with true-story book (“true” in a manner of saying) which rummages in the trash of the Perugia thriller. A literary destiny which associates Amanda with the other key character at the crime scene: that Raffaele Sollecito author of a another true-story book (once again “true” in a manner of saying). Sollecito’s memoir is entitled Honour Bound: my Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox, while Amanda’s “best-seller” is called Waiting to be Heard.

Pages in which Amanda ““ among other things ““ tries to make herself out to be an ingenuous, modest creature actually “molested” by the sexually implicit sayings of a supposedly dirty-minded prison warden. Amanda writes, or the ghost writer does, “The screw would ask me with whom I had had sex, he wanted to know how many boyfriends I had and whether I wanted to go to bed with him.” The period referred to is when the American student was in the Perugia prison following the first stage sentence for the crime of Meredith’s “friend”.

Then, on appeal, Knox (and Sollecito) were acquitted and now Cassation has ordered a new trial for them both. Meanwhile Amanda has gone back to Seattle (from where she will obviously never return to Italy) and she is enjoying the proceeds of her new career as a writer, not to speak of being a guest of agony TV, where between tears she tells how she was persecuted in our country. And the more she cries, the more the audience hits the roof and the more Amanda’s bank account grows. No talk of repaying her debt to Italian Justice…

In the 400 pages published by Harper Collins, the New York publishers which obtained the exclusive on the memoirs of Amanda after paying out about three million dollars, there is no lack of titillating details. A perfect location: the cells of Capanne Prison. Here Amanda tells about “continual requests from a prisoner to start a lesbian relationship with her”. In other pages she recalls how “she was informed of being HIV positive shortly after her arrival in gaol”.

Then the shock-revelation about a prison guard who is now retired. Knox accuses him of ” doing nothing but talk about sex with her from the day she arrived after her arrest”. In a message to a girlfriend, the girl from Seattle tells how the man in uniform accompanied her on every medical visit, twice a day, and in the evening how he would call her up to the third floor of the prison to an empty room to chat. “He was obsessed with sex, with whom I had done it, how I liked doing it, whether I wanted to do it with him,” she writes in the book. “I was so surprised and scandalised by all his provocations that sometimes I wondered whether I was not misunderstanding what he was telling me. When I realized that he wanted to talk about sex I tried to change the subject.”

The guard is now suing the girl for defamation after Amanda said that she had been abused during the questioning. In an interview with Bob Graham, an English journalist very close to the Knox family, the guard admitted talking about sex with Amanda, but claiming that she was the one who introduce the topic: “I talked to her a lot, but only to calm her down. I asked her how many boyfriends she had had, but it was always she had to start talking about sex.”

Anyone who wants to rummage in the garbage, buy the book by all means.

Main prison claim 2: malicious sex-partner humiliation

The second main claim against a prison official concerned the preliminary results of a routine HIV test required of all prisoners and a list of sex partners. The list of sex partners was reported in the media in 2008 as if the prosecutor and prison doctor had engineered the result and then leaked it to the public.

What did we find when we looked closely into this?

Knox’s own diary made quite clear that she was the one who decided to create such a list, and the list in fact seems to have been leaked by Knox forces.

Back then, even Knox herself exonerates the doctor and prosecutor.

Main prison claim 3: Italian prison conditions are unbearable

Italian prison conditions and treatment, Knox claims, were so bad that they made her life miserable. She says that at times she became very despondent, and even claims to have imagined doing away with herself.

However, Italian prison conditions except for occasional overcrowding are widely considered among the most humane, caring and rehabilitating in the world. Compared to US prison conditions, they are like night and day.

And this almost universal claim of every prisoner everywhere is contradicted by the media on which she and her family worked hard; by prison staff and official visitors, and even by the US Federal Government itself.

2. Flood Of Rebuttals By Family, Lawyers, Numerous Officials

(1) Contradicted by the extensive media reporting

Occasional despondency is not all uncommon among those paying their debt to society. And there is scads of reporting that Knox had adjusted well to prison.

Here is a report by ABC News after Knox was found guilty in 2009.

Knox said that she felt “horrendous” the night that the verdict was delivered. “She said the prison guards did come in to hold her and make her feel better. She said the other prisoners were good to her,” Thomas said.

The reporter said the prison is “extremely clean.” Knox’s cell, which she shares with another American who has been sentenced on drug charges, is small. “It had a little bathroom with a door, a bidet, a sink, a shower…. better than some of the things I’ve seen at summer camp or boarding school.”

The women inmates are allowed to go to a hairdresser once a week.

The prison is a new facility, just opened in 2005. The women’s ward has an infirmary, an entertainment room with a pool table and ping-pong table, and a library. There is also a small chapel. Outside there is a little playground for children with benches and toys because there are cells specifically for women with children. Currently there are two women in Capanne with children.

It was very widely reported over four years that Knox was given the opportunity to do all these many things rarely encountered in American prisons: Learn the guitar. Read a lot. Watch TV. Study foreign languages.

Do artwork (colored pictures of hands). Attend rock concerts where she was seen leaping up and down (images here). Attend classical concerts. Attend Christmas parties.

Knox even played a major part in the creation of a rock video with a rock group. Unfortunately for her, that video appeared to many to come close to a taunting murder confession.

And on various occasions Knox was quoted as saying prison guards were kind to her.

(2) Contradicted by Knox’s own mother

Knox’s mother Edda Mellas contradicts her on the experiences in Capanne. This was when Knox had been inside for two years.

They [the family] insist that she has tried to draw positives from her time inside, rather than wasting energy getting angry and resentful about the fate that has befallen her.

So it is we are told that she has whiled away the time by helping teach other inmates English and yoga and by learning to cook, to do needle-point and to play the classical guitar.

“˜She’s made it a time to learn, to learn about herself and the friends she has and the way the world works,’ says her mother. “˜She realises it’s not about her any more, she truly sees herself as one of the lucky ones in there.

“˜She sees women in there who have no support, or good lawyers, or even family, they have nothing.’

(3) Contradicted by the US Embassy and State Department

US Embassy staff regularly monitored Knox’s treatment both during trial and thereafter. She was given chances again and again to lodge complaints with an Embassy officer.

But as we posted here in June 2010 and here in May 2011 cables from the US Rome Embassy to the State Department in Washington DC released to reporter Andrea Vogt contained ZERO complaints.

This matters incredibly because it constitutes the official take of the US Federal Government.

It will be front and center of State Department and Justice Department considerations when an arrest warrant for Knox is issued and extradition requested both of which could happen soon.

(4) Contradicted by Member of Parliament Rocco Girlanda

Mr Girlanda visited Amanda Knox in prison approximately 20 times for the specific purpose (or so he claimed) of checking her prison conditions. In fact that was the only way he could legally visit her, although oddly enough a book and a number of other pro-Knox actions emerged - even a complaint to the President about the Perugia prosecutors.

After Knox was released late in 2011 Mr Girlanda specifically praised the prison staff in this statement.

Perugia Prison Police The Example of Professionalism.

The PdL Party member of parliament Rocco Girlanda praises the officers of the Perugia prison.

“I’ve had the opportunity to describe to the Minister of Justice, Nitto Palma, the great professional behaviour shown by the Perugia Penitentiary Police with regards to the court case that saw Amanda Knox as protagonist, a behaviour that I had always observed during the course of my visits to the Capanne prison in the last two years.” So says Rocco Girlanda, Umbrian deputy of the PdL, after the conclusion of the appeal trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

“In recent months I have had the opportunity to make dozens of visits to the prison, which also included some of the petitions presented by the senior management of the premises and my commitment in this regard, always finding, that starting from the director Bernardina Di Mario, continuing with the Penitentiary Police commander Fulvio Brillo, up to the entire personnel employed, the helpfulness, the courtesy and their professionalism which allows me to say that Perugia is a model structure on the national landscape, managed and directed in the best way and with a large dose of humanity on the part of the staff employed.”

(5) Contradicted by Knox’s own Italian lawyers

Knox’s lawyers Mr Dalla Vedova and Mr Ghirga visited her again and again during the 2009 trial and 2010 hiatus and 2011 appeal. Knox once again had dozens of opportunities to lodge complaints with them - lawyers who could have initiated Supreme Court action in response.

When Knox was released late in 2011 Mr Dalla Vedova and Mr Ghirga were interviewed by the TV station Umbria 24:

The lawyers: “she never complained about the prison”.

Amanda Knox “has never complained about the conduct/behavior of the prison police supervisor” and “she has never mentioned his name”: to say so are the defenders of the American woman, lawyers Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga, commenting on what was reported by the tabloid The Sun. “

Ghirga said: “In the diary Amanda never makes the name.”

Della vedova said: “We are grateful to the management staff of Capanne prison for their cooperation even given to the family’s requirements. Amanda has never reported violations against her.”

“She absolutely has received the correct treatment and the outmost solidarity, within compliance, especially in the prison’s female section.”

(6) Contradicted by prison guards and other inmates

Some assiduous and highly vredible reporters captured the view of a difficult, narcissistic, uncaring Amanda Knox which is very commonplace around Perugia. The real faults lie with Knox, in effect. This report is by one of them.

Prison guard Angela Antonelli saw Knox every day for two years and says she became closer to her than most. Antonelli paints an intriguing portrait of her, saying she survived behind bars with an almost astonishing degree of self-possession, burying herself in writing letters, singing Beatles songs and playing a guitar.
But it did not, she says, endear the young American to her fellow inmates ““ who took to calling her the Ice Queen.
“˜She never once cried when I was there,’ recalled the warder, speaking at her cluttered home in the city. “˜I often spent the nights there and looked into her cell through the hole to check on her and the others.
“˜Other people ask for tranquillisers, cry, shout that they didn’t do it, that they’re in pain, that they can’t go on. “Why did this happen to me?” they shout.
“˜Many prisoners bang their heads against the walls or even sew up their mouths, scream, vomit, cut their wrists. But she showed no reaction.’
This impression of extraordinary self-confidence and steadfastness is supported by fascinating correspondence seen by The Mail on Sunday, including one particular letter.
In letters written to her former boyfriend and co-accused, Raffaele Sollecito, Knox shows something close to contempt for her accusers and the overwhelmingly hostile public opinion in Perugia.
In one, written a year after the murder, she writes: “˜The truth is in plain sight THEY HAVE NOTHING ““ only their twisted imaginations.’ There is no mention of life in jail, of other prisoners, or indeed of Meredith.
A number of Knox’s prison letters to Sollecito were intercepted by the authorities in an attempt to gain some clue about the events leading up to the murder in 2007. This one, shown to The Mail on Sunday by Antonelli, had been among them.
Amanda Knox was obsessed with The Beatles, constantly singing their songs in prison.
Her letters to former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, which were shown to The Mail on Sunday by warder Angela Antonelli, were peppered with references to their songs.
She signs off one letter: “˜Let It Be! Here Comes the Sun!’
Her diaries, too, were littered with references to the band, together with doodles of flowers and peace signs.
The song she credits with helping her through her four years in prison was Let It Be, the final Beatles single before Paul McCartney left the band.
It meant so much to her that, according to warder Angela Antonelli, she tore out a page from her notebook and wrote out the lyrics, in English and Italian, and gave it to Ms Antonelli as a gift.
Writing in a clear and careful hand, her letter to Sollecito concentrates on the injustice of the charges against the two of them, and on her hopes of freedom.
She also refers to a dream about being greeted by President Barack Obama on her return to America.
She writes: “˜I dreamed he welcomed me personally, shaking my hand, back to the States.’
In prison, Knox kept herself to herself, said Antonelli.
While the majority of prisoners were attempting to make some sort of communal life together, she declined to socialise, preferring the company of her daily journal.
“˜Other prisoners made cakes, biscuits, pizza and always shared with their cellmates. Amanda ate what the others made but never made anything herself,’ the warder said.
“˜Also in prison people borrow each other’s clothes but Amanda never shared her clothes nor accepted clothes. In my view, she behaved as though she were superior and looked down on the others.’
After finding herself alone in a foreign prison, Knox’s caution is perhaps understandable ““ particularly as, before her acquittal, vicious media coverage in Italy had branded her a “˜devil’ whose alleged part in the murder was fuelled by sex.
But whether it is understandable or not, Knox’s reticence appears to have troubled those around her.
Antonelli said: “˜She absolutely never spoke about that night with anyone. She would not talk about Meredith’s murder. Amanda never once spoke about Meredith and never spoke about Guede.’
Rudy Guede was a drifter from the Ivory Coast who, in a separate trial, was convicted of Ms Kercher’s murder and who remains in prison.
Antonelli added: “˜Even if Amanda didn’t kill Meredith, she hasn’t done anything to help people understand what happened that night.
“˜She thought only about her own survival. She’s impenetrable, you will never be able to understand what really happened that night. Amanda showed almost no emotions.
“˜The only time I ever saw her being nervous was when she was waiting for her mother to send her the second Harry Potter book.
“˜She was really quite anxious, saying, “When is my book coming.”
“˜She lived through her books, she transported herself away through her books like her hero Harry Potter.’
She was not vain however, and other inmates were surprised that she appeared to make little effort with her appearance.
“˜People thought she was very good looking but she never mentioned her looks,’ said Antonelli, who at 62 has now retired from the Italian prison service.
Antonelli said that although Knox deliberately isolated herself from both her fellow prisoners and the staff, she became closer to her than to most others at Capanne.
Knox even gave Antonelli presents, including a doily she had made and a hand-written transcript of the Beatles song Let It Be. She got attached to me because I’m a maternal sort of woman,’ she explained.
“˜She tried to become close but I distanced myself.
“˜Sometimes I felt she was like a vampire because of her strong personality ““ as if she was trying to suck emotion from me.
“˜She was very different to other 22-year-olds who were in the prison. She knows what she wants and is very determined. I’ve never seen a girl like her, especially as she was so young. It was as though she was constantly doing a job interview, showing the best side of herself.’
There is the same sense of determination in the letter from Knox to Sollecito, dated November 11, 2008, seen by The Mail on Sunday.
She refers to her current “˜extraordinarily difficult’ experience and the ups and downs of life. Good will come of the situation she finds herself in, she assures Sollecito, and she will be brave and patient.
She tells Sollecito that her accusers just cannot look at themselves properly and see that they are wrong.
Last month Italy’s Supreme Court ordered Knox and Sollecito to be re-tried ““ in the light of which her decision to publish Waiting To Be Heard, with its criticisms of Italian officialdom, might be seen as something of a risk.
That said, it seems unlikely that she will ever travel to Italy to face the court.
Antonelli is clear that Knox was “˜never physically abused’ at Cappane, but she also says that “˜one guy asked her how she liked to be pleased in bed’ ““ which could support Knox’s claims to have been subjected to inappropriate remarks.
The man accused has denied any allegations of harassment.
Curiously, when Knox’s prison diary was published in Italy in facsimile form it gave little hint of the hardship she describes in her new book.
She wrote compulsively in her cell, maintaining her journal four times a day. The handwritten pages, complete with doodles and scrawled Beatles lyrics, say such things as: “˜The prison staff are really nice. They check in to make sure I’m okay very often and are very gentle with me.
“˜I don’t like the police as much, though they were nice to me in the end, but only because I had named someone for them, when I was very scared and confused.’
The someone she referred to was an innocent man ““ Congolese bar owner Patrick Lumumba, whom she falsely accused of murdering Meredith.
She later insisted the accusation was a result of police intimidation.
In fact, her prison diary, describes her Italian jail as “˜pretty swell’, with a library, a television in her room, a bathroom and a reading lamp.
No one had beaten her up, she wrote, and one guard gave her a pep talk when she was crying in her cell.
Today, she is an innocent woman; but to those who were with her in Cappane, she remained an enigma until the moment when, amid turbulent scenes at the Perugia courthouse, she was acquitted.
“˜Even when she was released, she didn’t say goodbye to a single person in the prison,’ recalled Antonelli.
“˜In my opinion she showed no compassion or sensitivity to others. She just walked out.
‘Is that human?’

Posted on 04/25/13 at 10:20 PM by Our Main Posters • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, The wider contexts, N America context, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, 21 Nasty prison hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2, Hoaxers: media groups, ABC Network
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (60)

Knox Book: Lawyers Puzzled At Why Knox Is Risking Extra Prison Time

Posted by Peter Quennell

Knox doesnt need our legal advice. She has some pretty good lawyers of her own.

So what are they telling her now? The huge risks her book and interview run are all spelled out in the Italian legal code. Accused perps dont ever, ever take their case to the court of public opinion in Italy (try finding another example) because that is a very serious contempt of the court.

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

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

Those powers finally now HAVE been invoked, because of the extraordinary assault on the Italian system and judges and prosecutors and police (rejected even by his dad) by Sollecito in his book.

They are perhaps the strongest and most extensive attacks on the court system Italy has even seen.

This is under confidential investigation in Florence and charges expected this summer could cost Sollecito a sentence of five years or more. His book also just about kills his chances at the new appeal, because it makes several hundred wrong claims which to the prosecution will be like shooting fish in a barrel.

The defense lawyers surely know all of this. Unless they feel their chances at appeal are so bad (which could be the case) that they require desperate long-shot measures, they will surely tell Knox the same thing.

Publishers’ necks and ghost-writers’ necks and ABC’s necks are on the line too. HarperCollins UK seem to have been very smart in yanking the book. Their lawyers must have figured all this out.

Posted on 04/22/13 at 02:47 PM by Peter Quennell • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Various hypotheses, The psychology, Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, Raff Sollecito, Hoaxes against Italy, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2, Raff Sollecito #2, Hoaxers: media groups, ABC Network
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (45)

Questions For Knox: Diane Sawyer, How To Push Back Against Book’s False Claims And Emotion

Posted by Media Watcher

Dear Diane Sawyer:

Much of Italy and the UK and US will be curious to see how this interview works out on the ABC network on 30 April.

The extreme overkill of spin and false claims have not worked well for Knox lately. Now twin developments (the blunt and categoric ruling of the Supreme Court two weeks ago, and the ominous legal moves against Sollecito for his own rash public statements) have left Amanda Knox perched on a thin icy ledge.

We have dozens of lawyers and even judges read here. We do not know even one astute lawyer who really understands the case and the Italian system who, in light of those twin developments, considers this interview or Knox’s book as any longer a good idea.

The yanking of the book in Britain shows a creeping realization of this among those with their own necks on the line here.

The twin developments have changed this from the launch of a “promotional” book tour to a very serious inquiry into an ongoing murder trial, with very serious implications for U.S./Italian diplomatic relations.

We’re appreciative that you are the journalist who will be doing the first in-depth interview here. You have a solid reputation for balance and objectivity, and we’re looking forward to seeing your broadcast.

From Seattle, it often seems as though Americans simply cannot comprehend that a young co-ed could be caught up in a case so violent. Because the court proceedings were conducted in Italian, most Americans heard the story of what happened through a media filter, which in turn got much of its information from people who had a bias in support of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Repeatedly, we have heard reporters parrot the defense attorney’s claim that there is no evidence.” However, the evidence presented was strong enough to convince Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz that the conviction will likely be affirmed on appeal.

Other legal experts who have said the evidence supports a guilty verdict include New England Law Professor Wendy Murphy, who was herself a former prosecutor, and Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor who now hosts a show on trials and legal issues for CNN.

Contributors to this site, who all work pro bono, have also concluded the evidence supports a guilty verdict. We have studied the evidence presented at trial (in many cases ourselves translating key court documents) and have monitored with growing alarm the huge disconnect here in the U.S. between what happened in court and what has been reported.

What motivates us now is seeing that the reporting of the trial here in the United States is objective and corresponds with the reality of what is happening in Italy and what Italians are seeing and reading.

Ultimately, if the conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is upheld by the Appeals Court and then Italy’s Supreme Court, we expect that the United States will honor the extradition treaty that’s been in place for decades, because it shouldn’t matter whether a perpetrator is perceived as attractive or sympathetic. While everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and a fair judicial process, we also believe the victim’s family is entitled to justice.

Having said all of that, we’re looking forward to seeing your report and here are some of the themes we hope you’ll explore in the report that surrounds the interview:
With respect to the interview itself, here are some of the questions many would like to see Amanda answer:
Thank you for reading this letter, Diane. Because of the PR fog around the case, we believe far more attention needs to be paid to the actual evidence that was presented at trial.

We are confident that you’ll bring all of your considerable skill and experience to bear on this interview in ways that will leave viewers much better informed.

Posted on 04/12/13 at 01:57 PM by Media Watcher • Click here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, Evidence & Witnesses, News media & movies, Hoaxes against Italy, 3 No evidence hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, 18 No drug use hoax, 20 No-PR hoax, 21 Nasty prison hoax, Hoaxes re Guede, 33 Sole attacker hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Amanda Knox #1, Knox-Marriott PR, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2, Hoaxers: media groups, ABC Network
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Comments here (35)

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

5. Knox Book Lies 172 To 222

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Post

2. Dissection Of Pages 207 to 243.

6. Knox Book Lies 223 To 275

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Post

2. Dissection Of Pages 243 to 291.

7. Knox Book Lies 276 To 323

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Post

2. Dissection Of Pages 291 to 327.

8. Knox Book Lies 324 To 382

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Series

2. Dissection Of Pages 313 to 354

9. Knox Book Lies 383 To 418

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Series

2. Dissection Of Pages 355 to 394

10. Knox Book Lies 419 To 446

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Series

2. Dissection Of Pages 394 to 403

11. Knox Book Lies 447 To 476

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Series

2. Dissection Of Pages 403 to Afterword

12. Knox Book Lies 477 To 518

Posted by Chimera

1. Overall How The Afterword Misleads

#477 [2015 Afterword]

#478 [2015 Afterword]

#479 [2015 Afterword]

#480 [2015 Afterword]

#481 [2015 Afterword]

#482 [2015 Afterword]

#483 [2015 Afterword]

#484 [2015 Afterword]

#485 [2015 Afterword]

#486 [2015 Afterword]

#487 [2015 Afterword]

#488 [2015 Afterword]

#489 [2015 Afterword]

#490 [2015 Afterword]

#491 [2015 Afterword]

2. Dissection Of Specific Knox Claims

#492 [2015 Afterword]

#493 [2015 Afterword]

#494 [2015 Afterword]

#495 [2015 Afterword]

#496 [2015 Afterword]

#497 [2015 Afterword]

#498 [2015 Afterword]

#499 [2015 Afterword]

#500 [2015 Afterword]

#501 [2015 Afterword]

#502 [2015 Afterword]

#503 [2015 Afterword]

#504 [2015 Afterword]

#505 [2015 Afterword]

#506 [2015 Afterword]

#507 [2015 Afterword]

#508 [2015 Afterword]

#509 [2015 Afterword]

#510 [2015 Afterword]

#511 [2015 Afterword]

#512 [2015 Afterword]

#513 [2015 Afterword]

#514 [2015 Afterword]

#515 [2015 Afterword]

#516 [2015 Afterword]

#517 [2015 Afterword]

#518 [2015 Afterword]

Knox Book Lies - Retrospective Assessment

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Series

2. Overall How The Afterword Misleads

3. Dissection Of Specific Knox Claims

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