1. How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies - Series Overview
Reason whythere’s no similar shot of RS showing warmth to AK
1. Series Context
Knox lies?! Anyone who reads here for a while is left in no doubt of that.
Anyone who watched the trial in Italian concluded that. Even her own lawyers concluded that. They publicly requested in 2008 that she stop all her lying.
Numerous sworn witnesses in court, with no dog at all in this fight, contradicted her. Easily identifiable lies now number up in the thousands. They tend to be malicious (how she hates others), and they tend to be narcissistic (how she loves herself).
To close case-watchers they stand out a mile.
And yet amazingly more than four out of every five critics who reviewed her book on the Amazon site accepted what she said, word for word. And more than four out of every five critics who reviewed the Netflix report accepted what she said, word for word.
Past posts and series addressed Knox lies at (1) the time of arrest and 2007 hearings, (2) the 2008 hearings, (3) Knox at trial, (4) Knox in prison, (5) Knox at the Hellman appeal, (6) Knox back in Seattle, when (7) she wrote her book, (8) Knox emailing Judge Nencini, (9) Knox in recent paid presentations, and (10) Knox on US media and especially Netflix (with more to follow).
This further 8-part series puts (2) above along side (7) above to show further how it is a really, really bad idea to believe anything at all in Knox’s book.
Knox very often lies by omission - she leaves out numerous key facts - and her shadow writer and editors seemingly enable that. I will address some of Knox’s key omissions in this first post.
What Was Omitted From The Book
(1) Knox At Trial In 2009”¦
Here is Knox’s entire text of a full two days at court on June 12-13, 2009 in Waiting to be Heard (Chapter 26, Pages 324-327).
“Your Honor, I’d like to speak in Italian,” I said politely. I didn’t think about whether it would work or whether it was a good idea. All I could think was, I have been waiting my turn for nearly two years. This is it!
At least prison life had been good for my language skills.
I was relieved to be able to speak directly to the jury. The hard part wasn’t the Italian; it was being an active listener for hours at a time, making sure I heard the questions correctly and that my questioners didn’t push me around.
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?”’
We went over how I found the room for rent in the villa, my relationship with Meredith, my history with alcohol and marijuana, and what happened on November 2. The prosecution and the civil parties were confrontational. I was able to respond. It took two exhausting days, and there were a few questions I couldn’t answer.
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.
During my testimony, I was clear. I never stumbled or stalled. I just said, This is what happened. This is what I went through.
I relaxed a little when it was Luciano’s turn to question me.
“During the interrogation, there were all these people around me,” I said. “In front and behind me, yelling, threatening, and then there was a policewoman behind me who did this.”
I slapped my own head to demonstrate.
“One time, two times?” Luciano asked.
“Two times,” I said. “The first time I did this.”
I dropped my head down as if I’d been struck and opened my mouth wide in surprise.
“Then I turned around toward her and she gave me another.”
“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.
“I was there, they were yelling at me, and I only wanted to leave, because I was thinking about my mom, who was arriving soon, and so 1 said, ‘Look, can I please have my phone,’ because I wanted to call my mom. They told me no, and then there was this chaos. They yelled at me. They threatened me. It was only after 1 made declarations that they said, `No, no, no. Don’t worry. We’ll protect you. Come on.’ That’s what happened.
“Before they asked me to make other declarations-1 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.”
Then it was Mignini’s turn. “Why did you say, ‘Patrick’s name was suggested to me, I was beaten, I was put under pressure?”’
As soon as I started to answer, Mignini interrupted with another question. He’d done the same thing to me during my interrogation at the prison. This time, I wasn’t going to let it fluster me. I was going to answer one question at a time. Showing my irritation, I said, “Can I go on?”
I described my November 5 interrogation again. “As the police shouted at me, I squeezed my brain, thinking, ‘What have I forgotten? What have I forgotten?’ The police were saying, `Come on, come on, come on. Do you remember? Do you remember? Do you remember?’ And then boom on my head.” I imitated a slap. “‘Remember!’ the policewoman shouted. And then boom again. ‘Do you remember?”’
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.
I said no.
At the end, the judge asked what I thought of as a few inconsequential questions, such as, Did I turn up the heat when I got to the villa that Friday morning? Did we have heat in the bathroom, or was it cold? Rather, the judge was trying to catch me in an inconsistency. Why would I come home to a cold house when I could have showered at Raffaele’s?
Then it was over.
In the past I hadn’t been great at standing up for myself. I was proud that this time was different.
When the hearing ended, I got two minutes to talk to my lawyers before the guards led me out of the courtroom. “I was nervous when you first spoke,” Luciano admitted, “but by the end I was proud of you.”
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.
(2) What The Book Description Omits
I am not expecting a complete trial transcript by any means, but here are some of the numerous vital details conveniently left out.
(a) First, to state the obvious…
(1) AK omits that her book directly contradicts a lot of what was said on the witness stand (okay, that’s not saying much)
(2) AK omits that her book leaves out a lot of what was said on the witness stand (okay, that’s not saying much)
(b) Second who asked the questions
(3) AK omits that she was questioned by Francesco Maresca (Kercher lawyer)
(4) AK omits that she was questioned by Guilia Bongiorno (Sollecito lawyer)
(5) AK omits that she was questioned by Luca Maori (Sollecito lawyer)
(6) AK omits that she was questioned by Giancarlo Massei (Trial Judge)
(7) AK omits that a taped phone call was played (with Filomena Romanelli)
(c) Third, how much makes no sense
(8) AK claims she didn’t expect to be interrogated, but leaves out that she showed up unannounced and uninvited
(9) AK omits telling the Court she doesn’t know how to delete “sent” messages, as she’s not a “technical genius”
(10) AK claims she was asked about “imagining things”, but not about the list she had put together
(11) The same 2 “slaps” are used to: (a) get Knox’s attention; (b) get Knox to remember; (c) get Knox to stop lying; (d) to get Knox to say Meredith had sex; (e) to get Knox to give up a name; (f) to confirm a name. So, I assume she was smacked about 12 or 14 times….
(12) AK knew Meredith screamed, but only because it was suggested to her
(13) AK knew Meredith’s body made a “thud”, but only because it was suggested to her
(14) AK knew about the sexual assault, but only because it was suggested to her
(15) AK knew about Meredith having her throat cut, but only because an anonymous officer told her—or was it gestured?
(16) AK knew Meredith took a long time to die ... because she watches CSI
(17) AK knew about the gurgling sounds Meredith made .... because she watches CSI
(18) AK asked for pen and paper to write that she didn’t know what the truth is
(19) AK tells her Mother PL is innocent, but isn’t sure she didn’t imagine it (and report that)
(20) AK, in the same testimony, imagines both: (a) PL is guilty; and (b) PL is innocent. Well, 1 of those must be true.
(21) AK needs a mop for a little puddle at RS’ home, yet hops around on a bathmat in her own home
(22) AK doesn’t think to flush a toilet that had been used 12+ hours before
(23) AK is asked to imagine things, even though there is all this hard evidence
(24) AK was starved, yet the police still brought her tea “and other things”
(25) AK saying “I can’t lie. I was there” is just a euphemism for screwing with RS. Not an admission of guilt
(26) “Hickies” from boyfriend apparently look like cut marks
(27) AK supposedly had a class project once where she describes the 10 minutes prior to discovering a body
(28) AK doesn’t know Ficarra’s name (her supposed abuser), but does remember it after another 4 years
(29) AK doesn’t clean up blood after seeing it in her bathroom
(30) AK is freaked out by an open door, which she suspects a housemate left while throwing out the garbage
(31) AK doesn’t think its strange that her lamp got locked in Meredith’s room
(32) AK doesn’t remember calling her mother in court, but remembers it fine after another 4 years
(33) AK only knew Meredith a month, and just wants to get on with her life (some “friend”)
(34) AK imagines things that last for years, but this is the only situation where it ever happened
(35) AK “might” have been interrogated by dozens of people. Or it could have been a few, and the faces weren’t familiar
(36) Despite huge amounts of evidence, the police ask Amanda to imagine what could have happened
(37) The police investigative technique of asking witnesses to “imagine things” is only ever applied to AK. Never before. Never afterwards.
(38) AK doesn’t really know what the word “confirm” means
(39) AK has trouble—even years later—distinguishing between imaginary and reality.
Conclusion
To put it mildly, what Knox said previously in court in 2009 does not match up with her book in 2013 and her 2015 addition.
Seems that AK is either: (a) forgive me, but a complete bullshitter, who lies through her teeth as often as breathing; or (b) has an extremely limited grasp of reality, which even Sollecito and others who know her have suggested, coupled with a very poor memory; or (c) a combination of (a) and (b).
This makes it very hard for us to distinguish between what she genuinely can’t remember - psychologists feel she may have blanked out the attack on Meredith - and what are actual new lies.
Not an envious task for any trial court. Judge Massei seems to have had a hard time making any sense of it whatsoever. Judge Nencini hardly bothered.
Series will continue
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
You nailed it, Chimera. Knox is a combination of the option you label(c)—meaning she is a natural liar who can lie with ease combined with her having a very poor grasp on reality. She confuses fantasy and reality in her mind. She did not get the math smarts of either Edda the math teacher nor Curt the accountant.
Those two natural traits are coupled with a poor memory which is easily overwhelmed by emotions and new stimuli; she may be a prey to fear having had no solid father figure in her development as a child, but always senses that something will crack or some major family catastrophe will occur, which she then produces by her own machinations and wild behavior so as to return to her comfort zone that life is crisis, which is the only narrative that makes sense to her.
Well, that’s my amateur opinion of her, not to mention perhaps a deviousness and unconscious cunning or bitter desire to ruin people who she sees as symbols of those hated people who controlled, frustrated or ruined her. A punishing spirit. ?? We all have to deal with a desire for vengeance in this life, when we’ve been hurt or rejected. God help us, forgiveness is hard.
One doctor who commented on this case suggested that Knox feared she might have been aborted before her birth due to the out of wedlock pregnancy of her mother, who married Knox’s father late. He then left the home through divorce a short time later. He believes Knox suffered intense rejection at this thought, however unfounded perhaps it was.
His theory seems to be that “we do unto others what has been done to us”. We act out what we know from our own experience.
Whether that’s true or not, this post emphasizes Knox seeking to be a guru of victimhood. We know who the real victim is, but even that status Knox has stolen.
If the adrenaline was pumping during and after the attack on Meredith, Knox’s logical thinking might have been dulled by panic.
We have no idea how cloudy her thoughts were that night due to drugs or alcohol. Perhaps it was Raffaele who retained mental clarity and directed the cleanup. Even if Knox had honestly tried to relate the absolute unvarnished truth to Comodi, Massei, Mignini or her police interrogators, it’s possible she would be inaccurate.
It’s no wonder Nencini brushed off her scribblings from abroad penned years after the worthy Massei had struggled to discern fact from fiction from Knox the known liar.
Rule of thumb: When in doubt assume it’s a lie if the person is a known liar to start with.
Raffaele can’t keep all his lies straight either. He has several versions of everything. He and Knox produced utter nonsense and their fave word was “absurd”. He mostly wanted the world to know by his book title that he had been “to hell and back” with Amanda Knox.
Chimera also mentions Knox freaking out over the front door being open to the wind. She said she assumed a roommate had left it open after taking out trash. Again, Knox has the image of trash and garbage and removing garbage from the cottage on her subconscious. Why?
No doubt she and Raffaele did quite a lot of bagging and removing bloody cleaning rags, stained clothing, empty bottles of detergent with fingerprints on them to a distant dump site.
There’s no telling how many of Raffaele’s towels and sponges were tossed away that night, not easily missed since he had no roommate to say what was in the apartment.
Thank you for the book excerpt, Chimera. It’s helpful. I refuse to buy or read her book. No one is a bigger liar than Knox except maybe some of the folks she rubs elbows with at “Innocence Conventions” like the lovely Ryan Ferguson. A few more tramp stamps and she will fit right in.
Knox admits with pride that she was testy from the witness box with Judge Mignini. Yep, she was. And for all Knox’s claim that her (terrified?) attorneys praised her court demeanor on the stand, the jury saw right through her tone of voice, her body language, her barely concealed disrespect for Mignini and her falseness and general deception. What a shambles. They probably needed a few stiff drinks in mid-June 2009 after Knox’s performance.
Her book is a pack of lies.
Knox revels in confusion, her smokescreen.
Her court testimony, Capanne email, the mosaic of lies she calls a book seem more like three or four boxes of jigsaw puzzles dumped onto a table and mixed together at random, with only the pretty ones chosen that Knox likes.
These she forces together in a confused picture. She would not want anyone to see the real picture of the night of November 2007, although she probably dreams about it many a night and suppresses the truth to survive by fiction.
As a natural actress and fame hound this approach to life suits her fine, which is why she also links up with a writer boyfriend so together they can imagine their own world and invent any zany plot that excites them.
We see this in their both frisking as fairy tale characters in the Black Forest, one playing a child, one a wolf; and the plethora of costumes and outlandish clothing they adopt like tiger striped beards, zebra pants, chains, hats.
Before this display there was Knox’s solo photo session with her wearing the red velvet dress and the white moth (death symbol?) where she was wading into the sea. She wanted a large number of Knox-only photos in surreal poses. These she had taken by the female photographer.
Recently October 31, 2017 she and Robinson adopt Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictions. More masks. She naturally assumes the pose of Irene Adler, the one woman who could fox even Sherlock Holmes and whom he admired.
Pipe smoking beau Robinson no doubt in some vague mimicry of Mignini is her sidekick this Halloween. Sounds like a love-hate relationship, one person is chasing and pursuing a CRIMINAL while the other is dodging, hiding, lying and fleeing if the costumed duo are true to the detective story of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “A Scandal in Bohemia.” We certainly have two bohemians in Knox and Robinson.
Robinson is no Sherlock Holmes if he is deceived by Knox! He hardly needs a magnifying glass or a Dr. Watson beside him to see what Knox is all about.
But it seems he doesn’t care what the truth is, much like Raffaele who stayed in his own little dream world through use of drugs until reality in 2007 slapped him in the face.
Raffaele woke up briefly at the Questura, then lapsed back into an almost fugue state during his first days in solitary confinement. Daddy’s meds to the rescue again no doubt as perhaps had been a lifetime habit dosing Mom; one can only speculate.
Yet even spliff puffing foggy brained Raf saw through Knox’s fantasy version of life.
He reported her as being completely in a dream state, untethered to truth and living her life in a fantasy.
It shocked him how she could survive like that.
Perhaps he saw himself in her example! He was as messed up as she was.
She was his mirror. But he didn’t wake up in time, not before she pulled him by the hand down the proverbial Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole.
Hey, no problem, there were mushrooms there for Raf and a hookah pipe and Knox the grinning Chessy cat and the Red Queen.
Raffaele on first meeting Knox didn’t realize that he might be her way of surviving. He would become part of her fantasy, she would be puppet-master.
She had started the gold digger approach with him using his apartment immediately, perhaps sensing his Italian connections could offer her safety in an Italian town.
She doesn’t seem to have hoped for such friendship or help from local Italians Laura or Filomena—of course not. She couldn’t control them with wiles or sex appeal; they were not male.
The Foxy nature of deception would fill a book, which in Knox’s case it has. Chimera is exposing it with nuclear energy, thanks.
Posted by Hopeful on 11/09/17 at 06:36 PM | #
Thank you Hopeful.
Several posters have made the suggestion (in some form), that she will kill again if its the only way to stay in the limelight. Scary, but possible.
Knox’s ever changing versions-of-events remind me of a Heath Ledger movie years back (the Dark Knight, 2008), in which the Joker makes up B.S. stories about how he got his facial scars. Get stories, but never the same one twice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BPpSCVS264
On a bit of a downer note: I finally figured out why WTBH was never edited in any way—because it’s unnecessary. Anyone dumb enough to buy and believe it won’t care how implausible and contradictory it is. So why bother with the expenses of ‘‘editing’’ and with ‘‘fact-checking’‘?
Posted by Chimera on 11/10/17 at 04:51 AM | #
Carlo said, “Amanda, you nailed it. You came across as a nice, intelligent, sincere girl. You left a good impression.â€
She did?! On who?
Not Judge Massei, or his panel. They found her guilty of the calunnia, and she served three years.
Not those in court. Reports emerged that those on the fence about her guilt were now left in no doubt.
And not those watching her on TV. This loud brash thuggish girl who pushed her interpreter aside in anger wanted Italy to believe she only “confessed” because the police somehow mistreated poor little her - actually, even she said she was treated just fine.
Piece of work.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/10/17 at 06:29 AM | #
We are so well-versed in the TJMK facts that we can effectively analyse Knox’s and Sollecito’s personal characteristics.
Until recently some of us may not have realised how prevalent such characteristics are in our societies.
The brazen lies uttered by Washington politicians and bureaucrats, including some senior FBI officials, that have been exposed in this last year, tell us that K and S are still apprentices in their lies and obfuscations.
Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/11/17 at 02:05 AM | #
Hi Cardiol
Apprentices? So we should expect to see this headline in due course?
“The CIA and the Pentagon to weaponize Knox against the Russians”.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/11/17 at 03:50 AM | #
Pete, “ ....in due course?â€
That would be logical, if they starred, but these two could never stay the course.
Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/11/17 at 06:06 AM | #
Chimera, it can’t be easy to review such an obnoxious book but you do a great job indeed.
Every excerpt I read of it is thoroughly disgusting.
And (a) is right.
It’s hard but obviously people do believe her. I understand this partly because I have read a book called, ‘Combatting Cult Mind Control’, by Steven Hassan. The author had been indoctrinated into the Moonies cult. Eventually he was de-programmed. Towards the end of the book he recounts how he did a speech which outlined how cults recruit and maintain their followers. In the audience were people who were still in the cult and because he had been there he thought that his speech might help in de-programming them there and then. However, at the end of his speech, he was shocked because those people approached him and rejected everything he had said.
I hope what I’m saying isn’t too off topic but what Knox has said in her book defies any logic, yet she still has people who believe her.
Posted by DavidB on 11/11/17 at 07:42 PM | #
See video trailer below? The Vice Group report now rotating on HBO on the release of the giant trove of Paradise Papers (liberated from a Bermuda law firm) could have a lot of relevance for us.
What the Paradise Papers help to prove is an estimated $21 TRILLION in the world (bigger than the US annual GDP) now avoiding all tax, so the burden is more - much more - on you and me.
Our taxes could reduce by close to half if all those assets were fairly taxed.
That would mean that instead of all our income earned up to April 24 on average going to pay our taxes, we could be done by March. One year in every seven; six whole years over a 40-year career.
Named in the Paradise Papers are over 100,000 politicians and people in the corporate world globally (Americans are about a 1/3; Russians are way up there too) with huge assets all avoiding all tax.
Many now have some tough explaining to do.
Our interest here? The consortium of journalists that did the investigating based in Washington DC, ICIJ, with investigative reporters of major European and American papers taking part.
In one sense our case is peanuts to them - but it is the biggest legal hoax with the most hoaxed probably ever, and the most massive sliming of officials of one country by citizens of several others.
We had in mind hitting the media widely now that we have the full picture nearly written up. The ICIJ could be a Plan B, or maybe even a Plan A. What do people think?
<iframe width=“640” height=“360” src=“https://www.youtube.com/embed/dI-BA8EcEfg?ecver=1” frameborder=“0” gesture=“media” allowfullscreen></iframe>
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/11/17 at 11:28 PM | #
Hi DavidB
A tip to make you happy in your work?!
Go for the broad mass. Isolate the cult, or leave it behind. As the Machine would say, many of them are simply thick.
We’ve maybe seemed to be slow at the end-game, because so much document acquisition and translation still had to be done when the shock Marasca/Bruno verdict came out.
We pretty well have all the goods now. This series by Chimera will matter a lot. Knox lies are about the hardest things to explain away.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/11/17 at 11:53 PM | #
More on the Paradise Papers. Catch BBC Panorama this week if you can - we can see it here on BBC US.
It’s on the same theme as HBO VICE as all these news organizations were secretly doing reporting for months all timed to come out around the world on 5 November.
Panorama is about all these tax haven being British dependencies. Terrific reporter; he chases down many of those who set up this giant worldwide scam and confronts them. Often very funny to watch.
This has thrown a spanner in the works in the US because huge tax giveways (exploding the deficit and national debt) are right now being developed into law. Nobody can explain any economic good.
To pay for it all, things like education and health and the social safety net were all about to take a huge hit, and if nobody had noticed taxes on perhaps half the middle class were slated to GO UP.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/12/17 at 01:25 AM | #
Hello Pete/Cardiol,
About the idea of using AK as an FBI agent, I imagine it would go something like this:
(Knox, when getting interviewed for suitability) Loud sigh ....
(Knox,when being asked to declare any past misdeeds) Loud sigh, followed by disgusted look
(Knox, when being asked a direct question) The truth I think is closest to the truth is that I am unable to remember my best truth.
(Knox, after doing a drug raid) Guess I don’t have to f*** Freddy for it anymore.
(Knox, when a coworker dies of natural causes) My friend died, and it could just as easily have been me.
(Knox, on addressing overseas atrocities) There’s no evidence of me in the ‘‘murder country’‘
(Knox, on missing paperwork) There’s none of my DNA to prove I did anything wrong.
(Knox, on an assignment in South Africa) I wonder if there are any patsies here….
(Knox, on examining a drowning victim) He must have suffered, his f***ing throat got cut. Oh well, shit happens, let’s move on with life.
(Knox, while appealing a suspension) These mean people keep putting me on trial again and again
Posted by Chimera on 11/12/17 at 04:37 AM | #
Thank you Chimera for yet another timely reminder of just how obvious Knox’s lies are to find for those with eyes to see. Her lies are not even hiding in plain sight, they don’t even attempt to hide!
And thank you Hopeful for yet another tour de force of a comment, further dissecting the (lack of) character of Knox and the coterie of malcontents and deviants that she surrounds herself with.
And thanks once again to to Pete, the glue that binds us all together, for his relentless pursuit of true justice for Meredith.
I personally think hitting the ICIJ in tandem with the wider media emboldens the original Plan A. A shocking miscarriage of justice in the senseless murder of a single British girl may not seem like their bread and butter work but the worldwide infamy of Knox and the wider interference in the Italian justice system (and the sliming of significant officers thereof), may just be enough to pique their interest.
Plus, you’ve done all the work for them; all they really need to do is some due diligence.
They may pass on it, of course, but nothing ventured, nothing gained, as the saying goes.
Posted by davidmulhern on 11/12/17 at 01:25 PM | #
Yes, Chimera, as that has taken in the gullible half of America that should work fine on the gullible half of Russia. They do have one, right?
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/12/17 at 07:52 PM | #
Shauna Hoare was convicted of the manslaughter of Becky Watts on far less than there is against Amanda Knox and nobody has batted an eyelid. There have been no DNA experts putting forward ridiculously far-fetched scenarios to explain why the DNA evidence against her.
ITV have made an excellent documentary about the tragic Becky Watts case:
https://www.itv.com/hub/police-tapes/2a5255a0001
When Shauna Hoare was questioned in the beginning, she gave the impression that butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth and that she wanted to do all she could to help the police. However, after the police discovered text messages between her and Nathan Matthews discussing kidnapping teenage girls to satisfy their sexual desires, her mask fell off and she became visibly colder and harder. She was no longer eager to help the police with their enquiries. She said “no comment” to every question about the text messages. She is a monster just like Amanda Knox, Rosemary West and Myra Hindley. It seems Becky Watts’ murder was premeditated because she was stabbed in her bedroom.
Posted by The Machine on 11/12/17 at 10:07 PM | #
Pete, you are right indeed.
Posted by DavidB on 11/12/17 at 11:01 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry 4. Main Demonizations In Knox’s Book #61 To #90
Or to previous entry 2. How Knox Herself Provides Proofs Of Lies #1 to #16