Headsup: In the US, the bizarre AP report, carried by just some of the media, and a delusional, highly defamatory rant in The Atlantic, seem the only major questionings of the Florence and Rome guilty verdicts so far. There are other developments we wish to report next though we'll keep an eye on this.

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

The Best Alternative-Sources Series: Roberta Glass’s True Crime Reports

Posted by The Machine

1. Pro-Justice V Anti-Justice Media Trends

Increasingly common these days is for pro-truth, pro-victim and pro-justice sources to stake out the high ground.

Malcolm Gladwell, subject here of an ongoing series, really is a throwback, part of a trend that is losing traction and that may already have peaked.

Taking the side of the dwindling band of fabricators, inciters, stalkers, defamers, blood-money-grubbers, media-bashers, and foreigner-bashers, and the most unsavory crime elements seeking to undermine justice, now takes major chutzpah and unawareness.

Just before Gladwell’s rant against Italian justice surfaced, we had launched a new series to highlight the large number of objective sources on Meredith’s case and many others where justice is in question.

Documentaries, films and podcasts about people who have been convicted of murders they allegedly didn’t commit have been hugely popular.

TV documentaries such as American Girl, Italian Nightmare, Paradise Lost, West of Memphis, Making a Murderer and The Case Against Adnan Syed have all been watched by millions of people.

The Serial podcast about the Adnan Syed/Hae Min Lee case has been downloaded over 175 million times

When They See Us - the Netflix drama about the Central Park Five case - has been watched by 23 million Netflix accounts worldwide.

TV producers, filmmakers and podcast-makers know full well that a tale about a supposedly innocent person being railroaded by corrupt or incompetent cops and rogue prosecutors is a far more exciting and melodramatic story than cases where the juries convicted the right people.

They are not always concerned about truth and justice - they want a product that is a moneyspinner and will guarantee them an audience of millions, bucketloads of publicity, newspaper headlines and media interviews. Pesky facts that undermine their narrative that an innocent person was railroaded invariably get ignored.

They literally create fairytales where prosecutors and police officers are presented as evil villains intent on imprisoning innocent victims who are as pure and innocent as Snow White. Unfortunately, Joe Public and the likes of Kim Kardashian are stupid and they unquestiongly believe everything they see and read in the media without bothering to do any fact-checking.

Over 300 online reviewers gave the Netflix hoax Amanda Knox high marks. Gladwell quoted it. Celebrity Kim Kardashian watched the faux documentary on Netflix and said she thinks Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent on Twitter.

“Just finished the Amanda Knox doc. I don’t think they did it. I really want a Natalie Halloway doc & they need to solve that crime. So sad!”

She recently tweeted her support for Netflix darling Brendan Dassey - who along with Steven Avery was convicted of raping and murdering Teresa Halbach.

Whenever a new true crime documentary or drama about alleged miscarriage of justice lands on Netflix, I immediately wonder what inconvenient facts have been brushed under the carpet and what lies and disinformation have been presented as fact.

I know I definitely can’t rely on The Guardian for reliable information because it has a long history of supporting people who have been convicted of murder or casting doubt on their convictions e.g. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the West Memphis Three, Adnan Syed, Jeremy Bamber, James Hanratty and Simon Hall.

2. Roberta Glass’s True Crime Reports

Roberta has the right approach to ascertaining the truth with regard to high-profile cases i.e. she relies on the official court documents - not on misinformation and propaganda.  Her explanation of where she is coming from on her YouTube Channel:

”Tired of the misinformation and propaganda in current True Crime reporting, podcasts and documentaries; Roberta Glass set out in 2018 to create a True Crime Report sourced directly from the court records and case files. Her drive and curiosity to look deeper into the true crime stories she covers has also taken her to the courthouse where she has covered the NXIVM trial and Jeffrey Epstein related hearings. “

Roberta has interviewed Ken Kratz who prosecuted Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey and Lyn Hartman who was engaged to Steven Avery.

It’s fascinating to listen to the stories of people like Lyn Hartman and Alexa who were fooled by the PR campaigns to free convicted killers and how they eventually realised they had been manipulated and misinformed. They give the listener an insight to what Rabia Chaudry and Kathleen Zellner are really like and how they mislead people.

I also recommend listening to the interview with former policeman and author Martin Preib. He explains how innocence activists from Northwestern’s Innocence Project - who included Paul Ciolino - framed Alstory Simon.

3. Podcasts Recommended For First Listening

I’ve listed some of the most interesting podcasts below.

What Amanda Knox Won’t Tell You

Central Park Five Myths

Making A Murderer: Ken Kratz - The Most Hated Man On The Internet Speaks!

Making A Murderer: Ken Kratz - The Most Hated Man on The Internet Part II

Steven Avery’s Former Fiancé Lynn Hartman Won’t Stop Talking!!!

The Wrongful Conviction of the West Memphis Three

HBO’s The Case FOR Adnan Syed

Roberta Glass True Crime Report can also be listened to on Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker and Castbo

Thursday, October 17, 2019

Powerful Evidence Of Sollecito’s Presence: HIS Footprint Is Proved

Posted by James Raper

Prosecutor Dr Manuela Comodi introduced this very tough evidence

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.

1. Series And Post Overviews

Previously in our hard-physical-evidence series we put Sollecito rock-solidly at the scene of the crime through his DNA in Meredith’s bedroom.

This post also puts him at the scene of the crime through a footprint unmistakably his. It was not Guede’s as one of the PR hoaxes has it - always a very weak claim, as there is no evidence that Guede ever took his shoes and socks off, and not even a compelling scenario.

Again, please bear in mind the trial circumstance. Read this trial report for a taste of how the footprint evidence sent the defenses into shrill disarray. Starkly obvious to the jury (panel of judges) but never without exception mentioned by the PR.

The purpose of this post is to explain exactly why the right sided footprint, as seen below in the bottom right hand corner of the bathroom mat, can be, indeed was, attributed to Raffaele Sollecito.

Saying that it was attributed to him is not to exclude any number of other people to whom it could also belong, but as we shall see we can, perfectly reasonably, exclude the two other suspects in the case, Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede.

2. Bathmat Footprint Evidence At Trial

In evidence was a forensic analysis of the footprint, undertaken by Dr Rinaldi and Chief Inspector Boemia, comparing the print to the reference prints, made on a flat surface, of each of the three suspects. After taking measurements it was clear that the print could not be attributed to Amanda Knox because her foot is smaller in size. That then leaves us with Sollecito and Guede.

The mat, of course, is not a flat surface. It contains the tufts of weave which form the pattern on the mat.

In this image below the colour has been enhanced, whereas the image above reflects the reality of a stain where the blood is clearly diluted, and this, in itself, is a matter which has a part to play in attributing the stain.

We can now consider what those comparative measurements were.

On the basis of the above measurements compiled from Rinaldi’s and Boemia’s Report, Sollecito’s foot is a far better fit for that on the mat than Guede‘s, and for this reason Rinaldi and Boemia came to the conclusion that the bathmat print belonged to Sollecito.

The trial judge, Massei, wrote - 

“The analyses of the size of the big toe, Sollecito’s being absolutely the widest, led in itself to the conclusion of compatibility between the print on the mat and the right foot of the defendant, whereas the comparison between the sole print of Guede and that of Sollecito also demonstrated the different size of the plantar arch, with Guede’s narrower one attesting to the fact that the Ivory Coast national has an altogether narrower foot in comparison to Sollecito’s foot. The sole prints of the two defendants in question therefore present considerable differences in terms of :- (1) the big toe; (2) the width of the metatarsus; (3) the width of the plantar arch……”

Clearly the disparity in the width of Sollecito’s and Guede’s big toes is significant.

However Professor Vinci, Sollecito’s expert, disputed Rinaldi and Boemia‘s finding as to the width of the big toe on the mat. He noted that the big toe, as seen in Exhibit Two above, falls on elevated weave in the shape of a spiral. According to Vinci the flourishes of weave in this part of the curl of the spiral did not exactly match and the top right of the stain was not in fact part of the big toe, but attributable to the second toe. Once this was detached, the width of the big toe on the mat was more akin to the width of Guede’s big toe.

Furthermore, he argued, the detached stain could not belong to Sollecito because his second toe did not appear in his reference print - it did not touch the ground due to a case of valgus on the right of his big toe.

True, but the point is a non-sequitor as Sollecito’s second toe is not required for his big toe to match the width of the stain - indeed held back in a hammer position we should be even more confident of the width of the big toe - and, in any event, the mark to be detached could not belong to Guede’s second toe, as we shall see.

Massei was unable to agree with the operation of detaching the mark from the toe because it depended on an assumption that there was an interruption in continuity.

“The base of the material in the disputed point shows that the trace of blood is a single unit on all of the curl (flourish), and is uniformly linked, forming a single unit with all the other parts of the material on which the big toe was placed.”

Massei continued -

“Although it is possible to agree that in the calculation of the width of the big toe the point of measuring may fall in an unstained place, nevertheless a comprehensive view of the bathmat clearly shows why this was done. Considering that the small region under discussion is part of the tip of the big toe, the point on the right of the toe giving the 30 mm measurement lies along the line descending perpendicularly from that tip, without any widening……………..furthermore, the association of the bathmat footprint with Guede’s foot (see the CD ROM provided by Professor Vinci showing “the superimposition sequence” for Guede’s foot) appears, frankly, as strained, given that Guede’s footprint, apart from having a morphology which is generally longer and more tapered, also has a second toe print which unequivocally falls quite far from the big toe print, so that the small mark whose detachment from the big toe is in question here could hardly be attributed to the second toe of the defendant (Guede)”.

We can now move to how Hellmann considered the evidence when his appeal court acquitted Knox and Sollecito.

Noting that there is an unstained section of the bathmat print, where apparently Sollecito’s toe should be, were we to have a complete print of his big toe on the mat, Hellmann disparages what he considers is Massei’s assertion that one can simply draw a line down from the disputed mark of blood in accordance with the shape of Sollecito’s toe, hence arriving at a measurement for the width of the big toe coinciding with Sollecito’s.

Looking back I think that Massei did leave himself open to criticism with that remark, but more particularly because (unlike Guede) the vertical axis of Sollecito’s big toe (see below) does have a more obvious tilt to the left (which might be a consequence of the valgus and consequent “hammer position” of the second toe) and which, together with the blood on the flourish of the weave (on the right) would give a reading for the width of the big toe, without relying on part of that measurement falling in an unstained section.

However there are a number of other reasons which Massei believed were persuasive, and which Hellmann ignores. The first is a disparity in the length of the respective big toes, Guede having a longer toe than Sollecito. Secondly, the position of the left hand curve of the ball of the foot, and the lower section (the left side of the plantar arch – there can be a number of measurements here as the plantar arch tapers off significantly in width), on the bathmat is fairly clear and if one lines up the suspects’ curves with that on the bathmat, then the tip of Guede’s big toe is noticeably higher than the mark of the toe on the mat, whereas Sollecito’s coincides. In addition, the top of the ball of Guede’s foot is noticeably higher whereas Sollecito’s more or less coincides.

Below are the respective representative prints for Sollecito and Guede. Placing them side by side for comparison purposes is subject to formatting considerations. Superimposed upon them is an outline of the stain to illustrate the points made above. Of course, to some extent the outline of the stain is subject to one’s own interpretation, but I believe it is reasonably accurate.

Guede’s print has 7 points of disparity with the stain – Sollecito 1 as below. 

                                                     
Hellmann draws attention to the fact that the comparison print for Sollecito’s right foot shows that the distal phalange of the big toe (the part of the big toe which connects it to the ball of the foot) is absent on a flat surface, but is present on the bathmat, and that in Guede’s representative print the distal phalange is present.     

Having criticised Massei for, he says, the subjective element of his interpretation, Hellmann then gives us his own subjective interpretation.                             

“Now, since the contact of the foot with blood took place on the floor of Meredith’s room, namely on a flat and rigid surface, the distal [phalange] would not have been able to have become stained, and thus it would not have been able to leave the very visible trace on the bathmat.”

Hellmann goes on to state that the print was left by Guede, in accordance with Professor Vinci’s contention.

But hold on! Why should we be required to accept that Sollecito would necessarily have stood in blood in Meredith’s room (and remember that the mark on the mat was diluted blood, which aspect modifies, if not negates, any direct correlation) or, if he did, that it was on a flat and rigid surface there, since there was blood on Meredith’s clothing on the floor, and indeed there were towels soaked in blood in her room, although it is not, at first sight, an unreasonable hypothesis? However, be it the assumption (which does not explain the diluted blood) is hypothetical given that Hellmann does not accept that the print on the bathmat is Sollecito’s, nevertheless Hellmann’s logic is circular and deficient given that there are no connecting bloody footprints between the blood in Meredith’s room and the bathmat print.

He could, of course, explain that, but not without giving credence to the removal of blood traces, which he ignores in his report.

Hellmann also ignores the pertinent and critical point made by Massei that the point of Guede’s second toe falls some distance from the big toe such that it is unlikely to be responsible for the width of the big toe on the mat.

Hellmann’s grasp of detail is poor, his attention is selective, and his grasp of context almost non-existent.

Cassation’s Fifth Chambers were worse, if that was possible -

“Finally, the footprints found at the murder scene can in no way be traced to the appellant.”(i.e Sollecito)

Yes, seriously, that’s all they had to say on the subject! They did not even give any reasons for the assertion.

But even if the bathmat print can “in no way” be traced to Sollecito, can it be traced to Guede? How did Guede get to the bathroom to leave his supposed print without leaving a trace on the way there?

It would appear, on the forensic evidence, that Guede left Meredith’s room and proceeded direct to the front door. Initially he left just- about -visible bloody left shoe prints. The blood trailed off but the shoe prints were picked up again by the application of luminol. He did not divert to the small bathroom, or for that matter to Filomena’s room to stage a break-in.

3. Defense’s Attempts To Nail Rudy Guede

Sollecito’s defence team had an improbable theory - that Guede, immediately after the murder and despite his homicidal rage, was smart enough to hop out of Meredith’s room on his left foot with a clean shoe on, and the other bare but covered in blood, and that having by this means entered the bathroom and washed his bloody right foot, disastrously leaving his (supposed) imprint there in the process.

He then returned to Meredith’s bedroom, inadvertently standing in blood again with his clean left shoe and leaving with a trail of bloody left shoe prints - in which case the exercise of washing his foot was entirely in vain, on two counts, after all that careful hopping around. Neither is it entirely clear why his right shoe came off in the first place. His shoes were foot-hugging Nike Outbreak 2. Improbable that one could have come off even in a struggle.

It is patently obvious that his washing his foot was the most inept performance in all this given the mark the foot subsequently left on the mat. The same observation obviously applies to Sollecito as well but in his case, and not with Guede, or any other unknown male, it is far more credible to accept that he had diluted blood on the sole of his foot for a reason unconnected with his having just washed it.

All the above, as it pertains to Guede, or another unknown male assailant, is exceedingly unlikely and there is a far simpler explanation. Someone with more time to spare than Guede, or his unknown mate, and with less risk of discovery attached, was responsible for the diluted blood and had inadvertently stepped in it.

There had, undoubtedly, to be blood on the floor (and elsewhere) between Meredith’s room and the small bathroom, probably prints, and these and other such traces (bathroom door, Meredith’s door etc) were deliberately and carefully removed by wiping them away with wet towels, cloths etc. Probably whoever had done this had then stepped on one of the towels or cloths in question and then stepped onto the mat without thinking. Hence the diluted blood.

It is interesting to note that Guede, during his stay in jail in Germany, wrote (emphasis added) –

“I am asking myself how is it possible that Amanda could have slept in all that mess, and took a shower with all that blood in the bathroom and corridor.”

The reason for removing the blood was not just to conceal who would have made prints (the print on the bathmat was, after all, left in situ) but, from a visual perspective, to conceal any blood that might be noticeable and alarming to anyone approaching Meredith’s room. Guede’s bloody left shoeprints in the corridor, pointing to the exit, were visible but only on close inspection.

The prime stager, the person who would have had most interest in attending to a post murder manipulation of the crime scene by the removal of blood traces would, of course, have been Amanda Knox. It was a prerequisite if her account of having stopped by the cottage to have a shower, before the discovery of the body, was to work in the manner for which she hoped.

However, having attended to this she would then, from the position of her own narrative, be in a position to instigate and manage, entirely innocently from anyone’s perspective, the discovery of her flatmate’s murder. Visiting the cottage to have a shower and collect a mop, with no visible blood in unexplainable places to alarm her, was an indispensible opening sequence in the narrative.

She did, though, leave the mat in situ. This may simply have been because it never occurred to her that this could be used as evidence incriminating Sollecito and, of course, the absence of the mat would no doubt have been remarked on by her flatmates. Having eliminated other blood traces, removing the mat might have been conceived as being a step too far as it would have raised questions.

Finally Guede, for numerous reasons, is simply not a credible candidate for the clean up, particularly given the numerous and incriminating traces of himself that he did leave at the crime scene.

Given the comparative measurements, given the full context of the crime scene, including the removal of blood traces and the attribution of a luminol revealed footprint to Sollecito outside Meredith’s room, and given the fact that the murder weapon was in Sollecito’s kitchen drawer and that his DNA was on the bra clasp, there can be little doubt that the bathmat print belonged to him.

Monday, September 09, 2019

The Hachette Hoax: A Guide To Our Dozen Posts

Posted by Our Main Posters

All Posts So Far In Ongoing Series

1. Click for Post:  How “Psychology Expert” Malcolm Gladwell Gets Every Single Claim On The Case Wrong

2. Click for Post:  Gullible Gladwell Duped By “Strangers” In Reality Vigilantes & Anti Justice Trolls

3. Click for Post:  Explaining To “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was: #1 Knife DNA

4. Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #2 Mixed Blood

5. Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #3 Footprints

6. Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #4 Faked Break-In

7. Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #5 Bra Clasp

8. Click for Post:  There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Knox’s Crimescene Presence - Locked Right Inside Meredith’s Room

9. Click for Post:  There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Sollecito’s Crimescene Presence: Unmistakably HIS Footprint

10. Click for Post:  Gladwell’s Lone-Wolf-Killer Hoax Was Abandoned By DEFENSES 10 Years Ago

11. Click for Post:  On Guede As Sole Attacker Gladwell Doesn’t Get Strong Backup - From Knox Or Sollecito

Do check back, there’s more to follow.

Thursday, September 05, 2019

The Pro Truth, Pro Justice, Pro Italy, Pro Meredith Reporting On The Case #1

Posted by Our Main Posters

Hall of Fame: 80 reporters & analysts channeled truth of case

1. Context Of The Post

This post and the next represent our “Hall of Fame” of the truthful reporting faction.

A third and fourth post will follow, our “Hall of Shame” of the biased, incompetent and corrupt reporting faction. That uniquely large faction includes way too many reporters, investigators, lawyers, bloggers, and book-writers.

All these four posts flow directly from our 8 August post on the English-language reporting vehicles. We separated out “the media” that Knox endemically demonizes into these three groups.

No media outlet demonized Knox. The reports on her drugs and sex and relationships and highly suspect behavior were all reality-based; in fact they could have gone even further.

And no reporter demonized her, either, as this and the next post will show.

The two next posts on the biased faction, however, will show how 70-80 percent of reporters did demonize Italy and many Italians, and misrepresent both the real case and the real Knox. 

We have already noted just how especially undermining to Knox’s dishonest media-demonizing, in Italy, Ireland, and the US, was the pesky presence of Raffaele Sollecito.

He was treated identically to Knox from 2007 to 2015 in all possible ways. That was despite his being from an influential Italian family with “connections”. And he never blamed the media. In fact, he consistently blamed Knox for his predicament.

We have already noted also that Knox dropped her own self in it, with no help at all from the media, when she was on the witness stand in mid 2009.

Our next post on the truth faction will show how Knox has dropped her own self in it multiple times, as the truth media has each time accurately passed on.

2. To Whom Do We Offer Praise?

Please click to open the full “True” database in Acrobat PDF here or Word Doc here showing the 80 we want to recognise so far.

Despite some really tough reporting conditions, the masterlist currently includes EIGHTY professional reporters, lawyers, investigators and commentators who all went the extra mile in their reports.

Included are 36 professional journalists and reporters; the others mostly worked unpaid; 14 at least are lawyers; 7 have written books (one, James Raper, also posts on TJMK). At least 20 run websites. Around 60 have been quoted in our posts, some a number of times.

Excluded from this project are most of the reviewers of the 2012-2015 Sollecito and Knox books, the 2016 Netflix hoax documentary, and some recent Knox media events. This is because, though often strongly suspicious of what they heard and saw, they had not yet managed much depth. Thanks to them anyway.

Sub-table: Career reporters. Click for larger version.

3. A Tough Reporting Task In English

Despite some closed-court sessions, this wasn’t a tough case for the Italian media to report very accurately.

Various court sessions were broadcast live, the Italian law and process were well-known, Knox and Sollecito and their defenses leaked prolifically, and numerous talk-shows and interviews spread the details.

The Italian majority rejecting the final verdict do so because of the blatantly obvious breaking of Italian law.

The pro-truth foreign-reporters pool mostly working out of Rome could follow the case and the reporting in Italian. They could seek interviews and legal advice. They repeatedly for example received confirmation from the US Embassy that all was going well. An Italian MP repeatedly told them that Knox was doing just fine in Capanne.

The BBC, NBC and Sky News had camera teams on the ground and could send more teams from London and New York though that took time. Broadcasts except for the biased NBC morning shows were on a high plane

Their big difficulties were (1) in finding the time and funding to get to the Perugia court (two days travel, one day court; hotels do not come cheap) and (2) ensuring paying outlets for their intermittent bursts of reporting from 2007 to 2015 in the US or UK. And yet only two (see the forthcoming Bias posts) let that group down.

As tor the others on the main list of 80, they had to overcome not always speaking or reading Italian, not always being located in Italy or even able to visit Italy, not having any court documents, and not always on top of Italian law and court procedures.

And even if they did visit, who could they talk to? The police and prosecutors were circumspect, and the defense forces and Knox-Mellas family simply lied all the time. Most documents were neither put online (except by us) or readily available from the police or court officers. We offered the only reliable translations.

Finally, almost all of those listed here had to contend with the dangerous stalkers and character-assassins organized by Curt Knox, David Marriott and Bruce Fischer - all of whom could have been charged had this been a US case.

Sub-table: Book-writers. Click for larger version.

Sub-table: Investigators. Click for larger version.

4. Great Reporting, Reflected In Many TJMK Posts

Sixty of those 80 reporting and commenting truthfully have been quoted and credited in many hundreds of our posts (we’ll play catch-up on the other 20) as our left-column Search ap shows.

We’ll go into many of the telling points they made in the next post.

The remarkable Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau, both Italy-based, and both carried by various media outlets, were credited in numerous posts.

Nick Pisa was widely presumed anti-Knox after he was entangled in the barbaric Netflix hoax. So we linked to some 50 posts where Nick Pisa had been our main source. Not even one misrepresented Knox. 

Danielle Lenth, then a Sacramento law student, published a commendable academic study showing the case would have been handled similarly in any American court. We’ll post more on that soon.

Victoria Brownworth and Selene Nelson nailed the faux-feminist group that blamed all men (really) for Knox’s plight - while ignoring the inconvenient RS!

The actress Hayden Panettiere is on the list, because to our surprise - we thought the PR had headed this off - she studied Knox, and in the Lifetime movie really brought out her petulant, narcissistic, uncaring side. 

And of course John Kercher is on the list, as he wrote a brilliant, heartbreaking book, about the very talented daughter he lost.

Sub-table: Career lawyers. Click for larger version.

Monday, August 26, 2019

Re The Seriously Bizarre Lovefest Between Knox And Theo Von

Posted by Our Main Posters

Theo Von enabled dangerous Italy-trasher Amanda Knox


Enough of the mis-education acts please. 

Instead, actually educate. Demand the truth. Here’s a tip to future Knox interviewers, those who are not mere PR shills and wish to avoid looking lifelong fools:

DO YOUR HOMEWORK PLEASE?!!

A very good place to start would be here.  See the previous mentions of the interview on TJMK here and here.

By the way, did Theo Von pay Knox a fee to pull the wool over his many fans’ eyes? Does anyone know?

Thursday, August 08, 2019

How Amanda Knox Lied About “The Media” Which Had Long Lied Profusely For Her

Posted by Peter Quennell

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.

1. How Knox Demonizes “The Media”

Here we go again, with three pro-Knox lackeys of the US and UK media.

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox blasts media coverage of trial

Click for Post:  Knox accuses media of depicting her falsely as ‘man-eating murderer’

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox accuses media of portraying her as guilty over 2007 death.

Amazingly, they are quite incuriously reporting a Knox rant against themselves this time (actually a standard inclusion in all her paid talks). Not even that provoked any actual checking of her “facts”.

Not so reported (or ever even much questioned) is that Knox and her shadow writers took shots in her 2013-15 book at “the media” approximately every ten pages.

Media frenzy… dishonest and unprofessional… horrible things… awful things… misread my rape story… prosecution leaked… sex charged… evil media… Meredith a saint and myself a monster… whore… liar… convicted in media… incomprehensible… prosecution leaked… too simple [on blood evidence]... misread my Beatles t-shirt… purposely did not report this… prosecution leaked… just let false claims hang out… no attention to Raffaele.

All imaginary, and as good reporters who were in court will tell you, it was the defenses, not the prosecutions, that prolifically leaked. This strident I’m-the-real-victim rant is part of the scams that are paying Knox’s bills, and up to now plenty of suckers still bite. 

2. The Specific Context Addressed Here

We’ll concentrate here on exposing the biased print media and online news sources, and in the next post on exposing individual reporters and commentators who blatantly pushed a pro-Knox, anti-Italy bias.

Print media may represent half of all the case sources for Brits and Americans, the other sources being TV and YouTube, books, blogs and forums - typically more tilted Knox-wise, though there were some excellent neutral books (James Raper) and TV reports (BBC and NBC Dateline).

Knox herself never names any of the print media that she claims were relentlessly against her, and in fact there were none. No mention of her massive and brutal PR. No proof that “the media” twisted even one judge’s or jury member’s minds. The big turn against her was this, and Knox caused it, all by herself:

Click for Post:  Knox Testimony Does Not Seem To Have Gained Much Traction Here In Italy

Click for Post:  Italy Shrugs: Why Amanda Knox’s Testimony Seems To Have Been A Real Flop

As our lists in Part 4 below show, print media and online news sources tilted thus: roughly 1/3 always pro-Knox, another 1/3 often pro-Knox, and another 1/3 neutral, professional, and objective.

Our Wiki remains vastly better than any media for original official documents, and the only source for accurate translations, many of them professional. They overwhelmingly reflect a careful, cut-and-dried case for the guilt of all three, with Knox as the instigator with strong motives. The Wiki’s readership has been growing consistently. 

3. Pro-Guilt Bias In The Italian Reporting?

Actually there was zero bias that we could see. This did not remotely resemble all too many US trials where suspects really can be demonized nation-wide with impunity.

Italian media in contrast were cool, dispassionate, and even-handed. They have strong anti-libel laws to worry about. Mostly they reported court events which Italians could see played out live on their TVs in any case.

We took note of that in for example these posts.

Click for Post:  Trial: Italian-Language Reporting Now Faster And More Objective Than English-Language

Click for Post:  Italian Media Reporting Impartially On Prosecution Appeal Filed For Increased Sentences

Click for Post:  Tenth Appeal Court Session: Italian Reporting So Far Good, First English-Language Reports Misleading

There was little or no difference between the Knox reporting and the Sollecito reporting - how does Knox explain THAT one? Both wanted the media to notice them. Both they and their families worked hard at that and it became pretty competitive. You can see that brought out strongly in this couple of posts.

Click for Post:  Seeds Of Betrayal: Multiple Examples Of How RS And AK Have Stabbed Each Other In The Back

Click for Post:  How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire

Only two Italian outlets tried a strong pro-Knox pro-RS anti-justice bias. They were the weekly pro-mafia Oggi, and a TV station in the Sollecito hometown of Bari.  Both have unsavory anti-justice links, and both were charged with diffamazione.

4. Pro-Guilt Bias In The US & UK Reporting?

With one big qualifier, this is how we see the US and UK print media positioned themselves for much or most of the time from 2007 to the end of 2015 (after which we had the pro-Knox Netflix, VICE Media, Innocence Project, and other propagandists).

The qualifier is that the Associated Press is not merely another outlet on a par with the others; it is a New-York-based news co-operative which channels reports from Italy to its 2000 or so owner/clients. So a single biased AP report (and there were many) could reach Americans up in the many millions.

So, quite contrary to the Knox claims, the pro-Knox-bias across US print media outlets was really enormous. Part 7 below highlights the bias of a dozen major outlets.

5. Did Italy React To The US/UK Media Bias?

Well, the Knox-Marriott PR campaign (which was aimed specifically at poisoning US and UK politics) went to great lengths to ensure that the biased pro-Knox reporting and commentary (and her book) remained only in English and under the Italian radar.

But yes, quite a few Italians did realize and take notice, usually with understandable anger. We posted on many of the negative reactions on these lines. 

Click for Post:  “Million Dollar Campaign” To Try To Influence The Jury Is Being Widely Reported To A Startled Italy

Click for Post:  Amazingly, Wrong Facts And Defamations Of Italian Officialdom Show NO Sign Of Being Reigned In

Click for Post:  Demonizations By Knox: OGGI Charged For Article Conveying False Claims To Italy #1

Click for Post:  Epidemic Of Anti-Italy Fake News She Generates Bites Knox In The Tail

Click for Post:  Prominent Political Commentator Takes Strong Exception To American Reporting

Click for Post:  Most Important Italian Paper Balks At The Attempts In US At Intimidation

6. Our Generic Exposures Of Biased Media

This is bait-and-switch on an extreme scale. Both the Knox PR campaign and Knox herself, and thus the beholden part of the US and UK media, focus fiercely on a very few points, such as the DNA and the “interrogation hoax”, and then misrepresent them.

They purposely omit maybe 95% of the damning hard facts, such as (1) the 2007-08 appeal failures, (2) the huge body of evidence at trial, (3) the prosecution’s major success resulting in a unanimous verdict, (4) the defense’s very obvious failures such as Knox’s disastrous stint on the witness stand, (5) the demolished interrogation hoax and (6) the 34 other hoaxes.

Also (7) the bending and then annulling of the Hellman appeal court, (8) Knox being found guilty of criminal defamation by ALL courts, (9) even a bent Supreme Court chamber confirming strong proof of Knox at the murder scene, and (10) Knox not being exonerated - though she claimed in 2019 on a panel in Modena that she was.

These are some of our takes on overall US and UK media performance “complete with omissions” starting from when the strong bias was first becoming blatant.

Click for Post:  How The Media Should Approach The Case If Justice Is To Be Done And SEEN To Be Done

Click for Post:  How The Strongarm Public Relations Resulted in Most Of The Media Getting It Wrong

Click for Post:  Why UK Media Deniers Like The Independent’s Amy Jenkins Come Across As Bigoted And Nasty

Click for Post:  Why The Media Are Wrong To Rely On Amanda Knox’s Family For Impartial and Accurate Information

Click for Post:  The Toxic Pro-Knox PR Campaign And Media Circus That John Kercher So Rightly Complained About

Click for Post:  Why Much Of US Main Media Is Disbelieved And Ignored Now

Click for Post:  Now France Is Ticked At The American Main Media For Mindless Assumptions About Another Case

Click for Post:  Million Dollar Campaign And American Media Come Under Intense Ridicule By An Influential Italian

Click for Post:  US And UK Media: Make RS & AK Answer The HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS Of Open Questions

Click for Post:  Tip For The Media: Getting Up To Speed With The Hard Facts Of This Complex Case

Click for Post:  The Defenses’ Dishonest, Distinctly Ill-Conceived War Of Aggression Against Perugia

Click for Post:  Admired Feminist On Knox As Ice-Cold And Media’s Hit & Miss Performance On The Case

Click for Post:  Why Did The Mainstream Media Enable A Takeover By The Conspiracy Nuts?

Click for Post:  Knox’s War Of Aggression Against Italy: Questions For Media To Nail Her Once And For All

7. Our Pinpointed Exposures Of Biased Outlets

These are our posts on a dozen of the main US and UK media outlets. Some carried very good reports; but all twelve carried bad reports which the posts took to task. 

1. Associated Press

Reporting by Trisha Thomas was excellent back in 2009 but all the other AP reporters and especially Colleen Barry were wildly pro-Knox. The damage Colleen Barry caused with her huge platform as described in Part 4 above was enormous. 

Click for Post:  Slanted Associated Press Paroting Of Knox PR Campaign Release Achieves Over 800 Google Hits

Click for Post:  Perhaps Associated Press Should Try Reporting The Odds?!

Click for Post:  Inaccurate Report By The Associated Press Carried By Over 2,000 Media Sites

Click for Post:  Dear CEO Gary Pruitt: Could The Associated Press Please Report Much More Accurately?

Click for Post:  Another Highly Misleading Associated Press Report By Colleen Barry Shows Up On 700 Media Websites

2. CBS News/48 Hours

This group aired some of the worst reports and featured a very self-serving Doug Preston. The producer headed off to prison for a blackmail attempt, which is pretty telling.

Click for Post:  Why CBS Should Report Better - Way Better - On This Case

Click for Post:  Rumors In Manhattan About Ludicrously Bad CBS Report

Click for Post:  CBS Reporter’s Bizarre Claims About Prosecutor And Reporters

Click for Post:  CBS Report Sets New Record For Trashing Of Meredith, Xenophobia, Multi-Inaccuracies, Libels

Click for Post:  Producer Of CBS Reports On The Case “Crazy, Desperate, Stupid, And/Or Unscrupulous” ?

3. CNN News

Paul Callan, Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy, Andrew Cuomo, Lisa Bloom, and Hada Messia were all well-informed and impartial. But Jane Velez-Mitchell, Ann Bremner, Joey Jackson, and Drew Griffin were truly terrible.

Click for Post:  Now CNN Gets It All Wrong - What Will They Make of THIS In Italy?

Click for Post:  The Summations: Perenially Fact-Challenged CNN Reports Correctly For Once

Click for Post:  Drew Griffin Report This Sunday At 8:00 Intent On Sustaining CNN’s Extreme Bias

Click for Post:  Explaining Why CNN Is So Desperate For A Hit And Quaint Niceties Like “Truth” Be Damned

Click for Post:  Questions For Knox: 15 Questions That Drew Griffin On CNN Tonight SHOULD Have Asked

Click for Post:  Open Letter To CNN Head Ken Jautz: Reports As Terrible As Drew Griffin’s Risks All CNN’s Credibility

Click for Post:  Knox-Mellases And Candace Dempsey Display Extreme Contempt Of Court On CNN

4. Daily Express

The Express did little of its own reporting, but it ran a sleazy, abusive and dishonest “gotcha” interview by Bob Graham with Dr Mignini.

Click for Post:  Report By Bob Graham In The Daily Express Close To Breaking New Record For Inaccuracy

5. Fox News

Business reporter Lis Wiehl made some callous remarks, and after we posted she next showed up nervous. Geraldo Rivera was deeply in the tank for Knox and in many segments came across as stridently anti-Italy. 

Click for Post:  Fox News Analyst Lis Wiehl Seems to Think Meredith’s Murder Is One Terrific Great Joke

Click for Post:  Respected Journalist Carl Bernstein Criticizes “Murdochism” For Debasing News Reporting

6. The Guardian

Perugia reporter Tom Kington could be okay but…  Simon Hattenstone??? It seems David Marriott had a very strong connection to the editor there and for year the Guardian stridently bashed Italy and its justice officials.

Click for Post:  Did The State Department Offer Assurances To Knox She Never Would Be Extradited?

Click for Post:  Did The Bungling Guardian Check Sollecito Enabler Andrew Gumbel’s Myriad False Claims?

Click for Post:  Obstruction Of Justice? How The Guardian Poisons Public Opinion Against The Italian Courts

Click for Post:  The Guardian Publishes A Negative Take On Italian Justice Rather Poorly Researched

7. Huffpost

The Huffpost ran the ludicrous takes of the crackpot feminist Linda Marie Basile who seemed unaware that Sollecito even existed.

Click for Post:  Explaining Why Smart Feminists Have Rightly Been Extremely Wary Of Amanda Knox

Click for Post:  Why Smart Feminists Much Prefer To Keep Amanda Knox At Arms Length

8. The Independent

Rome-based reporter Peter Popham had an enormous chip on his shoulder about Italy. So apparently did Amy Jenkins. 

Click for Post:  Peter Popham Of The UK “Independent” Sure Has Drunk The Knox PR Kool-Aid

Click for Post:  Why UK Media Deniers Like The Independent’s Amy Jenkins Come Across As Bigoted And Nasty

9. New York Times

The New York Times was actually chastised by Italian media for some stridently anti-prosecution reporting. It never once did a good report on any aspect of the case. A reviewer burbled about Knox’s book. Unrelated takes on Italian justice though were some of the best.

Click for Post:  The New York Times FINALLY Awakes To The Case

Click for Post:  How The New York Times Caused Unneccesary And Unhelpful Anger In Italy

Click for Post:  The Second Misleading New York Times Commentary On The Case

Click for Post:  Today’s New York Times Headline: Why Much Of US Main Media Is Disbelieved And Ignored Now

Click for Post:  Italy’s Advanced, Effective, Humane Law & Order System Also Adopted By City Of New York

Click for Post:  NY Times Describes How Italy Leads The World In Rehabilitation

10. Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone twice carried seething anti-Italy commentary by Nathaniel Rich. Later its reputation crashed when it very damagingly reported a fake rape claim as genuine.

Click for Post:  A Deeply Ugly, Inaccurate And Callous Piece Of Junk By Nathaniel Rich In “Rolling Stone”

11. Seattle PI

The extensive reporting by Andrea Vogt was the very best. We quoted from it dozens of times. But it also carried inflammatory prejudice in an unpaid blog by the dumb-as-a-rock amateur Candace Dempsey. 

Click for Post:  Hearst’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Is The Editor Banning Truthseekers From Website?

Click for Post:  Hearst’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Now On The Defensive?

Click for Post:  Looks Like Seattle Post Intelligencer Could Be On The Rocks

Click for Post:  Is Seattle Case Coverage STILL In Cloud-Cuckooland?

12. Time Weekly

“Reporter” Nine Burleigh’s posts from Italy (she spoke no Italian and had zero expertise) became pure poison against Italy, the prosecution, and the Catholic church, as she fell for Knox and sought to wedge Edda Mellas away.

Click for Post:  Knox Groupie Nina Burleigh Posting The Nastiest And Least Accurate Reports

Click for Post:  Nina Burleigh: View From A Broad Who Doesn’t Seem To Like Broads Or Being Abroad

Click for Post:  Media Starting To Take A Closer Look At The Knox PR Shills With Nina Burleigh Exhibit One

Click for Post:  What’s Nina Burleigh Got Against Women? A Bizarre Time Report Suggests Deep Problems In Her Psyche

Click for Post:  How With Myriad False Claims Nina Burleigh Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots

8. Finally In This Series On Knox’s Lie-A-Thon

A couple more posts should do it, as two of Knox’s scams - the Modena scam and wedding scam - are in the news and driving our audience.

The posts will cover how Knox was dishonest to her audience about some of the best reporters, she smeared the prosecution and police repeatedly, and she blamed Meredith’s death solely on Rudy Guede.

Nothing suggests such a lone-wolf attack was feasible - even the defense lawyers turned to other theories.

Friday, July 26, 2019

Knox’s Fake Wedding Exposed, Yet Another Fraudulent Scam For Yet More Bloodmoney

Posted by KrissyG

Long Post. Click here to go straight to Comments

1. Previous Nine Knox Scams

As far as we can tell, these scams have represented the unemployable Knox’s sole income streams. 

1. 2008 onward, incessant fundraising by Knox-Mellas family in Seattle, on provably false grounds.

2. 2008 onward, fraud of various US media entities for exclusive access, on provably false grounds.

3. 2009-11-13-15 $100,000 award to Patrick still not paid despite guilt finding by all courts

4. 2012 HarperCollins publishers paid Knox up to $4 million for her remarkably dishonest book.

5. 2012 Robert Barnett paid est $400,000 for marketing Knox’s book understanding Knox told the truth.

6. 2013 onward fees and costs paid by US Innocence Project for annual talks on provably false grounds.

7. 2013 onward: hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, who trustingly bought Knox’s dishonest book.

8. 2013-2019: All groups on this list and some others which paid $10,000 per provably false talk.

9. 2019 Italian Innocence Project pays fee & travel for dishonest and defamatory talk by Knox.

2. Scam Ten: The Million Dollar Fake Wedding

Gram Parsons and Emmylou Harris once famously sang:

‘Was a thousand dollar wedding
Supposed to be held, the other day’

Thousand Dollar Wedding on the gorgeous Grievous Angel album.

Resonant of a typical news headline over recent days, focussed on Knox’ wedding party crowdfunding page, in which she asks the public to donate sums between $10 up to $10,000, themed around space-age food, entertainment, child care, wedding dress and music. For example German newspaper Gala subheader screams:

Amanda Knox wants to get married, but the “angel with the ice-eyes” is missing the necessary cash for it. That’s why she and her fiancé are asking for donations.

Several newspapers quote Knox’ crowdfunding site as explaining that she and her partner, Chris Robinson recently attended the Modena Innocence Project Conference in Italy, and they claim to have used up their wedding funds on that.  Gala writes:

The couple explains that their savings have been used up when traveling to Italy. There Amanda Knox was the guest of the “festivalgiustiziapenale” in Modena, with which the city’s judicial authorities and the “Italy Innocence Project” of the University of Rome want to help innocent convicts. Despite lack of money, they do not want to wait with their wedding.

After criticism for demanding money for their own wedding party, Modena Innocence Project were forced to issue a statement that it paid Knox’ travel, accommodation and other expenses in full as its guest.

Whilst the Innocence Projects have to suspend credulity when persons convicted of serious crimes claim innocence, and take their word largely on trust but maybe backed up with DNA evidence if possible, it must surely cut to the quick to discover that they themselves have been hoaxed by their own ‘innocence guest’.

And it wasn’t Knox herself who came clean.  Barbie Nadeau writing in the Daily Beast  states it was solely her initiative to contact the Modena Innocence Project for their comment.

...with scant time to plan, and no financial backing, we had to spend our wedding funds on this challenging and important journey.” [Knox] The Italy Innocence Project has since confirmed to The Daily Beast and others that they did pay Knox’s airfare and lodging for the conference, as they did for all the guest speakers.

So Knox initially made zero effort to correct the record. Knox has hastily removed the Modena lie from the website. But Knox’s scam actually consists of FOUR new hoaxes.

Hoax #1

Knox had to use their wedding money to go to Modena, Italy.

Knox’s victim, Modena Innocence Project, has now issued a statement denying they made their own guest pay their own way.

Not to mention ‘supporters’ who felt sorry for her and may have forked out to get the trio there.

Hoax #2

There is no wedding pending. AMANDA KNOX AND CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON ARE ALREADY MARRIED.





Online public records from King County, Washington USA shows Knox and Robinson made an application for marriage 21 November 2018, married 1st December 2018 and the marriage certificate issued 7th December 2018.

This is a public legal document.  So why did Knox lie that the wedding would not be ‘until 29 February in leap year 2020’ and even cheekily gave a number countdown of the days?

This makes the appeal for wedding donations and a failure to mention they were already married worse. 

But wait!  It gets even worser…

Hoax #3

Knox claims on the crowdfund page to have been left broke by her trip to Italy, kindly paid for by the Modena Innocence Project.

But how hard up are they really? 

In March this year, Knox and ‘Party Rock’ moved into a $700K property on Vashon Island in Wa. USA.





Nice, huh?  According to public tax records it has been bought under a trust of deed together with Christopher Robinson’s co-author, Gavin Kovite and his wife, Molly.  Interestingly, in the Warranty Deed Robinson and Knox are described as ‘a married couple’.





The records show the details of the Deed of Trust between the two couples:





A Deed of Trust is commonly brought out when persons share a property or one party pays a different share than the others.  It means in the event of a sale or bankruptcy, the other parties’ fiscal share is protected.

However, some have less than honest intention and it is a popular way for persons who want to hide their assets from creditors to ‘ring fence’ their property in a deed of trust.

And of course, the Kovites are protecting themselves.

Knox might believe having a deed of trust instead of a straight mortgage will protect her from Patrick Lumumba issuing her with a bankruptcy petition for failing to pay his damages, as ordered by a court of law.

However, if a trust is taken out with this purpose in mind, courts are able to declare the deed of trust a sham.





This is a list of what’s on the public records.  Normally this would be of no interest to anybody.  However, it is surely in the public interest if a person is claiming to be in need of financial help when, in fact, public records appear to indicate otherwise.

Hoax #4

Amanda Knox lists in one of her webpages all of the places the couple have extensively traveled to:  France, Sweden, Germany, Italy, etcetera, etcetera.

Karen Matthews famously spent a few years in jail for claiming her young daughter Shannon had been kidnapped in order to claim a £50K reward for her return.

How different is Knox’ begging for financial support based on misleading claims of being out of pocket, yet buys a share in a $718K house? Yet fails to mention she married eight months ago and the ‘countdown’ to the big wedding on 29 Feb 2020?

In Conclusion

This is without question just another of Knox’s money-making scams. Most people would expect to have their collar seized by the fraud squad.

In The Stranger Knox as usual doesn’t take responsibility for her own actions in misleading readers. She tells the Seattle newspaper:

Since this story started making the rounds, both Knox and Robinson say they’ve received a flood of hatemail, including from people telling Knox she deserves to die.

According to Knox, anyone who disagrees with her behaviour is a ‘hater’ or a dupe of the ‘outrage machine’. Really.

Of course, the very dangerous Knox has stirred massive hate toward Italy and Italians, and there have been a number of incidents in Perugia.

Saturday, July 20, 2019

Wedding Of The Ghouls

Posted by Hopeful

The gruesome news in the online Daily Mail for July 22 2019:

Amanda Knox and her fiance launch crowd-funding appeal to make their wedding the “best party ever”—and promise donors a book of love poems in return

Knox, 32 and Christopher Robinson, 37 have asked for donations towards their wedding. AK said she had to use her wedding funds to pay for the trip to Modena in June.

Donations may cover food, decor and puzzles. The wedding will be space themed.

Galactic donors ($1,000) and temporal patrons ($2,000-$10,000) will receive a special video from the future, with reading of an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Galactica.

Other donors $25 and up will receive a copy of love poems entitled, “The Cardio Tesseract”.

Stellar patrons who donate $500 will get a shout out on the dance floor “when Madonna’s ‘Lucky Star’ comes on.”

Knox said, “I am getting married! How? Oh so weirdly! Time travel and so forth. Check out our wedding story at knoxrobinson.com/coalescence.

The Daily Mail story includes a photo of Knox in light pink dress leaning sadly on her mother’s shoulder as Edda puts an arm around her daughter in the seating at the Criminal Justice Festival of University of Modena.

Seems Edda was there, along with Chris, to support the fragile Knox who seemed to have a very very hard time coping with a return to Italy now that she has wised up.

At the Modena Justice event, Knox said she still fears further criminal charges against her despite the 2015 acquittal.

I’m afraid today, now, I’m afraid of being harassed, mocked, stuck and I’m afraid that new accusations will be addressed to me just because I come here (Modena) to say my version of the facts. But above all, I fear I will lack the courage.

I know that despite my acquittal by Court of Cassation I remain a controversial figure…above all and especially here in Italy.

Knox’s fiance Chris Robinson was in evidence at the Modena conference wearing a loud patterned shirt of yellow and black, and in one photo with his beloved Knox, wearing a grey felt hat, large sunglasses, and displaying a tattoo of a sword along what appears to be his left forearm, from elbow to wrist, an arm he has wrapped warmly around his fiancee Amanda.

On her June 13, 2019 arrival in Milan, Knox was swarmed by media, held her head down and wore an off-white jacket and hair in topknot bun.

Story in Mail says “Earlier this year a European court awarded Knox $20,000 in damages after finding that Italy had “violated her human rights.”

Photos of her at the justice conference where she represented the Innocence Project, show Knox dismal and unnerved, in my opinion.

Whether the tormented waif appearance was all a cunning act, or real, one can only guess, with the known liar and consummate actress and mask wearer.

It seems there will also be “costumes” at the wedding—no doubt a wild Mardi Gras affair. Let’s hope the confetti is not rocks or broken glass.

Frankly, Knox is looking unhinged these days and under the sway of the strange Mr. Robinson who appears quite kooky to say the least. imho….

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Knox’s Modena Catastrophe: Explaining Some Major Threats That Knox’s Foolish Rant Has Fired Up

Posted by KrissyG

Sarcastic graphic; Italian media is now negative toward Knox

Long Post. Click here to go straight to Comments

1. How Knox “Onshored” The PR’s Greatest Lies

David Marriott must be rolling over in his grave.

Remember what we said about his barbaric “public relations” in Post #1 below?

This case is riddled with dogs-that-didnt-bark examples. It was the core modus operandi of the scorched-earth public relations campaign run by Curt Knox and David Marriott. Ignore the damning 95 percent of the facts that can’t easily be explained away. Instead concentrate on misrepresenting the other 5 percent.

Given what we explained about live TV and documents in the first part, this would not have worked at all in Italy.

But it was never meant to. It was not beamed at Italy - it was beamed at British and Americans who (1) could not observe Knox for days and days on TV and (2) could not read court documents readily available online in Italian. Then hopefully they would react politically, as in the US they did of course.

So to Marriott it was vital to success that the PR’s myriad lies and defamations beamed at Americans and Brits REMAIN OFFSHORE!

The last thing Knox or anyone was meant to do was go half way round the world to Italy and ONSHORE the attacks.

But this is what Knox just did.

And she attacked two of Italy’s most liked and trusted institutions: (1) the world-class law-enforcement and justice system, and (2) the mostly restrained, quite elegant media.

Why Knox did this is not (or not only) the me-me-me obsession of a pathological narcissist at work. We’ll explain why in Post #3.

Here we explain which major risks for herself Knox may have set in motion, which to any smart mind would say at minimum “Imperious trips to Italy are at an end.”

2. Ten Of The Many Threats Knox May Have Fired Up

1. Guede Could Rebut Her All Over Italian Media

Guede is due to be released any day now. He will be free to give interviews, write his memoirs, point the finger at Sollecito or (more likely now) Knox. Knox obviously will not be in Italy and unable to respond.

In his televised interview with RAI in April 2017 and described by the DAILY BEAST as presenting himself as ‘extremely cultured if not intellectual’ he:

“[Guede] maintained his innocence, pointed the finger at Seattle native Amanda Knox, and refused to name her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.”

This could be read as either he didn’t know or recognise Sollecito well enough to name him; or that as a captive prisoner he was afraid of retribution by Sollecito’s unsavory clan.

In his description of the ‘man in the doorway’ of Meredith’s room as of the time of his arrest he claims the hall light had been switched off and the intruder’s face was backlit (in other words in the dark), but that he had light brown hair, was shorter than him and spoke native fluent Italian.

In addition, he wore a Napapirri type jacket, a white beanie, with a red band, and held a stiletto blade in his left hand.

This would certainly count out an Albanian as suggested by Sollecito’s star witness Alessi whom nobody took seriously, anyway.

However, Knox does give Alessi great credence, at p 418, Waiting to be Heard speculating that she wondered who Guede’s friend was in Alessi’s version of events, which involved a graphic threesome.

In WTBH p 220 Knox claims when she saw Guede’s photo on tv for the first time after he was arrested she thought, ‘Oh my God, it’s him.’  She goes on to claim this was the guy she was referring to when she told police of a South African ’who played basketball with the guys downstairs’.

She claims she had only seen him one time after that, at Le Chic when she had ‘taken his drink order’.  She omits to mention joining him for a joint with the guys in the downstairs house.

Guede himself claims he referred to himself as South African when chatting to Meredith during the England vs South Africa rugby cup final.

So, how did Knox ‘know’ he was ‘South African’ if she had never spoken to him, bearing in mind South Africans in Europe aren’t generally assumed to be black?

Guede, in his Prison Diary, claimed there had been a spark between him and Knox when they were smoking a joint (there are solid witnesses to the fact this gathering did take place).

Given Knox’s multiple falsely claims in her book WTBH, which she would have had a chance to review and edit, that she only met Guede ‘vaguely’ twice and we know that to be factually untrue. We have to suspect that actually she did know him as an acquaintance at least.

With Sollecito and Knox both ganging up on Guede, not to mention the widespread PR naming him as the ‘local burglar’ who left his DNA ‘all over the murder scene’, we can expect Guede to be keen to set the story straight from his POV once he is released.

2. Police Forensic Scientists Knox PR Abused

They know objective scientific tests do not lie: they know what the luminol, shoeprints and DNA means.

According to Nick Richardson of the London Review Of Books (LROB) in an excellent review of WTBH which I shall quote a lot (there are also numerous posts on TJMK which correspond):

“The Esperti Ricerca Tracce – the state police’s crime scene investigation unit – found bloody shoe prints and a handprint on a pillow that had been placed under Kercher’s hips.

On the sheet on her bed they found the outline of a knife.

One of the ERT’s scientists, Patrizia Stefanoni, examined Kercher’s vagina and found a long blonde hair.

They swabbed the bathroom, sprayed the apartment with luminol, a chemical used to reveal traces of blood that has been wiped away, and found footprints the size of Knox’s and Sollecito’s feet in the corridor outside Kercher’s room.

Also a drop of blood in Romanelli’s room that was later shown, as was the blood on the tap, to contain both Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA.”

The invisible bloody footprint directly facing Meredith’s door has been identified by forensic experts as Sollecito’s.

Add to the mixes of Knox’s and Meredith’s blood and/or DNA in the bathroom sink, bidet, cotton bud box and light switch, it is hardly accurate to say ‘there is no sign of Knox (or Sollecito) at the crime scene’, especially if one considers that the footprint/shoeprint expert further positively identified a ladies size 37 trainer shoe print underneath the body.

There was also shards of glass trailed in from Filomena’s room, where there is no sign of Guede at all, bearing in mind he is supposed to be the burglar who entered that way.

A quote from LROB:

The investigators never believed that Guede was Kercher’s sole killer. The state autopsy results suggested that there had been more than one assailant.

She had dozens of cuts and bruises: finger bruises round her neck, a bruise on her chin and over her mouth, identical bruises on her inner elbows compatible with her being held back.

It would have been extremely difficult to pin her down and inflict so much damage without being wounded too, especially as Kercher practised karate – but Guede only had the cuts on his hand.

Plus there were the bloody footprints shown up by the luminol and the mixed-DNA bloodstains in Romanelli’s room and the bathroom.

At Guede’s trial Judge Micheli declared that he believed Guede had acted with Knox and Sollecito.

His confidence was shored up by two pieces of DNA evidence that the prosecution would rely on heavily in court.

In November 2007 investigators found a knife at Sollecito’s apartment with Knox’s DNA on the handle and Kercher’s on the blade.’

3. Police Telecomms Experts The PR Abused

technical forensic experts: they know the truth about Sollecito’s claim he didn’t turn off his phone, he just didn’t have a signal.

Sollecito’s phone providers gave the forensic communications technicians clear evidence there had not been anything wrong with the phone signals hat night, nor were the walls ‘too thick’ and nor was Raff’s apartment in a blind area for signals.

Residents in the neighbouring apartments and buildings experienced no problems with their phone signals.

Yet Sollecito denies he switched off his phone just before 21:00.

So the communications guys know for definite Knox and Sollecito both switched off their phones within minutes of each other, between 20:45 and 21:00.

After 21:20 there is no further recorded electronic activity in the flat for the rest of the night.

4. Police Telecomms Experts The PR Abused (2)

They know the truth about the trashed laptops.

Sollecito and Knox’ lawyers claim his was fried by the police via the wrong current plugged in.

Notwithstanding power portals are designed to only allow fit of the right size cable, this argument doesn’t work because it was only the cottage laptops that ‘fried’, and not Patrick Lumumba’s, which was tested at the same time.

CDV: Are you aware of the possibility of an electric shock?

MG: We are aware of the possibility of an electric shock [power surge], I can not exclude it with certainty, but at the same time the fact that it has worked in other hard disks always with the same instrument, always in that same place connected to the same electric network, is however an indicator that it cannot be that in one moment it worked and in another, not.’

‘CDV: However, are you aware that there is a different voltage between a portable PC and a desktop?
MG: Yes.’

In other words, the laptops were fried before the police sequestered them.

Filomena Romanelli rescued her laptop at the scene.  When she attended the Questura the next day to hand it in, it would not start.

Sure proof together with the dead laptops of Knox, Kercher and Sollecito that it was not the police who ‘fried’ them.

Sollecito claims in Honor Bound that his laptop was damaged by the police pulling the socket out of the wall before logging out.

Non-IT folk might be dumb, but not so dumb to believe it is a coincidence that all four laptops were kaput, whereas Patrick’s was not, and which was never anywhere near IT-boffin Sollecito, and all tested by the police at the same time.

5. Investigators Can Prove Knox Was Not Abused

The police know the truth about Knox’ claims of having been unethically treated. Knox claims in WTBH according to the LROB:

“ They gave her a confession to sign.  It said that she’d met up with Lumumba after leaving Sollecito’s flat at 8.30 p.m. and that they’d gone to the villa together; that Patrick had had sex with Meredith; and that she remembered ‘confusedly’ – confusedly because she’d earlier smoked a joint with Sollecito – that he killed her.

Once she’d signed it, Knox says, the police officers ‘whooped and high-fived each other’.

The public prosecutor later bullied her into making a second ‘spontaneous declaration’ in which she added that she had been in the kitchen when the murder took place, and that ‘at one point I heard Meredith screaming and I was scared and covered my ears.’

A classic case of ‘shoot the messenger’. It was Mignini what done it, according to Knox (see Point 10 below) as he made her blurt this out by some kind of special psychic power.

We proved this was not so.

6. Prison Officers Abused By PR Know Prison Truths

They know the truth about Knox’ claims of being suicidal in prison: by all accounts she fit in well and was as happy as a lark, performing, writing stories and scripting videos.

In her application to the ECHR, Knox claims she was tricked into revealing her list of sexual partners, which she listed in her Prison Diary and which was then leaked to the press.

We proved this was not so. Also the ECHR recently did not find Knox had been mistreated by the prison doctors or staff, nor was she abused by the police as she claims.

Fact is, Knox won a prize for essay writing (about a man at a party who finds his half-naked girlfriend lying on the floor at a party with stab wounds [‘piercings’]) and scripting a video featuring a young girl strapped to a chair being tortured by three people including Knox as the star character and the three seen running down a stairwell fleeing.

The Knox character is pictured in prison writing at a table and in the next she is seen raving at a prison party waving her arms in the air.

The message does not escape anybody. There are photos of her just like that.

7. What The Judges The PR Abused Saw

Some thirty-five to forty judges - both presiding or as in a jurors’ panel - all could not help but conclude the pair were guilty as charged (Marasca-Bruno never had the pair before them)

Whilst the criminal courts were dealing in criminal law:

“Meanwhile, Knox’s mother was appearing regularly on American TV shows, proclaiming her daughter’s innocence over home video footage of Knox as a child.

A Seattle-based group called Friends of Amanda was formed by Anne Bremner, a criminal lawyer who set herself up as a spokesperson for the Knox family.

The Knoxes also hired a PR guru called David Marriott to prepare press releases for the American media.

An American author called Douglas Preston, who had written a book about the serial killer known as the Monster of Florence – a case that had also been investigated by Justice Mignini, the chief prosecutor in Knox and Sollecito’s trial – discovered that Mignini had once wire-tapped a journalist.

This served to back up the Knox camp’s claim that improper interrogation techniques had been used (even though Mignini had hardly been present at the interrogation).

It also came out that when Mignini was investigating the Monster of Florence case he had called in a ‘witch’ to advise him on satanism.”

LROB

In other words, there was a concerted US campaign to outwit the courts, battling a ‘persuasion techniques’ advertising campaign, their motto being,  ‘attack is the best form of defence’, trying to dig up the dirt on the Italian Roman Catholic prosecutor with his ‘medieval religious beliefs’ whilst exaggerating Knox as Miss American Pie.

On their side was journalist and failing crime novelist Douglas Preston, with a score to settle against Italy and Mignini, having been forced to get out of the country or face prosecution for trying to pervert the course of justice in the MOF case.

‘The American novelist Nathaniel Rich wrote a long piece for Rolling Stone in June 2011 entitled: ‘The Never-Ending Nightmare of Amanda Knox’. [See our post here.]

It opened with a gory re-enactment of Kercher’s murder: ‘On the third try, the killer found a soft spot …’ The killer; one killer.’

LROB

We know that Nathaniel Rich was fed this story by Knox’s best friend of the time, Madison Paxton, on whom he had a crush.

Paxton was busy sending out PR and writing her own copy starting off the popular story ‘Knox was railroaded by the police’.

It was Nina Burleigh who started the ‘Guede was a drifter’ meme.

Whilst the PR has been very successful in the USA, the UK and Italian press focused more on the facts of the trial, with libel laws being much stricter and reporting standards high, although they nearly all describe Guede as the ‘drifter’

‘Rich followed his piece with a review of Waiting to Be Heard in the New York Review in which not only are the Italian police bungling idiots, the Italian journalists immoral dogs, the Italian legal professionals superstitious fools, but Perugia itself is portrayed as a vortex of evil and chicanery’

LROB

‘The managers of Knox’s downfall came in for savage caricature, though they were respected professionals with long careers behind them: Mignini was a senile fuddy-duddy, Napoleoni a vindictive bully; Stefanoni incompetent, though she was an internationally reputed forensics expert who had been entrusted with the identification of bodies after the 2004 tsunami.

[Senator] Cantwell stated that she had ‘serious questions about the Italian justice system’; the state for which she is senator, Washington, currently has eight people on death row.

In The Fatal Gift of Beauty, Burleigh, one of the most vocal Italy-haters, wrote that at the trial Knox’s family radiated ‘that quality that so differentiates the American from the European – enthusiasm’. ‘

LROB

The PR which Knox touts to this day makes out Knox to be the victim of a sexist salacious press determined to paint her as the drug-taking ‘slut’ and this is the story-telling Knox took to Modena.

No questions are allowed of her ever about the evidence at the trial itself.

8.  What DNA Expert Dr Francesco Vinci Saw In The DNA

Dr Vinci saw data that made him back off the case. Vinci was one of the defence forensic DNA experts.

He discovered DNA fragments of both Knox and Guede on Meredith’s bra fabric. These, however, were below the legal standard of needing at least ten alleles.

He walked off the case or was pushed, nonetheless.

What does Vinci know that made him no longer able to continue defending the pair on the DNA?

9. What Goods Sollecito Has On Knox (A Lot)

‘A short story by Knox surfaced, in which one of the male characters tells his friend: ‘A thing you have to know about chicks is that they don’t know what they want … You have to show it to them.’ This was taken by the colpevolisti as evidence that she had fantasised about rape.

In another story fragment that Knox posted on her Myspace page a couple of weeks before the murder the narrator has an obsessive crush on her female housemate.

Sollecito, the son of a wealthy Pugliese doctor, also had his character picked over.

He’d been into drugs when he was younger, and still smoked copious amounts of hash: in one post on a social networking site he bragged about spending ‘80 per cent of my waking hours high’.

He was a porn addict, and owned a collection of swords and knives. He liked vampire comics. He had written on his blog that he craved ‘new sensations’.

Perhaps the most damaging thing to turn up was a picture he once posted of himself wearing surgical bandages and posing with a meat cleaver and a jug of cleaning fluid.’

LROB

So, the American PR campaign that ensured Guede was constantly referred to as a ‘drifter’, ‘petty thief’, burglar’ and ‘drug dealer’ didn’t translate into Knox or Sollecito being similarly branded.

This was despite Knox getting a police caution and fine for riotous behavior at a party and Sollecito likewise in possession of drugs, both before the Kercher murder.

Guede was just as middle-class as either of them and had no police record at all.

The PR relies on racist stereotyping based on the US version of the ‘poor unemployable Black on welfare and in and out of prison’.

‘Sollecito told the police that she had left him in town, saying she was going to meet friends at Le Chic at 9 p.m., and he had gone home alone and surfed the internet until she came back at one.

(In Honour Bound, Sollecito’s new book, he says he was so stoned that he can’t be sure Knox didn’t leave him alone for some time that night.1) Computer experts who testified at the trial said that Sollecito’s laptop had not been used between 9.30 p.m. and 5.30 a.m. on the morning after the murder.

Knox and Sollecito said that they had slept in on the morning of 2 November, but phone records showed that they had both switched their mobiles on at six, having turned them off for the night.’

LROB

Forensic IT experts very clearly testified that there had been no computer activity on Sollecito’s laptop after 21:20, when the film Amelie finished until next day.

This was backed up by unequivocal data from Raff’s IT provider.

Sollecito in effect like Baby Jane knows ‘secrets about you’.

10. What Mignini knows but hasn’t revealed.

Dr Mignini has an enormous choice of means to clear his name and punish Knox and the mafia poodles when he takes retirement early next year.

He will really be liberated then and he does excellent speeches and TV. He will be in enormous demand for sure. He will come to the United States.

Our Italian lawyers tell us this malicious invention below in Knox’s 2013 book WTBH is diffamazione (criminal slander) for sure.

Knox was clearly trying to end Dr Mignini’s career, and see him sent to prison as well. The statute of limitations on this has years to go before it tuns out.

In other words he CAN sue in Italy and the UK and maybe even the US.

Amazingly, it is very much along the lines of the calunnia against Patrick Lumumba for which Knox served three years and it was without any provocation or pressure at all, as she was sitting in Seattle when she wrote her book.

The big problem for Knox? When this lurid claim of an illegal interrogation took place Dr Mignini was not even there.

He was asleep in bed.

[From pages 90-92 of the weirdly titled “Waiting To Be Heard”. The date is 7 November 2007. This is the 1.45 am session with Rita Ficarra which in fact was devoted merely to building a list of visitors to the house.]

Eventually they told me the pubblico ministero [prosecutor] would be coming in.

I didn’t know this translated as prosecutor, or that this was the magistrate that Rita Ficarra had been referring to a few days earlier when she said they’d have to wait to see what he said, to see if I could go to Germany.

I thought the “public minister” was the mayor or someone in a similarly high “public” position in the town and that somehow he would help me.

[One of numerous lies in the book. Knox had been with Dr Mignini three times already: on the morning after Meredith was killed and when he twice took her back to her house.]

They said, “You need to talk to the pubblico ministero about what you remember.”

I told them, “I don’t feel like this is remembering. I’m really confused right now.” I even told them, “I don’t remember this. I can imagine this happening, and I’m not sure if it’s a memory or if I’m making this up, but this is what’s coming to mind and I don’t know. I just don’t know.”

They said, “Your memories will come back. It’s the truth. Just wait and your memories will come back.”

The pubblico ministero [Dr Mignini] came in.

Before he started questioning me, I said, “Look, I’m really confused, and I don’t know what I’m remembering, and it doesn’t seem right.”

One of the other police officers said, “We’ll work through it.”

Despite the emotional sieve I’d just been squeezed through, it occurred to me that I was a witness and this was official testimony, that maybe I should have a lawyer. “Do I need a lawyer?” I asked.

He said, “No, no, that will only make it worse. It will make it seem like you don’t want to help us.”

It was a much more solemn, official affair than my earlier questioning had been, though the pubblico ministero was asking me the same questions as before: “What happened? What did you see?”

I said, “I didn’t see anything.”

“What do you mean you didn’t see anything? When did you meet him?”

“I don’t know,” I said.

“Where did you meet him?”

“I think by the basketball court.” I had imagined the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, just across the street from the University for Foreigners.

“I have an image of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana near my house.”

“What was he wearing?”

“I don’t know.”

“Was he wearing a jacket?”

“I think so.”

“What color was it?”

“I think it was brown.”

“What did he do?”

“I don’t know.”

“What do you mean you don’t know?”

“I’m confused!”

“Are you scared of him?”

“I guess.”

I felt as if I were almost in a trance. The pubblico ministero led me through the scenario, and I meekly agreed to his suggestions.

“This is what happened, right? You met him?”

“I guess so.”

“Where did you meet?”

“I don’t know. I guess at the basketball court.”

“You went to the house?”

“I guess so.”

“Was Meredith in the house?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Did Patrick go in there?”

“I don’t know, I guess so.”

“Where were you?”

“I don’t know. I guess in the kitchen.”

“Did you hear Meredith screaming?”

“I don’t know.”

“How could you not hear Meredith screaming?”

“I don’t know. Maybe I covered my ears. I don’t know, I don’t know if I’m just imagining this. I’m trying to remember, and you’re telling me I need to remember, but I don’t know. This doesn’t feel right.”

He said, “No, remember. Remember what happened.”

“I don’t know.”

At that moment, with the pubblico ministero raining questions down on me, I covered my ears so I could drown him out.

He said, “Did you hear her scream?”

I said, “I think so.”

My account was written up in Italian and he said, “This is what we wrote down. Sign it.”

Saturday, June 15, 2019

The World Isnt Short Of Suckers - Lupária, Sola & Cagossi Present “The Traveling Innocence Gang Show”

Posted by KrissyG

“Pssst! Turn it all on, we are being paid to put on a good show”

1. The Moneygrubbing Gang Arrives

See that headline above? The Modena Organizers were so short of imprisoned Italian innocents, they had to import a few

They all make big bucks out of this kind of event, each misconstruing their case. Read here how the moneygrubbing works, and how many get to gain.

At the Milan airport Thursday, press photos revealed Knox making a great show of bowing her head and looking fragile. “I feel frayed” she wrote, on social media, with boyfriend Christopher Robinson looking on from behind. Mom Edda was also there but wasnt featured in news reports.

Once again, the world got a glimpse of Amanda Knox the consummate actress who can never resist hamming it up, a manipulator of gestures and body language to convey drama.

Remember her clutching her chest, cross-armed, in a gesture of faux gratitude when news came her conviction had been annulled, for the benefit of the photographers on her doorstep? 

Or the time she pressed her hands together in front of her as a gesture of humble thanks at the conference in Seattle when she was released in 2011 by Judge Hellman (an appeal verdict which was shortly to be overturned)? 

Was there really anything humble about it, when just hours earlier as she changed at Heathrow, she was seen laughing happily and defiantly? 

Or the most famous occasion of all, when she gesticulated wildly and dramatically from the dock, as she made her final submissions to the court after her 2009 trial enunciating each word in Italian?  She was convicted, anyway.

Even earlier than that she was pictured outside the cottage on the day after the murder waving her hands about as a gaggle of reporters eagerly leant forward to discover what had happened.  She wore a pristine white skirt.

So we get it, image is all to Amanda Knox and this visit to Modena is no exception.

Newspapers reports Friday said she appeared to be visibly emotional, wiping away a tear, as old friend Peter Pringle gave his “testimony” of his time on “Death Row for 14 years” and an Italian innocence claimer.

Also Angelo Massaro, little known in the English-speaking world, described by the Italian news agency ANSA as “a Tarantino acquitted - and released from prison - after a conviction for murder”. So presumably he is not “exonerated”, either? Just released. 

(ANSA has to be restrained how it chooses its words in its home country, as a reputable good quality news agency on a par with Reuters or AP.)

So, once again, attention was on Knox, who knows how to play the press.  Good show by Amanda wiping away a dry tear.

2. The Pringle Connection Explained

As part of her “Innocence” campaign, you may recall Knox travelled early last year, February 2018, to the Republic of Ireland to appear in the Raymond D’Arcy Show.

Her connection to Ireland stemmed from her earlier connection to “innocence” campaigners Peter Pringle and Sunny Jacobs.

Surprise, surprise, the link continues now.

Peter Pringle pops up in Modena for the very same “Justice Festival”.  (Festival?  What IS it they are celebrating exactly?)

A brief history of their past:
 
(1) Knox appeared on US TV with Irish ex-murder defendant and ex-death row wife

Knox appeared on US TV with controversial ex-death row defendants, Peter Pringle, who was once jailed in Ireland for the alleged murder of two Irish police officers, after a bungled robbery by a political gang, and Sunny Jacobs, once on death row in the USA for supplying a gun to a man who then shot dead a two young policemen.

Pringle is Dublin born and spent 17 years in prison, the death penalty having been stayed by an Act of Irish parliament since 1954, for the murder of two young policemen after a botched robbery in Roscommon. He has always claimed innocence of the crime.

They were both acquitted - in Sunny’s case, without any certificate of exoneration - and now, like Knox tour the country and fundraise for “Innocence Projects” claiming ‘wrongful conviction’.

(2) Amanda Knox appeared with Sunny Jacobs and William Pringle on K5News channel in May 2017.

Knox shared a sofa with the pair expressing solidarity.  Knox said that she and Sunny were “women together” fighting injustice.

However, there is still much controversy in the Irish Republic as to Pringle’s innocence and emotions run high, as five young children lost their fathers in the murder of the police officers in 1980.

In addition, some say Jacobs was freed from death row for compassionate reasons, not because she was innocent, as she now claims.

(3) Knox’s appearance on Irish TV was controversial

William Pringle lived in the USA for many years after his release, and has in 2016 settled in Connemara in Ireland,

Because of Knox’s connection, the interview was bound to cause a lot of media interest, as it did when she sang a round of an IRA rebel song to a stunned D’Arcy, who was not impressed.

Many in the UK and the mainland of Ireland are not convinced by Knox’s claim to have been “exonerated”.

It could well be that Knox was invited to Ireland via contacts William Pringle and Sunny Jacobs.

Sunny Jacobs is now 70. Her husband, Jesse Tafero was executed at age 43. Sunny Jacobs is alleged to have supplied the gun by which he shot dead two police officers from their car, in Florida.

Both were condemned to the electric chair.

The robbery for which Pringle was jailed, which led to the killing of the police officers in Roscommon, was allegedly connected to the INLA, an Irish “liberation” terrorist group of the day.

So there has been hostility towards Pringle resettling in Ireland.

Pringle made a new bid for compensation from Ireland in January 2018.  The judge “reserved” the judgment and we have heard nothing more since. So presumably his application has failed.

Peter, Sunny and Amanda certainly seem to have the “Innocence Gang Tour” sewn up, as they make their way from country after country.  Dabbing an eye and giving their moving “testimonies” and moneygrubbing away.

Thursday, June 06, 2019

Un preavviso per i partecipanti al progetto di Innocenza Italia

Posted by Our Main Posters

Siate consapevoli che la Knox

(1) fa danni immensi infiammando il bigottismo contro l’Italia,

(2) è condannata per reato di calunnia criminale, giustamente incarcerato 3 anni,

(3) non è stata esonerata dalla Cassazione per omicidio,

(4) ha mentita su larga scala ai media , che si è rigirata per lei,

(5) può essere arrestata per oltraggio alla Cassazione poiché non sono ancora stati pagati 10000 danni a Lumumba.

Tuesday, June 04, 2019

The Italian Venue (Really) Where Knox Will Feature On A Media Panel Next Week

Posted by Peter Quennell

Really? Here? Behind those garbage skips?!

We had to laugh. This really is the main entrance to the Open Laboratory space in Modena which that northern city now makes available for happening events.

The image below shows the main interior. It looks rather prison-like, to us appropriately so.

Here is the program in Italian for the first-ever conference of the Innocence Project’s Italian arm.

Knox’s media panel is shown as being next saturday there. 

As there are no known innocents in Italian prisons, given how careful the justice process is, importing Knox was apparently the best they could do to get anyone to come.

We’ve held back posting on this up to now, as we really do want to see how Knox is received there.

But expect some posts intended to open Italian eyes to Knox in the next several days.

No word yet on whether Sollecito will be there.

Friday, May 10, 2019

Pyrrhic Victory For Knox #3: Italy Now Challenges Knox’s “No Lawyer” ECHR Award (Continued)

Posted by KrissyG

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, from 1 April the ECHR’s chief judge

Added June 2019: Another panel of ECHR judges has just reviewed Italy’s appeal but balked at send the minor matter to the Grande Council of all ECHR judges (which is actually reserved for cases with greater import: less than 10% of requests make it up there). So Italy gave in amicably. The Ministry’s lawyers could see how confused and misinformed the judges had become, still thinking Knox had incriminated herself and not Patrick. In sharp contrast, Dalla Vedova was a sore winner. He showed anger in front of the press having lost face in being denied the now-public E2.5 million demand. He again claimed Knox was interrogated for 54 hours, with no interpreter, blah blah. Ghirga, a real criminal lawyer, must be laughing.

Legal Context Of Italy’s Appeal

This report picks up where yesterday’s analysis concluded.

The Italian government has lodged an appeal against the ECHR ruling in January 2019 upholding that Amanda Knox’ right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention) had been breached, in that the translator had not been impartial, and that as a suspect (was she?) Knox should have been given a lawyer earlier than she had.

This update is translated from the Perugia newspaper UMBRIA 24

The ruling by which the European Court of Human Rights has argued that Italy has violated Amanda Knox’s right of defense during the investigation of the murder of Meredith Kercher is being contested before the Grande Chambre in Strasbourg.

The decision by which last January Italy had been advised to pay 10,400 euros for moral damages to the American student, definitively acquitted by the accusation of murdering her English roommate on November 1, 2017 in Via della Pergola in Perugia, is was challenged by the Italian government.

La Grande Chambre, which represents a sort of Cassation of the European Court, is composed of 17 judges. In the recent past, Silvio Berlusconi has also passed through the Grande Chambre, bringing to the judges’ attention a question concerning its reliability.

Last January, the Court recognized Italy’s violation of Knox’s right to defense during the November 6, 2007 interrogation, and also evidence confirming complaints about police during the same interrogation . Amanda had asked for two and a half million euros.

In yesterday’s post I summarized from my point of view the findings of the ECHR in the original deliberations and how they may be challenged.

Summary:  The main issues revolve around the question of admissibility.  I have identified two or three possible grounds of appeal on points of law.  They are:

• Italy submitted that date-wise, the application by Knox had been submitted too early as the hearings had not yet been finalized.  ECHR rejects this saying that the hearings finalized very shortly after.  As far as I can see, this is not so.

• The ECHR relies on comments by Hellmann Appeal Court, which was largely superseded and outranked by Chieffi Supreme Court, to argue factors of free will.

• The ECHR relies heavily on police minutes and the fact interpreter Donnino and a police office, RI, fail to record details of their expressions of familiarity with Knox, or make a note that (i) Knox was asked if she wanted a lawyer and declined, (ii) that start and end times are not recorded, and that (iii) hours are condensed into minutes. Is it an error of law to assume these police minutes represented a failure of procedure?

That’s not to say that these are the grounds Italy have set out. We don’t know those yet.

The rules for such an appeal are set out under Article 43 which states the following:

ARTICLE 43

Referral to the Grand Chamber

1. Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.

2. A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber shall accept the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or a serious issue of general importance.

3. If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber shall decide the case by means of a judgment.

From another newspaper citing the ECHR in Strasburg:

STRASBOURG (France) - The Government has challenged in front of the Grand Chamber the decision with which the European Court in Strasbourg claimed that Italy violated Amanda Knox’s right to defense in the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher, carried out at Perugia the evening of 1 November 2007, for which she has already been definitively acquitted by the Italian justice. The action - as learned by ANSA - was notified to the American’s lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga.

The Grand Chamber is a sort of Cassation of the European Court. “This - the lawyer Dalla Vedova explained - is a judge only of legitimacy. The Grand Chamber {Panel} will now have to rule on the admissibility of the Government’s request to transmit the case to be decided {by the Grand Chamber} of the European Court. Decision on the request has reserved. The request will move to discussion {by the Grand Chamber Panel}.”

It has to said that it is relatively rare for a case to be referred back to the Grand Chamber after the appeal is assessed for permissibility.  ECHR is predicated on case law, so I would expect Italy will be demonstrating an error of interpretation based on a previous case or cases. 

Case law generally refers to cases that have set a legal precedence.  For example, Salduz, which was to do with the rights of a person suspected of terrorist acts.

Yesterday I argued (1) that the original ECHR claim by Knox was ‘out of time’ – in this case presented too early - as internal procedure had not been exhausted - and (2) there was a too-heavy reliance on Hellmann (First Appeal Court) and Boninsegna (Knox’s second calunnia case) instead of the First Chambers of the Supreme Court (Chieffi) which overrode the Hellmann appeal.

In Judge Chieffi’s rationale Hellmann’s reasoning was largely struck down, and came in for stern criticism by Chieffi.

In effect, Dalla Vedova for his client, Knox, had resuscitated the appeal lodged with Hellmann although Judge Chieffi’s was the Res Judicata verdict. 

A principle in law is that you cannot have your case heard twice unless a higher court directs it back to the lower court.

It should be kept in mind that a referral to the ECHR Grand Chamber is statistically remote as the issue of admissibility has to be surmounted first.

Thursday, May 09, 2019

Pyrrhic Victory For Knox #2: Italy Challenges Knox’s “No Lawyer” ECHR Award

Posted by Peter Quennell

Dr Alfonso Bonafede the Italian Minister of Justice

The Breaking News

There should be more to come. This is what we know so far. Knox’s suggested award last February was simply for questions having been asked of Knox when her lawyer was not there.

But the ECHR was in fact parroting two corrupted courts (Hellman and Boninsegna) and so very clearly did not understand what other courts including the Supreme Court had already definitively found: (1) Knox specifically refused a lawyer several times; and (2) Once Knox falsely fingered Patrick no questions were asked.

The Italian Justice Ministry has just announced it is refusing for now to make the ECHR’s suggested award, and will soon be making (1) and (2) clear to the Strasbourg Court.

ECHR Strasbourg had already handed Knox numerous setbacks, in not accepting various grounds of her “appeal” although her team tried to paint the tiny suggested lawyer-related award as a win.

Knox’s biggest setback was that ECHR went along, not with her, but with the Supreme Court in refusing to find that Knox had been tortured and abused. That forever-repeated and defamatory false claim is STILL at the very heart of Knox’s book, paid presentations, and TV appearances and magazine interviews. Knox is again threatening to return to Italy to yet again repeat her defamatory claims. She might find some legal action awaiting her.

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

If You Are Going To Offshore A Fraud, Maybe It’d Be Smart To Not Pick Italy

Posted by Peter Quennell

Scarlet curve BT stock, purple curve Dow stockmarket index

When BREXIT Arrives…

The UK is going to need a few world-beating companies. Relentless prods by Italy suggest British Telecom is not one of them.

Back in the day, BT was perhaps the world’s most revered national telephone provider. It fielded teams to numerous developing countries to help with the planning and training needed to develop their national infrastructures.

BT was privatized by the British government in the mid 1980s, and if you had sold its stock around 2000 you would have done very nicely.

But since then BT has steadily headed down the tubes, and its stock now is actually worth less than on its very first day on the market.

Giving BT a hard time for several years have been the formidable fraud investigators of the Italian police.

Now a damning report has been issued by them.

Prosecutors in Milan allege that three former senior BT executives, Luis Alvarez, Richard Cameron and Corrado Sciolla, set unrealistically high business targets and were complicit in false accounting at BT Italy.

Alvarez and Cameron were respectively the former chief executive and former chief financial officer of BT Global Services, and Sciolla was the former head of continental Europe for BT. The three men, two of whom were based in London, left the company in 2017.

Allegations of fraudulent bookkeeping are part of a range of suspected wrongdoing at BT Italy. Italian prosecutors allege that a network of people at the unit exaggerated revenues, faked contract renewals and invoices and invented bogus supplier transactions to meet bonus targets and disguise the unit’s true financial performance.

The company has publicly disclosed that it uncovered a complex set of improper sales, leasing transactions and factoring at the division. Factoring is a way in which firms sell future income to financiers for cash…

Italy’s financial police found an email dated 5 August 2016, from O’Ferrall in which he says that Cameron wanted operating profit to increase by 700,000 euros and suggests to Luca Sebastiani, then CFO at BT Italy, along with other colleagues across Europe, that they capitalise labour costs as a solution.

“All, I have an urgent request from Richard to find another €700K,” O’Ferrall wrote to Sebastiani and his counterparts in Germany, Benelux, France, Spain, Hungary as well as Simon Whittle, then finance manager, reporting and consolidation, at Global Services Europe.

“Please, can you look at all opportunities and come back to Simon and me asap. Labour capitalization? Regards Brian,” says the email, whose subject line reads “Another €700K EBITDA needed in [July].”

Sad business. Italy and the UK have been special friends.

Friday, April 12, 2019

The Numerous Little Italys Throughout North America - Check These Out

Posted by Peter Quennell

Monday, April 01, 2019

Former (And Future?) Very Fine City Seattle: Good Luck In Reversing This Tough Trend

Posted by Our Main Posters

This great old-style reporting was uploaded by Seattle’s KOMO News two weeks ago.

It was mentioned to us by a loyal reader there who wants to see addressed less Knox and more this.

This video is already nearing two million views. It is one hour long.

Best of luck, all.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Italy May Block Brexit Extension, Force UK Out Of EC Altogether March 29

Posted by Peter Quennell

Sardinia will lose a lot of trade

In The News

Italy may block the extension of the UK Brexit negotiations.

That would cause the UK to crash out on 29 March. Spain, France and Belgium are also said to be taking a hard line.

In economic terms this does not seem to make much sense. Sardinia alone could see 40 million pounds of exports down the tubes.

But in international sway Italy might gain a lot. For all years previously it was the EC’s fourth economy, after Germany, UK and France.

But now that the UK is leaving, Italy can, and should, step up. It is the third largest country and economy in the EU…

It has significant voting rights in the EU institutions. It is at the centre of the immigration crisis. It has a strong military and, despite its public debt, the third largest gold reserves in the world.

It is a manufacturing powerhouse, ranking among the top 10 exporters in the world.

With the UK out, this is the time for Italy to assert itself in, and for, the EU.

In practice, this would mean demanding to be present at any meeting where France and Germany take joint decisions designed to lead Europe forward.

“...third largest gold reserves in the world”? Hmmm!

 

Friday, February 22, 2019

Watch This “I’m The Victim” Interview Of A Few Days Ago In Full Amanda Knox Mode

Posted by Peter Quennell

TV actor Jussie Smollett makes everything up, in blazing victimhood.

Today, he was arrested, for stage-managing a fake hate-crime in Chicago three weeks ago. Numerous show-biz celebrities and politicians of all parties had come out in support of him. 

Resolving what actually happened in this volatile atmosphere has occupied a dozen competent detectives full-time. How they broke the case is pretty intriguing; some new YouTubes describe the very complex cliffhanger.

If you scroll back through the hundreds of YouTubes (really) on this over three weeks you will see that, to their great credit, most of the first posters to pick up the bad vibes and cry “fake” were from the black community. 

The interviewer above is ABC’s Robin Roberts. She’s now accused of colluding with Smollett. She also colluded with Knox.

Thursday, February 07, 2019

Pyrrhic Victory For Knox #1: ECHR Complaint Seems To Leave Her Worse Off

Posted by Our Main Posters

Dalla Vedova and Knox: Tripped up by body of lies?

[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]

Part 1. Origin Of The ECHR Complaint

By Peter Quennell

Part 1 provides some of the context for an analysis by KrissyG in Part 2.

The ECHR has finally after six years issued an advisory to Italy to pay a small sum to Knox in damages. Grounds are (1) an investigator being too chummy at the list-building session ending 1.45am on 6 Nov 2007, and (2) Knox not having lawyer present at the Miranda-rights session ending 5.45am.

Both are weird. And way, way below what Knox had asked for early in 2013: E2.5 million in damages and a finding of actual abuse.

Remember how Knox’s ECHR appeal began. The year after their questionable release by Judge Hellman (2012) was a time of wild highs for Knox and Sollecito. They each wrote a book and set out on money-grubbing victory tours - Sollecito late 2012, Knox early 2013.

But then, in late March 2013, the Supreme Court First Chambers did a rare and surprising thing. That court did not merely quibble with aspects of Knox’s and Sollecito’s 2011 appeal outcome (normal practice), or send it back down to Judge Hellman to correct a few minor things in law. Instead it more or less wiped the slate clean.

In scathing terms, the First Chambers annulled the 2011 outcome (except for Hellman’s “guilty” calunnia ruling for Knox) and sent it off with some guidelines to a different judge (Nencini) in a different city (Florence), to run Knox’s and Sollecito’s first appeal all over again. And Judge Hellman was forcibly retired.

From then on, throughout most of 2013, in the months before the Florence appeal court convened, though feigning triumphalism, Knox and Sollecito each appeared scared out of their wits.

Knox was too frightened to even attend, despite her Italian lawyers flying to Seattle to try to drag her back (the last time they set eyes on her, nearly six years ago). She instead sent a ranting and defamatory email to the judge, which quite possibly made things worse.

For his part, a somewhat more buoyant Sollecito lingered for some months in the Dominican Republics (which had no extradition treaty with Italy) with his unsavory Canadian relatives (who he might have been hoping would bend another court or offer him a job).

But at the last moment Sollecito (with some public arm-twisting by his dad) did arrive back for the court sessions. (He soon took off again, secretly back to see his Canadian relatives seemingly to ask if they could help.)

As generally expected by followers of the damning 2009 trial, Judge Nencini’s judgment early in 2014 resulted in both Knox and Sollecito going down hard once again. Their sentences were reinstated, and now subject only to the Supreme Court giving the final nod.

It was right here, in this threatening context, that one of Knox’s lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova (who is not a criminal lawyer) attempted what Americans call a “Hail Mary pass”. There is no sign that Knox’s other lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, went along with him.

Dalla Vedova filed the ECHR complaint, seemingly mainly (as many other Italian lawyers have done) to fire a shot across the bows of the Supreme Court, in a bid for leniency for Knox. (Separately, Sollecito was trying other measures.)

Dalla Vedova and Knox kept the complaint document to themselves, so nobody had any chance to fact-check it and see whether the claims stood up. Knox followers shared wild fantasies about what the document requested.

The ECHR would not share it even with the Italian Ministry of Justice: seemingly an extremely poor ECHR mode, as the Ministry lawyers had no clear idea of what to defend against.

The ECHR “investigation” essentially ignored the 2009 trial report, and its participants and its documents. Many transcripts we have translated and know well seem not to have been read or understood at all.

Instead the ECHR relied heavily on three very misleading reports:

(1) the 2013 Knox complaint by Dalla Vedova, which appears to have included a number of false claims;

(2) the 2011 Judge Hellman sentencing report - despite it having zero standing after the Chieffi Supreme Court ruled;

(3) the 2016 Boninsegna report denying a second calunnia judgment against Knox for damaging claims she made against Perugia investigators. 

The ECHR seems ignorant of many fundamental facts of the case. For example it seems ignorant of the fact that Knox was flouting a Supreme Court ruling (four years previously) that Knox MUST still pay Patrick an award for damages of about $100,000.

Worse, the ECHR found that it did not matter that the Knox legal process was not yet done because, they claimed, it would be soon.  But, as a direct result of breaking its own rules, the ECHR advanced ignorant of the fact that subsequent to the Knox filing the Supreme Court in 2015 had rebuffed any ECHR findings against Italy in advance.

From the 2015 Marasca-Bruno Sentencing Report:

2.2. The request of Amanda Knox’s defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia, now protected [locked in stone] as a partial final status against a denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation of article 188 of penal procedure code.

And also, a possible decision of the European Court in favor of Ms. Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict, not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict, considering the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions, and confirmed by her before the Public Prosecutor during the subsequent session [ending 5:45], in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and also confirmed in her memoriale, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence; and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.

And even worse! The ECHR seems ignorant of the fact that IF Knox’s complaints of abuse were credible to her lawyers they MUST convey the complaints to the authorities. In fact if they do not, they risk criminal penalties and even being disbarred (and may still do). In fact in 2008 both lawyers publicly announced to the media that Knox should stop telling so many lies and that they never said she was hit.

Without such an initiating complaint, the Republic of Italy can never be at fault. 

But on the plus side for Italy and the very minus side for Knox (1) the ECHR dismissed the Knox claims of abuse (“torture”) that might have shored up any attempt by her to get the calunnia conviction revisited; and (2) prospects for any Knox claim for damages for her 1-4 years in prison are terminally gone.

What DID Knox get out of this? A recommendation to Italy - which can take it or leave it -  for a very tiny award (based on patently wrong claims) which is in any case likely to end up in Patrick Lumumba’s hands!!

As the ECHR ruling is only advisory, Knox cannot argue about it or seek to repudiate it or seek to adjust the suggested award - but the Republic of Italy certainly can.

Part Two: Analysis Of Italy’s Legal Position

By KrissyG

Overview

The main issues revolve around the question of admissibility.  I have identified two or three possible grounds of appeal on points of law.  They are: 

(a) Italy submitted that date-wise, the application by Knox had been submitted too early as the hearings had not yet been finalized.  ECHR rejects this saying that the hearings finalized very shortly after.  As far as I can see, this is not so.

(b) The ECHR relies on comments by Hellmann Appeal Court, which was largely superseded and outranked by Chieffi Supreme Court, to argue factors of free will.

(c) The ECHR relies heavily on police minutes and the fact interpreter Donnino and a police office, RI, fail to record details of their expressions of familiarity with Knox, or make a note that (i) Knox was asked if she wanted a lawyer and declined, (ii) that start and end times are not recorded, and that (iii) hours are condensed into minutes. Is it an error of law to assume these police minutes represented a failure of procedure?

1. Application admissible?

This takes up the larger part of the ECHR deliberations.  We can see that the dates are out of time and we can see it is keen to “˜get round’ this.  The relatively minor issues of police eagerness to befriend Knox, albeit misguided and improper, has clearly outraged the ECHR.

“I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS

The subject of the dispute

108. The Court notes from the outset that the applicant’s complaints relate solely to the criminal proceedings at the end of which she was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for slanderous denunciation of DL and not to the other proceedings. of which she was the subject.

B. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention

109. The Government submitted that, at the time of the introduction of the application, on 24 November 2013, the applicant’s conviction for slanderous denunciation was not final and that, therefore, this part of the complaint should be declared inadmissible.

110. The Court reiterates that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is assessed, with certain exceptions, at the date of submission of the application to the Court (Baumann v. France, No. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001- V (extracts)).

111. However, it also recalls that it tolerates the completion of the last level of domestic remedies shortly after the filing of the application, but before it is called upon to decide on the admissibility of the application (Zalyan et al. Armenia, Nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 238, March 17, 2016, and Škorjanec v. Croatia, No. 25536/14, § 44, March 28, 2017).

112. In any event, in the present case, the Court notes that the conviction in question was confirmed by the judgment of the Court of Cassation filed on 18 June 2013, at the end of three degrees of jurisdiction, and that the reference to the Assize Court of Appeal concerned only the existence of the aggravating circumstance.
113. In view of the foregoing, the objection raised by the Government must be rejected.”

2. Application premature?

By the ECHR’s own rules, as stated above, the submission was lodged 24 Nov 2013, when all domestic channels were supposed to have been exhausted.  The calunnia conviction against Lumumba had been finalised through Chieffi & Vecchio Supreme Court 18 June 2013. 

However, the second ““ and completely separate - case of calunnia brought by the police and prosecutor did not go through Boninsegna until 14 Jan 2015, on whose motivational report Knox and the ECHR heavily rely, over a year later.

Knox was acquitted by Bonisegna, hence, there was nothing for her to appeal against.  Further, Boninsegna had nothing at all to do with the merits of the Lumumba callunia, tried in 2009 and upheld at every stage, even by the egregious Hellmann court, whose judgement was largely expunged.

Why does the ECHR rely heavily on Hellmann and Boninsegna and not the superior Supreme and final court of Chieffi?

Even curiouser, Knox and the ECHR also rely heavily on quoting Hellmann of 3 Oct 2011.  Yet Hellmann was overrided and superseded by the superior Chieffi Supreme Court, finalised 9 Sept 2013.

The ECHR quotes Hellmann at some length, when it surely should have referred to Chieffi.

As an example, the judgment, translated from French, quotes Hellman as follows:

130. The Court observes that, in its judgment of 3 October 2011, [Hellmann] the Court of Appeal also emphasized the excessive length of the interrogations, the applicant’s vulnerability and the psychological pressure suffered by her, a pressure which was likely to compromise the spontaneity of his statements, as well as his state of oppression and stress.

It considered that the applicant had, in fact, been tortured to death, resulting in an unbearable psychological situation from which, in order to extricate herself, she had made incriminating statements in respect of DL (see paragraph 85 (8) and (10) above).

Yet the Chieffi Supreme Court in spiking much of Hellman’s lower court judgment writes:

So Knox was in a position, even after an initial although long moment of bewilderment, amnesia and confusion, to regain control of herself and understand the gravity of the conduct she was adopting; at the very least, in the days immediately following her heedless initiative she could have pointed out to the investigators that she had led them in a false direction, availing herself of the support of her Defence team, given that in the meantime she had acquired the status of a suspect.

Her persistence in her criminal attitude (discovered only through her taped conversation with her mother) proves the clear divergence with behaviour that could be interpreted as an attempt at cooperation, as the Defence would have it, and does not lend itself to evaluation as a response to a state of necessity, the very existence of which depends on a condition of inevitability and thus on the non”existence of any alternatives, so that it cannot even be recognized [as existing] as [her own] erroneous hypothesis.

Neither can the exercise of any right be invoked, given that the right of [self] defence does not extend under the legal system of any constitutional state to the point of allowing one to implicate an innocent person so seriously ““ it is worth recalling that he [Lumumba] underwent a period of incarceration uniquely and exclusively on the basis of the false accusations of the defendant.

3. Application Material?

Having ruled in favour of admissibility, the ECHR ruled that as the nature of Knox’ complaints of being hit and being placed under great duress triggered at least the lowest level of a potential Article 3 complaint, that of degrading and inhuman treatment, Italy should have taken it upon itself to launch an investigation of its own initiative into the allegations made against the interpreter [Donnino] and another officer [RI].  “˜RI’ claimed to have cuddled Knox, stroked her hair and held her hands.  This, the ECHR rules, had the effect of undermining Knox’ dignity and independence of will.

It has several criticisms surrounding this behavior including the fact it is not minuted in the police notes, and nor is the start and end times of the supposed “interrogations” at 1:45am and 5:45am.

The serious issue of course though is that of being allowed a lawyer. The ECHR writes of Italy’s defense (“the Government”)

142. The Government observes that the statements made by the complainant on 6 November 2007 in the absence of a lawyer were declared unusable in relation to the offenses under investigation, namely the murder of MK and the sexual violence perpetrated at against him. However, it states that, according to the established case law of the Court of Cassation (judgments Nos. 10089 of 2005, 26460 of 2010 and 33583 of 2015), spontaneous statements made by a person under investigation in the absence of a defender can in any case, be used when they constitute, as in this case, an offense in themselves. He added that the applicant had the assistance of a lawyer when the first indications of his responsibility for the murder of Mr K appeared.

143. In addition, the Government alleged that the applicant had been sentenced for slanderous disclosure not only on the basis of the statements made on 6 November 2007, but also on the basis of “a multitude of other circumstances”, recalled in the judgment of conviction of the Assize Court of 5 December 2009 (see paragraph 80 above).

144. The complainant submits that she was not informed of her right to legal assistance during her hearings on 6 November 2007, since a defense lawyer was not appointed until 8.30 am that day, and denounces the impact of the use of this evidence on the fairness of the proceedings.

A. Admissibility

145. Noting that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it does not face any other ground of inadmissibility, the Court declares it admissible.
2. Application of general principles to the facts of this case

(a) The applicability of Article 6 of the Convention
(b) 146:

147. The Court notes at the outset that the first question in this case is whether Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was applicable to the facts of the case. It recalls in that regard that, on 6 November 2007, the applicant was heard twice: at 1.45 am and 5.45 am

148. It notes that the two statements were originally collected as part of the police’s acquisition of summary information, during which time the complainant had not been formally investigated.

149. With regard to the statements taken at 1.45 am, the Court reiterates that the guarantees offered by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention apply to any “accused” in the autonomous sense of the term. the Convention. There is a “criminal charge” where a person is formally charged by the competent authorities or where the acts of the latter on account of the suspicions against them have a significant impact on his situation (Simeonovi, cited above). , §§ 110-111).

150. Applying this principle to the present case, the Court therefore wonders whether, at the time of the hearings, the domestic authorities had reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant was involved in the murder of Mr K.

151. It observes in that regard that the applicant had already been heard by the police on 2, 3 and 4 November 2007 and that she had been tapped. It notes that the facts of the case also show that, on the evening of 5 November 2007, the attention of the investigators focused on the applicant (see paragraphs 12-14 above). She notes that while she went to the police station spontaneously, she was asked questions in the corridor by police officers who then continued to interrogate her in a room where she had been interrogated. subjected twice, for hours, to close interrogations.

152. In the Court’s view, even assuming that these elements are not sufficient to conclude that, at 1.45 am on 6 November 2007, the applicant could be considered to be a suspect within the meaning of its case-law, it is necessary to note that, as the Government acknowledged, when she made her 5:45 statements to the public prosecutor, the applicant had formally acquired the status of a person under indictment. The Court therefore considers that there is no doubt that, at 5.45 am at the latest, the applicant was the subject of a criminal charge within the meaning of the Convention (Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 296).

(b) The existence of overriding reasons for the restriction of the right of access to a lawyer.

Knox and her lawyers again has a second bite of the cherry and rehashes what was surely res judicata by Chieffi:

2.1.16 “ Inconsistency and manifest lack of logic in the reasoning concerning the failure to recognize an aggravating circumstance in the aims underlying the confirmed offence of calunnia. [The Prosecutor General argues as follows:] In upholding the offence of calunnia as charged against Ms Knox, the second instance court ruled out any link with the murder. It was not explained on what basis the court had inferred that the young woman had been stressed by the interviewers and that therefore she had committed the calunnia to “free” herself from the questions of the investigators, seeing that none of the young people who were living in that house, none of Ms Kercher’s friends, and many others in the days immediately following the murder, all of whom were summoned and interrogated, had the insane idea of committing a calunnia to free themselves from the weight of the unpleasant situation.

[43] The objective facts are therefore absolutely irrefutable, as was deemed in both trials; whereas the argument adopted from a subjective point of view, according to which the young woman resorted to extreme behaviour by giving the name of Lumumba only in order to get out of a situation of mental discomfort into which she was driven by the excessive zeal and unjustifiable intemperance of the investigators, cannot be well”founded given that ““ as it was ascertained ““ the accusation of Lumumba was maintained after her first statements and re”affirmed in the letter, which was written in complete solitude and at a certain distance in time from the first uncontrolled reaction in response to an insistent request for a name by the police. 

JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY (PRESIDED OVER BY DR SEVERO CHIEFFI) IN THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER

Translated from Italian into English by http://www.perugiamurderfile.org 9 September 2013

The whole issue of whether Knox was denied a lawyer, I am sure could be an article in its own right and I know others have strong views on this issue, therefore I shall leave it here to set out the ECHR reasoning.

My Conclusions>

So, we have a heavy reliance on the judgments of Hellmann and Bonisegna, when it seems to me, Hellmann is overrided by Chieffi who upholds Hellmann’s own final conviction anyway and Boninsegna is well past the earliest admissibility date, quite aside from not being directly involved in the Lumumba calumny at all.

Having ruled that objections by Italy can be swept aside, including that of failure to exhaust domestic avenues, the ECHR then goes on to rule on Knox’ lawyer status without proper reference to the latest and highest courts.  I can understand the argument that Italy should itself have investigated the police brutality anyway.  The rest of the reasoning seems misguided in light of what higher courts than those referred to have found. 

Sources

2103 The Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy Sentencing Report

Knox Complaint: The Full ECHR Judgment (English version soon available here.)

Friday, February 01, 2019

Migration To Quality Media Continues - Away From Bottom-Feeders Hosting Knox

Posted by Peter Quennell

Demonization Enablers

Truth-telling media such as the New York Times have seen a sizeable readership influx.

Meanwhile the tabloid bottom-feeders gasp for air. Brooklyn’s VICE Media is one of those badly hit. Staff layoffs are as the video describes.

VICE gave Knox a platform just under a year ago, to wail about demonized women.

Knox omitted to point out (and sloppy VICE failed to find out) that the barbaric Knox herself is one of the nastiest most dangerous demonizers on the planet.

VICE should never never never have espoused bigotry against any country, which of course is what it was doing in providing Knox a platform.

And the bigotry was voiced in English, against a country whose first language is Italian, and whose defamed officials have no easy way of responding.

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Euro Court Of Human Rights May Rule Tomorrow On Knox’s Much-Hyped “Appeal”

Posted by Machiavelli

Dr Guido Raimondi, Italian, current president of the Court

[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]

1. A Weak Submission By Knox Team At Best

Italian defence lawyers file more spurious “appeals” in Strasbourg than any other.

Knox’s “appeal” was filed by her lawyer Dalla Vedova FIVE-PLUS years ago. The ECHR saw nothing in it to cause haste. It was submitted following the Nencini appeal where the court, following Cassazione guidelines, had reiterated a very strong case and Knox’s guilt for murder was reaffirmed.

Since then Knox has been confirmed definitively guilty of calunnia, case closed, not subject to reversal, and she has served her three years. Also she was found not guilty of Meredith’s murder by the Fifth Chambers of Cassazione - which should not even have got into the evidence under law.

Here are our main past posts explaining the spurious nature of what Strasbourg received.

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Lies Again To Get Herself Into Another European Court “But Really, Judge, Its Only PR” (Kermit)

Click for Post:  Note For Strasbourg Court & State Department: Knox Herself Proves She Lies About Her Interrogation (James Raper)

Click for Post:  Multiple Provably False Claims About “Forced Confession” Really Big Problem For Dalla Vedova & Knox (Finn MacCool)

Click for Post:  Knox’s Unsound Appeal To The European Court Of Human Rights Slapped Down By Cassation (Main Posters)

Click for Post:  Carlo Dalla Vedova, Is ECHR Made Aware Italian Law REQUIRES Lawyers To First File Local Complaints? (Main Posters)

Click for Post:  Carlo Dalla Vedova: Is ECHR Advised You Condoned Malicious Defamation By Knox Of Chief Prosecutor? (Main Posters)

Click for Post:  Bad News For Knox -  Buzz From Italy Is Spurious ECHR Appeal Will Probably Fail (Main Posters)

Click for Post:  Telling Non-Development For Knox Re The European Court Of Human Rights In Strasbourg (Main Posters)

2. My Takes On The ECHR Judges And Italy’s Role

Now, we know the ECHR response is on the docket for the court most likely Thursday the 24th (one of 48 cases) and if not then the 29th.

We DONT know if a full decision has been reached.  We cannot tell yet what the ECHR verdict will be. But we can tell in advance a few things, which we should point out:

1) The ECHR verdict will not be a “yes” or “no” response; that is, whatever kind of agreement the Court may find with Knox’s recourse, the pro-Knox advocates if any are left will try to make it look as if it was a full “yes” to Knox’s narrative while it is certain it will not endorse her fully if at all. In other words they could twist it and use it as a media stunt just to have the media reporting incline their way, and they won’t pay attention to any actual content;

2) How the ECHR rules, is something that depends on how the State Attorney of Italy in Rome decided to submit: if she decided to defend Italy’s position and on what points, to what degree. Therefore, the submission and outcome are basically political: they do not involve an applicant (Knox) against an independent party, but rather against a political entity (Italy) that may or may not offer a defense and if it does so, it may follow political criteria.

So the response does not depend very much on Knox’s telling the truth or not, but more on Italy’s political interest in “winning” the points or not.

For these reasons, while we know that there are legal and factual arguments to reject completely all of Knox’s claims - and to expose some of her claims as abusive - we actually don’t know exactly how much of an interest the State of Italy had in exposing her abusive arguments and defeating her points. We don’t know, for example, if the State Attorney worked to find and bring forth all key facts (see Part 1 above) and to submit all possible evidence to the Court.

The work of the Court is very indirect. They mostly don’t perform any actual fact finding directly. Rather they rely on organs of the State party to submit to them a report about the facts - and they certainly won’t have a way to discover any information that is missing in the reports (unless the other party pushes for that).
 
The ECHR Court does not actually assess the merits of a trial; it is no real “appeal” instance. The political nature of the “trial” thus is the reason why we don’t know what the Court will decide on each point; and it is also one of the reasons why the ECHR decision will be basically meaningless however pro or anti Knox.

3) The ECHR court in any case WILL NOT suggest (it cannot demand) any court review of all the steps of the case 2007-15 by the Italian courts.

The ECHR WILL NOT overturn the calunnia conviction. This should be absolutely clear: the calunnia conviction is definitive. Cassazione firmly closed it down. Knox is never going to be “cleared”. She is a convicted felon and will remain such for life.

Knox was also found beyond reasonable doubt by Cassazione to be present in the murder room when Meredith was killed, she washed her blood from her hands, and it is definitively established in Knox/Sollecito Bruno/Marasca ruling that Guede did not kill alone and Meredith was physically killed by more than one person.

It is also definitively recognized by the Bruno/Marasca ruling and also by subsequent rulings, that Knox and Sollecito are repetitive liars (“all their versions are lies”).

One reason why there will never be a trial review of Knox’s calunnia conviction is that Knox’s application to the ECHR actually willfully omits this component.

In other words, Knox simply does not want a second calunnia trial - probably mainly because her lawyers know that she would be found guilty again in a new trial, even if the “spontaneous statements” were considered inadmissible as evidence: there is sufficient evidence that she committed calunnia even without the 1:54 and 5.45 statements).

4) the Knox ECHR application contradicts Knox’s recollection of facts she gave in her book (one of the multiple version she gave), for example in the ECHR application she accuses “Perugian doctors” of performing a fake HIV test and leaking results to the media, while in her book she accuses an abusive prison guard.

5) it is to be pointed out that, independently from ECHR ruling, we can show that Knox’s application claims are false, contradicted by trial documents, and mostly contradicted by her own positions in the trial and subsequent statements. 

6) The President Judge of the Court panel is an Italian Magistrate, his name is Guido Raimondi, he is from Naples, and this is one of his last ruling before his retirement.

As our readers might guess, I am allergic to Neapolitan Magistrates who are by their last rulings just before retirement! But let’s wait and see (he might be a decent and honest person; I don’t like his position of link to the Naples Office though).

7)  I’d like to point out a peculiarity of Knox’s ECHR application: the only part among the claims that has some chance to be accepted by the Strasbourg Court, in my opinion, is the claim about alleged violations by the police, that is where Knox claims she was not “told” early enough she was a suspect by police officers and complains about not having a good interpreter.

Albeit there is no actual violation of Italian law, Dalla Vedova complains of some alleged violation of European rights and drops in a slippery, irregular request of “changes to the law”, rather than indicating any specific damages Knox would have allegedly suffered.

An interesting aspect of this, though, is that such a point of law raised by Dalla Vedova is only about alleged violations of legal principles in the prosecution for murder.

There is no request that could affect the course of the prosecution and trial for calunnia.

In other words, the Knox ECHR application might have some theoretical potential to find a violation or violations of Knox’s rights regarding her being investigated for murder. But it has no potential to affect the regularity of her being tried for calunnia.

No way the ECHR ruling could change the course that lead to calunnia finding, no way such conviction could be cancelled, and her ECHR application does not even contain a request that would dispute the legitimacy of such conviction.

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Major Anti-Mafia Success In Italy Is Making Skilled Italian Police In Demand Elsewhere

Posted by Peter Quennell

Gamechanger

The mafias really are gone from the United States and Canada, and in Italy it is mostly likewise.

So the mafias have been moving elsewhere - the UK, Germany, Netherlands, especially Malta - and Italian police are being invited to spearhead huge sweeps against them.

Hundreds of special forces arrested at least 84 men and women overnight in Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands in the largest-ever pan-European investigation into organized crime. Raids were also carried out in South America as part of the sting operation. More than three tons of cocaine and 140 kilograms of ecstasy were also seized, police said.

UK-based expert Felia Allum explains the organizational adjustments.

When I walk around London, I wonder how many of the busy nail bars, shops and restaurants are merely fronts for organised crime. For I was once told by a former member of the Neapolitan mafia: “The ambition for [an Italian] mafia member, is to go abroad, and particularly, England.”

They consider the UK to be an attractive destination because it is relatively easy to set up a company, and its legal system does not recognise “mafia membership” as a crime….

In 1991, British police based in Rome warned of the presence of Italian mafias in the UK. Two years later, the French parliament reported on the fight against the mafia’s attempt to penetrate France. Similar warnings were being made in the Netherlands.

But it wasn’t until 2012 that the European Parliament really addressed the situation. The following year, Europol (the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation) finally published an “Italian Organized Crime Threat Assessment”.

It attempted to fill the “important information gap” which exists around the activities of Italian mafias in Europe. As Europol itself noted, the “difficulty in collecting information” highlights the fact that mafias operate “under the radar” outside Italy.

Finally, in November 2018, Europol set up a specific operational network focusing on Italian mafia activities abroad, with the Italian Anti-Mafia Police playing a leading role.

Malta is fighting an influx similar to that in the Dominican Republic, a Raffaele Sollecito hangout till his uncle bought it.

Sunday, December 23, 2018

Tu Scendi Dalle Stelle! You Came Down From The Stars

Posted by Our Main Posters

One of the main Italian carols, one that just about everyone knows.

Monday, December 17, 2018

Today All Political Factions May Lurch US Justice One Big Step Toward Successful Italian Model

Posted by Peter Quennell

Culinary school inside a modern Italian prison

Overview

Justice reform was a popular issue in the national elections last month. Vox’s German Lopez describes the first step the US Senate will vote on today.

Who Is Affected

The bill, known as the First Step Act, would take modest steps to reform the criminal justice system and ease very punitive prison sentences at the federal level. It would affect only the federal system “” which, with about 181,000 imprisoned people, holds a small but significant fraction of the US jail and prison population of 2.1 million.

What Is In First Step

(1) The bill would make retroactive the reforms enacted by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences at the federal level. This could affect nearly 2,600 federal inmates, according to the Marshall Project.

(2) The bill would take several steps to ease mandatory minimum sentences under federal law. It would expand the “safety valve” that judges can use to avoid handing down mandatory minimum sentences. It would ease a “three strikes” rule so people with three or more convictions, including for drug offenses, automatically get 25 years instead of life, among other changes. It would restrict the current practice of stacking gun charges against drug offenders to add possibly decades to prison sentences. All of these changes would lead to shorter prison sentences in the future.

(3) The bill would increase “good time credits” that inmates can earn. Inmates who avoid a disciplinary record can currently get credits of up to 47 days per year incarcerated. The bill increases the cap to 54, allowing well-behaved inmates to cut their prison sentence by an additional week for each year they’re incarcerated. The change applies retroactively, which could allow some prisoners “” as many as 4,000 “” to qualify for release the day that the bill goes into effect.

(4) The bill would allow inmates to get “earned time credits” by participating in more vocational and rehabilitative programs. Those credits would allow them to be released early to halfway houses or home confinement. Not only could this mitigate prison overcrowding, but the hope is that the education programs will reduce the likelihood that an inmate will commit another crime once released and, as a result, reduce both crime and incarceration in the long term. (There’s research showing that education programs do reduce recidivism.)

Comparison With Italy

On measures (1) and (2) Italy (which does not have the US’s gun problem or rate of murders) would remain far down the road with its short prison terms and small numbers locked up..

But measures (3) and (4) definitely represent convergence on rehabilitation being more useful (and cheaper) for society than grindingly extensive punitive stays.

Thursday, November 08, 2018

“A Couple of Millennials Trying to Grope Their Way Toward Adulthood…”

Posted by Hopeful

Mafia poodles Robinson & Kovite


The header is from a NY Times review of a book by the above pair, no irony intended (I presume).

Knox supports murderer Brendan Dassey and Avery, has a boyfriend who wears dark fingernail polish (some man!?), has a cat named Mr. Screams, and received a blue glass award from Arizona Public Defender Association in June 2018 “for sharing your inspiring story”.

You can’t make this stuff up (or can you), in Knox’s case the ultimate fantasist liar who has always wanted to mythologize her own life, she’s a born actress prostitute seeking to be Amelie but is Jekyll-Hyde and had to cannibalize Meredith’s clean life to morph into notoriety.

Now she links up with Christopher Robinson who can play paparazzi to her diabolical story while she allows him to wear the crazy hats, necklaces, fur and outlandish clothes that force her to become the opposite: Miss Demure, Miss Meredith, Miss Speaker at Innocence Conventions, Supporter of the Oppressed, Miss I-Know-the-Law, I have lived through controversy, I’m a Survivor, I am Wrongly Accused, I now dress modestly, this is my classy side,

I am allowing Chris to be the wild child of this use and be-used duo.  Chris wrote his first novel with good friend Kovite, an Army veteran, titled “War of the Encyclopaedists”. Now in May 2018 they’ve got a new book out called, “Deliver Us”. I think Chris may mean deliver us from evil as in Knox. And guess where the two friends met? In Italy.

Kovite writes for Salon:

Our collaboration began 10 years ago in rome on a pilgrimage to Keats’ grave as part of an undergraduate study abroad. We had known each other only a few weeks. While wandering through the Protestant Cemetery the names of the dead called out to us: Baltimore Gosshawk Wakefield III, Aeneas MacBean Esq. They were begging to be turned into characters is a pulp historical mystery novel. So we wrote one. It took us five years and it eventually ended up in a drawer but it taught us how to write…together. Over the last five years we applied those lessons to a more serious project, “War of the Encyclopaedists.” (Scribner, 2015)

“Several years ago as we struggled toward a finished draft of “War of the Encyclopaedists”, Chris fell into an existential pit. He was thinking about culinary school, his five-year relationship dissolved, he was living out of a suitcase at one artist colony after another, he wrote a collection of nihilistic sonnets, he was thinking about suicide. Without stability his options were limitless; he was paralyzed by choice….Gavin (Kovite) meanwhile was looking toward his future as a lawyer with dread. This wasn’t the life he’d imagined for himself. He had little time to play music or write fiction, which, though fun was a big additional burden, as anyone who has written while working fulltime well knows.”

“And yet here we are awaiting publication of our debut novel (this was in 2015)...Without Chris’ drive, organization and friendly harassment, Gavin would never have made the time to contribute. And without Gavin’s contribution, Christ would be staring into the void. It was writing a novel together ... that deepened our friendship, changed the course of our lives.”

from Salon, “Why write a collaborative novel? Well…why write alone?”

Christopher Robinson is a Boston University and Hunter College MFA graduate, a poet, a MacDowell Colony fellow, etc. His co-author Gavin Kovite was infantry platoon leader in Baghdad 2004-2005, then attended NYU Law, served as Army lawyer and is now a high school teacher….Together Robinson and Kovite authored “Encyclopaedists” and “Deliver Us”.

I just hope that Knox does not destroy their good relationship. It sounds like a Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson friendship of the minds. I think Knox will sabotage it and Chris was crazy to link up with her. Now he has his new novel out, “Deliver Us” about drones from Jeff Bezos dropping items on a futuristic Detroit and the question is “are they saviors to Detroit black low earners bringing jobs to the blighted city or imperialists out for their own gain?” as one book review said. I wonder if Kovite worried about this in Afghanistan?

But I think the hidden message of Chris Robinson’s “Deliver Us” is that he is questioning his Amanda Knox relationship (why not put a ring on it, Chris?) and already regrets slumming around. It’s a true cry of “deliver us from evil”. A bit late Chris. Do you even care if Knox killed Meredith or not?

Knox was to moderate the book launch of “Deliver Us” because of “her experience with controversy, competing narratives and commitment to racial justice in the Innocence Movement.” Barf. That was a book launch in May 2018 at Elliott Bay Book Co. in Seattle.

She will explode his life out of the water one day but more fool him for shacking up with a killer. It was Guermantes’ link to Chris Robinson Instagram that led me to look at some of his nonsense. I honestly believe he is mentally ill along with his live-in lover. Chris Robinson posts Instagram pix of multiple toilets out on some grassy area. He posts a piece of art of a woman on the toilet. He uses foul language constantly.

And michellesings1 (wife of this poodle) laughs at the trash they post. When their cat, Mr. Screams, sleeps on Amanda’s “bottom” she writes Hee hee, hilarious. When Knox gives a speech, michellesings1 chimes in, Love it, happy for you.

Monday, November 05, 2018

Most Popular Least Controversial Issue In US Elections? Surprise, Surprise: Justice Reform

Posted by Peter Quennell

1. Chronic Reform Problem Worldwide

First, consider Italy.

Compared to most countries, Italy is far down the road in terms of effective policing, courts and rehabilitation. Its crime rate is comparatively low.

But its relatively minor need to speed up the court system is hampered because the parties in parliament tend to lock up at the nitty-gritty level, and so nothing gets done. Very common around the world.

Now consider the US.

This political lockup tendency is made worse in the US because, almost alone among the world’s countries, the US tends to elect or politically appoint its police chiefs, prosecutors and judges. (Italy’s system is career-path wall-to-wall.)

This tends to result in a hard line. Meaning mass incarceration has been ballooning through the roof.  Both main parties in the US, with a majority of its politicians former lawyers, tend to take quite a hard line too.

2. The US’s Surprising Reform Edge

But almost alone among the world’s countries, allowing the citizens to fix aspects of this system problem one by one, the US also has an ace up its sleeve. 

At election time, reform measures can be put on the ballot, and the electorate gets to decide on each one directly, thus leapfrogging the political infighting.

On Tuesday, a record number of justice-related proposals will be on various ballots.  VOX has a very long article with numerous examples of what various voters will get to decide.

Anti mass incarceration measures are being put before over 100 million voters this year.

3. A Likely Positive Spread Effect

And finding such common ground should have a strong ripple effect across the political landscape as a whole.

When adversaries work together for the first time on a joint venture that serves both their needs, they discover new pathways for collaboration. Like neuroplasticity in the brain, when we learn to do something that yields satisfaction, we rewire how we think and behave.

This is already taking place in the area of criminal justice reform, especially with juvenile offenders.

After decades in which the “war on crime” was a wedge issue that roiled tensions about racial injustice and public safety, Republicans and Democrats have been cooperating on an integrative model of restorative justice that serves interests on both sides.

No one wants to see at-risk youth jailed for rash mistakes that crossed the line into criminal conduct. We may not agree on much, but few Americans want to watch children enter the notorious “pipeline to prison.”

And no one likes to spend tax dollars needlessly. Keeping a teenager out of incarceration is far cheaper than surrendering him to it. Prevention programs that connect teens with adult community mentors cost far less than prosecution and imprisonment. Because those youth make amends to their victims, personal responsibility is codified and enforced.

People on the left are pleased by the social progressivism; people on the right are happy about cutting government spending. Everyone gets something when we exercise our capacity for ingenuity and enterprise, which are, in the end, signature American traits.

Friday, October 26, 2018

More False Claims Of Plot To Frame “An Innocent”, Again Zero Motive Or Confirming Hard Fact

Posted by The Machine

We posted on the dishonesties of Making a Murderer 1 here.

Making a Murderer 2 has again brought out countless conspiracy nuts on Twitter who believe there was a dastardly plot to frame Steven Avery.

I’ve repeatedly asked them to provide some exculpatory evidence that proves he is innocent and some proof the police framed him.

So far none of them has provided any evidence to substantiate their claims. They’re all labouring under the misapprehension that the crime scene must conform to their particular expectations.

It reminds me of Amanda Knox’s creepy supporters who claim the lack of her DNA in Meredith’s room is proof of her innocence.

Monday, October 15, 2018

Humanity Of Italian Courts Suddenly The Subject Of Worldwide News Stories

Posted by Peter Quennell

Gilberto Baschiera (above) was a bank manager in Forni di Sopra (below), a small town between the Dolomites and the Austrian Alps.

He was recently labeled an Italian Robin Hood and widely admired in Italy and elsewhere for assisting impoverished customers to get loans - by topping up their accounts provisionally from larger accounts.

Why he did this is that the bank-loans system itself was changed for the worse under former Prime Berlusconi’s exceptionally harsh and ineffective austerity measures. 

Over seven years, his total “borrowings” came to exceed the equivalent of $1 million as not all of the loans were paid back.

So he was charged and there was a trial. Now we have just seen a new wave of reporting.

Gilberto’s court sentence is announced as two years SUSPENDED.

This is routine under Italian law - he did not “dodge” a prison term as some reporting had it - but not a typical outcome in any other legal system.

Monday, September 24, 2018

Knox’s Lamp: The Very Incriminating Evidence Found INSIDE Meredith’s Locked Room

Posted by James Raper

[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]

1. The Elephant In The Room Of Which No-one Speaks

Throughout the case it has frequently been claimed that there was no actual evidence of Knox’s presence in the “murder room” or the “scene of the crime” defined (wrongly) as Meredith’s bedroom alone.

However, this is to omit, among other things, the highly incriminating presence of the black desk lamp, which was found, without any fingerprints on it, behind the door. (There was only one print of Knox in the entire house; there were none in her own room or bathroom or kitchen except on one glass.)

The bald facts are that (1) Knox had such a lamp, (2) Meredith had two working lights of her own; (3) Knox grudgingly admitted ownership of the lamp at trial in 2009, (4) it was the only working source of illumination for her own room, and (5) when Meredith’s locked door was forced open, there it was, knocked over on the floor.

The omission of this incriminating evidence spreads surprisingly far, almost as if the highly regimented Knox-Mellas PR had ordered: “There must be no attention drawn to this.”.

The prosecution questioned Knox about it at trial (see Part 3 below) but the defenses had not one question in rebuttal or explanation of their own.

Knox makes no mention of it in her book. Preston makes no mention of it in his. Candace Dempsey makes no mention of it in hers. John Douglas (see the Machine’s telling posts below) makes no mention of it in either of his. Mark Waterbury makes no mention of it in his. Nina Burleigh makes no mention of it in hers. Bruce Fischer makes no mention of it in his. Raffaele Sollecito makes no mention of it in his.

Steve Moore avoids mentioning it in his stints on TV. Michael Heavey never makes mention of it in his talks. Greg Hampikian avoids mention when he is on TV. Anne Bremner has avoided talking about it as well.  Frank Sforza never mentioned it on his abandoned blog. There is a foolish mention on the malicious Ground Report site, the intent being somehow to frame Guede with it - but there were those two working lights in Meredith’s room, and there is no footprint evidence that he stepped next door.

What precisely was the lamp doing there? If Knox or Sollecito carried it there, what were they doing with it that Meredith’s lights were of no help?

At trial and at pre-trial questionings Knox always failed to explain (see trial testimony in Part 3 below). Nor could she explain how she failed to notice it missing from her own room.

Regrettably this purpose of the lamp was not a question ever adequately addressed by any of the judges when considering Knox’s complicity in the crime. Let us redress that oversight now.

TJMK has previously carried 16 other posts listed in Part 4 below with significant mentions of the incriminating lamp.

This is my eighth evidence post on TJMK; the seven prior posts are listed in Part 5 below. Other posts have been on the forensics, behaviours, and court outcomes. My ebook is linked-to in Part 6.

Red star indicates position of lamp

2. An Exercise In Deducing Amanda Knox’s Role

Knox denied knowing that her lamp had been in Meredith’s room and has never offered a plausible, indeed innocent, explanation for it being there. Accordingly we can rule out that Knox had lent it to Meredith at any time.

Other possible options are that Meredith or Rudy Guede had taken it from Knox’s bedroom, without her consent.

But if Meredith, why would she have done this? She had a wall light above her bed and her own desk lamp, neither of which were not working. Even if she had, why on the night of (and in the no more than two hours before) her murder? Only to leave it on the floor behind her door? There is no reason at all to believe that Meredith had borrowed the lamp just prior to her death and left it on her own floor.

Likewise, no plausible explanation can be offered for Guede taking the lamp.

If Knox was unaware that her lamp was there, could she really also have been unaware that it was not in her room? 

Two days after the discovery of the murder, and before her arrest, this is what Knox wrote in her e-mail, referring to the discovery of Filomena’s broken window after she and Sollecito had returned to the cottage ““

“Convinced that we had been robbed I went to Laura’s room and looked quickly in, but it was spotless like it hadn’t even been touched. This, too, I thought was odd. I then went into the part of the house that Meredith and I share and checked my room for things missing, which there weren’t.”

How could she possibly have missed it? Her own room was quite small and cramped, and the desk lamp should have been either on her desk or her table by the bed. It would have been a fairly prominent item and it’s absence would be impossible to miss even if, while checking, she was only paying minimal attention at the time.

Furthermore, according to her account she had been in and out of her room when visiting the cottage earlier that morning. Her room was sunless at that time of day.

She had undressed for a shower in her room but had to return for a towel, and then return to her room again to get dressed. Never noticed that her lamp was missing? She would say she had no reason to actually check on that occasion.

Knox was, of course, lying (there are many aspects of her e-mail which are simply not credible), but she really had to say that she checked her room because there had been a burglary, did she not?

She has to convey the impression that she herself believed, innocently, that there had been a genuine burglary and in doing so she was hoping to draw the investigators’ attention away from two important matters.

The first was that the burglary was staged. That is now a settled judicial fact in the case.

The second was that there had been a post murder manipulation of the crime scene by the removal of blood traces (ultimately though the 2015 Supreme Court did not accord this the status of a judicial fact, largely due to omission of facts and obfuscation on its part).

Furthermore the 2015 Supreme Court did not even mention Knox’s lamp at all.

Obviously its presence, in the position in which it was found, in Meredith’s room, plays into the notion of a post murder manipulation of the crime scene. If Meredith is a most unlikely agent for it being there, then how do we rate Knox’s and Guede’s agency?

Knox’s lamp and Meredith’s lamp were both on the floor, at either end of Meredith’s bed. This suggests that they were being used to check under the bed, as this area, with the wall light on, would have been in shadow at night.

It is difficult to imagine what incriminating item Guede would have been looking for and why it would have been of particular importance to him, to the extent that he ignored everything else.

We have to bear in mind that the room already had incriminating forensic traces of his presence there, and fairly obvious ones at that, which it never occurred to him to remove. We know that he had blood on the sole of his left shoe but the positioning of these prints did not indicate that he was looking under the bed, or had anything to do with the lamp.

It is admittedly speculation but Knox might have been looking for an earring on the floor. She’d recently had her ears pierced several times and from a photograph of her taken by the press outside the cottage after the crime we can see that one of her earrings was missing then.

The very presence of that lamp there has to be considered as potentially incriminating, and of Knox. It is a fact that has to be assessed and evaluated, and Knox would surely have appreciated that questions would be asked and that adverse inferences could be drawn.

That this is obvious is recognized even by her own supporters whose response when not ignoring the lamp is to take Knox’s e-mail at face value and claim that her lamp was a plant by the police.

Yes, really.

The lamp is part of the overwhelming circumstantial case against Knox and, I would argue, has had a particular resonance for her since, so much so that she has sought to ignore it always.

Why would she leave it in there? Behind a locked door?

Probably for the same reason that she did not get around to removing the trace of her own blood on the faucet of the sink in the small bathroom. Not thinking clearly because she was shattered, having been up all night and, probably, also as a result of having indulged in drugs and/or alcohol.

She might not have realized that the blood could be identified as hers, but the lamp would be a different matter, hard to explain.

In any event it was seemingly unwittingly left behind. An oversight which, at some point, must have occurred to her.

When might that have happened? It would have had to be when she was no longer in possession of Meredith’s keys, or, at least not in a position to retrieve these in time given the train of events set in motion next.

A perpetrator would not want to be found in possession of those keys. Still less, Sollecito. The knife could be cleaned, but the keys would be damning. 

On the face of it the keys could have been taken by Guede, but clearly the keys had remained in the possession of those who had arranged the staged burglary, and the post murder manipulation of the crime scene, and it is very improbable (as argued elsewhere) that Guede had any involvement with that.

Very probably the keys were tossed away into heavy undergrowth afterwards, or disposed of down some drain and then, some time later, Knox had the sudden realisation that this had left her and Sollecito with a problem. She could not simply retrieve the lamp and return it to her room without breaking down Meredith’s door.

Actually that could have been done, though not without some difficulty, and it would have fitted with a burglary and a violent assault on Meredith.

Though here the intelligent observer would have to assume from the circumstances, and no doubt Knox and Sollecito would have pondered on this, that Meredith had surprisingly been unable to thwart the lone intruder, had locked herself in to her room with her phones still with her, and would have undoubtedly called the emergency number for the police, while all this and the breaking down of her door, was going on.

However when exactly the oversight occurred to Knox needs to be considered. I personally believe that it was much later than most people would think. Certainly not just after the murder.

When was the plan to stage a burglary and remove the blood traces from the corridor put into operation?  Was it before or after they had listened to music for half an hour from 5.30 am and Knox had been seen by Quintavalle at his store at 7.45 am?

Given the nature of the headbanging rock music, may this have been a celebration of the stagings already accomplished, or were they nerving themselves to return to the cottage and put their plan into operation?

Personally I favour the notion that it was after listening to the music. When they finished the staging I have no idea, but it would still have been at a time in the morning when it was unlikely that anyone i.e Filomena would come calling. And they could still have cleared off to Gubbio for the day.

Perhaps it was always the case that Knox and Sollecito needed to be present when the murder was discovered, and in circumstances they could control in such a manner as to convince others of their complete lack of complicity in what had happened.

Maybe much of what then happened had already been pre-planned, including the story of Knox visiting the cottage to have a shower etc.

If one assumes this, and that it was then that Knox realises her mistake with the lamp, then what subsequently transpired makes a lot more sense.

A discovery process which had initially seemed manageable became, with her error, laden with danger. The lamp had to be retrieved but, with Sollecito’s assistance, this could still be achieved in the confusion of Filomena and her friends attending the cottage and breaking down the door themselves.

Should Filomena have perhaps baulked at the idea of doing any damage, then I suspect Knox and Sollecito would have pressed her to authorise this, if not actually gone right ahead to do this themselves - and see how innocent that would have then made them look! Win-win!

What would complicate matters was if the police were also there, and so the possibility of anyone alerting the police had to be delayed.

Now let us look at the phone records with the above in mind.

From 12.07 until 12.35 am on the morning of the discovery of the murder, Knox and Filomena exchanged telephone calls, whereby Knox slowly ramped up the worry on Filomena’s part as to what was going on and Meredith’s safety.

As a consequence of the first call, by Knox, made from Sollecito’s bedsit, Filomena asked her to check certain things out e.g ring Meredith’s phones and keep her informed, but otherwise had not heard enough to indicate that she herself needed to return to the cottage, or that the police needed to be involved.

Incidentally, Knox had misled Filomena when asked by her whether she had yet tried calling Meredith by phone. Had Knox told Filomena the truth, that she had just tried Meredith’s english phone (for 16 seconds) Filomena would undoubtedly have been more than worried given that would have been after midday, when surely Meredith would have been up and about.

Was that the point of the omission, because Knox did not require Filomena to be that concerned yet? Time had yet to pass for Knox and Sollecito to compose themselves and for them to engage in the panic and search ritual which they were ready to describe. 

However Filomena remained concerned and called Knox twice more until Knox answered her from the cottage at 12.35 to inform her that her bedroom window had been broken and her room had been trashed.

Knox would have been fully aware what the effect would have been of the latter call. Filomena was adamant. Knox had to call the police. More importantly, for Knox, Filomena would now definitely be returning to the cottage, and quickly. Who would get there first? Filomena or the police? The answer, for Knox, would not be in doubt.

At 12.47 whilst awaiting the arrival of Filomena, Knox called her mother.

The circumstances of that call are extremely puzzling. In retrospect I think the call was simply to fill in time and to keep her nerves steady.

As to that call (4.47 am Seattle time, while Edda and Chris were still asleep, and prior to the discovery of Meredith”˜s body) Knox not only did not mention that in her e-mail but in taped conversation with her mother and in her trial testimony she steadfastly declined to recall that it had occurred.

Ostensibly the call would have been, of course, to report the break in. So what would be the problem with that? Indeed, Edda’s frustration with her daughter was eloquently expressed in her response during the taped conversation - “But nothing had happened yet!”  Knox clearly did not want to discuss her motive for the call, neither then nor later, nor as to what had transpired in conversation with her mother (and stepfather) before the discovery of Meredith’s body.

Not only was the timing of the 12.47 call inconvenient to her mother but I found it interesting to note from Knox’s phone records (covering 2nd Oct - 3rd November) that mother and daughter do not appear to have called or texted each other once by phone up until that 12.47 call.

It would appear then that in so far as they remained in direct communication with each other for that period it must have been by e-mail or Skype. Indeed Knox has referred to such communication being via internet café. One can therefore imagine that her mother was very surprised to receive that call.

It is also very difficult to accept that Knox could not recall a phone call she was not in the habit of making.

Until Knox published her book the only information that was available about the 12.47 call (apart from the phone log which showed that it lasted 88 seconds) came from her mother (who reported that her daughter was concerned about the break in) and her stepfather Chris Mellas.

Mellas says that he interrupted the conversation between mother and daughter to tell Amanda to get out of the cottage. In her book Knox tells us (her memory now having returned) that he yelled at her but that she was “spooked” enough without that.

But what had really happened to spook her? It was just a burglary after all, even if the matter of Meredith’s whereabouts was as yet unresolved. None of her own possessions had been stolen. Furthermore Filomena was on her way to take charge.

The call she made to her mother after the discovery of the murder (the one she remembered) was perfectly understandable, the prior call, without further context, less so. 

Readers will already know where I am coming from, but I believe that it was whilst walking back to the cottage with Sollecito that Knox realised her mistake with the lamp. However, it could have been earlier than that.

In any event this realisation would have set the cat amongst the pigeons for her. So, it was both a comfort and a rehearsal call, not simply because there had been a burglary, but because she knew a hazardous set of events was about to unfold on Romanelli’s arrival at the cottage. The fact that her mother and stepfather already had the jitters was not a good omen.

Still, retrieving the lamp and returning it to her own room remained feasible, provided the police were not there. However Romanelli had yet to arrive and time was running out.

Both Knox and Sollecito knew that any further delay in calling the police would look suspicious. Finally they did so, at 12.51, though it is probable that the postal police had unexpectedly arrived before then.

In my book I have argued that the likely time of arrival of the postal police was probably about 12.48-9. Indeed that may have been why Knox brought her call to her mother to an end.  (“Looks as if someone is coming. Gotta go now.”) 

I wonder if that is another reason why Knox would not want to remember the call, particularly during the taped conversation with her mother in the prison. She would not want to prompt her mother to that recollection. That wouldn’t fit with the claim, as related to the postal police, that they had already called the Carabinieri.

In any event, the opportunity to retrieve the lamp had been lost.

I have always thought that the oddities in Knox’s own account of events reveal and explain much even if, ostensibly, she appears to be giving an innocent account of everything. In her e-mail she refers to her panic and specifically links this to concern over Meredith’s whereabouts and safety.

However the panic suddenly subsided, and her concern was significantly lacking, non-existent actually, when the postal police made their surprise entrance before the arrival of Filomena and her friends. We can also see why she says, before that, that Sollecito would want, and allegedly attempt, to break Meredith’s door open.

Had I been in Knox’s shoes, and with a mutual alibi with Sollecito, I too would have thought the discovery of the murder of “my best friend” would have been manageable, but for that damned lamp. There would be questions to be answered, of course, but she had already thought all that through, hadn’t she?

As it happened, things did not turn out too bad for her in the immediate aftermath.

She was not, she thought, under immediate suspicion as she must have feared she would be. Seemingly nobody had twigged to the lamp business, nor to the staged burglary.

She must have thought the police immensely stupid for her to have got away with that, as she thought she had. She was also the centre of attention and coping reasonably well, but for that dicey moment when she was shown the drawer of knives in the kitchen.

Her confidence had soared sufficiently for her to even claim that she had checked her room and had found nothing missing!

But wait! What were those “hard facts” she claims the police had mentioned later during her fourth (5 Nov) pre-arrest interview?

Let me see. Hmm. Suspicions, certainly. Her alibi gone deep south. The locked door, the lamp, the quilt, the staged burglary? An e-mail in which she is just a bit too full of herself and the content of which, in places, was just a bit too unreal, daffy and lah-di-dah, to be true? The strange behaviour at the police station? Phone records? God, could they have phone records?

No wonder she didn’t ask the police to elaborate.

3. Amanda Knox Questioned On The Lamp At Trial

Giuliano Mignini:  Okay. Okay. Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith’s room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith’s room, at the foot of the bed. Was it yours?
Amanda Knox:  I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.
GM:  So the lamp was yours.
AK:  I suppose it was.
GM:  Was it missing from your room?
AK:  You know, I didn’t look.
GM:  Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?
AK:  I don’t know…

GM:  Now, another question. You told us before, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now, I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn’t by any chance try to break down the door to get back the lamp we talked about?
AK:  [perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn’t know the lamp was in there.
GM:  You didn’t know that your lamp was in there?
AK:  In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn’t even noticed it was missing. I tried—
GM:  You didn’t see that it was missing?
AK:  No, I didn’t see that it was missing.

Francesco Maresca:  In your room in via della Pergola, was there a central light?
Amanda Knox:  There was one but it didn’t work, so I used the little bedside lamp.
FM:  The lamp.
AK:  The little lamp, yes.
FM:  And you previously stated that you didn’t look for the lamp either; you only looked for your computer when you went into your room. You didn’t look for your money, you didn’t look for your lamp.
AK:  So, I saw the window only the second time that I entered the house. The first time I went into the house I didn’t even think of looking to see if anything was missing, because I saw going into the living room, it really looked like someone had just gone out of the house, everything was in order, just as I had left it. But the second time, I didn’t even think of looking for the lamp: the computer was the important thing for me. All my documents were in it.
FM:  But the first time, when you took your shower and then you returned to your room, first you undressed and then you dressed, all this, you did it without any light?
AK:  It was the middle of the morning, there was already light.
FM:  Did you open your shutters or were they already open?
AK:  I don’t remember.
FM:  To get to your room, to get to the window, you walked in the dark?
AK:  But it wasn’t dark in my room. Often—
FM:  I don’t know, I wasn’t there.
AK:  All right. Usually I only turned on that little lamp at night. Really at night, or in the evening, when I wanted to…So I didn’t even think of turning it on. It really wasn’t dark in my room when I went in.
GCM:  It wasn’t dark, but where was the light coming from? Natural light?
AK:  Natural.

4. Prior Posts With Significant Mention Of The Lamp

1. Click for Post:  Trial: Highlights Of The Testimony On 6 February And 7 February

2. Click for Post:  How The Media Should Approach The Case If Justice Is To Be Done And SEEN To Be Done

3. Click for Post:  Open Questions: An Experienced Trial Lawyer Recommends How To Zero In On the Truth

4. Click for Post:  Fifteenth Appeal Session: Prosecutor Manuela Comodi Starkly Explains All The Forensic Evidence

5. Click for Post:  How The Clean-Up And The Locked Door Contribute To The Very Strong Case For Guilt

6. Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Risks Penalties For Felony Claims No Different From What Already Cost Her 3 Years

7. Click for Post:  Given The Abundant Facts, What Scenario Is The Nencini Court Considering? Probably Not Unlike This

8. Click for Post:  Appeal Session #4: Today Lead Prosecutor Alessandro Crini Summarises The Prosecution’s Case

9. Click for Post:  Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz And Philly Lawyer Ted Simon Both Claim The Devil’s In The Details

10. Click for Post:  Knox & Sollecito Actions In The Week Prior To Arrest: An Incriminating Behavior Pattern For Sure

11. Click for Post:  Judge Nencini Issues Harsh Warning To Tell The Truth - So Amanda Knox Does The Precise Opposite

12. Click for Post:  Fifty Of The Most Common Myths Still Promoted Without Restraint By The Knox PR Campaign

13. Click for Post:  From David Marriott’s Parrot: Latest Talking Points To Be Beamed At The Unbelieving

14. Click for Post:  Questons For Knox: Adding A Dozen More To The Several Hundred Knox So Far Avoided

15. Click for Post:  A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #5

16. Click for Post:  Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book #12: Finally, We Nail Knox’s Self-Serving 2015 Afterword

5. My Prior TJMK Posts On The Physical Evidence

1. Click for Post:  Powerpoints #17: Why The Totality of Evidence Suggests Knox And Sollecito Are Guilty Just As Charged

2. Click for Post:  Despite Disinformation From Apologists And Even Supreme Court, Law & Science Support Damning DNA

3. Click for Post:  Multiple Attackers and the Compatibility of the Double DNA Knife (Exhibit 36)

4. Click for Post:  The Suspicious Behaviour And Evidence Contradicting the Mutual Alibis Of RS And AK

5. Click for Post:  Problems With Fred Davies #2: His Claims On Knives, Wounds And Stains Also Highly Mislead

6. Click for Post:  How The Clean-Up And The Locked Door Contribute To The Very Strong Case For Guilt

7. Click for Post:  Considering The Sad And Sensitive But Also Crucial Subject Of Meredith’s Time Of Death

6. My Book Of Which This Is A Part

Amazon US:  Justice on Trial: The Final Outcome - Evidence and Analysis in the Meredith Kercher Murder Case