Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Why Numerous Psychologists Now Observe Knox Skeptically

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding

Links to both ITV interviews kindly provided by Clander of PMF:  Daybreak Seattle interview and Daybreak London interview.

Please see the key past posts here and here and also here for some context.

Amanda Knox appeared in an English TV interview on the early morning of Monday September 23rd.

She spoke from Seattle to a detached ITV reporter in Seattle and a tough Daybreak anchor in London - tough. though she badly lacked second questions in follow-up. The interview was, by all accounts, fair, and also duly respectful towards Meredith’s family, who are in England.

But the girl or woman who is Amanda Knox we observed was neither calm nor happy.

There was not one authentic smile, and not a moment when the light came into her eyes. Her hair and make-up looked good - her presentation had been considered. But her skin was not well. As most women know, the skin, especially on the face, reveals your inner health, your inner peace.

As a psychologist, one is trained to distinguish ‘signs’, if you like, or indicators that illustrate the most crucial factors about the state of mind. One is taught to look beyond presentation and image, and too, beyond the actual words delivered, to hear what is actually being said - from the inner self or true self. Some people might prefer to use the term ‘the soul’.

What I heard in this interview is a person struggling and deeply disturbed and unhappy. I saw someone genuinely very afraid with strong feelings of hopelessness. Anger, defiance, and combativeness also showed.

But, newly, there were also signs of weariness with the self-elected fight. I believe Amanda is intelligent enough to realize that the weight and strength of the factual, combined evidence is stacked against her. Knowing this, as I believe she does, can only put her in an anguished state.

At times, one could plainly observe that a pre-rehearsed ‘PR’ line was being delivered. Amanda was being ‘a good girl’, and doing what she had been told.  Examples seem to be especially where she says such things as, “I am innocent”, “my innocence has been proven”, ‘...this case is not complicated..”

Since, by applying a little elemental logic, most of these statements can be shown to be untrue, they unfortunately sounded somewhat like mantras being delivered. Rather more that these were the things AK would LIKE to believe are true. As if perhaps, if she closes her eyes often enough and wishes hard enough, they might become true…and her nightmare would now be over.

But, alas, childish unreality cannot last. We live in a world where we are required to become adults, and to act responsibly as adults.

At junctions in the interview, where some of the more penetrating questions were asked involving human relations, an ‘inner adult’ Amanda could be seen trying to emerge. One point was where she was asked about what she would do if found finally guilty.

A burgeoning sense of realism could be detected in her reply. She knows herself in this respect: she would find it unbearable to try and live as a fugitive in the free world, labeled as a murderer and a slanderer. She actually said so, with strength of feeling. It is people’s hatred of her that she can’t bear, and it is that she is protesting about so much. And indeed it must be hard to bear.

The interviewer, Lorraine, spoke at length about the Kercher family, asking AK what she would like to say to them. When Amanda replied, also at length, she said,

“... I would like them to give me a chance…”

This sounded authentic to me, I felt she meant it. However, she added to this, sounding almost like an addendum, that she wanted them to believe she could be innocent. This latter phrase, added in a different voice and intonation, didn’t ring true to my ears.

I believe that what is truly in her heart is that she longs, beyond all measure, for the Kercher family not to totally hate her. (She gives the impression that she believes they do or could hate her). She seems to truly not to be able to bear the thought of being hated, and even more unbearable, the thought that by her behaviour (as a ‘kid’) perhaps, just maybe, she might deserve that hate.

This would seem to be the source of her anguish, and also behind many other of her statements in this interview.

There would be a way through for her - a third way. This would be to start telling the truth, the whole truth, now. It is never too late to speak the truth, and it is never too early, either. The truth endures. This is a fact of history.

It would indeed take enormous courage for Amanda to take this step. It would be immensely difficult for her because of the PR campaign. But if she could begin to answer the outstanding unresolved questions, factually and honestly (unembroidered and not exaggerated),  - she would, I believe, begin to heal her life, if this is genuinely what she wants.

She might be surprised at how much forgiveness there might be if she were to find the courage within herself to take this huge step. She quoted her priest/mentor from the Italian jail, when he advised her about how, at challenging times, we can find unknown resources and strength within ourselves that maybe we didn’t know we had.

She has a choice, and she could choose to do it. Making wise choices is what adults do.


Links to both ITV interviews kindly provided by Clander of PMF:  Daybreak Seattle: and Daybreak London


Knox seems or rather seemed to have tidal waves of trust followed at times by tidal waves of suspicion which maybe now have engulfed her. Such is the fate of those born not to read others. .

She didnt opt for silence and denial early on. She talked her head off at the central police station and was hard to shut up after her interview. She was kind, frank and friendly with Mignini and he was signalling her a deal that left to her own devices she might have jumped on. She’d have been looking at a term no longer than Guede’s: he could be out on work release in 2-3 years.

And she’d have had good support in prison and stayed on Italy which she liked. She’d have been well along the neccessary path described by Carol Poole in SeekingUnderstanding’s first link. Remember, though the appeal was undeniably bent, she didnt know that, or ask for it. 

But all changed, fatefully, early on. Her parents turned up and shushed her, and all the demonization began. The heavy interrogation by Mignini in the Knox book is completely made up but the urging by her parents and especially her lawyers to keep Mignini at bay was surely quite real. One of the clerarest examples of demonization was this:

Meredith DID understand Knox more than anybody, and was the only one in Perugia still prepared to try to make a go of it with her, sharp elbows and poor hygiene and all. Nobody else was at all interested, until the sucker Sollecito leapt in and was semi-accepted.

Meredith’s family may always regard her as sub-human, but its she that must take any first step to test that. SeekingUnderstanding’s recommended first step could perhaps release her, win some sympathy from a substantially better clase of people than those who have her in their claws for profit now. and wind this cruel charade down.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/25/13 at 04:35 AM | #

“... I would like them to give me a chance…”

Alas, I am no one to judge you. Your own actions are your best judge.

Alas, I only comment on actions and reports. I do not play with lives. I do not hate anyone and I hate to be hated!

It is never too late. And it is not really difficult, whatever your PR agents may say.

You be your own judge. YOU take control of your own life. AND come clean and be relieved.

There is no wrong that cannot be forgiven. Yes, I am not the judge and I do not want to be one.

Do you think it is too late?

Posted by chami on 09/25/13 at 04:49 AM | #

Hi, SeekingUnderstanding.

I am struck by her ability to draw her family into her denial. She isn’t even that interesting, it’s the family dynamic that now intrigues me. Have they spent a lifetime making allowances for her “specialness” they can’t believe she might actually be guilty and believe she was ‘railroaded’? Or are they actually covering up?

I feel sorry for her siblings, and wonder when the pressures will become too much for them to bear. You can see why the general public just isn’t interested, aside from a small group of people with ‘problems’. But her family? I see this in so many other families in similar situations. Most live in a state of denial, but siblings and children? They carry huge burdens.

Posted by Ergon on 09/25/13 at 04:55 AM | #


“Meredith’s family may always regard her as sub-human”

I beg to differ. I do know that both Arlene and John look kindness personified.

Look how they bear the pain! Did you ever see anger or hatred in their eyes? They are burdened with sorrow but they they have never fallen down!

They have turned out greater than most of us in their limitless suffering. It is impossible to know or feel others pain but I can imagine.

Posted by chami on 09/25/13 at 04:59 AM | #

Hi Ergon,

‘ draw her family into her denial’.  This is one of the most regrettable and chaos-causing aspects of this sorry story.

Unfortunately, to me, it is the indicator of family dysfunction which in fact emphasizes the deep-rooted complexity of Amanda’s behavioural problems and unreliable state of mind.  (She actually referred to this complexity herself in this last interview, when she said about being a ‘kid’).

It is not unknown - in fact it is relatively common - for one person in a family to become a ‘flag bearer’, if you like, for everyone else…it’s as if the whole family’s problems become focused through the lens of just one of them, and are expressed through this one.

In other circumstances the one person can become a scapegoat in the family for everyone else to transfer the problems onto. This has a particular dynamic ; there can be unconscious fear of becoming a scapegoat in a family, and this can translate into a pressure to conform. The family takes an unnatural pride in holding together and acting together, as if this was a virtue in itself, and thence disregard the fact that they may be defending something indefensible.

This may explain something of it. It can be immensely difficult for the siblings - their entire security and emotional stability is at stake…I wouldn’t criticize them, but would perhaps suggest that they gave some deep thought to what would really help their sister at this point in time.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 06:29 AM | #

No-one can grieve if they are in denial. No-one can even begin to grieve if they are in denial and lying.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 06:47 AM | #

@ SeekingUnderstanding:

“The interviewer, Lorraine, spoke at length about the Kercher family, asking AK what she would like to say to them. When Amanda replied, also at length, she said,  “... I would like them to give me a chance…”

What a “slap in the face” for Knox to ask the Kerchers for a “chance” ... Knox has had plenty of chances to tell the TRUTH, but she has chosen not to.  The Kerchers deserve the TRUTH—they have suffered enough !

This “reaching out” is nothing more than an attempt by Knox and her handlers to make Knox seem more “compassionate” and more “likeable” ... but it’s not going to work ... way too late, in my opinion.

And thank you, SeekingUnderstanding, for this post.  True Justice is just around the corner for Meredith !

Posted by MissMarple on 09/25/13 at 07:10 AM | #

I bumped into Deanna in January. That was post-acquittal, and pre- Cassation. She came over as small, meek and fragile, no sign of her earlier FOA bluster. 

She probably feels like the one who doesn’t get to go to the ball.

Posted by mimi on 09/25/13 at 07:30 AM | #


Yes, the whole interview seemed to me to be manipulative. There wouldn’t be such attempts at manipulation if there was an adequate emotional understanding or empathy.

What we sometimes call ‘fellow feeling’ would simply constrain such attempts. Anyone who can feel for others would know how incredibly hurtful manipulation can be.

Manipulation is also childish. It’s what children do.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 08:08 AM | #

Excellent article SU. Moving.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 09/25/13 at 09:27 AM | #

Hi Pete,

I was never really sure about your repeated remarks that the police could not stop Amanda gabbing on but having watched the Daybreak interview I have no doubts at all now that you were correct. Give her a vacuum of silence and Amanda will fill it with words.

I also found the session with her and her parents interesting, that is the interrelationship between Amanda and her parents, and vice versa. Curt and Edda were like bookends hewn of the same unyielding hardwood with the soft pulp of a well-thumbed paperback novel sandwiched in between them.

Whenever Curt or Edda spoke Amanda turned to gaze long and hard at her parent. Maybe I am just projecting but it seemed to me that there was an intensity in her eyes akin to a religious fervour born of desperation, as if her parents’ words were the way, the truth and the light. There was a moment when Edda stopped talking and Amanda’s head dropped dramatically as if a spell had been broken.

Lorraine Kelly asked Amanda whether she could sleep at night and whether she had peace of mind. Interestingly Amanda chose not to regard this as a question about her conscience and for a moment I detected panic in her parents when Amanda answered “I have no peace of mind”. She paused, her parents eyes shot towards her, but then Amanda waffled on about the unfairness of the judicial process. I am sure her parents were mightily relieved at that point. I doubt that troubling consciences are discussed all that much in the Knox/Mellas household.

Thanks SeekingUnderstanding.

Posted by James Raper on 09/25/13 at 12:52 PM | #

@seeking understanding

Thank you for you very thoughtful analysis. Your comments always strike me as being the more humane as you really are seeking to understand.The deep grief and loss of losing a loved one so young in a brutal and random way is beyond words.My heart always goes out to the Kercher family .They have shown great and a natural dignity in catastrophic loss.

One fact is that this will never leave them.

AK was asked again if she had anything to say to the Kercher family. Knox then seeks their permission to visit Merediths grave to offer them and herself some form of healing and closure.She asks for the Kercher fmaily to “give her a chance” and even consider the possibility of her innocncence.

Surely as Lorraine Kelly reminded Knox and her family that is to be decided by the Italian court.

If someone like Lorraine Kelly could interview Knox again I would like them to lead her to a point where she could be asked not what she would want to say to the Kercher family but what it is she would like to tell Meredith ?

As Peter and others pointed out Meredith WAS a friend to her. What is there in Amanda that could not relate to that?

Watching the KNox parents hem her in on the sofa and thus in the interview I thought was very telling . Yes she does need to get out from under her family. Her remark ” I was just a kid” is this her mother speaking? Edda saying that she wanted to protect her innocent child?? Curt insiting that there was no evidence of her in that room. It is a family denial.

Amanda feels persecuted, “hunted” but is only haunted by the treatment she says she received as an innocent person wrongfully convicted.

It is no wonder that she inspires indignation and contempt. Yet it is true that Amanda can own her own actions ...if as an adult she is willing to take responsibility for them.

Her parents are doing her no favours. The relationship between her and Sollecito was a dangerous toxic mix. He said to his father that she was childlike and lived in a world of her own making.Trying to unravel the truth here can only come from each of them,Knox, Sollecito, and Guede telling the truth.

Hopefully Amanda can come to terms with herself and face up to her damaged self. Whatever hurt and fracture in her that lead her to a killing rage with Sollecito is the real cause here and maybe that is why Curt and Edda protect her so much.Rarely do they consider the loss of Meredith. And as long as they insist that Amanda was “not there”, “only a kid” and play the victim as if being accused of a crime is the real and only crime here, then the Knox family will forever be locked into denial and living in the past . This will never ever leave them either .

The real victims here are the Kercher family and their wonderful daughter Meredith.

Posted by Olliebear on 09/25/13 at 01:13 PM | #

Thank you SeekingUnderstanding for your very interesting and incisive analysis; it actually motivates me to revisit the interview with “fresh eyes” (watching AK harp on is such an onerous task that is high praise indeed!).

Do you - or does anyone - have a link for the part where Curt/Edda/Amanda are together? I watched Daybreak live but somehow I missed that part and I can’t find it anywhere.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/25/13 at 01:29 PM | #

Thank you all for your appreciation. I do think something important is happening via this site.

@Odysseus:  Like you, I wasn’t able to view the parent and child episode. Thankyou Olliebear for your description - interesting.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 01:53 PM | #

Hi Olliebear

Thanks.  This set-up with her parents either side does sound interesting, but I can’t find any trace by Googling with reference to the Mail or Telegraph.

Maybe someone will have a link. It doesn’t seem to have been part of “Daybreak”.

[Links to the PMF interview videos are now added at top of post and also in Clander’s comment below. Pete]

Posted by Odysseus on 09/25/13 at 02:06 PM | #

I recorded both interviews and I found the Lorraine Kelly interview particularly interesting.  The total lack of arm movement and the monotone flat level voice are both signs that she has been coached.  The result of this was that Knox came across as unnatural.

The micro-emotions Knox displayed were very telling.  For instance, at one point, when asked about John Kercher a look of disgust flashed across her face.  I have no education in this area but there are scientists who could analyse this interview and could provide a great insight into Knox’s character. 

One in particular is the psychologist who helped with the series ‘Lie To Me’, Paul Ekman.  I emailed him via his company website but apparently they do not ‘comment on such matters’.  A real shame because there are plenty of scientists who specialise in reading facial expressions who do, in fact they help the police and the FBI!

If Knox’s interview could be examined minutely in this way by a specialist in this field, we would learn a lot.  I believe her guilt is evident by this interview.

Posted by MHILL4 on 09/25/13 at 02:09 PM | #


Yes, indeed, I did make a list of all the micro gestures to help arrive at my analysis. There were so many it was like a constant stream.

They are important because they are involuntary and cannot be coached ( to do or not to do). They really are fractions of a second…mostly the eyes and mouth.

However, interpretation is a skill, and one couldn’t just put up a list of definitive meanings. May I suggest anyone interested looks to reading matter available - including Paul Ekman ( on kindle) ?

It is very interesting generally for observation in all human relations.  I find Joe Navarro’s (ex-FBI) book helpful too.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 02:27 PM | #

Ahem Chami.  In misquoting me you set up a bit of a straw man:


“Meredith’s family may always regard her as sub-human”  I beg to differ. I do know that both Arlene and John look kindness personified.


My full sentence was “Meredith’s family may always regard her as sub-human, but its she that must take any first step to test that.”

If Knox ever gets to think she can easily get “closure” from a nice kind family she has so grievously injured and cost a small fortune without coming clean, she wont bend.

John K himself obviously sees it just the same way. He has already come out with a sharp response to Knox’s tin-eared appeal: “We’ve seen this all before”.

I knew he’d said that before I posted my comment. No wimping. Sustained pressure is the thing.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/25/13 at 03:33 PM | #

Thank you, SU, for this post.  It is very interesting to analyse her response to the interviewer’s questions and it is certainly clear that she displays some contempt and impatience with some of the questions.

I do wonder about the question of hatred, though.

Personally I don’t detect any ‘hatred’ in the Kerchers who come across as dignified and humane.  You say that the child Amanda would believe they would hate her (at least I think that is what you meant 😉 ).

Of course we cannot truly know their emotions or whether hatred sits in their hearts but a child does often believe, when they have done wrong, that the adult would hate him / her and would be desperately in need of reassurance and approval.

James Raper talks about the relationship of Amanda with her parents as observed in the VDO clip of them on the sofa.  My take on Amanda turning and staring at them when they spoke was more that of a child fearful of what they may say and of whether her security would suddenly crack open should she detect any hint of their deviating from the so-far-established official line.  The same was apparent when they were interviewed along with Deanna by Elizabeth Vargas on GMA:

Amanda talks a lot in these interviews about ‘family’ and what it means and how she ‘had’ that and the other prisoners did not.

But, of course, it was her arrest and the trial that really brought them together as a family (SU explains how families can ‘project’ onto a member as a ‘flag bearer’ or a ‘scape goat’ in different ways).

She is dependent on this family for her survival in this next phase and the slightest hint that Edda or Curt may be cooling in their combative ardour for her cause will cause her fear and anxiety and a loss of security.  That is how I read the staring at her parents.

@ Olliebear:

“Surely as Lorraine Kelly reminded Knox and her family that is to be decided by the Italian court.
If someone like Lorraine Kelly could interview Knox again I would like them to lead her to a point where she could be asked not what she would want to say to the Kercher family but what it is she would like to tell Meredith ?”

That was my question, too!  I think this question would break something ......

Posted by thundering on 09/25/13 at 03:34 PM | #


I find her voice a bit like the voice of Jodi Aries, both can lie big time right into the camera, no problem. The voices and images are engaging to me like my french teacher who used to almost put me to sleep in class.

Everyone on the side of the Kercher family and the prosecution and even the circle of acquaintances Amanda had in Perugia have all been very very quiet. Even Rudy all very quiet. Apart from John Kercher publishing his book Meredith about his lost beloved daughter.

I don’t believe that Amanda has one solitary friend in Italy. No one from Perugia or anywhere else in Italy. No one wants to know her. And in Seattle am sure no self respecting family would want her in their midst. All this talk of I AM DOING GREAT for the cameras. I think the truth is even the american boyfriend is off the scene.

Thank you Seekingunderstanding for your professional interpretation of the interview.  For a professional someone like Amanda Knox must be enough material for an entire conference.  All very dignified and waiting for the process to conclude.

Posted by Mason2. on 09/25/13 at 03:35 PM | #


I’ve queried this with PMF. When they reply I’ll post here how members can be “authorised to read this forum”.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/25/13 at 04:32 PM | #

Hi thundering,

and thank you for your comment.  Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my prose, but I completely agree about the Kerchers. I am awed, frankly, by their remarkable dignity, and NOT in fact expressing hate, just the deepest sorrow and grief.

I was focusing on what Amanda thinks and feels,( in order to establish what’s going on right now), and it definitely comes across to me that she believes they hate her. One has to ask why does she believe it? Does she know they would have just cause?

“but a child does often believe, when they have done wrong, that the adult would hate him / her ...”  This is very true, not just for some children, but also for those with arrested or damaged emotional development.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 04:43 PM | #

Hi Mason2:

“I don’t believe that Amanda has one solitary friend in Italy. No one from Perugia or anywhere else in Italy. No one wants to know her. And in Seattle am sure no self respecting family would want her in their midst. All this talk of I AM DOING GREAT for the cameras. I think the truth is even the american boyfriend is off the scene.”

True. She has no friends at all from the house days and those few in Capanne who had words of sympathy and understanding for her all got pretty badly shafted in her book.

Give it time and she may turn on everyone who ever tried to make a buck out of her here.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/25/13 at 04:45 PM | #


I recall that her sister (deanna) once mentioned that someone wrote something objectionable on her desk during the trial. I have completely forgotten the reference. Was the matter investigated? Or, she just said it for the heck of it?

It is just plain curiosity. I felt at that time that this is just a “get attention” trick.

Posted by chami on 09/25/13 at 04:54 PM | #

For the Seattle Daybreak video on PMF:

For the “Lorraine” London interview:

Posted by Clander on 09/25/13 at 04:55 PM | #

Hi Clander

Hate to be a pain but do you know which (if any) of those 2 links contain the mysterious segment with ma,pa and their first-born? (I dread wading unnecessarily through the parts with just Knoxious on her own again).

Neither is the reference I thought was the link i.e. (which doesn’t let you access)

Posted by Odysseus on 09/25/13 at 05:19 PM | #


Sorry I did not write clearly. I can try once more! Give me one more chance!

“Meredith’s family may always regard her as sub-human, but its she that must take any first step to test that.”

It is very easy to come clean: but is it enough?

I do not think so. Kindness is not weakness.

Judges that deliver punishment without compassion are cruel. She (AK) was given every opportunity in the book and she exploited the system (this is my personal opinion) maximally to her advantage. Now she says that her trial is not fair. This is plain and simple dishonesty.


“If Knox ever gets to think she can easily get “closure” from a nice kind family she has so grievously injured and cost a small fortune without coming clean, she wont bend”

One essential prerequisite is humility and sincerity. She lacks both. I count them together and they must be demonstrated.

Rest will follow.

Posted by chami on 09/25/13 at 05:19 PM | #


Carol’s post, in the first link above - about why people don’t show remorse - seems very relevant.


I’ve watched it now! On ITV player, ’ Lorraine’ (from Monday ), ...and it’s about the second segment, I think starts around ‘8.54’am -ish.

Actually not very long, and all very posed. I thought Ak’s first words the most interesting ” oh, absolutely….they were more determined than I was..” ( not to let her go back to Italy).

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 05:28 PM | #


Hurrah! Thank you. Will watch tonight.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/25/13 at 05:35 PM | #

The “Lorraine” (the second link) is the family show on the sofa.

AK overall seems very arrogant, like she is above everyone. Curt also, he is “looking down” on the camera somehow.

Hate to see these 3 people together. Can’t wait for the trial begin.  RIP Meredith.

Posted by Hungarian. on 09/25/13 at 05:45 PM | #

Yes yes yes i have finally seen the entire production of last monday at breakfast in the UK. Oh dear oh dear oh dear is it me or does Amanda have a strange way of expressing herself.

There’s not warmth no flow with the conversation with Lorraine Kelly she just went on and on and on with her speech.

She must believe that to just say over and over again i was wrongfully convicted people will believe her. The questions were very soft and if only someone would confront her with hey wait a minute what about this lamp of yours found inside the locked bedroom and wiped clean of any prints.

There is proof that Meredith’s resting position was not the original position of when death occurred. Amanda goes on about the proof of her innocence being that inside Meredith’s room there is no evidence of her.

What there is - is proof of a major re arrangement of the body and the room. Who does that. Somebody who lives in the house and wants to throw off the investigators.

Posted by Mason2. on 09/25/13 at 05:53 PM | #

I haven’t watched these interviews—can’t stand to watch the Knox brood-but reading this, it sounds like Knox and her family are getting increasingly repetitive.  Hope that leads to future interviewers getting more aggressive.

Posted by Ceylon on 09/25/13 at 06:04 PM | #


I think the interviewers are waiting for the Florence proceedings…when there will be a lot of drama to be had from the whole picture coming out.

The defence repeating mantra-like a few things that have been decided upon won’t make them more true, the first time or the 50th time.

Reading body language (again), as well as tone of voice, I felt the interviewer Lorraine was decidedly unconvinced, and was restraining herself into a neutral position. And the English not as gullible as some in the States, perhaps.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 06:26 PM | #

According to Raffaele’s book agent, Sharlene Martin, Senator Cantwell and Representative Smith of Seattle are hosting a “congressional briefing” in Room SVC 203 in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center on Wednesday, October 2, 2013 from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m.

Cantwell and Smith will be personally hosting a panel of “experts” for attendees that will include Judge Mike Heavey ex FBI Agents Steve Moore and John Douglas.  Also in attendance will be Raffaele’s new spokesperson John Q. Kelly.

Apparently Knox and Sollecito are now fully convinced that their appeal effort will fail and that their conviction for murder will be upheld. It seems that they are now resorting to a full-on attack on the United States Government for the purpose of denying any extradition efforts regarding Knox and to offer political asylum for Sollecito.

I wish them luck with their lobbying effort as the US Congress cannot seem agree on anything at all these days!

Posted by Fly By Night on 09/25/13 at 09:00 PM | #


Regarding family dynamics in your earlier post above.

“It can be immensely difficult for the siblings - their entire security and emotional stability is at stake…I wouldn’t criticize them, but would perhaps suggest that they gave some deep thought to what would really help their sister at this point in time”.

Absolutely. “Leaving home” is so important in a young life and it’s certainly not just a matter of moving from the family residence as the bare words imply. It means over time facing and questioning everything imbibed in one’s upbringing. Individuation entails going beyond the family, maybe at first unconsciously (via outright rebellion for example) and earnestly forging one’s own life.

Eventually coming to a place where you can see you HAD (were impelled) to follow that different course if you were to be true to yourself and become more conscious.  Only at this stage can there be some perspective on, and compassion for, the family situation you left behind. Then there will be the realisation that on some level you have successfully taken up the baton that was handed to you by your family line.  It’s a mythical heroic journey and one that has dire consequences for life if not embarked on.

I wonder if AK believed she was somehow making this necessary journey by venturing off to Italy in a haphazard way and “letting it all hang out”. It certainly was rebellious - but also rudderless; she really didn’t give Italy time to allow entry into a more mythic mode and appreciate the great adventure she was on (in fact it seems she was desperate to do everything “forbidden” the moment she got off the plane).

Actually she was still acting out the mere APPEARANCE of rebellion (anathema to any self-respecting rebel), via drugs etc., which seems to have been her rather pathetic modus operandi in her native city. As has been posted here before by others , it seems she really wasn’t intellectually or morally prepared for such a huge leap into a different culture, and all without any supervision it seems.

Jung (sorry, always quoting this but I can’t resist): “I feel very strongly that I am under the influence of things or questions which were left incomplete and unanswered by my parents and grandparents and more distant ancestors”.

I hope Deanna in particular heeds the strong inner call and really starts forging her own life, irrespective of all this.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/25/13 at 09:52 PM | #

Hi Odysseus,
Yes, that’s all making sense,- and don’t apologize for quoting Jung ... He’s really sound on individuating, and the way we grow away from our mother and father, and then gradually become parent, child and adult all integrated as one.
Well, hopefully !

Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, - either a complex neural problem or a simpler one concerning misuse of drugs - Ms. Knox was unable to manage the transition into independent life and self-responsibility.
What is of great concern is, should someone i.e. a responsible adult, have realized this in advance ? If they had, perhaps Meredith would be alive, and the Kercher family spared something no human being should have to live through.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 10:07 PM | #

I posted on PMF that I found it instructive to watch the interviews without sound, (since she won’t say anything truthful anyways.) Without sound, it becomes easier to watch her body language and facial expressions and really see how she struggles with both the questions and answers. She either doesn’t want to say it, doesn’t want to hear it or doesn’t want to be there.

I also found the difference in her demeanor between the two interviews to be significant. She seemed very stiff in the first interview by herself, and far more relaxed and at ease in the second interview, as if perhaps she feels comfort or more protected with her parents there.

Just my impression anyway.

Posted by Marcello on 09/25/13 at 10:08 PM | #

I also found this wiki article to be very interesting- especially the symptoms section; I think Knox fits this disorder to a ‘T’.

Posted by Marcello on 09/25/13 at 10:19 PM | #


I am in agreement with you…  she is very uncomfortable indeed, and keeps closing her eyes, rapidly, when there are things she would rather not hear, which is almost constantly.

I think she is in psychological pain, partly because of the strain of this PR - which I have called anguish.

It is something not always realized - living a lie, maintaining a lie - these things are a huge strain, and cause enormous mental stress. She can be seen straining to remember what she ‘ought’ to be saying. While if one speaks the simple truth, it’s easy. One just does. One can be spontaneous.

The solution to this stress is her choice, as above.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 10:58 PM | #

@ceylon   I have lost interest in seeing any more of the side show. I will happily watch the trial made so much better by Amandas absence.
It’s pretty much out of our hands now…

Posted by Bettina on 09/25/13 at 11:04 PM | #


I also noticed she constantly shakes her head in the first interview, like ‘no’ ‘no’ ‘no’ ‘no’ (which reminds me of ‘Negative Love’ in John Adams’ Harmonium.)

Many thanks for your post and particularly the links to the earlier posts. Great work and insights. I have not followed the case closely, and am missing many details, but reading the motivations reports and various insights has been an extraordinary discovery of how complicated justice is.

Personally, I find Sollecito to be stranger and perhaps more dangerous than Knox. I think Knox clearly has narcissistic traits; perhaps these can be treated if she so desires. But Sollecito seems far more complicated and bizarre- between his various fetishes, lack of emotion in court, his marijuana addiction and ‘mental absence’ when conversing with others, etc.

I find it curious that Guede has consistently stated it was ‘the man with the knife’ who killed Ms. Kercher, and (so far as I know) has never indicated Knox as the killer. Perhaps he too found Sollecito more menacing than Knox?

Posted by Marcello on 09/25/13 at 11:16 PM | #

This latest comprehensive news update coverage on the case by journalist Andrea Vogt.

Posted by True North on 09/25/13 at 11:33 PM | #


I am with you, but would introduce a note of caution…in as much as true personality disorder (if it be this in both) is extremely hard to treat - at the present time at least - in fact it may be incurable.

The crucial factor is awareness, and the ability to reflect. This is linked to the development of conscience.

Of course, some psychologists may not like to recognize this, as it would seem to put a limit on the profession!

Only joking…don’t think one could do psychology unless one is realistic.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/25/13 at 11:45 PM | #


“While if one speaks the simple truth, it’s easy. One just does”

Not if you are suffering from NPD! Survival depends entirely on maintaining the (unconscious) pretence that the image you present is the “real” you. To face, or even understand and acknowledge that who you are is not the persona you present to the world is unthinkable.

To the NPD sufferer it is beyond their comprehension. Amanda Knox is being confronted by this realisation. It is her family and handlers who have denied her the opportunity to find her real self and deal with it.

It is very, very sad because the consequences of such a lack of understanding on the part of her family has lead to such a tragic outcome. And what compounds this case is the utter arrogance of her handlers…...

Posted by Miles on 09/26/13 at 12:02 AM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding, great insights. I agree with this perceptive post, coming from a real psychologist. Thank you for lending your expertise to Knox’s interview. You saw the hopelessness and fear that she is trying to offset by her anger and combative spirit. She is one determined cookie, however shortsighted or misled.

I liked the clarity of your statement that “The truth endures. It is a fact of history.” Oh how right. When Knox starts standing on the truth she will find herself a lot less shakey. Her skin would clear up because she could eat and sleep in peace. She could drop the medications, the nightmares and panic attacks would end. Humility is strength.

It is a big price to pay to confess her guilt openly and stop hiding the truth of what she did to Meredith but it would be a big seed. She’d be sowing not sparingly any more but bounteously a very valuable seed. It would yield a tremendous harvest of good into her life.

It would take a lot of faith and courage, but those virtues and more would multiply back to her, perhaps even an early release from prison and unexpected favors and benefits. Sow in tears but reap in joy. It’s hard work and sweaty to plant and wait around for the crop, but joy to see fruit appear by the ton.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/26/13 at 01:30 AM | #

as a by the way… Ch 5 air their documentary tomorrow night, which from the posts on seems to plumb even lower depths of cheap tabloid television…does not look worth even watching.

Posted by Olliebear on 09/26/13 at 01:37 AM | #

So Senator Cantwell is involved in this meeting in a room in Congress (FBN’s post).
I thought she had left this behind some time ago??

Posted by thundering on 09/26/13 at 02:36 AM | #

I do think however that not enough attention’s been paid to Raffaele’s psychology. Back in July when there was some speculation he would change legal representation/throw Amanda under the bus here’s what I wrote then on PMFdotNet:

-Given that Curatolo saw them together that night,I thought it highly unlikely he would change his story.

-Sollecito will be dragged, kicking and screaming into prison one day, still protesting his innocence.

-Chances of him changing representation right now, are minus zero. (Confirmed recently by Sollecito Sr that Bongiorno and Maori will be representing him)

-I think he’s possessed by Amanda.

-He’s so wired into the Groupies and Herself that his ego, his persona is now based on his book. He will be her “Honor Bound” white knight of his book, to the end.

And now, based on his hiring of John Kelly, and tomorrow’s presentation, he seems to have been roped by Amanda’s people into being a prop for her extradition fight. Truly stupid. He has no chance of getting asylum, though her Groupies seem to be filling his head with that.

Posted by Ergon on 09/26/13 at 05:00 AM | #

Thank you very much Hopeful - it would be good if you were heard…

I suppose AK is easier than RS, as my Italian is not so good.
Also he is not so articulate!
I do have my thoughts of course. One thing is so clear - their relationship is not based on healthy concepts.

Thanks to Miles too, and everyone, for their contribution

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/26/13 at 08:18 AM | #

A year or so ago a reader wrote us some bitter emails about the school Knox was at, she also was there, and claimed it messed up other kids. Anyone know?

A key fact in AK’s psychological development could be that before she was age one she witnessed Curt & Edda beating one another’s brains out and an explosive separation before Deanna was born. Curt showed his huge rage for a decade, described here:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/13 at 09:06 AM | #

Re: Amanda telling the truth.
She would also have to face up to the fact that not only did she accuse Patrick Lumumba but she also let Rudy Guede take all the blame and be in prison…

Posted by DavidB on 09/26/13 at 02:58 PM | #

This article written about RS’s DNA on the bra clasp was very informative for me, discussing the other fragments of DNA found on it as well.  I had been confused about some of the discussions back and forth on this topic from both sides. If it is such a good match….kind of hard to explain that evidence away, even if the bra clasp was stepped on by police, kicked around the room 100 times as he claimed to never have entered that room.  If they had RS’s DNA on their ‘dirty gloves’ then how did it get there and then get transferred to the bra clasp?  It is strange that it is the only place it was found, and not on her other clothing.

Posted by believing on 09/26/13 at 06:21 PM | #

Curt and Edda know, even if only sub-consciously, what happened. This is obvious from all their actions right from the start. Cover-up and angry denial, allegations of corruption in Italian justice, etc. have been their chosen options.

In a way this is only to be expected. It can’t be easy coming to terms with the alternative: their child was at least involved, probably was actually the prime mover and was very likely the killer of her flatmate.

The unpleasant fact is that most families would quite likely react the same - and that tells us something unpleasant about families: they can quite easily become mutual protection rackets. This is why it can often enough take real courage for a youngster to admit to such a perception and be determined to break away.

At bottom, in unenlightened families, is the idea that one’s children are one’s possessions and they must be defended come hell or high water, like any other material possession. Actually, as Stanislav Grof says, “children are not really your own. You do not use them for any purpose simply of your own. You become a channel for life to come in through”. That implies bringing them up responsibly and then letting them go, job done. However, this takes some spiritual maturity. Unfortunately what usually happen is that “family” (cue “EastEnders” accent) are defended forever thereafter, at all and any cost, out of some oddly primitive and mafia-like fear of “family dishonour”.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/26/13 at 06:26 PM | #

Of course AK is not going to Italy for this part of the trial.  She’s worried about landing in jail again, and losing her chance to live out her life as she wants.  I do get the sense of regret that she did something really stupid when she was a ‘kid’ so it was another person, not who she is now.  We’ve all done stupid things at that age, and now I look back and think “what was I doing? how stupid and/or dangerous” myself, but of course, I did nothing violent or anything that would match this situation.  I remember a few kids back then, age 19-21 who died in car accidents caused by drunk driving.  I remember ‘kids’ taking ‘recreational’ drugs of different kinds while in college.  I remember one guy who was totally out of control if he would drink too much.  He now runs a multi-million dollar company.  These former ‘kids’ are all upstanding middle-aged citizens now, some are even doctors.  Very few went off the deep end after graduation but did some dumb things while in college and out from under adult supervision for the first time.  Freedom, yeah!  But you have to learn responsibility too, and sometimes that comes after something bad happens.

Obviously she is much more polished and educated now than she was at 19-20 after six more years of maturity and study.  It’s true that she isn’t the same person she was back then.  However, who is she, really?  Who is Raphael, really?  Who is Rudy Guede, really?  Will we ever know what really happened?  Are they dangerous to society now?  Who knows?  How can it be predicted?  Have they suffered enough and regretted their actions enough already?  Are they punished enough, knowing what really happened and why?  I’m not saying they shouldn’t return to jail if found guilty again, but nothing will bring back Meredith either.  I don’t know what happened exactly, who did what to whom, so all we can do it await the new trial and see how it all plays out.  If Rudy Guede would give enough details himself to really convince everyone that he is telling the truth, then maybe there will be closure.

No, there is no point to ask her about going to Italy for the new trial.  It’s all about getting support in the USA not to get extradited.  Hence all the interviews.

Posted by believing on 09/26/13 at 06:37 PM | #


I think Amanda Knox will remain potentially very dangerous until she understands and has strategies to deal with herself. While she is ” closed down” as she is at the moment, she is harmless but also ineffective. She is having to constrain herself, behave, which means she is not getting any strokes. At some point, given the opportunity she will revert to type in order to “be loved, the centre of attention again”.

Posted by Miles on 09/26/13 at 07:04 PM | #

On Allvoices a hard hitting post by the fearless Chelsea Hoffman (her last name is spelt differently from the notorious judge’s) observes that Knox’s refusal to return to Italy and taunting of the Kercher family could add to the reasons to extradite her.


In just four days Amanda Knox’s retrial will begin, leading the way to a verdict as early as December. That means that the countdown for final justice in Meredith Kercher’s death is beginning, but what has Knox been up to? For one, she has been trying to reach out to the Kercher family, asking to see her grave in a move that has more than just a couple people perplexed. Mr. Kercher, naturally, has declined Knox’s request and referred to her faux grief as nothing more but “rubbish” that he had heard all before.

Her continued attempts at trying to view Meredith’s grave are just creepy and reek of a killer just wanting to relive the fantasy of what happened, at least that’s likely how the victim’s father feels about this. If Amanda is truly innocent—which is unlikely—then she’s being ridiculous by reaching out in this manner. Meanwhile, while she’s refusing to fly back to Italy to face responsibility during the retrial it’s been reported that her former lover is going to return. Raffaele Sollecito likely knows that he can’t hide out here as an Italian abroad—not a U.S. citizen—So what’s the point in fighting it? Good for him?

It’s just too bad that Amanda Knox has displayed the level of cowardice that she is. While she is dodging her responsibilities as a murder suspect in this case she is using her time to torment and taunt the victim’s family, which should certainly be used against her if she is convicted in the end. The U.S. may see it as a reason to extradite.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/13 at 07:16 PM | #

Hi Believing

The FOA have often argued on the lines you outline: “Jeez, it was only one little murder”. Judge Hoffmann kept harping on that he saw them as “young people” though Guede in fact is no older. Drugs were admitted but it was for defense to try to use that in mitigation if they could. Most here dont see that as a reason for a break.

A problem we all have is that neither show the least regret or contrition or respect for the family of the victim. That they are out now is only because of dirty tricks played in 2011. By their own lawyers. Their list of people suffering “collateral damage” grows and grows, and even now they are out there smearing more people.

I dont see right now as being the best time to blink. SeekingUnderstanding has suggested a way forward for Knox: tell all. Italian justice is very, very fair and the Florence court looks efficient and impartial

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/13 at 07:28 PM | #

Hi believing
  “Are they dangerous to society now?  Who knows?  How can it be predicted?  Have they suffered enough and regretted their actions enough already? “

Unfortunately, while there remains no indication of contrition, there is no ‘owning’ of the action/events, and so responsibility is also not owned. From a psychological perspective, this means further irresponsible action will be more likely to occur.
One could say it is predictably unpredictable.
So there could be danger, especially associated with certain situations.

One scenario where there might be risk could be having a child. The first 3 months of parenthood test the best and most stable people.

The Italians, in my experience the most humane of people, considered them to be a risk after their psychiatric assessments (which have not been released).

It is one thing to regret something having happened, because it has had an adverse affect on the progress of one’s own life and affairs. It is another to regret with sorrow, and feelings of remorse ( see first link in post). Then we might learn, in a meaningful way.
Put simply, I suppose - if we don’t admit to doing wrong, we are more likely to do wrong again.
And so we have justice systems…which have evolved over thousands of years.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/26/13 at 08:46 PM | #

Channel 5 in Britain are going to broadcast a documentary about the case this evening at 10.00pm GMT. From what I’ve read about the programme, it seems there is going to be a very superficial look at a fraction of the evidence a la Hellmann and the documentary team will conclude there are alternative innocent explanations e.g. it was possible for Guede to have killed Meredith by himself.

The programme makers have looked at couple of pieces of evidence in isolation rather than evaluated them in a global and unified perspective. Channel 5 should stick to broadcasting trashy programmes like Home and Away and Neighbours. I’m not surprised no-one takes Channel 5 seriously in Britain.

You can sends tweets to Channel 5 Press:


Posted by The Machine on 09/26/13 at 09:42 PM | #

I looked at the 5 questions channel 5 are going to be examining, and decided not to bother following it.

It appears that only certain bits of evidence favourable to the defendants are being talked about at all. Other key points - important and proven points -are just being airbrushed out of existence, if the ‘trailer’ is correct…

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/26/13 at 11:30 PM | #

While observing her behavior now 1 can’t help but draw parallels with her behavior back in 2007.

Now : ‘she believes they (the Kerchers) hate her’    Then: She believes Meredith hates her

Now : She wants the Kercher’s “... to give her a chance…”   

Then: She wants Meredith and her friends to like her

Now and Then : strong feelings of hopelessness. Anger, defiance, and combativeness

Knox: ‘I am not the person they say I am’

Is she or isn’t she? You be the judge.

Posted by jhansigirl on 09/26/13 at 11:55 PM | #

Just watching ‘5 key questions’ on Channel 5. What a load of rubbish. Have they researched the case?

Posted by starsdad on 09/27/13 at 12:22 AM | #

There is an interval. I cannot believe someone has researched this case. The reconstructions are totally wrong. It is bizarre!!!

Posted by starsdad on 09/27/13 at 12:28 AM | #


good observations.  ‘I am not the person they say I am’  ..who is “they”?  The media? Which media? The Italian judiciary? Which ones?  In Italian or translated?

It is difficult to see who someone really is, in their core self. It is especially difficult when presented with endless veneers and rehearsed presentations, and sometimes contradictions.

Does she know herself, who she is? It is her business, after all.

But she has made it other people’s business by allowing the media circus. She could have withdrawn to privacy. But as it is, if people suspect they have been subjected to a huge deception, then they will not tolerate it, and rightly so, if true.

@starsdad thanks for saving us the bother!

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/27/13 at 01:06 AM | #

The channel 5 documentary was a load of gunk. Whether from a pro guilt or pro innocence point of view it’s unbelievable that anybody can broadcast stuff like this.

The one valid point that was brought up towards the end was that there has been no practical investigations carried out by the defence or prosecution - like whether the witness Nara Capezzali heard the scream and steps on the iron stairs.

The documentary claimed her flat was 200 metres from the bungalow and she couldn’t have heard anything - I thought it was supposed to be a lot closer, like 50 metres. Can anyone verify this?

Does anybody know if anybody has actually tried to confirm whether you could hear a scream or running footsteps from inside the flat - would have thought this would have been fairly simple for some journalist to check out.

Posted by John Forbes on 09/27/13 at 01:19 AM | #

You can now post comments about the documentary on the Channel 5 website:

Posted by The Machine on 09/27/13 at 01:21 AM | #

...except that sounds carry differently in different conditions, and people’s hearing differs too. Some people, often women, can hear much higher frequencies which can carry far if piercing.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/27/13 at 01:38 AM | #

The program was total shite. I was in Perugia this March and took a whole lot of photographs (large files) including of the stairs. The distance from the cottage to the apartment is around 60 meters, not 200, the stairs are these heavy Iron affairs set against a stone wall, reverbs like crazy (I know, I ran up and down them) and the distance from the stairs to Capezzali’s is 20 meters, which makes total liars of the program. They replicated nothing, they lied about everything, the Murdochs of the media.

Posted by Ergon on 09/27/13 at 02:18 AM | #

Did they replicate the natural amphitheater formation of the valley which funnels sounds up to the apartment? Nope. It was a cool night I was there, and I could hear a dog barking from kilometers away down the valley

Posted by Ergon on 09/27/13 at 02:22 AM | #

Foolish 5. Very foolish 5. With the exceptions of the loopy David Anderson and Bill Williams every comment I read was informed and very negative.

(Someone suggested Berlusconi has some ownership. He is notorious for trying to bring the Italian justice system down a peg or two.)

Anyway. I was there above the cottage 2-3 times at night, and one could have heard a pin drop. Same experience exactly as Ergon sans the dog.

Kermit’s first post in 2008 was on the issue of the sounds carrying up to Signora Nara’s. That has been well tested, and also (by Paul Ciolino as Kermt shows) very badly tested.

The outraged Ciolino actually had his test runners running in the wrong location! You cant make this stuff up. Here are three other posts all showing the locations and distances (fairly small, well below 100 meters).

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/27/13 at 03:23 AM | #

And, Pete, to get to the stairs they would have had to run directly up the ramp here thus passing directly under Nara Capezzali’s window, thus making her story even more credible.

Also, do not forget the stairs lead directly to Via Pinturicchio which is where Curatolo saw Amanda and Raffaele coming from later that night, where they went to the basketball court and kept peering over towards the cottage gates. And yes, I was able to determine they could see the entrance from their vantage point.

It was the sum total of all the witnesses testimony that convinced me. It was observing the geography through my own eyes (and my camera) that convinced me. And again, thanks to Kermit and Some Alibi’s excellent presentations here that gave me an idea of the geography of Perugia, so that when I got there, it being the first time, I still found my way around with no difficulty, like I had been there before.

The TV viewers did not even see the cottage, just a mock set, and they call that evidence? Thankfully, Massei’s jury got to see the distances to Filomena’s window, the improbability of the defense scenario.  And now, thankfully, we will not have to revisit that. What rabbit can Bongiorno now pull out of her hat?

Posted by Ergon on 09/27/13 at 05:15 AM | #

Every time I see the photos of the cottage and its views, I’m amazed that a place of such beauty could have been the scene of that crime. 

Nara does look very convincing in the photos and her apartment looks right down on the cottage.  That set of iron stairs would make a terrible loud clanging noise with people running up them.  Why would she make that up anyway?

Posted by believing on 09/27/13 at 08:48 AM | #

I just watched a TV show in which a highly regarded policeman had a secret life at night regularly going around raping young women, and his wife had no idea.  His own colleague found him outside the last woman’s house, skulking in the shadows. 

He systematically removed the DNA evidence after each assault, even made the victims take baths, and so the police weren’t able to catch him for a long time.  The physical evidence used in the trial, besides catching him red-handed on the scene, was only two little fibers from his clothing that matched clothing in his house.  Was sentenced to like 400 years in prison. 

Scary that people like that lurk around seeming to be normal.  You definitely can’t go by how someone looks.

Posted by believing on 09/27/13 at 08:58 AM | #

Haven’t watched the programme on 5 last night, yet. While I recorded it, I think I’ll hit delete. Reading the comments today both here and on, and I feel winded. How can people sleep when they are driving the agenda like this, away from the facts, and what the hell is it about AK that induces this behaviour?

Jhansigirl - very shrewd comments above about similarities in AK’s behaviour then and now. I suspect it’s a pattern that spirals when she feels she isn’t in control of a situation. Why else did they not go to Grubbio (however you spell it) that day?

I feel gutted. That that show aired with no reference to some pretty basic facts.

The poor Kerchers. Poor, dishonoured Meredith.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 09/27/13 at 09:30 AM | #

I watched the Channel 5 programme and it was pretty dire, but not as dire as I feared.

I didn’t have high hopes for it as Channel 5 aren’t the BBC and don’t produce quality investigative programmes - they are in the business of airing true-crime documentaries that keep the average viewer in “did they,  didn’t they do it?” suspense. “Entertained” in other words. They were never going to do proper research on this case.

I imagine the Knox groupies will have found it frustrating as well. So there’s one real plus.  Meanwhile the real action starts on Monday.

Posted by Odysseus on 09/27/13 at 10:20 AM | #

Regarding the Channel 5 documentary and Nara Capezzali’s testimony. The stairs have been RECONDITIONED and REPAIRED. They were loose and rackety on the night of the murder! I cannot believe that a TV channel would put such little research into a programme. I can only think that it is a cheap channel trying to bring attention to itself.

Posted by starsdad on 09/27/13 at 10:59 AM | #

The only interesting question to addresss to the Ch5 mockumentary is “Who on earth commissioned and produced this slanted , bias, camera hyped POS.?”

The timing before the trial and the UK broadcast seem to suggest it is another PR play subsidised by ..who exactly? wonder no one watches it…  school kids could put a better program together.When Truth goes out the window Ch5 leaps in.

Posted by Olliebear on 09/27/13 at 11:44 AM | #


“and what the hell is it about AK that induces this behaviour?”

People with NPD are often very charismatic.

Meredith seems to have seen through this, but maybe the family and close friends at home didn’t.

Posted by Miles on 09/27/13 at 12:45 PM | #

Posts will follow thick and fast in the next few days. These tweeting storms are increasing the readership and even more importantly dragging more media over to take a look. Really, thanks a lot.

Next post should be by SomeAlibi, a post he put up in draft on PMF on another huge mistake Sollecito has made. Anything to rattle his cage - if anything sinks in; the jury is out on that still.

Thereafter a lot of hard truths for Senator Cantwell to think about, and then appeal-appeal-appeal.

We hope to have the usual great reporting from Andrea Vogt, hopefully Barbie Nadeau is back in form, and we may have two or more people right there in the court at any one time.

There are major developments on the MOF/Narducci front, none of it good news for Mario Spetzi or Preston which the Supreme Court has just concluded DO simply make malicious things up.


Looking to help? We want to build a full list of these silly mantras Knox has been taught to use. None of them ring true, to anyone who knows the details of the case, and we want to nail each one.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/27/13 at 05:28 PM | #

I was very disappointed in both interviews - Seattle and London.

There were far too many “soft” questions, with Knox allowed to ramble on about how all of this has affected HER!

In Seattle, when asked why she would not return to Italy for the trial, Knox claimed that she had already spent four years in jail for a crime of which she was innocent.  Wrong! Knox spend the majority of that time in prison because of her conviction, (since upheld by the Supreme Court),  for wrongly implicating Diya Lumumba in the murder.

Why was the interviewer not better prepared? She could have jumped on Knox’s deception and her use of this blatant lie to justify her refusal to return for the Appeal.

As for the UK interview, we have all had enough of soft questions to Knox, such as “How did you manage to survive the experience”?

Is Knox really serious that she has spent all of the $3.4 million dollars paying back her parents and her lawyers’ fees? I don’t think so!

Let’s have a proper interview where Knox is confronted by hard EVIDENCE, such as her DNA mixed with that of Meredith in the murder house bathroom and their combined DNA on a knife in Sollecito’s flat.

Why not ask her why, having found so many strange discoveries at her house, such as all the blood in the bathroom, when she returned to Sollecito’s house, did she not immediately tell Solliceto about them. No, she has stated that they first cleaned up his house and then made breakfast. Only then did Knox get round to telling Solliceto - simply unbelievable tripe!

Roll on the re-hearing of the Appeal and the True Justice for Meredith of a guilty verdict, followed by Knox’s extradition, as a murderess, to serve her sentence to the full.

Posted by Mealer on 09/27/13 at 06:48 PM | #

@Mealer - “Let’s have a proper interview where Knox is confronted by hard EVIDENCE, such as her DNA mixed with that of Meredith in the murder house bathroom and their combined DNA on a knife in Sollecito’s flat.”

And her knowledge of the scene behind the door prior to it opening.

You’re so right, the media has been a problem from the start.

Well, for what it’s worth, we are Meredith’s voice. Am not related and I don’t know the Kercher family or friends, but I am genuinely horrified about the events that have taken place the level of deception that people stoop to to protect these two vicious, lying killers.

Reading the reviews of last nights ch5 programme has left me devastated. Again that people will be duped and duped once more.

Pete, all, the more that people read here and at the better. I will continue tweeting (quite new to it and will only use it for as long as the Appeal and the ensuing circus requires my support to quell).

How the Kerchers have maintained themselves throughout is beyond me. I suppose needs must. But the appalling show last night has left me gasping for breath. I thought Daybreak, whilst hardly hardhitting, was a turning point in the reporting.

A plague upon their houses! A shameless grab for ratings.

Meredith, you deserved better. It is an honour to invest the hours, days and months that I have in speaking for you. Your bloody savage death will not ever be allowed to vanish.

Amanda Knox, if you read here, we all know what you did.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 09/27/13 at 08:36 PM | #

I suspect that interviewers/program planners are given a straight-forward choice : no hard questions, or else no interview…?

But truth will out, and many people will feel foolish, and some people will feel angry, that they have been duped or simply misled.
I think probably the media will turn around, and go the other way, conveniently forgetting about how many of them forgot to do any investigative research.
There is an opportunity for a journalist to do so, now.
Thanks to the few who have.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/27/13 at 11:57 PM | #

The simulation was so bad…twitter began flooding with neg comments from viewers.

I could forgive Amanda in the greater scheme.  It will not be easy after she said the intentionally hurtful things she said to Kerchers, and after the stupid wild ride she has wasted our time with for six years

I am looking at a photo of Meredith…she beautiful.

Posted by Bettina on 09/28/13 at 01:49 AM | #

In the Daybreak Seattle interview, Amanda first says, “This case isn’t complicated.”  (9:25)  Later, she says, “I would ask people who are so ready to judge me for my mistakes to understand that it is much more complicated than that.” (14:01)

Is it just me, or does this not make any sense at all?

Posted by CamilleGrace on 09/28/13 at 07:21 AM | #

@Camille Grace
Yes, I noticed too. It does come across as inconsistent, and also indicates some inner chaos.
It could be because the first statement was at the end of what I have referred to as a rehearsed ‘mantra’ .. I.e. something she had been instructed to say ?
The second statement was said in quite a different voice and tone.

Bitterly ironic, too, - as a different plea some years ago would have meant the case would have simpler and more straight forward.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 09/28/13 at 09:33 AM | #

Post A Comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Questions For Sollecito: Why So Many Contradictory Explanations Of How DNA Got On The Knife?

Or to previous entry Questions For Knox: Ten Hard Questions That Knox Should Be Asked Monday On ITV’s Daybreak