Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Appeal Session #7: The Day For Knox And Sollecito Attorneys To Show Where Prosecution Went Wrong

Posted by Our Main Posters

[Above and below: images from previous sessions, here till today’s crop appears]

Long Form Reports

Website of Andrea Vogt

The court hearing reserved for Knox’s appeal defense began with the reading of an email from Amanda, reported here in the Messaggero and then widely picked up in the English-language press, claiming her innocence and explaining why she was afraid to return to Italy. The email was the only “new” aspect introduced Tuesday so made all the headlines, but at the end of the day it occupied just a small fraction of the day’s arguments. 

Several Italian court observers considered the email a considerable “own goal,” having witnessed the presiding judge raise his eyebrows in obvious annoyance at having to himself read aloud an email from Knox, who requested an appeal in his courtroom, but is refusing to attend it, for reasons she detailed.  “Those who want to speak at the trial should come to the trial,” he said. He also declined to consider the letter a spontaneous declaration because, he said, he could not ascertain if she was the true author of the letter. “I’ve never seen her. I do not know her,” he said.

After the email, Knox’s Perugian lawyer Luciano Ghirga made his closing arguments, followed by Carlo Dalla Vedova of Rome.  Most of the discussion focused on two aspects of the case they felt are fundamentally lacking: motive and murder weapon. Below are short quotes/snippets translated quickly during court.  To read the Kercher family lawyer’s arguments, scroll down to yesterday’s notes.

[Report continues on The Freelance Desk with good summaries of arguments made by Ghirga and Della Vedova]

3. Tweets from La Nazione

66. Meredith process , the hearing ends. The next hearing will be on January 9 [Sollecito team]

65. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : ” Amanda Knox is shown to have worshipped [Meredith]”

64. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “There is a shortage of proof”

63. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “There is no evidence, with doubts you have to acquit Amanda Knox”

62. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “On the motive the prosecutor did the same as the Costa Concordia at Giglio”

61. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Room too small for the participation of more people in the crime”

60. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The victim was attacked from the front,  not from behind”

59. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “For Amanda and Raffaele, Rudy Guede was a stranger”

58. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The bra clasp of Meredith is not a genuine artifact”

57. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The bra clasp November 2nd was white, but 40 days after gray”

56. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Amanda knew the cut was throat because she was told by a policeman “

55. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Absurd that there are missing only traces of Amanda and Raffaele “

54.Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The alleged footprint of female shoe on the pillow: pillowcase was folded over.”

53. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The broken glass from the window shows the easiest way to enter the house “

52. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “War between consultants is like “The War of the Roses” where everyone will hate “

51. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Unable for Amanda and Raffaele to commit the crime in 50 minutes “

50. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The mother of Meredith says she and Amanda were friends “

49. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Guede never says that Amanda was in the house, even outside the interrogations”

48. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Guede never talks about Amanda “

47.Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : ” Guede in his chats after the murder told a friend that Amanda had nothing to do with it”

46. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “There are traces only of Rudy Guede at the crime scene “

45. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The witness Curatolo either is unreliable or is our alibi. Decide for yourself “

44. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Do not trust the testimony of the witness Quintavalle “

43. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Amanda did not call into question Lumumba to sidetrack the investigation “

42. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The alibi of Amanda is of the same type as her roommates ”

41. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The alibi of Amanda is accurate and unchanged in her deposition ”

40. Meredith appeal: the argument of Carlo Dalla Vedova, defender of Amanda Knox, resumes.

39. Meredith appeal: Judge orders one-hour lunch break

38. President Nencini asks if there are certificates for the AIDS tests done on Amanda, but there are none

37. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “It was said of Amanda in prison that she had AIDS, but it turned out an error ”

36. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “From the conversations in prison Amanda does not show anything, the sum of zeros ”

35. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “In 30 hours of interviews with parents in prison Amanda never was heard [incriminating herself]”

34. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “It was immediately admited, the mistake by the investigators”

33. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The footprint of Guede on the pillow right now is the signature of the crime”

32. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Lumumba was not to be charged, he confirmed his alibi”.

31. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “There has been judicial harassment against [my client]”

30. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Prosecution and plaintiff leverage statements of Amanda unusable ”

29. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The declarations of Amanda between 5 and 6 November are unusable ”

28. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Absurd that Amanda is joining the attack on a friend ”

27. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Changing motive is constantly an element of weakness of the prosecution ”

26. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Add up all the clues , the sum of zero is always zero ”

25. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Without connections between clues and evidences the value is zero ”

24. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “In this process there is no evidence ”

23. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “A murder without a motive is fallacious ”

22. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Absurd that the knife used for the murder was brought home ”

21. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Imaginative reconstruction of the prosecution ”

20. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “This story has been in the headlines for months ”

19. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Meredith killed in this manner is a defeat for all ”

18. The closing argument of Lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova begins (Knox defense).

17. Meredith appeal: the closing argument of the Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ) ends.

16. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ) : “Amanda Knox was not present at the crime scene ”

15. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The judgment of Justice is the acquittal of Amanda

14. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The witness Curatolo is unreliable ”

13. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “We challenged from the outset the murder weapon ”

12. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “On the blade of the knife there is no blood and no trace of Meredith.”

11. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The expertise that revealed traces of Meredith on the knife is not trusted “

10. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The knife found at Sollecito’s house is not the murder weapon “

9. The closing argument of Luciano Ghirga defender Amanda Knox begins.

8. Amanda to the court: ” I am innocent , put an end to this enormous injustice ”

7. Amanda : “I’m not the monster he has been portrayed in recent years ”

6. Amanda: ” I did not know Rudy Guede ”

5. Amanda: “I’m not a killer , the prosecution and the civil parties are wrong , they want a conviction without proof ”

4. Amanda: ” Meredith and I have always been friends , we never quarreled ”

3. Amanda: “I have been subjected to illegal interrogation , I made a false confession extorted”

2. Amanda: “I have not killed , raped , robbed , I was not at the scene of the crime”

1. The email of Amanda : “I’m innocent , but I am not in court because I’m afraid”

2. Tweets from Freelance Andrea Vogt

3. Carlo dalla Vedova to #amandaknox appeal jury: If there is no murder motive, you must acquit.

2. Carlo dalla Vedova: We know #amandaknox is innocent. As time passes we’re even more tranquil.There are many more doubts than certainties.

1. In Florence, amanda knox lawyer holds up large knife to jury: “Starch was on the knife. It was not cleaned. It was in domestic use.”

1. Email from Amanda Knox

Court of Appeals of Florence section II Assise Proc. Pen, 11113

Letter sent to attorneys Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga via email Seattle, 15 December 2013

Attn: Honorable Court of Appeals of Florence

I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified accusations of the prosecution and civil parties. I seek not to supplant their work; rather, because I am not present to take part in this current phase of the judicial process, I feel compelled to share my own perspective as a six—year-long defendant and victim of injustice.

The Court has access to my previous declarations and I trust will review them before coming to a verdict. I must repeat: I am innocent.

I am not a murderer. I am not a rapist. I am not a thief or a plotter or an instigator. I did not kill Meredith or take part in her murder or have any prior or special knowledge of what occurred that night. I was not there and had nothing to do with it.

I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid. I am afraid that the prosecution’s vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you. I’m afraid of the universal problem of wrongful conviction. This is not for lack of faith in your powers of discernment, but because the prosecution has succeeded before in convincing a perfectly sound court of concerned and discerning adults to convict innocent people-Rafael and me.

My life being on the line and having with others already suffered too much, I’ve attentively followed this process and gleaned the following facts that have emerged from the development of this case that I beg you not to dismiss when making your judgment:

No physical evidence places me in Meredith ‘s bedroom, the scene of the crime, because I was not there and didn’t take part in the crime.

Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of his presence in the brutal scenario: handprints, footprints, shoe prints in Meredith’s blood; DNA in her purse, on her clothing, in her body.

No evidence places me in the same brutal scenario. The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have participated in the aggression and murder—to have been the one to fatally wound Meredith—without leaving any genetic trace of myself. That is because it is impossible. It is impossible to identify and destroy all genetic traces of myself in a crime

scene and retain all genetic traces of another individual. Either I was there, or I wasn’t. The analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn’t there.

My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “confession” that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime- The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “confession.” Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge.

My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer. I never thought or imagined that they would have used my openness and trust to fuel their suspicions. I did not hide myself or my feelings: when I needed comfort, Rafael embraced me; when I was sad and scared, I cried; when I was angry, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence; when I was trying to help, I answered questions, consoled Meredith’s friends and tried to keep a positive attitude.

Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position. Twenty—years old and alone in a foreign country, I was innocent and never expected to be suspected and subjugated to torture. I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew. I was denied legal counsel- The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it illegal. I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I was told I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I was told that if I didn’t succeed in remembering what happened to Meredith that night I would never see my family again. I was browbeaten into confusion and despair. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth.

The police coerced me into signing a false “confession” that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which the police wrongfully interpreted (‘Civediamo piu tardi. Buona serata’). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward—it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba’s defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable. I simply didn’t know what they were demanding me to know. After over 50 hours of questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.

This coerced and illegitimate statement was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship. This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander. The prosecution and civil parties would have you believe that this coerced and illegitimate statement is proof of my involvement in the murder. They are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.

Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false"confession” because of torture.

This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false “confessions.” Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone. And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party—just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guide.

In the brief time Meredith and I were roommates and friends we never fought.

Meredith was my friend. She was kind to me, helpful, generous, fun. She never criticized me. She never gave me so much as a dirty look.

But the prosecution claims that a rift was created between Meredith and I because of cleanliness. This is a distortion of the facts. Please refer to the testimonies of my housemaster and Meredith’s British friends. None of them ever witnessed or heard about Meredith and I fighting, arguing, disliking each other. None of them ever claimed Meredith was a confrontational clean-freak, or I a confrontational slob. Laura Masotho testified that both Meredith and I only occasionally cleaned, whereas she and Filomena Romanelli were more concerned with cleanliness. Meredith’s British friends testified that Meredith had once told them that she felt a little uncomfortable about finding the right words to kindly talk tome, her new roommate, about cleanliness in the bathroom we shared. The prosecution would have you believe this is motivation for murder. But this is a terrifying distortion of the facts.

I did not carry around Rafael’s kitchen knife.

This claim by the prosecution, crucial to their theory, is uncorroborated by any physical evidence or witness testimony. I didn’t fear the streets of Perugia and didn’t need to carry around with me a large, cumbersome weapon which would have ripped my cloth book bag to shreds. My book bag showed no signs of having carried a bloody weapon. The claim that he would have insisted I carry a large chef’s knife is not just senseless, but a disturbing indication of how willing the prosecution is to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven theory.

It is yet another piece of invented “evidence”, another circumstance of theory fabricated to order, because having discovered nothing else, the prosecution could only invent.

I had no Contact with Rudy Guide.

Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guide. He played basketball with the young men who lived in the apartment below us. Meredith and I had been introduced to him together. Perhaps I had seen him amongst the swarms of students

who crowded the Perugian streets and pubs in the evenings, but that was it. We didn’t have each other’s phone number, we didn’t meet in private, we weren’t acquaintances. I never bought drugs from Rudy Guide or anyone else. The phone records show no connection. There are no witnesses who place us together. The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guide to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn’t even speak the same language. Once again, the prosecution is relying upon a disturbing and unacceptable pattern of distortion of the objective evidence.

I am not a psychopath.

There is no short list to the malicious and unfounded slanders I have suffered over the course of this legal process. In trial I have been called no less than:

“Conniving; manipulating; man—eater; narcissist; enchantress; duplicitous; adulterer; drug addict; an explosive mix of drugs, sex, and alcohol; dirty; witch; murderer; slanderer; demon; depraved; imposter; promiscuous; succubus; evil; dead inside; pervert; dissolute; a wolf in sheep’s clothing; rapist; thief; reeking of sex; Judas; she-devil;

I have never demonstrated anti-social, aggressive, violent, or behavior. I am not addicted to sex or drugs. Upon my arrest I was tested for drugs and the results were negative. I am not a split-personality One does not adopt behavior spontaneously.

This is a fantasy. This is uncorroborated by any objective evidence or testimony. The prosecution and civil parties created and pursued this character assassination because they have nothing else to show you. They have neither proof, nor logic, nor the facts on their side. They only have their slanders against me, their personal opinions about me. They want you to think I’m a monster because it is easy to condemn a monster. It is easy to dismiss a monster’s defense as deception. But the prosecution and civil parties are both severely mistaken and wrong. They have condemned me without proof of guilt, and they seek to convince you to condemn me without proof of guilt.

If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics. There would be no need for smoke and mirrors to distract you from the lack of physical evidence against me. But because no evidence exists that proves my guilt, the prosecution would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements. Because I am not a murderer, they would seek to mislead you into convicting me by charging your emotions, by painting me not as an innocent until proven guilty, but as a monster.

The prosecution and civil parties are committing injustices against me because they cannot bring themselves to admit, even to themselves, that they’ve made a terrible mistake.

The Court has seen that the prosecution and civil parties will not hear criticism of their mistakes. Not by the experts of the defense, nor by the experts of the Court.

The Court has seen that the prosecution jumped to conclusions at the very start of their investigation: they interrogated and arrested innocent people and claimed “Case Closed"before any evidence could be analyzed, before bothering to check alibis.

The prosecutor and investigators were under tremendous pressure to solve the mystery of what happened to Meredith as soon as possible. The local and International media was breathing down the necks of these detectives. Their reputations and careers were to be made or broken. In their haste, they made mistakes. Under pressure, they admitted to as few mistakes as possible and committed themselves to a theory founded upon mistakes.

Had they not jumped to conclusions based on nothing but their personal and highly subjective feeling, they would have discovered definitive and undeniable evidence of not Patrick Lumumba, not Rafael Sollecito, not Amanda Knox, but of Rudy Guide. We would not be here over six years later debating inconclusive and unreliable “clues.” We would have been spared the cost, anguish and suffering, not only of Raffaele’s and my family, but especially of Meredith’s family as well.

The prosecution’s accusations are unworthy of judicial or public confidence. In over six years they have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated theory of the crime, but would nevertheless argue that you should take my life away. I beg you to see the facts and reason of what I say. I am innocent. Rafael is innocent. Meredith and her family deserve the truth. Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice.

in faith,

Amanda Marie Knox


Strange email from Knox. This is very odd. Original version in English is here:  http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2013_12_Knox_Email_To_Court.pdf

Judge Nencini clearly was not very pleased that she insulted his careful well-managed process where he keeps ALL lawyers on the straight and narrow, prosecution lawyers too. He delegitimised the email even before he read it out and rejects it as part of the court record.

Does Knox even realize this is HER appeal? Its happening only because SHE asked for it. Does she have a case to make, or not? She repeats the “50 hours without a lawyer” line which was her failed defense against the Patrick calunnia, not the defense she needs now.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/17/13 at 04:16 PM | #

From above: 

“I’m not in the courtroom because I’m afraid.”


Knox needs to put an end to the “poor pitiful me act”—it’s the same ole re-run.

It is total disrespect to send the Court an E-mail !

It is very telling that her and Raf are nowhere near the Court in Florence, and that is because they both know this Court is not the Hellman Court.

Thoughts and Prayers to the Kercher Family ...

And True Justice will be here soon for Meredith !

Posted by MissMarple on 12/17/13 at 04:17 PM | #

One thing we should keep in mind, Amanda Knox’s e-mail, like her supposed ECHR filing, is addressed not to the Italian court, but, her home base.

She’s preparing for the extradition battle.

Posted by Ergon on 12/17/13 at 04:36 PM | #

Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “On the blade of the knife there is no blood and no trace of Meredith.”

Oh yes, there is, confirmed (among other things) by none other than Sollecito, who explained how he “pricked” Meredith’s finger when they were “cooking” together - later he said he imagined the scene which never happened, but hey, dude, just how stupid do you think people are?

Posted by Bjorn on 12/17/13 at 04:56 PM | #

Hi Ergon

“She’s preparing for the extradition battle.” But I’ve been hearing another theory from inside the media which could explain why Knox’s excuses are so incredibly lame.

Some in the media who get exposure to the Mellases and the Knoxes were really surprised to find that their grasp of the hard facts of the case almost isnt there at all.

I remember when “Bruce Fischer” turned up on the forums in 2010. He was friendly enough then but very full of himself, thinking he’d solved the crime. He also had “fact” after “fact” wrong and was laughed off the forums after a few days.

Steve Moore is still like that, Heavey too, maybe Frank too. They just cant argue properly or garsp - or mentally re-tool when they are proved wrong.


The original version of Knox’s rejected email in English is here:  http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2013_12_Knox_Email_To_Court.pdf

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/17/13 at 05:35 PM | #

Well she certainly is tone deaf herself, Peter. Like attracts like I guess.

From her blog today:
“The Kercher family’s civil attorney, Francesco Maresca, in his closing arguments yesterday, claimed I have been collecting unspecified funds in the name of Meredith and her family. He left the impression that I was deceiving the public and collecting those funds for myself.

Please visit the Meredith Kercher Murder page and scroll down to the Donation section to discover that I have simply added a link to the Kercher family’s own website where they solicit donations for their ongoing struggle through this heartbreaking legal process.

I have been solicited by Mr. Maresca to remove from my site anything I have done to honor her memory or show support to her family. My response was that no one but the Kercher family has any right to make such a request. As I await direct contact from the family of my murdered friend, I will continue to honor her and show support.”

Posted by Ergon on 12/17/13 at 06:23 PM | #

Hi Ergon

Bad move. A lot of people in Italy will be looking at that website now where Knox is already widely despised. Could cost her 40 years.

You said “like attracts like”. Sorry, I was not clear.

It is her own flesh and blood (Curt and Edda) and especially Chris Mellas the reporters were amazed at for their dim grasp of the case.  They sat for hours through court hearings with no interpreter at their side. And apparently they dont read.

So is it “Like begets like” ?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/17/13 at 06:48 PM | #

“I have been solicited by Mr. Maresca to remove from my site anything I have done to honor her memory or show support to her family. My response was that no one but the Kercher family has any right to make such a request. As I await direct contact from the family of my murdered friend, I will continue to honor her and show support”

This is also known as American Exceptionalism.

Posted by chami on 12/17/13 at 06:49 PM | #

Chami, Chami, Chami…!!

I’d say a majority here now has either gone very quiet or concedes her guilt.

This has been an almost unique phenomenon in that a fairly typical PR campaign of the worst sort ran into almost zero resistance or pushback because those impuged were in Italy, use a different language, and are largely officially constrained.

Its the (healthy) trends we need to watch and not ridicule when they are good.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/17/13 at 06:58 PM | #

Re no 65 above: “Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : ” Amanda Knox is shown to have worshipped [Meredith]” “

I would suggest this forms part of the problem.

If the defence and those who speak for them had a more substantial grounding in psychology, it is not something they would have thought wise to mention.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/17/13 at 06:59 PM | #

“One thing we should keep in mind, Amanda Knox’s e-mail, like her supposed ECHR filing, is addressed not to the Italian court, but, her home base”

Makes sense. And perhaps a good move. But I think it is too little, too late. Anyway, the army is disorganised, fed-up and starved for direction and guidance.

I understand. And you know. But do the army gets it? An army is as good as its general.

Posted by chami on 12/17/13 at 07:00 PM | #


I do not understand why you felt offended. It is a common catch-phrase.

Well, now I can see what you did see. I meant:

The “American” girl, also called Amanda Knox, did something terrible but just thought it is funny or just a game people play.

The “exceptional” part is that she still thinks that she did nothing wrong and while people did believe her for some time, as we all are trained to believe things first and doubts come later, people naturally are asking questions.

Another equivalent phrase is also common: shoot first, ask later.

I do not mean to offend anyone, not even AK.

Posted by chami on 12/17/13 at 07:13 PM | #

Hi Chami

“I do not understand why you felt offended.” I personally didnt. But we do try to avoid negative national stereotypes here, and you usualy do too.

Try googling “American Exceptionalism” and see the tidal wave of caustic rebuttals of that term by Americans themselves.

The US public was largely conned over this case; and now we can see and support signs it is becoming un-conned.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/17/13 at 07:26 PM | #


It is really not uncommon that we first murder somebody and then start worshipping.

In a meta language, we have already murdered love, compassion, kindness, decency etc etc.

Don’t we still worship them?

The gap between love and hate is hair-thin. You do not often realize how this transformation takes place (just like the Kreutzer Sonata).

I am pleasantly surprised at the number of people who are talking about motive (in this case). As if we all understand “mind”.

The problem is further compounded because motive is an abstract concept, a virtual force and is the driving cause for all effects. Motive is usually impulse driven (like a hammer) and quietly disappears after the effect takes hold.

You are left wondering how the nail went into the wood!

The defense has an unenviable job. I hope they are getting paid well.

Posted by chami on 12/17/13 at 07:37 PM | #

Hi, Peter, when we look at the family then “like begets like”, and when we look at Bruce Fischer Frank Sfarzo and Co., then “like attracts like” I suppose 😊

Though there are and always will be exceptions, I am sure.

Posted by Ergon on 12/17/13 at 08:16 PM | #

I hope the jury will hear about Knox’s refusal to take the donation link down. Taunting the victim’s family for her own publicity must be judged as an aggravating circumstance

Posted by Xarta on 12/17/13 at 08:33 PM | #

In my military career I have had more than a passing acquaintance with “Post Traumatic Stress”

Some of my friends and acquaintances who did tours in Afghanistan and several other theaters of war suffer from it in very diverse ways.

Although I am not by any means an expert I feel that it is more than possible that Knox has simply subverted and denied the memory of killing Meredith, so that in her own mind she really believes she was not there and therefore is innocent, and refuses to except that the night in question was nothing but a bad dream.

However the evidence is what it is, and if eventually she is made to see that it did indeed happen, I believe it will tip her mind into a very grave psychosis. After all the woman is mentally ill, just as Jody Arias is mentally ill anyway, anybody except her family and the gullible who only read headlines can see that.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/17/13 at 08:40 PM | #

Knox does give passive aggressiveness a bad name.

Of course the Kerchers don’t want her to link to Meredith’s fund, or use her photo on her site. But to reply in this manner, is taunting the very dignified Kerchers.

No, they don’t want to get in touch with her.

Posted by Ergon on 12/17/13 at 08:47 PM | #

Judge Nencini was presumably especially annoyed at having to read out a statement by Knox which constitutes yet another contempt of court crime - false accusations AGAIN against those who in fact treated her pretty well.

The original version of Knox’s rejected email in English is here:  http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2013_12_Knox_Email_To_Court.pdf

Its a ridiculous, highly emotional letter which ignores the hard evidence and makes a lot of disputable and irrelevant point.

Here is more than a dozen posts with open questions that the dishonest Knox email and blog run away from.  http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C719/


On precisely why Knox is trying to blackmail the Kercher family into being in touch with her,  SeekingUnderstanding has given some good explanations here, and there has been chat on PMF on the same lines

I dont believe any psychologist now brushes away the ever-growing evidence of a disturbed and still highly dangerous mind.  She was already a loose cannon when she headed off to Italy.

Our problem in blaming anyone in her circle in Seattle for this is that (1) she was already above the American age of consent, (2) she had lived away from home for the previous two years, and (3) her natural parents and Chris Mellas also seem psychologically weird.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/17/13 at 09:05 PM | #

23. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “A murder without a motive is fallacious ”
3. Carlo dalla Vedova to #amandaknox appeal jury: If there is no murder motive, you must acquit.

The Honourable Dalla Vedova is delusional. The motive always exists, there is no absolutely no murder without motive—we may not always find it, but that’s a different story. To recommend acquittal because the murderers refuse to tell us why they did it would be laughable if it weren’t so contemptible.

Following this “logic” the Boston bombers (now just 1 ‘bomber’) should be let off the hook (acquitted, that is, in Dallavedovian slang) because there is no motive for what he/they did. However, their uncle explained why: “They were losers” ..., and interestingly enough, the same can be said about his client.

Posted by Bjorn on 12/17/13 at 09:56 PM | #

Hi Bjorn

As you say, motive is never required. If Della Vedova was a real criminal lawyer (this is his first murder trial and he has blundered time & time & time again, all the other lawyers laugh at him) he would of course know that and not demand one.

Besides, if anything, we have an “overkill” of motives in this case, ranging from slow fuse to nuclear bomb, from theft of money to drug use to Knox grubbiness to too much noise to noisy sex in the next room to Meredith maybe taking Knox’s badly needed job.

Among the next several posts, one will be a real bombshell - strong evidence, much of it sitting in front of our noses for years, of what drove the attack; it took an expert in precisely that area to connect up the dots. Silver bullet? Looks to be.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/17/13 at 10:13 PM | #

Regarding the AK link to Meredith’s fund - it should be possible to configure Meredith’s server to refuse connections from AK’s server. That is generally a trivial task - but I don’t know how the servers are currently setup. I would certainly do it if I could.

Posted by Patrizio on 12/17/13 at 10:36 PM | #

@Grahame Rhodes

Personally I think she knows full well that she was there and participated, but her illness prevents her from seeing any wrong in what she did. I believe she literally can’t understand what the fuss is all about. Plus she’s encouraged now by her family/handlers to see herself as a victim because, they suggest, she was psychologically tortured at the Questura.

She’s almost confessed once (to Mignini) and I expect she will confess fully in time. It may happen when she’s finally in jail for a long, long stretch and she has no need to follow her family or handlers’ script anymore. In my opinion it won’t be out of any need to unburden her conscience (she hasn’t got one) more the need to at last tell someone exactly what happened <u>and</u> to boast of her involvement, which she might mistakenly believe will garner some kudos with other inmates. This boasting was actually in evidence at the beginning,  when she could hardly contain herself and seemed to be telling Meredith’s friends at the Questura that she knew the details of how Meredith died.

Susan Atkins (the Manson gang member), when in prison on another charge, also “confessed” to participation in the Tate/La Bianca murders by boasting to fellow prison inmates.(Fortunately, they told the authorities and she was charged for the murders.)

Posted by Odysseus on 12/17/13 at 11:02 PM | #

I really wouldn’t have expected a polite and nice letter/email from Amanda Knox, but that was just over the top. Even for Knox-Standarts!

“I fear that the vehemence of the accusation will impress you, that their wool over your eyes will blind you”

That is not the way to talk to a judge who holds your fate in his hands, or to any judge at all!

My mom saw on Italian TV that the letter was read by Nencini, and she said he was very angry while he did that. After I read that letter I completly understand why!

And on top of that she even says the Kerchers have to contact her, if she has to put down the “Meredith Kercher Murder”-Page.
Is she nuts????

I never ever said online that she’s crazy or things like that, because I always stick to facts and I’m not a fan of namecalling, but this time I really have to say that she completly lost her mind!

“Yeah I’m accused of killing your daughter, but if you want me to delete Meredith Pictures… call me, or a nice letter would do it also!CU”

Just nuts!

Posted by Terry on 12/17/13 at 11:46 PM | #

Amanda Knox not only managed to insult the court with her e-mail, she also insulted the Kerchers with her demand they contact her directly. Note that Maresca didn’t just ask her to remove the fund raising link, but also that she remove Meredith’s picture?

And now she’s in full attack mode in comments on her blog, saying she doesn’t ‘trust’ Maresca, and so won’t respond to him, but the family must get in touch with her, and see what she did to ‘honor her friend’. The Groupies comments are as always, almost as obnoxious.

Posted by Ergon on 12/18/13 at 12:32 AM | #

Amanda Knox’s e-mail is actually reassuring to me: this is the reaction of someone who *knows* that she’ll be found guilty, and wants to somehow have the upper hand by blowing the vuvuzela in the judge’s face rather than beg for her fate. I’m pretty sure it was she who wrote that e-mail (popped into the basement to get the wine, sent the e-mail from the laptop, daddy was like “what the ...”, but it was too late) , this is the quintessential, vibrator-toting “Foxy Knoxy”, the Seattle Felonette, just let ‘er talk and you’ll eventually find out what and how it all happened. Thank you, Amanda Knox, for living up to my (low) expectations.

Posted by Bjorn on 12/18/13 at 01:13 AM | #

There is a blindingly obvious immediate motive for the murder (which even Vedova should be able to see)...

Meredith ‘needed’ to be stopped from the shrill and penetrating screaming which would clearly and unambiguously have revealed the deeply shameful (and criminal) actions therefore to, - i.e.the sexual assault and violent abuse of an undefended girl.

Even if there had been no earlier intention of homicide, it should have been categorically clear to the otherwise intelligent defendants that cutting a girl’s throat and neck would result in grave or fatal wounding - but because of the motive to stop her scream, these actions were not discontinued, nor (as the lawyer said) inhibited, as they most definitely should have been.

The bruises around the mouth also demonstrate pressure and force applied to prevent sound emerging.

The motive was to prevent wrongdoing being discovered, and to avoid punishment…motives, one might add, which have not abated.  It happened, and all that is required now is the acknowledgement of the facts. No more stories about how the defence feels.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/18/13 at 01:25 AM | #

@ Bjorn

Well Well Well. I really should have known that she would live down to my expectations. I must confess that I didn’t think it could get much dirtier, but then, just when you think the morals of this, Whatever it is, has hit rock bottom you get surprised at the new low.

I harp on a lot about Jody Arias but obviously both she and Knox are cut from the same dirty piece of cloth. hope this is another nail in her coffin. It’s obvious that she really believes that she is safe and will be protected. It may take some years but eventually justice will prevail.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/18/13 at 01:31 AM | #

Whoa…. ‘Honor her friend’....?

Way, way, too late.

Honour was lost, irretrievably, many years ago. Tragically, for everyone.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/18/13 at 01:34 AM | #

Some good comments on the email and Knox blog today on the PMF forums.

This is from our friend Hugo on the demand she is ignoring described on Knox’s blog::

D’you know, I actually thought she’d comply. If only to ‘look classy’. Didn’t see she’d any option. When nothing happened, I thought the family must have decided not to take action because they just don’t want to acknowledge her.

Should have known better. I’m a goof about psychopaths and I keep forgetting how they work. The request, like anything that does not please or flatter her, will have been taken as a slight, an insult, a ‘narcissistic wound’ deserving nothing but retaliation—against the family, their lawyer being simply a proxy. In addition, once she knows she is doing something that causes pain, this very much does please and flatter her, so she keeps right on doing it to show who’s boss.

Which is how the crime happened, of course.

She’s also lying by claiming that Francesco Maresca said she was collecting money for herself under the pretence of supporting the MK Fund. He said no such thing and she knows it. None of this will get her anywhere. Decent people like M’s family will just scrape her off their shoe.

Good comment from Underhill

Considering the number of lawyers she has (presumably) paid for, she seems to have completely failed to grasp that a lawyer acts on the instructions of their client. If someone’s lawyer tells you to stop doing something, this surely tells you: a) that the people, themselves, want you to stop doing it; and b) that they are getting their lawyer to act for them because they have no intention of engaging directly with you.

Another from Hugo on one of della Vedovas claims

Vedova: “Room too small for more than one attacker”

Dalla Vedova should know, though, that, on 18 April 2009, three of Massei’s lay judges (the men) stood in that room with Massei himself, Giulia Bongiorno, Monica Napoleoni and Manuela Comodi. The horrible blood stains were still on the floor and the walls. Massei and the lay judges took quite some time to look at M’s photos in that artistic arrangement on the wall.

Then one of the lay judges, presumably familiar with the defence argument, looked around, rather surprised, and said, ‘But this isn’t a small room like Amanda’s. How many of us are in here now?’

‘Seven,’ Comodi said. As she put it to John Follain, ‘She was secretly delighted by the question, as the defence had claimed Meredith’s room was too small for three killers to attack her in it. Bongiorno said nothing.’ (Follain, p.298.)

Still… the Florentine judges may not know that. They haven’t been there. And they may not know that ‘50 hours of interrogation’ is a lie as well (it was about 12 hours over the four days). And they may not consult the file and find out. Perhaps these are the angles the defence is shabbily trying to play.

Good couple of comments by Stilicho

Are we watching a movie? An episode of Anthony’s favourite: There Goes Honey Boo-Hoo?

First, the mindblowing idiocy of sending a five page email to the courtroom blaming the whole thing on “vehemence” and suggesting that the judges are easily distracted by shiny objects.

Now, arguing publicly with the legal representation of the woman she is on trial for having murdered.

Just take down the damned link, dummy, and then post on your blog that you were requested to remove it by the lawyers for the victim’s family. That’s how you do it and rescue at least a tiny shred of human decency.

BTW, I’m with Iodine. I think the Wordpress site is really her now. I also think the email to the court was really her too.


She conveniently omits the traces of mixed DNA discovered, among other places, in Luminol-revealed footprints. Five whole pages and not a peep about these.

Not a peep about the witnesses nor of her own knowledge of the details of the crime—even before the forensic police had determined the time and circumstances of Meredith’s death.

She insists on several key things:

  * She did not carry the knife in her book bag.
  * She does not perceive of herself as a monster.
  * She did not buy drugs from Rudy Guede.

It’s possible that all of these statements are true. It’s very possible for them all to be true and for her to still be guilty of murder.

Good comment by Skeptical Bystander

Dear Amanda Knox,

The family of Meredith Kercher has contacted you, through its duly authorized legal representative, asking you to remove the photo of the victim that you posted without their permission and to stop soliciting funds in the name of the victim.

Is it so difficult to understand why, under the circumstances, your actions are not only inappropriate but also deeply hurtful to the family of Meredith? Or do you simply not care? And you call yourself a friend of the victim?

Good comment by dgfred:

Really? “I can’t come to court because you might believe I am guilty… so I sent this letter.” Good grief.

Good comment by SomeAlibi

Oh I enjoyed Nencini reading that email. I may not speak Italian but I am fully fluent in unimpressed-judge. I like to think of AK sitting there open-mouthed in outrage at how all her carefully crafted bullshit heart-felt rending was flatlined by the judge at a considerable clip. Priceless.

And so good to be blessedly released from her never-quite-breaking, utterly faux hysterio-quavering sheep-bleat vocal theatrics. Now if she’d stop writing the damn things as well, life would be much improved.

There’s many miles to go yet but if I were Mandy, I’d be looking for bulk deals on toothbrushes….

Good comments by Nell

I have been following the court tweets and found the defence arguments to counter the evidence oresented in court unbelievably weak. It was far worse than expected.

I saw a tweet from Andrea Vogt saying the courtroom was near empty the day it was Maresca’s turn to speak. Unlike Andrea Vogt, I don’t believe it is a sign people are not interested in the family’s suffering. It is the busy time before Christmas and trial watchers knew what to expect from Maresca.

The defence lawyers on the other hand were supposed to come up with something earth shattering, which they didn’t. We are back to “she’s a good girl” and “the room was too small for 3 attackers”. Vecchiotti’s discredited starch on the kitchen knife claim is resuscitated and the rest of the evidence dismissed without presenting arguments with the hope no one will notice.

Knox’s email addressing the court was a complete failure and this disastrous event was closely followed by Amanda Knox’s blog post publicly responding to Maresca and the Kerchers.

I recommend reading also the comment section. Amanda Knox’s blog is moderated, so before a comment gets published it must be approved. She approves comments in which her supporters attack the Kerchers, calling them “dumb”, “illiterate”, “babyboys” and greedy. All this on the page where Amanda Knox plans “to honour the memory of my friend”.

It’s sick.


Right now she does what Raffaele Sollecito has done for some time, she uses social media to engage the public. Her blog reads like a miniature version of Ground Report. Ugly.

It is generally a good idea to moderate comments to filter spam and everything inappropriate that the owner of the blog does not want to be associated with. Allowing these personal attacks on the Kercher family ruin her constant claims that despite all witness testimony she was friends with Meredith.

This together with her sick demand to have the grieving family of a murder victim who she stands provisionally convicted of having raped and murdered to contact her personally is beyond belief.

Amanda Knox is controlling, cruel, vindictive and not a quick learner.

By Piktor

This approach is so clumsy and lacking humanity. It comes from Knox exclusively.

If Knox wanted to be seen in the worst possible light, this taunting demand to the Kerchers is it.

By SomeAlibi again

Completely agree. Only Amanda is capable of these unique turns of phrase, of this wholesale wrecking of the English language and of the non-normal use of terms about being a “monster” et al that no innocent person I’ve ever met would ever consider getting themselves into: a negative space of denial that has no psychological plausibility in the context of the terms used…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/18/13 at 01:37 AM | #

Good comments, Pete, thanks.

Have just read The Freelance Desk, and find most of Della Vedova’s statements falsifiable - and easily falsifiable, even by someone like myself.
Those that aren’t seem to be irrelevant, or making quite irrelevant points that will be of no consequence to the task in hand.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/18/13 at 02:00 AM | #

Just a point of fact re one sentence in the extremely ‘irregular’ piece of writing we and the judge have been subjected to :

‘One does not adopt psychotic behaviour spontaneously’.

-This betrays an ignorance about psychosis and psychotic behaviour.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/18/13 at 03:13 AM | #

That chick protests too much.  You wouldn’t have to say that much if you were truly innocent of the crime.

Posted by Firstwife on 12/18/13 at 05:47 AM | #

That chick protests too much.  You wouldn’t have to say that much if you were truly innocent of the crime.

Posted by Firstwife on 12/18/13 at 05:49 AM | #

Dear oh dear..

I don’t know where to start regarding Knox’s email and all the lies therein but “consoling Meredith’s friends” seemed to leap out at me as we’ve heard all the other far-fetched nonsense before. Good grief, this lunatic really is disconnected from reality.

Oh and Knox, It is quite possible to transport a large knife in a large book bag if you put it inside the pages of a book.
But you already know that don’t you?

Posted by DF2K on 12/18/13 at 06:37 AM | #

Here’s a comment worthy of addition from PMF dot Net, Peter:

<quote>Jester“A part of me always held back in terms of forming an opinion of Knox as a person. I always wondered if she could be someone that had a bad night and got mixed up in something that went from bad to worse. However, her stance against Meredith’s family leaves no doubt in my mind that she is not only a very ugly woman, but an experienced, masterful manipulator. Knox is determined to plaster whatever content she wants about Meredith all over her website because when she says “jump”, she wants the family to say “how high”, but they won’t jump. She is attempting to manipulate the family into doing what she wants, and if they don’t, she will do everything she can to cause them psychological harm. She is attempting to manipulate the public into believing that the lawyer representing the family is not interested in the Kerchers best interests. She is attempting to further manipulate the public into perceiving that Knox, Sollecito and Meredith should be viewed as equal victims. It’s truly disgusting.

I wonder if the family has considered contacting the website that hosts the blog: wordpress. They too have a reputation to protect. Since Knox has openly admitted that she has been asked to remove photos that she does not have permission to post, and is refusing to remove them until her ultimatums are met, the host website might have something to say about it.

Wordpress Terms of Service:

You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content. By making Content available, you represent and warrant that:
the downloading, copying and use of the Content will not infringe the proprietary rights, including but not limited to the copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret rights, of any third party. Termination. Automattic may terminate your access to all or any part of the Website at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice, effective immediately.”
“The Kercher’s lawyer certainly can request that”</quote>

Posted by Ergon on 12/18/13 at 07:21 AM | #

‘One does not adopt psychotic behaviour spontaneously’.

-This betrays an ignorance about psychosis and psychotic behavior.

So true, Seeking Understanding. Not only can psychosis not manifest itself until the right set of triggers are applied, drugs, alcohol, a person like Paul Bernardo to Karla Homolka or Sollecito to Knox, but such behavior can manifest in ways that re easily glossed over by a permissive society and lax parents. The knife and human-animal sex fetishist, the desire for extreme experiences, the ‘little brother story’ and the rape prank she played in college, yes, those are indeed, signs.

One day, I hope people, parents, educators, and mental health professionals will be educated enough to not only explain such aberrations, but also, detect and humanely treat such behaviors.

Before it is too late.

Posted by Ergon on 12/18/13 at 07:32 AM | #

Here’s another comment worth highlighting, but because it’s from ol’ Bruce Fischer, who seems to be very, very, angry 😊

“Amanda has a link on her blog for the Meredith Kercher defense fund website. Amanda has absolutely nothing to do with the money collection, and her blog takes no part in collecting money. She has not invited anyone to “collect” donations. She posted a link to another website! That’s it!”

Exactly the same comment he made about Frank Sfarzo, after he set up a website for him, solicited his membership for donations to him, and knowingly allowed him to avoid detection by Italian tax officials by channeling the PayPal doantions through another account controlled by Frank’s aunt.

The poor guy actually thinks he’s effective!

Posted by Ergon on 12/18/13 at 08:26 AM | #

Among the next several posts, one will be a real bombshell - strong evidence, much of it sitting in front of our noses for years, of what drove the attack; it took an expert in precisely that area to connect up the dots. Silver bullet? Looks to be.

Tantalizing, Peter.

Posted by James Higham on 12/18/13 at 10:18 AM | #

Thank you Peter for your summary of the latest court date.

I found the defence surprisingly ineffective and weak. The highlight was Knox’s defiant email addressing the court, but I forgot about that as soon as I saw her posting a public response to Francesco Maresca’s request to take Meredith’s memorial page of her blog.

What stands out for me is her desire to control the Kerchers and her complete disregard for their suffering. She is cruel.

Even if I were to consider Knox innocent, her refusal to comply with Meredith’s family request is incomprehensible, especially as she claims to care about Meredith and her family.

Whatever her intentions are, it has nothing to do with honouring her memory.

She allows comments bashing the Kerchers on her website (on the very page where she intends to honour her “friends” memory). Her blog is moderated, so first she needs to approve the comments before they appear on her website.

Acts speak louder than words.

Posted by Nell on 12/18/13 at 10:28 AM | #

Hello! I have not been commenting anymore for years, still following the whole case. I do not comment because I usually am happy with your comments 😊

But this email… “I am afraid that the prosecution’s vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you. I’m afraid of the universal problem of wrongful conviction. “

It is incredible! She practically insinuates that the Judge is a child, that he is not capable to see clearly (therefore he should, obviously, trust her…)  She clearly says that if she is seen as “guilty”, it will be because he is blinded by the “evildoers” that do not like her. Because he is not capable without her gracious help…

She has no limits!

Posted by Patou on 12/18/13 at 10:54 AM | #

I thought the prosecution were slated to have the chance to rebut the defence closing statement - clearly I was mistaken.

Posted by Odysseus on 12/18/13 at 11:47 AM | #

Hi Odysseus

No you were not mistaken. The defense has not finished yet - Sollecito’s team follow early in January.

Then the prosecution will have the last word.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/18/13 at 12:05 PM | #

Knoxes e-mail stunt will surely be the last straw for the court, and she’s likely to get what she deserves.  As others have said, she must know this therefore we must assume her only concern now must be publicity for the push to fight extradition.

In a way this must rankle with Sollecito because they are joined at the hip, and her throwing in the towel doesn’t help him, he’s not going to fight extradition - I assume (and anyway he’s promised to return for the verdict).

On the other hand he’s surely lost his chance now to make any kind of partial confession in mitigation.

Posted by Odysseus on 12/18/13 at 12:09 PM | #


Oh right - thanks.

Still time then for RS to squeal!

Posted by Odysseus on 12/18/13 at 12:19 PM | #

In prison or not in prison . . . she’s already in a very bad place. This is no choir singing. This is no friday hairdo.

She’s starting to incoörporate the vacuum.

Posted by Helder Licht on 12/18/13 at 02:03 PM | #

It’s because she truly believes that she is going to get away with it since she has spent her entire life manipulating every situation.

I am reminded yet again of Jody Arias who stated that she could not understand why the prosecutor (in her case Juan Martinez) did not love her.

Knox is the same only she thinks she is so much cleverer than others hence the email, thereby confirming her belief that she is going to be found innocent and she can do whatever she wants. The very best thing though is that she has made a prison of her own mind.

For example I wonder if she has considered where she will be in five years. Hopefully in a small jail cell and also imprisoned within her own mind. That will probably be the next thing “Innocent by reason of mental defect.” Of course not, because she believes she is brilliant, a brilliant writer, a brilliant artist, even given her predilection for casual sex, a beautiful goddess. God please protect us from this ship of fools, murderers, con men/woman, and manipulators.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/18/13 at 04:31 PM | #

There are quite a lot of comments that could be made about Knox’s bizarre email to the court that is hearing her appeal.

One interesting point is that she claims “I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.”

Her co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, was not so afraid and he did present himself at an earlier stage of the proceedings. He made a spontaneous statement and the judge assured him that he should feel to intervene to make further interventions whenever he wished. So far he hasn’t wished to - he preferred to head back to the Caribbean for his holiday.

But that event and that presence by Sollecito completely undermine the credibility of Knox’s claim that she feels afraid of the court proceedings. There would be nothing to stop her coming and going, at this stage, just as Sollecito did.

1. I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified accusations of the prosecution and civil parties.
. Comment: That’s what her lawyers were about to try to do. But instead they had to hand this email to the judge, showing their client’s complete contempt for the court process.

2. I seek not to supplant their work.
. Comment: She doesn’t want to supplant the work of her own lawyers? Most defendants don’t, nor do they feel the need to tell the court that using an archaic seventeenth-century grammatical construction (where modern English would have “I do not mean to…” or “I do not wish to…”)

3. Because I am not present to take part in [my own appeal], I feel compelled to share…
. Comment: As Judge Nencini said, if anyone wants to talk to a court, come to court. Knox chose not to be present, which means that the word “because” is not a logical connector for why she feels compelled to share what she thinks. “Even though” would make more sense.

4. The Court has access to my previous declarations and I trust will review them…
. Comment: The court has access to thousands of pages. Everybody trusts that courts will review the evidence before passing judgment – that’s how the legal process works.

5. I must repeat: I am innocent.
. Comment: In fact she does not have to repeat that, which is simply a reiteration of her not guilty plea.

6. I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.
. Comment: The wording is reminiscent of a previous declaration, “I am very afraid of Patrik, the African boy who…” Also the court may remember the presence of her co-defendant, who made a brief presentation to the court (and was invited to intervene again at any time he saw fit) and who afterwards flew back to his extended vacation in the Dominican Republic. It is difficult to see what the defendants have to be afraid of from the court, except perhaps the truth.

7. I am afraid that the prosecution’s vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you.
. Comment: The prosecution’s case has already been made; this was the opportunity for the defense to make their case. It is the court’s duty to consider the evidence without being overly swayed by the vehemence of lawyers from either side – they look at the facts, and pass judgment based on that, and this happens in literally millions of cases every year. (Cassazione alone reviews more than 80 thousand cases each year.)

8. This is not for lack of faith in your powers of discernment, but because the prosecution has succeeded before in convincing a perfectly sound court of concerned and discerning adults to convict innocent people – Raffaele and me.
. Comment: The second half of the sentence contradicts the first. The writer is explicitly stating that she doubts that the court has sufficient powers of discernment to be able to see through the prosecution’s arguments. Her justification for saying this is simply that it has happened before, with a previous court.

9. I’ve attentively followed this process and gleaned the following facts…
. Comment: This is a delusional statement. The writer is the defendant, who is the subject of the process, not an external observer to it. We can compare it with her statements following her arrest, in which she claimed still to be helping the police on an equal basis with them, despite being charged with the murder.

10. No physical evidence places me in Meredith’s bedroom, the scene of the crime…
. Comment: The bedroom is where the murder took place, but the crime scene is much wider than that, and certainly encompasses the adjoining room where the burglary was faked, the bathroom where the killers cleaned up, and the corridor that connects those rooms. Knox’s blood, DNA, bare footprints are all found in those places. Within Meredith’s room itself, there is also a woman’s shoeprint that does not match the victim, and which Knox’s own lawyer was obliged to claim was caused by an unfortunate fold in the pillowcase.

11. Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence in the brutal scenario: handprints, footprints, shoe prints in Meredith’s blood, DNA in her purse, on her clothing, in her body.
. Comment: The term “brutal scenario” makes no sense here, although she repeats it again a couple of lines later. Perhaps she means “crime scene” or “bedroom”. The only footprints found at the crime scene are those of Knox and Sollecito. A woman’s shoeprint in the room where the murder took place cannot be that of either Guede or the victim, and is most likely that of Knox.

12. The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have… been the one to fatally wound Meredith – without leaving any genetic trace of myself. That is because it is impossible.
. Comment: Actually it is perfectly possible to do this – for example, simply by stabbing someone to death while wearing gloves. However, in this case the prosecution has in fact explained how several traces of Knox’s DNA have been found on the handle of the knife which had the victim’s DNA on the blade. That obviously fits a scenario in which Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher with that knife.

13. Either I was there, or I wasn’t.
. Comment: The same thing applies to the appeal court. Either the defendants are there, or they are not. In this case, the defendant is not.

14. The analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn’t there.
. Comment: Knox’s footprints, blood and DNA, sometimes mixed with that of the victim, all place her at the crime scene, and so does her DNA on the handle of the murder weapon.

15. My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “confession” that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime.
. Comment: “Non-knowledge” is a curious word. Knox’s witness interview was perfectly legal – it was only the unexpected confession from the witness that changed the status of that interview, so that its contents could no longer be used against her. But there is no question over its legality.

16. The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander…
. Comment: This is an extraordinary aside. The defendant is here rejecting the legitimacy of the Italian Supreme Court, which has definitively found against her, and is also rejecting the findings of the Hellmann court that provisionally freed her, pending appeal. Every single court has found against her on this count.

17. ...did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “confession”.
. Comment: Let us reread some excerpts from this supposed recantation: “After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele’s hand… I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik… In these flashbacks I’m having, I see Patrik as the murderer…Why did I think of Patrik?... Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?” This is not a recantation, and it does in fact contain further accusations of Patrick Lumumba while also seeking to throw suspicion both on Sollecito and an unnamed “other person”.

18. My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence.
. Comment: As dozens of witnesses have testified in a series of trials and appeals, Knox’s post-murder behavior indicated the exact opposite, which is why suspicion fell on her in the first place.

19. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance.
. Comment: On page 71 of her memoir, Knox recounts the following exchange with Officer Ficarra, on the day after the murder was discovered: “My parents want me to go to Germany to stay with relatives for a couple of weeks. Is that okay?” She said, “You can’t leave Perugia. You’re an important part of the investigation.”

20. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50 hours in four days.
. Comment: Chapter Ten of her memoir gives her own account of what she did on Monday, November 5th. She went to a nine o’clock grammar class, at which she refused to discuss the case with her fellow students; she spoke on the phone with her Aunt Dolly, admitting that she had not yet contacted the US embassy; she bumped into Patrick Lumumba where she refused to talk to BBC reporters; she spent the afternoon with Sollecito and then accompanied him to a friend’s house where she played the ukulele. Far from being at the police’s beck and call, she ignored their request that she stay home while they interview Sollecito separately, and turned up to the Questura regardless, although not before they had finished their evening meal.

21. The police coerced me into signing a false “confession”….
. Comment: Her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, for which she was convicted and has already served four years in prison, was not a confession and was not coerced.

22. …one may be coerced into giving a false “confession” because of psychological torture… This is a universal problem. .
. Comment: The US-based Innocence Project reports that there have been 244 exonerations since 2000, which is just over seventeen per year, which in turn means that currently in the USA, roughly 0.1% of cases are eventually overturned. Being wrongfully convicted might be devastating for the person concerned, but it is not a universal problem.

23. I did not carry around Raffaele’s kitchen knife.
. Comment: The defendant has not been accused of carrying the knife around, but rather of stabbing Meredith Kercher to death with it. Forensic evidence supports that accusation, too.

24. I had no contact with Rudy Guede. Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guede.
. Comment: Very typical of Knox’s writing is this kind of self-contradiction, sometimes occurring within the same sentence, or as in this case, in consecutive sentences, seemingly with no self-awareness that any contradiction has even occurred.

25. If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics.
. Comment: The prosecution is present in the court, having made its presentation in the usual way. The defense lawyers are about to do exactly the same thing. The only theatrics happening in the court at that moment is a bizarre email sent by one of the defendants, in lieu of attending her own appeal to her own murder conviction.

26. But because no evidence exists that proves my guilt, the prosecution would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements.
. Comment: No further comments.

Posted by FinnMacCool on 12/18/13 at 04:38 PM | #

I dare say she is afraid… but the interesting point is - what is she really - really- afraid of?

And there is such a thing as courage, and being brave. A brave (honourable) person is one who knows he is afraid and makes an effort to overcome it…(not a person who is naturally fearless).

Many of us cannot forget the fear Meredith must have felt when subjected to such wanton cruelty and violence and died a lingering lonely death.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/18/13 at 05:42 PM | #

Hi SeekingUnderstanding

My take on it is that she is afraid that convicted she will lose not only her money and freedom but her so called power base. In other words if she has no one to manipulate and is in essence cut adrift, then for the first time in her life (Jail notwithstanding) she will be alone and therefor afraid of being caught out. Being ‘caught out’ is the last thing that people like these can stand because they have build a life based on deception and lies. The very last thing that people like Knox and others cannot face is ridicule and in that I believe lies the true motive for her killing Meredith. She believed that Meredith was laughing at her hence her attachment Sollicito and vis-versa such is paranoia and escape into drugs and manga comics. They both live in a dream world of their own making because they cannot stand the glare and responsibility of real life.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/18/13 at 06:00 PM | #

I think we could use a list.

Here are a couple of things Knox could have been “afraid” of, having in each case stupidly painted herself into a corner in the first place.

Judge Nencini: Ms Knox, you owe Patrick Lumumba $100,000. If you have not paid it I will have you immediately arrested for being in contempt of an order of the Supreme Court. Have you paid it?

Judge Nencini: Your book makes many false claims about the police and officers of the court here. If you repeat them I will have you immediately arrested and charged for obstruction of justice. You claimed that Dr Mignini carried out an illegal interrogation, at a time when he was actually home asleep in bed. Did he interrogate you at all that night, or not?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/18/13 at 06:15 PM | #

OK I’ll give that a try. This is not in order but just things as occur to me since November the first

(1) Knox is mentally sick and will manipulate any situation hence Sollicito who she saw as an easy mark. He had money. She didn’t.

(2) She is a thief.. She will steal anything and anyone if she can. Was it Filomina’s boyfriend she tried that on? plus of course anything in pants at the restaurant which was why she got fired by Patrick Lamumba of course.

(3) She has no moral compass at all, but wants above all else to be a Femme Fatale and will do anything including murder to attain that end.

(4) She has an inflated ego which masks a feeling of hopeless inferiority and cannot stand the idea of being ridiculed. Why I’m reminded of the final paragraph of Animal Farm here I’m not sure. speaking of which ‘Lord Of The Rings.’ comes to mind.

(5) She has a love/hate relationship with her mother because she understands that her mother and her father know full well that she is guilty.

(5) she is rapidly attaining the look and posture of a guilty person trying anything to hide from the truth which includes herself. This is manifest by her lack of any emotion at all. Oh sure the fake tears but there is nothing going on behind her eyes. This also is why she now lives in a seedy part of town instead of at her mothers house because psychologically she wishes to sink down to a gutter level where she is more comfortable. I wish I had been there when she announced that she was leaving. She can’t stay at her mothers house because that stage play of hers is too difficult to maintain.

(6) She dislikes her step father and hates her biological father and is disappointed at her mother because of what her mother did in order to entice her step father Chris Mellas. His claims that she was beaten are ludicrous of course. Consider that from a logical point of view.
“Here’s an American student let’s beat her up?”

(7) You will notice that she never turns up at any of the FOA bashes but keeps her distance. If anyone was indeed innocent they would be front and center on stage proclaiming her innocence instead of sending emails to the court and defaming the Kerchers. She really understands the legal point of blaming the victim

(8) Her only saving grace is her grandmother and in that she is terrified that her Grandmother, who mortgaged her house to pay for this at least in part, will find out the truth. Amanda Knox is guilty and will remain so for the rest of her natural life.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/18/13 at 07:54 PM | #

I should have added.  That’s what she’s terrified of particularly now when her defense have nothing but the same as last time.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/18/13 at 07:57 PM | #

Still there is a vast difference between Knox´s and Arias` possible fate. Whilst the former may expect 30 years in jail at worst, the latter might end up with the death penalty.
Of course, Italian prisons must be five-star-hotels compared to life on death row.

Posted by aethelred23 on 12/19/13 at 12:48 AM | #

Generally we try to avoid Labels; Labels divert us into argument about whether they are the Right Labels.

An example is Psychopath v. Sociopath - which one describes Knox? - or does Knox just do ‘Psycho/Sociopathic’ things, as in ‘just being Amanda’?

Knox’s personality is characterized by:

1. Enduring antisocial behavior,

2. A diminished capacity for empathy or remorse,

3. Poor behavioral controls, and

4. Fearless dominance.

Whatever we want to call them, and the quality and degree to which Knox displays them, the combination of these 4 in Knox is psychopathic.

We have studied Knox’s behaviors for 6 years, and not only do they endure, they become more pronounced.

A lengthy incarceration of Knox, in Italy, is essential so that Justice may be seen-to-be-done.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/19/13 at 09:38 AM | #

Very well said Cardiol .
I go to some lengths to avoid labels, generally, for the reason you say, and others.

However, the conclusion you sketch has become inescapable, and with every recent action - outrageously insensitive and lacking in empathy - she unknowingly shows herself out loud.

At this stage, too, the divergence of her behaviour and Raphaele’s has become of note. (Not that one condones either).

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/19/13 at 09:54 AM | #

Knox’s email is an affront to the truth, a blatant contempt of the Court and an insult to the long-suffering, but so dignified, Kercher family.

Knox states: “No evidence places me in the same brutal scenario. The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have participated in the aggression and murder—to have been the one to fatally wound Meredith—without leaving any genetic trace of myself. That is because it is impossible. It is impossible to identify and destroy all genetic traces of myself in a crime”.

Note that Knox claims to be innocent, not because she is so, but by claiming a technical evidential “failure” on the part of the prosecution.

However, when we analyse this alleged “failure”, we find that it is lie - Knox patently failed to “identify and destroy all genetic traces” of herself “at the crime”. Her blood, mixed with Meredith’s, was in the bathroom and in the corridors,(luminol), as Knox moved around with blood on her bare feet.

Given that Knox and Sollecito took part in a concerted cleanup of the crime scene, it is entirely likely that they would have removed a considerable body of incriminating physical evidence against them, genetic and otherwise

Even if we agree with Knox that she left no genetic traces in the murder room, (and I do not), she still has to account for all the other bloody genetic evidence against her everywhere else in the cottage, not to mention the matching footprints of both Sollecito and her.

A truly innocent person does not rely on a claimed absence of her DNA in one part of the murder scene, any more than a sentient, intelligent 20 year old would ever admit to a horrible murder that she had not committed, regardless of how much the police might have (allegedly) attempted to “berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, and confuse” her. 

Thankfully, the learned Judges should weigh ALL the evidence and not cherry pick the bits of it that the psychopathic and manipulative Knox thinks help her to “prove” her “innocence.

Posted by Mealer on 12/19/13 at 12:25 PM | #

Hi, all. Two very interesting questions came up here, very important.

I agree with Cardiol MD that an argument over the label can be very distracting; can sociopathy vs psychopathy ever answer the question, absent a psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis anyway? In my opinion there are significant overlaps between psychopathy and sociopathy; she ticks quite a few boxes off in her observed behavior, plus, not forgetting her Narcisstic Personality Disorder.

The other question, from Seeking Understanding, what is she afraid of? I submit it is fear of redemption that haunts her now. She is haunted by what she did, knows she must pay the price one day or the other, wants absolution but is afraid of the price, that she must go back to prison.

This is the strangest part of her unique psychology, the rage but also the guilt; the sycophantic FOA cannot really absolve her, so she demands it from her victim, Meredith Kercher’s family? Over and over again?

I read Crime and Punishment a full 50 years ago 😊 and when I came across the character of Amanda Knox, was struck by how close she was in so many ways to the killer, Rodion Raskolnikov.

Full of grandiosity, seeking absolution through rationalizing her crime, she can only be redeemed through punishment by imprisonment. For her own good, I hope that is what she receives.

Posted by Ergon on 12/19/13 at 02:18 PM | #

In her letter AK wrote:
“Upon my arrest I was tested for drugs and the results were negative.”

Is that true? And if it’s true, does anybody know when she was tested?

I never heard about that before!

Posted by Terry on 12/22/13 at 02:21 AM | #

Hi, Terry, she and Raffaele Sollecito were tested for drugs through hair testing upon arrest November 06, 2007. It would not show any hard drugs taken because hair tests need two weeks to show up in the hair.

Posted by Ergon on 12/22/13 at 06:57 AM | #

In this outrage to public decency, “lies” the shadow man and woman, in anticipation of reward they keep the day she died upon.
So this is it! This is what she has to say, this is where its at. We are both innocent, you have to believe that. When all else is said and done this is how it got to be-for this is the crux, there is no Doctrine of motive, as Carlyle would have it, love of pleasure, fear of pain, hunger for applause, this is not the evidence. It were as well the trial had never begun as admit to the absence of motive for a crime, for in the absence of motive the danger is you must acquit. If there is no motive then it may be impossible to extradite. Now wouldn’t that be a travesty beyond the schemes of wit.

Which is it to be? Is there reliable data definitions of DNA, Yes! or No! Guilt or Innocence? That is the question. Whether we are dealing with science or ignorance, the minuscule or the invisible. The knife is as shaky a nail to hang it on, as shaky a contested result as I can ever remember. Either there is DNA present or there’s not, it should be irrefutable there should be no room for doubt. There is an answer and no dispute. The defence must then answer for the means by which the evidence got to where it is. You should not have a position in law where the defence has the luxury of denying the incontrovertible denouement. As scientific as the witch trial by water, if you float you are guilty and must burn, if you drown you were innocent and will get your reward in heaven. If there is the legitimate space in court for the defence to contest DNA results that are bound by laws of exactitude, that is reason enough to question the correctness of trial and extradition. It has to be clear cut, for what we need is a clear cut objective finding of Guilt.

It is absurd to suggest the murder weapon is taken home after the killing, that is just not the way it goes,  in most cases it’s the one thing of which you first dispose, the murder weapon must go. But on top of that, it is as absurd as taking a kitchen knife on a walk around the block, here now is a gulf so large its difficult to see across. Where did she have it,in her handbag or back pack stuffed down her drawers? To take from the drawer with no motive to assign to the action of the crime, if there is no intent, except an accidental one powered by the absent fiend, an accident of circumstance somewhere along the line-why take it out at all? With no motive there is a conception of innocence. not to explain makes for a special awkwardness. What was that convulsion all about, fear of pointed objects, beating about the head when taken to view the knife?-emotional spectres pointing their fingers is not evidence of complicity, as when aichurophobia is defined as both, those times she startles with sudden fear, phantoms of awful shame flocking around her, as though these horrific figures pointed their fingers, at her, and her alone, and fear of “this dagger I see before me.” Either way its still absurd-The motive is constantly changing like the alibi’s. It’s all speculative understanding constantly in need of mending. The finger is as feared as the knife.

Prosecution witnesses are unreliable, given what the expectation was. What was it they said? “If every witness was discarded because they were drug addicted distrusted alcoholics, with back-handed selective memory, we would never get a trial off the ground in Italy? The prosecution did not cop out. Yes man, but does it serve a verdict beyond the question of reasonable doubt? And does it not beg the question of the safety of conviction?

Posted by Macthomas on 12/24/13 at 09:23 AM | #

As I understand things :
a) there is no doubt at all that Meredith’s DNA is on the knife, proven in one place. There are also now two places of Knox’s DNA on the knife. The defence has provided no cogent explanation for these.

b) there could be numerous prosaic explanations for the knife being there and available. One could be that it was borrowed previously for cooking (or cutting cannabis?) when a better knife had been required.
The prosecution says it doesn’t matter why it was there. It was there.

c) it is logical that the knife could have been ‘hidden in plain sight’ given the difficulty of disposing of it. Also the not insignificant point about the inventory.

d) both of the accused have had abnormal reactions / great worries about this knife.

e) there is plenty of other incriminating evidence, some of which even the defence accepted (at the trial), and did not contest. Even now, nothing is said about those factors that cannot be explained away.

d) what Knox wrote in an email to the court was ‘irregular, and to be discounted’ - from the judge. It might as well not exist.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/24/13 at 11:00 AM | #

That is as I understand matters to rest. What I do not understand is how the defence can deny its existence? And without any correction by the Judge.
As I said, “legitimate space in court for the defence to contest DNA results that are bound by laws of exactitude,” How is this possible? The prosecution say’s “it does not matter why, or, how the knife was there.” It was there. I think it very much does matter and should matter to any reasonable person in search of the truth.The prosecution say that it is incumbent upon them to provide a motive. Yet go one to say there is no motive. Amanda Knox writing to the Judge while refusing to attend her own appeal is bordering on contempt of court.She can, it seems, say anything she likes in her own defence, we await the proof,of which there is a want.

The biggest problems we face in looking for a guilty verdict, are, One: the lack of motive
Two: the murder weapon. Three: the credibility of the witnesses. Four: Guide and his silence. I do not believe it is enough to say, “the knife was there, that’s all that matters.” Or, “that it is incumbent on the prosecution to supply a motive, but we do not have one.” Or, “trials in Italy invariably rely on the statements of unreliable witnesses by definition.” “Guide is a loose cannon, and not much use can be made of him.” Would it not be somewhat simpler to admit to motive rather than deny motive, to tell the truth and shame the Devil, to hear the perpetrator say: “Where all the love I bestowed on you is diminished of late, but the failure to return what I feel is due will come back to haunt you.” Establish that first of all, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was friction between Meredith and Knox which was unambiguous and not have friends and associates dispute the nature of this relationship saying there was no tensions of which they were aware, which they have done to the benefit of the defendant.

Posted by Macthomas on 12/24/13 at 11:17 PM | #

A definite motive has not been established. Many plausible motives have both been suggested and explored. It is not possible to be catagoric about the motive - partly, or mostly, because the defence is obfuscating, - to put it mildly.
But the more they do - and the more they ‘doth protest too much’, the more obvious it becomes.

As I understood Crini, it was not that the reason the knife was available didn’t matter at all - he was just trying to focus attention on the fact that it didn’t matter as to proving the actual murder occurred through its agency.
It might matter to premeditation, but the prosecution have never stressed this, - and indeed the terms of the very first charge seem to suggest more of an accident.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/25/13 at 12:16 AM | #

Hi Macthomas,

Jackie, a lawyer from PMF, wrote a brilliant post primarily about motive, but also about the credibility of witnesses and DNA evidence. I think it deals with most of your concerns. Her comments are below mrjitty’s.

mrjitty wrote:
“Motive is irrelevant, the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime is proven”



Hello, learned friend.

Isn’t it amazing that the JREF crowd cannot assimilate that one, simple fact?

Just 6 little words:


Not in Italy; not in any common law jurisdiction they can name.

So why are we seeing clowns like “Bill” (the tard is strong in that one) ignore this simple reality, only to make THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of posts droning on, and on, and on, and ****ing on about “motive”?!

Is it screech? Senility? OCD? Autism? Does he think this is a ‘parlor game’* based on an Agatha Christie novel?!


It’s a shame that Matt Jones was not able to continue in their midst. They’ve been left without a lawyer and, in the result, they’ve built years of argument around absolutely ridiculous notions (the prosecution MUST be able to prove, with absolute certainty, each and every element of a second-by-second “comprehensive timeline”, replete with absolute proof of motive and a 100% reliable DNA trace on a murder weapon; the fact pattern alleged by the prosecution MUST have occurred in the past, in IDENTICAL form, otherwise it cannot be correct; eye and ear witness testimony can NEVER be given any weight; if so much as ONE piece of evidence cannot conclusively prove guilt to a scientific certainty when that lone piece is considered in isolation, divorced from the context in which it occurred, you must acquit; an accused NEVER lies and, in the alternative, lies mean nothing, unless, of course, they fall from the lips of a witness for the prosecution; the ECtHR can quash a guilty verdict; etc.; etc.).

I want to find ONE honest Groupie with an IQ over 120, a decent education, no connection to the accused or the PR campaign and no hint of a personality disorder.

(* in the parlance of the clown in question)

Posted by The Machine on 12/25/13 at 02:19 AM | #

Hi Macthomas,

Re The Machine’s Comment on 12/24/13 at 08:19 PM :

“Motive is NOT a required element.

Not in Italy; not in any common law jurisdiction they can name.”

Machine is referring to the well-known Fact that Motive is NOT a legal element required before defendants accused of a crime, such as the crimes of which Knox and Sollecito are accused, can be found Guilty.

This is true in Italy, and in common law jurisdictions, such as the USA and the UK.

You seem to believe that this is not true.

Please tell us the Official Documentary Source of your apparent disbelief

Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/25/13 at 10:19 AM | #

We must have a care that our views are not misunderstood and subsequently grow horns. What I have written is a prose conjecture predicated on Prosecution Lawyer statement to the court on 26th November. Crini stated that it is the prosecutions Duty to conjecture a motive. However he said, “nothing points to the three suspects having had an agreed plan which then ran out of control.” Meredith Case Wiki-Nencini appeal- Machiavellie tweeting from the court November 26th. I have been referring to this seeming paradox favouring a more explicit motive. It had always been assumed that sexual assault had been premeditated.

Posted by Macthomas on 12/25/13 at 03:17 PM | #

I have never made a legal case for Motive. I hope that is understood. However I can see how that view might have arisen by not making myself clear. Please excuse if you have been misled by my prose.
True Justice for Meredith Kercher
And so it was! God love her, so it was!
In this outrage to public decency,
“lies” the shadow man and woman,
in anticipation of reward they keep the day she died upon.
whereby Meredith left it to us all to seek the justice of her cause.
It falls to us, if we do not make a stand will we ever feel clean again?

Posted by Macthomas on 12/25/13 at 03:25 PM | #

Thank you very much for your answer!

Posted by Terry on 12/28/13 at 03:07 AM | #

</i>This mail is so strange it would be unbelievable, had it not been really sent.

Hasn’t she been in court to face him, to see that Maresca indeed was the Kercher’s attorney ?

Asking for direct contact with the family of a murdered girl only shows how predatory she is. She must be insane.

Posted by Sylviane on 12/29/13 at 10:13 PM | #


I must confess I do not understand your poetry (or whatever it is) at this stage, but English is not my first language, so, to hell with that.

You seem to be dwelling on the motive, murder weapon, credibility of witnesses, and Guede’s silence, after thousands and thousands of posts on these issues (The Machine said it well).

Here’s my own answer (short version) to your concerns, I do have a clean conscience and would sleep better if guilty verdicts were handed down as expected:

1. motive - very hard to establish in some cases, e.g., a suicide bomber blows himself up in a busy market, according to some people (present company included) this guy must be innocent of the crime, because we cannot establish Beyond Reasonable Doubt why he did it, can we? In our case there is only the victim who cannot speak (Meredith), and the suspects who can only “think the best truth” and tell the investigators “un sacco di cazzate”, good luck on getting a motive out of these losers;
2. murder weapon - my favorite, even if you choose to ignore the DNA (good luck), why did Sollecito hurry to provide a lie as to why Meredith’s DNA could have been on the blade (they had “cooked” together, and he “pricked” her finger, he apologised quickly, she said no problem)
3. credibility of witnesses - most witnesses are extremely credible, especially the roommates who saw scratches on Amanda’s neck the next day, the guy at the store who sold them bleach early the next morning, etc, etc;
4. Guede’s silence - to my knowledge he is not “silent”, it’s just that he’s a patented liar (and a proven murderer or at least an accessory to a terrible murder), and everything he says must be taken with extreme caution.

Now, there is a difference between Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Beyond Any Kind of Fricking Doubt Any Human or Beast May Have at Any Point in Time, in my opinion it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito actively participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher, and actively perverted the course of justice.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Posted by Bjorn on 12/30/13 at 02:22 AM | #

As to motive. In my experience the best answer is usually the simplest one. ie Jealousy combined with the desire to take Meredith down to Knox s disgusting level by inviting Guede to partake of rape which he did while the others held her down and threatened her and cut her, Then it gets out of hand. Meredith hits Knox and screams they kill her. Seems the most logical to me anyway.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 12/30/13 at 02:41 AM | #

@ Macthomas

Re your comment on 12/25/13 - at 09:25 AM:

“I have never made a legal case for Motive. I hope that is understood. However I can see how that view might have arisen by not making myself clear. Please excuse if you have been misled by my prose…....”

You had previously written:

“It were as well the trial had never begun as admit to the absence of motive for a crime, for in the absence of motive the danger is you must acquit. If there is no motive then it may be impossible to extradite.”

In whose voice is this passage? Macthomas’s? Defendants’? Prosecutors’? Is it Irony?

How can a reader know?

It seems that you have fooled at least Machine and me, into believing that you Had “...made a legal case for Motive.”

Is this a case of It ain’t what you say - It’s the way that you say it?

If so, It draws attention to a recurring problem we have in our written debates.

In written debates, as opposed to live debates, our words are taken-in-isolation from the accompanying tone-of-voice, intended literary-voice, cadence,  pauses, facial expression, and whole-body-language.

If the writer could be seen and heard speaking his/her prose, the writer’s meaning might be more clear.

My favorite TJMK example of this is in Amanda Knox’s English Language Statement at her trial on 06/12/09:

In “Scientific Statement Analysis: Amanda Knox’s Statement To The Appeal Court On 11 December”
Posted by Peter Hyatt on 01/09/2011.

Peter Quennel, Commenting at 11:22 PM on 01/09/2011, directed readers to “Sky News Italy Video Of The Defendant’s (AK’s) Opening Statement Today” (06/12/09):

In this Video, Knox was referring to the subject of her false accusations against Patrick Lumumba.

1:02 minutes into the video Knox paraphrased what she said an “interrogator” asked her:

“How could I imagine who could be the person who killed Meredith…..”.

In doing so Knox used a trivializing, sing-song tone-of-voice, and cadence, ridiculing the alleged question.

This Video told the viewer/listener far more about Knox’s meaning than could her naked-words.

Should Our Comments be in Video?

It might not be a bad idea.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/30/13 at 06:07 AM | #

@ Cardiol
‘...It draws attention to a recurring problem we have in our written debates.
In written debates, as opposed to live debates, our words are taken-in-isolation from the accompanying tone-of-voice, intended literary-voice, cadence,  pauses, facial expression, and whole-body-language.

If the writer could be seen and heard speaking his/her prose, the writer’s meaning might be more clear.’

This is so true, and so important. I believe it has been proven that a very high percentage of what we communicate is conveyed not through the words we use, but through the body language, tone-of-voice and speech patterns etc.
We know how the same piece of written music can convey an entirely different meaning/feeling if it is played and conducted differently. Even so with our words.
This can also lead to misunderstandings between two people from different cultures (with different languages), as one type of pattern and cadence may be the norm in one language, and mean something quite different in another.
In some languages, a different - higher or lower- pitch in the spoken word gives a quite different meaning. (e.g. Chinese, I understand).

When I am finding out, on the Internet, about a current piece of important news/happening - the first thing I do is look for a video clip from the actual person involved, and this usually tells me the essentials straight away.

Video comments would of course bring instant clarity. However, to state the obvious, we would also lose a certain detachment and anonymity which is at times required.

Hence we are dependent upon good logic to accurately convey our desired meanings in written prose.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 12/30/13 at 07:46 AM | #

Cardiol MD and Seeking Understanding

I am sorry Bjorn dislikes my comments and finds my prose impossible to follow, he is not alone by all accounts. Nonetheless my heart is in the right place if my comments on the community in support of Meredith are anything to go by. Amanda Knox had sent an e-mail to the court protesting her innocence claiming she had no motive for killing Meredith and more or less for that reason she must be found innocent of the crime. I had flippantly referred to this hollow sounding defence, not without a quality of irony which you are correct in detecting. I was being facetious in reiterating her remarks as preparing for extradition and more than a little disappointed that was all they could come up with. It is however true to say motive is a “support assertion.” Proof of motive has ever been an issue in determining guilt or innocence and I have described Knox, self-serving and facetiously claiming it is the final determinant in her e-mail to the court. However Motive is nonetheless important, the distinction made with intent which is a legal requirement. If the defendant denies guilt and shows evidence to that effect, for instance that she was otherwise on good terms with Meredith, and being confirmed, or at least not contradicted by friends and associates in this regard, she can argue, as she does, that lack of motive supports the argument that she is innocent. In the converse the prosecution may produce evidence of motive and argue that for this reason the crime was committed. Proof of motive, by itself, is of course insufficient in either case. However, as I understand it, crimes of detestation, hate crimes, requires proof of a certain motive with premeditation that the prosecution must prove. If the prosecution had offered up the motive originally held by them that Meredith’s murder was motivated by premeditated non-consensual sexual games provoked by antagonisms and escalated when she refused and fought back till murder ensued, the prosecution would have had to prove this premeditated motive. Not being able to deliver proof on the antagonism between victim and perpetrator the prosecution, to my mind, opted for the less contentious, if less satisfactory option of No direct Motive. In the event the prosecution tip their hats at, “a Duty” to deliver on motive, (prosecutor to the court) but reneges on the proof, it not being compulsory in the circumstance. It is my belief concerning the comparative neglect of direct motive, that the prosecution took the most expeditious route to a positive result, if the less satisfying with regard to complete truth. They dare not risk cross examination of Meredith’s friends and associates over the question of the degree of disparity necessary for proof to be substantiated. The fact that the prosecution claim no premeditation with regard to motive has a consequence for the carrying of the murder weapon. Had there been premeditation the passage of the knife to the murder scene and back again could be more positively implied.

I am unhappy with this approach all the more so because I believe in their guilt and want it proved, Knox extradited to serve the full measure of her sentence and not to profit one wit from the process. In sum, I am with Graham Rhodes on this 12/29/13, and I laid out this argument in a previous poetic post.
Let me reiterate, this is not my proclamation of the legal requirement for motive, rather an irreverent observation on the culprits dearth of defence. I hope this meets with Bjorn’s approval and helps clarify my position, as I understand things to stand, with regard to this issue. I apologise for being vague, verbose and the cause of confusion. If I am misled on any aspect I am sure you will let me know. To quote Helder Licht 12/18- “This is no Friday hairdo. She’s starting to incorporate the vacuum.”

Posted by Macthomas on 01/03/14 at 09:14 AM | #

I have always appreciated your passionate defence for Meredith. It is clear that you have been deeply affected,- as all of us here, - by the realization that comes once one reads the entire actual circumstances, evidence and background to this dauntingly tragic case.
I am glad you have strength of feeling in this regard, and sincerity.
The victims in this sorry state of affairs do require support, - they would anyway, but especially because of the unedifying, deeply unkind behaviour from the defence in recent years.

I also agree with Cardiol that there are difficulties, at times, in commenting in written prose without the accompanying body and facial language, and speech nuance,that we tend to take for granted.
I have noticed before that humour - irony, double entendre and so on, can very easily be misinterpreted.
It is particularly sensitive at the moment with the legal position. I’m sure you appreciate this.

We all deeply hope for true justice to be delivered - this is what has brought us together.
I honestly don’t think it is a question of liking or not liking. But I will let Bjorn speak for himself. I merely understood that he said he didn’t follow you, quite, as English wasn’t his first language.

Reasonable detachment and fairness - as shown by Finn in his latest post, helps us all forward at the present time. Thank you for clarifying…. And Happy New Year.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/03/14 at 10:36 AM | #

PS. It may help to bear in mind that the vast majority of statements that emanate from the defence are manipulative in nature.
The best response we can have is to quietly refuse to be manipulated at any level.
And also, perhaps, to have faith in the experience, training and wisdom of the present legal teams. The case is in Italy, and I’m sure they know their own system best…also, there is the not insignificant point about language (Italian), and nuance, again.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/03/14 at 11:11 AM | #

Seeking Understanding
Thanks for your comment, I take on board your note. Perhaps Seeking Understanding is well named.

Posted by Macthomas on 01/03/14 at 11:34 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Demonizations By Knox: Multiple Ways In Which Her Email To Judge Nencini Is Misleading

Or to previous entry Appeal Session #6: Case For Knox’s & Sollecito’s Guilt - The Civil Parties