Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Why Knox’s Damning Last Live TV Interview Was Attacked And Labeled “Controversial”

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Post

This is the complete 22 minute video of the interview Knox did with Chris Cuomo on 7 May 2014.

Chris Cuomo asked some excellent questions. CNN itself quickly put online a video of some clips lasting 2 1/2 minutes. On 22 May Vivianna posted an analysis: “The Cuomo Interview: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Tries To Argue Innocence On TV.”

In her post Vivianna clarified the 2 types of innocence (factual v.s. legal), and found it bizarre that Knox focused exclusively on the ‘legal’ argument. It was a wonderful piece, very sound scientifically, and very compelling.

The full interview (see above and this transcript) makes more understandable why Cuomo was angrily attacked online for asking “unfair questions” on subjects normally made off-limits by the PR. It really rattled some cages.

I will show here below why, and also how it could have rattled even more cages, by highlighting the insights that leaked out barely noticed, and the opportunities for many tougher questions.

2. Analysis Of The Full Interview

In the 2 1/2 minute clip Cuomo looked like a bit of a wimp. But in the full interview, he is actually pretty aggressive in pushing back against Knox’s attempts at convincing answers.

While I am still a bit disappointed that Cuomoe seems to back off from the really tough questions (see below) and like Diane Sawyer seems to be lacking in many of the hard facts (see below) this is definitely a more revealing picture than the short video.

At no time, does Amanda ever say, ‘‘I DIDN’T KILL MEREDITH’‘. And for someone giving a truthful answer, she has to pause and think far too often.

Below are excerpts from the CNN with my own commentary:

Chris Cuomo starts with a brief narrative about the case, and says the police immediately zeroed in on Knox. He cotinues:

1) Not because of witnesses or forensics….

2) She wasn’t distraught enough….

3) She kissed her then boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito outside the crime scene….

4) She did yoga in the police station….

5) Soon the media would come up with a persona… Foxy Knoxy

6) It was the stuff of tabloid headlines

7) It was also, as many would argue, the prosecution’s entire case

8) Despite this, Knox and Sollecito were convicted in 2009

9) It was another 2 years before another court cited lack of objective evidence

10) Last year, [2013] a new trial was ordered.

11) The appeals court convicted Knox again, but based on a new motive

12) There were multiple assailants, and 2 knives and Knox delivered the fatal blow

13) All of this is based on the only person [Guede] whose DNA is all over the crime scene

14) Due to a quirk in the Italian legal system, Guede is due to be released this year, after less than 6 years in jail

An okay attempt, but something of a shortfall. Here is my corrected version of Chris Cuomo’s narrative.

(2:45) Cuomo: What surprised you in the reasons?

(2:55) Knox: I think what surprised me the most is how the court has attempted to account for exonerating evidence. That is really surprising to me. It’s not surprising that they place so much emphasis on circumstantial evidence, as opposed to objective forensic evidence. And I’m really disappointed about that, because the circumstantial clues have all been equivical, have been unreliable, whereas forensic evidence that proves what happened that night in the room is there. (odd smile) It is available to be understood. And that continues to be an incredibly difficult obstacle that I’m having to confront, in proving my innocence.

Is the court allowed to consider circumstantial evidence like phone records, lying, and no alibi? No, they are circumstantial.

What about bloody footprints and mixed blood? They are objective. No they may be in the house, but they are not in the murder room.

What about your shoeprint and Raffaele’s DNA in the murder room? No, it is contaminated.

But isn’t Rudy Guede’s handprints, shoeprints and DNA in the murder room? Yes, and it proves my innocence.

I actually think Amanda Knox would make a great lawyer (for all the wrong reasons).

(3:50) Cuomo: Why do you think this judge goes further than any other, that only that you had it because of DNA around the hilt, but that he thinks that you are the one who actually killed Meredith Kercher?

(4:08) Knox: (smiles) I believe, I mean, I can’t speculate what this judge’s motivations are, personal motivations or otherwise. But what I can say is that, as this case has progressed, the evidence the prosecution has claimed exists against me has been proven less and less and less. And all that has happened is that they fill these holes with speculation.

Yes Judge Nencini holds some personal grudge…. Granted you have never actually met, but maybe he was just miffed you sent an email and hit the talk show circuit rather than attend your own appeal.

Or maybe there is some hard truth in that 350 page report he wrote up.

(4:47) Knox: I did not kill my friend. I did not wield a knife. (for emphasis), I had no reason to. In the month that we were living together we were becoming friends. A week before the murder we went to a classical music concert together. Like we had never fought. And the idea .... I mean, he’s brought up lots of things, crazy motives,

So it takes her a minute to deny killing ‘her friend’, who may or may not be Meredith. And she didn’t kill ‘her friend’ as she says she and Meredith were ‘becoming friends’ Um…. would you kill ‘your friend’ if you had ‘a reason to’?

(5:15) Cuomo: He [Nencini] doesn’t agree with anything you’re saying with regard to the relationship. (Amanda nods). This judge believes that this fight was about money, and that you stole money from your roommate, and that this is what started this violent night. Is there truth to that?

You aren’t sure if you stole money from Meredith?

(5:30) Knox: (pausing to think) Absolutely not. He is getting this from Rudy Guede, who is coming up with these sorts of things for self interest. And the truth of the matter is:... one, I had no criminal record, so I am not the type of person who is going to violently kill someone… (pauses) ... for any reason. And furthermore, I had saved up to go to Italy, and was not in need of stealing any money, unlike Rudy Guede, who was a known thief, who is a known burglar, who did this on a regular basis to survive. And why they would think I (points to herself) was a thief, when in Meredith’s own purse, there was Rudy Guede’s fingerprints…. it’s based on nothing.

Amanda has to think to herself before denying it. And she says that she is not the type to violently kill (is there another type?) but doesn’t say she didn’t do it.

And you don’t have to be a career criminal to commit murder. Many killers are first timers.

(6:18) Cuomo: To step through what he [Nencini] sees as the fact pattern for that night, and literally, it reads like a yes/no list.

(6:30) Cuomo: Were you and your boyfriend hanging outside the piazza that night?
Knox: No
Cuomo: Did you let Rudy Guede into your apartment?
Knox: No
Cuomo: Were you with Rudy Guede in your apartment that night?
Knox: No
Cuomo: Was there a fight over money with Meredith Kercher, witnessed by Rudy Guede?
Knox: No

(7:00) Cuomo: The judge believes the only way he could have gotten in is with keys. He throws out the possibility that there was a break in through the window, that was found in the home you shared. Why do you think he dismisses that possibility as orchestrated?

Chris, you could of course just read the report…

(7:10) Knox: I mean again, why he [Nencini] thinks it? What I can say is that Rudy Guede is a known burglar (pauses) who broke into houses and offices through second story windows, having thrown a rock, carrying a knife, and that these all resembled everything that happened in our apartment. So, why this judge thinks it’s impossible just doesn’t make sense to me.

Except the sexually assaulted and murdered woman .... For my curiousity, where were all these other supposed burglaries?

The judge may think the theory possible, if not for all the evidence that contradicts it.

(7:38) Cuomo: Your roommate said you had a strained relationship. Now that’s a bad fact as we call it in the law. Why would your roommates lie about the relationship between you and Meredith?

(7:49) Knox: They said that we weren’t hanging out as much at the time when the murder occurred. But that was only because I had gotten a job. Meredith’s British friends suggested that maybe Meredith was a little uncomfortable about certain issues about hygiene, but (looks angry), these were not issues that were ever going to lead to any kind of violence. They never ... led to any aggressive communication between us. That never happened.

Sexually assaulting and stabbing is ‘‘aggressive communication’’ now? Wow, interesting use of the English language. And yes you got a job,at Patrick’s bar. But wasn’t it about to go to Meredith?

(8:22) Cuomo: The judge believes that there were 3 people who did this. The said the blood is suggestive of it, that Rudy Guede had free hands. And it he had free hands, he must not have been alone. That the DNA evidence from Raffaele Sollecito is there on the clasp, and that shows that he was trying to take off her clothes or manipulate her somehow. (Knox nods) And that there had to be a third person. And the DNA of footprints that he believes are yours and your boyfriend’s prove that there were three of you in the room that night. Why is he wrong?

For someone who maintains the ‘‘no evidence’’ line, Knox is nodding through much of this.

(8:53) Knox: Well, um, let’s break that down. We have a bra clasp that independent court experts have claimed is not reliable because it was collected 46 days after the crime scene had been gone through by the CSI’s of Italy. And after police had tromped through it and basically completely destroyed that scene. That is not a reliable piece of evidence. Then we have the idea that Rudy Guede would not have been able to attack Meredith because someone had to hold her down.

Amanda, you didn’t address the footprints… And again C&V were not independent nor reliable…. And you know the CSIs compromised the scene how….

(9:35) Knox: first of all, the weapon that they claimed is the murder weapon, is not the murder weapon.

To ask the obvious question - how does she know more than her lawyers and the police? You’d almost think she was there.

(9:45) Knox: An athletic male, armed with a knife ... to overpower a young woman, that happens every day, in this world, and I don’t think that is impossible to be what happened to Meredith.

True, it may not be ‘impossible to be what happened’, but she is not insisting that ‘is’ what happened.

(10:00) Cuomo: and your saying to me tonight is that it is impossible that you were in the room that night, you had a knife in your hand, and that you helped Meredith Kercher?

Odd for an investigative role. He asks if it was impossible, but avoids directly asking if she did it

(10:06) Knox: Absolutely, because my DNA, any trace of me, is not there…. when your talking about traces of me, that they’re attributing to the crime scene, they’re talking about DNA in my own bathroom

Again, Knox goes straight for the ‘‘the evidence is not there’’ argument, rather than directly saying she was not involved in Meredith’s murder. Also, this may be the first time she has acknowledged the bathroom is part of the crime scene. Yay….?

(10:30) Knox: ...or my footsteps which tested negative for blood, that had mine and Meredith’s DNA on the floor between our bedrooms and the bathrooms. Of course our DNA was there, we lived there for a month, it was there. It tested negative for blood, so it wasn’t blood. And so it’s irrelevant to the crime. But we’re talking about the crime that happened in Meredith’s bedroom.

Here Knox is making a strawman argument, saying that the hallway is irrelevant. Odd, considering that unless ‘‘Spiderman’’ Guede would have to have gone through the hallway unless he jumped out the window.

Also curious that (if my understanding is right), it was the shape of the footprints the the hall, and not necessarily DNA itself which was introduced.

Yes, the crime itself happened in Meredith’s room, but the luminol did reveal footprints in the hallway, and there was mixed blood in the bathroom. Is Knox just scatterbrained in this interview, of being deliberately deceptive?

(10:43) If Rudy Guede committed this crime, which he did, we know that because his DNA is there, on Meredith’s body, his handprints and footprints in her blood. None of that exists for me. And if I were there, I would have had traces of Meredith’s broken body on me, and I would have left traces of myself… around Meredith’s corpse.

Wasn’t Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the bathroom mat a major piece against him? Was there not Knox’s DNA (mixed with Meredith) in the bathroom and in Filomena’s room? Was a size 37 woman’s shoeprint not found in the room?

Odd, that Knox’s DNA is in her apartment, which she lived in, but not a single fingerprint…. You know Rudy Guede committed the crime strictly because this DNA, handprints and footprints are there… but logically, the same types of evidence don’t count against you and Raffaele? “If Guede killed Meredith”? You know something we don’t?

(11:15) Knox: And I am not there, and that proves my innocence

Yes, Amanda, but were you really there?

(11;20) Cuomo: Those are the big points this judge makes. There are others, and there is also another man who judged you before, he wants to weigh in, and we have a statement from him.

(11:38) Cuomo: The appeals court judge who set Amanda free says the appellate court’s ruling against her is more worthy of a Hollywood movie set, than a courtroom. In a statement obtained exclusively by CNN, retired judge Claudio Hellmann says:

The Florence Appeals Court has written a script for a movie or thriller book while it should have considered only the facts and evidence. There is no evidence to condemn Knox and Sollecito. It’s a verdict, that seems to me is the result of fantasy and has nothing to do with the evidence.

Judge Hellmann, you were meant to be running a narrow appeal, not attempting a new trial with only the defense presenting. After the way your ruling was trashed by Cassation as perhaps the most incompetent, illegally wide, illogical, and obviously biased that Italy has seen, ever, and considering you were a business judge who caused a disaster on your one other murder case also, you are not really one to give a professional opinion on this. Judge Zanetti neither.

(12:15) Cuomo: Obviously words of comfort to you. What does it mean to hear that from a now retired judge?

Interesting, no complaints are made about Hellmann giving these statements, but Nencini gets a formal complaint for commenting about not severing the appeals?

(12:19) Knox: It gives me a lot of hope. He did the right thing. He appointed independent experts, he looked at the forensic evidence, the objective evidence, he didn’t give more weight to equivocal and unreliable circumstantial clues than needed to be.

Hope, but for the wrong reasons. C&V were not really independent witnesses. Appellate level judges were not supposed to hire experts. Cassation criticised just this action.

Circumstantial evidence can very reliable, and very powerful. Didn’t give more weight to ‘unreliable circumstantial clues’? A judge should not give ANY weight to unreliable clues.

(12:46) Cuomo: However, the judge on top of him, Nencini, looked at what he did, dismisses it out of hand, almost as saying that is why he retired, just look at this decision, and he seems to believe, quote: ‘‘No alternative explanation is conceivable…. that is casting a tremendous amount of doubt on the story that you tell about what happened that night.

Chris gets some basic facts wrong. It is Cassation, not Nencini, who is on top. Nencini is simply another lower level appeal judge. It is not ‘‘almost as saying’’ why Hellmann retired, he WAS forced to retire

(13:10) Knox: This is not a complex case. It’s only complex when you try to find explanations ....

You are right. We should only explore simple solutions.

(13:30) Cuomo: .... that Rudy Guede had to have entered from use of your keys.

(13:34) Knox: That’s not true either. He had a history of breaking and entering second story windows, with rocks, carrying knives. Like, how is that impossible? There is a window below which he could have climbed up from. He was perfectly capable of doing that.

Technically, Knox is right. She could have just left the door unlocked. So Rudy has a type, second story, with rocks and knives? Interesting…

Wait, didn’t I just hear this identical argument just a few minutes earlier? Rehearse much, Mandy?

(13:55) Cuomo: ... [Nencini] believes the convicted killer more than you. What does that mean to you?

(14:02) Knox: (smiles) I don’t know. It’s definitely very disheartening. Because I don’t know (another smile). I’m sitting here having to prove my innocence. It is incredibly disheartening when Rudy Guede was found to be unreliable, when he found certainly to be Meredith’s rapist and killer, they would consider his testimony over mine. There’s no explanation for it, in my mind.

I can explain that. Judge Nencini (and Massei, and Micheli, and Cassation), think more than 1 person was involved.

(14:45) Cuomo: What does it lead you to believe that [Nencini] thinks about you, this judge, as a person?

(14:52) Knox: As a person, well, he says in his report that when the prosecutor describes me as a person who is capable of not only disturbing not only everyone around me, but getting drugged up and .... (shakes head) ... but I am not that person. And the evidence doesn’t show that.

Um…. didn’t your roommates and Meredith’s friends all testify to that being exactly the kind of person you are? The testimony of many witnesses is not evidence?

And while you may not be that person now, were you then?

(15:25) Cuomo: Another thing Judge Hellman says: I THINK THAT THE HIGH COURT WILL BE OBLIGED TO CONFIRM THE FLORENCE RULING IF THEY DON’T WANT TO OPENLY CONTRADICT THEIR COLLEAGUES.

This is idiotic, especially if Hellmann wanted to be taken seriously. The entire point of appeals is so that fresh eyes will review the work of the trial (or lower appellate level) judges, and make sure their findings, facts, logic, and procedures are sound. It would complete defeat the purpose of appeals if the higher court simply signed off on lower court rulings.

(15:37) Knox: (indignant sigh) He was willing to do it. So I have to believe there are authorities in Italy who will be sitting on that Supreme Court panel who will look at the facts of this case, and will do the same thing he did.

So, you are going to corrupt Cassation as well? F*** my life.

(16:00) Cuomo Do you believe you are haunted by first impressions? How you behaved in the aftermath, what they saw as antics….

(16:18) Knox: I think I’m haunted more by people’s projections of their ideas onto me than my own impressions on others, because there’s been an absurd focus on the hours, the seconds I spent outside of my house, of police’s testimony about what did or didn’t happen in the police office. I think it’s true that people seem to have had a kind of tunnel vision…. and that is something I’ve been having to fight against for a long time.

Considering her email to judge Nencini, I am not convinced she knows what projecting really is.

(17:08) Cuomo: Legally, there is only one more step [Cassation]. What do you plan to do to have this come out in your favour?

I have an idea. Perhaps, attend your appeal this time.

However, the answer was cut off by a commercial. Afterwards, it cuts to a clip of the interview of Knox and Cuomo from May 2013. It shows a few clips of Amanda pretending to cry, and repeating how she is afraid.

(18:02) Cuomo: Then you had the anticipation of what the ruling would be. Which was worse: the anticipation of it, or now knowing what the ruling is?

(18:15) Knox: I think it’s now knowing where it stands with the judges, because I had truly believed that this court was going to find me innocent. No new evidence had been presented. I did not expect this, (grimaces) and I’m incredibly hurt and disappointed to read what they’re saying is true but so clearly not. And I guess my only hope is that people are going to see all of the flaws that are throughout the entire document that justifies this verdict. This whole theory that I might somehow be involved in some way with Meredith’s murder is wrong.

You truly believed Nencini would find you innocent? But you skip the appeal and email saying you are afraid?! The horribly flawed document… were you referring to Hellmann’s by any chance?

You weren’t ‘somehow involved’ in ‘some way’. Judge Nencini ruled that you actually delivered the fatal blow

(19:08) Cuomo: You will appeal
Knox: Yes
Cuomo: You will stay here in the United States for the duration of the appeal?
Knox: Yes
Cuomo: What happens if the Supreme Court confirms this ruling? The case is closed, and you are guilty.

(19:25) Knox: (angry smile showing) from this whole experience, especially in prison, where you have to take everything day by day, now i’m having to take everything step by step. And if I think about everything that I could possibly be facing, it’s way to overwhelming for me to even conceive.

(19:50) Cuomo: Are you able to be present, or are you trapped in 2007?

(20:00) Knox: (smiles) it’s definitely a limbo (smiles again). My entire adult life has been weighed down by and overtaken by this tremendous mess, this, this, (shuts her eyes and grins slightly). On the one hand, I have my life in Seattle. I get to go to school. I get to be with my family and friends. And I’m so grateful to have them. They really helped me get through this. And know there are people who believe me. And on the other hand, there is this huge wait, this huge struggle, and trying to learn each step of the way, what’s so wrong and how I can fix it. And I guess I’m just one of the luck ones? (confused look).

(21:10) Knox: People have looked into my case. I’m not just a forgotten case.

That is totally true. Thanks to FOA and Dave Marriott, your case will never be forgotten.

(21:18) Cuomo: If the case is affirmed, and you are found guilty in final fashion, but the United States decides not to extradite, your life goes on, you can live in the United States, but will you ever really be free?

(21:35) Knox: Absolutely not. No, that is not a liveable ... especially since right now me and Raffaele are fighting together for our innocence. And like I said, I truly believe that it can happen. It’s only speculation that convicts us. It’s evidence that acquits us. And I’m holding firm in that what you’re suggesting might happen doesn’t.

Good luck with that one. You need to not leave so much out if there is a next time.

Posted by Chimera on 01/27/15 at 04:22 PM in Hoaxes Knox & team, 20 No-PR hoax

Comments

In some sense, all evidences are circumstantial in nature, unless you send someone, with due approval from the Knoxen, with a video camera to record the full show live. But then…

Posted by chami on 01/27/15 at 08:33 PM | #

Chimera, great post and commentary!

Time is running out for Knox:

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?iso=20150325T00&p0=3780&msg=knox+grim+reaper+countdown&swk=1

Posted by Mark on 01/27/15 at 10:12 PM | #

@Chami - Liked “Knoxen”, it reminded me of Hexenkessel or Witches Cauldron; from now on will use Knoxenkessel!

Posted by Cardiol MD on 01/28/15 at 12:56 AM | #

This of course is simply wonderful and just points up how desperate Knox is. She cannot answer difficult questions so she relies upon the script she has been rehearsing for the last seven years. On the other hand though I have a question?

All the Knox cultists scream incessantly that the DNA does not exist. They ignore the fact that the defense tried to bring contamination into the picture since they did not deny it’s existence but tried to argue along other lines. Therefore it was a ‘Hail Mary Pass"at best. So my question is this.

Since every drop of incriminating blood evidence from the bathroom was collected and bagged ‘Individually’ and also that it was tested ‘individually’ which proved beyond any doubt at all there was mixed DNA Knox to Meredith. Then where does the contamination come in? According to the children at groundreport plus the leaches and parasites (Steve&Michelle; Moore Bruce Fischer etc;) All the blood evidence was put in a paper bag which was given a good shake.

Point is. How can contamination take place with every singe individual incriminating droplet of pathology when they are kept completely separate from each other?

Again according to the FOA, it’s all a vast conspiracy which is a joke of course. If that were the case then the Italian authorities would have smeared DNA in all directions.

Last point. According to people who rabidly insist that Knox is innocent. Then Sollecito is,

and I quote, “Collateral Damage” close quote.

If Sollecito does not know this already, then he should be made aware of it since it’s obvious the Amanda Knox supporters have written him off and for all they care as long as Knox escapes true justice then Sollecito can rot in jail while she goes free.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/28/15 at 01:48 AM | #

Chimera mentions at 9.35 “the knife that they claim is the murder weapon is not the murder weapon”.

There’s real emphasis on the IS NOT. Like she KNOWS it isn’t.

Not once does she show any remorse for Meredith or how her actions (even if innocent) misdirected the police investigation.

Incredible. And that trembly voice sounds so forced.

Posted by DavidB on 01/28/15 at 06:29 PM | #

I would like to congratulate Chimera on a very good post. I would respectfully add the following comments in further condemnation of Knoxâ€™s attempts at asserting her innocenceâ€.

14a) The â€˜â€˜quirkâ€™â€™ is the short form trial, which got Guede a reduced sentence. And while â€˜â€˜eligibleâ€™â€™ for day release, it is not the same as â€˜â€˜due for releaseâ€™â€˜. November 2007 to late 2014 is 7 years, Chris, not 6.

I would add that Knox and Sollecito had exactly the same choice as Guede to take the short form trial and to have obtained the same reductions in sentence.

(5:30) Knox: (pausing to think) “Absolutely not. He is getting this from Rudy Guede, who is coming up with these sorts of things for self-interest. And the truth of the matter is:... one, I had no criminal record, so I am not the type of person who is going to violently kill someone”.

This is a lie: Knox has a criminal record in the US for causing a noisy affray at a party. Since she is a liar about having no criminal record, her whole defence in this paragraph is worthless.

“â€¦. unlike Rudy Guede, who was a known thief, who is a known burglar, who did this on a regular basis to survive”.

This is clearly another Knox bare-faced lie. There is no evidence of any previous criminal convictions of Guede, prior to Meredithâ€™s murder - none for burglary and none for theft, whether â€œon a regular basisâ€ or at all.

(7:10) Knox: “â€¦What I can say is that Rudy Guede is a known burglar (pauses) who broke into houses and offices through second story windows, having thrown a rock, carrying a knife, and that these all resembled everything that happened in our apartment. So, why this judge thinks itâ€™s impossible just doesnâ€™t make sense to me”.

I repeat that Guede has no record of prior convictions for â€œbreaking into houses and offices through second storey windowsâ€, â€œthrowing rocks to effect break insâ€ or â€œcarrying a knifeâ€. Knox is telling blatant lies that undermine her claims of innocence and show only her intent to advance a fantasy of Guedeâ€™s (untrue) criminality, in a pathetic attempt to implicate him in the fake break-in that both she and Sollecito had committed for that purpose and to take suspicion away from them.

The Judge rejected Knoxâ€™s attempt to implicate Guede in the fake break-in because, (amongst many other reasons), there was NO physical evidence of anyone climbing up the wall to Filomenaâ€™s shuttered window, the broken window glass was on TOP of the scattered personal effects and NOTHING was stolen.

(8:53) Knox: “Well, um, letâ€™s break that down. We have a bra clasp that independent court experts have claimed is not reliable because it was collected 46 days after the crime scene had been gone through by the CSIâ€™s of Italy. And after police had tromped through it and basically completely destroyed that scene. That is not a reliable piece of evidence…”

Note that Knox states here that â€œindependent court experts have CLAIMED that the bra clasp DNA evidence is unreliable” â€“ this falls well short of stating that they have provided any plausible explanation that it is unreliable.

This is more Knox deceit and diversion. The fact that the cut bra clasp had Sollecitoâ€™s DNA on it after 46 days IN A CLOSED MURDER SCENE can only mean that, if anything, the DNA would have deteriorated in that time and that there would therefore have been MORE of Sollecitoâ€™s DNA on the clasp, had it instead been found on the day after the murder.

All the alleged police tromping through the crime scene does NOT explain how they had, (inadvertently or otherwise), obtained Sollecitoâ€™s DNA and then managed to transfer it precisely to the clasp.

Patently, it is Knoxâ€™s speculation about the DNA â€œcontaminationâ€ of the clasp that is not reliable, or indeed vaguely plausible. As Cassation has clearly stated, it is not enough to simply claim contamination â€“ the onus is on the claimant to give a precise and plausible description of how it may have happened. Knox and her supporters have always failed to meet this onus.

(11:15) “Knox: And I am not there, and that proves my innocence”

I think Chimera means, â€œYes, Amanda, but were you really not thereâ€?

To have any logical sense that her apparent lack of DNA in the murder room means that Knox â€œis not thereâ€, would require the room to be floating on its own, considered purely as if the rest of the crime scene did not exist.

(13:34) Knox: “Thatâ€™s not true either. He had a history of breaking and entering second story windows, with rocks, carrying knives. Like, how is that impossible? There is a window below which he could have climbed up from. He was perfectly capable of doing that”.

It is impossible, Knox, because Guede had no history of breaking and entering second storey windows with rocks, carrying knivesâ€. NO HISTORY WHATSOEVER â€“ only your fantasy.

(14:02) Knox: (smiles) “I donâ€™t know. Itâ€™s definitely very disheartening. Because I donâ€™t know, (another smile). Iâ€™m sitting here having to prove my innocence. It is incredibly disheartening when Rudy Guede was found to be unreliable, when he found certainly to be Meredithâ€™s rapist and killer, they would consider his testimony over mine. Thereâ€™s no explanation for it, in my mind”.

There is a very clear explanation in my mind, Knox. You have a calumny conviction against you for repeatedly lying about Patrik Lumumbaâ€™s involvement in Meredithâ€™s murder, a bout of your consistent lying that (rightly) put you in an Italian prison for 4 years.

(18:02) Cuomo: “Then you had the anticipation of what the ruling would be. Which was worse: the anticipation of it, or now knowing what the ruling is?” (i.e the Nencini ruling)

(18:15) Knox: â€¦ “This whole theory that I might somehow be involved in some way with Meredithâ€™s murder is wrong”.

The Nencini Court had no remit to provide a theory of your involvement in Meredithâ€™s murder that would suit your warped perceptions and lies, but rather a reasonable ruling that would best embrace ALL the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise. This, it has achieved in spades, as did the Massei court before it.

(19:25) Knox: (angry smile showing) “from this whole experience, especially in prison, where you have to take everything day by day, now iâ€™m having to take everything step by step. And if I think about everything that I could possibly be facing, itâ€™s way too overwhelming for me to even conceive”.

More likely, Knox, that you need to take all your alternative, exculpatory meanderings â€œstep by stepâ€, lest you drop a clanger.

Despite all your PR efforts and through your conflicting evidence on the Court record, you have conspicuously failed to avoid the bear traps of undoubted guilt.

In fact, it is your repeated lies, Knox, that are â€œway too overwhelmingâ€ for any sensible person to believe in the slightest.

(19:50) Cuomo: “Are you able to be present, or are you trapped in 2007”?

(20:00) Knox: (smiles) “itâ€™s definitely a limbo (smiles again). My entire adult life has been weighed down by and overtaken by this tremendous mess, this, this, (shuts her eyes and grins slightly). On the one hand, I have my life in Seattle. I get to go to school. I get to be with my family and friends. And Iâ€™m so grateful to have them. They really helped me get through this. And know there are people who believe me. And on the other hand, there is this huge wait, this huge struggle, and trying to learn each step of the way, whatâ€™s so wrong and how I can fix it. And I guess Iâ€™m just one of the luck ones? (confused look)”.

Yakety yak.

I look forward to the day when Knox meets an interviewer:

â€¢ who has top researchers, who make him/her fully aware of the conflict between Knoxâ€™s self-serving claims of â€œinnocenceâ€ and the undeniable evidence against both her and Sollecito, within the lengthy Court Record,

â€¢ who is willing to interrupt Knox every time that she shamelessly lies on facts, (admittedly requiring almost continuous interruptions),

â€¢ who points out to her that she has a criminal record for lying repeatedly in the most serious of circumstances, so why believe her now?

â€¢ who is smart enough to read her giveaway body language, (such as entirely inappropriate smiles), and highlight how it persistently flags up her every phoney act and protestation of innocence.

Posted by Mealer on 01/29/15 at 12:23 AM | #

Yes it’s the smiles of course. The woman is insane. lets call it for what it is. She has absolutely no remorse or any feeling whatever. It’s all about me-me-me. Sollecito of course, can rot in jail. She could care less anyway. The fact is, and as every psychotic sociopath knows. In order to tell a convincing lie you have to actually believe that it’s true. Knox is sick but then so was John Wayne Gacy/Jodi Arias who revel in fooling people. But in their quiet moments they smile.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/29/15 at 02:14 AM | #

“I look forward to the day when Knox meets an interviewer:
who is smart enough to read her giveaway body language, (such as entirely inappropriate smiles), and highlight how it persistently flags up her every phoney act and protestation of innocence.”

It’s not about being smart enough, I think. It is about the absence of a moral compass.

Posted by Helder Licht on 01/29/15 at 02:48 PM | #

(9:35) Knox: first of all, the weapon that they claimed is the murder weapon, is not the murder weapon.

To ask the obvious question - how does she know more than her lawyers and the police? Youâ€™d almost think she was there.

Like DavidB, this really sticks in my mind.

First of all? Not the murder weapon? Youâ€™d almost think she was there?

Chimera, you’re too subtle! You know very well we do think she was there.

How the revealing Hell can she be so confident that she knows it’s Not the murder weapon?

Because when she did it, she thought it was another weapon that caused Meredith’s death.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 01/29/15 at 09:23 PM | #

Oh my gosh, I’d forgotten who AWFUL this interview was! Thanks for highlighting it FOR me, Chimera, so I didn’t have to re-watch the whole thing! I couldn’t take anymore after about three minutes into the actual interview!

I’m so glad no one else has given her a TV interview since then. I think even the celebrity hosts are sick of her! She can’t even give declarative sentences, but warps and weaves around all the issues.

I can’t wait until her guilt is generally accepted among right-thinking people. It’s hard to believe, 120 years after Lizzie Borden, that people still have trouble believing a “normal, middle-class” white woman can commit homicide.

Posted by Earthling on 01/29/15 at 11:45 PM | #

Excellent analysis and comments, just a quick comment for Grahame, I see what you mean, but I would not call Knox insane, insanity may give her a way out, she is simply a DUT (EE’s are allowed a smile, in this case, however, it does not mean “device under test”, but ” drugged-up tart”, Meredith’s definition). Moreover, she is a defective human, just like Jodi Arias and other fine individuals.

Posted by Bjorn on 01/30/15 at 12:57 AM | #

Hello all,

Glad you liked the post. 2 Serious questions:

1. Has Knox given any interviews since this one (May 2014)? I couldn’t find any, but maybe someone had better luck.

2. All of Knox’s talk of not going back to Italy out of fear? Had no one considered doing a ‘‘Skype’‘, or video conferencing testimony? I’ve been in civil matters, and our teleconferences with the judge were considered court appearances.

**************************

@ Mealer - yes, it would be nice to have Knox interviewed under those terms. But it would involve her being formally questioned under oath. It was a disaster the only time she tried.

Here is a part of her 2009 testimony:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEyYrSZx-3Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0q9OMaCIMI

And here was the reaction:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/italy_shrugs_why_the_defendants_testimony_seems_to_have_been_a_real_fl/#comments

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/this_testimony_does_not_seem_to_have_gained_much_traction_here_in_ital/#comments

Bear in mind (a) Amanda testified with protections, agreeing only to answer about the Lumumba charge, and (b) Mignini had nowhere near as much material to work with.

Mignini shredded Knox’s credibility last time. Imagine a rematch, only this time, he has access to translated copies of all her interviews, and of her book.

And of course, things really aren’t any better for Knife-Boy. He really can’t take the stand either. First this:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/raffaele_sollecito_trapped_in_his_own_words/

Then his book and interviews. Raffy wouldn’t testify at trial. He didn’t at the Nencini appeal, even though Nencini might have severed his case from Knox’s.

Mealer, your contributing points are quite thoughtful. Thank you.

@ Helder Licht - Yes, it is true, that AK was never really called on her shit in ‘ANY’ of her interviews.

Media organizations are notorious for this, and CNN (watch any political interview), will lob softball questions because it is the only way to ensure continued access to people. It keeps them in business, but not exactly ‘‘full of integrity’‘.

@ DavidB @ Cardiol MD - Yes, it stood out, that Knox would have the audacity to correct the police and courts as to what was the ‘‘murder weapon’‘.

@ Grahame Rhodes - Yes, Knox smiles at all the wrong times. And it started long before Cuomo. Hell, she seems to enjoy the attention while testifying.

@ Earthling - You are right, it was horrible. Hard to believe she has had media coaching. Glad to refresh your memory.

@ Mark - Yup, time is running out.

**************************

Again, thanks everyone. Feedback always welcomed.

I know Knox likes the Beatles, but perhaps a song from another European band (one of my favourites), would better sum up her present plight. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGoJdPOKdGk

Posted by Chimera on 01/30/15 at 04:32 AM | #

Very interesting post, Chimera. I think you had access to a longer version than we did back in May because there are some parts I don’t remember at all.

I still can’t get past how she refers to the murder and trial as “this mess” - a sentiment which is entirely consistent with her prior reactions and word choices (icky, bleargh, corpse, etc.). It’s just so horribly offensive and callous to refer to a tragedy as a mess, i.e. something dirty which needs to be cleaned up.

But it’s true, at the same time, that Knox & Co. have been on their hands and knees for the past 7+ years, trying to scrub away the evidence and its interpretations (both literally and metaphorically).

I think the physicality and graphic nature of the murder left a strong impression on her. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be a matter of horror and regret, but of shock and revulsion. I don’t think one needs to be a psychologist to notice how present and real this revulsion is even after all these years.

She also doesn’t seem to understand that this is not how people react to such things, that it’s not normal for someone who was supposedly close to the victim to feel such detached disgust rather than pity and sadness.

I don’t think she’s likely to re-offend while the trial lasts, thanks to sheer self-preservation, but I don’t like thinking about what she might do if she felt safe and in control again.

I hope the Nencini verdict gets upheld and that the extradition is fast and efficient so we don’t need to see any more interviews like this one.

Posted by Vivianna on 01/30/15 at 04:52 AM | #

Here is my choice for the Knox song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca_sxbu6FoA

Posted by Mark on 01/30/15 at 05:59 AM | #

Hi Vivianna

True re the length of the video. CNN only posted one or two 2-3 minute clips, the only one you and I had then.

The first of the 22 minute versions (there are several) was posted over 6 months later, less than 8 weeks ago, by several apparent supporters of Knox, maybe thinking it would do her a good turn.

This one has already had 17,000 views.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/30/15 at 01:29 PM | #

Hello Vivianna,

You are quite right, Knox really doesn’t seem to get that this is not how people are supposed to react.

While you are correct about the disgust, am not sure about the shock (at least at this stage). What I see is someone who has been emboldened, and hardened by the experience.

Yes, she goes on about the ‘no evidence’, but perhaps we are missing another perspective. Could she really just be bragging about about how much she and Raffy got rid of?

Seeing videos of her in court, and giving interviews, she ‘‘still’’ seems to find the matter quite amusing. The crocodile tears are a total act. And it’s no coincidence she only picks interviews with easy journalists.

Someone like Nancy Grace, or even another match with Katie Couric, (for RS), could rip their lies apart.

If not for the pending final appeal (if Hellmann had been the end), she very likely would have killed again—after milking her fame of course. She needs someone to be in control of her, for her sake and ours.

Again, kudos to you on the original piece.

@ Peter - You may be right about Knox’s own people leaking the full video. While Cuomo looks like a much better interviewer (compared to the 2:30 clip), it doesn’t help obKNOXious. She seems more controlled, but much more manipulating and lacking in any empathy.

So, I doubt that the decision was really a good one.

Posted by Chimera on 02/03/15 at 09:29 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 Summaries Of The Nencini Report #1: The Attention Directed To Various Crucial Timings

Or to previous entry The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #4: Chimera Examines The Most Inflammatory Angles

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Why Knox’s Damning Last Live TV Interview Was Attacked And Labeled “Controversial”

Posted by Chimera

1. Overview Of This Post

2. Analysis Of The Full Interview

Comments

Where next:

Follow On X (Twitter)

Readers Online

Click To Get There

Your Comments