Thursday, May 22, 2014

The Cuomo Interview: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Tries To Argue Innocence On TV

Posted by Vivianna

Concepts of innocence

I want to make the distinction here, as in some of my previous posts, between factual and legal innocence to show how on factual evidence Knox is giving up.

  • Factual innocence is what we may consider “true” innocence, i.e. the complete lack of involvement in a crime.

  • Legal innocence, on the other hand, is innocence established in a court of law on the basis of a reconstruction of events.

Ideally, the two coincide. But there are certainly cases in which someone who is factually guilty of a crime may be found innocent in a legal sense due to a lack of evidence.

This distinction is important here since the type of innocence Knox appears to want to establish throughout her most recent interview is, surprisingly, legal innocence ““ not factual innocence.

There are signs that Knox knows she’s failed to sell factual innocence, and is losing traction with all crime professionals everywhere - the psychologists are already long gone.

And signs that American big-media fascination has run its course. A few days after the release of the Nencini motivation report, Knox was interviewed by Chris Cuomo on CNN. This was the one big Knox-camp response to the report - and the main airing of the interview was just after 6:00 am.  A video of some highlights can be viewed on the CNN website after the brief ad.

I would like to refer you at the start to this excellent post by Eyes for Lies, who has been praised on TJMK before. The transcribed quotes below are taken from the Eyes for Lies blog and they are accurate; their accuracy can be confirmed by listening to the interview linked above.

“This judge’s motivations…”

The first thing you may notice when you watch the interview is Knox’s difficulty to form articulate sentences.  This is not a comment on her intelligence or her ability to speak in public, but it appears odd considering her coaching and the number of interviews she has given before.

She pauses often and constantly reforms her sentences, perhaps realizing that what she wants to say may not play out in her favor.  As a result, she uses vague and sometimes unusual language, and her sentence fragments reveal aspects which she is otherwise attempting to conceal.

This inability to effortlessly stick to her script in a somewhat tense scenario betrays the fact that there is a discrepancy between her beliefs and her public statements.  It also begs the question of why someone who is supposedly telling the truth needs to construct her answers so carefully if she has nothing to hide.

Cuomo begins the interview by asking Knox why she thought that this judge [Nencini] went further than any other.  Here is Knox’ answer, preceded by a rather odd smile:

I”¦believe”¦I mean, I can’t speculate what this judge’s motivations”¦personal motivations or otherwise”¦What I can say is that”¦as”¦this”¦case”¦has progressed”¦”¦.the evidence”¦that the prosecution has claimed exist against me”¦.has been”¦has been proven less and less and less.

The quote of Knox above is a good example from the legal v factual innocence point of view. First, let’s look at the opening few words.

She begins by saying “I believe”¦” and then stops.  Evidently, only Knox knows what exactly she intended to say, but it’s rather obvious from her next sentence that what she wanted to say about the judge was not particularly flattering or diplomatic.  Given her current situation and the pending defamation suits, she probably thought it was not a good idea to be direct.

Hence, she rephrases on the fly and goes on say that she couldn’t comment on his motivations, while doing this nevertheless towards the end of her sentence.  This is known as “paralipsis” which is stating something (which sometimes may be considered an ad hominen) while pretending not to do so.

The fact that she mentions Judge Nencini’s “personal motivations or otherwise” implies that his decision may have not been objective, but based on a personal bias against the defendants (an idea that Ms. Bongiorno has been unsuccessfully trying to flog after the verdict). 

“Diminishing evidence…”

Moving on, she makes the first appeal to the legal innocence I mentioned above.  Instead of clearly stating that she was innocent or that she did not kill Meredith, Knox prefers to focus on the fact that the evidence against her has been allegedly diminishing.

For one, this is false, as no piece of evidence at all has been dismissed; on the contrary, the new DNA test results from the Carabinieri lab could be considered as additional evidence.  So Knox is blatantly lying about something which can be factually disproved, which immediately raises the question of what else she could be lying about.

Secondly, what makes this statement odd is the fact that she does not assert her factual innocence.  As someone who was supposedly wrongly accused and against whom there is evidence, whether or not she chooses to acknowledge it, the one thing she has control over is the inner knowledge of her own factual innocence.

That kind of knowledge, in someone who was not subjected to torture or brainwashing, should be untouchable ““ absolute.  No matter what anyone said she did, if she knew for a fact that she hadn’t done it, she would be stating it at every opportunity.

The fact that she chooses not to do this indicates that Knox herself may have trouble keeping up this pretense of innocence, especially if she is privately plagued by fear and perhaps guilt or remorse (although she hasn’t shown any signs of the latter).  It has been suggested that she may be at a point where she has convinced herself of an alternate truth, but based on what she says, I am uncertain that she genuinely believes what she says.

“I did not kill…”

Only in her next sentence does she finally offer a denial ““ unfortunately couched in vague language which undermines her point.

I did not kill my friend. I did not wield a knife. I had no reason to.

Simple, straight sentences like these are the kind we would expect from an innocent person.  The problem lies in the fact that, throughout this interview, Knox never clearly states, “I did not kill Meredith.”  I don’t think Knox is lying when she says “I did not kill my friend,” since, strictly speaking, she did not kill any of her friends.

The problem is that Meredith was not her friend, even if both she and Meredith may have acted friendly towards each other at the beginning.  Based on statements given by Meredith’s English friends and by her family, Meredith was irritated by Amanda’s behavior and frequently complained about the latter’s habits (untidiness, dirtiness, attention-seeking, bringing strange men to the apartment, etc).

Meredith probably maintained a civil front in order to avoid tension, but she had already started to distance herself.  The fact that she did not return Amanda’s texts on Halloween demonstrates that she wanted to spend time with her actual friends, rather than have to deal with Knox’ histrionic episodes.  Given the social nature of Halloween in a college town, this situation would not have occurred if the two had really been close prior to the murder.

“I did not wield a knife” is a blatant lie, since Knox’ DNA was found on both the handle and blade of the kitchen knife.  Eyes for Lies found it strange that Knox even mentioned the knife in light of her innocence claim, but I think it makes sense because the knife figured prominently in the appeal proceedings.

Or rather, it makes sense for someone who is focused on the legal innocence aspect mentioned above.  Knox equates being found innocent with being innocent, as we’ll see below, so it’s important for her to address the evidence (without realizing that, by doing so, she is acting in ways which are not consistent with factual innocence).

“My friend…”

Returning to “my friend,” we see the beginning of a trend which continues throughout the interview.  Knox has a tendency to refer to Meredith obliquely ““ rarely by name.

This manifests itself in several ways: by exerting ownership (“MY friend”) or by referring to her as an inanimate object (which we’ll see happening in the following paragraphs).  Considering that murder is a total, irreversible way of taking away someone’s personhood, this constant appropriation and objectification are disturbing and belie Knox’s supposed fondness for Meredith.

Next, Knox says, “I”¦.I was”¦in the month we were living together, we were becoming friends.”

Here I agree with Eyes for Lies’ argument that perhaps what Knox started saying was “I was trying to be friends with her.”  Note that she says “we were becoming friends,” not “we were friends.”  This calls into question her truthfulness when she calls Meredith “my friend.”

By Knox’ own admission, they were not quite friends yet at that point - or rather, not anymore, since the disagreements had already started; once again, Knox distorts the truth by making it seem that they were getting closer rather than as in reality growing apart.

A week before the murder occurred, we went out to a classical music concert together. Like”¦we had never fought. There is no trace of us.

The part about the concert is true (this is where Knox met Sollecito).  We don’t know why Meredith left before the concert ended: perhaps she was tired, she had to study, or didn’t particularly enjoy the music; it’s also possible that she may have felt irritated with whatever Knox was doing to attract Sollecito’s attention.

Given his inexperience and lack of confidence at the time, Sollecito would have most likely not approached Knox without an invitation, but that’s a matter for another post.

“Like “¦ we had never fought” can be interpreted in two ways.  One: we can read it as “we went out [”¦] together like we had never fought”; this implies that they did fight, which would be true, but that they were working on settling their differences.  Two: “like” could be a simple filler word, and we should read it as “we had never fought,” which would be false.  I’m not sure which way she meant it, so I’ll leave it at that.

“There is no trace…”

It seems like Knox jumps to saying “there is no trace of us,” but the video posted online was edited, and not very smoothly.  You can see the transition, so she must have said this after additional remarks or in response to a different question.  Hence, the fact that it seems random isn’t probably her fault.

It’s interesting in itself though because it’s another instance of her lying about verifiable facts (see judges’ reports and the numerous posts regarding forensic evidence).  Also, it’s an important statement in conjunction with the infamous quote about Meredith’s “broken body” because it once again equates lack of evidence with innocence, rather than directly stating innocence.

“If Guede committed…”

This is perhaps the most controversial part of the interview and also the part which ties things together (the idea of legal innocence and the objectification of Meredith).

If Rudy Guede”¦committed this crime”¦which he did”¦we know that because his DNA is there”¦on the”¦on Meredith’s body, around Meredith’s body.  His hand prints and foot prints 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”¦around Meredith’s corpse”¦.and I”¦I am not there”¦and that proves my innocence.

She starts her response with something which is both incredibly revealing and absolutely shocking for someone who claims innocence - “If Rudy Guede committed this crime.”

I don’t think anyone has questioned Guede’s involvement in this murder, even if the precise extent of it remains unclear, and the two have partially built their defense around the lone wolf scenario.  Also, since Guede’s verdict was issued and confirmed years ago, Knox does not need to pussyfoot around his status for fear of slander charges. 

Knox is not talking about Guede’s involvement in general terms, however.  She’s explicitly referring to him actually committing the crime (i.e. inflicting the lethal wounds).  Her hesitation betrays the fact that she doesn’t believe he did.

Of course, she catches herself: “which he did “¦ we know that because his DNA is there.”  It’s interesting she has to point out how she knows this ““ from reading the evidence, certainly, not from being there and therefore knowing for a fact that he participated in the assault, but not in the actual murder.

“On the… Meredith’s body”

Next, we have another instance of objectification:  “”¦on the”¦on Meredith’s body, around Meredith’s body.” Perhaps she wanted to say “on the corpse” and thought it might be a bit inconsiderate, so she switches to the more neutral “body,” only to use the implied word a few sentences later.  However, what’s striking about it is that she thinks of Meredith as a body, not as a person. 

I want you to think about the time you lost a friend or a family member, regardless of circumstances.  Did you ever think of them as a body, or did you continue to think of them as they were in life, even if you had to identify them or take care of funeral arrangements? I’m not asking this rhetorically, by the way.

When my father died (rather suddenly, but due to illness), it never ever crossed my mind to think of him as a body, but perhaps circumstances alter perceptions.  I’ve also read numerous things written by Meredith’s friends and family, and they always refer to her as “Meredith” or “Mez.” To them, she never stopped being a person because they loved her, and diminishing her would have been inconceivable.

I think it’s far more likely that the word “body” will appear in a military, medical, or anthropological context, in which there is no personal connection between the observer and the dead.  We may use this word ourselves when talking about the crime scene, but it’s rather telling that we use her name far more often than someone who actually knew her in life.

I can’t know what Knox felt about Meredith, but there is no indication it was positive.  The clinical and graphic manner in which she refers to “Meredith’s body,” “broken body,” and “corpse” betrays an obstinate refusal to acknowledge her as a person.  Why, if Meredith was indeed her friend as she insists?

For one, it suggests that Knox actually saw Meredith being transformed into a “body” and that this image stuck with her.  Let’s not forget that Knox never saw Meredith after the latter was discovered; based on the statements of the other people present in the cottage, she was not near the door when it was broken open, and she was also not asked to identify Meredith.

The only way an innocent Knox could have seen Meredith after her death would have been in photographs presented in court.  There is no doubt that such photographs can be disturbing and upsetting, but I don’t think they can supplant memories of actual experiences. 

Secondly, it’s a form of denying someone’s personhood and of expressing power and domination.  A murderer can literally deprive someone of personhood ““ an act which they may feel triumphant about, especially if the person was a source of distress in life.  I can’t help feeling that Knox is gloating when she mentions Meredith’s body.

Thirdly, refusing to name the victim and to refer to her as a person is a way of preventing her from taking center stage.  While Knox has repeatedly complained about the media attention she has received, both she and her campaign have fought really hard to marginalize and displace Meredith in an attempt to replace the tragedy of the latter’s death with the supposed tragedy of Knox’ unwarranted imprisonment.

It must be disappointing when someone you’ve risked everything to eliminate continues stealing your thunder, so Knox isn’t letting us forget the actual state of things: she is there, in a TV studio, enjoying the luxury of being an “I,” while Meredith has been reduced to an “it” ““ a broken body.

The words she uses to refer to Meredith, whether graphic or macabre, suggest disgust with the physicality of death.  Perhaps Knox just wanted Meredith to go away forever and found it difficult to deal with the aftermath of a violent murder.

“None of that exists…”

Returning to the issue of legal innocence, Knox claims that Guede’s hand and foot prints were identified, while “none of that exists for me”; also, “I would have left traces of myself”¦.around”¦around Meredith’s corpse.”

These are further lies, since a size 36-38 foot print was identified, and Knox was the only one it could have belonged to.  There were also five mixed DNA spots (comingled blood from both women), which, just because they were not right next to Meredith’s body, cannot be dismissed.

The crime scene covers the entire house as far as the police and the court are concerned.  How anyone else defines the crime scene is of no consequence at all. 

“[”¦] if I were there, I would have had traces of”¦Meredith’s broken body on me,” she says next.  This is, of course, an impossible scenario since Meredith was discovered long hours after her death and it was days before police looked at her.

In the meantime, a clean up had unquestionably taken place, and Knox herself admits to having showered (perhaps not in the morning as she wrote in her email, but earlier that night).  Also, Knox was initially considered a witness, not a suspect, and her person and clothes were not immediately swabbed by the scientific police.

She’s trying to make it sound like no traces were discovered on her, but in fact no one tested for this and no one can prove it either way.

“I am not there…”

She continues: “I”¦I am not there”¦and that proves my innocence.”  By “I am not there,” she means that incriminating traces were not found at the scene, not that she wasn’t there on that night. Note the difference between “I am innocent,” which she does not say, and “[the lack of evidence] proves my innocence.”

In other words, she’s insisting on legal innocence, but doesn’t actually confirm her factual innocence.  The problem with that is since she’s lying about the factual evidence, it’s difficult to take her legal innocence claim seriously.

“Possible to win…”

At the end of the interview, she says, “I truly believe it is possible to win this and to bring”¦to bring an end to all of the speculation and the nonsensical theories and really bring peace to everyone who has suffered from this experience.”

The use of the word “win” here is peculiar, to say the least.  It’s consistent with her competitive attitude towards Meredith, for one ““ killing her and getting away with it, regardless of the sacrifices made on the way, would constitute a sort of victory, I suppose.

It also has the implication of “winning the case,” which we may expect from a lawyer or someone for whom this is a professional, rather than personal undertaking.  A wrongfully accused and imprisoned person has nothing to win in the end, considering the traumas they suffered; the most they can hope for is recognition and vindication.

She is correct, however, that it’s possible to end the speculation and theories.  However, that would require her, Sollecito, or Guede to tell the truth about what happened on that night.  In this, she has full agency ““ this is not something that can be done for her, but something which she needs to do herself.

Other than that, the “speculation and nonsensical theories” refers to the judges’ reports, in addition to lay commentary; her problem is that saying something is “nonsensical” doesn’t automatically render it so in the absence of arguments and proof (none of which she or her defense have been able to provide).

“Peace to everyone…”

“[”¦] really bring peace to everyone who has suffered from this experience” ““ this has to be one of the blindest and most self-centered things Knox has ever said about the case.

For one, it’s doubtful that a favorable verdict would even bring peace to her and Sollecito, since they will always know what they’ve done, even if they don’t have to fear imprisonment anymore.  It might or might not bring peace to their families, who have already spent a fortune on their defense and whose trust has probably been shattered forever. 

However, to imply that it would bring peace to Meredith’s family and friends is both presumptuous and contemptible.

Knox and her arrogant followers have, on numerous occasions, taken it upon themselves to speak for the Kerchers ““ how they should feel, what they should accept, etc. First pioneered by the contemptible Candace Dempsey, it is incredibly disrespectful to people who have suffered a great, irreplaceable, undeserved loss and who have done nothing wrong by pursuing justice for their loved one.

The fact that Knox and Sollecito have refused to confess for the past seven years has done nothing but prolong the suffering of Meredith’s family by denying them closure and the necessary space to mourn and heal.


what we have here is a number of outright lies, some distortions, and some false starts which help pinpoint what Knox believes, rather than what she says.  What we don’t have is a plea for factual innocence, but an attempt to prove legal innocence by glossing over the evidence or dismissing it altogether, and by calling into question the judges’ professionalism.  We also see no evidence of respect or compassion for Meredith, but rather an attempt to objectify and incorporate her in Knox’ own story. 

My impression is that Knox does not believe the things she says herself and is struggling to maintain a front; that despite her coaching and experience with interviews, she is getting ahead of herself instead of simply reciting her lines, which denotes anxiety and conflict.  I don’t believe she’s at peace with the murder at least, which hopefully means that at some point she might be inclined to confess.


Vivianna, thank you for your Professional, perceptive analysis of Knox’s Psychopathology, as revealed to you by her Mode-of-Delivery. 

Freud would have been most impressed.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/23/14 at 12:34 AM | #

On the corpse??? Disturbing on many levels.

Thanks Viviana…this was enjoyable and parallels another analysis I read…somewhere.

Posted by Bettina on 05/23/14 at 01:05 AM | #

Vivianna, thank you for an incredibly insightful analysis of Knox at the Cuomo interview. Your post is awesome. You catch all the nuances.

You made a new point that Knox is “getting ahead of herself instead of simply reciting her lines” and that this shows her anxiety and conflict. That is very insightful, and accounts for a lot of her shape shifting with Cuomo.

The factual versus legal innocence conflict, what a burden she carries. No wonder she espouses peace when war is in her heart. Knox does want peace for herself. It’s evident from her weight loss and skin tone and strained voice that her nerves are shot. She may soon be filling a scrip for anxiety meds that she derided mom for.

You mention her family has lost trust in her. I agree, and that dynamic is kept well hidden. She has probably taken ten years off her parents’ life. The ocean of hopelessness she has forced them to swim in—is that an unintended consequence or a subconscious endgame?

This is an excellent study of Knox’s impersonal terms for Meredith and how Amanda is making it up on the fly to avoid slander against Nencini, and even perhaps continued fear to accuse Guede when she says “if” Guede killed Meredith. She could be using the “if” as a teaser.

It’s almost as if she wants to confuse the TV listeners and leave them with more questions than answers. In one way Knox wants to remain a mystery, yet be an open book. 

This is a superb look at Knox’s interview full of strange language like broken body, corpse, not wielding a knife, and “becoming friends” rather than being friends.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/23/14 at 01:48 AM | #

Some of you might have seen mention of a ‘Best Fit’ report titled ‘A Prank, A Cigarette, A Gun’ posted on Twitter.

It creates a retrofitted-to-the-parking-garage-CCTV video theory that tries to blame Rudy Guede as the sole killer and Knox as his primary accomplice, Sollecito as patsy.

Already demolished on PMF dot NET, so not an invitation to go down THAT garden path.

Still, I must thank the writer for getting me to double check something, which resulted in corrections to the Wiki. Aside from implying Jovanna Popovic might be part of a conspiracy, the writer wasn’t sure that she was Polish, Serbian or Croatian.

Very “EU confusing” since some later reports (and Wikipedia) said she’s Polish, but I remember books and trial testimony saying Serbian. So, she may have an ethnic Croat father (Popovic?) but be born in what is now Serbia (then Yugoslavia) and might even have a Polish mother (I dunno) living in Milan?ć

“Popović or Popovich or Popovitch (Russian: Попович, Serbian Cyrillic: Поповић) is a common <u>Croatian, Montenegrin, Ukrainian, Russian or Serbian surname</u>, and sometimes a patronymic meaning son of a priest.”

Might as well stick with “Serbian”, as that’s in the evidence files.’s_Testimony

GENERALITA: Popovic Jovana, nata 1 maggio 1984 in Serbia.

(Novi Sad, Serbia, according to another source)

(OT Note: My favourite “Cancerian” Nikola Tesla was born in what is now Croatia. He was the son of a Serbian priest, of course!)

But Massei says that AK and RS knew by 8:30 PM she wouldn’t be needed to work at Lumumba’s bar and Popovic says she came by at 8:40 PM.

So they were both free some time after, and I doubt they were watching movies on his computer then.

So thanks, again, for the reminder to re read Popovic. Nencini in his motivations report does indicate her timing as freeing Knox and Sollecito for the evening.

And now that I’m reading Nencini in the Italian, he does confirm a second knife, and that Raffaele Sollecito struck Meredith with it, causing the lesser wounds on the right side of her neck.

Posted by Ergon on 05/23/14 at 03:49 AM | #

It’s like a partial admission of guilt, although a very arrogant partial admission.

Yeah, I killed my ‘friend’.
What of it? prove it..
I have people who back me on this and you’ll have to get past them first.
You’ll have to drag me kicking and screaming to Italy.

I really do believe Knox underestimated that this pesky murder and sexual assault thing is still following her around.

Posted by DF2K on 05/23/14 at 10:39 AM | #

Thank you Vivianna, a very interesting, measured and revealing assessment of AK and her plight. Given all you say it wouldn’t surprise me if she had a total breakdown at some stage - a psyche can only take so much turmoil.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/23/14 at 11:23 AM | #

Just to thank you for your accurate and insightful analysis, Vivianna.  I agree with you, especially the conclusion, and also re the self-centredness.

I don’t think, (like you) that Amanda fully believes her own lies, and hence she is in an unstable place. She tries to believe them, with her self-conscious altering of words, so that they don’t quite mean what they say. e.g. ’ I didn’t kill my friend’, and so on, with other awkward oddities, some of them offensive.

I find ‘I am not there’  very odd indeed. It suggests a time distortion, a time warp. It also avoids saying ‘I was not there’ hence sidestepping once again.

I have also noticed the use of the word ‘win’. She too says, ‘I wish I had tried harder,’ or ‘I wish I had been stronger’.

As if it is something to do with her will alone - if she had ‘done better’ everyone would believe her ‘version’. Presumably she wishes she had settled sooner on a consistent ‘version’.

She seems oblivious to the reality that intelligent people with integrity will make their own objective, logical analyses from the evidence, and also such people will be able to trust their own judgement regarding how to ‘read’ people with some reliability.

In simpler words, many people do know when someone is lying, and won’t have the wool pulled over their eyes, no matter how ‘hard’ that person tries.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/23/14 at 11:46 AM | #

I wanted to thank everyone for the kind comments and Peter for doing a great job adding the headlines and links and splitting everything into more readable paragraphs.

I can’t believe that someone had the audacity to speculate about Jovana Popovic, considering that she’s one of those people, like Meredith’s friends and housemates, who will always be in some away associated with a murder she had no part in. The fact that someone pondered her ethnicity makes me very uncomfortable, since it was in no way relevant to the case (I’m not talking about Ergon, who was curious about the name itself, but about whoever posted the conspiracy theories).


Very interesting point about winning, SeekingUnderstanding.  It made me think about comments both Knox and Sollecito made in the past - if only I could remember, if only I hadn’t smoked marijuana, if only I could have explained better, etc.  I thought of it in terms of a “match” against Meredith, but now that you mentioned this, I realize that it’s probably also a match against the police, prosecution, and judges.  It would make a lot of sense given how focused she is on the legal case.

Posted by Vivianna on 05/23/14 at 05:52 PM | #

As the mean spirited campaign launched by Amanda Knox partisans winds down it is good to see Nigel Scott, the Liberal Democratic councilor for Haringey, lose his seat in the 2014 London Municipal Elections held yesterday May 22.

Just a couple of days before he launched a series of mean spirited epithets at the Kercher family which I won’t reproduce here but here’s the link if you scroll down to May 20.

Karma is not a good thing to invoke.

Posted by Ergon on 05/23/14 at 11:08 PM | #

As of now Knox has to keep many balls in the air, a couple more interviews (lame as they may be) and the whole circus is going to collapse—although I keep thinking she would have no problem telling the truth if *absolute* forgiveness were granted to her by the Almighty (as in you tell the truth, you go home and live a happy life, no accountability whatsoever, you are now reborn, boom!).

Thinking about it, Amanda Knox, you WILL be reborn if you tell the truth, but forgiveness does not come easy, sometimes it doesn’t come at all, you’ll have to earn it, and it will be hard - there will be tears, there will be tremendous, unspeakable but glorious suffering, you will lose the angry “friends” who are lying for you now, but you will gain others, true and loving ones, who will help you through your journey.

If you have an ounce of humanity left in you, Amanda Knox, please stop this circus and tell the truth now, you are not fooling anyone. Start by telling the truth to the wind, the whole truth, when no one else can hear you, and see how it feels. If it doesn’t feel good, then go on and continue with your lies. But if it does feel good, go and confess it to a priest, and follow his advice. God is not mocked, not in this life, not in the next, not ever.

Posted by Bjorn on 05/23/14 at 11:53 PM | #

outstanding article. thanks vivianna .

i have seen a few court videos of knox talking, she use to not pause much earlier enen when talking in italian .. recently in all her interviews there are lot of pauses n sigh .. this is def a sign of less confidence .. 

and what a pathetic job of defending ones innocence ..  i dont think she will ever tell the truth ... she loves people pitying her ...

In simpler words, many people do know when someone is lying, and won’t have the wool pulled over their eyes, no matter how ‘hard’ that person tries…....  very well said seekingunderstanding..

sorry if there r spelling mistakes ..

Posted by sikandar on 05/24/14 at 12:17 AM | #

I like your direct words, Bjorn…and especially this idea:
“Start by telling the truth to the wind, the whole truth, when no one else can hear you, and see how it feels.”

As Amanda is so aware of her image, and conscious of how she presents herself, - I wonder whether she would like to try this as an experiment - to sit herself down in a quiet room with a large mirror, and facing it, talk into it, telling the truth, the whole story from beginning to end.
As Bjorn suggests - see how it feels. It might be shocking, and very hard to bear, but, just possibly, at the end after watching herself be genuine, she might realize that she could begin to respect and like this new person, Amanda-in-the-looking-glass.

Vivianna has noticed how her high levels of anxiety and inner conflict are showing (as sikander, too, above,  re the long pauses). We would all love for this to be over, this charade. Perhaps she could give this a go…just see?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/24/14 at 01:13 AM | #

“I wonder whether she would like to try”


Hi Seeking understanding.You are a true “understanding seeker”, asking things about her actual “likes”. I am not a doctor, just “the man in the street”, capturing nuances whole day, about everything, open minded for progression, avant garde style or academic. Let’s say first things first. For justice, for safety, for the Kerchers, for Meredith.
Death penalty is not denial of mental issues. Just a thought.

Posted by Helder Licht on 05/24/14 at 09:33 AM | #

very insightful article.

Posted by Popper on 05/24/14 at 10:09 AM | #

Hello Helder,

In Britain, and also in Italy, we do not administer the death penalty. I do support this position.

There is a proper order to be followed : first, the authenticated verdict, with the administration of ‘our best’ - wisest - justice. Second the just sentence, with such penalty as society requires, along with the protection of that society.
Once contained and restrained, the convicted person can be assessed and treated in the best ways we have available to us.
Then would come a period of further assessment - where we need to be very searching and honest about whether reform or rehabilitation is actually possible, and in what degree.
It is difficult but necessary to know if it is not possible.

However, neurobiology and neurocriminology are expanding sciences. There is a very interesting and extensive book, only recently published, on this subject called The Anatomy of Violence, the biological roots of crime, by Adrian Raine. (Although complex, it is very readable, written for anyone interested). He also examines the ethical questions of accountability, and taking responsibility.

One thing that is making me restrained in my commenting at the present is a prospect of suicide. My greatest motivation in joining this site (as I’m sure everyone else too) is to support and help the Kerchers in their suffering, - if I can. Bearing this in mind, I do NOT want to see martyrdom in the case of AK.
I am brought into contact with suicidal states in my life/work, and so I am aware of this risk, - hence I keep referring to the instability, the unrealism presenting.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/24/14 at 10:45 AM | #

Hi SeekingUnderstanding

Good comment. Just on this: “In Britain, and also in Italy, we do not administer the death penalty. I do support this position.”

Helder does also. He’s in Europe. He was making an ironic crack about the death penalty in (parts of) the US sometimes being blind to issues of mental health (and young age).

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/24/14 at 12:03 PM | #

Thanks Pete…irony not always clear!

PS Helder
When I used to look after two year olds, if they decided to throw a tantrum…I would look for something they like - really like and want to do, be enthusiastic about it, ...and hey presto, tantrum forgotten!

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/24/14 at 12:15 PM | #

“....the convicted person can be assessed and treated in the best ways we have available….”

In a civilized society everybody deserves treatment in the best way available. As with free speech, there is a bottom line, to make it work anyway.

Thanks for the book recommandation. I am sure, it IS interesting! No sarcasm here.

Posted by Helder Licht on 05/24/14 at 12:26 PM | #

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your supportive intervention, but I have to disagree. I am not an active pro death penalty supporter, but my goal here was to show the other (dead) end of the spectrum of treatment and be critical about treatment ( not about the science of it, btw)

But YES, the “young age” mentioning and all,  ... I am in progress ... still.

Thnx Pete, thnx Seeking Understanding.

Posted by Helder Licht on 05/24/14 at 12:50 PM | #

Yes, Helder, ...we still have a way to go, regarding creating the civilisation that we need.
The last chapter in Raine’s book is especially interesting, entitled : ‘The Future’.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/24/14 at 01:29 PM | #

@Ergon - I shouldn’t have looked at his Twitter feed because it filled me with sadness.  Supporting Knox and Sollecito is one thing (albeit a misguided choice, in my opinion), while attacking Meredith’s family is something completely different and utterly despicable.  I’m guessing that his constituency didn’t appreciate his excessive focus on Knox’ PR campaign at the expense of their own needs and issues.  I just hope they didn’t vote a Kipper in his place, although it’s unlikely given how poorly UKIP did in London.

Bjorn - very humane comment.  While the murder of an innocent is always an act of unspeakable horror, I think people can find it in themselves to forgive if the murderer demonstrates genuine remorse and is willing to devote themselves to an honorable pursuit.  There’s just not enough good in this world, so I don’t think any of us would be in a position to refuse it even if it came from someone who has committed a horrific act in the past (if anything, that last consideration should make us more willing to accept it). 

I also think that if Cassazione confirms the appeal verdict, Knox and Sollecito should be asked to undergo a serious psychiatric assessment. I am aware that one was performed prior to the first trial, but it’s been unclear how thorough it was.  Their families have demonstrated an unwillingness to seek professional help and have cruelly subjected them to the pressures of a very public media campaign.  If they do turn out to be neuro-atypical in some way or another, helping them come to terms with what they’ve done would be a great kindness, and would also go a long way in ensuring that they receive at least a measure of forgiveness in the long term and find ways to lead a normal life at the end of their sentences.

The more this case drags on, the more am I inclined to think that the families should face legal consequences.  It’s outrageous when people who may have been troubled enough to commit a horrific murder are denied the ability to recognize their wrongs and make amends for them, and it’s disgusting when a victim’s family is subjected to additional traumas over an extended period of time.  No one should be allowed to engineer campaigns based on lies and distortions, and those who are willing to falsify the truth for monetary gains (i.e. the hired experts) should be prosecuted.

Posted by Vivianna on 05/24/14 at 05:51 PM | #

Hi, Vivianna, Yes, Nigel Scott’s comments were beyond the pale. That he made them just two days before the election shows just how irrational, how mean spirited some of Amanda Knox’s supporters have been towards the Kerchers.

That is why we expose people like him, the Moores, and Doug Bremner who say horrible things about Meredith’s family.

Yes, he was defeated by the former Labour councilor who held the post, and Labour carried Haringey Council.

Wait till the FOA turn on the Sollecitos. GuilterWatchin, who credible accounts say is Chris Mellas in disguise on Twitter, has already said nasty things to Raffaele’s cousin Cristina Magnani and Aunt Sara Achile on Twitter.

Posted by Ergon on 05/24/14 at 06:36 PM | #

@Vivianna - See PM Inbox…

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/24/14 at 06:39 PM | #

@Bjorn and SeekingUnderstanding, your good advice to Knox to tell the truth even if she begins with doing so in secret, tells it to the wind or facing a mirror, yes that is a good beginning.

It brought up the old Fritz Perls Gestalt method of the empty chair. His patient was asked to sit in a chair and face an empty chair about 3 feet away. In the empty chair he then places (in imagination, but vividly) the person he has a problem with. He is to hold a conversation with this person and speak audibly. In the chair he can place an object, (your car, your wedding ring) or any of your symptoms. Place your fatigue in the chair, your headaches, your back pain or your emotions (your anger, your passivity) or even an abstraction, whatever is causing stress or perplexity in your life.

One girl was told to place her fat in the chair and begin to speak to her fat, what does the fat do for her, how does the fat protect her from having to compete, allow her to escape the trials of youth, etc.

Any symbol in a dream can be placed in the chair. Speak to the dream image and ask it what it has come to show you.

Imagine your father or sibling in the chair. Tell him how you felt about something. The key is a long, detailed emotional discussion.

You should shift back and forth between the chairs. You try to become the object you were earlier addressing. Now you must speak for the person-trait-object in the chair to hear his angle on things. This increases your understanding of the other and yourself, without endangering a real relationship until you get clear on what to do, what you want.

Perls strove to help people recover their lost potential and regain their courage, to take appropriate risks, after realizing how impoverished their lives had become from useless coping mechanisms that left them “stuck”. “Awake from the nightmare that is your life” he said and move toward positive action.

It is Amanda’s lack of self-identity that has led to the chaos in her life. I dreamed of her last night. She was in a big empty indoor stadium or coliseum full of seats. She was looking up at the seats, climbing up the stairs maybe or looking around at the giant auditorium. Wish I’d written down details before the dream changed.

See more at  or http://MENTALHELP.NET/psyhelp

Posted by Hopeful on 05/24/14 at 07:47 PM | #


“Wait till the FOA turn on the Sollecitos. GuilterWatchin, who credible accounts say is Chris Mellas in disguise on Twitter, has already said nasty things to Raffaele’s cousin Cristina Magnani and Aunt Sara Achile on Twitter.”

Blimey! The Knoxoholics, lacking all direction, are beginning to descend en masse into a pathetic parody of a cheap soap opera. It’s actually gratifying and amusing to watch them fight among themselves. They rightly suspect, pace Dylan, that it’s not dark yet but it’s getting there…

Posted by Odysseus on 05/24/14 at 08:00 PM | #

Knox is an utter trainwreck. I really, really hope she carries on doing interviews because each one backfires spectacularly. Even to impartial people, or people who don’t know much about the case, she comes across as cold, weird, insincere, unbelievable, hiding stuff. Twitter was full of people saying how odd she comes across after that interview.

In that interview, it’s almost like the fight has gone out of her. She’s still technically fighting, she’s doing the PR and the talk shows and pulling out her lip gloss and trembling mouth again, but there’s ZERO sense of conviction to anything she says. It’s like she’s going through the motions but there is no spark left. Good!

BTW, does anyone have an idea about when we’ll know if AK and RS’s appeal is accepted or not? As in, not when when the potential appeal will be held or the verdict for that, but when we’ll know if they actually get to appeal properly or if the S.C. will find that there are no grounds to appeal? Little hazy on these details! Thanks.

Posted by Sel-Nel on 05/24/14 at 08:39 PM | #

@ hopeful
Thank you very much for the Empty Chair scenario and possibilities there. You have described it very well.

And interesting about your dream. Do you remember whether AK was looking at the seats, so as to choose which one to go to and sit in?
I had a lucid dream about Amanda a few days ago. We had both turned up to the same locality in order to go to a court hearing. Then there was inclement weather, including lightening and so on, and we both had to stay in the house together. All I can say about what happened then is that she veered from being extremely friendly and wanting to be close (almost without boundaries), to, without warning, flipping into an opposite behaviour, which was very frightening, but she too was scared by herself.
I think I am going to put this dream figure in the Empty Chair, as you suggest, and have a conversation, to see what else the dream can inform about.
Sometimes when someone is in an acute state, they send out subliminal messages and people have dreams about them.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/24/14 at 09:08 PM | #

That’s a very insightful post. I don’t usually approve of behavioural psychology, but I have always found Amanda Knox’s demeanor and her choice of words to be very telling of her guilt in the murder.
It is astounding that in spite of all the coaching she must have been given, she is to this day unable to sound convincing when she talks about her friendship with Meredith, to the point that she seldom can muster up the strenght to pronounce Meredith’s name.
“We were becoming friend” is quite telling. I also thought is was ill advised of Knox to bring up the concert as an example of their frienship. I have always found it odd that Meredith chose to leave during the break. We know she was a strong student but a sudden urge to study at that point in the evening sounds more like an excuse than anything genuine. I do agree that the most likely explaination is that Knox’s behaviour was, once again, over the top maybe in an attempt to attract Sollecito’s attention and that, as a result, Meredith felt like and add-on. Or maybe Knox said something very Knox-like that stung Meredith (ex : “You can have Giacomo if you like). The concert is in fact pertains to the string of failed attempt to build a rapport with Meredith -which culminated in Meredith’s stonewalling Knox on Halloween.

It has always seemed to me that Knox is in denial about her involvement in Meredith’s murder, perhaps because she was not in her usual (not drug addled) condition when the murder was perpetrated. Being reluctant to look at Meredith’s autopsy photos is understandable, but Knox’s overall behaviour during the trial, such as turning her chair away from the screen when the prosecution’s video was being broadcast just reeks of denialism. As an investigator put it “she had convinced herself that she is innocent”. It is also possible that she does not fully remember what happened because of the drug she took.

Posted by Greta on 05/24/14 at 09:11 PM | #

Well done, Vivianna. Your comments are both insightful and on the mark - such an antidote to the poison of the Knox/Sollecito personal and PR lies.

I think you have hit the nail particularly hard on the head when you pointed out that Knox’s statement that “I did not kill my friend” is entirely correct IN KNOX’S MIND because she knows that Meredith was not her friend. Thus she can content herself that she is not lying per se, but blatantly deceiving in a way that, (she thinks), serves to prove her “innocence”.

Interestingly, Knox uses the same deceptive play on words when she states “I did not wield a knife”. This is a purposely deceptive assertion because she is NOT stating, “I did not wield THE knife”, meaning the knife that struck Meredith the fatal blow.

Ultimately, for the shallow-minded or the dimwits within the FOA and the gullible US press, Knox’s statements can be given the facile and convenient meaning of “innocence"that Knox craves, but those with a sound and educated understanding of English are not fooled in the least.

Finally and chillingly, Knox’s statement that, (in relation to wielding a knife), “I had no reason to” seems to me to imply that, given a “reason to”, Knox is the kind or person who would not shirk from wielding a knife.

Who knows? For Knox, such a “reason” may be overwhelming, (such as an accusation that she has antisocial habits around the house), but would be deemed trivial by anyone that does not think like a socio/psychopath, bent on self-promotion and the control of others at all costs.

Posted by Mealer on 05/24/14 at 09:22 PM | #


re: AK and RS’s appeal

I’d like to know this as well. Peter, anyone?

Posted by Odysseus on 05/24/14 at 09:32 PM | #

hI smn123 and Odysseus

You ask about the forthcoming Cassation appeal against Judge Nencini. Unlike in the UK/US system, acceptance to arrive at a ruling is automatic.

First the RS and AK teams have to think up some grounds, and so far their batting average is terrible. Even the hapless Hellmann didnt accept very much - though he & Zanetti then went on to approach the appeal as if it was a whole new trial anyway.

Bongiorno in effect threw in the towel in her summation in Florence, and really did nothing but demonize the police and prosecution to try to draw attention away from the case made. Hard to see how that helped the perps any. (Nencini then went on to be a tad light on Sollecito, but very hard on Bongiorno!)

If anything credible IS put forward by the defenses, within about a month maximum, Cassation could rule on it in the fall. I’d say chances are almost 100% that the ruling would be “Good job Nencini, no valid grounds, back to jail, lets move on”.

There have been cases where Cassation thought the appeals were frivolous or abusive of the police and prosecution, and referred them back down to look at grounds to actually increase the sentence. It is not impossible that both could end up facing life sentences.

Important to note that Judge Nenncini opens the way to other investigations, Bongiono/Aviello and C&V/Hampikian for example. Charges will flow for both books and Knox’s mad claims in Oggi and that is only for starters. 

There is not much Cassation doesnt know about the abusive PR effort. Sollecitos book is the more abusive and more replete with felonies because unlike Knox’s it was not toned down.  But then Knox’s crazy email to Judge Nencini (our further analysis on that is coming) and appeal to ECHR trumped that.

Not in this century will we see again such defense bungling. The perfect storm for defenses, and largely self-created. And now Bongiorno at least faces possible jail time.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/25/14 at 09:42 AM | #

Thanks for that Peter. About a month you think - it can’t come soon enough for me!

Posted by Odysseus on 05/25/14 at 10:52 AM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding, the dream about Knox in the coliseum was brief. To answer your question, she seemed to be looking at all the empty seats but it was unclear if she wanted to choose one to sit down in or she was just investigating the giant arena that was empty.

Maybe it is the theme of emptiness, the giant potential yet the crowd has moved on, the players have left the arena, you’ve missed the boat or something unpleasant like that. As Madonna sang, “The show is over, say goodbye.”

I hope you have more luck with your dream about Amanda in analyzing it. She is somewhat of a Jekyll Hyde, the angel or devil. Maybe that’s why she has created a Jekyll and Hyde scenario with her life. The legal truth as Vivianna points out is quite the opposite of the actual truth. A black and white dichotomy. Maybe that’s like the image in your dream, too much and then not enough, the two extremes that can’t blend but keep changing places for balance, yet never can compromise.

Many people are like this, coming and going, retreating the moment someone “chases after” them, but when rejected they come rushing back. Fear is the controlling factor, fear of being dominated? Distrust that the one chasing has goodwill in mind? A desire to be difficult in a vendetta for past slights? Impossible to always know the motive.

I know one thing, I awoke with a very bad feeling of not wanting to dream about Amanda Knox. I’d much rather have Meredith in my slumber. Could be the Tylenol PM, which really does engender happier dreams in my short experience taking it. Unfortunately they withdrew the original Tylenol PM from the market so you have to buy the generics. There are many of these acetaminophen PM, not to be confused with ibuprofen.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/25/14 at 11:09 PM | #

Thanks for that explanation, Peter. So AK and RS will have to submit their appeals shortly and Supreme Court will rule in the fall… will we be able to see details of what’s in their appeals? I just want this to be over as soon as it can be… because you know the extradition battle is going to drag on and on too.

So if verdict is upheld latter half of this year, will Italy jail Raffaele immediately? And will they ask for extradition pretty much immediately after verdict is upheld, or are there more hoops to jump through first? So complicated… but so worth it when they’re both banged up.

Looking forward to your analysis of Knox’s ludicrous email to Nencini!

Posted by Sel-Nel on 05/26/14 at 02:40 PM | #

Hi smn123,

Once the Supreme Court confirms Judge Nencini’s verdicts, Sollecito is going back to the slammer. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if he tries to sneak out of Italy before the SC verdict is announced just like he did before the verdicts were announced in Florence. Hopefully, the Italian authorities will be watching him like a hawk.

I don’t think Knox will be extradited immediately. She’s facing a lengthy and expensive extradition battle. I hope the Italian and British government demand her extradition. Being American shouldn’t mean you can get away with a vicious sex murder. The FOA version of events is a pack of lies. That’s why it’s important to make politicians, journalists and the general public in America aware of the facts of the case.

Whilst Knox is fighting extradition, she should be made to sign the sex offenders’ register and be expelled from the University of Washington. Every single person on PMF and TJMK can make a difference and make sure that no exceptions are made for Knox.

Posted by The Machine on 05/26/14 at 06:21 PM | #

Thanks so much The Machine! Yes I worry about Sollecito trying to do a bunk as well, but Italy have confiscated his passport etc haven’t they? Hopefully he won’t be able to do much without that!

I’ve read some stuff about Knox maybe being temporarily jailed in Seattle while the extradition fight is going on, do you know if that could be the case at all? Or would she be free up until extradition WAS granted by the USA?

The thing is, the media/PR stuff can only do so much, no? Like as much as the FOA team want to present their ridiculous case, surely all Italy has to do is submit the facts of the case and USA will realise the truth? I really can’t see her NOT being extradited, it would be mind-numbingly hypocritical and I just can’t see the US willing to risk so much and jeopardise important international relations for a twice convicted nobody.

Am I being overly optimistic in my view?? I mean I think the chances of her NOT being extradited are very, very slim… but a lot of informed people seem to think otherwise…?

Posted by Sel-Nel on 05/26/14 at 08:46 PM | #

PS. In case anyone is confused about the posts, I just changed my screenname from ‘smn123’ to ‘Sel-Nel’ so it matches my Twitter 😊

Posted by Sel-Nel on 05/26/14 at 08:51 PM | #

Just pausing in our elections over here [great success] to wish all Americans at TJMK a Happy Memorial Day.

Posted by James Higham on 05/26/14 at 09:33 PM | #

Hi Sel-Nel,

Knox should be extradited because there are no valid legal grounds for the US Department of State to refuse an Italian request to extradite her. Alex ven den Berg explains this very clearly in this excellent article on his blog The Startling Glass:

The Italian authorities have confiscated Sollecito’s passport, but I think he’ll try to sneak out of the country before the Supreme Court verdict. He should be electronically tagged just to make sure he can’t escape, but ends up where he belongs - on the sex offenders’ wing in Capanne prison. That day can’t come soon enough.

Posted by The Machine on 05/26/14 at 10:19 PM | #


Amazing work.  Well done.

Here is the full interview

Posted by Chimera on 01/25/15 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 The Nencini Email: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Emails Such Obvious Lies To A Judge

Or to previous entry Knox Interrogation Hoax #4: More Hard Realities From Rita Ficcara, Nervousness From Defense