Monday, May 26, 2014

The Nencini Email: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Emails Such Obvious Lies To A Judge

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding

Above at the Florence appeal court is the defence table.

This was Amanda Knox’s own first appeal. It was not a prosecution appeal, or a second or third trial by “˜Italy’.  This appeal only happened because Knox and Sollecito demanded it.

At maybe 99.999 percent of all appeals worldwide, the person doing the appealing would be sitting there at that table. But instead of heading-up and guiding her team and even addressing the court, as a generally very confident Sollecito did, Amanda Knox hung back, issuing insulting and misleading commentaries from Seattle.

Culminating in this email.

Pure genius. Or maybe not. Knox sent it via her hapless defense to the judge, loaded with nasty aspersions and false claims about the hard facts, on the same lines - only more-so - as her book Waiting To Be Heard of the previous April.

And guess what? Knox had her prison sentence increased by Judge Nencini. She appeals; she arrogantly taunts from afar; she ends up with more time behind bars.

Pure genius. Or maybe not. That too doesn’t happen in 99.999 percent of all appeals.

In other posts here on TJMK starting with FinnMacCool’s linked-to above, we examine the veracity of the actual content of the email. How did it match up to the hard facts already in evidence and mostly not even in dispute at this appeal?

We have already begun to show that the email sustains and substantially worsens the great Interrogation Hoax which has already cost Amanda Knox four years in prison.

Here we look at what the text would reveal to trained Italian officials (the original was in Italian) about the state of mind of the person who signed it. .

First, one cannot help but be struck by an atmosphere of fear emanating from the author. When we are consumed by our fears, and motivated by our adrenal glands, our cognitive abilities diminish, and, if we are prone to psychological projections, this is when they will burst out and frame others.

As I read this logically inconsistent and highly irregular email, it became vividly clear that this is what had probably happened here.  It mirrors and portrays a fearful, unrealistic state of mind, underscored with defiant but very foolish psychological projections.

In this sense, the email has some pathos: it seems quite amazing that Amanda Knox’s lawyers, family and advisors saw fit to allow this to have been sent even though Knox might have been determined to have the last word.

It does, however, provide an opportunity to see psychological projection at work.

Because the entire writing is framed in the mode of ill-concealed psychological projections, we have a window into the constructs of projecting onto others.

Paragraphs 1 to 10

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

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

Attn: Honorable Court of Appeals of Florence

I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified…

Note “˜discredit’ and “˜unjustified’. They are inappropriate words, and highly presumptive. The whole purpose of a court of law is to carefully distinguish (according to thousands of years of learning) precisely what is just and justified and what is not.

The judiciary do not merely accept the explanations of the prosecution or defence lawyers: obviously this would render a court of law and all trials superfluous!

So, an inauspicious beginning.

Very often, an opening statement by someone - spoken or written - will be one of significance - from a psychological point of view. It would certainly be worth giving attention to, as it will frequently “˜map out’ the essential position of the author. Or, in a more usual phrase, “˜say where they are coming from’.

The position given away in Knox’s opening statement is that of a complete denial of and disdain for the purpose and function of a court of law, as well as disrespect for its need to follow due process, and for this to be complied with by all parties involved - including herself!

She is not exempt from the law, nor due process. Yet, the style of writing simultaneously illustrates a faux respect, something verging upon flattery towards Nencini. One can then observe these two distinct tones throughout the email.

accusations of the prosecution and civil parties. I seek not to supplant their work; rather, because I am not present to take part in this current phase of the judicial process, I feel compelled to share my own perspective as a six-year- long defendant and victim of injustice.

Note “˜feel compelled’, and “˜victim of injustice’: “˜feel compelled’ reveals an inner compulsion. It suggests that the email is other than a logical and rational consideration. Thus it speaks of a drive driven by fear, and adrenalin-led states. The second phrase, “˜victim of injustice’ is too assertive. It is asserted as a given truth, when in fact it is for the court to arrive at this conclusion. What is so odd, though, is that this appears not to be understood. There seems to be almost breathtaking disrespect and disregard, oddly dressed up in pseudo-respect.

The Court has access to my previous declarations

Note “˜my declarations’ - this seems to attribute to herself and her utterances a self-importance, which is out of kilter, given that her word has been proven to be founded on lies, on more than one occasion. An unrealistic self-confidence.

and I trust will review them before coming to a verdict. I must repeat: I am innocent.

Note “˜I must repeat:’  Why must she? This also appears overly-assertive, as in: “˜Methinks thou dost protest too much’.

‘I am not a murderer. I am not a rapist. I am not a thief or a plotter or an instigator.’

Note the “˜I am not… I am not… I am not’. This sentence is very indicative of the obsession with the label and the image. “˜I am…’ or “˜I am not…’ this or that PERSON.

The point in question is not Amanda’s own self-absorption with the definition of her own personality, but whether she is culpable for a specific, named event, at one moment in time, viz, on November 1st 2007.

The court is only deciding about this single date. It is beyond its jurisdiction to decide whether she is “˜a murderer’ in an indelible, permanent sense. This matter is for her and her conscience.

I did not kill Meredith or take part in her murder or have any prior or special knowledge of what occurred that night. I was not there and had nothing to do with it.

Note this “˜I did not… I was not’. This reads as if inserted on the advice of lawyers.

‘I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.’

Note “˜I am afraid’. This, alone of the subsequent paragraphs, is true. She is indeed afraid. But, of what? This is actually a profound question.

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

Note this very contradictory statement. It is attempting to flatter Judge Nencini… “˜your (great) powers of discernment….perfectly sound ...concerned and discerning adults ...’  whilst simultaneously saying that he is so poor a judge that he will be “˜blinded’ and that he will hand her a “˜wrongful conviction’.

She cannot have it both ways, - which is something she has tried so often for before, (as in : “˜I vaguely remember Patrick killed her’....‘this may be true, or I may have imagined it…’ etc.

This flattery-cum-put-down is confused and confusing, as well as showing circumlocution and insincerity.

‘My life being on the line’

Note “˜MY life…’. This is a melodramatic statement, and one that is insulting to Meredith - whose life was indeed on and over the line. Amanda’s life has never been on the line. Her fears are speaking here.

and having with others “˜already suffered too much’

Note “˜suffered’. Self-centred in the extreme, given the tragic circumstances, as well as debatable. Some might say Knox appears to revel in having so much attention.

I’ve attentively followed this process and “˜gleaned the following’...

Note “˜gleaned’ - a very odd word to use. Almost suggesting, “˜these are the areas I have sifted out as being my best areas to stir up doubts’ etc. Seems to suggest a manipulative mind at work.

...facts that have emerged from the development of this case that I beg you not to dismiss when making your judgment:

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

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

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

Note the “˜no physical evidence…’.  This is the most sweeping scientific fallacy (which we deal with extensively elsewhere). That she has the audacity to proclaim it in these terms, towards a senior judge, does display arrogance, and, again, total disregard for due process, as if it just floats by her, not existing.  After this she includes, in a surreal way, ‘Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of (his) presence’. ‘Murderer’ is placed in the possessive, as in ‘Margaret’s gardener’, or ‘Sarah’s secretary’ - and as such denotes a personal relationship. Odd and eerie, and as all the email, consistently inconsistent.

Either I was there, or I wasn’t. The analysis of “˜the crime scene’

Note the “˜I was… or I wasnt’.  Simple and blatant obfuscation. It is obvious to all but the most stupid that the crime scene is the whole house.

Therefore, since Ms. Knox is not stupid, to persist with this usage of the term is either stubbornly recalcitrant, or extremely misguided, - possibly both.

Again, her own unawareness of how others will read this insistence of hers, is very, very sad.

...answers this question: I wasn’t there.

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

Note “˜illegal interrogation’ and “˜false confession’. Our Intteroagtion Hoax series is addressing exactly this. The fact that knox can put forward a statement that is demonstrably untrue, on multiple levels, shows someone almost dangerously out of touch with reality, on an emotional level, (and equally out of touch with due process in law.)

The comment about conversations being recorded “˜without my knowledge’ shows irritation and annoyance, as if she wishes to control the investigation herself.

As if the authorities should have asked her permission first, so that she could tailor her comments to suit! “˜How dare they interfere with my manipulation of the evidence?’ Maybe this is an uncharitable inference - but one that is strongly suggested.

My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50 hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer. I never thought or imagined that they would have used my openness and trust to fuel their suspicions.

Note “˜used my openness’. Again, demonstrably untrue. I am not able to find a single example of her “˜openness’ and trustworthiness in the days of her being a witness and the interrogations, from within the actual transcripts.

Her behaviour was however noted to have been inappropriate, unrestrained, possibly “˜spaced out’, irritated, melodramatic, angry, verbose, contradictory, and unpredictable. If she genuinely believes her state of mind at that time could be best described as “˜openness and trust’, then this suggests a worrying gulf between her own perception of herself, and how she comes across to others.

I did not hide myself or my feelings:

Note “˜I did not hide my feelings’ Indeed she didn’t. However, this is stated with the inference that this is a good thing, something she should be praised for. Some people believe in restraining the expression of their feelings - in case someone else is hurt by them. This would appear to be something she is ill acquainted with.

when I needed comfort, Rafael embraced me; when I was sad and scared, I cried; when I was angry, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence; when I was trying to help, I answered questions, consoled Meredith’s friends and tried to keep a positive attitude.

Note “˜postive attitude’. Towards what? That she could positively “˜win’ in her attempt to cover up the truth? We do not know what she is being positive about. Self-absorption is again displayed. And as Judge Nencini said, “˜I do not know her. I have not met her.’ Towards what is her positivity directed?

Paragraphs 11 to 20

Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position. Twenty-years old and alone in a foreign country, I was innocent and never expected to be suspected and “˜subjugated to torture.’

Note “˜no understanding’ and “˜Subjugated to torture’. What an assertion, and more melodrama. Such a statement is foolish if she wishes to be taken seriously by a senior judge. In fact, although she appears not to know this, the statement was self-sabotage.

Also, twenty years old is adult - or should be. Any adult should know and obey the law, and co-operate automatically with law-enforcers with no back-patting.

I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew. I was denied legal counsel- The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it illegal. I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I was told I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I was told that if I didn’t succeed in remembering what happened to Meredith that night I would never see my family again.

Note, well all of it. Complete fiction. Trial transcripts are very clear. She knew this was shot down by multiple witnesses and failed to avert a prison sentence.

Is this a (misguided) attempt to appeal to Judge Nencini’s heart strings as a father, from a baby twenty year old needing protection?

I was browbeaten into confusion and despair. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth.

Note the accusations. The last sentence could be inverted, and an inverse meaning found. What is Knox’s attitude towards the judiciary that have re-instated her guilt? Perhaps, some would say, she is attempting to “˜berate, threaten, lie to, confuse, and coerce’..the court ...into believing they are wrong (to say she is guilty.)

And no, this way, we are not going to find the truth. She is actually right there.

However, it is the duty of a court of justice not to yield to coercion, confusion, threats etc, and if there was more respect and adult understanding for the Italian judiciary, the defendants would know this, and not engage in what is clearly a waste of time.

Judge Nencini’s disdainful dismissal of the “˜highly irregular “˜ email showed he was fully aware of all implications. There are solid reasons for protocols.

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

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

Note “˜50 hours of questioning’ which was actually less than half a dozen. Another statement that could be usefully inverted, and betrays itself as a psychological projection.

Knox over-reached herself in inventing the Patrick scenario, which was only blown open two weeks later by a reputable businessman. What is she doing, (in this whole paragraph about “˜the coerced false confession’) other than accusing and blaming (the police) as a result of (her own) overreaching?

We can see, from this and other examples, the unpleasant process of a person projecting what they themselves are doing, onto others. A projection attempts to transfer their own responsibility - either for character or deed - onto others, who can then be blamed or framed for the projector’s own wrong-doing, or wrong-being.

This process of projection, as well as projective identification, underlie so much cruelty and injustice in life, as well as the erosion of others’ identity, and the interference and/ or destruction in others’ lives.

Projection, for the most part, diminishes. It can be mild to vicious. In its milder forms, it can sometimes be used as a source for cutting humour : in its worst forms, which become pathological, it can and does lead to demonization, aggression, and even murder.

Yet again, in her unrestrained and exaggerated verbosity, Knox has demonstrated foolishness, and also under-estimation of the knowledge and wisdom of professionals. In a more colloquial phrase, she has dug herself in deeper.

Perhaps she is indeed a victim - but only of her own nature, which appears to be a nature she cannot neither alter nor control, and also one that demonstrates frequently a lack of boundaries. There isn’t a clarity regarding what is herself and what is other people. The result is confusion and hurt.

When people are projected upon, repeatedly, they naturally feel hurt and offended. “˜That isn’t me, how dare s/he !’ is the natural reaction to a projection. If the projecting person then pulls back, there is damage limitation,...but if they don’t, and projection escalates, it is always a slippery slope to negativity.

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

This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false “˜confessions.’

Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone. And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party - just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guide.

Note again the false confession claim. No confession at all has been advanced in this case. 

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

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

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

Note “˜terrifying distortion of the facts.’  It is not, of course, a distortion of the facts. I have frequently observed that Amanda says, “˜Meredith was my friend’, but I have never, curiously, heard this followed up by, “˜I was Meredith’s friend’. What act of friendship did she carry out for Meredith? On this there has been an eerie silence. (And if said now, this would be way too late in the day).

But here, what is of particular interest is the choice of the word “˜terrifying’ regarding “˜distortion of the facts’.

There has been a gross and widespread distortion of the facts of this case, encouraged by a paid PR campaign by her father. It is something that has snowballed (especially with new technology: Twitter etc), and has had an influence.

One wonders, have there been times when she wished she could “˜stop the world and get off’? Has she, in fact, found the explosion of media comment “˜terrifying’? Does she now feel to be on quicksand?

I think, at the very least, the use of this word shows that the way things have escalated - so that she does not control outcomes - is something she does not like at all.

Over and over again - through her self-exposure on TV - she has shown flashes of anger and contempt when she is displeased, and this sentiment is also perceptible as an undercurrent in this email. An innocent person might very well be angry, but they wouldn’t ever show contempt.

I did not carry around Rafael’s kitchen knife.

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

Note “˜how willing the prosecution… disproven theory’. This last part of her sentence is another example of herself describing what she is actually doing, whilst accusing someone else of it.

She is here describing herself, and what she does. The word “˜prosecution’ can be substituted. So one has : how far is “˜she’ willing to go, “˜to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven position’?

Sometimes, people slip into an error of making one major projection. We all are more prone to project when pressure becomes unbearable. We can all think of someone under stress who has lashed out and pinned the blame on someone else - doing this is a way of releasing a pressure valve for stress. But an emotionally balanced person is able to “˜pull themselves back’ and re-centre themselves.

It is of great concern that the very fabric of this email would seem to be so intertwined or riddled with psychological projections that it is actually woven from them - they form its substance. This strongly suggests Knox is without genuine insight into her own psyche, or processes, and also is in an very unstable state where she is far away from her own centre.

Paragraphs 21 to 30

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

Note “˜invent… invent’. This indicates another disturbing trait - a barely suppressed glee, that the prosecution “˜have discovered nothing else’. Is she proud of the lack of more evidence? Why is there not more? Who successfully concealed it, as is the case?

I had no Contact with Rudy Guide.

Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guide. He played basketball with the young men who lived in the apartment below us. Meredith and I had been introduced to him together. Perhaps I had seen him amongst the swarms of students who crowded the Perugian streets and pubs in the evenings, but that was it. We didn’t have each other’s phone number, we didn’t meet in private, we weren’t acquaintances. I never bought drugs from Rudy Guide or anyone else. The phone records show no connection. There are no witnesses who place us together. The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guide to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn’t even speak the same language. Once again, the prosecution is relying upon a disturbing and unacceptable pattern of distortion of the objective evidence.

I am not a psychopath.

Note “˜I am not a psychopath’. First of all, it needs to be said, that this is not for her to announce. It is not her province. She is not qualified to make such a statement, quite apart from the fact that it would be self-diagnosis.

It is also totally inappropriate to say so to Judge Nencini. The fact that she is unaware of this is astounding.

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

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

Note “˜in the course of this legal process’. Here she appears to be totally muddled about what has been said in the papers and social media, confusing them with serious assessments from the court. However, obviously the media reports and inventions have penetrated her mind, and blown up out of all proportion.

The fact that she (or her family) laregly brought this on herself doesn’t seem to register.

There is an answer though, or would have been : Be honest; be modest; be quiet. Let the truth speak for itself. It usually does. The media coverage is highly regrettable, but, as every celebrity finds, there is always a heavy price for “˜playing the media’.

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

Note “˜I am not a split personality.’ Is this for her to say? Someone with a personality disorder, or indeed mental illness, would often be the last person to admit to it, or even know. Once more, there is a breathtaking dismissal of, in effect, the value of scholarship.

One does not adopt behavior spontaneously.

Note “˜adopt’. Regarding Knox’s behaviour patterns, there is much to suggest that these were neither unusual nor spontaneously adopted. They may not have been as extreme before the crime, but the indications of them are proven.

However, as an actual statement from psychology, this is untrue.

Again, AK is out of her depth, and strangely unaware of it. There are many known instances, which can be detailed, where normally uncharacteristic behaviour does in fact break out abruptly, spontaneously, and without warning. Precisely the kind of behaviour that can and does have terrible consequences. Perhaps this needs to be understood and taken on board?

This is a fantasy.

Note “˜fantasy’. Who is given to fantasy? Who wrote she “˜had a vision’ of what had happened?

This is uncorroborated by any objective evidence or testimony. The prosecution and civil parties created and pursued this character assassination because they have nothing else to show you. They have neither proof, nor logic, nor the facts on their side.

Note “˜character assassination’ Who doesn’t have logic nor facts, or indeed proof of her alibi, on her side?

They only have their slanders against me, their personal opinions about me.

Note “˜slanders’. Who has slandered? Who has aired personal opinions and false claims, for instance about a senior prosecutor?

They want you to think I’m a monster because it is easy to condemn a monster. It is easy to dismiss a monster’s defense as deception. But the prosecution and civil parties are both severely mistaken and wrong. They have condemned me without proof of guilt, and they seek to convince you to condemn me without proof of guilt.

If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics.

Note “˜theatrics’. There were none from the prosecution. So whose theatrics?

“˜Monster’ is Amanda’s own word - it hasn’t come from anyone else. It must be her nemesis - the word which she dreads to hear in her conscious mind, yet can’t escape from.

There would be no need for smoke and mirrors to distract you from the lack of physical evidence against me.

Note “˜smoke and mirrors’. Whose smoke and mirrors?  Again, we have a description of her own behaviour, which is being projected outwards.

quote - ‘But because no evidence exists that proves my guilt, the prosecution would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements.’

Note “˜the prosecution would seek to deceive you’. Who really has sought to deceive? Who has demonstrated passion in her pronouncements?

Because I am not a murderer, they would seek to mislead you into convicting me by charging your emotions, by painting me not as an innocent until proven guilty, but as a monster.

Note “˜mislead you’. Yet again, the image of her person as “˜a murderer’ and “˜a monster’ are shown to be her preoccupation. The court has not tried to define her as such. They have tried her for a crime, for what she did on one day.

She is the one who gives permanent labels to herself. They are labels she cannot bear, and cannot accept. But she needs to understand that it is not the judiciary, nor many others seeking justice, who are labelling her person or personality.

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

Note “˜they cannot’. Amongst a statement peppered with almost pitiful projections, this seems to be the most direct projection of them all. Substitute “˜they’ for “˜I’ and we get this:

“˜I cannot bring myself to admit, even to myself, that I’ve made a terrible mistake…’

Paragraphs 31 to 34

The Court has seen that the prosecution and civil parties will not hear criticism of their mistakes.

Note “˜will not hear’. Who will not hear criticism of their mistakes?

Not by the experts of the defense, nor by the experts of the Court.

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

Note “˜jumped to conclusions’ and “˜before bothering’. Why is she saying any of this to Judge Nencini and the other judges? It is insulting to their intelligence. Can she be unaware of this?

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

Note “˜founded upon mistakes’.  Here there was a young woman who herself “˜under pressure, admitted to as few mistakes as possible , and committed themselves to a theory founded upon mistakes’ (the mistake of admitting to being at the scene of the crime, hearing a scream etc., and then found herself committed to continue to incriminate Patrick, and all the stories consequent to this move.)

One is reminded of a game of chess, where early moves commit one to the rest of the play and end game.

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

Note “˜Meredith’s family’.  A belated attempt to remember the true victim, but in a way that couldn’t be more hurtful. What would really have spared Meredith’s family anguish and suffering?

It is highly objectionable that the stress and pressure Knox and Sollecito have been under should in any way at all be conflated with the deep suffering and tragic position of the Kercher family. Knox indicates that she is unable to know when she is hurting someone.

The prosecution’s accusations are unworthy of judicial or public confidence.

Note “˜unworthy of public confidence’. Then, if so, as Judge Nencini said, the person who brought the appeal should attend her own appeal, and seek to prove or disprove the worthiness of her case in the court. A basic premise the defendant showed she was oblivious to, when she resorted to the email.

In over six years they have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated theory of the crime,

Note “˜failed to provide’.  The prosecution in fact have patiently, thoroughly, albeit slowly, worked their way towards the most probable truth of that fated night.

They have been grossly and deliberately impeded in their task by the defendant, who moreover has shown no contriteness, no remorse whatsoever for her lack of co-operation or worse.

And, of course, “˜in over six years,’ the defendants “˜have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated explanation of the crime’ they have been proven to have been involved with. Once more, a statement can be seen to apply more to the speaker herself than to those she is accusing.

but would nevertheless argue that you should take my life away.

Note “˜take my life away’. More unfeeling melodrama.

I beg you to see the facts and reason of what I say. I am innocent. Rafael is innocent.

Meredith and her family deserve the truth. Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice.

Note “˜deserve the truth’. These last two sentences are true. However, the very last sentence seems to have two missing words from the end, viz, “˜for them’, or “˜for the Kerchers’.

With a correction it reads: “˜Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice for the Kerchers’  - which with no help from Knox does nevertheless seem to be happening.
The wheels of justice turn, and stories, versions, delusions, projections, deceptions, - even manipulations, will eventually fade away.

[It looked like Knox lawyer Ghirga could not drop this turd in the judge’s lap quickly enough]

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/26/14 at 05:15 PM in Hoaxes Knox & team17 Fake memory hoax


Super interesting analysis, SeekingUnderstanding.  It’s quite late here and I’ll drop by tomorrow to post a few concrete comments, but I just wanted to thank you for painstakingly taking apart this email and addressing the major concerns it raised.

Posted by Vivianna on 05/27/14 at 12:14 AM | #

It might have her signature histrionics in the letter, but I am not sure she wrote it by herself; it reads like a blend of every FOA argument and talking point I’ve seen over the years. Still, since the original is in Italian I am only surprised she didn’t slip her ‘mask of the assassin’ line in 😊

Posted by Ergon on 05/27/14 at 12:36 AM | #

Either not penned by AK, or proofed for syntactical errors?
She typically uses “Raffaele and I”, versus “and Me” as the object of a sentence. It is done correctly in this piece of work.

Posted by mimi on 05/27/14 at 12:45 AM | #

Yes, I felt it was a blended effort.
There’s quite a few mantras, or famous phrases, missing, but then they have been overplayed…

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/27/14 at 12:56 AM | #

I was surprised at how long the email was.
An art she doesn’t have is that of being succinct. Or even logically succinct. (an understatement).

I found it repetitive and rambling - all in all an extraordinary thing to have sent. Judge Nencini was being quite restrained in just calling it ‘highly irregular’ !

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/27/14 at 01:07 AM | #

Blaming Chris Mellas or Jim Lovering or Ted Simon or David Mariott more for this unfortunate email merely sets them up in a (deserved) line of fire too.

It cannot take Knox out of the line of fire, or mitigate her circumstances. She did sign it, and she set the ball rolling on the harmful Interrogation Hoax and kept it going even when her Perugia lawyers told her publicly to stop it.

Her arrogance (chutzpah) is to me amazing. I wonder if any American judge gets such contemptuous condescending letters. Here she is, jobless and with no degree or career prospects, writing as if she’s one of the Top People. Or maybe as she imagines they write: in fact letters between top people are excruciatingly polite for the most part. A tin ear is one contribution to this project for sure.

FOA crank Nigel Scott just bit the dust in a local election in England. Just one of many to come down a peg. His kinky obsession did not help him. Butterflies too near the flame guys. Jobless security guard Steve Moore will surely confirm this, another of so many to go down.

Many think Knox always was or has been rendered by drugs a brick or two short of a wall. But put her in an average Italian prison and she will be among the sanest there. A majority of people who commit serious crimes have issues. They get treatment there.

And theres hints that both Knox and Sollecito were resigned to not getting out of prison, and had something positive going on there. FOA would do her a favor by helping to ease her path back, to a real supportive community, and free concerts, and let Meredith’s family and the world move on.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/27/14 at 02:49 AM | #

‘letters between Top people are excruciatingly polite ....’
This has been my experience too.
Whereas with our writer, the letter is excruciatingly manipulative…

Very many thanks to our Top Editor, - for all the editing, and introductory summary.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/27/14 at 10:59 AM | #


A very forensic analysis of the e-mail. Thank you.

I also think it was a collaborative effort but it’s sufficiently stupid and arrogant to point to AK as the prime author.

For example, the e-mail twice refers (para 4 & 15) to “the universal problem” of wrongful conviction/false confession/torture (throw in crucifixion for good luck) etc.

Typically Knoxian over-elaboration lest unworldly nitwits think her story is unreconstructed bullshit specifically designed to let her get away with a particularly horrific murder.

Posted by Odysseus on 05/27/14 at 11:03 AM | #

Some comments on the Nencini email were posted under the first few posts in the Interrogation Hoax series.  Here’s a good one by Popper:

This statement is so incredibly and evidently false and malicious that you can hardly believe she had been finally convicted to prison for calumny BEFORE this ... who advised her to write such cr@@, basically another calumny in various points?

There is no illegal interrogation. The first was the writing up of a few names until she started to put hands on her head ... absolutely legal ... everything was stopped once she placed herself in the flat, it would have been legal even if they had not stopped btw ... (police did not identify a murderer ... she clearly indicated it, adding he was bad and she was afraid of him, a scena madre)

The second was a spontaneous statement as written in clear words in the report not an interrogation ... but even if it had been a formal interrogation ... the PM could have done it for reasons of urgency to catch a murderer ... usability is a different point.

Her sending this note was useless and a mistake, she insulted the court and, in strict law, she would deserve another conviction only for these words.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/27/14 at 03:17 PM | #

Excellent analysis as usual, thank you, SeekingUnderstanding. Just out of curiosity, I noticed that the names of nearly all of AK’s friends/enemies/patsies/acquaintances were mispelled in her e-mail: Rafael, Rafaele (not Raffaele), Laura Masotho (not Mezzetti), Filament Romanal (not Filomena Romanelli), Rudy Guide (not Guede). Has the e-mail been translated by a machine from Italian to English?

Posted by Bjorn on 05/27/14 at 03:53 PM | #

Here is just what Knox needs… to ensure her x more years. Steve “its all about me, me, me” Moore, with the same-old, same-old yet again.

Knox should whack the pesky guy with a stick. He attached himself to her late 2011 as a “guard” but was told to bug off.

An embarrassment to good people in the FBI. Many good takes on his delusions on TJMK. This by SomeAlibi was one of the best:

That was in April 2011. Since then Moore did not learn a thing - or get a job.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/27/14 at 03:59 PM | #

Hi Bjorn

Interesting on the wrong names. I had puzzled over that. The email began in English and the Knox forces put it out. It is right now on 3200 sites.

Maybe it went from English to Italian and back though there seems no obvious reason why.

Try cutting and pasting a few words of the email into Google Search to see the effect the email had.  When I search, our own posts are near the top.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/27/14 at 04:13 PM | #

Glutton for punishment? Knox floated another statement with some of the same false claims that we see in her email early in May just after the Nencini Report was released.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/27/14 at 04:17 PM | #

Looking for interest on wikiquote, under Justice, I came across this, which I find rather apt:

“Justice is not a prize tendered to the good-natured, nor is it to be withheld from the ill-bred.
Charles L. Aarons, Hatch v. Lewinsky et al. (19 April 1945)”

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/27/14 at 06:59 PM | #

See more comments below the post describing the day in court when the notorious email was read by an angry and sarcastic judge - the email which Andrea Vogt described as an “own goal” in her report.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/27/14 at 11:25 PM | #

Pete writes above:
...‘writing as if she’s one of the Top People. Or maybe as she imagines they write: ‘

Perhaps even as an archaic imaginary Top person?

“I seek not to supplant their work..”

Is the imaginary person Portia in The Merchant of Venice?
It does sound bizarre.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/28/14 at 12:08 AM | #

Reading the pro Knox sites as I sometimes do, I am struck by the absurd repetitive comments therein.

I looked at most and one major thing (among others) stood out and that is the childlike nature of the comments.

It would suggest that the vast majority of the writers (about five in number) are very young and immature. It must be so because only the very young and naive would swallow such nonsense.

For example the comment which read “There was an obvious cleanup” was answered with the comment “That’s a lie” and this from no less a person than Bruce Fischer. However when I say “no less” that’s what I mean. Speaking of Bruce he said that Ergon is the leader of a cult and fancies himself as Jesus. Sad but true since obviously when they are at a loss for words they try insults. They have nothing else.

Interesting point though. I see that the Knox brigade have started to argue among themselves. Also the Idiot Steve maintains than the entire body of evidence is made up. That’s going to take some explaining.

Still and thankfully they are all “Sliding down the razor blade of life.” to the bucket of iodine at the end.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/28/14 at 12:46 AM | #

It must be the first case in history, at least in Italy, in which a defendant sends an email to a judge, in this case a Court ....

Posted by Popper on 05/28/14 at 01:10 AM | #

As I read this Nencini Appellate Court Translated-Transcript, acknowledging the impossibility of not showing its appropriate disdain for Knox’s behavior, I am struck by the Court’s generally relaxed and permissive attitude to the participants.

This is quite different from Common-Law Appellate Proceedings which usually require a logical sequence of evidentiary Fact, Applicable Law, and rational, persuasive, argument.

This Proceeding reads like what I call ‘bilateral one-way communication’, in which a “Fact” is whatever the speaker says it is, without reference to actual Evidence, and without quoting actual Law. Instead whatever one side says “Is”, the other side says “Is Not”, Like children quarreling. (shades of Bill Clinton’s notorious reference to “the word ‘Is’ “?)

Knox seems to be a willful, ignorant and arrogant participant, inappropriately injecting herself, and is indirectly supported by her Legal Counsel, who repeat her silly assertions.

Knox seems to believe it sufficient merely to utter the word “illegal”, without quoting Legal Chapter & Verse, for the Court to take her pronouncements seriously. I assume the Court will simply ignore them.

Is there any way the words uttered in her “Defence” can evade a final Guilty Verdict by SCC?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/28/14 at 04:50 AM | #

Thank you, Peter, for the link on the excellent, that publishes the latest deeds, adventures, and opinions of Porno & Bribeasy (Jim Clemente & Steve Moore) (Britons here may remember (Mel) Smith & (Griff Rhys) Jones from maybe 20 years ago, that was an excellent series)

Clemente always brags about having been with the FBI, a supervisor with the Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico, no less, but I find it strange that a guy with these supposed credentials is not tight-lipped about it, unless he has *not* really been with the FBI. The BAU itself, however, is called when the regular guys really have no clue about what’s going on, and have to rely on some “educated” guesses or profiling; if it’s clear what the hell’s happening, there no need for the BAU, they can go back to the schoolyard to play with the little ball, or weasel their way into the production of some TV show.

In Clemente’s mind there was an organized robbery, and an unorganized murder committed by Guede who fled—I would ask Clemente, what robbery, you fumbling, bumbling intellectual, there was no robbery, nothing was stolen, Sollecito said so himself.

As far as Clemente’s “successful” TV career is concerned, he probably started out by writing, producing, directing, and starring in flicks he sold out of his van at gas stations in the rural South, possibly on the “scenic” roads between Amarillo and Dalhart—when budget was tight, he played *both* characters (don’t ask me how it’s done, ask him), a small price to pay for the fame he now enjoys.

Posted by Bjorn on 05/28/14 at 06:11 AM | #

Grahame, I admire how you can grit the teeth and actually go over to pro-Knox sites.  Personally, I couldn’t stomach that.

Have just done a comparison of Arias-Anthony-Knox and was struck by how the plethora of lies, the flood of lie upon lie, really hampered the process, esp. with Arias.

The prosecution had it nailed, even through her own mouth and then she sat up and just told another story at the end.  Instead of ignoring it, it threw the trial into disarray.  Such power in a pretty face.

Posted by James Higham on 05/28/14 at 10:19 AM | #

Amazing Seeking Understanding! Incisive and beautifully expressed.

To those who venture onto the Amanda Knox blog, have you noticed how she adopts a rather submissive, modest attitude in her own responses to posts? Signing herself off as ‘a’ in lower case. A cute touch to indicate smallness and insignificance. However watchers of her manipulative behaviour will know that nothing is by accident in her world. She moderates the comments and allowed John Kercher to be referred to by Alex K as ‘the dirty old man’.

Posted by pensky on 05/28/14 at 10:47 AM | #

Thank you

re the calculating ‘cute touch’, - it would seem to be the same approach as towards Judge Nencini? Pseudo-modesty blended with below-the-belt depreciation…
This simultaneous ingratiation- cum- aggressive insult was also portrayed in the dream I had about Knox (where I was an onlooker : it was like watching a film) - shocking and clear.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/28/14 at 01:54 PM | #

Speaking of lies, here’s a whopper from #AmandaKnox supporter Bruce Fischer:

Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

by Bruce Fischer » Fri May 16, 2014 11:50 am

Niteangel wrote: Well it seems guilters have another target: Frank Sfarzo. They’re telling me he’s a woman beater, and that he attacked an elderly man, etc. Anyone knows anything about all these accusations?

Are you really surprised that they are attacking Frank? They attack everyone that disagrees with them. Frank was accused of battery by a woman he visited in Hawaii. That woman posts and bettina and tamale on the PMF’s. There were no charges filed and it looks like it was nothing more than an argument in a hotel between 2 adults. Bettina/Tamale’s behavior online since the incident has said all that needs to be said. The accusations were baseless.

Frank had an argument with a man in Canada. It was not a legal matter. It was a matter of two grown men that could not get along. Frank did not attack an elderly man. Unfortunately, the man Frank was visiting apparently decided to steal case files from Frank and send them to Ergon on Ergon claims to have anonymous sources but the truth is that Ergon is proudly displaying stolen property. It is a complicated matter because this man on his own doing donated a large sum of money to Frank to help him out when he was in need. This is a private matter between them and the details have never been fully disclosed by either of them. We will not speculate about people’s private lives here.

Ergon is dishonest when describing the knife photos that he “acquired” as well. But that should not be a surprise. Ergon boasts that the knife has very visible scratches on the blade and he accuses us of trying to hide that fact for the past 6 1/2” years. Of course Ergon’s photos have received no attention from anyone because Ergon is disingenuous. The marks on the knife are the result of testing in the lab. The images he posted came from C&V from the Hellmann trial. The knife did not have that appearance when it was taken from Raffaele’s drawer.

The guilters are now running around posting libelous comments about Frank everywhere they can. Frank has had a few personal issues that have absolutely nothing to do with his reporting on this case. Prosecutor Mignini targeted Frank and has attempted to silence him. Mignini had Frank’s blog taken offline. Anyone that believes in free speech should support Frank Sfarzo.

I would prefer that we do not discuss people’s private lives here. I posted the information here to clear up the recent comments I have seen popping up online again. Our priority here is to discuss the facts of this case. This topic was exhausted on this forum when it happened and there is no reason to get into it again. The story is well known to veteran posters here. There is little doubt that the guilters are simply trying to cause trouble by continuing to bring it up. I understand that some here lost respect for Frank when his altercations with multiple people arose. I agree that those were not his brightest moments and I am hopeful that Frank has learned from those situations. With that said, I do not think we should allow the guilters to attempt to tarnish Frank’s work on this case due to his matters in his personal life.

“I was imprisoned as an innocent person, it’s common sense not to go back”—Amanda Knox

Already answered re: ‘stolen property’ but apparently Bruce sees the need to keep misrepresenting his side in all this, and blaming Frank Sfarzo’s victims. He still doesn’t know who my sources are, so he’s flailing around.

But regarding the knife, I’ll point out that the pictures were taken in Conti/Vecchiotti’s laboratory on date of receipt, as the metatags show. Patrizia Stefanoni in her notes makes note of several scratches along the length of the knife, so do several news reports dating back to the Massei trial. So the pictures that were released to us show the true condition of the knife when taken from Sollecito’s apartment.

It is Bruce Fischer, who misled his members by releasing out of focus pictures of the knife, who should be held accountable for his reporting on the case.

Posted by Ergon on 05/28/14 at 10:59 PM | #

Amusing stuff, Ergon, Fischer himself acknowledges that Frank had “a few personal issues”, but in the name of free speech people should support this loser - why? Can’t these morons find anyone else who didn’t have personal issues? It would help Knox somewhat, if prolonging her agony is called help. My guess is they just don’t have better people than Sfarzo in their ever-shrinking group, and now they have to have each other’s backs more than ever, justice is coming for them, too.

Posted by Bjorn on 05/29/14 at 12:05 AM | #

Hi, Bjorn, “I would prefer that we do not discuss people’s personal lives here” is quite unintentional comedy, coming as it does from Bruce Fischer 😊

Posted by Ergon on 05/29/14 at 02:17 AM | #

Our UK emailers often refer to Fischer as “thick” and a serial swindler. Unfortunate case. He has never held a proper job and depends totally on his wife’s gullible family and what he can fleece from the sheep - the same with Frank. That is really what drives Fischers babble which Ergon quotes above with such glee.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/29/14 at 05:54 AM | #

The best thing about Knox’s email is how apparently Judge Nencini read the melodramatic, OTT waffle super quickly and in a flat, monotone voice.

You just know Knox would want it read in an impassioned manner with a quavering voice and wobbling lip and Nencini was having none of it! Love him for that.

This is slightly off topic but do we know happened with the proposed felony charges against Sollecito for his book? Didn’t he have 20 days to respond to them?

The 20 days have come and gone but I haven’t heard or read any news about the lies and slander in his book…? Thanks!

Posted by Sel-Nel on 05/29/14 at 12:09 PM | #

“The knife did not have that appearance when it was taken from Raffaele’s drawer”

Thank you for the eyewitness account Bruce.

Where is your friend Frank these days?

He seems awfully quiet…

Has the cat got his venomous tongue?

Posted by DF2K on 05/29/14 at 03:09 PM | #

Thank you, Seeking.

Bruce forgot to mention the 2 disabled guys in Seattle that Frank attacked, and was arrested for. Or the bench warrant issued by a Judge because Frank did not show up for court. Twice.

He failed to mention the police woman Frank bit after they were called to assist his mom and sis during one of Franks temper tantrums.

Why did Bruce neglect to mention the married women in Seattle he managed to offend with his gigolo offers? They were none too pleased.

At this time Frank is kissing Sollecito’s derriere…and the beat goes on.

Posted by Bettina on 05/30/14 at 04:16 AM | #

I also wondered whether sending the email was intended to ‘keep up appearances’ to the world.

A way of appeasing the fans and keeping the myth of outraged innocence alive .....

Posted by thundering on 06/01/14 at 03:36 PM | #


Yes, I agree…sort of perpetuating the fiction-with-mantras; another exercise in creative writing, only a virtual document.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/01/14 at 07:07 PM | #

This is an excellent analysis by SeekingUnderstanding.

I think I have read through it 3 times now.

To me, the email is breathtakingly [sic] jaw dropping on every level.

It shows without a doubt that Amanda Knox is indeed living in an alternate universe, and she is certainly not of this world.

Whatever her mental state may be - and I believe she should be in the care of mental health professionals preferably in a secure unit - the real injustice in Perugia here is that she has been released into the general public along with her partner in crime Raffaele Sollecito.

SeekingUnderstanding illustrates very clearly the projection emanating from this person.

I almost gagged when Knox in her email stated she was “comforting” Meredith’s friends.

Thank heavens Judge Nencini saw her email for what it is and afforded it the disdain it deserves - a desperate and guilty plea from someone who knows full well they are guilty and who knows the game is almost up.

Posted by DF2K on 06/01/14 at 08:21 PM | #


I think you are right - I believe she does know….

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 06/01/14 at 10:59 PM | #

Hi Sel-Nel

You asked about the legal process against Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel for the book. A trial will go ahead. See Breaking News note now at the top.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 06/01/14 at 11:30 PM | #
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 Ted “There Is No Evidence” Simon’s Tired Mantra Misinforms Americans And Provokes Italian Hard Line

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