Ray D’Arcy to Amanda-Waiting-to-be-Heard-Knox: “Why do you *keep* coming out to tell your story?”

Fullscreen capture 20180204 174325Every time Amanda Knox steps out of the cozy confines of Seattle, vitriol follows. Every time she’s asked to relate the events surrounding Meredith Kercher’s murder, she tells the same less-than-convincing story. So why does she keep doing it? by Nick van der Leek

Overall I found Amanda Knox’s demeanor in this interview to be suitably grave, until the moment she spoke about what she calls “the single victim fallacy”, and then dug the hole even deeper when she sang Come Out Ye Black and Tans, complete with an Irish accent, and then couldn’t stop laughing.

It’s this behavior that caused a riff not only between Knox and Meredith, or Knox and Meredith’s friends, but it’s what’s made her something of a misfit before and after the crime, and to the present day.

In the context of living together, a new lodger singing loudly and frequently, just being inappropriate constantly at inopportune moments eventually gets old, and then it gets irritating. Meredith eventually conveyed as much to her friends and her sister.

At 1 hour 9 minutes into D’Arcy’s interview with Amanda Knox which aired Saturday January 3rd, 2018, D’Arcy says, in the context of Meredith not being the only victim: “So you were wronged as well?” Knox answers unabashed: “Yeah!”

D’Arcy then offers an interesting insight into how he sees the whole debacle. If it was him, knowing what Knox had endured [in the media, in Italy and elsewhere], he said he’d stay home, close the door and pull the curtains.

Fullscreen capture 20180204 190523

D’ARCY: Why do you come out and tell your story?

KNOX [Sighs heavily]: Well…one…reason is because a whole load of people have authored my experience, for me, and they’ve done a terrible job of it. Um…I feel like…my story belongs to me. And I’m the only one who can…tell it…TELL IT!

Not the noblest of reasons then, for wanting to be heard.  Interestingly, Knox didn’t actually author Waiting to be Heard, it was ghost written by Linda Kuhlman, and as narratives go, was pretty thin around the pertinent issues at hand.

When the New York Review of Books published their review of Waiting to be Heard, it was titled Amanda in Wonderland. The author of that article was taken aback by the publisher’s contention that Knox was telling the full story of what happened to her, from her point of view for the first time.

In reality, the story had been told inside out, drawn through the washer of four individual trials, explicated in dozens of books [including Sollecito’s which came out before Knox’s], analyzed in hundreds of magazine articles and circulated in thousands of newspaper columns in many languages. Blogs and counter blogs erupted, wiki sites and counter wiki’s dueled online, along with true crime forums entirely dedicated to one case. Knox herself, and her family, saturated the media with coverage of her that was more akin to a PR campaign than anything else.

In terms of Knox’s ability as writer, she’s not yet authored her own standalone work, despite claims in a People magazine article recently that she was working on another memoir titled Lady Justice.

In November 2017, coinciding with the ten year anniversary of Meredith’s murder [Knox’s claim to fame as she sees it, but infamy in fact] she wrote an article titled Mourning Meredith.

It starts as follows:

Ten years ago tonight, my friend was raped and murdered by a burglar when she was home alone in the apartment we shared while studying abroad in Perugia, Italy. 

In fact, Meredith was not raped, and neither was she murdered by a burglar. Whether Meredith was home alone is also a matter of some dispute. In other words, in just a single sentence from an article penned by Knox herself, one can see how full of crap her writing is.

….a whole load of people have authored my experience, for me, and they’ve done a terrible job of it…

To date I’ve written two trilogies on the Knox case, one, Deceit, – the most reviewed of 71 books currently published on Amazon – was quickly but briefly banned.

All the books I’ve published on Knox have been heavily trolled, earning negative reviews within hours of publication.

I’ve written about a number of high profile criminals, but Knox’s army of supporters are by far the most aggressive and vindictive.  That said, some of Knox’s critics are also some of most obsessed in the true crime genre.

Knowing the case file, and understanding what Knox has gotten away with, it’s difficult not to be angered by Knox.

Ten years later, Knox is back trying to claim ownership of “her” story [the story about how she didn’t murder someone]. By saying “my story belongs to me”, it sounds as if Knox is pitching for some sort of second book or movie deal; she seems mostly adamant about making a financial case for “her” story.

Fullscreen capture 20180204 192008-001

In Knox’s February 3rd interview, I was surprised at two things above all:

Firstly, by how often she referred to herself as a slut or a whore. In the archives I’ve gone through, and remember, I’ve written two trilogies with two final books on the way,  it’s not accurate to say that’s how she was depicted in the media, then or now. I’ve not depicted her that way, nor in those terms, and I can’t say I’ve come across those depictions, other than occasionally on social media. So who is Knox referring to? The Italian police circa 2007?

Knox also seems to be trying to cotton-on to the #MeToo movement, except it doesn’t quite work. Or does it? Perhaps I’m in the wrong demographic.

Fullscreen capture 20180204 195004

The second thing that surprised me was when Knox became emotional, and just how emotional she became. She chokes up and seems to start crying. Knox first becomes tearful as she describes Lumumba’s family having the “Jesus” [actually it’s the “bejesus”] scared out of them. Knox doesn’t mention that she could simply have told the police she’d been mistaken at any time afterwards, and Lumumba would have been off the hook.

I’ve listened to many prison intercepts immediately after her arrest [Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba were arrested and jailed on the same morning] yet Knox doesn’t communicate the sort of remorse we see on TV, or mention Lumumba to her parents. She’s never adamant to them that he’s innocent, and that it’s her fault he’s in jail.

Imagine how that conversation might have gone if it happened.

KNOX: My boss, I accused him and he’s in jail but he didn’t do it.

MOM: Why’d you do a thing like that?

Because I tell lies? Because I’m a liar?

KNOX: Um…look, the point is he’s innocent. Will you make sure Mignini gets that message?

MOM: Okay but if he’s innocent, who did it? Why did you falsely accuse him?

Fact is, she falsely accused him and the accusation remained in force even when her memory cleared. While he was under arrest it was to her benefit. It was only when Rudy Guede was found, that Lumumba was released about two weeks later, but by then the damage to his reputation [thanks to Knox] was done.

Isn’t it ironic, Knox petitioning for the rights of falsely accused person’s, when that’s exactly what she did to him?

As easy as it is to be duped by  her emotion – and it may well be sincere, in the sense that a narcissist’s sense of victimization is piercing – just nine minutes after the tears she’s singing and laughing uncontrollably. That’s Amanda Knox for you.

Knox, overall, seems to have aged a lot more than ten years since the murder in 2007. There’s something gaunt and sterile about her now. The frivolity is still there, one can see that in Knox’s goofy logic and in the dress code of her oddball boyfriend Christopher Robinson.

48DF797B00000578-0-image-a-30_1517747876962

Coming back to the original question:

Why do you come out and tell your story?

In studio, Knox casts about towards the ceiling, in search of the most appropriate response. Knox has had ten years of practice – writing about it, performing in front of cameras, reading about herself and thinking about it – how to portray herself just right.

Why do you come out and tell your story?

Well, because you’re innocent, right? Oh no, that’s passé.

For Meredith. In order to set the record straight in terms of justice, and to assure them that Knox is above reproach. No, that’s passé too.

Because you want to set the record straight, once and for all, after ten years you finally have it all down to bite sized chunks. No, during this interview she essentially glosses through things just as she did in her book, with the exception of the break-in to Filomena’s room.

It’s odd that, because that was the first thing she mentioned in her memorial to Meredith:

Ten years ago tonight, my friend was raped and murdered by a burglar…

She leaves that out during her run through of arriving home and finding weird things. There’s an open door, there’s poop, and there’s splodges of blood in her bathroom. No big deal, she has her shower and heads off.

Besides the burglar narrative, what’s missing from the umpteenth reiteration of the story?  There’s just no reason for Amanda Knox to check on Meredith. Meredith’s the only resident that’s supposed to be home that weekend, and she’s supposed to Knox’s friend [according to Knox].

Also, Knox knew Meredith was supposed to be home, but unless people researched elsewhere for the full context, they wouldn’t know that much of Perugia had decamped for the long holiday weekend. Knox naturally doesn’t tell them that while everyone had gone to be with their family and loved one’s, Meredith and herself were exceptions.

In the last couple of narratives I’ve done, I’ve made it explicit via a detailed timeline, that despite Knox’s contention that she was spending all her time at Sollecito’s, actually, she wasn’t. In fact, within a few days of their dalliance they appeared to be not getting along very well, and Knox seemed to be cheating on her new Italian love. Sollecito says as much in his memoir, noting it wasn’t easy getting his thesis done while Knox sang Beatles songs, kept him awake and woke up at the crack of dawn.

Fullscreen capture 20180204 224344

They even spent Halloween apart – Knox partying with…who again?  Because it wasn’t Meredith and her friends.

As it stood, when Knox went home for her shower, Meredith was already dead, and it was her blood in the basin, and some of Amanda Knox’s blood too.

In her book, the one she sold for $4 million, in her published version of events, during her first visit to the villa, Knox notices the front door open and Filomena’s broken window and showers anyway.

Here’s a quick recap of the pertinent narrative highlighted in pink:

Fullscreen capture 20180204 182705

Fullscreen capture 20180204 182759-001

Fullscreen capture 20180204 182759-002Knox calls Filomena afterwards to tell her her room’s been broken into [so Filomena can sort of take responsibility for the crime scene] and then decides to check in to Seattle too, right then, even though it’s around 01:00 on the other side of the world, and it’s been weeks since she called her mother.

Filomena has to tell Knox to call Meredith, and Knox’s mother has to tell her to call her roomates [and later the police], but she waits until they arrive, and then Sollecito calls to report a break-in where “nothing has been taken”.

Meanwhile, Filomena’s worried about Meredith, and Knox is worried about poop that’s not even in her bathroom.  The blood? It’s no biggie.

The poop of course belonged to Rudy Guede, and so highlighting that to the cops from the get-go was an early ploy to get the cops focused on a third suspect. But who would know to do that?

Knox, unperturbed about Meredith, tells the police it’s normal for Meredith to have her door locked. It’s eventually Filomena’s friend who breaks the door down to reveal a bloodbath, with Meredith at the center of it. While Filomena screams, Knox is mute, and Sollecito kisses and comforts her outside.

Why do you come out and tell your story?

Is Knox aware that her friend is dead? How long has she been aware?

Why is Meredith’s door locked?

Why would a murderer who didn’t live there, lock the door behind him/her, and why are bloody shoe and footprints partially washed away?

Who would be more likely to clean up a crime scene – someone who lived there, or someone who didn’t?

Why do you come out and tell your story?

And why does Knox return to Sollecito carrying a mop and bucket on that day of all days. She was well-known among her roommates to be something of a slob.  She had to be reminded to wash and clean-up after her. it was another pet-peeve with Meredith.

Also, why is Knox’s reading lamp on the floor in Meredith’s room, when the door’s kicked open?

Why do you come out and tell your story?

So if Meredith was supposed to be home, and there was blood, why not knock on her door and say, “Hey, you okay?” There’s no reason to do that if Meredith’s dead, although a clever storyteller would do that.

Of course this lack of care and consideration for Meredith is the theme of the whole interview with D’Arcy. Knox doesn’t waste a breath talking about the things Meredith has missed out on over the last 10 years.

When Knox is asked about her friendship with Meredith, she immediately begins fudging. She doesn’t have much to say about Meredith, “out of respect.”

If your neighbor accused you of stealing his car when you were honeymooning in the Caribbean, why would you come out and tell your story, ten years after the false accusations?

If you’d written a book about your lousy neighbor, and were paid $4 million for it, might the reason you’d be back not be to sell more books? Perhaps you’re thinking of settling down and starting your own family, and you’re in need of a nest egg. Perhaps your not extremely successful partner is pressing for this too. And the fastest way to earn dosh is to talk about how you didn’t steal your neighbor’s car?

Fullscreen capture 20180204 180024

Amanda Knox was so wronged, she earned a $4 million advance on her book, and continues to do speaking engagements at $7000 a ticket – which doubles as PR for the book that earned those millions.

Her co-accused, Raffaele Sollecito was also offered a $1 million advance on his book.

But ten years later the money is mostly gone, the story has been wrung out, and Meredith remains murdered without sufficient explanation or recompense.

 

63 thoughts on “Ray D’Arcy to Amanda-Waiting-to-be-Heard-Knox: “Why do you *keep* coming out to tell your story?”

  1. All you write is nonsensical drivel. Meredith WAS murdered by a burglar. Rudy had been caught in the act of burglary more then once. He also had a knife on him in at least one of those burglaries, he pulled it on the occupant of the house when he was CAUGHT IN THE ACT of burgling. Meredith Kercher WAS sexually assaulted and murdered by ONE MAN, Rudy Guede. All the evidence points to him. Only his DNA was found inside Meredith (funny that you claim she was not raped). Only his DNA was found on her clothes and purse. Only his bloody hand-print was found under her body and on the wall.

    No where in those excerpts from her book does Amanda say she notices the broken window BEFORE she showered.

    There IS NOT EVIDENCE OF A CLEAN UP. Rudy Guede did say he went into the bathroom to clean up, that is why HIS bloody footprint is on the bathmat.

    Amanda and Meredith had FRIENDLY text messages on Halloween night. No where in the exerts of Raffaele’s book does it imply Amanda and he were not getting along.

    The British girls testimony was hogwash. Most of it was made up bull sh*t. Both roommates testified that Amanda and Meredith were friends as did the boys downstairs.

    There was very little blood, certainly not enough to scream “your roommate has been murdered”. Both Filomena and Fabio Marsi testified to that court.

    Testimony of Fabio Marsi page 7 (postal police) about seeing the bathroom

    Bongiorno: When Amanda took you to see the patches of blood in the bathroom, was she alarmed? Were they noticeable patches, or was it something less noticeable?

    Marsi: No, it’s not like there was a, a particularly thick patch, they were… a few marks left, probably, by somebody that had dirty hands, there wasn’t specifically a round patch where the blood had drained. Speaking in an imperfect Italian she said to me: “Here dirty here also below, I scared, I didn’t touch anything”, she said to me.

    Amanda took the mop and bucket to clean up the water leak under his sink. Maybe you should mention that the mop WAS TESTED and was negative for blood. Much like all the “foot print” you people blather on and on about.

    The two older roommates testified BOTH Amanda AND Meredith were not good a cleaning. BOTH had to be reminded to clean.

    Raffaele called the police BEFORE Filomena and her friends arrived and BEFORE the Postal Police arrived. He also tells them ABOUT THE LOCKED DOOR AND NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTACT MEREDITH IN THIS PHONE CALL.

    The POLICE thought Patrick was involved and THEY brought up his name BECAUSE of the text message on the night of the murder. The police thought Amanda had set up a meeting with Patrick that night. THEY WERE WRONG but REFUSED to admit they were wrong. They just inserted Rudy into their narrative, and went after Amanda as the ‘mastermind” of the crime. Which is so ridiculously idiotic.

    Patrick didn’t lose his livelihood or reputation because of the false arrest. He lost both because of the POLICE. The police kept his bar closed for months after his release causing him to lose his business.

    You’re a crappy person and even crappier writer. Find a new profession, you WILL keep getting bad reviews because you write out right lies and people who KNOW the case and have READ the court documents WILL call you out on your lies.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 1. Was Rudy ever arrested for burglary? Was he convicted in this case, for murder and burglary, or just murder? Judge Micheli acquitted Guede of theft, suggesting that there had been no break-in.
      2. If there was burglary, did insurance ever pay out in this particular case, and if so, for what?
      3. Within seconds of the police arriving, they dismissed the burglary aspect, believing it to be staged. One reason for that was it seemed impossible that someone could hurl a large rock two stories through the air, and it seemed unlikely someone would climb into Filomena’s upstairs window, when there were better and more secluded alternatives.
      4. Even Sollecito called the police and said in his emergency call nothing was stolen, and nothing belonging to Amanda, Filomena or Laura was stolen. So prior to discovering Meredith, what evidence was there that it was a burglary, in terms of theft of any of the other residents possessions.
      5. Knox claims Meredith was raped. She wasn’t raped. You don’t refer to this whatsoever. Rudy Guede also was not convicted of rape but of sexual assault. There’s a difference.
      6. Of course there’s evidence of a clean up – a bloody footprint on a bathmat with no corresponding print on the tile. Knox says she showered, she cleaned herself up and removed a mop. She also scratched, according to her, a drop of Meredith’s blood with her fingernail. Plenty of crime scene photos show dilute blood – in other words, blood that appears pink or almost invisible, rather than bright red. One example, is the blood trail on the bathroom door. There were also plenty of towels in Meredith’s room covered in blood, and also towels in the washer. Also, Rudy had stood right inside the crime scene and then run out, and yet the shoeprints he left behind were invisible. Thus they’d been cleaned but not entirely removed. Knox’s lamp in Meredith’s room, on the floor, even though there was already a lamp on the table, and a room light – how do you explain that?
      7. Amanda Knox – none of her fingerprints throughout the house even though she lived there.
      8. Knox herself said she did a load of washing, and crime scene photos show a rack for drying clothes in the passage opposite Meredith’s room,
      9. Knox explained herself using the bathmat to move to her room and back. {accidental clean-up}
      10. So Knox went into the house, went to the girl’s bathroom to see poop, but didn’t glance into Filomena’s room on a cold day, with the air coming through the broken window? Also she didn’t notice the broken window when she arrived, walking right past it as she entered the door?
      11. For someone who had to be begged to clean, why clean with a mop on that day of all days, and not even at her home? Why care about bathroom water on the floor, when her room was a mess, and when she found shit in the toilet, she didn’t instinctively flush it away?
      12. Patrick didn’t lose his livelihood because he was falsely accused, it’s the police’s fault…that explains just how off the wall your reasoning is. He had to go to Poland to start up his life again. The police responded to a false accusation; had he never been accused the police wouldn’t have acted.

      Liked by 1 person

      • 1. Was Rudy ever arrested for burglary? Was he convicted in this case, for murder and burglary, or just murder? Judge Micheli acquitted Guede of theft, suggesting that there had been no break-in.

        The reality is that Guede had a history of break-ins similar to that seen at the cottage. One week prior to the murder, Guede was caught breaking into a nursery school by the school’s owner, Maria Del Prato. Del Prato along with the two repairmen kept Guede at the nursery and called the police.

        When police searched Guede’s backpack they found a laptop and cell phone that had recently been stolen from a Perugian law office. The break-in at the law office was very similar to the break-in at the cottage. Guede entered through an second story window broken with a rock in both occasions. In the nursery school break-in, Guede was found in the possession of a large knife said to be stolen from the school’s kitchen. He was also in possession of a woman’s gold watch which tied him to another break-in occurring four days earlier. Guede’s break-in at the nursery no doubt made him a suspect in a previous burglary of the nursery in which cash had been stolen.

        2. If there was burglary, did insurance ever pay out in this particular case, and if so, for what?
        This is an asinine question. Rudy stole Meredith’s money (rent), credit cards, phone and her LIFE.

        3. Within seconds of the police arriving, they dismissed the burglary aspect, believing it to be staged. One reason for that was it seemed impossible that someone could hurl a large rock two stories through the air, and it seemed unlikely someone would climb into Filomena’s upstairs window, when there were better and more secluded alternatives.

        NONSENSE. It was not impossible. Rudy used the SAME method to gain entry to the law office. Filomena’s window was EASY access.

        4. Even Sollecito called the police and said in his emergency call nothing was stolen, and nothing belonging to Amanda, Filomena or Laura was stolen. So prior to discovering Meredith, what evidence was there that it was a burglary, in terms of theft of any of the other residents possessions.

        Another asinine question. Raffaele saw that someone had broken in. He mentioned the blood n the bathroom and that there was a locked door.

        5. Knox claims Meredith was raped. She wasn’t raped. You don’t refer to this whatsoever. Rudy Guede also was not convicted of rape but of sexual assault. There’s a difference.

        Semantics is how you people play this game. Rudy Guede’s DNA was found INSIDE Meredith, do you really believe Meredith was the type of girl to “fool around” with the likes of Rudy Guede? There also was semen found on a pillowcase between Meredith’s legs, for some reason the police claim they didn’t test it. Why do you think that is? Why were they protecting Rudy Guede?

        6. Of course there’s evidence of a clean up – a bloody footprint on a bathmat with no corresponding print on the tile. Knox says she showered, she cleaned herself up and removed a mop. She also scratched, according to her, a drop of Meredith’s blood with her fingernail. Plenty of crime scene photos show dilute blood – in other words, blood that appears pink or almost invisible, rather than bright red. One example, is the blood trail on the bathroom door. There were also plenty of towels in Meredith’s room covered in blood, and also towels in the washer. Also, Rudy had stood right inside the crime scene and then run out, and yet the shoeprints he left behind were invisible. Thus they’d been cleaned but not entirely removed. Knox’s lamp in Meredith’s room, on the floor, even though there was already a lamp on the table, and a room light – how do you explain that?

        There was NO evidence of a clean up. There were NO wipe marks. They WOULD have shown up when the police used luminol.
        Rudy Guede places HIMSELF in the bathroom. He cleaned himself up before he left the cottage, he said there was a lot of blood.
        The mop you talk about was tested and was negative for blood or forensic evidence.
        The blood Amanda Knox scratched on the faucet was HERS.
        Rudy said HE took the towels from the bathroom to try and stop Meredith’s bleeding.
        Clothes in the washer were tested and were negative for blood.
        Again, RUDY said the cleaned himself up. He cleaned most of the blood off his shoes but not all of it. The shoe prints were NOT invisible.
        Rudy Guede included the lamp in his story soon after he was arrested. Guede mentions a lamp in both his German prison diary and March 2008 deposition. He possibly used the lamp to light the room for the sexual assault or to search through Meredith’s purse instead having the wall light on which would have attracted attention to the room if someone came home. Meredith’s lamp was found on the floor next to her bedside table and Amanda’s lamp was found at the foot of the bed.

        7. Amanda Knox – none of her fingerprints throughout the house even though she lived there.

        The police fingerprint expert testified there was nothing unusual about that and there was so many prints in the house they didn’t bother photographing a lot of them.

        Testimony of Agatino Giunta, Head of the Fingerprinting Section of the Rome Scientific Policepage 211
        Massei: … Just a curiosity, seeing as you are the expert and so can provide an opinion about this discipline, in which you are a professional. The fact that in a house, in an apartment inhabited by Amanda Knox and samples that can be attributed to her are so few, indeed only one, is it possible to explain it? Can you interpret this fact?

        Giunta: Look your Honour, when we go to perform these inspections, we try, I mean we found more than 110/112 prints, consider that this is a significant amount, this quantity, among other things, it’s an even bigger quantity if you consider that many prints were not even recorded because as the fingerprint technician was viewing them, he didn’t even think it worth photographing them, because there were so many…

        Massei: It was a fact that should have been inserted in this situation.

        Giunta: So to clarify there can also be many other prints but maybe they are so badly formed, so smudged, so overlapping or even partial that we can’t… I mean, finding a print doesn’t mean that only one exists, maybe there will be also another 5 or 6, another 10 that we, however, didn’t consider. That one was matched however, so among the many that one was one of those that was utilized and matched because it was whole.

        8. Knox herself said she did a load of washing, and crime scene photos show a rack for drying clothes in the passage opposite Meredith’s room.

        Clothes in the washer were tested and were negative for blood.

        9. Knox explained herself using the bathmat to move to her room and back. {accidental clean-up}.
        Nothing was “cleaned” by that.

        10. So Knox went into the house, went to the girl’s bathroom to see poop, but didn’t glance into Filomena’s room on a cold day, with the air coming through the broken window? Also she didn’t notice the broken window when she arrived, walking right past it as she entered the door?

        The front door was open when Amanda came home, which would change the temperature of the house and would make it difficult to feel the open window in Filomena’s room. The door to Filomena’s room was closed. She didn’t go to the other bathroom until after she had showered to blow dry her hair.

        11. For someone who had to be begged to clean, why clean with a mop on that day of all days, and not even at her home? Why care about bathroom water on the floor, when her room was a mess, and when she found shit in the toilet, she didn’t instinctively flush it away?

        There was a leak under Raffaele’s kitchen sink. The older roommates testified that BOTH Amanda AND Merdith had to be reminded to clean.

        12. Patrick didn’t lose his livelihood because he was falsely accused, it’s the police’s fault…that explains just how off the wall your reasoning is. He had to go to Poland to start up his life again. The police responded to a false accusation; had he never been accused the police wouldn’t have acted.

        My reasoning is sound and logical. At the press conference after Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick were arrested, the head of police, Arturo De Felice stated:

        “She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her MOBILE PHONE records were crucial. Knox claims she was elsewhere has been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba fixing a meeting between them at 8:35 p.m. on the night Kercher died”

        It is CLEAR the POLICE believed Patrick was involved BECAUSE of the text message.

        Patrick lost his bar because the POICE kept his bar closed for MONTHS after his release. WHY do you think that was? WHY did the feel they need to have leverage over Patrick?

        You really don’t know shit about this case. It’s obvious that you used biased sites and sources that rely on lies.

        I suggest you find a new profession, you suck at this one.

        Like

    • You are incorrect. Guede had no previous convictions or cautions, unlike Knox and Sollecito. He has no convictions for burglary. The principal of the nursery in Milan confirmed he did not break in, but that a member of staff had provided access by telling him how to work the door which was open. The knife he was found with belonged to the nursery, thus, he was not in possession of a knife when he entered. He denied stealing it claiming police picked it up as part of his effects. Sollecito has an extensive knife collection and appears to have somewhat of a knife fetish. He is said to have once stabbed a girl with a pair of scissors in Bari.

      If you cannot even get basic information right, how are you able to form an informed opinion?

      Perhaps you are a hybistrophile?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Just on small correction: Knox didn’t ring Filomena ever, to tell her her window was broken. It was Filomena who rang her, frantic with worry. This was circa 12:35, coinciding with the arrival of the police, much to the surprise of the pair.

    Great analysis of Knox on Ray D’Arcy and her revision of history. The guff about Sollecito buying her perfume…It must have been L’Air du Beouf-Merde.

    Notice the way when D’Arcy asked, ‘What did you do ont he night of the murder?’ She brushed the question aside with, I was at my boyfriend’s all evening. Full stop. No elaboration. No explanation for Sollecito’s denial of this. We find in liars an explicit lack of detail in their lies.

    A lie is often preceded by a long rambling prelude (as in WTBH when the actual hours including the murder are completely skipped). So this is what we saw in her explanation for criminally accusing Lumumba. She just talked around it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • She did call Filomena at 12:08.

      In Sollecito’s book he describes Knox telling Filomena various things which alarmed Filomena, and so Filomena asked Knox to go back to the house immediately, and promised she would return home within the hour as well. Telling Filomena the front door was wide open when she arrived, meant precisely what?

      If you get a call from someone sharing your home saying I got home and the door was open, or I found this in the home, or blood, what is the mosaic meant to portray without actually saying it?

      In any event, I believe Knox did tell others she told Filomena about the burglary, and this caused her to urgently return home.

      Again, in Sollecito’s book he describes himself and Knox going through the entire house, and after discovering the break-in, and realising nothing was stolen, Filomena calls several times. He doesn’t mention that they told her there’s a break-in, so what – didn’t they?

      Instead Filomena, who is not home, has to tell them to be concerned about Meredith; where is she, find out where she is [because for both Knox and Sollecito, Meredith is the least of their concerns].

      In the scheme of things, the whole description is untrue anyway – Knox never *returned* home not sure what had happened, or whose blood it was. Clever story, and the burglary thing made a neat excuse for the fact that Meredith’s phones had been stolen and reported by someone else. That’s why the police were summoned, because of that call.

      Knox’s version as clever as it is, remains unlikely and odd, which is why she pretends to have found it odd and mysterious herself, and hands it over to Sollecito and everyone else to solve, in her version of the story. And then her confessions are unusual and odd as well, with her being literally the only person who can’t remember what she did the previous evening, or when.

      More in regards to cleaning/washing:

      Sollecito refers to Knox in his book as an idiot for standing on the bathmat despite it being covered in a bloody footprint. According to her, she used the bloody bathmat to travel to her room and back, even though it had a lot of blood on it.

      “The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday, November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to bring back dirty clothes to go back to my house.” And of course the washer was full of her clothes, and still on when the police arrived. So doesn’t it stand to reason if she said she moved her dirty clothes from A to B, and a full load of washing was in the washing machine, that she did washing around the same time Meredith was murdered? It’s quite a long time, between 9pm on November 1st, and 1pm the next day.

      How do you incriminate someone, but still leave the door open for yourself to say you didn’t? Easy, you play it both ways. You incriminate the person with details, and then you hedge it and say: but I could be confused. My mind came up with this, not me. It’s a little like saying my tongue said that, not me. In this statement, Knox confirms the details of the previous confession, thereby strengthening them, and confirms how doubtful she is about them, thereby strengthening her escape clause:

      KNOX: In regards to this “confession” that I made last night, I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the veritity [sic] of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn’t remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
      However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I’ve said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am convinced that they unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my mind has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked. But the truth is, I’m unsure about the truth and here’s why…

      If she was so unsure then,why say what she said in so much detail if not to plant a seed?

      Liked by 1 person

      • First and foremost, the police wrote the confessions, they are not Amanda’s words. It was what THEY believed happened. They also wrote it in Italian which Amanda could not read or write at that time.

        IF Amanda had been involved in this, why not just go on the trip that she and Raffaele planned? Why call Filomena? Why call the police?

        Those that think she is guilty say she was trying to control the situation which is just ludicrous.

        Like

  3. Dear old Innocent Fraudsters same old lies, Amanda wrote the confession herself. Look online and see her handwriting, the 53 hour and abuse is another lie. They ignore the supreme court and still go on about Guede the burglar, when its states he murdered Meredith with others.
    The so called trip conveniently forgotten in the haste to have a shower and wash clothes, remember the timing of Sollecito calls from his Dad, he missed calls and switched off his phone. He never did that he always spoke to his Dad, if they planned a trip it was quickly forgotten as they claimed to be up at 10am dismissed by computer activity.
    Nick has analysed this case, questioned Knox, Sollecito Guede narrative and found glaring problems when faced with evidence. His books are a breath of fresh air and his points about her profiteering from Merediths death relevant.
    Knox is a narcissist who fake victim hood disturbing, the interview was subtle if this happened to anyone else they would pay their debts and court fines and move on allowing Merediths family their memories and grief, no not Knox or Sollecito sick perverted people.

    Liked by 3 people

    • What utter nonsense. The people that are telling outright lies are people like you. Everything I write comes DIRECTLY from the court documents. They’re not my opinions, I don’t pass my OPINIONS off as facts.

      The court ignored the expert witnesses and ignored the actual evidence. Only ONE expert witness, (Professor Norelli, consultant to the Kercher family) argued there was multiple attackers. None of the other expert witnesses agreed with him. Dr Lalli, Dr Liviero, Professor Bacci and Professor Cingolani believed that there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on whether there was more than one attacker. Profs Torre and Introna unequivocally argued that Meredith was killed by a single assailant. So six out of seven experts either believed that there could have been only one attacker or that there was definitely only one attacker. NONE of the ACTUAL evidence points to more then one person being in Meredith’s room.

      This was a lie leaked to the media by the police/prosecutor. Amanda WAS NOT doing laundry. MEREDITH had clothes in the washer. Nothing in the washer had been worn at the time of her murder. Meredith had simply been doing laundry. Not only that the Postal Police did not say anything about the washing machine running when they arrived, at the trial.

      Nick merely writes LIES. He obviously uses the biased sites that have relied on lies and ridiculous personal opinions, for the last ten years.

      Amanda Knox is innocent. There is no evidence tying her to the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher.

      Like

      • No evidence
        how about the footprint on the pillow under Merediths body or the Knox hair found on Merediths hand, then there is the mixed DNA evidence in 6 locations including Filomenas room meaning that she washed off Merediths blood, then there is the knife with plenty of DNA. Then we come to all the changing narrative, the phone records, the staged burglary that only someone who wanted to deflect from a crime staged! then we have the locked bedroom who had the key. The footprints found in which means blood! going towards Filomenas room and the small bathroom. Guede hair found in Sollecito kitchen sponge weird that he had never been there
        Then we get to Meredith the bruising that matched the small finger tips of a woman and the lack of defensive wounds the evidence of a multiple attack who can restrain and knife someone at the same time
        The evidence as a whole, like the whole cottage is damning against Knox and Sollecito, the statements, the lack of alibi, the evidence of witnesses.

        but what is worse Knox was never found innocent and you continue to peddle the lies, apologist for a murderer. The lies have been exposed and Knox continues to profit from Merediths murder is simply repugnant and that people still go on defending her is disgusting.

        Liked by 3 people

    • That letter isn’t the “confessions” we’re talking about, Einstein.
      The 53 hours comes directly from the court documents, it is NOT a lie.
      The Supreme Court didn’t say Rudy murdered Meredith with others. They said Amanda Knox and Raffaele DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT.
      Amanda Knox went home to take a shower and change, they WERE going to go to Gubbio, they abandon their trip after the break-in was discovered and realized Meredith’s door was locked. Raffaele told police about the locked door and Meredith not answering her phone in the 112 call. Amanda WAS NOT doing laundry at that time. It was MEREDITH’S clothes in the washer.
      Raffael talked to his father the night of the murder. He DID NOT miss the phone call.
      Nick is a faudster and liar, much like most guilters.
      Like Nick, you don’t know jack sh*t about this case. You only know what the guilter sites claim, which is NOT based on facts but on personal opinions and long debunked lies.

      Like

  4. Amanda Knox won’t be disappearing anytime soon unfortunately. She has latched onto the “Me too” hiding the bulk of the case with a few media descriptives. She has attached herself to Asia Argento , comparing her plight to hers . Meredith was sexually assaulted and so too was Asia according to her account. Amanda is now blurring the lines as she joins the status of victim not physically raped but verbally .She pretends that they called her an adulterass and slut in court, when in fact these were her words. She is working all this into her new Vice show buoyed buy the current climate.
    When she wrote ” despite the evidence stacked against me” shortly after being arrested what was she referring to? Surely it wasn’t the outside kiss with Sollecito or the other slut shaming excuses she parades around now. What evidence was she worried about when she told her “best truth”?

    Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you for agreeing that there is more evidence against Amanda Knox than Rudy Guede. On your way out, please turn in your name badge and Burger King uniform to security. They will then escort you out of the building and off of the premises never to return again. Thank you for all of your help. You take care now.

        Like

  5. Note to Eve Kendall: There was a stain on the pillow under Meredith, but it could have been any number of fluids that shine under the fluoroscope, including Vaseline, as Sollecito himself volunteered “her body was covered in Vaseline”. His defense refused to demand the stain be tested at the appeal, since “they could have said it’s his”. Vinci arguing after the fact is too late.

    And, Knox signed her typed confession taken from notes, and you forget her handwritten ‘memoriale’.

    Liked by 4 people

    • You are so full of crap. The defense DID request the semen stain be tested but the prosecution and Francesco Maresca (the Kercher family attorney) REFUSED requests to have it tested.

      Lead Detective Monica Napoleoni testified Guede’s DNA was found on the pillow yet according to Patrizia Stefanoni it wasn’t tested. (p25 Transcript February 28, 2009)

      Question: Listen do you know the results from Scientific Police, more or less obviously, not in detail because then we’ll ask them. I wanted to ask you if you remember on which exhibits the DNA of Rudy Guede was found
      Answer: Well, for sure the DNA of Rudy Guede, it was found on the pillow that was under the victim, on the toilet paper with the feces in the bathroom and on the vaginal swab but I don’t know if it was DNA however they call it Y-chromosome and I’m not a biologist, I’m not able to report on this.

      Like

      • You know nothing about law. The defence should have made an application to the COURT to have the stain tested, not the other party. It was only once the trial was safely out of the way and the pair found guilty by a court of law, did the defence make an application, which of course the judge dismissed, as (a) it was not new evidence, should have been presented with all the other evidence *during the trial*, (b) it had no reasonable prospect of success in changing the verdict, as whatever stain it was, would not reveal it occurred as of the time of the crime. In other words, (c) it was not material.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. As to so many people having “authored” Knox’s experience, either she wrote her own book, or is slamming Linda Kuhlman for cutting it own to size? Or that no one else can write about the case, or set up a Wiki (which she had to copy afterwards, and ‘borrow’ documents from, and translate terms never found in the original Italian judgements)?

    Liked by 2 people

  7. The site you reference uses corrected testimony and outright lies. The police DID in fact suggest Patrick because of the text message. It is clear by their own words in the press conference:

    “She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her MOBILE PHONE records were crucial. Knox claims she was elsewhere has been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba fixing a meeting between them at 8:35 p.m. on the night Kercher died”

    Like

    • When the police said “she told us what we already knew” they were pointing to the new information given by Sollecito that Amanda had gone out. After just learning she had gone out they asked to see her phone. In regard to the text they asked who who it was from. She provided the name Patrick by her own admission.
      Amanda talks about her negative reaction to hearing Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi. This was the obvious catalyst for naming Patrick.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Have you ever been accused of murder? And have you ever accused someone else of murder? Amanda Knox can answer yes to both, and also yes to being convicted twice for murder – not just her but her boyfriend and another acquaintance she knew.
      Furthermore, all the British girls and every other resident of the villa had an alibi. Their innocence was established and verified virtually immediately. The fact that Knox had no alibi, and neither did
      Sollecito was damning, as were eye witness reports that placed them outside near the scene. The fact that Knox had only one alibi – Sollecito – and Sollecito only one alibi, Knox, at the time of the crime and in the hours afterward is also damning. Actually, even Sollecito cut Knox loose until he realised without her, he didn’t have an alibi either. Rudi Guede in his Skype chat indicated he’d had an encounter in the villa at the crime scene right after the murder with an Italian man wielding a knife ( Sollecito was a knife freak) and a foreign woman matching Knox’s description. Bottomline, if there was no case how did they get convicted twice? Why was Meredith’s blood found in Sollecito’s apartment if Meredith had never gone there, and Sollecito’s DNA in Meredith’s room? Why did both Knox and Sollecito turn their phones off that night – for the first time?They’d never done that before. Why was there so little salvageable compter evidence – oh that’s right, Sollecito was studying computer science at the time. Why did Sollecito and Knox say they slept in, until 10, when a shopkeeper saw Knox waiting for him to open his store then head to the cleaning products section, and Sollecito’s computer showed someone listening to American music between 05:30 and 06:00? And who stole Meredith’s rent money, and who would know to steal it? Knox’s bank records show she was withdrawing the maximum every 3-4 days, week after week. Patrick had also halved her shifts and was about to fire her and hire Meredith. Another thing – Knox’s course was ending and Meredith was in a much more prestigious course with her friends, than Knox who was on the outs. Outclassed in every way by Meredith except her talent for mendacity – a skill most drug addicts develop over time. Why did Knox call herself Foxy Knoxy on her MySpace page in 2007. That’s not what she told Ray D’Arcy in 2018. She said it was an artefact of playing soccer as a junior, not that she actually took on the identity herself in social media. Why withhold such information? Because it’s damning!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Frontline’s “The Confessions” (PBS 2010)

    “Eight men charged. Five confessions. But only one DNA match. Why would four innocent men confess to a brutal crime they didn’t commit?”

    Compelling viewing, and any who haven’t seen this can watch it free here [requires Adobe Flash]. Similarities to Knox case are striking; a young woman is raped and murdered in her bedroom and forensic evidence indicates only one assailant. The sailor living down the hall breaks under interrogation and confesses, but his DNA doesn’t match. Rather than admit the mistake, investigators assume he must have had an accomplice, and get him to finger one. The second sailor also cracks and confesses, but his DNA doesn’t match either, and he is compelled to finger yet another accomplice who … etc.

    The real killer was a serial rapist not in the Navy. When arrested for an unrelated assault, he has nothing to lose and decently informs investigators that all eight accused sailors are innocent. “They didn’t want to hear it,” he says. The four convicted sailors were eventually pardoned but not acquitted; although free, their status as convicted murderers is unchanged, and investigators (unrepentant) are spared the embarrassment of admitting a mistake.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

    Like

    • That’s what’s known as a logical fallacy. The one that goes, ‘Aristotle was a man’, therefore, runs to false logic, ‘All men are Aristotle’.

      Just because seven sailors were mistakenly suspected of rape and murder, it doesn’t follow, ‘the persons suspected and convicted of the aggravated murder of Meredith Kercher were done so mistakenly.’

      Whoops! That lets off Rudy Guede. Back to the drawing board.

      Liked by 2 people

      • KrissyG1,

        I studied logic in college and am unaware of the fallacy to which you refer. I think the syllogism you intend is —
        All men are mortal
        Aristotle is a man
        Aristotle is mortal
        It is valid but irrelevant as I made no logical argument. Your example “since the Norfolk Four are innocent Amanda must be innocent” is not something I would post.

        The Norfolk Four incident shows that even hardened professional sailors with military training can be broken within a few hours and manipulated to either confess to murder or falsely accuse another. The interrogator in the video boasts he can get anyone to confess to anything in two hours.

        Like Amanda, the first sailor interrogated was not under arrest. He happened to be the victim’s neighbor and was asked if he would come to the station to answer a few questions. Like Amanda, he wanted to be helpful. He phoned friends with whom he had dinner plans and said he might be a little late. He never showed up.

        After seeing in this video of what a trained investigator accomplished again and again in a series of taped interrogations of hardened sailors, the result of an untaped interrogation of a twenty year old girl in Perugia looks unremarkable.

        Interrogation techniques that bring the guilty to confess are valuable. Techniques that can make anyone to confess to anything are worthless because we still cannot tell the guilty from the innocent.

        Like

    • You miss the obvious point Knox didn’t confess to the crime but rather, accused an innocent man. She knew by that time her alibi had been retracted by her boyfriend and had to think quickly, I guess. You really have to stretch the psychology of false confessions to apply them to Knox.

      Liked by 2 people

      • This situation is in contradiction with the applicant’s immediate subsequent detention {that is, after the interrogation}, {since the applicant} had just been treated with a maternal attitude and kind affection. This course of events certainly created some embarrassment, at least for the person concerned, {and} which should have been avoided (…) in order to safeguard the [applicant’s] dignity (…), as well as her personal freedom, as a fundamental and inviolable right of the person, which constitutes an aspect … of fundamental human rights. (…)In the Knox v. Italy Communication of April, 2016, a section numbered 2.

        The complaint lodged with the November 5th questioning didn’t involve 12 tag team cops , rather Ficarra, Donnino and Ivan who showed “maternal attitude and kind affection”
        Also included in another passage particular regarding the behavior not required and at least atypical of [two interpreters] and one of the police officers [some having taken familiar attitudes tending to create empathy with the applicant and the other having taken her hand in hand . So the complaint was Donnino and the Ivan were too empathetic and should have remained neutral. Where was the psychological torture ? Ivan who fluent in English held her hand. Donnino was too motherly.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. Questions for Knox
    1 why did you switch your phone off when you never normally
    2 why did you say Meredith locked her room all the time when this was not truthful
    3 Why was the washing machine on and still warm at 1pm
    4 Why did you tell Filomena that you were at Raffaelle when you were not
    5 why did you assume that your flatmates were taking out rubbish when you found the open door as they were not there
    6 why did you not call the Police when asked by Filomena
    7 why did you not call Meredith when you found the open door, when you and Raffaelle checked for missing items, when you noticed a locked door, when you could not see in her room, when you noticed blood, when you saw the shit in the toilet
    8 why was there no fingerprints of yours in the cottage
    9 why did you assume blood in the small bathroom was menstrual
    10. why did you need a mop for a leaking pipe when Raffaelle had a cleaner
    11, why did you forget if you had sex in less than 12 hours
    12 why did you say blood in Raffalle flat was caused by fish
    13. when going on a trip why did you leave a warm flat for a cold cottage for a shower with no towels when you had a shower the previous evening
    14, why were you spending more than you could afford
    15 why were you taking drugs
    16 why would your lamp be in Merediths bedroom when there was good lighting
    17 why would you know that Meredith had been sexually assaulted before the autopsy report was known to the police
    18 why would you accuse the police of brutality when you were treated kindly and there voluntarily
    19 why would kiss your boyfriend at the Police station in front of grieving friends
    20 why would you shout that Meredith died slowly fucking bleed to death in front of grieving friends

    finally why did you accuse the innocent black man, are you a racist,

    all these questions Knox was found guilty twice and that will never change

    Liked by 1 person

    • penny mccartney —

      If there is no physical evidence of a person the the murder room, and abundant evidence (fingerprints, footprints, DNA) of another person, questions like “why did you switch off the phone” or “why did you kiss your boyfriend in the police station” are silly. Such questions assume you have physical evidence that Amanda was present in the murder room. It was near impossible to be involved in that bloody struggle and leave no trace. There’s abundant evidence Amanda lived in the apartment but that’s it. You can’t convict somebody of murder for turning off their phone or kissing a boyfriend. She wasn’t in the room.

      Like

      • Why did Amanda need to invent a morning shower discovery story? The SC found it unbelievable so what was the purpose? As far as not being in the room what about the mixed sample of Meredith’s blood and Amanda’s dna was found in two random spots in room with the fake breakin. It is very telling that you mention the kiss outside the cottage. This seems to be a strategy of Amanda Knox supporters to keep focus on something meaningless. This wasn’t why she was charged with the crime.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Something no one seems to be talking about:

    Amanda Knox previously staged a burglary. http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/amanda-knox-admits-staging-burglary_files/8660316.jpg
    So why wouldn’t she stage a sexual assault too? If a woman is the main suspect in the murder of another woman, and wishes to escape suspicion, what better way than to repeatedly invoke a burglar [from outside the house, not the only other person at home at that time], who is also a rapist [and thus male].
    We know for a fact that there wasn’t a burglary, and the sexual assault was – with respect – the least of Meredith’s wounds. She wasn’t violated or bruised vaginally. In fact the sexual dimension appears to be the most “tender” aspect of the entire torture-torment-attack. Did the rapist really go to all the effort to break in, subdue Meredith, torture her and then forget to do the most important thing of all – actually burgle and rape?
    If there was a rape, why wasn’t it the sexual act performed to completion as the defecating and murder and covering with the blanket, removal of keys, phones and locking the door was done to completion?
    Hence I submit the so-called sexual assault was made post mortem, with the same delicate care as the selective cleaning by the light of a reading lamp, of the crime scene.
    We also know for a fact that Meredith’s bra was removed after her murder. We know this because the skin under the bra had no blood on it, and yet the bra was covered in blood. How many rapes occur where the victims clothing is removed after the “rapist” exits the scene?
    Meredith was found under the blanket in a spreadeagled position, with her legs wide open. Her body had been moved into that position from the position she was in when she was stabbed in the throat. This position was staged in order to scream out – I was raped!
    The staging of the burglary is echoed throughout this case – staged rape, staged murderer [Patrick], staging the police interrogation as the actual crime, staging the Italian legal system as illegal, Knox staging herself as the actual victim who can’t speak Italian, Knox appearing in court firstly staging herself as a goofball [and found guilty], during her first appeal she then had a hair cut and staged herself [as did Sollecito] as a well-dressed, respectful, well-brought up, well-educated university student, Knox years after the fact staging herself as part of the #MeToo movement.
    In keeping with the staging theme, Knox – in her own words – loved to be the center of attention, thus taking to her own stage to sing, do yoga, use various accents, no matter where she was – at the villa, in court, in reading her book, at the police station waiting to be heard etc etc. Knox got what she wanted by going to Perugia – the significance of everyone watching her, and her then performing. She is still the same person then as she is now.

    Like

    • Nick,
      RE: “Amanda Knox previously staged a burglary.” Surely know know this was a college prank two roommates played on another for fun in Seattle. Nobody called police or attempted to collect insurance on stolen items. For you to call it a “previous staged burglary” is disingenuous and vindictive. KrissyG1 will back me on this one. Her above post suggests she will consider your comment a “logical fallacy”.

      Like

      • Would you be happy if it were rephrased according to the original?
        “Knox once got a bunch of her friends to dress up in ski masks and break into her apartment and assault her roomates as an “april fools” joke. She’s guilty and fucking nuts”.
        Posted by Joh | December 2, 2007 2:50 PM
        THE STRANGER Post #15 https://slog.thestranger.com/2007/12/end_of_an_affair

        Michael of PMF.net: ‘Joh’ was contacted by PMF Administrator Skeptical Bystander over a year ago and he confirmed the incident. The story came from a friend of his who lived in the student house in Seattle with Amanda Knox, the same student house incidentally where the infamous ‘rock throwing party’ for which Knox was fined took place. However, neither Joh or his friend wanted to come forward to the authorities with their story or go on official record, so it is a case of make of it what you will. It therefore does not form any of the official evidence against the suspects in the ILE file and will not be heard in trial or appeals.
        (They didn’t come forward because the university administration came down hard on the student body and told them not to speak to media otherwise, consequences).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Manfromatlan,

        Apparently there were two incidents. What you describe is a robbery and assault —

        “Knox once got a bunch of her friends to dress up in ski masks and break into her apartment and assault her roomates as an “april fools” joke. She’s guilty and fucking nuts”.

        While TJMK quotes a staged burglary rather than robbery …

        “She admitted that the hazing prank, played on her flat-mates at the University of Washington, involved messing up the flat and hiding things to make it appear as if items had been stolen. Knox used ‘mutual friends’ of her other housemates to help fake the burglary in her own premises. She acknowledges that it caused ‘distress’ to her housemates and she and her accomplices had to apologise for the act…”

        I don’t know if you attended college but that sort of horseplay happened all the time when I was at Notre Dame and then UCLA. Again it is disingenuous and vindictive to pretend Seattle undergraduate horseplay is evidence of murder in Perugia. It is the same as the things Penny lists – shutting off her phone, or kissing her boyfriend in a police station.

        She wasn’t in the murder room.

        Nobody could have participated in that struggle without leaving some trace. Rudy Guede left fingerprints, footprints, and DNA. For Knox, Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba there is nothing. They were not there.

        Like

  11. Good questions, everything about that room felt staged, they moved Meredith, why would Guede move her from the front of the Wardrobe, lay her on a sheet and pillow under her bottom, remove her clothes, and then position her, then wrap her in a duvet, then empty her handbag, throw receipts on her body, take mobiles and then carefully lock the room. How can one person lift a dead weight and position her on a sheet and pillow. Then the burglar left all the valuable possessions except 2 mobile phones, there were expensive laptops, no sense at all. Even the clothes being removed, Guede DNA was on the sweatshirt sleeve, DNA from Sollecito and Knox on the bra strap, they rolled up her t shirt but removed bra and pants, all rather odd for a supposed rape and burglary.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The real question is the one Judge Hellmann raised in his acquittal motivation. Why would Knox go to the trouble to clean up the crime scene to remove evidence of herself, stage a break-in to show how Rudy entered without a key, and — having gone to such extraordinary effort to remove herself from the scene — then walk into a police station and say she had been there after all with Patrick?

      This conundrum did not bother Mignini, who convicted her of both.

      Liked by 1 person

      • she lost her alibi, panic set in, she never claimed to have murdered Meredith only in her dream as this is what she said she was in the kitchen and heard a scream so piercing that she covered her ears, she blamed the black guy, she knew that Guede was at the scene but deflected it on to Patrick she knew that Guede knew the truth, not that he ever really told the truth.
        I do not think that Knox cleaned up the crime scene Sollecito was known for being a fanatic about cleaning, she was not known for cleaning, she probably helped as directed by her boyfriend, they missed bits, there was a lot of blood, they probably focused on footprints, door knobs, surfaces as there was no fingerprints ( this is all guess work) Guede footprints were still slightly visible, Sollecito footprint was on the bathroom mat, they should have put that in the washing machine, Knox footprint was on the pillow which was hidden under the body, it was not that good because they left quite a bit

        Liked by 3 people

      • Why would Knox do that – because having set up her maze, when it didn’t work, and now she needed a plan B. If Hellman was an experienced criminal law judge instead of civil law, he would have seen through the ruse.

        I do notice – your comments here are intended, just like the defense strategy at trial, to expand the debate wider and wider in a deliberate effort to dilute the argument and confuse the audience. Just keep raising a new question, endlessly. Just raise as many doubts as you can, and dodge all specific questions and specific facts. The DNA experts in the Hellman case were a joke, and the entire first appeal revolved around what they said about two pieces of DNA. They whined about forensic procedures, only to have their own mortuary-lab closed down for chronic failures of due diligence.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Amanda was caught off guard at the station. She was happily talking about Germany with Donnino and making a list of all visitors to the cottage. Enter Ficarra or she was overheard saying that Sollecito had just withdrawn her alibi in the next room. Amanda had no idea what else Sollecito might tell. When they looked at her phone and told her they now knew she went out she fingered Patrick. A quick thinking Knox made herself just a witness and steered the cops away from another , Guede, Guede who could implicate her presence at the cottage that night.

        Liked by 3 people

  12. Penny —
    Judge Hellmann wrote that if Amanda had been at the murder scene, she would have known Patrick was not, and if not was either at the bar or at home with his family. She would also have known Rudy Guede was the killer. Why would she finger Patrick, who she knew had an alibi, rather than the real killer?
    Hellman concluded that Amanda’s false accusation of Patrick was evidence she had no idea what happened in her apartment the night of the murder.

    Like

    • How come Amanda accused a black man, and ultimately, a black man’s DNA was found throughout the crime scene? Just dumb luck? How come her first useful remarks to the cops were about shit in a toilet, shit that, as it turned out, did belong to a third party who was involved in the crime scene. Of all the things to comment on, Knox chose the one thing that didn’t implicate her. Just dumb luck again?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Nick,

        RE: “How come Amanda accused a black man, and ultimately, a black man’s DNA was found throughout the crime scene? Just dumb luck?” There was a 9/11 Coincidence Expert who used to post against Knox and may help you with this. If you can’t find him, ManfromAtlan is a psychic.

        You are extremely vindictive for an allegedly expert crime investigator.

        Amanda Knox was not in the murder room. She didn’t do it.

        Rudy Guede’s prints, DNA, and footprints were there and he admits being in the room. He accuses Amanda and Raffaele but no similar damning evidence exists for them.

        Like

  13. Nick,

    RE: “Why would Knox do that – because having set up her maze, when it didn’t work, and now she needed a plan B. If Hellman was an experienced criminal law judge instead of civil law, he would have seen through the ruse.”

    This is not rocket science and you need to think your ideas through a little better before posting. Amanda’s Plan B — if she had been involved — would have been to accuse Rudy Guede. She didn’t do this because she wasn’t there and didn’t know Rudy had even been in the apartment.

    Police were persuaded by a text from Patrick on her phone that she met up with him around the time of the murder. This is what they got her to confess to in an abusive interrogation. Though police pretend to have misplaced the interrogation tape, it is obvious from the declaration she wrote immediately afterward that she is confused and frightened of them:

    “In regards to this ‘confession’ that I made last night, I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told that I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn’t remember a fact correctly. … Please don’t yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn’t help anyone.”

    There is no trace of Amanda in the murder room. She wasn’t there. She did not know Rudy killed Meredith.

    Like

  14. Nick,

    I had nothing to with that Knox Haters link you posted.

    Nor does anything there justify your passing the vitriol along in attacking Knox. A writer or journalist should take pride in their work. You’re putting your name out there in a way that does not make you look good.

    Like

  15. You can not argue that Knox presence was not in the murder room, none of her fingerprints was in the cottage except a glass, yet she lived there, Guede DNA was everywhere and collected in the same way as Knox and Sollecito was, yet it is not evidence due process applies to all. DNA of Knox was found on a bra strap alongside Sollecito, evidence of hair, evidence of a bruising on Meredith and then the footprint on the pillow. Then there is the knife, no Guede DNA on any knife, so does that mean he did not stab Meredith. The cottage was a crime scene mixed DNA in 5 places is damning means that she came into contact with Merediths blood, Filomenas room had evidence I know the response but she lived there. Then answer this Sollecito used his car every day and there was no DNA in the car. For me guilt comes from a range of facts, not just DNA in Merediths bedroom.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Good point – Knox’s DNA was also found on Meredith’s bra clasp and tiny traces of her blood and Meredith’s on the murder weapon in Sollecito’s apartment. That’s far more forensic evidence than was found in the Scott Peterson case. In that case, a single hair of Laci’s found in a pair of needle-nose pliers in a boat no one except Scott knew about, and same boat used to dump her body as it turned out, was extremely damning. The bra clasp and the knife, and where both of these objects were found was also extremely damning. This wasn’t just evidence it was smoking gun evidence.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. This is pretty close to what happened when Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede all killed Meredith Kercher RIP:

    The Murder of M – A Screenplay By Marie Pace

    STARRING: FONZI AND MARIA AND A WOMAN NAMED M

    One night Fonzi found his girlfriend wearing M’s earrings and trying on her jeans. Wearing her br@. Maria was laughing behind M’s back, dancing around in her boots. She was mocking her roommate.

    She whispered to Fonzi, “I’ve taken her rent money. That’ll show her how far scholarship $$ goes. They don’t tip well at La Chick bar where I pretend to be a waitress. I got expenses.”

    Suddenly the door opens. M returns from a vanilla flavored party among quiet friends to find Fonzi and Maria high on Exta-sea, c0ke and vodka. M can’t breathe, too much smoke in the room. Maria is wearing fingerless gloves and drinking straight from the vodka bottle.

    “What’s going on here?!” screams M.

    “Where’s the stuff I had drying on the rack? Why’s it all over the floor. You stepped on it. Why are you wearing Molly’s makeup and glasses, did you play on her bed? This place is a wreck.
    What have you two been doing on my bed?
    Have you been in my bedroom?!?!?! aarggghhh
    Put on some clothes, Maria. You’re always parading around here half n@ked.”

    “Hey, are those my jeans? What the freak, are you wearing my stuff? How dare you. Give them back right now. This is ridiculous. Dr@gz, booze, you slam the door every night at 3 a.m. when you come home from the bar. Molly has complained. She has to work. You don’t care about anybody around here except yourself.”

    “And always trading your men. These guys are going to rob us blind. I didn’t sign up for this. Molly’s got your momâ’s contact number, I’m going to call her if you’ve taken my stuff. I think you took my jewelry two weeks ago but I didn’t say anything. I thought we were friends.
    And your c0ke binge last week, when you came over here in middle of night making noise for hours then left again, two nights in a row, we didn’t sleep, you’re not who we thought you were. You’re a fake, you’re not a serious student.”

    “You’re going to get Laura and Molly and all of us in trouble. I’ve had enough. I’ve got to study, please shut up and party elsewhere tonight.
    Don’t you live over at Fonzi’s now? We never know where you are, and please tell Rudy to go and never allow him back here. Silenzi told me about him. He’s bad news. Rudy told Silenzi a lot of stuff, he was bragging to him and to the guys downstairs about how he’s so tough.
    And Silenzi said you were coming on to him, but he shut you down. Some friend you are…”

    “…does Fonzi know how close you are with Rudy? for dr@gz? that’s sick! Your boyfriend, is that what you call Fonzi? Fonzi looks pretty wasted. Gee, Maria, classy.”

    M. goes into her bedroom.

    “You dared to mess up my bedroom, you weren’t even allowed in here! I can’t believe this. You’ve broken my stuff, my books, ruined my textbooks, you’ve torn out pages, why?? What else have you taken? Omigosh, my money. Where’s my money!?!?!?”

    “Two weeks ago you told me you were stealing liquor from Patrick and overcharging for drinks, keeping the extra, he’d never miss it, I warned you to stop.”

    “Nobody trusts you anymore. You stole 2 of Silenzi’s plants, did you smoke them? He’ll be mad at me. I was going to tell my dad and brothers, but if you don’t give back my money right now I’m calling the police. Right now, I mean it. Forget about coming to London with me this Christmas, we’re through.”

    Maria: “No wait, wait, you’ve got it all wrong, maybe Rudy’s got your money, hold on, don’t do anything stupid. We’ll get it straight.
    Guede laughs and kicks back on kitchen bench, grabs some juice, keeps smoking his h@s.h. Fonzi gets nervous, paces but st0n3d.”

    M: “Get out of here, you don’t live here! (to Guede, who’s making barking sounds).”

    Maria: “Oh he’s our guest, be polite. Why you such a b.u.z.z.kill?”

    M: “zip it”

    Maria: “We didn’t take your money, we were just making pizza, slice the mushrooms Fonz.”

    M: “I’m telling Laura about this tomorrow, and Molly, you’re making life hell around here, you’re a thief, start looking for a new roommate fast you dr@gg3d up tart.”

    Maria: “What did you call me?”

    Grabbing her phone, M. runs to her bedroom, begins to make calls. Door slam.

    A few seconds later they kick it, yelling

    Maria: here’s your money.
    M lets them in, extremely angry, but she faces a knife in Maria’s jealous hand.
    She slaps it out starting Maria’s nose to bleed.
    The fight begins. M scratches Maria’s neck with a c clamp choke.
    Maria breaks the choke and yells to her guy friends for help.
    the wolfpack circles.

    The End

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s