I read the Amanda Knox memoir so you don’t have to


My favorite impression of Italy comes from my college roommate, who broke her arm there over winter break in our senior year. Although she returned to New York in high spirits, and ultimately no worse for wear, it was with a humongous cast, the kind of heavy, awkward creation that looked like it came out of a 1950s sitcom, or like she broke her arm playing football with Charlie Brown. Granted, Alyce approached our final semester gamely—I have inspiring photos of her in full costume/party attire/dance regalia carrying that monstrosity of a cast—but I remember thinking at the time, “Note to self: Never let anything bad happen to you in Italy.”

And so it was with this in mind that I approached Waiting to Be Heard, the memoir for which Amanda Knox received a reported $4 million. (Admittedly, I also suspected it would make for an entertaining blog post.)

If you’ve been living under a rock—a rock with no access to Nancy Grace or the Huffington Post—Knox, better known as “Foxy Knoxy,” was charged with the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, a British student killed while the two lived together during Knox’s semester abroad in Perugia, Italy. The case, as presented by the prosecution, is a story of sexcapades gone wrong: Knox is said to have tried to initiate some sort of orgy/Satanic sex ritual with Kercher, accompanied by her (Knox’s) boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and acquaintance Rudy Guede. When Kercher refused to participate in said sexcapade, Guede raped her, and then Raffaele and Guede held her down while Knox slashed her throat. Knox then returned to her boyfriend’s apartment, woke up the next morning, and “discovered” the body upon returning to her flat.

Rudy Guede
Rudy Guede

Knox and Sollecito were convicted by an Italian court in 2009, after having been in custody since 2007. Each served an additional two years in prison before their convictions were overturned in 2011, primarily because of dubious practices on the part of the police and the prosecution. In March of this year, the Italian Supreme Court overturned that overturning, though it remains to be seen if Knox would return to Italy for a retrial. In the meantime, Guede is serving a 16-year-sentence after his DNA was found at the crime scene, on and inside Kercher’s body.

I suspect that the vast majority of people who paid attention to the Knox case won’t read her memoir—it does clock in at nearly 500 pages, and much of the content would be repetitive to those already familiar with the proceedings. But Knox goes to great lengths to clarify elements of her story that are often cited as evidence of her guilt, including her use of drugs, confusion during interrogation, refusal to leave Italy after the murder, and alleged sexual deviancy. WTBH may be redundant for the Knox aficionado, but it’s nothing if not thorough.

There remains a great deal of confusion surrounding the scientific aspects of Knox’s case—experts disagree about whether DNA found on the edge of a knife belonging to Sollecito matched Kercher’s, or DNA found on a piece of Kercher’s bra was Sollecito’s. Moreover, the vast majority of solid evidence was collected poorly, or weeks after the murder took place. To these accusations, Knox maintains a constant “impossible,” and so much of WTBH is instead focused on the elements of the case that have to do with her character. They are as follows:

1. Knox as Sex Fiend. There’s an excellent op-ed in the New York Times this week by Frank Bruni (of Born Round fame) that discusses the double-standard applied to women when talking about sex and sexual history. For the most part, Knox was painted as something of sexpot during her trial, a claim backed up by the following information: 1) She had a few one-night stands, one of which resulted in her contracting oral herpes 2) She brought a vibrator with her to Italy, which she kept in a clear makeup case in the bathroom 3) In the days after the murder, she was seen buying underwear with Sollecito.

I’m sorry, are we not in the 21st century? Was Knox not a college student? Did this not all occur in a country whose men have a reputation for being just this side of skeevy? As a fellow 20-something, I couldn’t help but read WTBH and imagine the kind of stuff that might get dredged up as evidence of my own (nonexistent) sexual deviance. At the very least, there are some photos I’d want to untag.

2. Knox as Drug Addict. Since Knox admits that she and Raffaele had smoked hash on the night of Kercher’s murder, much has been made of the “drug-fueled” nature of their alleged crimes. To this again I say: Whaa? I’ve heard stories from friends of “wild” nights on hash, most of which end with “and then I fell asleep,” not “and then I tried to initiate Satanic sex and violently murdered someone.” Sure, Knox’s confession that marijuana “was as common around our house as pasta” might raise a few eyebrows, but come on. Come on. Pot? If anything, the defense should have used this as evidence in Knox’s favor. If Amanda smoked as often as she says she did, there’s no way she was getting high enough to go all blackout-murderous-rage on anyone. More importantly, on the list of “best activities to do high,” murder comes wayyyy below staying in and watching a movie. Murder takes so much effort.

Knox and Sollecito
Knox and Sollecito

3. Knox as Total Weirdo. Perhaps the most important thing working against Knox during her investigation and conviction was her behavior. She didn’t return to the States after Kercher’s body was found, suggesting in the book that it was because she wanted to stay and be of help to the police (not evidence of her indifference towards the murder). She didn’t show a lot of emotion during interrogations, she hung all over her boyfriend, and she made a few awkward jokes in the presence of police and investigators. All told, she came across as kind of a weirdo, and ambivalent about the fact that a heinous crime had been committed just a few doors away from her bedroom. (Btw, a lot of this boils down to inane he-said-she-said stuff. For example, much was of made of Knox “doing cartwheels” in the police station while waiting to be questioned. Knox claims she was having a conversation with a guard about yoga, and showed him she could do the splits when he asked.)

In her book, and in an interview with Diane Sawyer that aired last week, Knox points out that different people react to tragedy in different ways, and that her difficulty expressing emotion (in a country that prizes it) doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. I have to say that I’m kind of Team Knox here. Sure, I’d like to believe that in the face of a violent crime I’d be all sobby hiccups and runny mascara, or that I’d feel compelled to stop living my daily life, but really, who knows? Knox appears to be more outraged by the murder than saddened by it, and considering she’d known Kercher just a few months, that frankly doesn’t seem entirely crazy.

But just so I don’t come across as a total Knox apologist, I should mention that there are definitely parts of her story that don’t jibe, or are at the very least hard to accept. At one point during her interrogation, Knox changes her testimony, saying that it’s possible she was at the flat that evening, and that she has vague memories of meeting up with her boss Patrick, who she thereby implicated in the murder (Knox was later convicted of callunia—basically Italian slander—and forced to pay Patrick 22,000 euros. Slander is also the reason WTBH wasn’t published in the UK, as she accuses police of treating her poorly during the investigation).

No matter how much duress Knox claims to have been under—days of interrogation with no lawyer and little sleep, being questioned primarily in her non-native language—I find it hard to imagine feeling compelled to change my story so dramatically. In WTBH, Knox says she was fatigued, confused and desperate to stop being yelled at. (She also tracks down an expert on false confessions to back up her mistake.) Knox essentially claims the police strong-armed her into imagining the incriminating scenario, and says she spent the subsequent days telling anyone and everyone who would listen that she wanted to recant. A dubious chain of events, to say the least. I also don’t know that it would have taken me nearly as long as it did Knox to realize that I was a suspect in the investigation, or to ask for a lawyer. I watch alot of Law & Order; I know how these things works.

There’s no question that Knox was naive, and in many moments immature. She made a lot of stupid decisions before the murder, and a lot of tone-deaf decisions during the investigation and trial. Even in the book, she comes across as unaware of others’ perception of her, and many of her attempts at self-preservation/self-sufficiency read as aloof. She seems, overall, like a girl wholly unprepared to face public scrutiny. But in reading WTBH, it’s hard to make the leap from “weird and insensitive” to “psychopathic killer.”

Knox's boss Patrick.
Knox’s boss Patrick

Indeed, after spending last night in a culminating k-hole of Knox coverage online, I still find myself believing in her innocence. Not rabidly, but by default, because I can’t seem to get convinced by the evidence against her. Using the Occam’s Razor test—the simplest answer is usually the right one—this case could go either way: It’s true that murders are usually committed by people close to the victim, and it’s true that Knox knew Meredith Kercher better than most. But murders are not usually committed by normal college students from Seattle, or by potheads, or by women. I’d also like to think that if Foxy Knoxy were as cold-blooded and analytical as the prosecution/press seems to think, she might have done a slightly less half-assed job of cleaning up after the crime.

Of course, I fully accept the possibility that I’ve been duped, swayed by Knox’s clear-headed (and generally okay) writing. Because WTBH is just that, focused and direct, characteristics that make it a decent testimony but at times a tedious and plodding book. WTBH feels like a pent-up exhalation of breath, a long-winded anecdote whose details would seem pointless if so many of them weren’t ultimately brought up during her trial. The book is banal but never terrible, and at its most interesting when Knox documents her time in Italian prison.

I can’t say that Knox comes across as the nicest person (certainly not the smartest) or that she doesn’t bear responsibility for how convoluted the Kercher investigation became. And I certainly think it’s deplorable that she implicated someone innocent, stress-induced hallucinations or not. But in writing WTBH, Knox accomplishes what I imagine she set out to do: Presenting her side of the story, and countering 95% of the claims made against her. If she is a psychopath—which I suppose she’d have to be, if she were guilty—then she’s a fine one. A fine one, indeed.


TITLE: Waiting to Be Heard
AUTHOR: Amanda Knox (with probably some help)
PAGES: Kindled
SORTA LIKE: Other Knox trial books
FIRST LINE: “I walked into the ancient Perugian courtroom, where centuries of verdicts had been handed down, praying that a tradition of justice would give me protection now.”

60 thoughts on “I read the Amanda Knox memoir so you don’t have to”

  1. the real case against Amanda Knox is based on evidence presented in a court of law and has nothing to do with her sex life or addictions. her personality by now everyone agrees is freaky not a normal pot-smoking female college student from Seattle. back to Italy with her and let them sort it out.

    1. Totally! And that real evidence was deemed unreliable and inaccurately collected. But I focus here on the character-based charges because that’s where the book focuses, and this post is, ultimately, about the book.

      1. The evidence was not deemed unreliable. A judge who was determined to set them free forced an illogical conclusion. That verdict has now been quashed and she is in the process of being convicted as we speak. By the end of 2014, Amanda Knox will be back in prison.

        A lot of what we Knox about the evidence is wrong which is why I am grateful that http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/ exists. It has all the available transcripts with many translated into English. It also has summaries of those transcripts for people not interested in reading 20,000 pages. The evidence against Knox is conclusive. There is no reasonable person who could read an accurate account of the evidence and not decided she is guilty

      2. Yes, the evidence was deemed unreliable in the Hellmann court. Yes, I know, the verdict was overturned, but that does not mean the LCN DNA on the knife became reliable. Stefanoni had no specialized training in LCN analysis nor did she use the proper equipment, nor did her lab meet the special conditions as stipulated by the the British Forensic Science Services which is the accepted standard.

        As for the allegation of Judge Hellmann being “determined to set them free” that is just pure and utter nonsense. You haven’t got a single ounce of evidence to support that charge; it’s all just pure fantasy by someone who needs to find a reason for their acquittal.

        The site you reference has been disproved time and time again. They still claim the “bloody footprints” exist even though the TMB tests were all negative, they claim that Luca and Paola testified they saw Amanda and Raffaele “enter and leave Knox’s bedroom.” No such testimony exists. They claim that the Postales “discovered” the locked door when transcript of the phone call by Raffaele to the police proves HE told them of Meredith’s door being locked. They claim that Amanda told the police that “there is no reason to be concerned because she locks the door all the time, even to take a shower.” She never said such a thing! SHE and Raffaele were the ones who told the police about the door being locked and HE had tried to break it down already. It was the POLICE who didn’t want to break down the door because they feared damaging the property!

        If you believe all the proven lies and misinformation at that site, no wonder you think they’re guilty.

      3. Book was not published in UK we don’t pay any criminals nothing to do with Knox or book. No crime for books or movies. US profits from selling brutal murder only country that does that 3 guesses yes USA, someone will need to write another book knox can tell her side but we cannot pay her 1 cent it’s against UK law. if someone needs paid to tell “truth” then we doubt there will be much “truth” told. US had made for TV movie, books ect for sale before 2nd trial verdict, if you think that’s ok nothing I can say that will change your mind. Also so irresponsible to pay her 4 million when she is still part of murder trial and now for 2nd time a convicted Killer NOT A CELEBRITY A KILLER!!! Knox family interviews do they get paid for them too?. Please read all court transcripts it’s FACT she was there did she kill? but she was there when Meredith (21yr old victim who has been forgotten) lost her life.

      4. “US profits from selling murder only country that does” pretty sure it was News Of The World that hacked into a dead 13-year-old’s phone to get a story.

    2. Unfortunately, Mike, her sex life and behavior (she has no “addictions”) played a great deal in her initial conviction. The two judges and the jury were allowed to read whatever they chose during the trial and her character was completely , and untruthfully, assassinated in the media. She was tried and convicted in the media long before her trial even began. The prosecutors presented her as a sexual deviant who initiated and controlled a “drug and alcohol fueled sex orgy gone wrong”. This was supported by police leaks to the media of misinformation, partial misleading statements, and anything the media could turn into a salacious headline.

  2. Unfortunately, though, the evidence presented in the court of law was all bogus. It would be great if the public could see her get a fair trial. Everyone would see first hand that she is to totally innocent.

  3. With a little research, the “imagined events” that led to the arrest of Patrick should be very easy to understand. First of all, you have to admit that when you hear a story, any story, your brain see’s the events- say choosing the perfect apple off of a tree…. Your brain shows you “the story”. A lot of research has been conducted in recent years about how false confessions happen and the number one reason is lengthy interrogations that include high stress interactions such as being screamed and yelled at. I personally have no trouble at all understanding why she created the story. Do some research, unfortunately, this happens every day. She did not intentionally lie, she was coerced and forced to come up with a story, given suggestions of what and who, the stress and exhaustion caused her brain to become confused. We all think we would never do such a thing, but think twice.

  4. A good piece, though I submit that the author has not read up on false confessions. Let me ask you this. Is the right to counsel important? Assuming you answer “yes,” let me ask a followup: why is it important? After all, if suspects could never be induced to make false statements, the right to counsel would not be important. It is important because suspects can be and frequently are pressured into making false statements that confirm police hunches.

    What is really going on here is scandal of epic proportions. The corrupt and incompetent Perugian police not only botched the initial investigation, but they failed to take Guede–the lone murderer–of the streets when they had the chance to. The effort to frame Knox and Sollecito was harnessed to an equally powerful effort to deflect attention from Guede and minimize the overwhelming indications of his guilt.

    The press needs to wake up and not let this outrage stand.

    1. I concede that I did not do a lot of research on false confessions. This is, after all, just a book review. I was simply sharing my personal opinion that I understand why that part of her story would give people pause.

      1. People give this part of her story “pause” because they do not understand how frequently false confessions/statements occur. According to The Innocence Project, fully 1 out of 4 convictions in which DNA later exonerated the suspect, a false confession occurred.

        Everyone likes to believe they would never falsely confess or make a false statement. That is documented in every study done. Those same studies also conclude that anyone, of any age or intelligence, can be made to make a false statement or confession under the right interrogation situation.

  5. I understand. Thanks for the response. I think you are right. Ordinary people may not understand the false statements easily, in large part because they wrongly imagine that they would never succumb. But of course they would have succumbed. Pressure techniques work. It is important to understand here is that the Italian authorities were intercepting phone calls and knew Amanda’s mother would arrive the next morning and get her a lawyer. They had to break her that night. So they brought in reinforcements from Rome and 12-14 officers mobbed and tagged teamed her until she buckled. It is obvious from the book and subsequent interviews that Amanda feels terrible about her role in Lumumba’s suffering. She feels she should have been stronger. I like her the better for that. The law enforcement types who know about these things believe she is too hard on herself.

  6. I’m sorry she came across this way to you because in reality she is one of the more intelligent people I’ve met, and I’m not kidding. She is a very deep thinker and so she is thoughtful on her answers. And if you knew how nice she were in real life you would be feeling soooooo so bad right about now. I know you can only go by media and her book, but that is the truth. If you want to email me I am happy to talk to you about it…

    1. I don’t think I have anything at all to feel bad for, let alone soooooo bad. I read her book, and I reacted to it. That’s all. As an author, she should expect nothing less. Or more.

    2. I just read in a story accompanying the Simon Hattenstone interview with Amanda her statement that her “innocence is obvious.” Indeed it is; it has been for some time, and I have been watching the case ever since the aftermath of her first trial. The demonism angle is what first captured my attention. Not long ago in my part of the country three young men (one of them on death row) were released from prison nearly twenty years after their wrongful convictions for the murder of three ten-year old boys as part of a supposed satanic ritual, and on no more evidence than the recanted confession of a 70 IQ. Amanda is right; not just in Italy, but in this country as well, it happens every day. It happened 20 years ago to the boys convicted in the Central Park jogger case, it happened nearly 30 years ago to a day-care operator in North Carolina, and just in the past month it happened to a kid in Memphis, whose innocence thankfully was proven after a mere 60 days in jail on an indisputably erroneous murder charge, to which he confessed after hours in custody once the cops were able to bluff his mother out of the room. It has happened countless times, and it is happening now to Amanda Knox.

      This knowledge that our society’s criminal justice system commonly shatters the lives of innocents, which Amanda so bravely speaks, is her terror of course, for after her naivete and exhaustion under interrogation in Italy her innocence is her only real defense, and that is no more a shelter here than in Italy. How can our system take direction from that certainty of innocence in this particular case, and continue to operate as it does? Here in Tennessee the police are not even required to videotape interrogations!

      Many years ago one night over dinner with my then-girlfriend (now wife) I stated the belief that “there are more than a few innocent people in prison.” So many people, I complained, think an official accusation always must have some basis in fact absent conclusive proof to the contrary, and how can it be possible to absolutely prove yourself innocent of ANYTHING? It took the era of DNA to teach me just how right I was, and when my son turned 16 I sat him down and instructed him never to respond to any police questioning except to state his name and demand a lawyer and, until 18, his parents; and every time the thought crossed my mind I drilled it in again. ‘Don’t talk to them – not about sports, or music, or girls, or high culture, or low politics, or shabby journalism at the grocery checkout, or the witlessness of those who read it, or anything else of any kind whatsoever, SAY NOTHING no matter what they say, do, promise, threaten, or withhold; they can and will lie to you; they are not your friend; it is not a debate; you cannot win the discussion; they are out to get you; and you do not need to convince them of anything.’ Then, when episodes of false confessions and police misconduct made the news, as they regularly do, I would show him the story and drill again. More, he got the same relentless instruction to demand the American consul in the event of any police questioning when he was abroad not long ago. Parents should teach their children to obey the police in every way possible; trust is another matter entirely. And no, I have never had an encounter with any police officer in an official capacity, except to receive the occasional speeding ticket.

      The Hattenstone interview is terrible to view in its last portion. Amanda’s appearance is gaunt, haunted. This thing is tearing her apart; how can anyone not want to reach out, do whatever it takes to lift this oppression from her? Why will Meredith’s family not see what is so plain?

      I pray for Amanda, and grind my teeth. Amanda, it is unknowable why this is happening to you, but this you can know: every day this ordeal continues, whether free or confined, you are a living rebuke to injustice, and by speaking out an inspiration to courage. You can do this, however it comes out, and it is a far bigger thing than most of us will ever do.

      A friend

  7. Why would anyone believe anything Amanda Knox says? She gave three different alibis which all turned out to be false and repeatedly accused an innocent man of murder. The Italian Supreme Court recently confirmed Knox’s conviction for slander. She is a convicted criminal and a proven liar.

    If you want to understand why Amanda Knox was convicted of murder, I recommend reading the translation of the official sentencing report which can be downloaded from the Perugia Murder File website:


  8. As much as I wanted to believe in Knox’s innocence, I do not. I find it hard to believe that she would use a knife against Meredith, but somehow I believe she was involved in what happened that night. I also do not believe that Guede murdered her…he was poor, could not afford to mount much of a defense, and took a reduced sentence. He did not have a violent history. I actually believe his own personal story of having a liaison with Meredith.
    I am left wondering about Sollecito. Lastly, regarding false confessions….it’s one thing to confess falsely and quite another to implicate another person in a crime. The fact that she did this, the fact that there was evidence of a a clean-up at the crime scene, the dna evidence, the witnesses, all of this informs me that Knox and Sollecito were somehow involved in her death. As sad as that may be.

    1. Pauline, there was absolutely not a single trace of evidence placing Amanda in Meredith’s bedroom. No DNA, no fingerprints, no bloody shoe/foot prints, no hair, nothing. However, Guede left multiple forensic evidence behind, including his bloody shoeprint on the pillow placed UNDER her hips to facilitate the sexual assault.

      His claim of having a liaison with Meredith is completely false. Her friends, who were with her the night he claims he met up with Meredith, have testified she was at their apartment all that evening. Meredith had just recently started a relationship with the young man downstairs and had no interest in Guede.

      Guede DID have a violent history. The owner (C. Tramontano) of one house Guede broke into reported that Guede had threatened him with a knife when he caught him. Guede had also stolen a knife from the kitchen of the day care center he had broken into.

      There was no evidence of a clean up at the cottage. In fact, the forensic evidence supported NO cleanup. Luminol would have revealed swaths of wiped blood (like an erased chalk board); no such swaths were found anywhere. If the hallway had been cleaned, the intact luminol revealed footsteps would have been wiped away. Instead, they were cleary outlined by the luminol (they ALL tested negative for blood with TMB.

      No credible witness placed either Knox or Sollecito at or near the cottage that night. The one man who claimed to see them, Curatolo, stated several times he saw them at 9:00 when Sollecito’s computer places them at his apartment at that time. He changed the time later on. Curatolo also said he was certain of the night because he saw young people dressed in costumes waiting to take busses to the disco. That actually happened the night BEFORE the murder; Halloween. Curatolo was a heroin addict who admitted to being high that night..and every night.

      Contrary to what most people think, innocent people DO make false accusations and statements when under psychological stress during interrogations.
      The Innocence Project has found that “In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.”

      The object of an interrogation is to get a confession from the suspect. The 12 interrogators already believed Amanda was guilty and they also believed a man was involved due to the sexual assault. So, they had two objectivess: get Amanda to confess and to identify the man.
      When they misunderstood the text message, they believed they had the man, so this is who tthey pressure Amanda into implicating. Within a few hours, she told them she wasn’t sure about the truth of anything she’d told them as she was so confused, including what she’d said about Lumumba.

      1. 1. Multiple false alibis

        You and Raffaele Sollecito gave completely different accounts of where you were, who you were with and what you were doing on the night of the murder. Neither of you have credible alibis despite three attempts each. Sollecito told Kate Mansey from The Sunday Mirror that you and him were at a party.

        He told the police that you and him were at his apartment. He then told them that he was home alone and that you weren’t at his apartment from around 9.00pm to about 1.00am. You first told the police that you were at Sollecito’s apartment. After you were informed that he was no longer providing you with an alibi, you repeatedly claimed that you went to the cottage with Diya Lumumba.

        You changed your story yet again and claimed that you were at Sollecito’s apartment, but he might have gone out. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified.

        Extract of Sollecito’s witness statement.

        “I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think.

        Question 1. Why did you and Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly tell the police and others a pack of lies?
        2. False accusation

        You falsely claimed that Diya Lumumba killed Meredith in two witness statements and you repeated the false accusation in your handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. You served three years in prison for this felony and your appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.

        Question 2. Why did you repeatedly accuse Diya Lumumba of murder when you knew full well that he was completely innocent and why didn’t you or your mother retract your accusation when he was in prison?
        3. The Double DNA Knife

        According to a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor, Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian – Meredith’s Kercher’s DNA was found on the blade of a knife from Raffaele Sollecito’s kitchen.

        He falsely claimed in his prison diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking. Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory.

        Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment, so contamination away from the laboratory was impossible.

        Question 3. How do you think Meredith’s DNA got onto the blade of the kitchen knife?
        4. The bra clasp

        An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s on the exact part of Meredith bra clasp that was bent out of shape during the attack on her. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Professor Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it.

        Professor Novelli analysed the series of samples from all 255 items processed and found not a single instance of contamination, and ruled out as implausible that a contaminating agent could have been present just on one single result. David Balding, a Professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London, recently analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded it was strong.

        Question 4. How do you think Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp?
        5. The bloody footprint on the bathmat

        According to two imprint experts – Rinaldi and Boemi – the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house which indicates that he didn’t go into the bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

        See our past posts on this here and here.

        Question 5. Who do you think left the bloody footprint on the bathmat?
        6. Mixed samples of Amanda Knox’s DNA or blood and Meredith Kercher’s blood

        According to the prosecution’s experts, there were five instances of your DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. Even your lawyers conceded that your blood had mingled with Meredith’s blood. In other words, Meredith and Amanda Knox were both bleeding at the same time.

        Question 6. Why were you bleeding on the night of the murder and is it a coincidence that only your DNA was found mixed with Meredith’s blood?
        7. The Luminol Enhanced Footprints

        Bare bloody footprints were revealed by Luminol at the cottage. Three of them are compatible with your foot size and one of them is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s foot size.

        Question 7. What do you think the Luminol was reacting to – Meredith’s blood or some other substance?
        8. The staged break-in

        There is absolutely no evidence that anyone stood outside Filomena’s window and climbed up the vertical wall on the night of the murder. There were no marks from soil, grass or rubber soles on the wall. The earth of the evening of 1 November 2007 was very wet, so if anybody had climbed the wall, they would have left some marks on it.

        The glass on the window sill and on the floor show no signs of being touched after the window was broken, which would have been the case if the intruder had gained entry through the window.

        There was not a single biological trace on any of the shards of glass. It would have been very likely that an intruder balancing on the window sill would have suffered some kind of injury or cut because of the shards of glass.

        If the window had been broken from the outside, there would have been shards of glass outside, but there wasn’t even one.

        Judge Massei and the panel of judges at the Italian Supreme Court specifically mentioned the shards of glass on top of Filomena’s clothes which had been tossed onto the floor in her room and regarded it as proof that the break-in was staged.

        Question 8. Who do you think staged the break-in at the cottage?
        9. Knowledge of the crime

        Umbria Procurator General Galati’s pointed out in his appeal that you knew specific details of the crime that you could have only known if you had been present when Meredith was killed.

        According to multiple witnesses at the police station, you said you were the one who had found Meredith’s body, that she was in the wardrobe, that she was covered by the quilt, that a foot was sticking out, that they had cut her throat and that there was blood everywhere. But you weren’t in a position to have seen anything at all when the door was kicked in.

        In your witness statement you described Meredith’s scream. Other witnesses have corroborated your claim that there was a loud scream.

        Question 9. How did you know so many precise details of the crime?
        10. Shower and the “bathmat shuffle”

        The Scientific Police found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom that Meredith and you shared. Prosecutor Mignini and Filomena have both expressed their surprise that you showered in a blood-spattered bathroom.

        Filomena told Mignini during cross-examination: “I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place.”

        You told Mignini that you used the bathmat to shuffle to your room.

        Question 10. Why did you shower in a bathroom that was splattered with blood, and did you notice the visible bloody footprint on the bathmat when you used it to shuffle to your room?
        And why so soon after did the police notice that you were stinking?

  9. for my brother’s punishment, i would want him to date Amanda Knox for his punishment, and only for his punishment, but not when he’s a good boy.

  10. Most of Europe considers her guilty; most of the US considers her innocent. There seems little point in any of us expressing a view as we have no idea as to whether we are right or not. She might be a good actress who got away with murder or she might be a perfectly innocent student in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am from Europe, by the way.

  11. Most of Europe considers her guilty; most of the US considers her innocent. There seems little point in any of us expressing a view as we have no idea as to whether we are right or not. She might be a half-decent actress who got away with murder or she might be a perfectly innocent student in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am from Europe, by the way.

      1. Sorry guys. It’s a key part of the design that 99% of the time gets praise, so I’m not inclined to drop it. But maybe try mobile? There’s no background image when you read through a mobile device.

  12. I have also read the book and must say, by the time I was half way through reading it, felt like she was trying way to hard to convince me she was this innocent, naive girl who had been totally misrepresented by the police and the media.

    I won’t re-hash all the DNA evidence but a couple of other things really bug me:
    1. Who the hell kisses and cannoddles someone when they’ve just found a person murdered? even for comfort, I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it.
    2. Who the hell does the splits in a police station when you’re there for the serious matter of your flatmates murder. What the???
    3. What’s with all the diary writing?

    At the end of the day, her weird and totally inappopriate behaviour is not evidence of murder. I’m a law student, and so I go by the evidence. It seems that a lot of the evidence was contaminated. Do I think she’s guilty? I’m just not sure. I certainly don’t believe there is enough credible evidence to find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But I certainly can’t say that I believe she is innocent.

    I’m from Australia.

    1. 1. Have you actually seen the video taken of the alleged “kissing and canoodling”? Take a look at their faces; they are somber and blank. Amanda looks like she’s in shock. My husband would put his coat around me, and his arms, and give me a couple consoling quick, chaste kisses (they were FAR from “passionate”) under the same circumstances. Anyone who sees anything otherwise simply wants to see more. Look at the video (go to 5:12 min.):

      2. Who does the splits? Someone who is stiff, sore and tired at 11:00 pm and has to stay awake. She got up to stretch by touching her toes and stretched her arms overhead. My goodness, how awful! The policeman who’d been talking to her commented on how flexible she was and asked her what else she could do, so she did a splits. Again, how awful! No “cartwheels down the halls” as is often claimed.

      3. What’s with all the diary writing? She had ALWAYS kept a diary/journal. It’s how she expressed herself. She’s a writer. She was sitting in prison with really no one to talk to, so she wrote her thoughts down in her diary. I find it amazing that you would find that at all unusual.

  13. You write well and this is a good review, but the title is misleading and does concern me, because it may mislead. It sounds negative, as if you can save people from slogging through dreck. Please consider that your review might stifle sales of the book.

    I came to the conclusion that Amanda was innocent, not from the book, but from the strange posters who continue to post lies as fact long after they were investigated and were dismissed. They are the ones who ultimately convinced me that she was innocent. My first encounter with the Amanda guilty story was the bathroom full of her slaughtered roommates blood where she supposedly callously showered. I found it hard to believe, but I accepted it. Later I learned the only bloodbath was in the murdered girl’s room, where there was no DNA evidence of Amanda’s presence.

    What is even stranger to me is the acceptance of Rudy Guede as “poor Rudy.” His criminal history and DNA marks him as the sole perpetrator, yet there seems to be a need to believe that he did not act alone. Where was Rudy when Patrick was wrongly held? Did he contact the police to confess so that an innocent could be set free? No one focuses on this aspect of the case. Rudy, the man whose DNA is in and on Meredith and in her purse ( when did he take her money? Probably right after he covered her up so she wasn’t looking at him) is hardly scrutinized. Journalists, tabloid writers, Amanda haters have no interest in him. Why? To me he is the story.

    1. My mission here isn’t to sell books. It’s to review them. Moreover, there are about 6 billion books I’d suggest people read before this one.

      Guys. More than 100,000 people have died in the Syrian war. China’s pollution is so bad that schools can’t open. The U.S. income gap is larger than ever. There are a lot of very real and very pressing issues in this world, and if people would exert even a quarter as much energy, or half as much passion, on those issues as they do on Amanda Knox, the universe would be a better place for it.

  14. According to La Nazione and ABC News, the official Amanda accused of sexually harassing her while in prison has just been ordered to stand trial for sexually abusing another female inmate, a former traffic officer who was later acquitted and released. The prosecutor said that an investigation produced enough evidence to proceed with a trial.

    1. Knox never could identify who harassed her but US media can that is amazing. I give up she’s from US who censor news, if you read all court transcipts you would know we don’t know who killed, but knox was involved, keep her LOL no fair trial are you all comedians US is famous for fair trials and human rights EH NO WORST IN WESTERN WORLD God help you open your eyes.

  15. Kira, I am not quite sure how to respond to your reply. I get your mission, I know you are a book reviewer. It appears you responded to me as if I belong to a cohort of people you believe have a misplaced “passion” for Amanda Knox. If that is the case you are wrong. Powerlessness is the “p” word I would choose to describe why this case resonated with me. And as to your left field comment about “…the universe being a better place” I am not trying to be snarky when I ask, Do you think your “passion” for reading and writing reviews does anything to improve the air quality in China or any other pressing world problem?

    1. Fair point, Elle. I should have started a new thread rather than replying to you specifically.

      Some context: I’ve been doing this blog for about three years, and out of everything I’ve ever read and written about — books on drug addiction, books on politics, books on war, books on poverty — this post has far and away gotten the most traffic, the most comments, and the most interest. Some of the responses here are 1,000 words unto themselves. So what came across as snark on my part should be clarified as something more like disappointed fascination — I don’t purport to be effecting change in the world via this blog anymore than I know you do by commenting on it, but it *does* bum me out that the most impassioned and researched responses I’ve ever gotten are tied to a post about a murder case that was randomly selected by the media for global scrutiny.

      Because it’s weird, no? How many people get murdered every day, and how much this one particular murder interests us. How it has us all making judgment calls about DNA evidence we’ve never seen, and playing detective on a case that took place 4,000 miles away. I just find it odd, is all, and a touch depressing.

      Of course, this makes me a hypocrite, since I clearly took time to read the Knox book, and write about it, and form my own opinion based on what I decided was and wasn’t true. Moreover, it’s an idiotic blogger who bites the hand that reads, let alone comments. But say, hypothetically, that the most one can accomplish by writing about something is heightening awareness of that particular subject. I don’t think it’s too off the mark to suggest that heightened awareness about Syria, or pollution, or income inequality, is more globally beneficial than heightened awareness about Amanda Knox.

      All that said, you’re right: I’m unfairly needling you for what is actually a more holistic Sorry Television observation, and for that I say: my b.

  16. Ummm…wow…just wow…Let’s ignore ALL the ridiculous amount of blood evidence that includes both Amanda and her “boyfriend.”

    She lies all the time: saying she was there and Patrick killed Meredith? She also said she heard Meredith scream – this was not out in the public at the time, the only people that new were the neighbors (witnesses) and the cops they told.

    Come on.
    You guys are easily persuaded.

    I know this: I can commit a murder and get this blog writer to be on my side.

  17. I don’t think you need to be a genius,or even have an IQ over 85 to know who the guilty psychopath is here,that illiterate,lying,piece of garbage is behind bars,and the fact he only received 16 years for all that he has caused to so many families,says a whole lot about the Italian Justice system and how they just let any senile idiot,assume,with an unbelievably,psychotic imagination,turn a horrible act into some crazy circus for the world to speculate and assume are facts,obviously because hes just illiterate but to also further his career. They’ve duped all of Italy into thinking, the most outlandish,deviant,sex crazed,santanic fueled murder has occurred,at the hands of a Young intelligent man thats never been in trouble along with a young American girl,studying in the country. A country that we’ve always thought of as beautiful and filled with love and respect for woman,a place that definitely make Americans look like prudes when it comes to “casual sex” and romance. To think these two would even be involved with that filthy,vagrant,scumbag is insane! I read most in Italy think that because shes American that,thats just how we Americans are”capable of murder” that morals,integrity and respect are something we don’t emphasize or care about,or lost and it makes me sick! Yet they have a disgusting murderer walking the streets,killing and raping visitors of their country,prove without a doubt,they have a murderering rapist, but believe and run with that murderers testimony or “word vommit”,give that person a fraction of a sentance if he only implicates others,like we sane humans all know,”Lying,crazy,rapist murderers” do,while leaving him to one day soon,be free to murder & rape again,is that justice in the eyes of the Italian Supreme Court? I think the more they pursue Amanda,the worse its going to make the Italian Government and people,look like uneducated,immoral,scumbags with nothing better to do but waste time and money pursuing vindication for the Italian prosecutors,Courts,the people they hire,pay,rely and support,even though the entire world can see they just plain FD this investigation up,from beginning to end. It happens and They’ve already proved they’re all incompetent and incapable of morally and mentally handling the jobs,finding and employing people that are competently able to do the jobs,of real investigators,”so called experts” (we all know the dumbshi@ I’m referring to) ,judges or Law enforcement. The Government should swiftly wipe every person involved in this witch hunt against Knox and Sollecito off the map ,do a much smarter job of hiring others(which won’t take much) to fill,these extremely important positions. I wonder if Knox contracted HSV from the Italian prison or guards and inmates spitting in her food? Does she reveal that she had the Virus prior to Italy? Lastly I hope one day the Kerchers will understand that in every similar case,all over the world,where a inocent person is accused and or convicted of murder or violent crimes, that the families of the victims feel exactly the same as they do towards the accused,it’s really hard to understand or comprehend that the Law and forms of government would lie to them. That convincing the families that they’ve done a good swift and professional job is the no 1 priority in these cases,and that in this day and age its really up to you to someday want to seek the truth,want to look at real facts and decide and realize that you were lied to and convinced, because of ulterior motives and incomparably bad police work. I wish all the innocent involved the best!

  18. @Kyle on sept 25th, Not sure why we cannot reply to your,numbered accounts or so called facts and opinions in your comment,but are you crazy…or just related to the murderer rapist? It reads like you’ve somehow managed to form,mixup and imagine the most convoluted theories,false statements and propaganda that had exploded in the Italian media from early in the case,most of which has multiple diff versions and opinions that hold no factual basis for an argument. You’ve obviously never broken a window by accident or on purpose either,by the way you’ve written your window theory, its obvious you’re just speculating and imagining what it could be like or how it can happen. If a murderer Rapist is breaking into a home,his priority is to not cut himself,make noise or a loud suspicious mess that would incriminate him. Your immature way of thinking and mixing of assumption into facts just make you sound extremely uneducated,misinformed and delusional,which is very similar to all the problems in this case. It’s people like you that create hysteria,paranoia and outrage in people and it only makes other irrational,mentally unstable people ,feel justified in the evil and wrong they cause to others. It’s simple minded thinking at its worst and its whats negative,wrong and the main problem with trying to find actual info or facts on the Internet.

  19. Not sure if you read the same book I did…. lol — her book was my first exposure to this case and it actually got me thinking that there was more to it than she was presenting in the book — it read like a somewhat poorly written defense brief (I can almost envision her discussions with her legal team about what she could say and how she could phrase it). Whether that is actually true…. who knows. I went on to read much of the actual court proceedings and have otherwise followed the case. I can see someone arguing that there’s reasonable doubt, but the evidence against her is actually fairly strong and convincing. I believe she was there; whether she participated in the murder and to what extent, to me, is open to some question. But I think the evidence is pretty clear that she participated in (orchestrated?) the manipulation of the crime scene to make it look like a burglary gone wrong. She clearly lied to the police and thought nothing of throwing an innocent man under the bus, for which she was rightly convicted and sentenced to 4 years for that alone. Even though that man was awarded a judgment against Knox and she belatedly acknowledged she was wrong to do that…. she has never paid a penny of the judgment — even after receiving a reported $4 million book advance. In my mind, Knox is, at best, not a very nice person and, at worst, the murderer that the Italian courts have twice said she is.

    1. You are a rare person to do any reading in-depth. I know her family so I was motivated to research thoroughly. AK and her mother are good examples of narcissistic personality disorder. It explains why people see her as “off” or “strange” or inappropriate. If anyone bothers to study all of the evidence, not just a few news articles, they will come to the same conclusion as the courts.
      I don’t know why others are interested in the case but for me- I’m bothered by seeing her lie and manipulate as usual– and laugh about getting away with murder. To “win” as she put it.

      1. Agree. The decision by the Court of Cassation and the trial court are must reads for anyone who wants to discuss the case as opposed to those who only recycle quotes from AK’s PR machine. The illogical decision by the first appellate court is also worth a read.

  20. I have to congratulate the writer on what is a very balanced article.

    However I note the comments about the “confession”. Not having read the book, I am relying on the version put out by her publicists: That she was interrogated for 14 hours, denied rest, refreshment and toilet breaks and assaulted. That is indeed typical of the treatment of suspects leading to false confessions.

    However, her version of this is demonstrably untrue. From the commencement of the interrogation including the time taken to translate and type the confession, it took Knox 75 minutes to implicate herself, and another four hours to make a second statement. This is a matter of record.

    Apart from the speed of the confession and therefore, the obvious lie she told about how she came to make these statements there are other factors that are missing that are normally consistent with false confessions.

    One is that they recant at the earliest opportunity. Knox’s calls from prison were recorded and monitored and she makes no such claim in these calls. The Knox Family hire a US publicist within days of her arrest, but it takes many months before the “14 hour” claim surfaces via the publicists.

    In addition, they are quick to tell anyone that might be in a position to help them that the confession was false. While in custody, she was visited no less than 15 times by the US Consul, but never raised this ill-treatment once. Similarly her Lawyer only became aware of the “false confession” in the media.

    As described by Knox, it is indeed a typical case where you might suspect a false confession, but as soon as you become aware, that she lied about the time taken to obtain the confession, you then see that rest,refreshment and toilet breaks were not so compelling, and all that leaves are the assaults, which the police and the civilian interpreter deny took place?

    Of course it would not be the first time that Police lied about there own misconduct, but as a neutral, if you have to decide who you are going to believe about the assaults, the Police against whom there is no evidence, or AK who has definitely been caught in a lie and needs to explain away an inconvenient confession?

    Of course that does not mean that it was not a false confession in all fairness to AK, but her version neither matches the truth about how the confession was obtained, or similar case studies of known “false confession”

  21. Thanks for the article. I’m in the middle of WTBH right now. I find it a bit excruciating. I have something to add to the information you presented.

    I know the science in the Knox case sounds complicated and controversial but it isn’t really. The main piece of evidence was Sollecito’s kitchen knife. It tested negative for human residue of any kind, negative for blood, and negative for DNA. This is according to the prosecution. The prosecution (i.e., the police, they are effectively one and the same in Italy) then performed a PCR amplification of the negative sample. This is a common thing to do. Genetics labs all over the world routinely amplify negative samples to monitor contamination levels in their labs. Even labs with negative pressure and other advanced measures check constantly for contamination. If a microscopic spec of dust has transferred DNA from a sample into the lab equipment or into another sample, this procedure, called a “negative control” will show tiny peaks indicating the contamination. It’s essentially the genetics version of a white glove test: even very minor contamination that would not normally be noticed when analyzing a DNA sample will show up when a blank sample is amplified.

    What is unusual about the Knox case is that they used a negative sample as a negative control and then claimed, with no attempt at justification accept to say they didn’t think contamination was a problem in their forensic genetics lab (!), that the result that would be considered contamination by any forensic genetics lab in the world was not actually contamination in this (very special) case. I am reasonably certain Knox and Sollecito are the only two people ever convicted of a crime based on an unquantified DNA sample. A negative sample that suddenly became positive after amplification would not be admissible in a U.S. court. I don’t think anyone in Italy ever tried this particular gambit before being exposed to Knox’s ethereal beauty (I speak ironically here of course) hence my claim that Knox and Sollecito are the first victims of the negative=positive trick. Real scientists don’t amplify a sample unless they have first actually found some DNA, that is, until they have “quantified” the sample.

    This is not just my opinion. The independent scientists appointed by the second court called the amplification of a negative sample “incomprehensible.” Peter Gill, one of the inventors of modern forensic genetics, called it a “reversal of the burden of proof” and has devoted a chapter in his book on miscarriages of justice to the Knox case. Dr. Gill is one of the world’s foremost geneticists. The court-appointed Italian scientists are at the top of their field as well. I’m just a lowly physicist, but the science, or lack thereof, in the case is all quite clear to me and quite simple too: negative=negative.

    The full prosecution of the Knox case went beyond fiction and deviated into dark comedy. There was nothing complex about any of it. It’s quite scary when a real courtroom becomes a Monty Python sketch. For full details have a look at my blog: hardthinking.com.

    Please note that I am not claiming the prosecution framed Knox and Sollecito. They clearly did not. If you take every fact the prosecution presents as solid gold, any rational person will still conclude there is no case. All of the “evidence” is like the triple negative knife – obviously absurd if you have even a small amount of knowledge.


    Thor Klamet

  22. After Amanda made her terrible mistake, she was tired after 50 hours of interrogation, that day 12, being yelled and slapped, she wanted to recant, correct what she said because for a few minutes she was dizzy, threatened to 30 years in jail… but Giuliano Mignini didn’t want to hear her. But when the real killer Rudy Guede, who had all the forensic evidence against him plus an obscure record and that, via Skype from Germany where he fled after killing Meredith, told his friend (recorded by the police) “that Amanda was not there”. Well, he had the opportunity to change his story and incriminate Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito –that were wrongfully arrested–, saying that they were with him that night at the house… Sure, his lawyer had an opportunity to prepare him and cut a deal with the malicious Miginini, who allowed him to changed it, and he got a fast-track trial, 30 years reduced to 16, out after 8 on parole. Well, today, Feb 26, 2016, he is a free man. What a shame!!!

    1. It has been well established that the “50 hours of interrogation” is a pack of lies. She was interviewed for just over 20 hours in total from the time the body was discovered to her eventual arrest four days later.

      Regarding Guede, how can any rational person conclude that this man who we know is involved, is telling the truth when he quite clearly lied about his own involvement. Guede also had no Criminal Record at the time of his arrest. He also didn’t cut a deal. He opted for a “fast track” trial, an option that was declined by the other suspects. In taking this option the maximum sentence he could face based on his age and lack of prior criminal record was 16 years. The original trial judge exceeded his powers in the original sentence. The fact that he has been paroled after 8 years is not unusual. In most of Western Europe convicts can be considered for Parole after serving a third of their sentence. Europe is not the US where 11 yr olds are tried as adults and then sentenced to life without parole.

      As for being slapped, do you not find it strange that the Consul never complains about this, and the Knox family who were quick to complain about everything and anything, never complain about this failure to act. One very credible explanation for this is that the Consul never complained, because she never complained to the Consul, because it never happened. She is visited no less than 15 times by the same Consul while in custody and she never once complains once about his failure to act after he tells her he has not acted on her complaint. Regarding that last sentence, I do not say that this is what he told her. This is what she tells others.

      1. Your claim that Amanda was interrogated for just over 20 hours is not correct. These are the documented times that she was interrogated:

        Nov 2 MK’s body discovered about 1:15 pm. Questioning begins by police at site. Amanda is at questura at 2:30 for questioning. She is there until 5:30-6:00 AM (about 16.5-17 hours)

        Nov 3 Returns to questura 5.5 hours later at 11:00 for more questioning then taken to cottage in afternoon for questioning there. Taken back to questura for more questioning until about 6:30-7:00 pm. (7.5-8 hours)

        Nov 4 More questioning at the questura starting in “the early afternoon” . Amanda handed over a list of men who had visited the cottage at 2:45 so she was there before that, then questioned more at the cottage, then again at the questura until about 7:00 pm. (app 5 hrs)

        Nov 5/6 Approx. 10:45-11:00 PM to 5:45 AM (7 hrs)

        Total is approx. 37 hours in 4 days. That’s an average of about 9 hours a day of questioning.

        No, Guede had no criminal record but he had been arrested just days before the murder after being caught red-handed with stolen property (which he has since been convicted of) in the school. He also had been caught by Christian Tramontano after breaking into CT’s home. Guede threatened CT with a knife and stole money and credit cards. This is verified by CT’s girlfriend who was also there.

        As for complaining about being hit. she made the first allegation in her memorial given to Ficarra about 8 hours after the interrogation ended on Nov 6, and several days before she was visited by anyone from the Consulate.

        Andrea Vogt wrote “Records show a consular officer visited Knox on Nov. 12, a day before her father did. The cables do not reveal any details from the conversation between Knox and the consular officer, nor do they mention at any time concern about her treatment during interrogation or detention.” and
        “Many cables were not released, according to the State Department, because of personal privacy exemptions that protect such items as prison visit information. The Nov. 12, 2007, cable does note, however, that she had been visited by lawyers and her mother.”

        Since much of what was said between Knox and the consular officers has not been released, we cannot know what she told them about her treatment.

        What supports Knox’s claim is that Lumumba claimed he was hit on the head, punched, and kicked by the police during his own interrogation in an interview he gave to a British newspaper just days after his release from jail. He also claimed he was threatened with 30 years in jail just as Amanda claimed in her memorial.

  23. I think you are taking very serious liberties with the facts in this case. Lets assume for one moment that 37 hours is correct, that is still not fifty hours. In addition you have mainly counted the hours that she spent in the police station as opposed to the time she was actually being interviewed. Knox and the BF were mainly in the company of Filomena and Co on that first day in the police station.

    And even your figures about the last day are out of order.The interview did not start until about midnight and if you work it out, you can see that she made the admission about being present at 7 VP when the murder happened within about 30 minutes of the interrogation starting.

    What I find absolutely amazing about the people who support Knox, is how they “Cherrypick” the truth. I’ve already mentioned that when Guede is asked, he denies having anything to do with the murder. We know that’s a lie and therefore he is a liar. So why when he says that Knox was not involved, and there is nothing to corroborate this, are people convinced that he is telling the truth?

    Similarly, you mention Lumumba. Lumumba denied ever saying this to the journalist, who incidentally was a free-lancer who was well paid for the story. It is noteworthy that when Lumumba denied it, the journo never produced a recording or their notes of the interview. Of course when the police fail to record an interview, Knox has to be believed. Are you beginning to see the lack of consistency here? But lets take two possible scenarios. The journo lied. That does not help Knox’s case. Again, Lumumba is now living in Poland well beyond the reach of the Italian Police, and yet he still says that he never said this to the journo. The other scenario is that if Lumumba did tell this to the journo, notwithstanding that you only have his word for this, it’s clear that he must be lying because he changed his story.

    So what you are left with, is two witnesses of which we know that one is definitely a liar and has no corroboration. The other may be lying in which case like the first one, he is discredited, or he may have been lied about in which case, he is no use to Knox in any case.

    But lets turn to the Consul. You are right. We don’t know what took place with him and AK, but put yourself in her place. We know that the Consul did not complain. So you are Knox. You tell the Consul you were assaulted and he visits you 15 times. During that time you are going to ask what happened when he complained. He tells you that he hasn’t complained and you don’t complain to his superiors at all and take 4 years to tell that story, even though you have a PR company representing you and planting plenty of tales in the press on your behalf?

    As to her memorial notes, the first of these complained about being shouted at and makes no claims about being assaulted.

    I don’t know whether she is truly innocent or truly guilty but like Guede, I do know that she has been proven to be a liar multiple times. It’s the fact that she has told so many lies and the alternative to the lies she has been caught in tend to suggest guilt, that makes me think that it is highly likely that she was involved in the murder.

    1. I have taken no liberties with this case. I didn’t say it was 50 hours. I said your claim of 20 hours was incorrect. I said it was about 37 hours. Whether or not she was actually being interrogated during the entirety of each of those 37 hours is beside the point. It remains that she was under the authority of the police during those 37 hours in which she was subjected to physical and emotional stress. By the time the interrogation of Nov 5/6 arrived, she was physically and emotionally exhausted. Whether or not she was in the “company of Filomena and Co” during that first day is irrelevant. Filomena and Co were not subjected to the same amount nor intensity of interrogation in the following days as they were almost immediately excluded as suspects.

      In fact, it is your figures that are out of order. Rita Ficarra testimony:
      LG: We are at the 5th, at 2300 hours approximately, the 5th of November at 2300 hours.
      RF: Yes.
      LG: Ok. Then you took her with you?
      RF: Yes, into the office.
      LG: Because, at least from the note that you fully reported, you took her with you and out came … “Tell us something, if you …” in short, out came the names?
      RF: Yes.
      Knox was taken into Ficarra’s office at approx. 11:00. That is when the questioning began, not midnight. When asked by del Grosso:

      “MDG: I wanted to know, if you remember it seeing as the closing time of the recaps/summaries is not given, how much time, more or less, Amanda was heard for?
      RF: When?
      MDG: The first questioning/report.
      RF: The first questioning/report finished late.
      MDG: Do you recall is it a case of 0100 hours, 0200 hours?
      RF: No, more [i.e. later], more, because first we had the general chat on what she had seen…
      Ficarra states it was more than 1 or 2 hours before the 1:45 statement was finished.

      You do your fair share of “cherry-picking”. When Guede said Knox was not involved there certainly is something to corroborate it; not a single piece of evidence places Knox in Kercher’s bedroom. Not one.

      You claim Lumumba denied ever saying he was hit, punched, and kicked to Antonia Hoyle. Yet he was quoted in the article saying exactly that. If he never said all those things, I would expect him to sue Hoyle for libel. It would be a clear cut case. No such suit was ever filed. I also think it was the Daily Mail, not a “freelance journo”, who put up the 70,000 euros Lumumba was paid for that interview.
      You claim Hoyle never produced a recording or notes of the interview but provide no proof of this. No proof that she was even asked to produce them has been presented, either.

      Back to the Consul. You are exaggerating. Knox never claimed she was “assaulted”. She said she was smacked on the back of the head and demonstrated it in court. Hardly “assault” worthy. Knox made it clear she had been smacked during that interrogation. She had no control over what the consul reps did or didn’t do. She had much bigger problems than that to worry about. I suspect her lawyers told her to drop it as there was no proof and she could be sued…which she was. And was acquitted.

      She did mention being hit in her memorial:
      “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.”

      As for her being “proven a liar multiple times”, I disagree. Whenever she said something that the pro-guilt faction doesn’t believe, she’s called a liar.

      I won’t be responding to your reply, if you write one. We would go around and around and never agree. I will finish with this; the Court of Cassation has definitively acquitted both Knox and Sollecito. It’s over.

      1. I never said that you said “50 hours”. I pointed out at that even at 37 hours, this was nowhere near the 50 hours claimed by the previous poster. But as I also pointed out, there is a world of difference in your claim that she was interrogated for 17 hours on the first day, when the truth is that she was at the Police station for that period rather then being interrogated for that period. On that basis, you claim 37 hours also fails.

        Regarding my timing, I think it is tenuous to claim that the interview began in fact at 23.00 (ish) when the interpreter and all others agree that she did not arrive until around midnight. Anything that was discussed prior to this has little evidentiary value.

        And you clearly don’t understand the meaning of “corroboration”. The fact DNA may not be present is not corroboration. It is simply absence of proof. And there is a very well known maxim that covers this: “Absence of proof is not proof of absence”. So I say again, Guede lied, and yet you choose to believe a liar without any corroboration?

        I assume you can site a source for Lumumba getting paid €70k? The story simply isn’t worth that to begin with, and was written by a local freelance journo. Notwithstanding that, you either know very little about legal proceedings or are being disingenuous about Lumumba suing for libel. He had just lost his business, so how was he going to fund the case to begin with? You might remember that this is that man that was awarded €12k to be paid by Knox and was never able to recover even that, and you expect him to find tens of thousands of euros to fund a libel case which if he won, he was unlikely to be able to recover even his own costs.

        Smacked on the back of the head is an assault, especially if it is being done to intimidate. So let’s not indulge in semantics.And your comment about her having no control over what the Consul reps does, really does highlight your cherry picking of the facts. If the Consul failed to protect her legitimate interests he was negligent and subject to disciplinary action. Yet she and her family never complain? Yeah. And OJ Simpson was framed as a conspiracy by the LA police.

        She mentioned being hit in the SECOND memorial. Why not the first?

        Regarding her capacity to lie, try this for a series: She phones her mother to tell her she is worried about MK . In fact, she is so worried, she is phoning her mother for advice at about 04.00 PST. Her mother tells her to call the police. Within minutes the police arrive looking for MK on a seemingly unrelated matter. Knox fails to mention her worries to the Police and later claims not to remember having made the call. The day after the body is discovered, Knox is e-mailing people back home telling them that she was so worried about MK, that she asked her BF to break the door down, but he was unable to do so. And she also fails to mention this to the police. Further evidence of lies? How about the fact that she gave eight different alibis for where she was that night? And then of course, there was the biggest lie: Lumumba did the murder.

        But let’s not forget, that she was not originally meant to be questioned that night. The reason she was is because her BF told the police that contrary to what he had first told the police, she was not with him when the murder was taking place and that he had asked her to lie to the police to give her an alibi.

        As to whether you respond or not, I don’t care. It’s not as if you have anything objective to offer to the debate and this is clearly shown by your claim that she is branded a liar because the pro-guilt faction don’t believe her. Whether or not the pro-guilt faction believe her, a lie is a lie is a lie.

      2. Just to correct my last post:

        I wrote: But let’s not forget, that she was not originally meant to be questioned that night. The reason she was is because her BF told the police that contrary to what he had first told the police, she was not with him when the murder was taking place and that he had asked her to lie to the police to give her an alibi.

        The final sentence should have stated “…she had asked him to lie to the police to give her an alibi”

  24. On the issue of whether police had originally intended to interview Amanda Knox on the night of 5-6 Nov., there is conflicting testimony from police. Giobbi said that he had given the order that evening for BOTH Sollecito and Knox to be brought in for more questioning. But other police officers said they had only asked Sollecito; Knox herself agrees that when she showed up at the Questura with him they didn’t want her there and suggested she go home or wait in the car. But she preferred to stay inside in a waiting area .

    It could be Giobbi is remembering wrong about ordering that both be asked to come. but it may be other detectives just had a different idea on how to carry out the plan. With a lot of detectives on duty late in the evening, it seems likely they thought something major would happen.
    IMO the intention was to question both but they wanted first Sollecito — separate from Knox. Every other time over the past 4 days , they came to the Questura together. I think they wanted to not even have her in the building to prevent her knowing what was going on and prevent any communication between them, even a few shouted words or a glance.
    They probably figured hey this Italian papa’s boy is just giving her a false alibi because he thinks he’s love struck…. But if we get him out of the clutches of the American she-devil whore, we could easily break him & get him to withdraw the alibi.
    …..THEN we can go pick up Knox, catch her by surprise, tell her her bf wasn’t covering for her anymore, lie to her that there was evidence she was there, and scare her into telling what they at that time believed was the “truth” — that Lumumba was the killer and Knox was somehow involved.
    It ended up working as they hoped, even without bringing S & K in separately. As they said “she buckled and told us what we already knew.” Which of course was completely wrong.

  25. Your conclusion that they wanted to separate these two makes good sense. However, I have to disagree with your final sentence.

    If you ask any Cop about the reaction of an innocent person when the police try to bluff them about what the person in the next room is saying about their role in a crime, they will make make one of two responses: The first is to to tell the police that they don’t believe that they have said it, and will usually follow that up with a demand to confront their accuser which more or less destroys the bluff.The alternative, is to say that they don’t know why they are saying this because it’s untrue.

    Knox did neither. Instead, she gave a version which supported the allegation the RS made made against her of seeking a false alibi. RS never denies saying this. In fact he gave a total of eight different accounts as to what he did on the night of the murder, and two of them allowed for Knox to have committed the crime on her own because he claimed she was not with him at the key time.

    My recollection of the case, was that the police had no interest in Lumumba until he was named by Knox, so the idea that they were trying to nail Lumumba at that stage of the proceedings lacks substance.

Leave a Reply to Quentin Cancel 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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: